The Political Text-Book, or Encyclopedia (1860 edition) by Michael W. Cluskey
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Making of America Books Basic | Boolean | Proximity |

Bibliographic | Search History UMDL Texts home U of M login View bookbag your bookbag has 0 items

Home Search BrowseHelp

list of all pages | add to bookbag

Title:The political text-book, or Encyclopedia. Containing everything necessary for the reference of the politicians and statesmen of the United States. Ed. by M. W. Cluskey.

Author:Cluskey, Michael W., ed.

Availability:These pages may freely searched and displayed.

Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact umdl-info@umich.edu for more information.

Print Source:The political text-book, or Encyclopedia. Containing everything necessary for the reference of the politicians and statesmen of the United States. Ed. by M. W. Cluskey.

Cluskey, Michael W., ed.

12th ed.: iv, 5-794 p. 24 cm.

Philadelphia,

J. B. Smith & co.,

1860.

Page i view page image

THIE I;,I I POLITICAL T E-XT-BOOK, i ENCYCLOPEDIA. CONTAINING EVERYTHING

NECESSARY FOR THE REFERENCE OF TIlE POLITICIANS AND STATESMEN OF TIlE

UNITED STATES. &DIfrED BY M’. W. C L U S K E Y, e, POSTMASTER OF T HE

HOUSE O F REPRESENTATIYES OF THE UNITED STATiS. “Let the -dit’w or speaker who discusses politics for the information of the people, know what he is writhag or speaking aDout, that he may write and speak knowingly.” TWELFTH

EDITION. PHILADELPHIA: JAS. B. SMITH & CO., NO 27 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET.

1860. ‘1[ a. . OR

Page ii view page image

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by CORNELIUS

WENDELL, In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States, in and for the District of Columbia. PRINTFED BY SMITH & PETERS, Franklin BuLildings, Sixth Street, below Arch, I’hiladelphia. MEARS & DUSENBERY, STEREOTYPER8, PHILADILP I

Page iii view page image

IED)ITOR’S PREFACE. THE Editor of this work deems an extended preface to it unnecessary. The motive which induced its preparation was the necessity which he himself has often felt for a book containing, in a condensed form, a history of the public measures and other matters of political importance which are the subject of discussion at the present time, and are likely to continue to be. This necessity is apparent to every politician in the country. The vast aggregate of political history in the shape of Congressional Debates, &c., through which the seeker for information has to look to reach the gist of a public question, endorses at once the merit of a compilation like this. It is not for the politician alone that this work is prepared. It will enable every citizen to acquaint himself readily with the true bearing of each political issue which is presented to him for his decision, and will relieve him from too great a dependence upon the partial statements of great political questions, which generally characterize the speeches and essays of the politicians of the present day. It would be claiming for the work too much to say that it is perfect. No task is so onerous as that involved in condensing the profuse history of politics in this country into a concise and accessible form.

The reader will not find in it some things which he may think the book should contain. In many cases he may justly think so. The Editor, however, has embraced in it everything which he deemed absolutely necessary for the discussion of any political question which may arise with reference to our system of government. ie is free to admit that, in order to bring the book into A convenient shape, he has left out many things which seemed to him would find an appropriate (3) I. ., I,. I.;. 2-~,g I

Page iv view page image

EDITOR’S PREFACE. place in it; though he is not aware that he has sacrificed to the demands of a limited space, anything, the omission of which would materially depreciate the oharacter of the work. He makes no especial dedication of his production; but resigns it to his fellow citizens, who take an interest in such matters, for their use and convenience. iv

Page 5 view page image

THE PO LI TICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 to refer petitions, unless the petitioners were ex clusively interested. Messrs. Fitzsimmons and IIartley of Penn sylvania, Parker, Madison and Page of Vir ginia, Lawrence of New York, Sedgewick of Massachusetts, Boudinot of New Jcrsey, Sherman and IHuntington 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 Africai 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 principles of liberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions to their numbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative cooperation 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-creatures, 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 beneficial 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 enjoyment of happi (5) TIIE extraordinary increase numerically of tie Abolition or AntiSlavery 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 olitics in the Presidential cont est of 1840, w hen its t icket, with Jame s G. Birney of Michigan as its candidate for the Presidency, and Francis J. Lemoyne of Pennsylvania, as its Vice-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 antislavery 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 Abolition party, polled 1,341,812 votes.

A boliti on Petitions. Ox the 11th of February, 1790, MAr. Fitzsimimons of Pennsylvania presented a memorial of Quakers, praying the abolition of the slavetrade. Mr. Lawrence of New York presented the memorial of the “

Friends” of New York City to the same effect. Mir. Hartley of Pennsylvania moved that the first named petition be referred, which was seconded by Mr.

White of Virginia. Mr. Stone of Maryland feared that action indicating an interference with this kind of property would sink it in value, and be injurious to a great number of the citizens, particularly of the Southern States. He deprecated the disposition of religious sects to imagine they un-iderstood the rights of human Abolition Party. RISE A.ND PROGRESS OF.

Page 6 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK ness, the Christian religion teaches us to be-I 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 priIciples of their institutions, your memorialists conceive themselves 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 countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding freemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise means for removing this inconsistency from the character of the American people; that you will promote mnercy and justice towards this distressed race; and that you will step to the very verve of the power vested in you, for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our f ellow-men. BErJ. FRANKLIN, President. “Philadelphia, February 3, 1790.” men would, th ey would do thins which would incur punishment, and causeo their ow ne rs t o u se a severity with them they were not aS
customed to. Mor. Smith of S. C., amo ngst other thin gs said, that the states would have never entered into the confederacy unless the ir pr opert y had been guarantied to them, for such is the state of aSricwalture i n th at country, that without slaves it must be a bandone d. Whhywill theso people then make use of arguments to induce the slave to turn his hand against his master? A gentleman can hardly come from that country with a servant or two, either to this place or Philadelphia, but there are persons t ryi ng to seduc e his servan ts 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 a-s 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 interested 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 committed, by a vote of yeas 43, nays 11. The nays were, Messrs. Baldwin, Jackson, and Matthews of Ga.; Bland and Coles of Va.; Burke, lHager, Smith, and Tucker of S. C.; Stone of Md.; and Sylvestbr 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 Ilouse. which amended the report of the select committee, and resolved, amongst other things: ” That Congress have no authority to interfere 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 huimanity and true policy may require.” 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 unconstitutional request, for which he wished it thrown aside. He feared the commitment of it would be a very alarming circumstance to the Southern States, for if it was to engage Cong,ress in an unconstitutional measure, it would be considered an interference with their rights, making them uneasy under the government, and causing them to lament that they had ever put additional power into their hands. Ile was surprised to see another memorial on the same subject, signed by a man* who ought to have known the constitution better.

iI e thought it a mischievous attempt as it respected the persons in whose favor it was intended. It would buoy them up with hopes without a foundation, and as they could not reason on the subject, as more enlightened It was ordered t hat the said memorial and representation do lie on the table. I 6 On the 26th of Nov., 1792, a memorial of Warner ,lifflin, one of the people called Qua, kers, was presented and read to the Ilouse,. stating certain reflections for the consideration of Congress, and in relation -to the African slavetrade, and to the humane treatment of slaves in the United Sates. * BeDjarain Franklin.

Page 7 view page image

ABOLITION PETITIONS. 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 Itouse and to be heard. Mr. Swanwick defended their right to petition. Mr. Blount said the law s 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 wi thin the jurisdiction o f the legitlature of the state, and no t the Unit ed 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 /louse ought not to pretend to determine the point. Mr. Macon of N. C., contended that justice would be done them in his state. Ile conceived 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. Kitchell, defended the ringlet of the memorialists to petition, and hoped their petition would be received and be committed. On the 28th of Nov., Mr. Steele of N. C., called the attention of the House to the above umem,orial of Warner Mifflin. Ile was surprised 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. lIad an application been made to him to present such a petition, he would have avoided a compliance with it. Ge ntlemen 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. lie 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 citizen to petition Congress. The petitioner’s representative being absent, he had not, on that account, felt at liberty to decline presenting 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 petition to be returned, was agreed to. The remainder was withdrawn by Mr. Steele, the mover. On the 30th of Jan., 1797, Mr. Swvanwick 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 Pennsylvania to avoid its effects; and petitioned Congress to look into the matter, as also to the cas.e of a fellow black, who was once manumitteld, and, under the same law of North Cairolinla, was again reduced to slavery; and +X-;{, escaping therefirom, was lying in the sail of Philadelphia, under the sanction of the act of the General Government called the FugLitive Slave Law, &c., &c., &c. nir. Swanwic k hoped the petition would be referreil1
to a select committee. Mri. Blount from N. C., hoped it would not even Ie received. lie said, under the law of Nderth Carolina they were slaves, and could oe seizel as such. Mr. Thatcher of Mass., thought the petition 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 meeting of Quakers, relative to the oppressed state of their African orethren, particularly those in North Carolina, who had be e n manumitted and again reduced to slavery. It al so was directed agains t e very species of extravagan ce and dissipation, such as gaming, horse-racing, cock fighting, shows, plays, and other expensive diversions and entertainments. The reception of the petition was debated at great length. Finally it was referred to a select committee, consisting of Messrs. Sitgreaves of Pa., Nicholas of Va., Dana of Conn.,Schuremanof N.

J., and Smith of Md. On the 29th of Jan., 1798, Mr. Sitgreaves, .r 0

Page 8 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. from the select committee, reported that the .tcts referred to in the petition were exclusively of judicial cognisance; that therefore it is not competent for the Legislature to do anything in the business, and recommend that t he memorialists have leave to withdraw their :jemorial. On the 14th of Feb., 1798, the House concurred in the report of the committee. The same petiti on was presented in the Senate, but withdrawn. On the 12th of December, 1831, Mr. Johlin Quincy Adams presented fifteen petitions from numerous inhabitants of Pennsylvania, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and the abolition of the slavetrade therein. So far as the latter desire was concorned, he thought it a proper subject of legislation by Congress, and that the petitions on that account should be referred to the committee 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 alstract, or of slavery in the District of Columbia might be, he hoped the subject would not be discussed in the IIouse. ie would say that the most salutary medicine unduly administered, was the most deadly poison. The petition was referred to the committee on the District of Columbia. Mr.

Doddridge, of Va., from the said committee, on the 19th of Dec. made a report, asking to be discharged from the further consideration of so much of said petitions, as asked the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 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 Un ited States. On the question shall the petition be received, it was decided in the affirmative. YEAS. Messrs. Adams of Mass., Bayard of Del., Brown of Ky., Condit of N. J., Franklin of N. C., Ifillhouse of Con,., lRowland of R.

I., Logan of Pa., Maclay of lPa.. Mitchill of N. Y., Olcott of N. H., Pickering of Mass., I’lum,er of N. f., Smith of 0., Smith of Vt., Stone of N. C., Sumter of S.C., White of Del., and Worthington of 0.-19.

NAYS.-Messrs. Anderson of Tenn., Baldwin of Geo., Bradley of Vt., Cocke of Tenn., Jackson of Geo., Moore of Va., Sm.th of Md., Smith of N. Y., and Wright of Md.-9. A like memorial was presented in th e House on the same day, and referred. During the month of January, 1817, several petitions were presented against the slavetrade between the middle and southern states, which were read and referred. In the Senate, January 7, 1836, Mr.

Morris 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. lHe Odemanded it on the part of the state he represented, because onehalf the Union was deeply slandered in these petitions. The Senate had refused to receive petitions, because they implicated members of that body.t Were they to put more reprobation on the slander of an individual membe r, tha n on the slander of sovereign states? Ile demanded the question, be cause these. memorials aimed at a violation of the c onsti - tution, and because he was averse to an agitation 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 as 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 On the 12th of Fel)ruarv, 1827, Mlr. Barney of Mid., presented to the House a memorial of certain citizens of Baltimore, Nid., praying that a law may be passed providing that all children hereafter born of parents held to slavery, within the District of Columbia, shall bIe free at a certain age, anedmo ved tha t it be printed. pr. McDuffie of S. C., opposed the printing of the memorial.

Mr. Cook of Ill., moved to lay it on the table; which motion the chair pronounced to be out of order. MNlr. Powell of Va., opposed theprinting.

:Ir. Barney had made the motion to print, because the memorialists had requested him to do so. lie was perfectly content to acquiesce in the decision of the House. Mr. Dorsey of Md., conceived the memorial, I 8 I breathed the general spirit of emancil)atior., and though its request be-,an with the -District, 11 its ulterior purpose went much further. He opposed the printing. The motion to print . as negatived by a large majority. IL)uring the first session of the 16th Congress, sundry petitions were presented a,ainst the 11 introduction of slavery into any tate thereafter to be admitted, some of which ivere referred and others merely read.

Page 9 view page image

ABOLITION PETITIONS. how will you put a stop to them? By receiving 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 petitions contemplated no legislation by Congress, 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 reception 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 petition. iMr. Porter of La., opp osed 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 anv 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 prohibits any state into which a slave may have 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. which the se memo rials a re no w presente d p A number of fanatics, led on by for eign incendiaries, have been scattering’ arrows, firebr ands, and death’ throughout the southern states; the natural t end ency of their publica - tions i s to produ ce dis satisfaction and revolt among the slaves, and to incite their wild pass i on s to vengea nce. A ill hi story, as well - is the present condi tion of the slaves, proves that there can be no danger of a s ervile war, but in the mean tie what dre adful scenes may 1,b enac ted bef or e such an insurrecti on, which would spare neither age nor sex, could be sup pressed; what agony 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 slaveholdin, states, and surrounded by them on all sides slavery should be abolished.

What would be the e”ects 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. W~hen slavery ceases to exist under the laws of Virginia and Maryland, then, and not till then, ought it to be abolishled in the Dis trict of Columbia.” Mr. Buchanan continuing said, notwith standing these were his v~iew7s, h~e could not vote against receiving these memorials, but movted that the whole subvject be postponed until Monday nest. After showing th at Congress, on the 23d day of March, 1790, had so determined, and that the Union would be dissolved at the monent an effort would be seriously made by the free states in Congress to pass such laws, he continued: “What, then, are the circumstances under 9

Page 10 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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. D.iavis of Mass., Ewing of 0., Ewing of Ill., Goldsborough of Md., Grundy of Tenn. Ilendrick.s of Ind.. Ifill of N. l., Ilubbard of N. I., Kent of Md., King of Ala.. King of Geo., Knight of R. I., Linn of Mo., McKean of Ia., Morris of Ohio, Naudain of Del., Niles of Conn., Prentiss of Vt., Robbins of R. I., Robinson of IlII., Ruggles of Me., Shepley 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. NAYs.-Messrs. Black of Miss., Calhoun of S. C., Cuth bert of Geo., Leigh of Va., 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.

Calhoun, 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 referende to the power of Congress over the subject, and the proper disposition which should be made of these petitions. Finally, on the 8th February, 1836, Mr.

11. L. Pinckney, of S. C., obtained a suspension of the rules to enable him to introduce the following resolution: Mr. Benton concurred in the news 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 t o e subject. Mr. Brown of N. C., advocated laying them cn the table without printing. Mr. Lei,h of Va., advocated a distinct expression of opinion by Congress as to its constitutional power over the question. Mr. Preston of S. C., thanked the S enator 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 presented the petition from t he Quaker s, which he had alluded to in his speech as having been in his possession for some time. He moved that it be read and its prayer rejected. Mr. Calhoun demanded a vote on the reception 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 petition to the same effect from citizens of Ver mont, wh ich he re quested 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 motion of Mr. Buchanan, to be called up again whe n the Sena te was p repared to make a final dispo sition of it. On the 9th of March, 1836, the question again came up on the motion to receive the petition presented by Mr. Buchanan. imr. Calhoun spoke at length against receiving the memaor ial. Mr. Clay o f Kv., di d no t agree with Mr. Calhoun as to t he rignt of Conr,ress to retuse the recept ione of a petition. T oe right of petitio n carried wc it h i t the right of beinh l heard on any sult,ect that the body addressed had the power to act on. As to the right of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbtia, he p -ras inclined t o think, and candor required the avowal, that the right did exist, though he was opposed to the expediency of es ercisig, that power.

He was opposed to the motion of thIr. Buch anan to r eceiv e a nd immediately reject the petition. He did not think it a safe, substantial, and efficient enjoyment of the right of petition, to reject it without 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 for such decision, &c., &C. The question was then taken, Shall the peti “Resolved, That all the memorials which have been offered or may hereafter be presented 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 subreitted in relation to that subject, be referred to a sele ct commi ttee with i ns tructio ns to report, 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 Columbia, because it woald 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 coinmittee, may be best calculated to enlighten the public mind, to repress agitation, to atllay excitement, to sustain and preserve the just rights of the slaveholding states, and of the people of this district, and to re-establish harmony and tranquillity among the various see tions of the Union.” I t s t t 0 r 0 s 0 a a 0 n t p I ti t a I p 10

Page 11 view page image

ABOLITION PETITIONS. Lincoln, of Mass.; Mason, of 0.; McCarty, of Ind.: McKen nan. of Pa.; Mor-is. of Pa.; Parker, ofN.J.; Phillips. of Mass.; Potts. of l’a.; Reed, of Mass.; Russell, of N.Y.: Slade. of Vt.; Sprague, of R. I.; Vinton, of O.; and Whittlesey, of 0. 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., Ilarper, 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. I., 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 pWebster, of Ohio, voted No on the third resolution. The resolution having been adopted, the fol Eowing gentlemen were appointed the com mittee: Messrs. Piluckney, of S. C., Hamer of Ohio, Pierce, of N. II., Hardin, of Ky. Jarvis, of Me., Owens, of Ga., Dromgoole, o i a., and Turrill, of N. Y. On the 18th of May, 1836, Mr. Pincknet prtaes ent ed a unanimous r eport from the sai hemmihattee, concluding w ith the following re solutions: “Reso lv ed, Tha t Con gre o ss possesses n constitutional authority to interfere in an wav w ith the institution of slavery in any of the states of this confederacy. “Resolv ed, That C ongress o ught not to in terfere in a nfy way with slavery in the Distric of Columbia. ” And whereas it is extremely important and desirable that the agitation of this suibjeet should be finally arrested for the pulrpose of restoring tranquillity to the public imin(l, your committee respectfully recommend the adoption of the following resolution: ‘Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers relating in anv way or to any extent whatever, to the su[)ject 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 committee, deemed it necessary to say, as the report 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. tie believed there were a great many, and that the report had been got up to suppress that fact. Messrs. Wise and Bouldin, of Va., Thompson, 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 resolution was adopted by a vote of yeas 182, nays 9. The negative vote being Messrs. J. Quincy Atdams, Clark, of Pa., Denny, of Pa., Everett, of Vt., Jackson, of Mass., Janes, of Vt., Phillips, of Mass., Potts, of Pa., and Slade, (;f Vt. Nlessrs. Glascock, of Ga., Pickens, of S. C., and Robertson, of Va., asked to be excused fiom v,oting and did not vote. Mr.

Wise, of A-a.. and ThoInpson, of S. C., refused to vote on the question.

The second resolution was then adopted. yeals 132, nay s 45. The neg;ativ~e vrote wals as follows. Mtessrs. Allen, of Vt.; Blailey, of M~e.; Bond, of 0.; Bordon, of Mass.: B3riggs,t of Mass.; C:[lhounl, of Mass.; Carr, of Indl.; CShambers, of Pa.; CShilds, of N. Y.- Clark, of Pa.- Cushing, of Lass.; Denlny, of Pa.- Etverett, of Vt.; Fuller, of N.

Y.; G;rennell. of Mlass.; tHall, of Vt.; lIard, of N. Y.- Ilalrrison, of P’a.; If azeltine, of N. Y.;’ Ienderson, of Pa.; Ileister. of P’a.; lHoar, of Mass.; IHunt, of S.Y.; J. R4. Ingersoll, of Pa. W. Jackson. of MIass.; Janes, of fit.; Jones, of 0.; Kilgtore, 9t 0.; Laale, Of ind.; Lawrence, of Mass.; Josh. Lee, of N. Y.; In the Senate during the second session of the Twenty-Fifth Congress, the plan was invariably pursued of laying the question of reception upon the table. At this session Mr. Calhoun introduced his celebrated resolutions, induced by the abotition 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 intense. A better description of that excitement, and the action to which it brought the House, cannot be better written than that from the pen of Col. Benton in his valuable histor i cal 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 December, 1837, during the proceedings on the mottion 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 presentation 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 commnienced a violent assault upon the institution of slavery. Mr.

Rhett, of South Car o l ina, in terpo sed to warn him of the consequences of such an inflammatory harangue. Mr. Slade refused to desist, and was interrupted by a motion, made by Mr. Dawson, of Georgia, for an adjournment. The Speaker ‘ll

Page 12 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. [an upright and impartial southern man] ruled Speaker that he had not yielded the floor, but this motion out of order.

his progress was interrupted ly the coniditio(n “Mr. Slade was proceeding to discuss the of the IHouse, and the exclamations of niem question,‘What was slavery?’ Mr. Dawson bers. Amongst them Mr. Ilolsey, of Georgia. again asked him to give way for an adjourn-was heard calling on the delegates from that ment, which was refused. A visible commo-State to withdraw with him; whilst Mr. Rlhett tion began to pervade the house-members was heard proclaimingthatthe members from rising, clustering together, and talking with South Carolina had already consulted together animnation. Mr. Slade continued, and was and appointed a meeting at three o’clock, in about reading a judicial opinion of one of the the committee-room of the District of Colunl southern States, defining a slave to be a chat-bia.

Htere the Speaker succeeded in getting *el, when Mr. Wise called him to order for the floor, and stating the question to be on irrelevancy.’ The question being upon the ab-granting leave to the member from Vermont (;lition of slavery in the District, and the argu-to read certain papers, the reading of which ment upon the legality of slave title in a State.’

had been objected to. Many members rose The Speaker decided that it was not in order all addressing the chair at the same time, an(i to discuss the subject of slavery in the States. the general scene of noise and confusion conl Mr. Slade contended that he read the decision tinued. as he might have done that of an English court. ”’ Mr. Rhett succeeded in raising his voice Mr. Robinson, of Virginia, moved an adjourn-above the roar of the tenmpest which raed iii minent. The Speaker decided the motion out of the House, and invited the entire delegation order, and Mr. Slade refused to yield the floor, from all the slave States to retire from the hall and continued his speech. Mr. Slade pro-forthwith, and meet in the committee-roomi of ceeded at great length, when Mr. Petrikin, of the District of Columbia.’ Pennsylvania, called him to order. The chair “The Speaker rose to a personal explaiitdid not sustain the call. Mr. Slade went on tion, and succeeded in recapitulating his dequoting from the Declaration of Independence cisions and vindicated their correctness.‘Ila(l and theconstitutions of the several States, and it been in his power,’ he said,‘to restrainiii had got to that of Virginia, when Mr. Wise the discussion, he should have done so. But called him to order for reading papers without it was not.’ the leave of the house. The speaker then said “Mr. Slade continuing, said the paper lie that no paper objected to could be read with-was about to read was one of the Co)ntinental out leave of the house. Congress of 1774. The Speaker was about to “‘Mr. Wise then said that the gentleman put the question of leave, when Mr. Cost J(hilhad wantonly discussed the abstract question of son inquired if it’ would be in order to force slavery, going back to the very first day of its the member fronm Vermont to stop?’ The imacreation, instead of slavery as it now existed in partial chair said, in despair, that it could not the District, and the powers and duties of Con-be done.

The indomitable Slade proceeded in gress in relation to it. He was now reading the triumph.’ Then Mr. McKay, of North CaroState constitutions to show that as it existed lina, a clear, cool-headed, sagacious man, inin the States it was against them, and against terposed the objection that headed Mr. Slade.’ the laws of God and man. This was out of The rule of the House required that when i order.’ member was called to order, he should take “Mr. Slade explained, and argued in vindi-his seat; and, if decided to be out of order, cation of his course; he was about to read a hlie should not be allowed to speak again withmemorial of Dr. Franklin*
and an opinion of out the leave of the House. Mr. McKay stated Mr. Madison upon the question of slavery, the point of order, and said that he now obwhen Mr. Griffin, of South Carolina, objected jected to Mr. Slade’s proceeding’Red(uto the reading. Mr. Slade, without asking the bled noise and confusion ensued-a crowd of permission of the House, which he knew would members rising and speaking at once, they at not be granted, proposed that the clerk should last yielded to the noise of the Speaker’s hIimread the document. To this the Speaker oh-mer, and his apparent desire to read somethin(, jected, that it was equally out of order for the from a book-recognised to be the Manualclerk to read. IMr. Griffin withdrew the oh-which he held in his hand, he at last succeeded jection, and Mr. Slade proceeded to read the in reporting the rule referred to bv Mr. MAepapers and comment upon them. Ie was Kay, and sustaining his motion. Mr. Slade about to return to the state of opinion in Vir-endeavored to proceed. The Speaker directed ginia upon the subject of slaverv before Dr. him to take his seat until the question of leave Franklin’s memorial. Mr. Rthett inquired, should be put. Then Mr.

Slade-still keeping ‘What the opinions of Virginia fifty vears on his feet-asked leave to proceed in order. since had to do with the case?’ The Speaker On that question Mr. Allen, of Vermont, asked was about to reply when Mr. Wise rose, and, the ayes and nays. Mr. Rencher, of North with much warmth, said:‘IIe has discussed the Carolina, moved an adjournment.

Mr. Adams whole abstract subject of slavery-of slavery and others demanded the ayes and noes upon in Virginia-of slavery in my own district, and this motion. They were called, and resulted I now ask all of my colleagues to retire with 106 ayes, 63 noes-some fifty or sixty memmie from this hall.’

Mr. Slade remiaded the hers having withdrawn.” ffi See page >6. I The vote against adjournment follows: 12

Page 13 view page image

ABOLITION PETITIONS. “‘But extreme counsels did not prevail. There were members present who well considered that although the provocation was great and the number voting for such a firebrand motion was deplorably large, yet it was but little more than the one-fourth of the House, and decidedly less than onehalf of the members from the free States: so that, even if left to the free State vote alone, tho motion would have been rejected. But tl e motion itself, and the manner in which it was supported, was most reprehensible necessarily leading to disorder in the House, the destruction of its harmony and capacity for useful legislation, tending to a sectional segregation of the members, the alienation of feeling 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 administering a rebuke upon the past. That remedy w as 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 assimilate the proceedings of the House, in that particular, to those of the Senate.

This pre,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 resolution-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 twothirds 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, demanded by an abolition member (to keep his friends to the track, and to hold the free-State anti-abolitionists to their responsibility at home), the result stood 135
yeas to 60 naysthe fiull twothirds, and fifteen over. ” This was one of the most important v )tes 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 critical step being safely over, the passage of t the resolution was secured the free-Stato MTessrs. John Quincy Adams; Alexander of O.; Allen. of Vt: Alleni. of O.; Aycri,,g, of N.J.; Bell, of Tenn.; Biddle, sf Pa.: L’o,d, of O.; Borden, of Mass.; Briggs, of Mass.; Calh,oun, of a-s.; C(‘offin. of 0.; Cranston, of R. I.; Curtis. of N. Y.; Cushing. of Mass.: Darlington, of Pa.; Davies. of Pa.: Dunn. of Ind.; Evans, of Mie.; Everett, of Vt.; Ewing, of Ifld.; Fletcher, of Vt.; Fillmnore, of N. Y.; Goode, of O.; Gren,nell, of Cass.; IHaley. of Conn.; I*all. of Vt.; Ilastings, of Mas.; llery, of Pla.; Ierod, of Ind.; Ihoffman, of N. Y.; Linlcoln, of Mass.; Marvin, of N. Y.; Mason, of O.; Nlaxwell, of N. J.; Mc’ ennan, of Pa.; Milligan, of Del.; M. Morris, of P’a.: C..Morris. of O.; Naylor, of Pa.; Noyes, of Me.; Ogle, of ‘a.; I’rmenter, of Mass.; Patterson, of N. Y.; Peck. of N. Y., Phillips. of Mass.; Potts, of Pa.; Potter, of Pa.; Raridei, of Intl.; Pandolph, of N. J., Reed, of Mass.; Ridgway, of O.; lussell, 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 w ork-the o nly effect of keeping t he hous e togtheher being t o increase ir ritation, a nd mult ip ly the chances of an outbreak. From the begi nni ng Sou the rn members had voted to adjourn, but 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 waywhen the llouse was in a condition in which no good could be expected, and great harm niight be apprehended-there were sixty-three members willing to continue it in session. When the adjournment passed, Mr. Campbell stood up in a chair, and calling for the attention of members, invited all of the southern delegations to attend the meeting then being held in the coliimmittee-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 IHouse 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 discussin,, the institution of slavery in the South, ‘
declaring, that the constitution having failed to protect the South in the peaceable possession and enjoyment of their rights and peculiar 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 instructions 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 awd vital question; and to point out the course of policy by which it should be met by the southern States.’ I 11 i) ip

Page 14 view page image

THiE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. friendly vote l-)eing 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.1 Mr. A. He preceded it with remarks -[‘ Order! order!’]

”’ The Chair reminded the gentleman that it was out of order to address the Ihouse after the demand for the previous question. ” Mr. Adams. I ask the l ouse-[Continued 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?’ 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?’ on which the yeas and nays were demanded and taken; and ended in a repetition of the vote of the same 63 against it. The main question was then put and carried; but again, on yeas and nays, to hold free-state members to their responsibility; 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 thousands 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 itself sufficiently inflammatory), but to get the command of the House to bring in a bill for that purpose-swhich would be a decision of the question. His motion failed.”

and Yorke of N. J., also voted against the resolution of Mr. Patton.

During the second ses sion of t he 24th Congress, the Sen at e pursue d the course of laying on the table the motion t o receive all abolition petitions. The House adopted, on motion of Mr. Hawes of Ky., a resolution laying all abolition petitions upon the table, without being., either printed or referred. During the 25th Congress, both Houses continued 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 petitions upon the table. On the 28th of January, 1840, the question was taken in the House on an amendm ent offered by Mr. W. Cost Johnson, to an amendnent 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: It was adopted by the following vote: YEAS. Messrs. Alford, of Ga.; Andrews, of Ky.; Atherton, of N. H.; Banks, of Va.; Beir-ne, of Va.; Blackwvell, of Tenn..; Bott. of Va.; Boyd, of Ky.; A. V. Brown, of Tenn.; Brown, of Miss., Burke of N. II., Butler of Ky., B3utler of S. C., Bvnum of N. C., Campbell of S. C., Ca.,pbell of Tenn.. Carroll of Ald., Chapman, of Ala.; Coles, of Va.; Colquitt, of Ga.; Conlier. of N. C., Cooper of Ga., Crabb of Ala., Craig of Va., Crockett, of Tenn.; Cross, of Ark.; Davis and Fornane,. of lPa.; Garland. of Va.; Garland, of La.; Gerry, of Pa.; Goggin, of Va.; Graham of N. C.; Gravet and Grcen, of Ky.; G(riffin, of S. C.; Iwacbersham, of Ga.; Ilawkins of N. C.; Illl. of Va.; IHill, of N. C.; Holleman, of Ya.; IHolmes, of S. C.: IIopkils, of Va.; Hubbard, of A la.; Jameson, of Mo.; Jenifer. of Md.; Johnso n, of Va.; JolPnsoa p, )f 0ld.; Jon es, of N. Y.; Jo.nes, of V a.; Kemble, of N. Y.; etter, of O.; Lewis, of Alaid. Lucas, of Va.; McCarty; lcClellan, of Te enn.; AlCu!loch of Ila.; McKay o f f N. CI.; Medill, of O.; Miller, of Mlo.Monttanya, o Am of N. Y.; Montgo ry, o f. C.; isbet of a. Parrish, of O.; Parris, o f M e.: Petrilen. o f Pa. PicBens. of S. C.; Pope, of Ky.; Prenti,s, of N. Y.; Proffit, of Ind.; Ramsey, of Pa.; Rayner, of N. C.; Reynolds, of ll.; Rlett, of S. C.; Rives, of Va.; Rogers, of S. C.; Samu els, of Ya.; Shaw, of N, II.; Smit h, of NMe.; Stanley, of N. C.; Steenrod, a of Va.; Strong, f I Crtsof S. C.; Sweeney, of O.; Taliafero, of Va.; Taylor, of s.;,F. Thomas, of M d.;, P. F. Thomas, of Md.; Thompson of S. C.; Thompson. of iss.; Triplett. of Ky.; Turera, of Tenn.; Warren, of Ga.; Watterson, of Tenn.; Wel ler. of O.; Fyhite, of Ky.; Williaus, of N. C.; J. L. Williams, of Te nn.; C. II. Williams, of Tenn.; Williams of Ky.. Vise of Va., and Wo r thington of NId.114. NAYs. Messrs. Adams of Mass., Alen of N. Y., Allen. of O., Anderson of Me., Anderson of Ky., Baker; Barnard of N Y., Beatty of Pa., Bell of Tenn., Bi ddle of Pa., Bon d of O., Brewster of N. Y., Briggs of Mass., Brockaway of Conn., Brown, of N. Y.; Calhoun, of Ky.; Carr, of Ia.; Casey, of Ill., Chittenden, Clark of N. H., Clifford of Me., Cooper, of Pa.; Cranston, of R. I.; C-ary, of Mich.; Curtis, of N. Y.; Cushing, of Mass.; Dana, of N. Y.; Davee. of Maine; Davies, of Pa.; Doane, of O.; Davis. of N. Y.; Duncan, of O.; Edwards, of Pa.; Ely of N. Y.; Evans, of Me.; Everett. of fit.; Fillmore, of N. Y.; Fletcher, of Vt.; Floyd, of N. Y.; Gates, of N. Y.: Gentry, of Tenn.; Giddings and Goode, of O.; Granger, of N. Y.; Grinnell, of N. Y.; Ilall, of Yt.; Hand. of N. Y.; Hastings, of Mass.; Hastings, of O.; Henry, of Ila.; Hoffman, of N. Y.; Hook, of Pa.; Iloward, of Ia., The resolution of Mr. Patton was adopted bv a vote of yeas 122, nays 74. The negative vote on this resolution was the same as on the adjournment previously recorded, with the exception that Messrs. Adams, Aycrigg, Bell, and White, who voted against adjourning, did not vote against the resolution. Mr.

White voted fbr 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., Ilamer of Ohio, Ingham of Conn., Kilgore of Ohio, Leadbetter of Ohio, Shepler of Ohio, Smith of Me., Toucy of Conn., Webster of Ohio, 14 0 11 That no petition, memorial or resolution, or other paper, praying the abolition of slavery in the I)istrict of Columbia, or any state or territory, or the slavetrade between the states or territories of the United States, in ivhich it now exists, shall be received by this Ilouse, or entertained in any way whatever.”

Page 15 view page image

ABOLITION PETITIONS. On the 1st of Dec. 1845, Mr. Chapman of Ala. made a motion in effect to revive the 21st rule, but it was rejected bya vote of ye. 84, nays 121. The following is the affirmative vote. YEAS.-Messrs.

Stephen Adams, vf 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.; Chae, of Tenn.; Chipman, of Mich.; Clarke, of N. C.; Co bb, 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 Ill.; Dromgoole, of Va., Faran, of O.; Ficklin, of Ill.; Giles, of Md.; Graham, of N. C.; Haralson, of Ga.;, Iarmanson, of La.; Hilliard, of Ala.; Hoge, of Ill.; Isaac E. HIolmes, of S. C.; IIopkins. of Va.; George S. Houston, of Ala.; E. W. Ilubard, of Va.; Hunter, of Va.; Charles J. Ingersoll, of Pa.; Joseph Johnson, 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 Ill.; MConnell, of Ala.; McHenry, of Ky.; McKay, of N. C.; John P. Martin, of Ky.; 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. II. Simms, of Mo.; Simpson, of S.

C.; Robert Smith, of Ill.; Stanton, )f Tenn.; Stephens, of Ga. Taylor of Va., Jacob Thompson of Miss., Toombs, of Ga., Tibbatts of Ky., Treadway of Va., Trumbo of Ky., Wilmot of Pa., Woodward of S. C., Yancey of Ala., Yell of Ark.-84. Th-. 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 slavetrade in the District of Columbia. YF.,s. 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, of Ky.; 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 O.; Daniel, of N. C.; G. Davis, of Ky; Dockery, of N. C.; Douglass, of Ill.; 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, of Ky.; Haralson, of Ga.; Harmanson, of La., Henley, of Ind.; Hilliard, of Ala.; Hoge, of Ill.; Hopkins, of Va.; John W. Houston, of Del.; G. S. Houston, of Ala.. Hungerford, of N.

Y.; Hunter, of Va.; Charles J. Ingersoll, of Pa.; J. H. Johnson, of N. H.; J. Johnson, of Va.; Andrew Johnson 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., Mae.lay of N. Y., McClean of Pa., McCrate of Me., McHenry o f Ky., John P. Martin of Ky., Barclay Martin of Tenn., Miller of N. Y., Morse of Louisiana, Moulton of N. H., Norris of N. H., Owen of Ind.,. Parish of 0., Payne of Ala., Pens dleton of Va., Perrill of 0., Perry of Md., Petit of Ind., Price of Mo., Rathbun of N. Y., Reid of N. C., RItelfe 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 Ill., Stanton of Tenn., Stephens of Ga., Thibodeaux of La., James Thompson of Pa.. Jacob Thompson of Miss., Thurman of O., Tibbats of Ky.. Toombs of Ga., Treadway of Va., Trumbo of Ky., Wentworth of Ill., 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. Giddings of Ohio, in the House of Representatives, presented two petitions, one from Isaac Jeffries and other citizens of Penna., and the other from John T. Woodward and other citizens of Del. and Pa. They were as follows: Hlunt, of N. Y.; 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.; Mallory, of N. Y.; Marchand of Pa.; Marvin, of N. Y.; Mason, of O.; Mitchell, of N. Y.; Monroe. of N. Y.; Morgan, of N. Y.; Morris, of Pa.; Morris, of O.; Naylor, of Pa.; Newhard, of Pa.; Ogle, of Pa.; Osborne, of Conn.; Palen, of N. Y.; larmenter, of Mass.; Paynter, of Pa.; Peck, o f N.

Y.; Randall, of M e.; Randolph, of N. J.; Rariden, of Ia.; Reed, of yIas.; Riadgway, of ().; Rogers, of N. Y.; Russell, of N. Y.; Saltonstall, of a.

Sergea of Pa.-; Sioenton, of P a.; oo, of a. Slade, of Vt.; Smith of Vt., Smith of Conn., Starkweather of O., torrs of Co nn., S tuart of Ill., Tillinghast r of T, Tlig oR. I., Toland o f Pa., Trumbull of Conn., Underwood of Ky., Vand,rpoel of N. Y., lWageer of Pa., W ago ner of N. Y., Wick, of l a.. Williams o f N. H., Willi ams of Conn., and Williams o f Mass.-108. The 21st rule, as it was called, which read a s fo llows: ” No petition, memorial, resolution, or o the r paper praying the abolition of slav ery in the District of Columbia, or any state or territory, or the slavetrade between the states and the t erritories of the United States in which it now exists, sh all be received by this House, or en terta ined in any way whatever,” was rescinded on the 3d of Dec. 1844, on mot ion of Mr. J. Quincy Adams, by yeas and nays as follows: YE.ts.-r Iessrs. Abbot, of Mass.; Adams, of Mass.; Anderson B k, of N. Y. Baker, of Mss. Barnard, of N. Y.; Benton, of N. Y.; Black, of Pa.; Brinkerhoff, of O.; 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.; Darraghe, of Pa.; Dean, of O.; Dickey, of Ila.; Dillingham, of Vt.; Duncan, of O.; Dunlap, of Me.; Ellis, of N. Y. Elmn.er, of N. J.; Farlee, of N. J.; Fish, of N.Y.; Floren ce., of O.: Foot, of Vt.; Fuller, of Pa.; Oiddings, of O.; Green, of N. Y.; Grinnell, of Mass.; Hale. of No. I{.: armlin, of Me.; Iaamlin, of S. C.; Ilardin, of Ill., Harper, of O.; IHenley, of Ia.- Herrick. of Me.; Hubbell, of N. Y., IHudson, of Mass.,; Hungerford, of N. Y.; Hunt, of Mich.; J. R. Ingersoll. of Pa.. Irvin, of Pa.; Jencks, of Ila.; P. B.

Johnson, of O.; Kennedy, of Ia.; Kennedy, of Md.; King, of.lass.; Kirkpatrick, of N.J.; Leonard, of N. Y., Lyon. of Mich.; McCauslen, of O.; MIcClellansl, of Alich.; McDowell, of O.; McIlvaine, of Pa.; Marsh, of Vt.; Morris, of Pa.; Morris, of O.; Morse, of Me.; Moxly, of N. Y.; Nes, of Pa.; Owen, of Ia.; Ilarmenter, of Mass.; Patterson, of N. Y.; lPettit, of Ia.; Plhoeuix, of N. Y.; Pollock, of Pa.; Potter, of R. I.; Pratt. of N. Y.; Preston, of Md.; Purdy, of N. Y.; lRamsey, of Ila.; Ratlhbun. of N.

Y.; Ritter. of Pa.; Rtobinson, of N. Y.; Rockwell, of Class.; Rogers, of N. Y.; St. John, of O.; Sample. of Ia.; Schenck. of O.; Severance, of Mle.; Thomas H. Seymour, of Conn.; David L. St,ymour. of N. Y.; Albert Smith, of N. Y.; John T. Smith, of Pa.; Thomas Smith, Ia.; Caleb B. Smith, of Ia.; Stetson, of N. Y.; Andrew Stewart, of Pa.; John Stewart. of Conn.; Tyler, of N. Y.; Vance, of O.; Vinton, of O.; Wentworth, of I1.; Wethered.

of MNd.; Wheaton, of -Iass.; John White. of Ky.; Benjamin White, of We.; Williams, of Mass.; WinlhropT of Nas,s..William Wright of N. Y., Joseph A.

Wright of Ia.; and Yost, of Pa. 108. N.AYs.-.\essrs. Arrington, of N. C.; Ashe. of Tenn.; Atkinson, 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 Ia.; Burke, of N. HI.; 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 Ill.; French, of Tenu -.; Goggin, of Va.; Grider. of Ky.; Haralson, of Ga.; Holmes, of S. C.; IIoge, of Ill.; Hopkins, of Va.; Houston, o)f Ala.; Hubard, of Va.: Hughes, of Mo.; Charles J. Ingersoll, of Ila.; Jameson, of Mo.; Cave Johnson, of Tenn.; Andrew Johnson, of Tenn.; George W. Jones. of Tenn.; Preston Kinlg, of N.Y.; Labranche, of La.; Lucas, of V~a.; L~umpkint. of Ga.; M~cClernauld.

of Ill.: McConnell, of Ala.MIcKay, of N. C.; Mathews, of 0.: Isaac E.

Morse, of La.Mturphy, of N. Y.: N’ewton, of V~a.; Norris, of N. II.; Patyne, of Ala.: Perton. of Tenn.; David S. Reid, of N. C.; Redling, of N.

II.; lRelfe, of Mo.; Rh’ett, of S. C.; Rodnley, of Del.; Saunders, of N.

Y.; Seuter. of Tenn.; Simpson, of S. C.; Slidell. of La.: Robert Smlith, of Illinois; Steeurodl, of Vra.; Stephens, of Ga.: Stiles. of Gat.; James W. Stone, of Ky.; Alfred P. Stone. of O.; Taylor-, of Vta.; Thomasson, of Ky.; Thompso)n, of M iss; Tibbatts. of Tenn.; Weller, of O., ‘Woodlward,X
of S. C.; and Y’ancey, of Ala.-80. 15

Page 16 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. District of Columbia and Territories; the in ter -state slavetrade, and a general oppo sition to slavery to the full extent of consti tutional power. In 1848, that portion o f the par ty which did no t support the Buffalo nominees took thel ground of affirming the constitutional authority and duty of the Gen eral Government to abolish slavery in the States. Under the head of ” Buffalo,” the platform of the Fre e Soil p arty, whi ch n ominated Mr. Van Buren, will be found.

In 1852, the Independent Democr ats as they were called, who supported John P. Ilale for President, adopted the fol l owi ng plat - form: Having assembled in National Convention, as o la the Delegates of the Free Democracy of the TUn aes n ited States, united by a common resolve to maintain righ t a gainst wron gs, and free dom 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 IIis 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 pursuit of happiness, with which they are endowed by their Creator, and of which none can be deprived by valid legislation, except for crime. II. That the true mission of American Democracy is to maintain the liberties of the people, the sovereignty of the states, and the perpetuity of the Union, by the impartial application to public affairs, without sectional discriminations, of the fundamental principles of equal rights, strict justice, and economiiictl administration. III. That the Federal Government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power thereini ought to be strictly construed by all the tepartments 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 process of law; and therefore the government, having no more powver 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 exristence of slavery, wherever it possesses constitutional power to legislate for Its extinction. “We, the undersigned inhabitants of Pennsylvania 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, somlue plan for the immediate, peaceful dissolution of the American Union.” Mr. Giddings moved to refer the petitions to a select committee with instructions to inquire First. Whether disaffection with our Federal 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? Four thly. The proper means of restoring confidence among the people? Mr. McClernand of Ill. objected to the reception 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, Giddings 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. IHale 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 Itoly 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 pe tition, viz.: M essrs. 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 it went into the contest in 1849, favored the abolition of slavery in the I 16

Page 17 view page image

ABOLITION PLATFORM. V. That, to the persevering and importu-in limited quantities, free of cost, to landnate demands of the slave power for more less settlers. slave states, new slave territories, and the XIII. That a due regard for the Federal nationalization of slavery, our distinct and final Constitution, and sound administrative policy, answer is-no more slave states, no slave ter-demand that the funds of the general governritory, no nationalized slavery, and no national ment be kept separate from banking institulegislation for the extradition of slaves.

tions; that inland and ocean postage should VI. That slavery is a sin against God, and be reduced to the lowest possible point; that a crime against man, which no human enact-no more revenue should be raised than is reient nor usage can make right; and that quired to defray the strictly necessary ex(‘liristianity, humanity, and patriotism alike penses of the public service, and to pay off the demand its abolition. public debt; and that the power and patron III. That the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 age of the government should be diminished is repugnant to the Constitution, to the prin-by the abolition of all unnecessary offices, ciples of the common law, to the spirit of salaries, and privileges, and by the election, Culristianity, and to the sentiments of the civil-by the people, of all civil officers in the serize,l world. We therefore deny its binding vice of the United States, so far as may be conf)rce upon the American people, and demand sistent with the prompt and efficient transacits immediate and total repeal tion of the public business. VIII.

That the doctrine that any human XIV. That river and harbor improvements, law is a finality, and not subject to modifica-when necessary to the safety and convenience tion or repeal, is not in accordance with the of commerce with foreign nations, or among creed of the founders of our government, and the several states, are objects of national con cis dangerous to the liberties of the people. ern; and it is the duty of Congress, in the isdaeroh lbrt s o te exercise of its constitutional powers, to pro IX. That the acts of Congress, known as vide for the same.

the Compromise Measures of 1850, by making XV. That emigrants and exiles from the the admission of a sovereign state contingent Old World should find a cordial welcome to upon the adoption of other measures deman(ed home s of comfort and fields of enterprise in br the special interest of slavery; by their by the special interest of slavery; by their the New; and every attempt to abridge their omission to guaranty freedom in free terri-privilee of becoming citizens and owners of tories; by their attempt to impose unconstitu-thesoileagofnegcusouighttzon bersowtedrs otf the soil am-fong us, ought to be resisted with. tional limitations on the power of Congress inflexible determination. and the people to admit new states; by their XVI. That every nation has a clear right to p)rovisions for the assumption of five millions alter or change its own government, and to of the state debt of Texas, and for the payment administer its own concerns in such manner of five millions more, and the cession of a large as may best secure the rights and promote the territory to the same state under menace, as an happiness of the people; and foreign interferinducement to the relinquishment of a ground-ence with that right is a dangerous violation less caihm, and by their invasion of the sover-of the law of nations, against which all indeei~ntyT of the states and the liberties of the igty of the states and the liberties of the pendent governments should protest, and enpeople through the enactment of an unjust, op-deavor by all proper means to prevent; and pre,ss,ive and unconstitutional Fugitive Slave a, ressive and ubnconstitutional Fugitive Slae especially is it the duty of the American go are proved to be inconsistent with all th vernment, representing the chief republic of prilncliples and maxims oft Democracy, and the world, to protest against, and by all prowholly inadequate to the settlement of te per means to prevent the intervention of kings questions of which they are claimed to be an X e * ,.l vstment. y and emperors against nations seeking to estaadj1ustment. X.Thatnorantsettement blish for themselves republican or constitu X. That no permanent settlement of the tionil governments.

slatvery qluestion can be looked for, except in XVII. That the independence of IIt’vti the practical recognition of the truth, that ought to be recognised by our government, slavery is sectional, and freedom national; by and our commercial relations with it placed the total separation of the general government on the footing of the most favorcd nations. from slavery, and the exercise of its legitimate XVIII. That as, by the Constitution, “the and constitutional influence on the side of free-citizens of each state shall be entitled to all d(m; and by leaving to the states the whole privileges and immunities of citizens of the sutl)ject of slavery and the extradition of fugi-several states,” the practice of imprisoning tives from service. colored seamen of other states, while the ves XI. That all men have a natural right to a sels to which they belong lie in port, and rof)ortion of the soil; and that, as the use of the fiusing to exercise the right to bring such cases soil is inldispensable to life, the right of all before the Supreme Court of the United States, mnen to the soil is as sacred as their right to to test the legality of such proceedings, is a life itself. flagrant violation of the Constitution, and an XII. That the public lands of the United invasion of the rights of the citizens of other States belong to the people, and should not be states, utterly inconsistent with the professold to individuals nor granted to corporations, cions made by the slaveholders, that they wish but should be held as a sacred trust for the the provisions of the Constitution faithfully benefit of the people, and should be granted observed by every state in the Union. 2 17

Page 18 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. nation into two parts-the Northern and the Southern-of which the principles should be Slavery and AntiSlavery. Five years ago, what seemed more unlikely than that the nation should be divided into strictlv sectional parties as it is now? The Whigs were running up their bids for slavelholdine support with a desperation which showed tha t they had abandoned any o ther hope of success. Daniel Webster had abandoned all h ope of a North, and had flun g himself and all he hadi at the feet of the slave-mas ters, as his last and only chance for the eminence he sighed ifor. They spurned him away, to be sure, a nd 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 something worse than a chimera, as a positive imagining of the death of the republic, as a positive misprisionof treason. What a change has come over the dreams of the people since then! The Whlig 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 hla vanished from the face of the earth or exists only as a mockery and a laughing-stock. The Abolitionists foresaw that this lust come to pass; but they did not dream of its accomnplishing 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 compelling the people of the South to the very atrocities which have startled the North into attention. 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, arnd the wideninig 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 woas the formation of sectional parties of parties distinctly Northern and Southern, andl of necessity, slavery and antislavery. W~e rejoice that our eyes behold the day of that beginning of the end. Not that we have any very exalted hopes from the success of the Republican party, even if we con sidered its success a very likely thing. All into all treaties hereafter to be negotiated between 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 hopelessly corrupt, and utterly unworthy of confidence, 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 exertions. XXII. That upon this platform the Convention presents to the American people, as a candidate for the office of President of the United States, John P. Hale, of New Hampsliire, and as a candidate for the office of Vice President of the United States, George W. Julian, of Indiana, and earnestly commends ,heml to the support of all freemen and parties. For the AntiSlavery Platform of 1852, see Republican Platform.” abolitionists and Republicans. EXTRACTS FROM LETTERS, SPEECHES, AND RE SOLVES OF. “TTHE ABOLITIONISTS AS PROPHETS. Vho’ver has been an attentive reader of anti,lavery 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 accomplishment of their owvn predictions. But it is a proof that they have knownii what they wanted, and also how best to bring it about. They have had a clear vision from the beginning, 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 aLnd his ways founded on reason and experience, and as thei.r speculations and their practice had no taint of selfishness in them, it was alnmost 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 procession of events hurries past, in spite of the second-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, w the one which, five or six years ago, seemed c the wildest, was the necessary division of the i 18

Page 19 view page image

ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS. that it purposes to itself is to keep slavery out of Kansas, provided the a ctual s ettlers ther e do not Ieant to have it in. This i s a very small platfoirmll for a great party to stand upon, it must be ow ned; a nd i n rejoicing to s ee it, feo certainly ar e gr atef ul for very moderate mercies. But it is not the platform that is sigrnificantht-i t is not the poinrt nominally at i ssue tha t is th e m aterial thin,. The pos ition is everythleind. It is the attitude that i s expressive atris encouraging. It is the entire sepagration of the party from all southern alliance, and firom all poess i bil ity of slaveholdina help, that iives it its encour a t ring a spect, and makes it, with all its shortenings, a thing to than k God for. ” Able need h ardly say tha t we do not look upon this new party as one that should supersede the antislaveryS mov ement. I t has sprung f(m t hat movement, and whatever of strength tlhd ope it has lies inthe antislavery feeling of thle ~’(,rthern mind. It is vain that servile menpleasers seek to soeparate this effect from its oalti-slayrers origin. The slab eholders stamp it pritih its real c haracter, and describe it better than it likes t o do it self. It is true that the difierin sa(;acities of the Slaveholders and the Abol itionists both discern that this must i)e th e ul timate result.” -Firom the eten O 1ork tNyttioaal Arinti-Slav ery St a enda r d, Jinne 21, 1856. Debate in the New Enogl and AntiSlavery Colii-ention, on the 29th of M a ry, 1856. Ir. William Lloyd Gar rison said:’ I co m e now t o the Republican party; and w-%hile I do not forget its actual positio n und er the Constitution and within the Union, I am constrained to differ in judgment from some of miv re spec ted firiends here about the comparative 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 par ty a s t he result of our moral agitation; and I marvel that they do not see that to qu arrel w i th it, to the extent they are do ing, is to quarrel with cause and efxet-with the work of our own hands. “irs. Foster.-I ad mit t hat the partv is our ow n progeny; b ut, as everv child needs ‘ Breat deal of reproof and constant effort to I)i-in -, it up in the way it should go, this party, wlhich is the necessary offspring, of our efforts, neefis constant admonition and rebuke; and, (;’ ad Divin,r me strength, I will not spare it an ] ur lntil it is fully educated, reformed, and ,-()uight up to the high position of truth and dutity. [Applause.] “Mr. Foster.-Do you believe they can succee(?? “3Iv. Garrison. Certainly not! But that is not the question.‘They believe that they . an. They laugh at mv incredullity because I do not~believe it. I’think that, ere longr, they wrill be satisfiedl that I am right, and that they have liven 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 our friends here as retgard it as the worst or most dangerous party with which our movement has to contend.

In its attitude toward the. slave power, in the amount of conscience and humanity to be found in it, in its direct effo)rt to baffle the designs of the slave oligarchy respecting the territories of the country, it is a far better party than either of the others. and to that extent it is a sign of progress whichl we have no cause to lamenit. I have said again and again, that in proportion to the growth of disunionism will be the growth of Republicanism or FreeSoilism. I think if youi will examine the map of MIassaehusetts, for example, you will find this to hold true, with singular uniformity: that in those places where there are the most Abolitionists W,iho have disfranchised themselves for conscience and the slave’s sake, the heaviest vote is thrown for the FreeSoil ticket. This is as inevitable as the lass of gravitation. The greater includes the less. If we should begin our work over again, and try the same experimient ten thousand times over, we should have the same result in the formation of the same party. Why, then, should any one speak in a tone of despondency, or feel that our cause is in imminent danger of being wrecked? Is this to take a philosophical view of the subject? Such then, is my judgment of the Republican party.” “Although I am not one of that class of men who cry for the Perpetuation of the Uni on, though I am willing in a certain state of circumstances to le d it’ slide,’ I have no fear for its perpetuation. But let me say, if the chief object of the people of this country be to maintain and propagate chattel property in man, in other words, human slavery, this Union cannot and ought not to stan d.“Speechi of Xi-}. Speaker Banks.* On the 16th of January, 1855, the Rev. Mr. Beecher said, in a lecture in New York, on the subject of cutting the North from the South “All attempts at evasion, at adjourning, at concealing and comiprolmiising, are in vain. The reason of our long agitation is, not that restless Abolitionists are abroad, that ministers will meddle wvith improper themes, that parties are disregardifil of their country’s interest. These are symptoms only, not the disease; the effects, not the causes. “Two great powers that will not live together are in our midst, and tug,ging at each otler’s throats. They will search each other out, thoug,,h you separate them a hundred times. And if by an insane blindness you shall contrive to put off the issue, and send this unsettled dispute down to your children, it will go down, gathering volume and strength at every step, to waste and desolate their heritage. Let it be settled now. Clear the place. Bring in the chamipions. Let them put their *3.Ir. Banks disclatims this sentiment, 19

Page 20 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. lances in rest for the charge. Sound the trumpet, and God save the right!” At a public meeting held in his church, to promote emigration to Kansas, the Rev. henry Ward Beecher made the following remarks, as we find them in the report of the New York F. -ening Post:’ He believed that the Sharp rifle was truly moral agency, and there was more moral power in one of those instruments, so far as the slaveholders of Kansas were concerned, than in a hundred Bibles. You might just as well, said he, read the Bible to buffaloes as to those fellows who follow Atchison and Stringfellow; but they have a supreme respect for the logic that is embodied in Sharp’s rifles. The Bible is addressed to the conscience; but when you address it to them it has no effectthere is no conscience there. Though he was a peace man, he had the greatest regard for S arp’s rifles, and for that pluck that induced those New England men to use them. In such issues, under such circumstances, he was decidedly in favor of such instrumentalities. General Scott had said it was difficult to get the New England men into a quarrel, but when they are waked up and have the law on their side, they are the ugliest customers in the world.”

” The object to be accomplished is this: That the free states shall take possession of the government by their united votes. MIinor interests and old party affiliations and prejudices must be forgotten. We have the power iii number; our strength is in union.”-Simon oBr’oii, Massachusetts FreeSoil Candidatefoxw Lieuteinaint Governor. ” If asked to state specially what he would do, he would answer: First, repeal the Nebraska bill; second, repeal the fugitive slave law; third, abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; fourth, abolish the inter-state slavetrade; next, he would declare that slavery should not spread to one inch of the territory of the Union; he would then put the governmient actually and perpetually on the side of freedom-by which he meant that a brighteyed boy in Massachusetts should have as good a chance for promotion in the Navy as a boy of one of the first families in Virginia. tie would have our foreign consuls take side with the nobl e Kossuth, a nd against that butcher Bedini. He would have judges who believe in a higher law, and an antislavery constitution, an antislavery Bible, and an antislavery God!

Ilaving thus denationalized slavery, he would not menace it in the states where it exists; but would say to the states, It is your local institution hug it to your bosom until it destroys you. But he wrould say, You must let our freedom alone. [Applause.] If you but touch the hell of the garment of freedom we will trample you to the earth. [Loud applause.] This is the only condition of repose, and it must come to this. He was encouraged by the recent eleco tion in the North, and he defended the’ new movement,’ which he said was born of Puritan blood, and was against despotism of all kinds. This new party should be judged, like others, by its fruits. It had elected a champion of freedom to the United States Senate for four years, to fill the place of a man who was false to freedom, and not true to slavery. For himself, he could say that, so long as life dwelt in his bosom, so long would he fight for liberty and agains t slav ery. In conclu sion, he exp ressed th e hoe tha t so on the time mibuht come whe n the sun should n ot ris e on a master, nor set on a slave.”-Mr. Burlingame. ” I will not stop to inquire whether or not the act is constitutional. If it is not, it ought to be. I view the act ans the ftith ful expression of the moral sentiment of the people of Massachusetts.“b-Mayor Cthapin of siorcesete. “I s incerely hop e a civil war may soon burst upon the country. I w a nt to see American stavery a bolish ed in my time.” * “The n m y most fervent prayer is tha t England, France, and Spain, may take this slavervaccursed nation into their special consideration; and when the time arrives for the streets of the cities of this land of the - te ofree and home of the brave’ to run wi th blood to th e horses’ bridles, if the writer of this be living there will be one heart to rejoice at the retributive justice of Iteaven.” Mr.

W. O. Duval. ” If the Angel Gabriel had done what their fathers did, he would be a scoundrel for it. Their fathers placed within the Constitution a provision for the rendition of fugitive slaves, and therein did a wicked thing. It would have been no more wrong for George the Third to put chains on George Washington than it was for George Washington to put chains on the limbs of his slaves. Their fathers had undoubtedly believed that they had made a government which would work beautifully, and that in a few years slavery would be extinct. But in that they were deceived. The government was running as it was made to run, and it could not be made to run otherwise; so the Republicans might not boast of what they would do if they had the government as it was in the days of Washington and Jefferson.

It was said in the good book that the Lord sittethon a high throne, and that all mankind are as grasshoppers before him. Ile expected that that included Congress and the President, and the Supreme Court, and the Church. [Laughter.] Where slavery and freedom are put in the one nation there must be a fight-there must be an explosion, just as if fire and powder were brought together. There never was an hour when this blasphemous and infamous government should be made, and now the hour was to be prayed for when that disgrace to humanity should he dashed to pieces for ever.” -Rev. Andtrew T. Foss of NV. H. at the American AntiSlavery Society meeting at NVew Iork, May 13, 1857. 20

Page 21 view page image

ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS ‘ in favor of the fugitive slave bill. I never 1 voted for a man who favored it, knowing such s 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 s thereof, its unconditional repeal. Returning -
from Canada last June, I read in the cars that there was a petition for its repeal at the ExI 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 lon,g as this blood-stained Union existed there was but little hope for the slave. They t saw the work to be done. Darknesswas around them, but God’s truth was over them. lle 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. IIe asked them to argue it out of their own nature. Let them suppose the case that on their going home they sh(utld 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.”- Wm. Lloyd Garrison at Amnerican cAnti-Slavery Society meeting, New I-o:k, 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 hiolders-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 t+h slave, then I pronounce it as of the devil. “I say let us cease striking hay-it with thieves and adulterers, and give to the wiIs, the rallying cry,‘no union with slaveholders, socially or religiously, and up with the flag )f disunion.”}

The following extracts are taken from a letter addressed by the lIon. J.

R. Giddings, of tre the Iouse of Representati ves, to a]n anti fugitivTe slave lavw 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 mnore cruel than ordinary as “If Kansas we re saved fr om oppression while the Carolinas wnere under the heel of the slaveholder, it would be said’ God is a liar.’ They had t o st rike of f ever y chain from every Sou thern slave. T o do that the sulm proposed to b e raised was insignificant. Nevertheless, she hoped that th o se persons present would be induced to double their subscriptions and contributions this year, which is the best y ear fo r their labor.”-Abby Kel ly rosted at the American Abti-Slavery Society v, eetiin#, May 13, 1857. “T hey demanded justice for the slave at any rice of constitution, of Union, of country. his wase the principle of the antislavery associ ation. I t was it which urged their next demand-the immediate emancipation of the slave for the same reason as they would demand of a person pursuing a vicious course of drunkenness, gambling, or debauchery, that he should desist from it at once, at any cost of physical pain. Immediate emancipation presented no financial or political difficuluty. Ile believed that this Union effectually prevented them from advancing in the least degree the work of the slave’s redemption. Disunion is a spiritual process.‘It must be begun, ended, and potentially completed in the mind before it is commenced as a fact. They could break from it internally with no greater convulsion than would arise from passing from one state of temper to another. The breakin, off from the savage idea of money-making would be a step leading to disunion. Let such an internal disunion be effected, and the dissolution of the states would follow as a matter of course. God be thanked, said he, this internal disunion already exists. [Slight applause.] The Northern people were beginniiig to see that the South was divided fiom tilermi by its svstemn of labor and by its ideas of human rights. They wanted to make that gulf of division deeper.

They wanted it to be understood that there could be no union be tween light and darkness. They must cherish a conviction which could not live and breathe in the same atmosphere with the slaveholders. If they would abolish the ignorance and gloom in which the crime of slavery shadows itself, they must withdraw from it. In no temper of malignity or animosity toward the sltavholders need this be done. As to the wAora’ Union’ they all knew it was but a po litical catchword.”-Rev. O. B. _Frothinigham qf V; J. at the American Aati-Slavery Society mneetiny, New Iork, 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 wtretch on the road again to the agony of bondage, than a volunteer guard to aid in his return. tie who invented the charge grossly slandered me; they wcho repeat it, or beliesve it, do not know mne. ‘“It is not true that I ama, or hav e esver been,; 21

Page 22 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sassination. I would be as willing to handle is familiar to my readers; but the recollection the scourge to sink the thong into his quiveris, perhaps, more vividly impressed on my ing flesh, and to tear from him the life which own mind than that of any other man living. God has given him-as to seize him and hand I will not, however, trust my pen nor my lan him over to his tormentors, with the full know-guage to express the emotions which I then ledge and conviction that they will do it. Nor experienced. is the crime of the slave-catcher less in the “Our friends now appeared to feel that we sight of God and good men than is the guilt had found a common sentiment and a common of him who consummates the outrage by this principle on which we could rally. Hope final sacrifice of the victim. seemed to cheer them, and a firmer purpose “Yet we are told we must obey this l1,w, and to unite appeared to peryade the minds of all perpetuate these crimes, until a slave-ridden present.”

Congress shall see fit to reclaim us from such sin against God by repealing the law.‘Whe- “Why, sir, I never saw a panting fugitive ther it be right to obey God rather than man, speeding his way to a land of freedom, tlhat judge ye.’ an involuntary invocation did not burst from “From my innermost soul, I abhor, detest, my lips, that God would aid himi in his flight! and repudiate this law. I despise the human Such aire the feelings of every man in our free being who would obey it, if such a being has states, whose heart has not become hardened existence. I should regard such a man as a in iniqcuity. I do not confine this virtue to Re moral nuisance, contaminating the air of free-publicans, nor to AntiSlavery men; I speak dom, and would kick him from my door should of all men, of all parties, in all Christian comn hlie attempt to enter my dwelling.

munities. Northern Democrats feel it: they “The authors of this law may take from me ordinarily bow to this higher law of their na my substance, may imprison me, or take my tures, and they only prove recreant to the law life; but they have not the power to degrade of the’Most high,’ when they regard the, in me, by compelling me to commit such tran-terests of the Democratic party as superior to seen(lent crimes against my fellow man and God’s law and the rights of mankind. against God’s law. “Gentlemen will bear with me when I as “I rejoice exceedingly that the people of sure them and the President that I have seen the free states comprehend and appreciate this as many as nine fugitives dining at one time insult to every freeman at the North. Public in my own house-fathers, mothers, husbands, feeling is aroused; popular indignation is wives, parents, and children. When they came speaking trumpet-tongued to those servants to my door, hungry and faint, cold and but of the people who dared thus degrade the partially clad, I did not turn round to consult Anmerican character by constituting us the the Fugitive Law, nor to ask the President catchlipoles of Southern slave-hunters.” what I should do. I knew the constitution The Columbus (Ohio) State Journal, Rep., of my country, and would not violate it. I coTanhe fColluOwing etrat,. a 7na Ifro. aobeyed the divine mandate, to feed the hungry contains the following extract, taken from a and clothe the naked. I fed them. I clotlhed Washlington letter, dated the 5thl of December, them, gave them money for their journey, and 18S56:- sent them on their way rejoicing. I obeyed “On the 1st of Deceml)er, at a veXry full God rather than the President. I obeyed riy meeting of the members opposed to the extenii conscience, the dictates of my heart, the law sion of slavery, the following resolution was of my moral b)ein,o the commaitnds of Ieaven, offered by Mir. G(iddings, and adopted without an, I ill, of the constitution of my a dissenting voice: country; for no man of intelligence ever be lieved that the franiers of that instrumi(nt Resolved, That we will support no ma n intended to involve their descendants of the f)r Spea ker who is not pledgedi to carry out free states in any act that should violate the the parliamentary law by giving to each pro-teachings of the Most high, by seizing a felposed measure ordered by the Itouse to be low-being, and retrigh b sei f committed a majority of such special commit-slavery n rning him to thhell of tee, and to organize the standing committees o y If that be treas.n, make the ost of the IIouse by placing on each a majority of “r. BENETT, of ississippi. I want to the friends of freedom, and who are favor-know if the entlm an would no t have gone able to making reports on all petitions co kn ow if the gentle-an would not hae gone mitted to them.” one Step further? one step fiurther? “Mr. GIDDINCS. Yes, sir; I would have The Ion.

J. R. Giddings, in a letter to the gone one step further. I would have driven Ashtabula (Ohio) Sentinel, dated Washington, the slave-catcher who dared pursue them from December 6, 1855 (a letter which he subse-my premises. I would have kicked him from quently admitted to be his on the floor of the niy door-yard, if he had made his appearance ‘louse), thus spoke of the above meeting andi there; or, had he attempted to enter niy dwellItouse), thus espokve: of the boemeetinga, I would have stricken him down upon the threshold of my door. “This unanimity of feeling was so strongly “I do not speak these things to give the exhibited that my own mind ran back to other President unhappiness. I mention them to scenes and other times, the history of which show the people of our free states the rightl 22

Page 23 view page image

ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS. which I hold to be clear and sacred under the constitution. There is neither constitution nor las 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 Bepresenitatives, First Session, 34th Coigress. “The gentleman, however, says that Abolitionists look to the insurrection of the slaves. Sir, who does not look to that inevitable result,. unless the slave states remove the heavy burdens which now rest upon the down-trodden and degraded people whom they oppress? Is there a slaveholder who can shut his eves 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 Revolution 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 bondag,e and in intellectual degradation? No, sir; no lover of justice, no unbiassed mind, could blame them for asserting and maintaining 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 hunianity I thank them for it, and assure them tnd the country that those whom I represent i*ver 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 you 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 Godgiven 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 hardl that he is constrained actually to slay you in self-efence, 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.”- B Hon. J. R. Gidldings. 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 ther e are hun dre ds of thousands 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 degraded, my prayer to the God of he aven shall be. that jupp ostice, stern, unyielding justi ce, m ay be awarded to both master and slave. I desire that evyery human being may enjoy the rights with which the God of nature has endowed 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 measures. But, if they cannot regain their Godgiven rights by peaceful measures, I nevertheless 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.

See pages 159 and 160 of his Book-of Speechies. ” 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 CtLban 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: thent, sir, I do not say,’ We will laugh at your ca lamiity, 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 period 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, Mir. Speaker, that that,time hastens. It is rolling forward. The President is exerting a pow^er 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 wsorld.” Hon. J. R. Girlcings, inh ouese of Rep., M~archz 16, 1854. 2’,.

Page 24 view page image

THiE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. and glorious union of our own,” &c.- Willian L.

GOarrisont. “Mark! Ihow stands Massachusetts at, this hour in reference to the Union? Just where she oughtto be-in an attitude of open hostility.”-Tlhe Liberator, Garrisoit’s pape),. “A Northern Confederacy, with no uni(on with slaveholders. To all this is fast tending. and to this all must soon come. The long, r it is d elayed, 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-THiE DISSOLUTION OF TUiE

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 increasirng alienation and strife, at the imminent hazard of civil war, in consequence of their con flicting views in relation to freedomi 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, peaceful, and equitable dissolution of the existing Union as the exigencies of the case requireleaving the South to depend upon her own hmnthresources, and to take all the respisibility in the maintenance of her slave system, and the North to organize an independent governmelnt in accordance with her own ideas of justice and the rights of man.”-Liberator, June 20, 1856. ” The United States Constitution is a cove nant with death, and an agreement with .hell.” Liberator, June 20, 1856.

” IMr. Itale 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 admiinistration 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 me n 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 the Republican Convention of the 17th of June, 1856. “Washington, Sunday, Aug. 10, 1856.

“Gentlemen:-I have received your very polite note of the 6th inst., inviting me to attend 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 .ermit me. I rejoice in your movement. I hlave faith and hope in progress. I look forward hopefully for the day when the word slave shall be without practical meaning in this, or the Eastern Continent; when universal 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 a nd Dayt on would be a step in that direction, the movement would receive little sympathy from me. “‘With much respect, gentlemen, I am your friend, JOHN P. HA.LE.” ” A man, then, who has no feeling in common 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 lbe denied to the unfortunate black man, who has ten times more intelligence, and who has lived in the state of Indiana from his birth.“1)-aid Kilgore, in the Indiana Constitutional (%t’atjvetioit 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 s hall stand befor he the law as felons and b e tr eated as pirates. God and humanity demand a ballotbox in which the slaveholders shall never cast a ballot. In this, what state so prepared to lead as the old Bav State? She has already made it a penal offence to help to execute a law of the Union. I want to see 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 24

Page 25 view page image

ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS. “INDEPENDEPEDNCE DxY.- -This is the Eightieth sometimes mortified, at the injudicious and Aniversary of American Independence. That iunfair measures of men who ought to have independence began in a spirit of compromise known better; but, we place our great movewith the foul spirit of slavery; it ends with ment above men: it is the only movement every seventh person in the land a chattel which aims or is calculated to save Kansas, slave-the universal masteryof a slaveholding and put an end to the despotism which reoligarchy-the overthrow of all the constitu-pealed the Missouri Compromise, and is pertional rights of Northern citizens-the reign petually seeking to subjugate the country to of Lynch Law and Border Ruffianism through-slavery: its platform is clear, sound, and out the entire South-the subversion of the comprehensive: its nominations must repre-I national government by a clique of desperate sent it: by sustaining them, we sustain it: and unprincipled demagogues, of which the opposition to them will only tend to perpetuPresident is a miserable and perjured tool-ate the spirit and policy of an administration the reign of violence, tyranny, and blood, on which has brought the country to the verge a frightful scale. So much for disregarding of civil and foreign war. Will not patriotic the’ Higher Law’ by our fathers! So much men, whatever may have been their preferfor entering into’a covenant with death, anid ences, hesitate long before assuming such a an agreement with hell!’ Truly, God is just, responsibility as that?” and our national retribution another striking t t * proof that, as a people sow, so shall they also “Thank God! the movement has escaped ireap. A new revolution has begun-another this danger; the counsels of temporizing men secession is to take place-and freedom for have failed; to the bold, clear-sighted Joshua all secured upon a sure basis.‘No union R. Giddings, sustained by the good sense of with slaveholders!’ “-Liberator, 4th July, the Convention, are we indebted for the preser1856. vation of the Great Movement against the “THE

DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION ESSENVTIAL 1 ” THE DIssOLUTION OF THE UNION

ESSENTIAL Slave Power, fJ]ee from all entangling allianTO TihE ABOLITION

OF SLAVERY.-But until we ces.” Nationial Era, of Jume 26, 1856. cease to strike hands religiously, politically, “The Philadelphia Convention has defined and governmentally with the South, and de-the issues of the campaign, framed the platclare the Union to be at an end, I believe we form, made the nominations, and respectfully can do nothing even against the encroach-called upon the people of the United States, ments of the slave power upon our rights. without distinction of party, to sustain them. When will the people of the North see that it We shall be very happy to see North Ameriis not possible for liberty and slavery to com-cans and South Americans and all sorts of mingle, or for a true union to be formed be-Americans rallying to the standard of Fretween freemen and slaveholders? Between mont, and uniting to put down the slave those who oppress and the oppressed, no con-power, but let us have no talk of special cord is possible. This Union-it is a lie, an arrangements with any particular class or imposture, and our first business is to seek its party.”-National Era, July 3, 1856. utter overthrow. In this Union there are three millions and a half of slaves clanking “Let me suppose a case which may happen their chains in hopeless bondage. Let the here and before long. A woman flies from Union be accursed! Look at the awful corn-South Carolina to Massachusetts to escape promises of the constitution by which that in-from bondage. ir. Greatheart aids her in strument is saturated with the blood of the her escape, harbors and conceals her, and is lave!-Boston Liberator. brought to trial for it. The punishment is a fine of one thousand dollars and imprison In conclusion I have onlyto add that such ment for six months. I am drawn to serve is my solemn and abiding conviction of the as a juror and pass upon this offence. I may character of slavery, that under a full sense refuse to serve and be punished for that, of my responsibility to my country and my leaving men with no scruples to take my God, I deliberately say, better disunion-better place, or I may take the juror’s oath to give a civil or a servile war-better anythi;ng that a verdict according to the law and the testiGod in his providence shall send-than an mony. The. law is plain, let us suppose, and extension of the bounds of slavery.”-Hon. the testimony conclusive.

Greatheart himself Horace MAann, formerly of Massachusetts, in confesses that he did the deed alleged, saving the House of Rep. during the 31st Congress. one ready to perish. The judge charges that “Having thus given an exposition of the if the jurors are satisfied of that fact, then action of the Convention, and defined our po-they must return that he is guilty.

This is a sition, we shall henceforth do all that may lie nice matter.

IHere are two questions. The in our power to bring about a perfect union of one put to me in my official capacity as juror, the friends of freedom at home and of good is this-” Did Greatheart aid the woman?” faith and peace in our foreign relations, against The other, put to me in my natural character the Cincinnatinominations, pledged as they are as man, is this-“

Will you help to punish by the platform which accompanies them, and Greatheart with fine and imprisonment for the majority who framed both, to slavery at helping a woman to obtain her unalienablo home and filibustering abroad. Like many rights??” If I have extinguished my manethers, we may have been vexed, disappointed, hood by my juror’s oath, then I shall do mr 25

Page 26 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. o “And such an obliteration can be demon strated to be as much the interest of the SoutiL as it is of the North.”-Hon.

Josiah Quincy Mat Boston, A?tg. 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 American slavery, to give us their sympathy and aid, by munificent contributions, and by holding our Union up to the contempt of Europe, we feel it would not be invidious to mention William and Mary Howitt, Ihenry 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 cooperated with us for the extinction of slavery, command our gratitude.

“Frolm the abolitionistsof England, Scotland, and Ireland, we have received renewed and increasing assurances and proofs oftheirconstant 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 F,oreignt Aiiti-Slavery Society. value mDv manhood, I shall answer after my natural dutv to love a man and not hate him, to (Io him justice, not injustice, to allow him the natural rights he has not alienated, and shall say’ not guilty.’ Then men will call m e fcrsu-orni and a liar, but I think human nature will justify the verdict. * “The man who attacks me to reduce me to sluavder in that moment of attack alienates his righi t to life, and if I were the fugitive, and ceouldi escap e in no other wav, I would kil l hin wsith a s littl e c ompunction as I wo uld drive a mosquito fromn m y face.” -A Seirmon, by li es.

Theeodore Pa ke.er ” Ae confes s t at t w e i ntend to trample und er f p-)yt the c on stitution of this country. Daniel AUebster says:’ You are a law-abiding peop le’ th at the,gl ory of New Eivgland is, ‘ that it is a lawv-,abiding community.’ Shame on it, if th is be true; if even the reliion of Newr Enfla tn d sinks as low as its statute-book. But I sav Te are not a law-abiding community. God lbe thanked for it!”-Weizdell ]‘hillil)s, of Nfass(acht(,setts, at a FreeSoil meeting in )3osloii, in Mfty, 1849. We-en(lell Phillips issued a pamphlet in 1850, reviewing Mrr.

Webster’s speech ” on the constitutio,nal rights of the States,” in which is the fillowing,:‘We are disunionists, not from any love of separate confeleracies, or as ignorant of the thousand evils that spring from neighboring and quarrelsome States, but we would get rid of this Union.” “

Ile wished for the dissolution of the Union, because he wanted MAassachusetts 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 Carolina. MNassachusetts could do it with one hand tied behind her back. Ile did not like such a republic as this. It was ag,,ainst his conscience. Ile hated and abhorred it. In order to hold any office under the government of the United States a man must swear to stupport the constitution, and consequently to sui)pp)rt slavery in its various phases. It was as inevitable that this Union should be dissovelvel as that water and oil must separate, no matter how much they may be shaken. They cold not tell how it was to be done, but done it must lie.”

Flmnli,d Quincy, off Mass., at -4nier l caat v. Y. AntiSlavery Society meeting, at -'IV 1or’k, lay 13, 1857. ” The Nebraska fraud is not that burden 011 which I now intend to speak. There is one nearer home, more immediately present and more insupportable. Of what that burden is I shall speak plainly. The obligation incumbent upon the free states to deliver up fugfitive slaves is that burdensand it must lie obliterated fi’om that Constitution at every hazard. A convention held in Boston in 1855, adopted by a unanimous vote, these resolutions: ” Resolved, That a constitution which provides for a slave representation and a slave oligarchy in Congress, which legalizes slavehunting 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 accursed, 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 essential to our own innocency, and the speedy and everlasting overthrow of the slave system.” The following resolution passed the Legislature of New ilampshire, of 1856: “Resolved, That the people of New Ilampshire demand as a right the restoration-of said Compromise, and the amendment of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, so called, so as to exclude slavery from said territories, and will never consent to the admission into the Union of any state out of said territory with a constitution tolerating slavery.” A convention was held in the city of Buf: falo in 1843, at which the following resolution 26

Page 27 view page image

ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS. issue necessarily involves the claims of their advocates and adversaries in the public councils 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 extraordinary means either to control discussion or to suppress it altogether, and thus they have shown themselves disqualified, by prejudice or interest, for practising that impartiality and candor which the occasion doe manded. “I am unwilling even to seem to imply, by reiterating arguments already before the p ublic, either any distrust of the position of those with wh om I stood in Congres s or impatience for that favorable p opul ar verdict which I beli eve to be near, an d kno w to be ultimately cer t ain. “Nevertheless, there can be no impropriety in my declaring, when thus questione d, the opin ions which will gove rn my v ote upon any occasion when the fugiti ve slave law shall come up for review in the national legislature. ” I think the act signally unwise, because it is an attempt, by a purely federative government, 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 arouts ed constitutional resistance, which will?lot cease until the effor!t shall be relinqwtished. Ile who teaches another faith than this, whether self-deceived or not, misleads. I think, also, that the attempt was unnecessary; that poli tical ends-ihierely political ends-and not real evils resulting from the escape of slaves, constituted the prevailing motives to the enactmnent.”-Letter of the IIoII. W. H.

Sewar-d. was unanimously adopted, with Salmon P. phase as chairman of the committee on resolutions: “‘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 righteousness, 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 Ilim, in all our civil relations and offices, whether as friends, citizens, or as public functionaries, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, to regard and treat the third clause of the instrument, whenever 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 cooperation with the m ass e s of our friends in other states in the f ormation of the R epublican party of the Union.-Julius Rockwell, Massachlusetts oFfee-soil Candidate for Govesrnor. ” Yes, with that freedom and Fremont and Davton emblazoned on the ample folds of our national bann er, we will driv e t he ba se minions of slavery from their control of the GovernmHent, and we will use its powers to build up our new country free from the taints of slaverv, 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.”-Hon. W. -l. Sapp, of Ohio, il4 the House of Reps., 1st Sess. 34tht Con#g. 3Ir. Seward declared, in a speech which he made in Cleveland, in 1848: “What, then, you say, can notling be done for freedom because the public conscience is inert? Yes; much can be done, everything can be dolne. inert? Yes; much can be done, everything “We deem the principle of the law, for -ca n be done. the recapture of fugitive slaves, unjust, un “Auburn, April 5, 1851. constitutional, and immoral; and thus, while “DEAR SIR: Your letter inviting me to patriotism withholds its approbation, the attend a convention of the people of Massa-conscience of our people condemns it. You chusetts opposed to the fugitive slave law, will say that these convictions of ours are disand to communicate in writing my opinion loyal. Grant it, for the sake of argument. on that statute, if I should be unable to They are nevertheless honest; and the law attend the convention, has been received. is to be executed among us, not among you; “While offering the pressure of duties here not by us, but by the federal authority. toolong deferredas an apology for non-attend- Ihas any government ever succeeded in ance, I pray you to assure the committee changing the moral convictions of its subjects in whose behalf you act of my profound by force? But these convictions imply no sense of their courtesy and kindness. It disloyalty. We reverence the Constitution, would be an honor to be invited to address although we perceive this defect, just as we the people of Massachusetts on any subject, acknowledge the splendor and the power of but it might well satisfy a generous ambition the sun, although its surface is tarnished with to be called upon to speak to that great and here and there an opaque spot. enlightened Commonwealth on a question of “We cannot, in our judgment, be either human rights and civil liberty. true Christians or real freemen, if we impose “I confess, sir, that I have earnestly desir-on another a chain that we defy all human ed not to mingle in the popular discussions power to fasten on ourselves. You believe of the measures of the last Congress. The and think otherwise, and doubtless with equal 2’.

Page 28 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 Ilouse 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, if you 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. MAake only one year’s constant, decisive effort, and you can determine what States shall be admitted.

“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 reformations sure and lasting.”-FIrom the Ilon. IV. El. Sewa)-d’s speech at Albany, Oct. 12, 1855. ” In the case of the alternative being presen ted of the continuance of slavery or a dissolution of the Union, I am for dissolution, and I care not how quick it comes.”-Jutdge Spauldiag of Ohio, in the Republican Converttion. sincerity. We judge you not, and Ile alone, wtho ordai ned t he cons ci enc e of man and its laws of a ction, can judge us. Do we then, in this conflict, demand of you an unreasonable thing, iof aski ng that, since you will have property that ca n and w ill exercise human powers t o effec t its esc ape, you shall be your own police, and in acting among us as such, you shall conform to principles indispensable to t he security of adm itted rights of freemen? If you will have this law executed, you must alleviate, not increase its rigors. “The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. ” But there is a higher law than the Constitution, 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 constitutions and laws of the slaveholding states. Not at all. They lie in the erroneous sentiment of the American people. Constitutions and lawvs 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 churches; reform your own code; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gods. Correct your own error-that slavery has any constitutional guarantee which may not be released, and ought not to be relinquished.” Senator Sumner, of Massachusetts, in a speech delivered in Faneuil Itall, Boston, on the 2d November, 1855, said: ” Not that I love the Union less, but freedom 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 Senator, if Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, would Massachusetts execute the constitutional 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 not ol)ey 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 obligation.” And he says further on: ” Wh eneve r the public mind shall will the abol ition of slavery, the way will open for it. - Thr. Setard’s Speech a t Cleveland its 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. -Sp eech of Mr. Seward.” ” The task is as simple and easy as its consummation will be beneficent, and its rewards gl o rious. It requires to fo llow only this simple rule of action: To do everywhere and on every occasion, what wve can, and not to ne,lect or refuse to do what we can, at any time, beceau s e at that precise time and on that particular occasion we cannot do more. Circumstances determine possibilities.”-Speech of 31r. Seward. “Slavery is not, and never can be, perpetual. It will be overthrown either peacefully and lawfully under this Constitution, or it.%ill work the subversion of the Constitution ck, gether with its own overthrow. Then the slaveholders would perish in the struggle. The change can now be made without violence, and by the agency of the ballotbox. 28 The New York Tribune, a, leadino an(I powerfulpress in the, North, whilst the Ne. braska bill was before Congress, remarked: “

Better that confusion should ensue; better that disec rd shoi-ild reign in the national coun

Page 29 view page image

ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS cils; better that Congress should break up in wild disorder; nay, better that the Capitol it-m self should blaze by the torch of the incendiary, or fall and bury all its inmates beneath its crumbling ruins, than that this perfidy and wrong should be finally accomplished.” _ ~~~~~~~( “We love (quoted) the Whig party, but we p love its principles more. We dislike Aboli-E tionismi; but we would rather a thousand times vote for Garrison and Tappan as President and Vice-President than tamely submit for an hour to the humiliation which the Senate 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 reaness a great wrong.”-Gen. }Tebb’s Stew li-k Courier and Eligtirer. 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 ‘ v,)u shall have this matter forced upon you.’ Ncwv, what are the people doing? Our people, loving order and loving law, and willing to alfide by the ballotbox, comle 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 ballotbox, will restrain and repel this proslavery extension, and this aggression of the slaveocracy. What else are they doing?? They tell you that they are willing to abide by the ballotbox, 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 ‘G ood(.’] Now, then, gentlemen, on your action depends the result. You may, with God’s blessing, present to this country a name rallyving around it all the elements of the op positioIn, and we will thus become so strong that through the ballotbox we shall save the co)untry. But, if a name be presented on which we may not rally, and the consequence is (‘civil war-yes, nothing more, nothing less, but civil war-I ask, then, what is our first duty’i” Thie IIon. Benjamin F. W~ade, now a U. S. Senator from Ohio, spoke thus:  “Hle thought there weas 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 )ccasionally 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 mass eeting of the Repub]icans, held in the State Maine in 1855, according to the Boston tlas said:” There was no freedom at the South for ther white or black, and he would strive to Wotect the free soil of the North from the Lme blighting curse. There was really no nion now between the North and the South, ad le believed no two nations upon the earth ntertained feelings of more bitter rancor to’ards each other than these two sections of he republic. The only salvation of the Union, terefore, was to be found in divesting it eiurely from all taint of slavery. There was no wnion with the South. Let us have a Union, aid he, or let us sweep away this remnant rhich we call a Union. I go for a Union here all men are equal, or {or no Union at ll, and I go for right.” ” Let us remember that more than th ree millions of bondmen, groaning tnder nameless woes, demand that we shall cease to reprove each other, and that we labor for their deliverance * “I tell you here tonight, that the agitation of this question of human slavery will continue while tie foot of a slave presses-the soil of the American republic.” Henry Wilson, ULiited States Senator. In October of 1855, Senator Wilson of Mass. made a speech at the Tabernacle, in New York, in which he said: m”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 territories; we shall sever the national government from all responsibility for slavery, and all connection with it; and then, gentlemen, then, wshen we have put the nation, in the words of IMr. Van Buren, openly, actually, and perpetually 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, galltant 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 foundations of a policy of emancipation that shall give freedom to three and a half millions of men, in America.

[Enthusiastic applause.] I say, 2V ilear Ilenry Wilson, Senator, in the Philadelphi,,t American Convention, June 12, 1856: ,,I am in favor of relieving the Federal Government from all connection with, and responsibility for, the existence of slavery. To “ff.“ct this;bject I am in favor of the abolition of slavery in the ]District of Columbia, and the prohibition of slavery in all the Territories.”

Page 30 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. gentlemen, these are our objects, and these Adams, John Quincy. are our purposes. SPEECII OF, ON THE ADMISSION OF

ARKAN5SA& “W e shall change the Supreme Court of the Mr. Chairman, I cannot, consistently with United States, and place men in that Court my sense of my obligations as a citizen of the who believe with its pure and immaculate United States, and bound by oath to support Chief Justice, John Jay, that our prayers will their Constitution, I cannot object to the ad be impious to Heaven while we sustain and mission of Arkansas into the Union as a slave support human slavery. We shall free the state; I cannot propose or agree to make it a Supreme Court of the United States from condition of her admission that a convention Judge Kane. [Loud applause.]

And here of her people shall expunge this article from let me say there is a public sentiment growing her constitution. She is entitled to admission up in this country that regards Passmore as a slave state as Louisiana, and Mississippi, Williamson in his prison-[tremendous ap-and Alabama, and Missouri have been admiit plause]-in his prison in Philadelphia, as a ted, by virtue of that article in the treaty for martyr to the holy cause of personal liberty. the acquisition of Louisiana, which secures to [Great applause.; There is a public senti-the inhabitants of the ceded territories all ment springing up that will brand upon the the rights, privileges, and immunities of the brow of Jucdge Kane a mark that will make original citizens of the United States, and stihim exclaim, as his namesake, the elder Cain, pulates for their admission, conformably to ‘It is too great for me to bear.’ “that principle, into the Union.

Louisiana.was Hon. Ihenry Wilson spoke in Boston:- purchased as a country wherein slavery wa. “MNlr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen the established law of the land. As Congress This is not the time nor the place for me to have not power in time of peac to abolish h~aver inoth powriin stties of tpea, tnonaols utter a word. You have listened to the elo-slavery in the original states of te Union, quence of my young friend, and here tonight they are equally destitute of the powe in those I endorse every sentiment he has uttered. In parts of the territory ceded by France to the public or private life, in majorities or in United States, by the name of Louisiana, minorities, at home or abroad, I intend to live where slavery existed at the tie of the acquiand die with nlrelenting hostility to slaver on ition. Slavery is in this Union the subject of my lips. I make no compromises anywhere, internal legislation in the states, and in peace is cognizable by Congress only, as it is tacitly at home or abroad; I shall yield nothing of cognizable by Congress only, as it is tacitly my antislavery sentiments to advance my own tolerated and protected where it exists by the personal interests, to advance party interest Constitution of the United States, and as it or to meet the demands of any state or section mingles in their intercourse with other naof our country. I hope to be able to main-tions. Arkansas, therefore, comes, and has tain, on all occasions, these principles, to corm the right to come, into the Union with her prehend in y affections the whole country slaves and her slave laws. It is written in the pre hend In my bhh oundry I ant and when I say the whole country, I want bond, and however I may lament that it ever weverybody to understand that I include in as so written, I must faithfully perform its that term Massachusetts and the North. This obligations is not the times for me to deotairManl yo.Yo ien ilim have~~~~~~~~Akn caleilleiastuexetelym. a Aiken, William.

TOTE OF, ON LAST BALLOT FOR SPEAKER OF 34TII CONGRESS. (See N. P. BANKS, Jr.) LETTER OF, CONTAINING HISs ANSWERS TO CERTAIN INTERROGATORIES. llouse of Representatives, l Feb. 4, 1856. DEAR SIR: -I observe in the Globe of this morning a note appended by Mir. Barclay to his remarks of Saturday, in which my reply to Mr. A. K. Marshall, of Kentucky, is incorrectly stated. I have this nmomient conferred with Mr. Marshall, and his recollection concurs with my own, that the following is the substance of his question and of my answer: tMr. Marshall’s question: “Are you hostile to, or have you ever denounced the American party?” rMy answer was-” It is not my habit to denounce anything-either men or measuresand I have friends in the American part y, though not a member of it myself.” Let me request you to publish this note in the Globe, &c. Resp’y yours, AVILLIAX AIKFr.

“I recognise no power under heaven that can make a man a slave. I recognise no conPitution no law that can deprive a man of his personal rights and liberty; and I, a citizen of Nunew York, am ready to place this state in that attitude. “Suppo se New York takes t h at ground; what then?

Some talk of revolution, as if that were to be the dreaded result. Sir, I love the word. Whe n this great state, whit h her three million s and upwar d of freemen, takes that position, then I know that a deathblow is struck against African slavery. “I would not permit a fugitive from the S(otth to b,)e taken from our limits. What then? What power can compel us to acqutiesce? WVill James Buchanan march troops into Neew York to coerce us into submission? We know that no attempt will be made thus to coerce this state when it takes this position.” Speaker of lte V,. l’ Hlouse of Delegates, oil thle Dred Scott Case. I so John C. Rives, Esq.

Page 31 view page image

ALABAMA.-ALIEN SUFFRAGE, Alabama. ing an election. or who has resided in this Be-Act of Congress of March 3, 1817, the state two years and six months, and declared eastern portion of the territory of Mississippi his intention as aforesaid; and every civilized was constituted into a territory, called Ala-male inhabitant of Indian descent, a native of ‘~s >the United States and not a member of any bama. This act was silent as to slavery. b tribe, shall be an elector and entitled to vote; By Act of March 2, 1819, the people of I but no citizen or inhabitant shall be an elector’ Alalamia territory were authorized to form a or entitled to vote at any election, unless lihe state government. This act was also silent shall be above the age of twentyone years, on the question of slaverv.

and has resided in this state three months, On the 8th of December, 1819, in the Senate, and in the township or ward in hich e the bill reported by Mr. Williams, of Miissis-offers to vote, ten days next preceding such sippi, from a committee on the subject, admit-election. ting Alabama as a state into the Union, was WIsCONSIN.-Every male person of the age pasdlyunanimous consent. of twentyone years or upwards, of the followpassed byv unanimous cot-sent. passed b~v.ming classes, who shall have resided in this On the same day it was passed by the hIouse state for one year next preceding any election, without a vote by yeas and nays, and was ap-shall be deemed a qualified elector at such proved by the President on the 14th of De-election. cember, 1819. White citizens of the United States. White persons of foreign birth who shall Alien Suffrage.

have declared their intention to become citi QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS IN

STATES AND zels, conformably to the laws of the United TERRITORIES, WHERE

ALIEN SUFFRAGE IS States on the subject of naturalization. AILLOIVED. The Ordinance of 1787 provided the follow INDIAX A.-See. 1. All elections shall be ing qualification of voters in the N. W. Terrifree and equal.

tory: 2. In all elections, not otherwise provided “That a freehold in fifty acres of land in fior by this constitution, every white male the district, having been a citizen of one of citizen of the United States, of the age of the states and being a, resident in the district, twentyone years and upwards, wvho shall or the like freehold and two years’

resi;dence have resided in the state during the six in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a months immiediately preceding such election; man as an elector of a representative.” and every white male of foreign birth of the age of twentyone years and upwards, who ISSISSII TERRITORY.-The act of April shall have resided in the United States one 7, 1798, extended the above provision of the year, and shall have resided in this state dur-Ordinance of 1787 to that territory. .year, and shall have resided in this state durirg the six months immediately preceding INDIANA TERRITORY.-The act of May 7, such election, and shall have declared his in-1800, retained the above provision of the Orditention to become a citizen of the United nance of 1787, over that portion of the N. VW. States, conformably to the laws of the United territory formed into Indiana. States on the subject of naturalization, shall ILLINOIS TERITORY.-The act of ay 7, . 1
r.. s.’ ~~ILLINOIS TERRIToRY.-The act of M~ay 7, be entitled to vote in the township or precinct 1800, also retained the bo ve provision of the ..

1 1 1 refilev~1800 also retained the above proisilsof of the where he may reside. Ordinance of 1787, over the Illinois portion of ILLINOIS.-See. 1.

In all elections, every Indiana territory. white male citizen above the age of twenty-IICIIIGAN TERRITORY.-Act of Jan. 11,1805 one years, having resided in the state one retained the above provision of the Ordinance year nest preceding the election, shall be en-of 1787, over the Michigan portioni of Indiana titled to vote at such election; and every Territory.

white male inhabitant of the age aforesaid, who may be a resident of the state at the time Ecoite male inhabitaTOR Orga nicbove the age oftwverytv of the adoption of this constitution, shall have h h 1t f one years, who shall have been a -resident if the righlit of voting as aforesaid, but no such osa yerls, a sa ae cen a iesien of citizen or inhabitant shall be entitled to vote taid teleto,y at the time of the paslfcatie of except in the district or county in which he tis t, and shall posss the qulifiaton slall actually reside at the time of such election. ereicafter prscribed shall be entitled tc vote at the first election, and shall be eligible NIICHIGAN.-Seec. 1. In all elections, every to any office within the said territory; but the white male citizen and every white male qualifictlions of voters and of holding office at inhabitant residing in the state on the twenty-all subsequent elections shall be such as shall fourth day of June, one thousand eight huli-l)e irescciibed by the Legisla[tive Assenibly. dred and thirty-five; every white male in-Provided that the right of suffrage and (of habitant residing in this state on the first holding office shall be exercised only by citi day of January, one thousand eight hundred zens of the United States above the age of and fifty, who has declared his intention twentyone years, and those above that age to become a citizen of the United States, pur-who shall have declared on oath their inten suant to the laws thereof, six months preced-{ tion to become such, and shall have taken an 31

Page 32 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. oath to support the Constitution of the United States. MIIN NESOTA TERRITOoRt.-The organic law passed and approved by Congress, contained a similar provision to that of the Oregon bill. The territorial Legislature have passed the following act: “All free white male inhabitants over the are of twentyone years, who shall have resided 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: 1Provided, That they shall be citizens of the United States, or shall have resided within the United States for a period of two years next preceding such election, and declared on oath b e f o r e 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 Constitution of the United States, and the provisions of an act of Congress entitled’ An act to establish the territorial government of Iinnesoti,’ approved March the third, one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine; Aitd )rovided 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.” WA.SIIINGTOX TERRITORY-Organic Act.Every white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-oneyears, who shallhavebeenaresident of sai(d territoryatthe time ofthe passage ofthis 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 citizens, of the United States above the age of twentyone vears, 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. LegislatiSe Act.-That any white American citizen above the age of twentyone y ears, and all other white male inhabitants of this territory above that age who shall have declared on oath their intention to become citizens, and to support the Constitution of the United States, at least six months previous to the day of election, and who shall have resided six months in the territory, and twenty days ill the county, next preceding the day of election, and none others, shall be entitled to hold office or vote at any election in this territory. A EnR.~SKA AXrD K.~xsAs Organic Lawe.Every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-ne 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 qualifications of voters, and of holding office at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Pirovided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised 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 State# and the provisions of this act. The Act of May 20, 1812, extended the right of suffrag,e in Illinois territory to every free white male person of twentyone years of age, who shall have paid a county or territorial 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 amiiend the same by inserting, after that part of it declaring that the constitution of Michigan is ratified and confirmed by Congress, the words “exceptt that provision of said constitution by which aliens are permitt ed to enjoy the right of suffrage.” The amendment was rejected by the following vote: YEAS.

lessrs. Black of Miss., Calhoun of S. C., Clay of Ky., Crittenden of Ky., Davis of Mass., Ewing of 0., IIendrickls of Ind.. Leigh of Va., Naud,,in of Del., Porter of La., Southard of N. J., Swift of Vt., Tomlinson of Conn., and Wlhite of Tenn.-14. NAYS. Messrs. Benton of Mo., Brown of N.

C., Bu(chanan of Pa., Cutlbert of (1a., Ewing of Ill., Grundy of Tenn., Iliil of N. II., tIubbard of N. II., King of A]a., King of Ga., Linn of’.Io., 3Ilorris of O., Nicholas of La., Rives of Va., Robinson of Ill., Rug,gles of Me., Sheplay of Aie., Ta,lma,dge 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 KansasNebraska bill of the Senate, which prohibited alien suffrage in the territories, was adopted by yeas and nays as follows: Y AS.-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Badger, B)el, Benjamin, Broeth,eadl, Brown, Butler, Clay. Clayton, D,.wson, Dixon, ‘vans, Fitzpatrick, lIouston, IHunter, Johnson,. Jo,nes of Tenn., Mason, Morton, I)‘a,tt, Sebastian, and Slidlell.-23. NAYS. Nessrs. Chase, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of la., Douglass, F’?ssemlen, Fish, Fo,ot, Gwin, Ilamlin, Jones of la., Norris. 1’ettit, %w,ar(l, Shields, Smith, Stuart, SUMN}:R, Toucey, Tgrade, W%‘alker, and WI illiams.-21. Democrats in roman, Whigs in italics, FreeSoilers in small caps. In the Iw ouse of Representatives, on the 22d of IBay, 1854, t Bhe vte on inserting Mr. Richardson’s substitute for the Senate Kansas and Nebraska bill was as follows. Mr. Richardson’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 Ill., Willis Allen of Ill., Ache of N. C., David J. Bailey of G(a., Thomas II. Bayley of Va., Barksdale of Miss., Barry of 32

Page 33 view page image

ALLEN SUFFRAGE ‘iss., Bell of Texas,,eieocK of’a., Boyee of S. C., Brecen ridge of Ky., Bridges of Pa., Brooks of S. C.. Caskie of Va., Chastain of Ga., Chrisman of Ky., Churchwell of Tenn., Clark of Mich., Cligman of N.

C., Cobb of Ala., CoWluitt of Ga., (bx of Ky.. Craige of N. C., Cu eming of N. Y., Cutting of N. Y., Johf G. Da mis of Ind., Dawson of Pa., Disney of O. Dewdell of Ala., Dunbar of La., Dunham of Ind., Edmondson of Va..

John M. Elliott of Ky., English of Ild., Faulkner of Pa., Florencele of Poa., Fulle r of e. Gde of Va., Green of. Greenwood of Ark., of of Ky., rIamilton of Ilmld., Samson W. IHarris of Ala.. Hendricks of Ind., IIorner of Ia., Ilibbard of N. H.. Hill of Ky., Igillyer of Ga., Iaouston of Ala., Inglersoll of Conn., George W. Jones of Tenn., J. Glancy JoTnes of Pa., Roland Jones of La., Kerr of N. C., Kidwell of Pa., Kurtz of Pa., Lamb of wMo., Lane of Ind., Lathal of Cal.. Lete,her of Va., L illy of N. J., Lindley of fo., 3daDlleald of Ie., MtcDougall of Cal., McNair of Pa., Iaxwell of Fla. a of Md., Johen C Mill er o f Mo., Sm ith Miller of Ind., Olkis of O., CMandlecai OFt er o f lo., Orr of S.C., Packer of Pa., J ohn Pe rkin s of L a., P helps of Mo., Phi lips of Ala., %II, aMell o f Va., P
ratt of Conn., Preston of Ky., Ready of Tenu.. Reese of Ga., Richardson of Ill., Riddle of Del., tobbis of a., Ro we of N.Y, Rouffin of N. C., ro f C

Seymoua of Conn., Shannon of O., Shaw of N. C., Shower of Md.. Sin~gletonl of liss., Samuel A. Smith of Tenn., William Smith of Va. Whilliam I. Sm ith o f Al a., Ge orge W. Smith of Texas, Snodgr ass of Na.. Fr ederick P.

Stanton o f Tenn., llT halld pI. Stanton of Ky., kAlex nder f. Steph esls of Ga., Straub of Pa., David Stuart of Mich., John J. Taylor of N. Y., Tl eed of N. Y., Vailt of N.J., Vas ant of Md., Wal bridge of N. Y., Walker of N. Y., Walsh of N. Y., Warren of Ark, Westbrook of N. Y.. Witte of Pa., Daniel Wright of Miss., Ilendrick B. Wright of Pa., Zollicoffer of Tenn.-115. N’Als. Messrs. Ball of O., Banks of Mass., Belcher of Con., Bell tett of N. Y., Benson of Me., Benton of Mo., Bugg of Tenn., C’,,,,pbell of O., Carpenter of N. Y., Chandler of Pa., C)rocker of glass., Cullomn of Tenn., Curtis of Pa., Thomas Davis of R. I. Dean of N.

Y., De ITitt of Mass., Dick of Pa., Dickinson of 3[ass.. Eastman of Wis., Edgerton of O., Edmnands of Mlass., Thm~[as D. EFliott of Mass., Ellison of O., Etheridge of Tenn., .E,-erhar-t of Pa., Farley of Me., Fenton of N.

Y., Flaq(le,- of N. Y.. Gamble of Pa., GIDDI.NGS of O., Grow of Pa., Goodrich of a Ass., Martin Haslum of 0., Andrew Haaslain of Ind., Ht,rrison of O., Hastings of N. Y., IHaven of N. Y., Heisted of Pa., tl,we of Pa., Ilughes of N. Y., Hu7nt of La.. Johnson of O., Daniel T. Jones of N. Y., Kittredge of N. II., Knox of III., Li,,disley of O., Lyon of N. Y., Mlc~aloch of Pa., Mace of Ind., .i, ttteson of N. Y., 5layall of Me., Mieacham of Vt., 3liddles. w’Roth of Pa., Millson of Va., Morgan of N. Y., Morrison of N. II., Murray of N. Y., Nichols of O., Noble of Mich.,.’,07-ton of Ill.. Anidre,w Oliver of N. Y., Peck of N. Y., Parker of Ind. .Jensi,’,,gt,n of N. J., Bishop Perkins of N. Y., Pringle of N.

Y., t’ttryear of N. C., David Ritchie of Pa., Thomas 1itely of 0., l;,ed’s of N. C., Rutssell of Pa., Sabin of Vt., Sage of N. Y., SN,l) of O., Simmnnons of N. Y., Skelton of N. J., GERRIT SMITII of N. Y.. Ilester L.

Stevens of Mich., Stratton of N.J., An,drew Stuart of O., John L. Taylor of O.,,Vatthaniel G. Ttylor of Tenn., Thurston of R. I., Tracy of Vt., Trout of Pa., [F)hami of, -)lass., lvalley of Mass., TVade of O., Eh’hit B. tlTtshbuerne of Ill., Israel 11’ashibirne of Me., Wells of Wis., J,,hn Wentworth of Ill., Tappen }[lentwortli, Wheeler of N. Y., ]ates of I11.-96. Deimiocrats in roman-Wvhigs in italicsFree-Soilers in SMALL CAPS.

Ala., Dawson of Ga., Dodg-e of Wis., Douglass of ll., Fish of N. Y., Fitzpatrick of Ala., Foot of Vt., GILLETTE of CoiDn., Gwin of Cal., HIunter of Va., James of R. I., Johnson of Ark., Jones cf Ia., Jones of Ten., Mallory of Fla., Mason of Na, Ctg ton of Fla., Norris of N. It., Pettit of Ind., J’att of fMd., Rusk of Tex., Sebastian of Ark., Seward of N.Y., Shields of Ill., Slidell of La., Stuart of Mich., SUMNER of lMass., Thomson of N.J.. Toonibs of Ga., Toucey of Co.n., uc~de of O0., Walker of Wis., Weller of Cal., Williams of N. It., Wright of N. J.-41. This vote cannot be considered a test vote, a s 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, IMr.

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: B Ir.

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 twentyone years, who shall have been a resident of the said’

territory at the time of the passage of this act, shrll be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office in the said territory; but the quialifications of voters and of holding office at all subsequent elections shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative AsselIbly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding!, ofie shall be exercised only by citizens of th e Unite d States and those who have declared on oath their intention to beote such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constit 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 and state government for admission into the Union, leaving the qualifications of voters in the tcr ritory for this purpose, precisely what they have been ever since the territory was organized, and as they are now fixed by law. I see no reason why we should change the existing law of Minnesota on that point for this one election, when there is no pretence tha t anv evil consequences have grown out of the exercise of the elective franchise uiinder the present law. If my friend from North Clrto lina could show me that any injurious coniie quences had grown out of the law of Minne spota fixing the qualifications of voters, tlieve would be an argument in favor of the chbange; but there is no objection on that score, no consideration of that kind has been urt.e(l. The amendment, therefore, is only to carry out hligofeh-a theory of the Senator, and not to remedy ally practical existing evil in the territory. T eMy friend from North Carolina is entirely mistaken in the supposition that it has been the uniform practice in laws enabling territories to become states, to restrict the right of voting to citizens of the United States. I have |
sent for the laws, and will present thesi if it o be necessary in the Nourse of the discussions Izno Sen ate, play 25, 1854. The Nebrasrka and Kansas bill being undler consideration, Alr. Pearce, of MId., 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.” S,) that the proviso shall read: ‘Provided that the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States.” The amendment of MAr. Pearce, the same as the Clayton amendment, was rejected by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAs.-‘%ess,rs. Bayard of Del., Bell of Tenn.. Brodhead of Pa., Brown of Mo., Clayton of Del., Pearce of Md., and Thomipson of Ky.-7. Naes.-Messrs.

Allen of R. I., Atchison of Mo., Beiami3 of La., Butler of S. C., Cas of Mich., CHA9S of O., Clay of 3 33

Page 34 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 newmember 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 constitution 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 confederacy? If he desire to vote, let him make himself a citizen, in the manner prescribed by the laws passed in obedience to your constitution. 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 govern ment, the making o f 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 Constitution of the United States, such as the state of Virginia in her own good pleasure l-ight deem proper to consider as her citizens under her laws, should be entitled to certain privileges, but not to all the privileges of citizens. It wras provided, for instance, that any alien friend, who could give evidence of good character, mnigrating into Virginia for the t o show that he is entirely mistake n in that respect. The rule is rather the reverse, if there b e any rule on the subject. The fact is, thatthh at here ha s been a variety of laws on that p oint. In some territories w here t here was no contest abo ut it, the right was confined to citizens of the United States; in others, all the inhabitants p os sessing certai n qu alificatio ns were allowed to vote. In all the N. W. Territory, in Ohio, In diana, Ill inois, Michigan, and W i sconsin, aliens, under certain conditions, where permit ted to vote, not only while theos e states were territories, but when they be came states; a nd thi s provision was n ot eculiar to the NorthWestern States, as has teen supposed. Mr. CLAY. It has not be en d one at the South. Mr. DOUGLAS. My friend from Alabama is mistaken in saying t hat it has not been done at the S outh. I remember well that I served some years ago on the committee of elections in the House of Represen tatives when th ere was a contested seat between Mr. John W. J one s antd Mr. John M t. Bo tts; and it turned out that Mr. Jones had received som e eightynine 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, w ere 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, authorizin, 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 prescribing 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. DOUGLnA,s. Ther,e is the very point. Virginia prescribes who shall be citizens of Vir,inia, 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 Faith a constitution, provid(ing that all citizens of the United States should be permitted to vote, and also, all other persons who were inliabittints of the state at the time of the adoption of the constitution. By that constitution, Michigar,n made those other inhabitants wsho l-ad not been naturalized, but possessed certain specifiedl qualifications, citizens,:,f the state of M~ichigan, althougfh they were not citizens of the United State<. That is precisely what wve did in Illi nois under the oldl constitutio)n. W~e allowed an unnaturalized foreigner who possessed certain qualifications to vote in that state, al t.hough he had not become a citizen of the 31

Page 35 view page image

ALIEN SUFFRAGE. ka and Kansas to vote for delegates to form a state constitution; and the organic act auth(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 co(nfine 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: purpose of residing there, and who would take an oath of fidelity to the commonwealth of Virginia, should become a citizen of Virginia for certain purposes; but until he had resided five years after that oath, he was declared ineligible to any office, 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 Government 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 Constitutioll confers, but no further; nor does it derogate in the slightest degree, in m-ly humble judgment, from the right of every state of its sovereign will and pleasure to declare who shall be citizens, and who shall not be citizetns, within its own limits, subject, o f course, andt subject only, to so much po wer as the state slay havse parted with to the F ederal Government. Upon the particular provision now before us, I shall vote c e rtai n ly for the amendment offired by the ho norabl e Senator from North Carolina, b ecause I deny absolutely that there is any power, or ought to be any power, delegate d to any territory, or to the people of any territory, to declare who shall, as citizens of the territory, vote to erec t themselves into an independent state, and by association with the states i n the Uni on, to take their shar e in the administration of the government of the United States, and their partition in the policy of the United States. When the t erritory become a state under the Constitution, 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 citizeniship, or to vote, who are neither naturalized by the laws of the s tates, nor the laws o f the Un ited States, -ell and good; it is her power and her pleasure. MAr. BIGGS. It will be recollected that a discussion took place here during the first ~cssion of the present Congress in regard to the bill authorizing the people of Kansas to t’;n’m a state constitution. On that occausion an1
amen|P1dment was3 offeredl }by the Senlato)r from>11 Mississippi, [Mrll.

ADa.Ms,] differingr in fillrml, hut in substaulee prleciselyT the samue char~lacter as this. Tha~t bill, as reported lid thle Comlmittee on Territories, allowved tho)se persons who were qualifiedl voters b)y the org:mic law passed for the territories of Neblras-i YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bell of Tenn., Biggs, Brodhead, Brown, Clay, Clayton, Collamer, Crittenden, Fessenden, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Foster, Geyer, Ilunter, Iverson, Mallory, Mason, Reid, Thompson of IKy., Yulee. NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Bigler, Bright, Cass, Doldge, Douglas, Jones of Ia., 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 Illinois, 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 organic law of Illinois territory was the ordinance of 1787; and so with all the northwestern 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 unnaturalized 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 personss as ere qualified to vote in the territories by existing laws, showing, clearly that there was an expless recognition of the rights of unnaturalize(I f)reigners to vote who were authorize(d to vote under the territorial laws. That ln’in. those x-s exactlv within the limrits of tle b)ill LoG un(leundr conm esi eraltion. MIr. ToucEY. MNr. President.

I,h, not li se fo,r the purpose of’ del),,tiiig this (luesti,i,: t~ut a differr fronm soi(,e (-)f mv friends l this poilit, I w-ish to state tlle.,ro-euids of Ily on n-etio. T’tmIit clauitse in thie Constitutio;n oftar Unite t S ta.rt e San whli,.h )l ln’C~crl,e(s t l Xe l ),:>lv,, )f elte ctm’ lA fior the eloftir of mcl,,emes or’ tlhe cla,use of Ilepresentatii-(, refers it to the eonstitutioni anied laws of’ the several states; so that every state determines for itself its own electoral 35

Page 36 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. body. It is a primary act in sovereignty. This government has no power to interfe’e 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 naturalize whom you please; but the power of the legislation of Congress in enacting a naturalization 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 Congress. 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 intentions to become citizens, we have no power to interfere or prevent the exercise of that sovereign 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 Congress should undertake to say that those in the several states who should vote for electors for President and Vice President should colnsist 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 validity? No, sir. It would be an encroachment on the rights of the several states that would not )be tolerated or admitted under the Constitution of the United States. In 1849, when you organized the territory of Mlinnesota, you fixed by the organic law the right of suffrage, leaving it to the people of the territory, in the exercise of the legislati,e 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 intention to become a citizen of the United States, and sworn to support the Constitution of the United States and the organic law. You conferred 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 themselves 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 proposition here is to interfere with that. The question being taken by yeas and nays, resutlted yeas 27, nays 24; as follows: YEAS.

Ne.9srs. Ad-Iams, Bayard, Bell of Tenn.. Benja.min, TBisigs, Brodhead, Bro,wn, Butler, Clay, Crittenden, Evans, Fish, Flitzpatrick, Foot, Geyer, Green, louston, Hlunter, Iverson,, John,son. Joles of Tenn., Mason, Reid, husk, Ilidell, Thonmpson, of lBy., and Thomson of New Jersey. 27. NAYs.

Messrs. Allen, Bigler, Bright, Cass, Collamer, Dodn,e, Doud,ilas, Du rees, Fe.fsen,den, Fitch, Foster, Sale, Jones of la., Nourse, lnug,h.

Seward, Stuart. Toorobs, Toucey, Trunmbuil, Wade, Wheller, Wilson, and Wright. 24. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. PuGc. I do not intend to prolong the discussion; but I wish to correct the Senator from South Carolina, and several other Senators, in what I think is a very essential mistake of fact. Ile 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 suffrage. 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. P UGI. Yes, sir, with alien suffrage; and I will show it to the Senator. The ordinance of 1787 expressly allowed it. It required,I 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 ordinance of 1787. Under it, the law authorizing Ohio to be admitted, provided that the qualification of suffrage for the election of memabers 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 antislavery 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. BEL.L, of Tenn. The question was not made, I think, until the case of Michigan. Mr. BUTLER.

Never. 3Ir. BELL, of Tenn. The honorable Sena, tor from Michigan perhaps can correct me, but I think I recollect many of the circumstances under which the question came up then. It was under the very influences I alluded to on Saturday. It was a contest betweein 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, thatyI know of, or recollect. AMr. PUGH. I agree with the Senator that the question was not made; and mhat I obf ject to is the making of it now. 36

Page 37 view page image

ALIEN SUFFRAGE. was applied with the antislavery clause to Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. It was applied, excepting the antislavery clause, to every other territory you had, down, I believe, to the ecase 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 Wiscoiisin bills, I have not been atble 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, [Ir. Adams.] Ile refers to the vote taken in the Senate at the last session on tLe 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 rec)llect the argument which he himself stated. What was it? In the KansasNebraska bill we au thorized aliens to vote at the first election-; but thereafter they were to vote or not as the t erritoria l le gislature provided. The first terri torial legislature, which is said to have repre sented the proslavery party, voted the aliens out. That was the action of that branch of the people. The Topeka constitution, which was said to represent the frce-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 shIouIhl not vote; and, therefore, although I voted against striking it out in the Kansas pacifica tion bill, I did not think it of much import. ance. SIr. ADAIs. It is the vote of sensible men everywhere, in all countries. Mr. PUGH. I do not know that it is. The Senator mav 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-an(d-b-v 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 organizin g a territorial governmtent ine Minnesota, and followed nine-tenths of the precedents, overruling the exceptional cases of Iowa and W~isconsin; 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. You 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 tIr. BErLL, of Tenn. In 1787 a ll were ri garded as cit izens, and s o theyr were until we made the con stitution, and prescribed a uniform rule of naturalization. It. PUGH. Let us se e what the ordinance of 1787 says: t altviaed, That no p erson b e eligible or qualified to act ts a sresetative unle ss he shall have been a citizen of )he of t he U nited States three vears, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall bhave resided in the district three years; anined in e ither case he shall lieise hold i h is own right, in fee simple, two hundred acres of land within til e same: Provided, al so, That a freehold of fifty acres of land in the di stric t, having been a citizen of one of the st ates, and being a resident in the district, or the like freeholid and two years’ residence in the di strict, shall be n ecessary to qualify a man as an elector of a representative.” If that is not alie n suffrage, I co nfess myself unable to understand the English language. iH e may be a c itizen of the United State s or not; and in either case the property qualification is superadded and a certain residence required less residence for a citizen than an alien. That is the ordinance of 1787, w hich I say was extended over Tennesse ie,while she was a territory; and when s he forme d her constitution, and applied for admission, it wa s for med by the qualified electors mentioned in tha t ordinance. AIr. BELL, of Tenn. I ask the honorable Senato r anain, if, up to the time when the un if orm rule of naturaliza tion was passed by Congress under the constitution, aliens were admitte d or n ot at pleasure? Sir. PUGHo. Te re wa s a uniform r ule of naturalization at the ti me the act constituting the te rritorial government of Tennessee was passvsed. T he re was an expr ess distinction. Sir. BELL, of Tenn. There was no notice taken of it. It was a mere extension of the provisi ons of the ordinance, wi th nothing excel)ted but a single clause. snr. PUiGH.

The Senator is righ t in savine there vas no quest ion abo ut it; but it is my pourpose to sho w that the ques tion has been ra ised of late years.

Tennessee came in with it. The same ordinance of 1787, with the exception of the a ntislavery clause, was extended over Louisiana, and she came in with it. It was ex tended over Mississippi and Alabama, and they came in with it. It w as extended over Arkansas and Missouri; and the famous Missouri compromise of 1820 expressly admits alien suffrage. I have it here. Heeis 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 twentyone years, and have resided in -aid 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.” W~ho are authorized to vote? All persons who, under the ordinance of 1787, could vote. That was the only territorial law you hadl. Your whole territorial legislation was in ap) plying the general principles of the ordi nlance of 1787, exceepting the antislav-ery clause, to all except certain territories. It 37

Page 38 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. condemn these gentlemen in the lump. Myv 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 nativeborn 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. PUcG. The criminals will never find their way to your territories. They will never go there to settle. It is peaceable men who , 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, an(i hope they will all come. Mlr. STY,-ART. 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. wlr. BUTLER. I am not to be called to vote sdi(ltenl-v on a matter of this kind when other 1,e,-)Ie introduce it; and if gentlemen have a lKind to introduce this measure again it is not my-f’

ult. The time of the Senate would have a,lmiinished me not to have it taken up; but as t!,ev, have taken it up, the Senator from 3lichi can is mistaken if he supposes I will n,)t probe it to the bottom. I.say my friend from Ohio is in error; and w 8he Senators undertake to force me on a inater so deeply affecting us, I shall vote .:gainst the admission of Minnesota if they refugee to put in this amendment. I intend to put myself right before the country in relatioin to what I said, for I do not like, as a lawver, to say anything that is not maintainable by the statute. The act in regard to Alalbamiia provides: “And be it further enacted, That all white male citizens of the U wmnited States”that excludes women tinctly that tahe intended to exclude aliens Thiec im the act’ admitting Alabama, and it is th Te isame n the other cases. They n ever thought in that day of allowing a comnmonwealth to come into the confederacy under the auspices of alienage. I am opposed to the whole of the doctrine which would proscribe the foreigner; I am h is frien d; and I say to the foreigner who comes here with a view to adopt this as his country, ” Be jealou s 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 before 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, new.

i5Ir. 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 venture 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. Nlessrs.

A71en. Bell of N. IT., Big7,r, Brig77t, C,,ss, C(ol]amer. Do Dl D(yl D,,q7a, urkee, Fesuenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Green, iale, Ia rlan.

Jolies. J7hnson. Jones of la., Nourse, I’tti7hbastimn. ISeoso Swardtol, Tis lntbuctey, Trumbull, Wade, Wl’e,-lr, Wilson. and lu/,,e-31.

NAns.-trelssrs. ADAs.s.a Baiyar,el, riija7,i?, Biai/s. Brot head, Bjrown, Butler, (‘lay. CRITTENDEN, Wans, lisl F-it pat triek, Geyer, IIoUTON u, Alason, P att, Rleid, hous/, 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 question is upon the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, (Mr. Biggs.) Mr. ADAMfS called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 24, nays 32; as follows: YEAS.-tNles-srs. ADAMS, Byard, BELL of Tenn., B.enjamin, Byqgs, Brod/lead, Brenoom, Butler, Clay, CRITTENDEN, Fish, Wr’tnzpatic7k, Geyer, Gwin.

IIOUSTON, Hunter, Iverson, Jtnes of Tenn.. 1ason, Pratt, Reid, Rusk, Slidell, and THOMPSON. of Ky.-24. NAYs.-tMessrs. Allen, Bell of N. H., Bigler, Briqtt, Cass, Ce ollamer, Dodge, Donylas, Durkee, Feosenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster. Green, IlHale. Harlan, James, Johnson, Jones of Io., lloallo ry, Nours,, P,lgh, Se&bistian, Seward, Stuar-t, Totmlbs Toctey, Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Yulee.-32. Democrats in italic, Republicans in roman. Americans in small caps. that excludes minors’ and have resided in the said territory three months previolus to the day of election-” that excludes all who did not go there and were not there within three months’. and all persons having in other respects the legal qualifictions to vote for members of the General Assembly of the said territory, be, and they a re hereby authorized.” Wha t persons ar e exclud ed? In di ans, negroes, 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 persons who had been there longer than three months, and the fact that it enumerated white male citizens twentyone years of ace, showed dis 38 14 who sball h.ve arrived at the age of twentyone years”

Page 39 view page image

ALIEN SUFFRAGE. tionable right to prescribe the qualifications 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 decision 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 colleague 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 definition, in such cases, almost necessarily lead to uncertainty and doubt. But though we may not be able to say, with precision, what a citizen 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 naturalize 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 nativeb)orn. 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 The following speech of t he Hon. John C. Calhoun, of South C
arolina, was delivered in t he Senate of the United S ta t es, April 2, 1836, on the motion of Senator Porter, of Lou is iana, to recommit the bill t o establish the Northern boundary of Ohio, and f or t he admission of blitehigan into t he U nion. 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 proper 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-presented for the first time, and claiming a more full and deliberate consideration than can be bestowed on it now. It is not necessarily involved in the present question. The point now at issue is, not whether a state or territory 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, preparatory 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, indeed, such as the ordinance and Constitution may enfore 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 prescribed 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 ritoly 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 frome New York was pending, mzoved to amend the amend ment by striking out people, and inserting free white citizens of twentyone 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 119

Page 40 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK aliens, and it will follow, as a necessary conseo i quence, that we might have among our con stituents persons who have not the right tc 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 frin op pTression, 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 sub jects 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 tho objects of the Constitution in conferring on Congress the authority of passing uniform laws of naturalization froli 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 government, through such states as might naturalize 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 interested 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 Congress. The power would be perfectly nugatory. A state might hold out every improper inducement to emigration as freely as if the power didl not exist; and might confer on the alien all the political rights and privileges belonging to a nativeborn citizen; no)t only. to the great injury of the state, but to an improper control of the government of the Union. To illustrate what I have said suppose the 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 party 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 rapisd 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 3Ion 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 involved 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 I 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 protection of his government. These belong to him as a member of the body politic, and the possession 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 question more specially, can confer on him the right of voting-would involve the absurdity of giving 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 nL 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 numerous branch of the legislature in the several states, shall vote for the members of the House of Representativesand, 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 states, it follows, as I have stated, that the action of the general government is either directly or indirectly under the control of the voters in the several states. Now, admit that a state may confer the right of voting on all 40

Page 41 view page image

ALIEN SUFFRAGE. Congress the right of prescribing who should 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 Constitution; and it is noless clear that it cannot go an inch beyond without palpably transcend ing its powers, and violating the Constitution. Every other privilege, except those which necessarily 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 complete 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 before 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 possessed by those who shall vote for members of a convention to form a constitution for Michigan. Reason and precedent concur that Congress 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 nowhere. 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 qualifica,tions possessed by them? and how shall they be appointed? are all questions to be determined by the paramount community; 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 territories not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. This very bill, in fact admits the right. It prescribes that the people 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 attempt on our part to designate who shall be the voters would be an unconstitutional interference 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 described in the bill affords a decisive reason for its recommitment. I ask, who are the people aotninalnt p a r ty in New York, fdiding politi hoal po ler about to depart from them, s h ould, to maintain thei r asc endancy, extend the right of suffrage t o the t housa nds of aliens of every language and from every portion of the world, that a nnually pour into her great emporiumhow deepl y might the destiny of the whole Union be affected by such a measure! It might in f act, pl ac e t he control over the general governm e nt in the hands of those who know nothing of o ur institutions and are indifferent as to the interests of the c ountry. N ew York gives about o ne-sixth of the electoral votes in the choice of President and Vice President; and it is well known that her political institutions 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 Presidential 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 present chief magistrate, the President is in fact a king. I ask my colleague if we ought willingly 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, comparable to those which I have stated? I know how sincere he is in the truth of the position for which has contends, and that his opinion was founded anterior to this discussion. We have rarely differed in our views on the questions which have come before the Senate; and I deeply regret, as I am sure he does, that we should differ on this highly important subject. Mly colleague cites the example of Louisiana, which was admitted into the Union without 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 comnmunity, 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 United States; and the difficulty of incorporating Louisiana into the Union arose, not under the act of naturalization, but the right of acquiring 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 purchase was made, doubted the right, and sugpested the necessity of an alteration of the Constitution to meet the case; and if the example 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 regret that the Constitution was not amended according to the suggestion. M~y colleague insists that to deny the right for which he contends, would be to confer on 41

Page 42 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of MIichigan? 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 principle that Congress may authorize an alien to vote, or confer that high privilege on the runaway slaves from Kentucky, Virginia, or elsewhere; 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. Bu t my colleague says that this must be acquiesced( in, if such should be the case, as it results from the principles of the constitution. I know weve 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 precedlent would be great; that the principles on wvhich it is justified oughL,t to be clear arnd free from all doubt; and I trust I have, at least, shown that such is not thle filect in this case. But, we are told that the people of MNichigan means, in this ease, the qualified voters.

Why, then, was it not so expressed? Why was vague and general languag(e used, when more certain and precise terms night have been employed? But, I would ask, who are the qualified voters? Are they those authlorized to vote under the existing laws established 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 we have the power to remove the uncertainty?

If it be meant by the people of Mlichigan, the qualified voters under her incipient constitution (as stated by the Senator from New York), then are we sanctioning the righlts of aliens to vote. Michigan has attempted to confer this right on that portion of her inhabitants. She hIs no authority to confer such rigrht under the constitution. I have conclusiv-elv shown tlhat a state does not possess it nmuc(h less a territory, which possesses no power except such as is conferred by Cong,ress. Congress has conferred no such power on Michigan nor, indeed, could confer it-as it has no authlority, under the Constitution, over the subject, except to pass ulaifu:’,. laws of naturalization. probity an od good demean or, 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 citizenship?

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 institutions; suppose, instead of showing he is attached 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 citizen, 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 conditions 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 Constitutio11 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 sul-)ject anxiously engaged the attention of those who preceded us; and without dwelling upon it, I be, leave to call the attention of the Ilouse to what, in debating the naturalization laws in 1795, Alr. 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 excluded from all the rights of United States citizensihip. I,et what I extract from Gales &

Seaton’s Annals: ” AMr. 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 neglected tobecoimecitizens, asw ell as to all those aliens who have come to this country since January, 1795? ” Again, he said, one reason w-hich 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 fioem whence he came, who, thoulgh 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 aIn alien’s being naturalized by the laws of a state government, since the act of 1790, made him a citizen of DEBATE IN THE IlOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 5,lHi-6TI. A-ND 11TnI, 1858, ON THE QUESTION OF ALIEN SUFFRAGE, AS

ALILOWED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF TilE STALE OF IINNE SOTA. 42 Alr. WILLIA’U

SMITYI, of V, ir,ini,,i,, said: -t fore’ iiei-the right What is requisite to give, 11 of suffra,e? Ile inust iiiake his ilecl,,ti-,-ttioii 11 he must be five years in the country, and that must be proved by t-,vo citizens of the United States; he must show himself to be a nian of

Page 43 view page image

ALIEN SUFFRAGE. the United States. IIe always thought that construction to be wrong, Congress having the power to pass, and having passed, a uniform naturalization law, which, in his opinion, excluded the idea of admission to citizenship on different terms by the individual states. But lie knew the contrary opinion, till lately, generally prevailed. Indeed, he knew that at the late election in that city, the votes of respectable merchants, whlo 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. “M Ir. G. supposed that since the year 1790, from ten to fifteen thousand emigrants had comiie into the state of Pennsylvania, twothirds 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 ar e 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.” which they did no t previously possess, and among them the right to vote. Did the Pennsylvania 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 citizens, 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 Pennsylvania law not conferring the right of suffrage; 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 Pennsylvania naturalization law. I may not understand 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 Pennsylvania law was passed prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It was, no doubt, the old PennsylvaniaConstitution regulatingthisquestion, which was superseded, as was decided in a case in the State of Maryland, by the adoption 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 fundamental condition to the exercise of this high attribute of popular sovereignty. I think it w ill be found that this is the clew to the sub ject. But without dwelling at large upon this 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 MAlarylanrd, 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 conifine 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 IIere you see, in reference to naturalization under State laws, M r. Galla tin conc edes that those thus naturalized were not citizens, and that consequently the right of suffrage should be denied them. lle himself was of foreign birth, and of course interested in the question, and would not hastily have decided as he did. MIr. BLISS. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment? MIr. S-l ITI, of Virginia.

Certainlv. Sir. BLISS. I rise simply for the purpose of asking the gentlemiiani from Virginia to give us, if he II,s the act before him, the language of the Pennsylvania statute upon that subject. MAr. S.MITH, of Virginia. I have it not. I have read from the debate of 1795. MIr. BLISS.

I asked the question because I did not know exactly what that statute was.

Mir. SMITH, of Virginia. The debate was upon the subject of naturalization. Mr. BLISS. The question is this: whether the Pennsylvania statute, to which the gentleman refers, conferred the elective franchise, or Undertook to naturalize generally? MIr REA.GCA. 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 naturalization of foreigners; and to the debate growing 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. MIr. SMITH, of Virginia. What is naturalization? It is the givein,g to foreigners rights 43

Page 44 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. States have formed different qualifications themselves for enjoying different rights of citizenship.” I read these remarks for the purpose of let, tin, the house see and understand what was the temper and tone and sentiment of those who franied our organic law. I want the House to understand that even at that day, when we were in a state of almost political dissolutiona weak and feeble people, threat ened with the anger of the British lion-even then the rights of Arterican 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, tile debate on tlhe 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 estalblishing a, uniform rule of naturalization, a protracted debate sprang up, in which the f(illowiiig sentiments were expressed, in which it was assumed that naturalization was necessary to give the right of suffrage. The debate commenced February 3, 1790, Sir. Hartley said: “was decidedly opposed to the admission of foreigners without a long residence in the country. They bring with them, not ollvh attachments to other countries, but ideas of government so distinct fiomn ours that in every point of view they are (dangerrous. IIe acklio wledged that, if he himself lid l)een called iito public life within a sh,irt timne after his coi m i aol to America, his fOireigrn lihait opi ions, amav btt attachments, would hlit-e ieni(lered him ani improper agent in pullie aflrins.” “Mr. RA-,-DOI,Pl’ lid ll0t knowv but it mi;hllt te prolblematical w -ietlher emigriants to tohis country were, on the vwhlole, useful or not.” “Mr. GERRY wished that in tuitur e the eligibility might be confined to iinla tiles.” ” MIr.

WVILLIA-11SO mcvedl to insert nine vears instead of seven. lie wishe(l thliis country to acquire, as filst as possible, national habits. Wealthy emigirants do() more harm, by their luxurious habits, than good by the money they bring them.”’ “MAr. BUTLER was strenuous against adioitting foreigners into our public coui,cils.” “MIr. SHERoMIAni. The United States have not invited foreigners, nor pledged their fmitithat they should enjoy equal privileges witlh na ti ve citizens. The individual states alone nhave done this. The former, therefore, are at liberty to make any discriminations they may l u dg e requisite.” “Mr. IIADISON animadverted on the peculiarity of the doctrine of Mr. Shermiian. It was a subtilty by which every national engagement might be evaded.” “Colonel iNItsoN was struck, not, like Mr. Madison, with the peculiarity, but the proprity of the doctrine of Mr. Sherman. The “The policy of the old n ations of Europe has drawn a line between cit izens a nd alien s; that poli cy has existed, to our knowled,e, ev er since the foundation of the Roman Empire.

Exlperience has proved its propriety, or we should hasve found some nation deviating fromn a regulation inimical to its welfare. From this it may lbe inferred that we ou,ghit not to grant this privilege on terms so easy as is in(,v-eI })y the gentleman fromii Soutih Carolina. Ifl he had gone no further in his nmotion thati to gi-e aliens a right to purchase and hold lan,ls, the olb) jection woull not have been so ,geat; but if the words are stricken out that he has moved for, an alien will be enititled to join in the election of your officers,it the first moment he puts hiis foot on shore in America, wvheii it is impossible, froni the nature of thilngs, that he can be qualified to exercise suchl a talent.” “I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fnime that really meant to incorporate 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 ad(lition to the wealth or strength of the United States.” “iere is the doctrine, as laid dot e n by Mr.

Madison, that I miaintain. This is the position I occupy. This is the ground upon which I can stand before the country. But to proceed: 44 Mr.

M-.tdison s-,-tid:

Page 45 view page image

ALIEN SUFFRAGE. ‘ Ir. S.IITI, of South Carolina, thought I r. BisHoP. Do I understand the gentlo some restraint proper, and that thev would man to take the ground that no lperson is elitend to raise the Gove rnmnent in tl-he opinioii of titled to vote in any state except he be a citizen good men, who are desirous of emigrating~ as of the United States? .f’or the plrivilege of electing or being elected(l, itr. SIaII, of Virginia. Yes, sir, in all he conceived a man oulght to l)e some time in I Federal elections. the country before he could pretend to exer-MIr. BIsIiop. And that a person born out cise it. of the country must be in the United States a “l Ie said the intention of the present mo-cer tain numb)er of years before he is a citizen, ti,)n is, to enalle foreigners to come here, accordin(g to the laws o~ the country? plurch.ase and hold lands; but this will go MNr. S-IITIi, of Virgin’. Yes, sir, he must hevonr,(l what the mover has required; and be naturalized. theref)re, it will be better to draft a separate | Ir. Bisuop. I would now like to inquire clause, admiitting them to purchase and hold how, on that ground, whlen Texas was admiitlands upon a qualified tenure and pre-emption ted into the Union, the persons living in Texas right, than thus admit them at once to inter-could be entitled to vote in that state until fere in our politics. The quality of being,, a Texas had been in the Union for a period of freelholder is requisite, in some States, to give five years? a man a title to vote for corporation and pairish lr. SMITH, of Virginia. That was under a officers. Now, if every emigrant who pur-separate clause, and a power altogether differchases a small lot, but perhaps for which he ent in its character, providing for such a case. has not paid, becomes in a imoment qualified Ir. STEVENSON. I would like to propound to) mingle in their parish or corporation poli-this question to the gentleman from Virginia. tics, it is possible it may create great uneasi-I find, by the Constitution of the United ness in neighborhoods which have been long States, that there is a limitation on the qualiaccustomed to live in peace and unity. fications of electors for President and Vice “Mlr. I{ARTLEY
said, an alien has no right President of the United States; but I find, by to hold lands in any country; and if they are the same clause, that under the Constitution admitted to do it in thlis, we are authorized to of the United States the whole number of the annex to it such conditions as we think pro-electors nmay be aliens; that there is no reper. striction of citizenship in any part of the Con “le also said, with respect to the policy of stitution. Although there is a limitation as striking out the words altogether from the to offices, there is none as to citizelsilip as a clause, and requiring no residency before a qualification of electors for President and Vice man is admitted to the ri,ghts of election, the Pres,dent; anid I should like to hear from the ob)jections are obvious.

If, at any time, a gentleman on that point. number of people emigrate into a seaport Mir. S.IITIr, of Virgiiiia. I am very much town-for example, from a neighlboring colony obliged to the gentlemian for bringing nme to itO the State of New York will they not, hy that point. Ile is an American citizen. lIe taking the oath of allegiance, be able to decide has a country which extendls its wings over anll election contrary to the wishes and incli-him. lie has a coutntry’s flag to stand by, and nations of the real citizens?” sustain him; and will he ever forget that that ‘“AI. IAIDISOx said, whether residence is, country is composed of those who are the or is not, a proper quality to be attached to people of the United States, and the citizens the citizen, is the question. In his own mind, thereof? The Constitution had no more idea he hadl no doubt but residence was a proper of providing against the man in France, or prerequisite, and he was prepared to decide in the man in Turkey, being an elector, than fav,)r,,t it.” against any other absurdity. In speaking of *;I1. SEDrr ICK said, some kind of prola)- electors, and declarin,, in the preamble and tian, as it h.s been tebmeel, is alsolutely elsewhere, that the l)people of the United Te,-iuiit(,, to en al)le them to feel and be sensi-States have formed this Constitution, its ble of the blessino.

Without that probation, fiamers, ex vi tei -inii, restricted its character, lie shaul-l be soriv to see tlhem exercise a’riglht and coifined it in all its relations to the which we hla-e gorviiously stru,ggled to at-people for whom it was frmried W ill the toin.’ I enitleman remember that the riihts of for “Mr. S.ITn,, of Siutht Carolina, sa i, for Ieigners are grants-thait even the riglit to his part, le -as of opinion, that a uniform gentle treatment is strictlv social, and partiecurule:,f naturalization wvlold ten(l to nmake a lrly that political riiahts are never his except uniforii rule.f citizenship pe rvad e the hu y ex)ress grant, ind tl-iht piesucunptions are continent, andl dc0i’de the ri’rht of a foreigner alwaiis against and neer for him? to l)e a(lmitted to elect, or be elected, in any | Whl sir, I am amazed-perfectly amaezd 
of the State.” that here, in this goverrnment of ours, udle;r ‘ltr. T
ucKEI said, he wis otherwise satis-our Constitution, in this glorious lahd, there fled with the clause, so Jir as to make reii-should be an idea that, because a Constitution dence a term of admission to the privilege of fraiiied fi)r the people or citizens of the United election_”

States does not exclude foreiginers from the 45

Page 46 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the voters who sent him here, and we have a direct right to ascertain whether hlie has been duly elected by citizens of the United States. That is not all, sir. By their votes the legi.

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 Ihouse, 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,in 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 inte rcou rse a mon g the states, is it to be sup posed f or an i nstant th at they would not have provided against it? But no man ever dreamed that voters were to be made ou t of any but c itizens of the United States; that the law for the naturalization of foreigner as w s it s elf to be practically repealed, and that foreigners, befor e thev h ad remained here five years, and had acquired the morral and intellectual qualification s re quired, were to be put into full fellowship with our nativeborn citizens, and allowe d to wie ld as lar,e a mass of political power. Look at the consequences of such a condition of t hin gs. Fro m thre e to five hundred thousand foreigners-many of them, I admit, very meritorious and unexceptionabl e persons-come in to this country every year, and settle in our new states and territorie s; anad under this system they are to be permitted at once to organize themselves into states tto send representatives to this IIouse and t o the Senate, and to participate in the election of the President of the United States, without ever having conformed to t he requisition of the naturaliv zation laws. In the name of God! i s it not necessa ry to put a sto p to this state of things9? We are running downwards with hot haste. Wie are disrear,d,tding our ancestors and their wise atnd patriotic exal, )le. A niewy element of progress has been introduced, but all progress is not iIiprovement-,facilis descensus Averiti, sed rev,ocare gradurn, &a. I insist upon it, then, that in view of the principles and doctrines of the Constitution, we ought not to tolerate the introduction of a system of franchise that must be pr’oductive of such consequences, and which admits to the ballot-bsox mlen who, it mlay be, are unable to speak our langulage, unlacqluainted with ouz highest functions of government, therefore that f preign ers hav e a right to them. F oreign ers have n o rights except wha t are grant ed to t hem. They have no r ight even to hold land in the United S tates, or in the States thereof, without the pow er i s c onferred. They are aliens outside of ou r s ystem, and are as utterly destitute of pow er as th e man in th e moon.

Instead of showin b that there is nothing against it, you have to show that the powver exists and is gr anted. I l ay it d own tha t the Federal Constitution gives to this government t he exclus ive p ower of say ing wfho of the foreicn-born shall be citizens, an d h aving exercised that authority and said who shall be citizens, the exclusive power is in the state government to say who of her citizens shall exercise the right of suffrage. I might produce authorities if I had time. I Inight 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 inaugurate. 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.

Ilere is the section of this Minnesota constitution upon the subject of suffrage: ” SEc. 1. Every male person of the age of twentyone years or upwards, belonging to either of the followin, classes, wvho 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 election, in the election district of which he shall at t he ti me have been for t en days a resident, for all officers that now are, or hereafter may be, elective by the people: ‘1. whi te citiz ens of the United Stat es. “2.

White persons of foreign birth, who shall ha v e declared their intentions to become citizens, confor mably to the l aws of the United States upon the spllbjet of natur alization. “3. Personsof mixed white and Indiar 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 Df enjoying the rights of citizenship within the state.” N ow, for whom are they t o vote?

They are to vote for a member of the Iouse of Representatives. lie comes here, and we hav( a right to look into the qualifications of 46

Page 47 view page image

ALIEN SUFFRAGE. 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 constitution, and whether it is not unrecognised in the revised code of Virginia? Mr.

MILLSON. So far from it, I will tell my colleague that itwas 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 undter 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 ceitizenship 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 anv act of the United States. And, a,-tain, 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 reme-n ber that the majority of Mr. Newton was about eleven or thirteen, and that about forty or fifty votes of the c h a racter I have referred to were given for Air. Lawyer. The ttouse of Repro spentrtives in that case dete rmined t hat these vote s were valid and legal, and Mr. Lawyer took his seat, ousting Mr. Newton. Mr. SNIITII, of Virginia. I will ask my ced leagrue if he knows of any other district? I will ask my other colleagues if they know of a singl(,e case in which any foreigner but a naturall ized foreigner has exercised the right of suffrage in Virginia, except in the Norfolk district? If there is one, let us hear it. 1 cannot be accountable fo~r what my colleagu, may do as Co)mmonwealth’s attorney,s tut I bt, g himl to look to the law and the autho{‘ities whichl I have quoted. M~r. MIILLSOr;. In reply, I can only say tha~ as I have never been a resident of any district institutions, and unfriendly to the principles of our government. MIy time will not allow me to expa nd this suldaeCt, and give other views which I would be gltla to laty before the country. Mlr. MIILLSON. I desire, fir. Speaker, to make a few remnarks sugg, ested iy the reUieSars.s of’ my colleague (spr. S oti’

u), in re oftred t o elMrwat h e characterizes as alien supffrale. N,aw, Ai-. Speaker, if I supposed thaet it as-s at a ll competent for Contar ess to paIs upon the constitution of a state applying for admission in to the Union to t he ex tent iin of appri g or M disLappro.viTe o any provisions that i ht light be contained in that constitution, I should se e more d irec t applic at i on thean I now su ppo se there is ia my colleague’s remarks. In what I am about to say I do not wish to b e understood as apperoving, of the extension o f t he rigtht of suffrage ro unnaturalized forei g ners; for many in th e aousef may renember that it was o n my motion in the las t Congress that the House adopted an amendment to the Oregon bill, restricting the suffrage t to the citizens of the United States. But if my colleague otij ects to the admission of a stat e into th e Union because of an objection of that character to her constitution I e, I be leave to suggest that we are travellinga far beyond our appropriate sphere; and I would suggest to him, further, that in making animadivesions on the Consti tution of Minnesota, he is anim,adveiting upon the constitution of his own state. I (ask my colleag_ue whether he did not vote for the con stitution of Viroinia, adopted in 1831? I would a.sk him whether he did not vote for the con stitution of Virginia adopted four or five years ago? and now I be,, leave to remind him that from the earliest period of the history of the commonwealth of Virginua alien votes have been taken at all of the elections, and are still taken. Does not the gentleman know that? Mr. SMITE, of Virginia, I do not, nor do I admit it.

MIr. nIILLSON. I am surprised that my col league does not admit that to be so’ for if he will leek to the old constitution of Virginit, he will find that it expressly admits to the right of suffrage citizens of Vrin ia. If he will look to the constitution of 1831, he will find that the saine provision is made there-” citi zens of this commonwealth.” And if he will look to the very last constitution, he will fi, (I the very same phraseology is preserved, and all are entitled to vote who are citizens of the commnonwealth of Virgini. Air. SMITHI, of Virg,iiiia. Of course, that is proper phraseology; bout, sir, citizens of Vii ginia are citizens of the United Staters. M~r. 5hILLsox-. And now, sir, to deprive nay olleagueof the benefit hethinks he has secured by the last explanation, I will tell himt that if he will look at the statutes of Virginia, he w ill find a law coeval writh the earliest history of the commonwealth of Virginia and existing in the statute-book until four or five years ag~o, in 47

Page 48 view page image

TIIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. in Virginia, or in the United States, except the district which I now represent, I cannot, of co)urse, give my colleague any personal infor niltion in reard to the practice at elections in othler districts. But I give him the law and the c)nstitution of the State of Virginia. I show him that these’constitutions have always ad iiittedl to the right of voting citizens of the C,)iiiionwealth of Virginia; and I point himl t,) the law under which these aliens lmay be a Il,iitte((l to citizenship in the Commonwealth of Viriinia. What more could my colleague r(asonably demand? I have risen only for the purpose of suggest i!io’ t) my colleague that however strong may ie his ol)jections, (and I adlmit tl-heir force,) whlein he undertakes to exclude a state from thiL Union because of the exercise of a right whichl his owvn state constantly exercised from the b)eginning of the Union to the )present day, it strikes me that he is taking a position not i n accordance with the doctrine of state rights, whichl has heretofore been one of his characteristics. MIr.

PHIILLIPS, of Pennsylvania. I will do no more than refer totheConstitutionof the United States, and assert what I believe to be the right of nmy state-a state which, though she has not saidl as much about state rights as the state of V’irg,inia, w-ill stand up e(ually firmly in resisranee to Federal usurpation. The gentleman says that the powers reserved to the states are enuumerated powers. I insist that those given ul) t o the general government are the etw?oer ated t powers, and all others are exm)nesly reserved an d ret ained. It cannot be sustained that a state can exercise only eii?tmeraie(l powers. Sovereignty includes all p)twerl; aln d such pa r t of a state’s sopvereinty only as she has contributed to the national st(-,ck is lost to her. If the Constitution of the United Stlates shows no deleation of authority to Cong)ress to regulate the qualificationis of electors in the states, it cannot be seriouislv argued that Congress can exercise such right. I want the gentleman to tell me where such a rigiht exists. I ask him to sh(n)w me in the C,m-)si;titution of the United States, if he can, where any state of this Union has surrendered to thre Fedleral Government the rig-ht to prescribe the qtualifications of electors; for suchi ougllt to be his task. But I will take the lab.)our on iiy-sel.C a-tid save the eiitleiii.Lfi the trouble, a.i(I show lIiini thle con-itra.iiry thereof. I will sline)wv him thalt. }). that very Coiistittiti<)n, tllel’e ar’e:‘ec,),‘nis;;e’ll, tas amtioin the pe(o(ple of the U.’,ite(d States, tlle “,copvle” of the U;iitedI Staites, and(-t al.-: “c’io/iz.’” of tl/e U/3i/ed Slates; and~ it is nlot ask~ing t()o mluchl to supp,>se th~at tnose whlo) madlte the Co)nstitution, wvho studied it for houras, dawys, wreek~s, and monthls. did not put into it worrods wv1llc werer not well studlied andl thlollght ovrer, and thalt they had not as much intelligrence, and did not as wrell und:erstand~ thle mleaning, and bjearing of theml, as ourselv~es. IMr. STEPIIENS, of Georgia, [MaIy 11, 1858.] I now come to the main question in this debate-the alien suffrage clause, as it is called, in this constitution. I have said that it was n o tnew 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 fi)rma, tion of the Constitution of the United States, above all others, it was that the Federal Government should not touch the right of suffrag,e 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 long(er, and fight fi)r har(der, than that whichl denies the right of the Federal Government, by its encroachments, to interfere with the right of suffrag in i my state. The ballotbox-thalt is what each state must guard and protect fi)r itselfthat is what the people of the several states never delegated to this government, and of course it was expressly, under the Constitution, reserved to the people of the states Upon the subj:ect of alien suffrage, abo)ut which we have heard so much Ititely, I w ishl in this connection to give a brief history. I state to this IIouse that the principle was rec()gnised by the ordinance of 1i87, whichl was before the governmnent was formed. [ Mr. Stephens after referring to the various acts of Con,ress recognrising 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 4:’

Page 49 view page image

ALIEN SUFFRAGE. gan, Houston, Htunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson ol Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangurm, Mason. Phelps, Rusk, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Westcott, and Yule-33. “1

NAYS.-7.%tessrs. Allen. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Bradbury, Clark, C orwin, D:vis of Massachuse,tts. Dayton, Dix, Dodg, Ferhch, Fitzgeraild, Greene, Hale. Iaminlin, Metcalfe, Miller, Niles, Underwood, Upham, and Walker.-22.” 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 sul)b ject, in the Senate, in 1836, on the act providin, fo r the admission of Mrichigran, upon wnhich cmnments have b een made by several gentlemen. The views of that dis tinguished statesman hav e been presented as authority on th ir side. I have simply this to say about that pleech: I cannot find it in the Globe. I can ot find i t in the debates of the day. *alr. RICAUD. I th ink it is in his published speeches. Mr. STEPHE.NS, of Georgia. I ha v1e seen it in his publis hed works, but I cannot find it in the published reports of Congre ss. It is state d to have b ee n made in 1836. on the bill authorizing MTichig,an to form a constitution. Mlichig.an was admlitted with alien suffrage in h er c on stitu tion, on th e 3d March, 1837; and Mr. Calhoun does not appear to have made any objection to her admission on that ground. I find speeches made bv him upon that ])ill, Lut none objecting to this clause. I find he offered a substitute for the bill admitting Michigan 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.

Ile did not raise any objection to the admission of the state as far as I can find, because of alien suffrage being allowed in her constitution.

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 a,e of twentyone years, who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall be entitledI to vote at the first election, and shall })e eli,il)le to any office in said Territorv; but the qualification of voters, and of bolding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative AsseriI-lv: Provoidlest, That the right of suffra_e, and of hol(lini, office, shall be exerciseld only by citizens of the United States, and those who Ishtll hatre declared ont ocat7t thleiir intention to become stich, andl, shatll hate tfake,i an oath to sutpport thre Constit?ltiont of thie Uttited States (lad the preoisionzs of this act.”

On the eng~rossmlerit of this bill, the vote ‘a  Mr. Calhoun was on the committee which reported this provision, and he does not appear as haaving 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 previously 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 incorporated in the same words, I think, in the bill for the organization of Washington Territory in 1853, and in the KansasNebraska bill in 1854. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD]

put this question to some gentleman the other day: whether, if this bill should pass, Minnesota might not confer the right of voting upon an alien enemy? By no means, sir; the person of foreign birth, who is entitled to vote u ndler this constitution, has first to purge himself of his allegianice to other powers. Hle 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 condition precedent. By no possibility, therefore, could ali alien enemy legally vote in Minnesota.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States has beer, read and commented on by the gentleman froim 6Maryland [Mr.

DAVIS], who led off in this dis cussion, and whose speech I listened to with u great deal of interest-an argument as well got up and made on that side of the question as I think it possible for ingenuity, ability and tal ent, united with eloquence, to present. Ilc rested his argument mainlv on tbe decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Soilt case, where Judge Taney says that tt,e wordh “people of the United States*” in The,onsti tution, are synonymous with ictdedns.e Aftei reading that part o f t he den i -i(,n, thie gentle man q uoted an article in tfer Cc.)nstittion ic}

says t that “the Ilouse o I,ep esentatives shal] bte composed of memb i t, chosen everv second year bv the people of tf.,* several states;” anl his argument was, t!,ax as the Supreme Court ha( defined that the v, ord “people ” ewas tsynor.-. ymous, i n the Cw(,,4titution of the United States, to a citiz,,r.s,” therefore members of this HIouse coul(il f elected by none but ” citi zens of the Unitf.1, States.” That was the gen-. tlenan’s argu,e,tei; but I am far from concuirring With t} Li1n in it. IHis argument rests upon the aasirdiption that the Constitution of the United S&ates, in the clause quoted, intended to dJfine the class of voters in the several sta te. and to limit suffra,e, I. think that 14YA,.

3ess rhis,,,,, Atherton, Benton, Berre,,I3, Borland. lree.se. Bri-ht, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton. Davis of MNississippi. Dickirison, Douglas, Downs, Foote, Ilanne * This speech will be found on page 39 of this work.

4 4!)

Page 50 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 government, and, as such, immediately vested in the people.” Ag ain, Mr. Pi n ckney moved: That the members of the firs t branc h (tha t is, this House ) be appointed in such man ner as the several State Legislatures shall direct.’

Mr. Madison said: ” I oppose the m otion.” Mr. Mason said: “I am for preserving inviolably the democratic branch of the government. True, we have found inconveniences from pure democracies; bout if we mean to preserve peace and real freedom, the y 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 mas 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 throughoutthat taxation and representation should go together. Whoever pasv 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 na:tiveborn, besides citizenship. Residence for a certain length of time.

Virginia, for instance, requires of all citizens of other states, niat:.ve-born citizens of Malrrvland or North Carolina, a certain term of residence. They shall not vote in Virginia unless they have been there twelve month>. In Alabama, I think, the provision is the same. W~hy, sir, in mly own state, w here we have universal suffragfe, ax it is calledl, no man can vote unless he has paid his taxes, and resided in the county six mlonthls. There are thousands of citizens in Georgial, and I suppose in every other state, who are not entitled to the right 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 tiouse in contradistinction from the mode of electing Senators, 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 i s all that is meant in that clause. The Constitution 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 Legislature.” There, coupled with what the gentleman read, is the right which I say that the people .nsisted 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. Immediately after the words he read, sir, without a semicolon separating them, is the express declaration that the states shall fix the qualification ,of electors or voters. WVho shall sav 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 election, the constituency of those elected-to distinguish them from the constituency of the Senators. The one was to be the people, contradistinguished 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 Ihouse should represent the people, and the Senate should represent 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 opused; and, strange to tell, by Massachusetts 50

Page 51 view page image

ALIEN SUFFRAGE. of suffrage under our constitution and laws. and could not, by state laws, incorporated into Citizenship and suffrage l)y no means go toge-that body-politic. But now mark what immether in all cases.

My time will not allow me diately follows that part of his decision: to enlarge on that idea. I will only refer “In discussing this question, we must not briefly a tiln to whlat wa ts said in the Feder al’ briefly again to what s said in the Federal confound the rights of citizenship which a convention on the subject of the states retaining the control over the subject of suffrage, state may confer within its own limits, and the I. ricrhts of citizelshipD as a i-neiiber of thec Unilon.’” shlowing, how vigilantly this was watched and guarded by the state-ri(rhts men.

Gouverneur Ihere is the distinction. By naturalization, 5I()rris had proposed to restrain the right of Congress can confer citizenship throughout suffrage to freeholders. This gave rise to a the Union. What are the rights created by long debate. Mr. Ellsworth said: that? Three in all. The right to hold land is one; the right to sue in the Federal courts “The qualification of electors stood on the an one; the right to sue in the Federal courts most proper footing. The right of suffrae another; and the right to claim the protecwas a tender point, and strongly guarded by tion of this government, or the right of passmost of the state constitutions. The people port abroad, is the other. No state can confer will not readily subscribe to the national con-these rights throughout the Union; but each stitution if it should subject them to be dis-state may confer them within her limits. frauchised. The states are the best judges of Each state may confer upon an alien the right the circustances and temper of their own to hold lands. No man can question that; the circumstances and temper of their own. but if Indiana or Georgia confers this right upon an alien, he cannot go into South Caro Again, he says, (I read from the Madison lina and hold land there by virtue of that. If Papers): he were naturalized he could. So each state “Oughbt not every man who pays a tax to may give the right to an alien to sue in its vote for the representative who is to levy and own courts; but, therefore, he does not acquire dispose of his money? Taxation and repre-a right to sue in any other state court or the sentation ought to go together.” Federal courts. Each state may guaranty her I barely refer to this to show that I am sus-protection within her limits, but not throughtained in my view by the highest authority out the Union. She cannot pledge the protecTllis subject of the qualification of electors tion of the common government.

and who should determine it, was mooted at But the court goes right on with this lanthe settlement of the government; and it was guage: left to the state legislatures, under state con- ” It does not by any means follow, because stitutions. he has the rights and privileges of a citizen Now, sir, a few moments on the decision of a state, tht he must e a citizen of the Uiii of a state, that he must be a ctizen of theUi the Supreme Court of the United States. ted States. Ie may have all the rights and Judge Taney, in my judgment, fully confirms privileges of a citizen of a state, arid yet not evrtigI h aesad Itsas everything I have said. lie says: be entitled to the rights and privileges of a “The words’people of the United States,’ citizen in any other state; for, previous to the and’citizens,’ are synonymous termns, and adoption of the Constitution of the United mean the same thing. They both describe the States, every state had the undoubted right to political body, who, according to our republi-confer on whomsoever it pleased the character can institutions, form the sovereignty, and who of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights; hold the power and conduct the government but this character, of course, was confined to through their representatives. They are what the boundaries of the state, and gave him no are familiarly called the sovereign people; and rights or privileges in other states beyond those every citizen is one of this people, and a con-secured to him by the laws of nations and the stituent member of this sovereignty. The ques-comity of states. Nor have the several states tion before us is, whether the class of persons surrendered the power of conferring these described in the plea in abatement [Dred Scott rights and privileges by adopting the Constiwas a negro] compose a portion of this people, tution of the United States. Each state may and are constituent members of this sovereign-still confer them upon an alien, or any one it ty. We think they are not; and were not in-thinks proper, or upon any class or description tended to be included under the word citizens’ of persons; yet hie would not be a citizen in in theconstitution, and canthereforeclaimn none the sense in which that word is used in the of the rights and privileges which that instru-Constitution of the United States, nor entitled ment provides for.

and secures to citizens of to sue Ias such in one of its courts, nor to the the United States.” privileges and inimunities of a citizen in the It was the first words of this clause of t he rights which be would acquire decision thle gentleman from AI rland relied would be restricted to the state which gave on, but he did not pursue the argument fntr tem.” enough.

I ask, then, if the constitution of Minne The object of the Chief Justice was to show sota, according to this Dred Scott decision, has that persons of the African race descended an iota, or a single clause in it, so far as alien from those who were bought and sold as suffrage is concerned, which Chief Justice slaves, were not in the original body-politic, T aney has not said she has a right under the 51

Page 52 view page image

TIHE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Constitution of the United States to put in it?

This is a right none of the states have ever surrendered. Everv state in this Union has the right of fixing the status of all its constituent elements absolutely, as each state may determine for itself, and also the right of deternlining who may and who may not vote at elections for public officers under her authority. What part of the constitution of Minnesota, then, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States? Why, then, should she not be admitted? Let me say, in conclusion, that the constitution 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 Wisconsin 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, Wisconsin, 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 he equal to them? Things equal to one another are equal to each other. If’ those in the Unionh 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. thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the office of the Secretary of State, by the mar shal or other person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case ant alien, s o ordered to deport, shall be found at la rge within the United States, after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the President to reside ther-in, or, having obtai ne d such license, shall not hav e con for med thereto, every such alie shall, o n co nvic tio n the reof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States: Provided always, and be it further ena cted, t ha t if any alien, so ordered t o depart, shall prohve to the satisfaction of the Presi den t, by evidensce to be take n bef ore such person or pers ons as the President shall direct, who are for that purpose hereby authorized to administer oathls, 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 behavior of such alien during his residence in the United States, and not violating his license, which license the President may revoke whenever he shall think proper. Sec. 2. That it shall be lawful for the President 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 arrested, 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 arrival, mlake 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 nativity, the country from which they shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe allegiance, their occupation, and a description of their persons, as far as he shall be inlformed thereof; and, on failure, every Alie n and Sedi tion 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 nerved on such alien by delivering him a copy 52

Page 53 view page image

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. such master and commander shall forfeit and pay three hundred dollars; for the payment whereof, on default of such master or commander, such vessel shall also be 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 such 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 th e Unit ed S tates are required t o 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.] Livingsto n 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. H., Dayton of N. J., and Kittera of N. II., defended it. The bill of the Senate eventually passed the IIouse 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.-IMessrs.

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., E,vans of Va., Foster of Miss., Foster of N. II., Freeman of Mass., Glen of N.Y., Goodrich of Vt., Gordon of N. II., Gresawoli of Conn., Grove of N. C., Harper of S.C., Iiodman of Md., Hosmer of N. Y., Imlay of N. J., Kittei-a of Pa.. loynian of Mass., Matthews of Ind., Morris of N. Y., Otis of lass., Parker of Mass., Reed of Mass., Rutledge of S. C., Sclu-eman of N.

J., Sewall of Mass., William Shepard of blass. Sinnickson of N. J., Sitgreaves of lPa., Smith of Conn., Thatcher of Mass., Thomas of Pa., Thomson of Del., Tillinghast of R. I., Van AlenNrt of N.aY., Wadsworth of ss.-46. NAYS.-Baldwin of Ga., Bard of Pfi., Benton of S. C., Blount of N.

C.. Brent of Va., Burges of N. C., Claiborne of Va., Williaan Claiborne of Tenn., Clopton of Va.. Davis of Ky., Dawson of Va., Denit of Ind., Fow,ler of Ky., Gallatin of Pa.. Gillespie of N. C., Gregg of Ky., Hana of Pa., Harrisson of Va., IlIavens 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., Me,Clennachaii of Pa., McDowell of N. C., Milledge of Ga., New of Va., S.

Smith of Md., William Smuith of S. C., Spregg of Md., Stanfor d of N. C., Sumpter of S. C., A. Trigg of Va., I. Trigg of Va., Varnum of Mabss., Venable 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 persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to imp ede the operation of any law of the United States, o r to intimidate or prevent any person, holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise, or attempt to procure, any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt, shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, on conviction 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; anld further, at the discretion of the court, may be holden to find sureties for his good behavior. in such sum and for such time as the sai(d 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 The legislative history of the above act is this: On the 25th of April, 1798, in the Senate of the United States, Mr.

Ilillhouse, 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 Miessrs.

Livermore of N. H., HIillhouse of Conn., Read of S. C., Sedgewick of Mass., and Lawrence of N. Y., were appointed the conmmittee. On the 4th of May, 1798, MIr. Livermore, from said committee, reported a bill concerning aliens. It passed the Senate on the 8th of June, 1798, by yeas and nays, as follows: YE.,,. Mesnrs. Bing,hanm of Pa.. Chipman of Vt., Clayton of Del., Foster of R. L., Goodlue of Mass., Hillhouse of Conn., 1atimer of Del., Lawrence of N. Y., Livermore of N. H., Lloyd of Md., Martin of N.

C., North of N.Y., Paine of Vt., Read of S.C.. Stockton of N.J., and Tracy of Conn.-16. NAYS. esfsrs. Anderson of Tent’., Bloodworth 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 Commerce, &c. Both it and the Senate bill were debated in the House. Messrs. Gallatin of Pa., Baldwin of Geo., Williams of N. C., 53

Page 54 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-13BOOK. in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the Uni ted States, or either HIlouse of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, w ith intent t o de fame the said gov ernment, or either House of the said Con gress, or the said Pr eside nt, o r 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 se dition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful com bin ations th erein, f or opposing o r resisting any law of the United States, o r any act of the President of the United States, done in pur suance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested b y the Const itut ion of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defea t, any such law or act; or to aid, encourage, or abet, an y h ostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government; then such person, being thereof convicted be fore any court of the Unit ed 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 proseceut ed, under this act, for the woitingo or publishin g any libel, as a foresaid, it shall be lawful fo)r the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence, in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication 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. See. 4. That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and Do 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.] of Pa., (Craik of Md., Claiborne of V7a., as a Smith ol Md., and defended by Messrs. Allen of Conn., Harper of S. C., Otis of Mass., Dana of Vt., and Kittera of Pa. It f i nally passed the House with amendments on the 10th of July, 1798, which amendments 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 Bass., Bayard of Del., Brooks of N. Y., Champjlin1 of Conn., Chapman of Pa., Cochran of N.Y., Coit of Conn., Dlana of Vt., Edmlond of Conn., Evans of Va., Foster of Mass., Foter of N. II., Freeman of Mass.G Glen of N. Y., Goodrich of Vt., Gordon of N. II., Griswold of Conn., Grove of N. C., IIarper of S.

C., Hartley of la., llindman of Ml.. IIermer of N. Y., Imby of N. J., Kittera f f Pa.. Lyman. Otis of Mlass., Parker of iass., Reed of Mass., Rutledge of Ila., Sehurem-1.a,, of N J. Seall of Mass., She,pard of Mass., Sinnickson of N. J., sSitgrt.aves of la., Smith of Conn., Sprague of N.

II., Thather po o f Iass., Thma of a., Thosorn of Del., Tillioghast of R.

I., Van Alen of N.Y., Wadswo rth of RMass.44. NAYS. Mes.srs. Baldwin of Ga., Bard of Pa., Benton, Blount of N. J., Br-e-nt of Va.. Bullock of M1ass., Burges of N. C., Thomas Claiborne of Va., Wim. Claiborne of Tenn., Ciopton of Va., Dawvsonl of Va., Dent of Ind., Fowler of Ky., Gallatin of Pa.. Gillespie of N. C., Grreg, of Ky., lia,,a of Pa., iarrison of Va., liavens of N.Y., Ieister of Pa., lolmes of Va., Jones of Va., Livingston of N. Y., Loeke of N. C., Lyon of V’t., M,%acon of N. C., 31altheus of Ind., Mlc(lqen,chpirh of’a., IecDowell of N. C., New of Va., Nicholas of a., Sm.ith of S. C.. Sm,ith of Ind.. Sprigns Jr of Md., Stanbrd of N. C., Sumter of S. C., J. Trigg of Va., Van Cbortla.dt of N. Y., Xarnurn of Mass., Venable of Va., W’illiamis 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 one vote. Mr. W. B. Archer, his opponent, contested his seat oil the ground that two votes cast for him were improperly rejected. The case was referred to the Committee on Elec tions of the IIouse, 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 IIickman of Pa., Demvocrats; and Smith of Ala., American. Mr. Washburne, on behalf of the majority of the committee, that is, the Republican members 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 resolution 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 resolution as follows: YEAs.-Mes,srs. Albright of 0., Allison of Pa., Ball of 0., Barbosir of Ind., Henry Bennett of N. Y., Benson of Me., 3illinoghurst of Wis., Bingham of 0., Bliss of 0.. Bradshaw of Pa., Brenton of Ind..

Buffington of Mass., Burlingame of Mass., James II. Campbell of Pa., Lewis D. Campbell of 0., Chaffee of llass., Ezra Clark of Conn., ClawNson ofN.

J.. Colfax of Ind., Comins of Mass., Cragin ofN.HI., Cumback of Ind, The history of this act is as follows-It or igin at ed in t he Senate of t he Un i te d States. A bill having b een intr oduced on leave, by Mr. Lloyd of Ma ryland, it w as referred t o a c ommittee consisting of that gentleman, Messrs. Tracy of Conn., Stockton of N.J., Chipman of Vt., a nd Read of S. C. The bill passed the Senate on the 4th day of July, 1798, by yeas and nays as follows: YEAs.-MIessrs. Chipeman of Vt., Clayton of Del., Foster of R. I., Goodhue of Mrass., Greene of R. I.. Ifillhouse of Conn..

Latinmer of Del.. Lawrence of N. Y., Livermore of N. tI., Lloyd of -Id., Martin of N. C., North of N. Y., Paine of Vt., Ilead of S. C., Rutherford of N. J., Sedgewick of Mass., Stockton of N. J., Tracy of Conn.-18. N^~s.

Messrs. Anderson of Tenn.. Brown of Ky., Howard, Langdon of N. H.,. Mason of Va., Tazewell of V’a.-6. 54 The bill was opposed in the House by Messrs. Nicholas of Va., Livinston of N. Y., Macon of N. C., McDowell of N. C., Gallatin

Page 55 view page image

ALLEN, JAMES C.-AMERICAN PLATFORMS. “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 adjustment of all political differences which threaten its integritv 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” between 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 municipal, until they are repealed or declared unconstitutional 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, l)y the fact of their being of the natu r e of compacts and ag reements; and so, to be considered a fixed and settled national policy.

5. A radical revision and modification of the laws regulating immigration, and the settlement of immigrantoffering 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 respective states, of all state laws allowing foreigners not naturalized to vote. The repeal, without retrospective operation, of all acts of Congress making grants of land to unnaturalized foreigners, and allowing them to voto 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 demoralizing 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 Damrell of Mass., Timothy Davis of Mass, Day of O.. Dean of Conn., Dewitt of Mass., Dickson of N.Y., Dodd of N. Y., IuIN. of Ind., Durfee of R. I., EDWARDS of N.Y., Emrie of O., Girddings of O., Gilbert of N. Y., Granger of N. Y..Grow of Pa., Robert B. Iall of Mass., Harlan of O., HARRISSON ot 0., IHAVEN. of N. Y., IHolloway of Ind., Thomas R. Horton of N. Y., V. B. tiorton of O., Hughston of N. Y., Kelsey of N. Y., King of N. Y., Knapp of Mass., Knight of Pa., Knowlt6n of Me., Knox of Ill., Leiter of O., Matteson of N. Y., McCarty of N. Y., Meacham of Vt., Killian Miller of N.Y., MOORE of O., Morgan of N.Y.. Morrill of Vt., Murray of N.Y., NQrton of Ill., Parker of N.Y., Pelton of N.Y., Pennington of N.J., Perry of Me., Pettit of Ind., Pike of N. H., Pringle of N.Y., Purviance of Pa., Ritchie of Pa., Robbins of N. J., Roberts of Pa io., Sab in of Vt., app of., Scott of Ind., Sc to I d herman of O., Simmons o f N. Y., Spinner of N. Y., Stanton of O..

Stranahan of N. Y.. Tappan o f N. H., Thorington of I a., Thurston oRI of R. I., Trafoday of Pa., Trafto of Mass., Tysnon* Pa., Wade of Ohio, Wakeman of N. Y., Waldridge of Mich., W aldr on of MiAh., Elibu B.

Wa,shburne of Ill., Israel Washburne of fMe., Welch of Conn., and Wood of Me.-94. NAYS.-Messrs. Aiken of S. C., Barksdale of Miss., BeAl of Tex., Bnwartt of Miss., BROOM of P a., Burnett of Ky., Cadwalader of Pa.. JouH’

P. CAM,PBELL of Ky., CARLISLE of Va., Ca-uthers of Mo., 6skie of Va., Bayard Clark of N.‘Y., Clingman of N. C., (bbb of Ga., Cobb of Ala., Cox, of Ky., Craige of N. C., Crawford of Ga., CULLEN of D el., David s on of La., Denver of Cal., Dod,eU of Ala., Edmundson of Va., an Flltt of Ky., Englis n sh fr I,ts of Ind., ETHERIDE f Tenn. Florence of Pa. 8,r oG. e r e, Foster of a., Fuller of Me., Gde of Va., Greenwood of Ark., Hfall of Ia., Harris of Ala., Harris of Ill., HIOFFMAN of Md., Handst sn of Ala..

Jeweti of Ky., oJones of Tenn., Jnoes of Pa, Kelly of N. Y., KENNETT of MO., K idwell of Va., LAKE of Miss., Letcher o f Va., Lumpkin of Ga., MARSHALL of Ky., J!a,-shl1 of Ill., Jlaxwll of Fla., McMullin of Va., tecQueen of S. C., Miller of Ind., filson of Va., Packer of Pa, Peck of M1ich., Plhelps of Mo., PORTER of Mo., Powell of Va., PURYE.Kr of N. C..

Quitman of Miss., READDE of N. C., READY of Tenn., RIC.KUD of Md., Rivers of Tenn., Ruffin of N. C., Rust of Ark, Savage of Tenn., Seward of Ga., Shorter of Ala., Smith of Tenn., Smith of Va., SNEED of Tenn., Stephens of (Ia., Stewart of Md., SwoPt of Ky., Talbot of Ky., Taylor of La.. TRIPPE
of Ga., U,NDERLWOOD of Ky., Vail of N. J., VALK of N. Y., arViner of Ga., Watkins of Tenn., Wells of Wis., FVbeeler of N. Y., Whitney of N. Y., Williams of N. Y., D. B. Wright of Miss., J. V. Wright of Tenn., ZOLuCOFFFR of Tenn. -90. Democrats in italics; Republicans in roman; 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 Almightv Being 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 charac ter of an independent nation, has dis tinguished us by some token of Providential agency. 2. The cultivat ion and d evelopm ent of a sentiment of profoundly intense Am erican 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, 55 0 Mr. Tyson has idnee supported Mr. Buchanan.

Page 56 view page image

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 diplomaticof 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 country in schools provided by the state; which schools shall be common to all, without distinction of creed or party, and free from any influence or direction of a denominational or partisan character.

And, inasmuch as Christianity, by the constitutions of nearly all the states: by the decisions of the most eminent judicial authorities, 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 depository 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 sectional hostility into a positive element of politic~ power, and brought our institutions into peril, it has, therefore, become the imperative duty of the American party to inter-iu pose, for the purpose of givi ng pe ace to the country and perpetuity to the Union. And as experience has shown it impossible to re con ci le o pinions so extreme as those which separate the dis putants, and as ther e can be no dishonor in submitti ng to the lawms, the National Cou ncil has deemed it the best guarn antee of common justi c e a nd of futur e peoa ce, 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 governments, is to exact justice from the strongest, 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. 56 PLATFORM OF THE AMERICAN

PARTY, ADOPTED AT TIIE SESSION OF TnE NATIONAL COU-iCIL, FEBRUARY 21, 1856. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being, for his protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful Revolutioiaary struggle, and hitherto manifested to us, their descendant,g, in the preservation of the liberties, the independence, and the union of these states.

Page 57 view page image

AMERICAN PLATFORMIS.-%IAMERICAN RITUAL. 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 affair s, and more especially as shown in removing Americans”

by designat ion and contservatives in principle, from office, and placing foreigners and ultraists in the ir places; as shown n in a truckling subserviency to the stronger, and an insolent and cowardly bravado toward s the weaker p o wers; as shown in reopening sectional agitation, by the repea l o f the Missouri Compromise; as shown in granin atng to unnaturalized foreigners the right of suffrage in K ansas and Nebraska; as shown in its vacillating course on the Kan - sas and Nebra ska question; as shown in the cor ruptions whi ch pe rvade so me of the deparbments of the government; as shown in disgracing meritorious naval officers through prejudic e or caprice; and as shown in the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations. 14th. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and prevent the disastrous conse quences otherwise resulting therefrom, we wouldbid bui ld 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 institute a pledge of honor, instead of other obligations for fellowship and admission into the party. 16th. A free and open discussion of all political principles embraced in our platform. 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, nativeborn 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 nativeborn citizens; but 5th. No person should be selected for political station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognises any allegiance or oblig,,ation of any description to any foreign prince, potentate or power, or who refuses to recognise the federal and state constitu tions (each within its sphere) as paramount to all o ther laws as is sues of political action. 6th. T he un qual if ied rec ogni tion and maintenance of the reserved rights of the sev er al states, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good will, between the citizens of the sev eral s tates, a nd to this end, non-interference bv Congress w ith q uest ions appertaining solely to the individual states, and nonintervention by each state with the affairs of any other state. o 7th. The recognition of the right of the nativeborn and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing in any territory thereof, to fr ame the ir co nstitution and laws, and to regul ate thei r domest ic and social affairs in their own mode, subject o nly to the provisions of the Feder al Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union whenever they have the requisite population for one representative in Congress. Provided always, tha t none but those who are citizens of the United States, u nder the C on stitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence in any such territory, ought to participate in the formation of the constitution, or n 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 naturalization, making a continued residence of twentyone years, of all not hereinbefore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, 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 anys union between Church and State;* no interference with religiou8 faith, or worship, and no test oaths for ofiie. 11th. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public expendit~ures. 12th. The maintenance and enforcement A me ric an Ritual. CONSTITUTION OF THE

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA. ART. 1st. This o rganization shall be known by the name a nd tit le of THE NATIONAL COUNCIL

OF THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA, and its jurisdiction and power shall extend to all the state s, districts, and territ ories of the United States of North America. ART. 2d. The ob ect of this organization shall be to protect every American citizen in the legal an d prope r exercise of all his ci vil and religious rights and privil eges; t o resist the insidious polic y of t he Chu rch of Rome, and all other foreign influence against our republican institutions in all lawful ways; to place in all offices of honor, trust, or profit, in the gift of the people, or by a]pointment, none but nativeborn Protestant citizens, and to protect, preserve, and upholdt he union of these states and the constitution of the same. Art. 3d. Sec. 1.-A person to become a member of any subordinate council must be twenty. one years of age; he must believe in Mthe existence of a Supreme Being as the Creator and preserver of the universe.

He must be a 57

Page 58 view page image

TTHE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. nativeborn citizen; a Protestant, either born of Protestant parents, or reared under Protestant influence; and not united in marriage with a Roman Catholic; provided, nevertheless, 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 A lmer ican cause in their several jurisdictions; and provided, moreover, that no member who may ave 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 disqualification to membership, in place of “Protestanrt” as a qualification, they may so consider 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 apply to those who may have received the second degree previous to the first day of December next; and provided, further, that the presidents 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 designated by the national council at the previous 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 councils; provided, that sixty days’ notice shall be given to the state councils previous to said meeting. Sec. 4.-The national council shall be composed of seven delegates from each state, to be chosen by the state councils; and each district 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 candidates 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, territories, or districts, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. See. 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 fixs 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 matter s app ertaining to n atio n al 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, territorial, or district counci ls, and to grant dispensations for the formation of such bodies,,“hen five subordinate councils shall ha ve been put in operation in a n y s tate, territory, or district, and application made. It shall have t he power to determine upon a mode of punish me nt in c ase of an y d ereliction of duty on the part of its members or officers. It shall have te te power to a dopt cabal istic characters for the purpose of wri tin g or telehraphing. Said characters to be communicated to the presidents of the state councils, and by them to the presidents of the subordinate councils. It shall have the power to ado pt any a nd every measure it may deem necessary to secure the success of the organization; provided that nothing s hall be d one by the said national council in violation of the c onstitution; 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 ove r the nationa di al qpun cil when present, and i n his absenc e he the Vie President shall preside, 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 national 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 determine. 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 decrees of this order. Sec. 4.-All vacancies in the elective offices shall be filled by a vote of the national couneil, 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. .See. 2. The national council shall levy a 58

Page 59 view page image

AMERICAN RITUAL. tax upon the state, district, or territorial councils, for the support of the national council, to be paid in such manner and at such times as the national council shall determine. Art. 8.-This national council may alter and amend this constitution at its regular annual meeting in June next, by a vote of the majority of the whole number of the members present. (Cincinnati, Nov. 24, 1854.) or summons adopted for public notification, except by directionof the president; or for officers of a council to post the same at any other time than from midnight to one hour before 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 notification shall be intrusted to the state, district, 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 America shall be entitled to three dollars per day for thei r att endance upon the national council, and for each day that may be necessary in going and returning from the same; and five c ents per mile for every mil e they may necessarily travel in going to, and returning from the plac e of meeting of t he national council; to be co mpute d by the n ear est 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 be longing to each subordinate council u nd er its jurisdiction oln 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 followin g 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:A B C D E F G H I J K L M 1 7 13 19 25 2 8 14 20 26 3 9 15 N 0 P

Q R S T U V W X Y Z 21 4 10 16 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 subordinate council, as well as upon each individual member. (June, 1854.) Rule 13. The following shall be the compensation of the officers of this council: 1st. The corresponding secretary shall be paid two 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 day of June, 1854. 3d. The sentinels shall be paid five dollars RULES AND REGULATIONS. Rule 1.-Each state, district, or territory, in which there may exist five or more subordinate councils working under dispensations from the National Council of the United States of North America, or under regular dispensations from some state, district, or territory, are duly empowered to establish themselves into a state, district, or territorial council, and when so established, to form for themselves constitutions and by-laws for their government, in pursuance of, and in consonance with the Constitution of the National Council of the United States; provided, however, that all state, district or territorial constitutions 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 powe; and authority to establish all subordinate 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 formation 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 convenience of the organization, two state or territorial councils may be established, the two councils together shall be entitled to but thirteen delegates* in the National Council of the United Statesthe proportioned number of delegates to depend on the number of members in the organizations; provided, that no state shall be allowed to have more than one state council, without the consent of the National Council of th e Uni ted States. (June, 1854.) Rule 5.-In any state, district, or territory, where there may be more than one organization working on the same basis, (to wit, the lodges and “councils”), the same shall be required to combine; the officers of each organization 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 grant ed to them by th e national council. (June, 1854.) Rule 6.-It shall be considered a penal offence for any brother not an officer of a subordinate council, to make use of the sign 59 * NOTz.-See Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 4, p. 5.

Page 60 view page image

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 hlie 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 councils, the one to be located in Eastern and the other in Western Virginia, the Blue Ridge ]Iountains being the geographical line between the two jurisdictions. {June, 1854.) 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 six o’clock in the forenoon; and the national council convening in annual session upon that day, shall be composed exclusively of delegates elected under and in ac - cordance with the provisions of the constitution, as amended at the present session of this national council: provided, that this resolution shall not apply to the officers of the national council. (November, 1854.) Vote 4th.-The corresponding secretary of this council is authorized to have printed the names of the delegates to this national council; 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 territr,- are requested to forward a copy of their several constitutions to each other. (November, 1854.) Vote 5th.-In the publication of the constitution 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 l ], and a copy of the same shall be furnished 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, shall be submitted to this council for examination. (November, 1854.) Vote 7th.

It shall be the duty of the treasurer, at each annual meeting of this body, to make a report of all moneys received or expended 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 committee to confer with similar committees that have been appointed for the purpose of consolidating 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 received 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, and 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 together in their respective localities; and afterwards the same may be conferred upon officers of other subordinate councils, by any presiding officer of a council who shall have previously 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 session in June next, he must present a properlyauthenticated certificate that he was duly elected as a delegat e t o the same, or appoint ed a substitute in accordance with the requirements 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 consti tution and ritual of this national council.

(November, 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 subordinate 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 TIIE 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 Coun cil, No. I m, 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 60

Page 61 view page image

AMIERICAN RITUAL. constitution of the national council, and whose or until their successors are elected and inwife (if he has one), is not a Roman Catholic. stalled. Sec. 3. No application for membership Sec. 2. The officers of each subordinate shall be received and acted on from a person council (except the sentinels, who shall be residing out of the state, or resides in a county appointed by the president), shall be elected where there is a council in existence, unless at the first regular meetings in January and upon special cause to be stated to the council, July, separately, and by ballot; and each to be judged of by the same; and such person, shall receive a majority of all the votes cast to if the reasons be considered sufficient, may be entitle him to an election. No member shall initiated the same night he is proposed, pro-be elected to any office, unless he be present vided he resides five miles or more from the and signify his assent thereto at the time of place where the council is located. But no his election. Any vacancy which may occur person can vote in any council, except the one by death, resignation, or otherwise, shall be of which he is a member. filled at the next meeting thereafter, in the Sec. 4. Every person applying for member-mianner and form above described. ship, shall be voted for by ballot, in open Sec. 3. The President.-It shall be the council, if a ballot is requested by a single duty of the president of each subordinate meml!er. If onethird of the votes cast be council, to preside in the council, and enforce against the applicant, he shall be rejected. If a due observance of the constitution and rules any applicant be rejected, he shall not be of the order, and a proper respect for the state again proposed within six months thereafter.

council and the national council; to have sole Nothing herein contained shall be construed and exclusive charge of the charter and the to prevent the initiation of applicants pri-constitution and ritual of the order, which he vately, by those empowered to do so, in locali-must always have with him when his council ties where there are no councils within a is in session, to see that all officers perform convenient distance. their respective duties; to announce all hal Scc. 5. Any member of one subordinate lotings to the council; to decide all questions council wishing to change his membership to of order; to give the casting vote in all cases another council, shall apply to the council to of a tie; to convene special meetings when which he belongs, either in writing or orally deemed expedient; to draw warrants on the through another member, and the question treasurer for all sums, the payment of which shall be decided by the council. If a majority is ordered by the council; and to perform are in favor of granting him an honorable such other duties as are demanded of him by dismnission, he shall receive the same in writ-the constitutions and ritual of the order. ink, to be signed by the president and counter-See. 4. The vice president of each sub si-ned by the secretary. But until a member ordinate council shall assist the president in thus receiving an honorable dismission has the discharge of his duties, whilst his council actually been admitted to membership in is in session; and in his absence, shall per another council, he shall be held subject to the form all the duties of the president. discipline of the council from which he has Sec. 5. The instructor shall perform the received the dismission, to be dealt with by duties of the president, in the absence of the the same, for any violation of the requirements president and vice president, and shall, under of the order. Before being received in the the direction of the president, perform such council, to which he wishes to transfer his duties as may be assigned to him by the membership, he shall present said certificate ritual. of honorable dismission, and shall be received Sec. 6. The secretary shall keep an accu as new members are. rate record of the proceedings of the council. Sec. 6. Applications for the second degree Ile shall write all communications, fill all shall not be received except in second degree notices, attest all warrants drawn by the pre councils, and voted on by second and third sident for the payment of money; he shall degree members only, and applications for the keep a correct roll of all the members of the third degree shall be received in third degree council, together with their age, residence, and councils, and voted on by third degree mem-occupation, in the order in which they have l)ers only. been admitted; he shall, at the expiration of Art.

II.-Each subordinate council shall fix every three months, make out a report of all on its own time and place for meeting: and work done during that time, which report lihe shall meet at least once a month, but where shall forward to the secretary of the state coun not very inconvenient, it is recommended that cil; and when superseded in his office shall tiiev meet once a week. Thirteen members deliver all books, papers, &c. in his hands, to sh,all form a quorum for the transaction of his successor.

business. Special meetings may be called by Sec. 7. The treasurer shall hold all monevs the president, at any time, at the request of raised exclusively for the use of the state four members of the order. council, which he shall pay over to the seere Art. III.-Sec. 1. The members of each sub-tary of the state council at its regular sessions. ordinate council shall consist of a president, or whenever called upon by the president of vice president, instructor, secretary, treasurer, the state council. He shall receive all moneys marshal, inside and outside sentinel, and shall for the use of the subordinate council, and pay hold their offices for the term of six months, all amounts drawn for on him, by the prese 61

Page 62 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. dent of the subordinate council, if attested by the secretary. Sec. 8.-The marshal shall perform such duties, under the direction of the president, as may be required of him by the ritual. Sec.

9.-The inside sentinel shall have charge of the inner door, and act under the directions of the president. Hle 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 charging 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. I-e shall not suffer the same to go out of his possession under any pretence whatever, 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, fo)r the purpose of initiation, or conferring 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 constitutions of the national and state councils.

FORM OF DISMISSION FROM ONE COUNCIL TO ANOTHER. This is to certify that Brother, a member 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 m embership in Council, No., in the county of I 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 requirements of the order. This the day of 1 185-, and the year of American Independence. FORM OF CERTIFICATE FOR

DELEGATES TO THE STATE COUNCIL. Council, No. county of-, N. C. This is to certify that  and were at the regular meeting of this council, held oil the, 185-, duly elected delegates to represent 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 of our national independence. — -C President of Council, No.

FORM OF APPLICATION FOR A CHARTER TO ORGANIZE A NEW COUNCIL. Post Office county, Date FORM OF NOTICE FROM THE SUBORDINATE COUN CILS TO THE STATE

COUNCIL, WHENEVER ANY MEMBER OF A SUBORDINATE COUNCILI IS EX PELLED. To President of the State Council of North Carolina: We, the undersigned, members of the Third Degree, being desirous of extending the influence 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 Carolina, 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 .,Council, No.I  county of -, N. C. To the President of the State Counuil of North Carolina: Sir:-This is to inform you that at a meeting of this council, hel d 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 hereby duly notified of the same, that you may officially notify all the subordinate councils of the state to be upon their guard against the said, as one unworthy to associate with 62 that we wil’i, in all things, conform to the rules and usa es of the order. i\i ames. Residences. President, Council, No. Secretary. Secretarv.

Page 63 view page image

AMERICAN RITUAL. patriotic and good men, and (if expelled for tViolating his obligation) as a perjurer to God and his country. The said is aboutyears of age, and is by livelihood a . Duly certified, this the day of 185-, and in the - year of our national independence. Marshal.-Where is your permanent residence? (If born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, the answer shall be written, the candidate dismissed with an admonition of secrecy, and the brother vouching for him suspended from all the privileges of the order, unless upon satisfactory proof that he has been misinformed.) Marshal.-Are you twentyone years of age? Ans.-” I am.”

Marshal.-V-Were you born of Protestant parents, or were you reared under Protestant fluence? Ans.m-” Yes.” Marshal.-If married, is your wife a Roman Catholic? (” No” or “Yes”-the answer to be valued as the Constitution of the State Council shall provide.) Ma rshal.-Are you willing to use your influence and vote only for nativeborn American citizens for all offices of honor, trust, or profit in the gift of the people, to the exclusion of all foreigners and allens, and Roman Catholics in particular, and without regard to party predilections? A lts.-” I am.”

- Cucl NPr esid ent of Council, No. To be admitted to membership in this order, the applicant shall be lst. 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 h is n ame 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 recorded 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.] INSIDE. (The marshal shall then repair to the council in session, and present the wr itten list of names, vouchers, and answers to the presi - dent, who shall cause them to be read aloud, and a votefte of the c ouncil to be taken on eac h n ame, in such manner as presc ribed by its by-laws. If doubts arise in the ante-room, they shall be referred to the c ouncil. If a candidatbe be dismiss ed, he shall be admonished t o secrecy. The candidates declared elected shall be conducted to seats wit hin the c ouncil, apart from the brethren. When all a re pre sent the president, by one blow of the gavel, s ha ll call to orde r and say:) Presid e nt.- Brother marshal, introd uce th e candidates to the vice president. Marshal.-Worthy Vice President, I pre sen t to you these candidates, who have duly answered all questions.

Vice President, risi ng in his place.- Gentlemen, it is my office to welcome you as friends. Wh en you shall h ave as sumed the patri otic vow by which we ar e all bound, we will embrace 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 towards heaven. (The brethren to remain seated till called up.) OUTSIDE. Marshal.-Do you believe in a Supreme Being, the Creator and Preserv er of the universe. Ans.-I do. Mal-shal.-Before proceeding further, we require a solemn obligation of secrecy and truth. If you will take such an obligation, u will lay your right hand upon the Holy ible 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 d o.” Marshal.-Where were you born? 63 Secretary. FIRST DEGREE COUNCIL.

Page 64 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. I lnstructor.-Brothers: the practices and proceedings in our order are as follows: We have passwords 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 ordinary alarm to attract the notice of the outside sentinel). eWhen the wicket is opened you will pronounce the (words-hat’s the pass), in a whisper. The outside sentinel will reply( Give it), when you will give the term password 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 password. If these be found correct, you will be admitted; 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 recognized, 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 password to the inside sentinel. The “term password” is ( Ve are). (‘The password and explanation is to be established by each State Council for its respective subordinates.) The “explanation” of the “term-pass,” to be used at the inner door, is (our country’s hope.) The ” degree password” is (Native). The “travelling pass-wor4” is (The memory of oar pilgrim fathers). (This word is changed annually by the President of the National Council of the United States, and is to be made and used only when the brother is travelling beyond the jurisdiction of his own state, district, or territory. It an d al l other passwords must be comnmunicated in a whisper, and no brother is entitled to comniunicate them to another, without authority from the presiding officer.) “The sign of recognition”

is (grasping the right lappel of the coat with the right haed, the fore fiter being extended inwards.) 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 permit 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 influence for any man, for any office in the gift of the people, unless he be an American born citizen, ln favor of Americans ruling America, nor if he be a Roman Catholic; that you will in all political matters, so far as this order is concerned, comply with the will of the majority, though it may conflict with your personal preference, so long as it does not conflict with the Constitution of the United States of America, or that of the state in which you reside; that you will not, under any circumstances whatever, knowingl y re commen d an unwor th y 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 m ember of this order, n or reveal the existence of such an association; that you willns answer an imperative notice issued by the proper authority; obey the compeiand of the state council, president, or his deputy, while ass emb led by such notice, an d respond to the claim of a sign or a cry of the order, unless it be physically impossible; and that you will acknowvledge 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 excommunication -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 vour 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 sanctions and penalties. Vice Pi-eside,nt.-You have now taken solemn oaths, and made as sacred promises as man can make, that you will keep all our secrets inviolate; and we wish you distinctly to understand that he that takes these oaths and makes tlese promises, and then violates-them, leaves the foul, the deep and blighting stain of perjury resting on his soul. Presid-ealt. (Having seated all by one blow of the gasvel. ) 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, nevest them with everything appertaining to the first degree. * In the Ritual the words in parentheses are omitted. In the key to the Ritual, they are written in figures-tlho a lphabet used being the same as printed below. So throughout. 64 Key to Urk Comraunications. A B C D -E F G 11 I J K L M 1 7 13 19 25 2 8 14 20 26 3 9 15 N 0 P Q R 8 T U

V W X Y Z 21 4 10 16 22 5 11 17 23 6 12 18 24

Page 65 view page image

AMERICAN RITUAL. 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 national intelligence, and of advancing America and the American inte rest onthe e one side, and on the other of checking the s trid es of the foreigner or alien, or thwarting the machinations 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 candidates for initiation, and the responsibility of the duties which they have assumed.

SECOND DEGREE COUNCIL. blaueshal.-Worthy Pres;_dent: These brothers 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 country, preparatory to obligation. (Each council room should have a neat American flag festooned over the platform of the President.) The ” answer”

is given by (a similar action I ttith tlhe left hand). The ” grip” is given by (an ordinary shake of the haled). The person challenging shall (then draw the o~ f the hand). adThealrsone.Adhnetume fore fj ge, along the palmof thehand). The answer will be given by (a similar action formiqig a link by hooking together the ends of theforefingere); when the following conversation ensues-the challenging party first saying (is that yours?) The answer, (it is.) Then the response (how did you get it?), followed by the rejoinder (it is my birthright). 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 mneeting is to be held, will be written legibly upon the notice; and upon the election day said *** will denote the *** where your presence 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 inquirer 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 denote 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 interest requires an immediate assemblage of the brethren-is (oh, oh, oh.) The response is (hio, hio, h-i-o.) Tihle “
sign of caution”-to be given when a brother is speaking unffguardedly before a stranger-is (drawving the fore finger and thu?mlb 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 organization 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 apparent to you, brothers, that foreign influence anal Roman Catholicism have been making steady and alarming progress in our country. You cannot have failed to observe the signifieanlt transition of the foreigner and Romanist fi’ om a character quiet, retiring, and even abject, to one bold, threatening, turbulent, and despotic in its appearance and assumptions. You must have become alarmed at the systematic and rapidly augmnenting; power of these dangerous and unnatural elements of our national condition. So it is, brothers, with others beside yourselves in every state 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, except in open council for the purpose of instruction; 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 attached, 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 summons 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 Americans, to sustain and abide by, without any f 65 * Concer.in,,, what is said of cities, the key to the Ritual says: 11 Consi,lered unnecessary to decipher what is said in rtgard to cities-” 5

Page 66 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. hand of the brother on the left, so as to form a circle, symbolical of the links of an unbroken 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 instance 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. hesitation or mental reservation whatever. So help you God and keep you steadfast. (Each will answer ” I do.”) l’}esident.-Brother Marshal. you will now present the brothers to the instructor for instructions in th e second degree of t he o rder.

iMa-shal.- Brother Instructor, by d irection of our wor thy p resi dent, I p resent these brothers before you that you may instruct them in the secrets and mysteries of the second degree of the ord er.

Instructor.-Brothers, in thi s degr ee we hav e a enti g in en ftering signa a cuntersign. At the outer door proceed (as in the first degree). At the inner door you will make (two raps), a nd proceed as i n the first degree, giving the second degree pass-w ord, whichis American, instead of that of the first degree. If found to be correct, you will then be admitted, and proceed (to the centre of the room), giving the countersign, whic h is made thus (exten ding the right am to the national flag eover the president, the palm of the hand being .upwards). T he s ign of recogn ition in this degree is the same as in the first degree, with the ;additi on of ( th e 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 the s be c and idates to you for admonition. f’oeside ot. -Brothers, you are now duly initiated into the second degree of this order. Renewing the congratulations which we extended to you upon your admission to the first degree, we admonish you by every tie that nmay 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 historythe 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 WASIN,GTON. Brothers, recalling to your minds the solemn obligations which you have severally taken in this and the first degree, I now pronounce _vou entitled to all the privileges of membership in this the second degree of our order. THIIRD DEGREE COUNCIL. Marshal. WNorthy 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 yourselvecs in a circle around me, each one crossing your alms upon your breasts, and grasping firmly each other’s hands, holding the right hand of the brother on the right, and the left You, a nd each of you, of your own free will and acc ord, in the p re sence of Alm ighty God and thes e w itnesses, with you r hands joined in token of that fraternal affection which should ever bind together the state s of thi s Union-forming a ring, in token of your dee termination th at, s o far as your efforts can avail, this Union sha l l have no end-do selemnly and s ince rely swear [or affir m] t hat you will not under any circumstances disclose in any t lanner, nor suffer it to b e do ne by others if in your power to prevent it, -the n ame, signs, pass-ords, rcli or other secrets of this degree, except to those t o whom you may prove on trial to be brothers of th e same degree, or i n open council, for th e purpose of instruction; that you do hereby solemnly declare your devotion to the Union of these states; that in the discharge of your duties as American citizens, you will uphold, maintain, and defe nd it; th pe at you will discourage and discountenance’ any and every attempt, comting fro m a any and every quarte r, wh ich y ou believe to be designed or calculated to d est ro y o r subve rt i t, or to weaken i t s bonds; a nd that you will use your influenc e, s o fa r as in your power, in endeavoring to procure an amicable and equitable adjustment of all political discontents or differences which may threaten its injury or o ver throw. 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 members 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 station 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 endeavoring to produce that result; and that you will in no case appoint such persons to anly political office or place whatever. All this you promise and swear [or affirm] upon your honor as American citizens and friends of the Aiii 6(il OBLIGATION.

Page 67 view page image

AMERICAN RITUAL. that which distinguished the patriots of the Revolution, you have pledged your aid in ce meniting 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, anid lhas 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 danger, from domestic enemies to our free institutions. Our object is briefly this:-to perfect an organization modelled after that of the Constitution of the United States, and coextensive with the confederacy. Its object and principles, in all matters of national concern, to be uniform 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 t o our future -is UNION; pe rmanent, enduring, fraternal UNION! Allow, me, then, to impress upon your minds and memories the touc hing sent iments of the Father o f his Country, in his Farewell Address: ” The uni ty of g over nm ent which constitutes you one people,” says Washin,t on, ” is justly dear t o you, for i t is the main pillar in the edifice of your real i ndepe ndence, the suppo rt of y our tranquillity at home, of your peace abroa d, of your safety, your pr osperity -even that liberty you so j stly prize. ” It is of inf inite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your ttrational Union, t o your c ollective 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 preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenanciag whatever may suggest even a suspi. cion that it can in ally event be abandonedand 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 various parts.” Let these fiords of paternal advice and warning, from the greatest man that ever livted, sink deep into your hearts. Cherish theml, and teach your children to reverence theml, as you cherish and reverence the memory of Washington himself. The Union of these states is the great conservator of that rcan Uinion, to sustain and abide by without aenr hesitation or mental reservation whatever. Ynou also promis e a nd sw ear [or affi rm]

that this and all other obligations which you have previously taken i n this order, shall e ver be kept sacred and inviola te. T o all this you ple(lge your lives, your fortunes, and your saenc(l honors. So help you God and keep you sten(lfast. (Each one shall answer, ” I do.”) l’ esident.

-Brothier Marshal, you will now present the broth ers to the i ns tructor for final in struction in this the third degree of the order. fdinrshal.-

Instructor, b y d i rection of our worthli president, I present t hese bro th er s before you that you may instruct them in the y secrets and mysteries of this the third d eg re e of our order. Instructor. -Brothe rs, in this degree as in the second, we hav e a n entering pa ssw ord, a degree e passw ord, and a tok en of salu tation. pS t the outer door (make any ordinary alarm. ‘rtie outside sentinel will say U; you say ni; the sentinel will rejoin on). This will admit v-ou to the inner door. At the inner door you Will make (three) distinct (raps). Then anno)unce your name, with the number (or name) d location of the council to which you be1,r, giving the explanation to the password, w\lhich is (safe). If found correct, you will then lIe adm’iiitted, when you will proceed to the centre elf the room, and placing the (hands on the bre(ast with the.fingers interlocked), give the token of salutation, which is (by bowing to the p,‘esident). You will then quietly take your seat. The sign of recognition is made by the same action, as in the second degree, with the addition of (the thirdfi nger), 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 fitngers around on the top of the thumb; then extending the little.finger and pressing the inside of the wrist. The person challenging shall say, do you know what that is? The answer is yes. The challenging party shall say, further, what is it? The answer is, U(, ion.) [The instructor will here give the grip of this decree, with explanations, and also the true pIassword of this degree, which is (Union.)] CHARGE. To be given by the president. Brothers, it is with great pleasure that I ()ngratulate you upon your advancement to tie third degree of our order. The responsibilities you have now assumed, are more seriou: and weighty than those which preceded, and are committed to such only as have been tried and found worthy. Our obligations are intended as solemn avowals of our duty to the land that gave us birth; to the memories of (ur fathers; and to the happiness and welfLre of our children. Consecrating to your -(untry a spirit unselfish and a fidelity like 67

Page 68 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-13BOO00K. Va., Parhour of Va.. Bassett of Va., Bayley of Md., Beecher of 0., Bloom131nfield of N.J., Blount of Tenn., Bryan of N. C., Burwell of Va.. Butler of La., Cobb of Geo., Cook of Geo.. Crawfo-d of Geo., Cullret of Md, Dsha l of MKy., Earl ofS C., Edw ards f N. C., Garnett of y a.. Iall of N. C., larrison o O. of 0.. LIog m of Tenn., olmes of ass., Johnson of a. Johnso n of., e f. ie of Ky., eJones of Tenn., Kinsey of N.J., Lis o Va., Little of NId., LoTwnes of S. C.C, Ne Cov of V a., warr of Tenn., Mason of Mass.. II. Nelson of -Va., T. M.

Nelson of Va.. New of Kv., Newton of Va., Ogden of N. Y., Owen of N. C., Pdrrott of N. 1i., Pegram of Va., Peter of Md., Pindall of Va., Pleasants ote of. a., orter of N.Y.Quarles of Ky. Oteed of Geo., Rh ea of Tenn., Robertson of Ky.. Sawyer of N.. C. Settl e of N. C., Shaw of Mass., Simpkins of -S. C. Slocum of N. C., L. Smith of Md., A. Smyth of Va., I.

S. Smith s es of N. C., Speed of Ky., Stewar t of N. C., Storrs of N. Y., Stuart of Md., Terrell of Geo., Tri mble of Ky., Turck r 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 p rov iso was lost. The second pa rt of it w as a dopted by a vote of yeas 75, nays 73. All who vote d for the fir st, amendment voted for this, except MUr. Alle n o f Mass., wh o was absent and not voting. In addition the reto, Messrs. Ellicott of N. Y., Gilbelrt of Conn., Kirtland of N. Y., Mills of Mass., Schuyler of N. Y., Westerlo of N. Y., Williams of N. C., voted i n the affirmative e on t hi s amendment.

Mr. Williams of N. C. had voted in the affirmative for the purpose of moving a reconsideration, which he did; but which was lost by a vote of yeas 77, nays 79. On the 19th of Feb., 1819, Mr. Robertson moved to recolmmit the bill to a select committee, 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, nays 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. Ilale of Dela 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, IIolmes of Mass., Kinsey of N. Y., Mason of Mass., Ogden of N. Y., Parrott of N. IS., 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 (luring the existence of the terri torial gov ernment of Arkansas, no slasves shall be brought into the said territory to remain for a longer time than nine mlonths from the date of their arrival.”’ Mir.

Traylor’s amendment was lost by yeas 86, nays 90. It is not deemed necessary to grve this vote, its character being so similar to the prcriou~ one. liberty so dear to the American heart. Without it, our greatness as a nation would disappear, and our boasted selfgovernment prove a signal failure. The very name of liberty, and the hopes of struggling freedom throughout 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 fortunes, and y our 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 privileges of membership in this organization, adnd 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. V ice President, W. W. Williamson, of Alexandria, Va.

Corresponding Secretary, C. D. Deshler, of New Brunswick, N. J. Recording Secretary, James M. Stephens, of Baltimore, M d. Treasurer, Henry Crane, of Cincinnati, Ohio. Inside Sentinel, John P. hilton, of Washington, D. C.

Arkansas. At the second session of the 15th Congress, the subject of erecting the southern part of Missouri territory into a new territory, to be called Arkansas, engaged the attention of Congress. A bill to that effect was reported to the House. IMr. 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: YE..s. 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., Cushmnan of N. Y., Darlington of Pa.. Drake of N. Y., Fol,er of Mlass., Fuller of Mass., Hall of Del., Hasbrouck of N. Y.. IIendricks of Ind., herrick of O., Heister f Pa.. Iitchcolk of O.. Hostetter of Pa.. Hubbard of N.Y., lun ter of Vt., Huntington of Conn., Irving of N. Y., Lawyer of N. Y., l,incoin of Mass., Linn of N. J., Livermore of N. II, IV. MaIlay of Pa.. W. P. Maclay of Pa., Marchand of Pa.. Masos of R. I., Morrill of Vt., Robert Moore of Pa., Samu el Moore of la., Morton of Mass., Moseley of Conn., Miurray of a. J. Nelson of Mlass., Ogle of Pa., Orr of Mass..

Palmer of N. YV, Patterson of Pa., Pawling of Pa., Rice of ass.. Rich of Vt., Richards of Vt., Rogers of Pa., Ruggles of Mass.. Sampson of Mass., Savage of N.Y., Scudder of N. Y., Seybert of Pa., Sherwood, Southard of N.J., Spencer of N. Y.. Tallmadge of N.Y., Tarr of Pa., Taylor of N.Y., Terry of Conn., Tompkins of N.Y., Townsend of N.Y., Wallace of Pa., We Indover of N. Y., Whiteside of Pa., Williams of Conn., Williams of N.Y., and Wilson of Pa.-70. Nay.-Messrs Anderson of Ky., Austin of Va., Ball of I I 68

Page 69 view page image

ARKANSAS.-ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. 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. Burrill 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 R. I., Daggett of Conn., Dana, Dickenson of N.J., Lacock of Pa., Mellen of Mass., Nob le of Ind., Roberts of Pa., Ruggles of 0., Sanford of N.Y., Storer of N. II., Tickener of Vt., Wilson of N. J.-14.

N.A,Ys.-Mlessrs. Barbour of Va., Crittenden of Ky., Eaton of Tenn., Edwards of Ill., 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 0., Stokes of N. C., Tait of Ga., Talbot of Ky., Taylor of Ind., Thomas of 111., Williamns of Miss., Williams of Tenn.-19. The bill was then passed and approved bv 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 reported 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.-NMessrs. Benton of Mo., Brown of N. C., Buchanan of Pa..

Calhoun of S.C., Clayton of Del., Cuthbert of Ga., E1wing of Ill.. Ewing of 0., Grundy of Tenn., Hendricks of Ind. Hill of N. H., Hubbard of N.Y., King of Ala., King of Ga., Linn of Mo., McKean of Pa.. Mangum of N. C., Moore of Ala., Morris of 0., Nicholas of La, Niles of Conn.., Preston of S.C., Rives of Va., Robinson of Ill., Ruggles of Me., Shepley of Me., Tallmadge of N. Y., Tipton of Ind., Walker of Miss., White of Tenn., Wn’right of N. Y.-31. NAYS. Messrs Clay of Ky.. Knight of R. I., Porter of La., l’reutiss of Vt., Robbens of R. I., Swift of Vt.-6. On the 9thi of June, 1836, the bill from the Senate for 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.” Mir. Cushing of Mass. addressed the com mittee against the admission of Arkansas with her proslavery constitution, as did also Mr. Brigg,s 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 mnent before the House when the bill was taken out of committee, but failed to get the floor for t,hat purpose. The bill was passed o n the 13 th of June, (836, by a vote of yeas, 143, nays 50. The negative vote was as follows: Mfessrs. Adamis of Mass., Allen of’Vt., Anthony of Pa., Bailey of Me., Bond of 0., Borden of Mlas.s., Briggs of Mass., Calhoun of Mass., Child s of N. Y., Clark of Pa., Crane of 0., Cushing of M~ass.. arington of Ila., Denny of Pa., Evans of Ie., Everett of Vt., P. C. Fuller of N. Y., Grennell of T blass., ltall of Vt., Itlard of N. Y., Ilarper of Pa., Hazletine of N. Y., Hlenderson of N. Y., Ileister of Pa., Hoar of Mass. Jackson of Mass., Janes of Vt., Jones of Va., Laporte of Pa., Lawrene of Mas.. Lay, of N. Y., Lincoln of Mass., Love of N. Y.. Mason of Ohio, McCarty of Ind., McKennan of Pa Morris of Pa., Parker of N. J., Pearce of Md., Phillips of MNass., Potts of Pa., Reed of Mass., Russell of N. Y., Shinn of N. J., Slade of Vt., John Thomson of 0., Underwood of Ky., Viuton of 0., Whittlesey of 0., and Williams of N. C. On the 16th of June the act was approved by 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 Deleg,ates 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 Ilampshire, Massachusetts 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 Plantatios ons, Connecticut, New York New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary land, Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro lina, and Georgia. Article 1. The style of this confederacy s hall b e “

The Un ited S tates of America.” Art. 2. Each state retains its sovereignty, free d om, and independence, a nd every powter 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 anyr other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions, as the inl 69

Page 70 view page image

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 any 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 imagistrates 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 Moniday in November, in every year, woith 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 steadI for the remainder of the year. No state shall be represented in Congress by less than two nor more than seven mem l,es; and no person shall be capable of being a (lelegate for more than three years in any term oft six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding an office unider the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fc~.e, or emolument of any kind. Eaich 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 shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, (luring the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. Art. 6. No state, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send an embassy to, or receive any embassy fi’.)in or enter into any conference, agreement, alli;auce, or treaty, with any king, prince, or state nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or aiiy of them, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state; nor slll-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 betwecen them, without the consent of the United States i n Co ngres s assembled, specifying atm curately the purpose for whic h the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall con t inue. No state shall lay any imposts or duti e s, which may interfere’ with any stipulations in tr eaties entered into by the United Stat es in Congress assembled, with a ny king, prince, or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the courts of France and Spain. No vesse ls of war shall be ke pt 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 judgmiienit of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garri s,onl the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, suffi ciently arlme(d and accoutred, and shall provide and have constantly ready for use, in public stores, a number of field-pieces and tents, and a plroter quantity of arms, ammunition, and c.amip equipage. No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such state be actually in i-aded by enemies, or shall have received cer taini 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 assei-iilled can be consulted; nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of wirai, or letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by t.he United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the kirng,dom or state, and the sub jects thereof, against which war has been so declared, anld 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 co)mmonl defence or general welfare, and allotted by the U~nited States in Conlgress assembled, shall be defrayed out of 3
common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within eaclh state granted to or surveyed for any p.ewson, as such land and thie buildings and ire 70

Page 71 view page image

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. - 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 s ce ribed 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 postoffices from one state to anoth er, throughout all the United States, and exact ingsuch postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office: appointing all offi cers of the land forces in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers: appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States, makingt rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations. provements thereon shall be estimated, accordint to such mode as th e United States in Congress assembled shall from time to time direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and l evied by t he authority and directi on of the legislatures of the several states, within the time agreed upon by the United States in Cong,ress assembled. Art. 9. The United States in Congress assemibled shal l have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article: of sending and receiving ambassadors: entering into treaties and alliances: 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 importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever: of establishing rules for deciding, in all cases, what captures on land or w,ater shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the ser.-ice of the United States shall be divided or appropriated: of granting letters of marque and reprisal, in times of peace: appointing courts 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 appointed 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 following: whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any state in controversy 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 legislative 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 determining 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 drawnl out by lot; and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall he commissioners or judges, to hear’and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges, who shall hear 71

Page 72 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The United States in Congress assembled rity of the United States in Congress assem. shall have authority to appoint a committee bled. to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denomli-The Congress of the United States shall nated “a committee of the states;” and to have power to a(ljourn to any time within the consist of one delegate from each state, and to year, and to any place within the United appoint such other committees and civil offi-States, so that no period of adjournment be hers as may be necessary for managing the for a longer duration than the space of six general affairs of the United States, under months; and shall publish the journal of their their direction: to appoint one of their num-proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof her to preside, provided that no person be relating to treaties, alliances, or military ope allowed to serve in the office of president more rations, as in their judgment require secrecy; than one year in any term of three years: to and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each ascertain the necessary sums of money to be state on any question shall be entered on the raised for the service of the United States, and journal when it is desired by any delegate; to appropriate and apply the same for defray-and the delegates of a state, or any of them, at ing the public expenses: to borrow money or his or their request, shall be furnished with a emit bills on the credit of the United States, transcript of the said journal, except such transmitting every half year to the respective parts as are above excepted, to lay before the states an account of the sums of money so legislatures of the several states. borrowed or emitted; to build and equip a Art. 10. The commnittee of the states, or navy: to agree upon the number of land any nine of them, shall be authorized to exe forces, and to make requisitions from each cute in the recess of Congress, such of the state for its quota, in proportion to the number powers of Congress as the United States in of white inhabitants in each state; which re-Congress assembled, by the consent of nine quisition shall be binding, and thereupon the states, shall, from time to time, think expe legislature of each state shall appoint the redient to vest them with; provided that no gimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, power be delegated to the said comminttee, for arm, and equip them in a soldier-like manner, the exercise of which, by the articles of confe at the expense of the United States; and the deration, the voice of nine states in the Cong ress officers and men so clothed, armed, and equip-of the United States assembled is requisite. ped, shall march to the place appointed, and Art.

11. Canada, acceding to this colnfedera within the time agreed on by the United tion, and joining in the measures of the United States in Congress assembled; But if the States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to, United States in Congress assembled, shall, all the advantages of this Union, but no other on consideration of circumstances, judge pro-colony shall be admitted into the same unless per that any state should not raise men, or such admission be agreed to by nine states. should raise a smaller number than its quota, Art. 12. All bills of credit emitted, moneys anid that any other state should raise a great-borrowed, debts contracted, by or under the er number of men than the quota thereof, authority of Congress, before the assembling such extra number shall be raised, officered, of the United States, in pursuance of the preclothed, armed, and equipped, in the same sent confederation, shall be deemed and conmlanner as the quota of such state, unless the sidered as a charge against the United States, legislature of such state shall judge that such for payment and satisfaction whereof the said extra number cannot safely be spared out of United States and the public faith are hereby the same; In which case they shall raise, offi-solemnly pledged. cer, clothe, arm, and equip, as many of such Art. 13. Every state shall abide by the extra number as they judge can safely be determination of the United States in Congress spared. And the officers and men so clothed, assembled, on all questions which, by this armed, and equipped, shall march to the place confederation, are submitted to them. And appointed, and within the time agreed on by the articles of this confederation shall )be the United States in Congress assembled. inviolably observed by every state, and the The United States in Congress assembled union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alterashall never engage in a war, nor grant letters tion at any time hereafter be made in any of of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin Congress of the United States, and be aftermoney, nor regulate the value thereof, nor as-wards confirmed by the legislature of every certain the sums and expenses necessary for state. the defence and welfare of the United States And whereas it has pleased the Great Goveror any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow nor of the world to incline the hearts of the money on the credit of the United States, nor legislatures we respectively represent in Conappropriate money, nor agree upon the num-gress, to approve and to authorize us to ratify ber of vessels of war to be built or purchased, the said articles of confederation and perpeor the number of land or sea forces to be tual union: Know ye, That we, the underraised, nor appoint a commander in chief of signed delegates, by virtue of the power and the army or navy, unless nine states assent authority to us given for that purpose, do, by to the same; nor shall a question on any other these presents, in the name and in behalf of point, except for adjourning from day to day, our respective constituents, fully and entirely be determined unless by the votes of a majo-ratify and confirm each and every of the said 72

Page 73 view page image

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.-ATHERTON, CHARLES G. “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 institution 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 United States,a and against the remoal of slaves 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, and t hus indircc tly to destroy thatinstitution within their limits& t Res o lved, That CO)myress has no right to do that indirectly, whi ch it cannvot do directly; and that the agitation of the subjectofslavery in the DistrictofColumbia or the territories as a means, and with the view of disturbing or overthrowinag that institution in th e several states, is against the true spirit and nieaning of the Constitution, an infringement of the ringht of the s tate s affected, and a breach of the public faith upon which they entered into the confederacy. ” Resolved, /‘hat the Onstitution rests on the tsroadprincipZe of equality among the members of this confederacy, and that Congress, in the exercise of its acknowledged powers, ha 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, Tlat all attempts on the part of Co. aress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia or the terr.

tor ies, or to prohibit the removal of slaves from state to state or to discs rimin ate between the institutions of one portion of th confederacy and another with the views aforesaid, are in vi lation of the Constitution, destructive of the fundamental principle on which the union of these states rests, and beyond thejurisdsctioni 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 aford 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.” 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 Congress assembled, on all qu est i ons which, by th e said confederation, are submitted to theml; and that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent; 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 vear of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence of America. On the part and behalf of the State of New Hampshire. Josiah Bartlett, John Winentworth, Jr., August 8, 1778. On the part and behalf of the State of Massachusetts Bay. Johln lIalcock, Franci s Dana, .Samuel Adams, James Lovell, lElbri.,,e Gerr.y, Samuel I-oltgn. On the part and behalf of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. William Ellery, John Collins. llhena ry M archant, On the part and behalf of the State of Connecticut. Rog er Sbe rm an, Titnus Heosmer, Samuel ltus,tington, Andrew Adams. O liver Wolcott, On the p art and behal f of the Stat e of New York. Jas. Duan,ei, Wim. Duer, Fra. L ew is, Gouv. Morris. On the part and behalf of the State of New Jersey. Jno. Withe erspoo r Nath. Scudders eo, rNov. 26, 1778. On the part and behalf of t he S tate of Pennsylvania.

tobt. nior is,a William Clingan, D1aniel )t,,oberdeau. Joseph Reed, 22d July, 1778. Joena. Bayard Smith, On the part and behalf of the State of Delaware. Thlo. MN’iKean. Feb. 13, 1779. Nicholas Van Dyke. JoIln Dickinson, May 5,1779. On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland.

John Hanson, M4ar. 1,1781. Daniel Carroll, Mar. 1, 1781. On the part and behalf of the State of Virginia. Richardl Henry Lee, Jno. Ilarvie, J,t Blanister, Francis Lightfoot Lee. Thomas Adams, On the part and behalf of the State of North Carolina. John Petn, July 21, 17”78, Jno. Williams.

Corns. H1arnett, On the part and behalf of the State of South Carolina.

Henry Laurens. Richard Hutson, W$‘illia,n Ilenry Drayton, Thos. Heyward, Jr. Jno. Matthews, On the part and behalf of the State of Georgia. Jno.

W.alton, 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 nam,es 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.] Mr.

Cushing, 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 representative 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 purposes of party. Mr. Wise refused to vote on any of the resolutions, 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 resolution; but the motion was ruled out of order. Mr. Wise then remarked that “these are the words that sold the Sout h. ” Mr. Dawson of Ga., said, th at 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., declined vot ing on the second branch of the last resolution, for the reason that they did not wish to affirm the reception of abolition petitions, 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: Atherton, Charles G.

CELEBRATED RESOLUTIONS OF. In the ttouse of Representatives, on the 11th Dec., 1838, Mr. Atherton, a Democratic member from New Hampshire, asked leave to introduce the following resolutions: 73

Page 74 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. a z - - - B e _a a ^a a, e2 q= 4: 2MEMBERS’

NAMES. ~’;<__ ay ay Gray of N. Y. ,a o yea nay Grennell of Mass. ay nay nay nay Griffin of S. C. all y ea yea nay IHaley of Conn. a y ea yea yea hall of Vt. a yea y yea alstead of N. J. ea yea yea yea Hlammond of Pa.

Ayea nay y y nay Ilamer of Ohio B yea yea yea IHarlan of Ky. a yea yea yea Iharrison of Meo. a e yea yea yea hiarper of Ohio eea yea yea yea Ilastings of Mass. eayea yea nay liawes of Ky. eayea yea yea Ilawkins of N. C. IlaIynes of Ga. Ba ye a yea ye a lyenry of Pa. ea yea yea nay Ilerod of Ind. y,ay nay nay IHoffman of N. Y. yea yea naly Iolt of Conn. ea yea nay nay Ilopkins of IVa. i oward of Md. a yea yea Ilubley of Pa. ea yea nay Hunter of Ohio ea yea yea yea Hunter of Va. V ea ye a y ea yea Ingersoll of P a. ca 0yea yea Ingha m o f Conn. ay nay nay nay Jackson of N. Y. yea ye a yea Jenifer of Md. ia yea yea yea Jackson of Geo. n a yea yea yea Johnson of La. ya yea ye a ye a Johnson of yId. a ye a yea ye a Johnso n of Va. yea yea Jones of N. Y. ea yea yea yea Jones of Va. a y ea ye a ye a Keim of Pa. Kemlble of N. Y. nay nay Kennedy of Md. ~a yea nay Klingensmith, Pa. Leglate of S. C. ya yea ye a y ea Le adbyetter of Ohio Ga yea l ay Lewis of Ala. a yea yea yea, lincoln of Mass. ea yea yea yea[

Logan of Pa. ea yea yea nay Loomis of N. Y. ea yea yea nay Lyon of Ala. ,a yea yea yea Mallory of Va. ,a yea yea yea Marvin of N. Y. ay nay nay nay Mason of Va. ea yea yea yea Mason of Ohio ty yea nay Martin of Ala. ;a yea nay ay Nlaur-y of Tenn. ea ye. ya yea May of Illinois ay nay nay nay Maxwell of N. J. ,,a yea yea yea McKay of N. C. ea yea nay MIcClellain of Tenn. ay nay nay nay McClellan of N. Y. ea yea yea yea McClure of Pa. a yea yea MIKentnan of Pa. ea yea yea yea MNenefee of Ky. ea ya yea Myal ercer of Va. Yea yea ye eal yea yea Lay Miller of 5Io. ea nay nay nay MNilligan of De]. ,a yea lay nay Mitchell of N. Y. ,a yea yea yea MIontgomlery, N.C. ay n y nay nay Moore of N. Y. ay nay nay nay Mforgan, of Va. ea yea nay Morris of Ohio ea yea yea yea AI. Morris of tla. ea yea yea yea S.W. Morrisof Pa. ,a yea nay nayi MurrAy of Ky. A,,ynay nay nay Naylor of Pa. ea nay nay nayz Nvlle of Ie. ea yea nay nay1 Noyes of Ile.

ea yea Ityea yea] Orle of PaL. e~,. yea I yea IOwenls of Ala. ea |yea: yea: ye a |Pahmer o)f N.Yz. ea | yea +yea |yeaL lParker of N.Y. ,al nay nayI nayl Parmenter. Mas.1LS ea |y ea yea | P Larris of M\e. ena yea |natyl nayI Palvnter of P’a. ea lyeat yea lyea l Pearce of AID. eaI yeal nayi loock of N.Y. (a yell’,^ ^l I l’enlnyb~aeker, Va. yea yoalty nays lIPtriken o+f!‘aL. |yea I yea 11 Phelps of Conln. a’Us a5 -‘ E -6 yea nay ,,ay nay yea nay nay nay nay nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea ye, yeoa yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea Ilay nay yea yew yea ye. yea yea nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Day nay yea ye I yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea yea yea ye,a ,,ay nay yea yen yea yea Inay nay yea.yea nay nay yea yea yea |yeal |na; yea yea yea |‘ea yea |yea Day |nay yea |yen li a 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 yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea X9I3E’ MEMBERS’ NAMESi._ *.

=dac- = P~t=., .edamsof yass. na y nl ay na y naa Alex,yle, of yhio yea nr nay yea yea Allen of Vt. i yea ay nay na Alle n of OhioN yea. nay yea yea Anderson of Ie. y yes yea y ea yea Andrey s ofN. Y. yea yea yea yea Athertoll of N. lI.1 ye ye-, a ye yea AyCri,ee,a ot N,. J. y ea ay! yea yea Banks of -a. yea yea y eaea y e., Beatty (,f Pla. yea yea yea ye a Beers of N. Y. yea yea yea yea Beirie of Va. ye ye.e yea yea ell of TeNn.

ye yee 3a yea yea Bicknell of N. Y.ye yea yea n y lille f la. yea BirdIl’

l of N.. yea yea yea yea Bondl of 0i io yat nay naye yea Bordleni of M.ass. yea | n’t) nay Bouildl of a. y ea yea,ye a yea Bri,as of lMass. yea nay nay nay Boon l of nd. e y Brolheyyd of N. Y. yea ye yea ye eaea Jro,.,son of l-. yea ye a yea yes yea CrB,a1y;hayy(en of l’a. yea yea yea yeayoa Cvrary y y aef N. C. ye a yea yea yea Cytlhoo.i of Kv. ye. yea yea yea CalriyoyaM of Olhisy.e nay nay Caeanreiiy ya a aof-N. Y.! vyea ye, yrea yea C:nlpo~le!l of T,en. yea yea yea nay C;, y)a ) ell of S. C. yea yea yea Cater of T e a n. i yea ye a yea yea yC,,se-y f 111. yeye ye. yea yea yChamlelens of Ky. yea yea yea ChItley f i)lli) | yea yea yea yea ChBper ofla. yea yea yea y ea Cheyaathamay r of Tenn. yea Cil,ls of N.Y.

ye a ay nay Ml nao Clayite of. Y.e yea nay e yea yea Cievelhand of ( eo.

Cl,ey (;f S.. i. yea yea yea Cofaiill of i)hio ye,, naye yea yea Cyyles of y a. yea yea yea yea Conner of N. C. yea nyea yea yea Corlin o yf Ohio yea n ayl yea yea Cra)b of Ala. yea yea yea Crai of Va. ye yea yea yea Cralry of lich. vea yea yes yea Cranston of.I. yea nay nay nay Crockett of Tenn.

yea yea yea y(e, Curtis o’f N. Y. yea nay’yea Cushing r of MIa,ss. yea nay, nay nay Clshman of l.ass. yea yea, yea ye DarlrlinLson of Pa. naye n a y nay Daw,son of Geo. yea yea| yea yea Davee of. ai”e yea, yea D;vie-, (if Pa. yea nay nayl nab DIeberry of N. C. yes yea yea | yea De’,raff of N. Y. yea vea ye-l Denn,is f 3i1. ye yea i yea ye Dr omioole of Va. yea yea yea yea Dun~can of Ohio yea yea yea yea D,lin of Ild. y eat ayi yea nta Edzward. of N. Y. yea nay’ yea yea Elmh’e of S. C. e ye:, y ea y e a Eviatls of Maine I,l;ty nay nay Everett of Vt. nay.ilV, nay, na Ewving of Ind. h nay yea Fa.lrrillrton of N. II. yea I yea yea yea F
ailfiehldof5Ianlile | e ya+yea yea Fl:;tcher of Vit. Iyea[ yea! yea ala Flether of Vtss. ye. ye!a F I),’,. f’N s. nay i nay ha! Fillmo.re of N.

Y. yea| nay nay Nan Foster of N.Y. yea yea yea yea Fry of Pa. yea i nay; yea yea Gallulp of’. Y. yea ~, yea yeaz Garhm;t l of V a. yea yea ).yeatF
yea Garland of Tot.et yea ye yea; yea Girlclings of Ohiofz j asnv i Glascock ofr(Leo. yea jyadyte Gooded of (Ohivo e a yea u Grahamtl of N.C(.

yea ye yea; yeae~ Grath~….f ind. yel…..y yew! G)rantl~rmd of Oreo. yea [yea yea a e Grant of N. Y. y ea yea yea~ |‘ye. Graves of Ky. yea iyea ~
yea i yes yea yea yea yea C.- C~ C .ay lay nay yea yeaye yea yea yea |yea yea nay nay nay nay yea nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea, yea yea yea yea yea yea -ay 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 ye a 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 yea nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea yea yea 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 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 y e a yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay 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 yea yea l j yea yea yea |yea yea yea Iyea ayea yea yea lyea yea yea yea lnay; nay yea |nay |yfea yea |
yea yea yea yea yea.yea ya na I’ I a 1 e I yea yea nay nay yea L yea yea LDa nay L yea yea yea yea yea Lyea Lyea I I I 74 I. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea iaay yea yea yea nay yea .ay yea nay yea yea yea yea nay ye. yea yea nay y ” -” Ye. ye. .ay yea y,:,, .ay ye,, nay yea ye,-t ye,,i yea yea yea ye,-i nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yen yea

Page 75 view page image

ATIIERTON, CHARLES G.-BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. SIEMBYRS’ NAM’ES. a o X M

M _ ,o c f~= , | likes of S. C. yea ye a ye a ye a yea yea yea yea IPotts. of [‘a. nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay lik~n of~ C yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Salyo.C I’lurnmer of Pa. yea yea yea yea yea yea Pope of K y. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Potter of PIa. Pratt of N. Y. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea I’reytiss of N.Y. yea .ut” of -N. Y. yea nay nay nay yea yea nay nay Uandolph of N. J. yea nay yea yea nay yea yea nay aride of Ia. nay nay nay yea nay nay nay jrilev of Pa. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea B e e of Mass. nay nay nay *nhr of N. C. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Rhett of S. C. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea ]Richardson of S. C. Ridgeway of Ohio yea nay yea nay yea yea nay ives of Va. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Robertson of Va. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Robinson of MNe. yea nay yea nay nay nay nay| nay RuBoseyy of Ky. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Russell of N. Y. nay nay nay nay nay Saltonstall of Mlass.

yea nay nay nay nay nay nay; nay Sawver of N. C. yea yea yea yea yea I ye.

Sergeant of Pa. nay ay Shelfer of P.’ yea nay nay Shephard of N. C. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea I yea Sthepard of N C. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Shields of Tenn. yea yea I yea yea yea yea yea yea Shepler of Ohio yea yea yea yea yea yea yea y Sibley of N. Y. yea nay nay yea nay Slade of Vt.

nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay Smith of Me. yea I nay nay nay Snyder of Ill. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea S)uth,fate of Ky. yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Spe,,eer of N.Y. yea l yea yea, yea I yea yea yea yea Blank of the United States. THE first act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States, was approved Feb. 25, 1791, by President Washington; its term of incorporation to expire at the end of the year 1811, and no other bank to be incorporated by the United States during 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 motion to limit the charter to 1801, was lost by yeas and nays as follows: YEas -Messrs.

Butler of S. C., Few of Ga., Gunn of Ga., Hawkins of N. C., Izard of S.

C., and Monroe of Va.-6. N ~sy. Messrs. Bassett of Del., Dalton of Mass., Ellsworth of Coon., Emes of N.J., Foster of R. I., Johnson of Conn.,. King of N.Y., Langdon, Maclay and Morris of Pa., Read of Del., Schuyler of N.

Y., Stanton of R. I., Strong of Mass., and Wingate of N. H.-16. MEMBERS’

NAMES. Stanley o f N. C. Stewart of Va. Stone of Tenn. Stratton of N. J.

,Swearingen, Ohio Taliaferro of Va. Taylor of N. Y. Tillinghast of R. I.

Thomas of Md. Thompson of S. C. Titus of N. Y. Tolm.d of Pa. Toucey of Conn. Towns of Geo. Turney of Tenn. Underw,ood of Ky. Vail of N. Y.

Vanderweer, N. Y. Wagoner of Ila. Webste~r of Ohio White of Ind. White of Ky. Whittlesey, Conn. WVilliamns of N. C. Wvilliams of Ky. W\illi.amls of N. II. J. L.Williams, Ten. C II.Williams, Ten. Word of Miss. Yell of Ark.

Yorke of N. J. Yeas Nays I 0 1. _ e o’. yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay 180 26 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 follows: YEAS.-iMer osrs. Ames of Mass., Benson of N.Y., Boudinot of N.

J., 13ourne of R. I., Cadwalader of N. J., Clymer of Pa., Fitzsimmons of Fa, a hloyd of N. Y., Foster of N. HI., Gerry of b cass., Gilnan of N.

II.. GoodhueofMass., ss., Hartley of Pa., Iathorn of N. Y., Ileister of Ia., Hluntington of Conn., Lawrence of N. Y., Leonard of Mass., Livermore of N.H., P. Mluhlenberg of Pa., Partridge of Mass., Van Rensselaer of N.

Y., Schureman of N. J., Scott of Pa., Sedgewick of Tass., Seney of Md., Sevier of N. C., Sherman of Conn., Sylvester of N.Y. Siunickson of N.J., Smith of Md., Smith of S. C., Steele of N. C., Sturges of Conn., Thatcher of Mass., Trumbull of Conn., Yining of Del., Wadsworth of Conn., Wynkoop of Pa.-39. NAYS.-Messrs. Ashe of N. C., Baldwin of Ga., Bloodworth of N.

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.C., White of Va., Williamson of N. 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 Tenn., 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., Ihenry 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, 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 motion, as did all who voted “No” on the formier 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., I I I 75 I I .9.1 I t’. o’ yea yea yea yea yea yea nay I 1..2 I !5 C,. yea yea nay yea yea yea .ay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yeayea yea yea yea 146 50 I . -a I1. 9 “. .4 0 yes y a nay yea yea yea nay yea yea y a nay yea yea yea .. 4 ..2 11I I 0. yea yea yea yea yea y a Day yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea 164 40

, -6 I , I I 04 yea yea y ea yea yea yea iaav yea yea !5 r. . 75 yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea ye. 3-ta yea yea yea yea 198 6 ‘o 10 yea y a Day yea yea yea n ay yea yea yea .ay yea ye a yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay ,,136 65 yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea Yea yea yea nay i 173 30 yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea 174 25 yea yea nay yea yea yea yea DRY yea Day yea nay 126 77

Page 76 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. vould be equivalent to its rejection, when it appeared there was a tie vote as follows: 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 Ihouse of Representatives on the 8th of January, 1816, by Mr. Calhoun of South Carolina, from a committee. The bill was defended by Mess. Calhoun, Smith of Md., Wright of Md., Tucker 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 of Va., Stanford of N. C., IHanson of Md., Pickering of Mass., and others. It finally passed the house on the 14th of March, 1816, by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Adgate of N.Y., Alexander of 0., Atherton of N. Il., Baer of Va., Betts of N. Y., Boss of R. I., B:adbury of Nlass., Brown of Mass., Calhoun of S. C., Cannon of Tenn., Champion of Conn., Chappell of S.C., Clark of N. C., Clark of Ky., Clendeernior of O., Comstok of N. Y., Condit of N. J., C onner of Mass., Creighton of 0., Crocheson of N.Y., Cuthber t of Ga., Edwards of N. C., Forney of N. C.. F,rsyth of Ga., Glholson of Va., Griffin of lPa., Grosvenor of N. Y., Ilawes of sa., Henderson of Tenn.. IIuger of S. C., IIulbert of Mass., Il ungerford of V a.. Ingham of Pa., Irving of N. Y., Jackson of Va., Jewett of Vt., Kerr of Va., King of N. C.. Love of N. C., Lowrdes of S. C. Lum, hpkin of Ga., Mlably of Cla., Mansolp of It. I., McCoy of Va., MKe e of Ky., Middlento of S. C., Moore of S. C., ioseley of Conn., MurfMee of N. C., Nelson of Mass., Parris of Mass., Pickens of N.

C., PiNkoey of Md.,Iirofa, ooiper of Pa., Robertson of La, Sharp of Ky., Smith of Md., Smith of Va., Sout hard of N. J., Taul of Ky., Taylo r of N.

Y., Taylor of S. C., Telfair of G a.. Th omas of Tenn., Throop of N. Y., Townsend of N. Y., Tucker of’ % a., W ard of N. J., W indover of N.Y., Wheaton of Mass., c ilde of Ga., W ilkin of N.Y., Williams of N. C., Wi lloughby of N. Y., T. Wilson f Pa., W. Wilson of Pa., W oodward of S. C., Wo. right of Md., Yancey of N. C., Yate s of N. Y.-80. NAYS.-Messrs. Baker of N. J.. Barbour of Va., B,assett of Va., Bennett of N. J., B3irdall of N. Y., Blount of Tenn., f3rekeaBridgte of’a.. Burnside of Pa., Burwell of na., Cldy of N. Y., Caldwell of O., CillGy of N. 1V., Clayton of Del., Clol)ton of Va., Cooper of Del., Crawford of Ila., Culpepper of N. C., 1)artlington of Pa., Davenport of Conn.. I)esha of Ky., Gaston of N. C., Gold of N. Y., Goldsboroug_h of Nld., (Goodwyn of Va., Hlahn of lPa..

Ilale of N. II., Hlall of Ga., Ilanson of Md., 1.irdin of Ky., Hierbert of Md., llopkil,son of Pa., Johnson of Va., Kent of Md., Langdon of V’t.. Law of Conn., Lewis of Va., ILovett of N. Y.. Lyle of I’a,, Lyon of Vt., Marsh of Vt., Mayrant of S. C., McLean of Ky.. M(Lean of O.. lilnerof Pa..

Newton f Va. Noyes of Vt.. O-msby of Ky., PIickering of Mlass.. l’itliin of Conn., ltan,ll~ph of Va., Rteed of Mass., Reot of N. Y., R’oss of Ia.

ugles of Mase., Sergeant of lPa., Savage of N. Y., lhvfi’y of Vl., Smith of Ila. Stanford of N. C., Stearns of Ma.s., Strong of MIass., Sturges of Cramn., Tasgg,at-t of.Mass.. Talnmdge of Conn., V.o”e of N. Il., Wvalla(ce of I-a.. EmWa,,de of Mass., War d of -N. Y., Webster of Mla,,s., W“‘hiteside of Pa., Wilcox of N. 1I.-71. YEAS. Iessrs. Anderson of Tenn., Campbell of O., Clay of Ky., Cotts of. Franklin of. C., Gaillard of S. C., G(erman of N. Y., Gi of of Va.. Gregg of la., I,atibert of N. J., Leib of Pa., Matthewson of R. I., Reed of )Id., Robinson of Vt., Smith of Md., Whiteside of Tenn., Worthingtou of O.-17. NAYS.-,Nessrs. Bayard of De]., Bradley of Vt., Brent of Va.. Chaplin of R. I., Condit of N. J., Crawford of Ga., Dana of Conn., Gilman of N. II., Goodrich of Conn., liersay of Del., L,loyd 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. Ba ssett of Va., Ma con of N. C., Bacon of Mass., Seybert of Pa.. Porter of N.Y., Desha of Ky., New ton of Va., Wrigh t 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., Fi ndl ey of Pa., AGcKim of Md., Sheffey of Va., Nicholson of N. Y., Talmadge of Conn., and Stanley of N. C. Mr. Burwell, who reported it from the committee, was opposed to it; but merely reported it, following the instructions of the committee. Ife moved to strike out the first section of the bill. Alr.

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.. E. Bacon of Mass., Bird of Pa., Barry of Ky., Bu well of Va., Bassett of Va.. Bibb of Ga., B3oyd of N. J., Brown of Pa., Butler of S. C., Calhoun of S. C., Cheeses of S. C., Clay of Va., Cochran of N. C., Crawford of Pla.. Cutts of Mass., Dawson of Va., Desha of Ky., Eppes of Va., FIranklin of N. C., Gannett of Mass., Gardner of Mass., Gbolson of Va., Goodwyn of Va., Gray of Va., Ilolland of N. C., Johnson of Ky., Jones of’a. Kenan of N. C., Kenn,.dy of N. C., Love of Va., Lyle of Pa. Macon of N.C., McKim of Md., McKinley of Ala., Mitchell of N. Y., Montgonmery of Md., MNloore of S. C., Moore of Ind., Morrow of Tenn., Mumford of N. Y., Newton of Va., Porter of N.Y., John Rea f Pa., Joh n 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 Pla., Senuthard of N. J., Troup of Ga., Turner Jr., Van Ioru of Ml., Weakley of Tenn., Whitehill of Pa., Winn of S. C., Witherspoon of S.C., Wright of Md.-65. NAYS.-Messrs. Allen of Mass., Alston of S. C., Bigelow of MIass., Blaisdell of N.H., Breckenridge of Va., Campbell of Md.. Chamberlain of N. H., 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., Gardiner of N.Y., Garland of Va., Goldsborough o f Md., G old of N.Y., Hale of N.H., Hlaven of N. H., Heister of Pa., IHelms of N.J., Hubbard of Vt., Iufty of N. J., Ihuntington of Conn., Jackson of R. I., Jenkins of Pa., Key of Ind..

Knickerbocker 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., Newb old of N. J.. Nicholson of-N. Y., Pearson of N. C., Pickman of Mass.. Pitkin o f Conn., Potter of R. I., Quincy of Mass., Ranlolph of Va., Sammons of N.Y., Scudder of N.J., Shaw of Vt., Sheffey of Va., Smelt of Ga.. Smith of Md., Stanford of N. C., Stanley of N. C., Stephenson of Va., Sturges of Conn., Swoope of Va., Taggart of Mass., Talmadge of Conn.. Thompson of N.Y., Van Dyke of Del., Van Rensselaer of N.Y., Whealin of Mass., Wilson of N. H.-63. Th e bill was supported in the Senate by Messrs. Bibb of Georgia, Barbour of Va., and Taylor of S. C., and opposed by Mfessrs. 5’htson of N. II., 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: T6 YEAS.-‘Nfe.,sr,.‘BarboLr of Y.., Barry of Ky., Brown of La., Cat,lbell of Tenn., Cl,,e of Vt., Condit of N. J., ]Da,,gg,tt of Conn., Fro.entin f La.. Ilarp,,r of Md., Ilor,ey of D,I., Ilo,,,-Il of It. I., I-lunt,-r of R,. I., Lacock of Pa.,’.Nlason of Va..’,Nlot-row of O., It.b-rt )f Pa., Tait of G.., Taylor of S. C., Turner of N. C., Varnum of Mass., Willian-is of Tenn. -22.

NAYS.-‘NTeF,,rs. Dana of Conn.. Gaillard of S. C., 1,oldsb rou,,,,h of.)Id.. (lore of Ms,.. King of N. Y., Mae-n if N. C., Mason of N. 11., of O., S..for,l of N. Y., Tichener of Vt., Well. of Dl., Wils.n of N. J.-12.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill were concurred in by the Ilouse, on the 5th of April, 1816, after a long debate, in which Mr. Daniel Webster of N. 11., John Randolph of

Page 77 view page image

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. Va., and Ben Ilardin of Ky., opposed the bill, Pa-.. N. BCrt)er of Conn.. J. S. Brtbouir of Va., Barringer of “N.C..

larst)w of ~N. Y.. J. C. Batesf Mass., liriggs of.lass and Messrs. Calhoun of S.C., Grosvenor of N. olf(‘h,:r ofl ta.. wButllard of La.,.Bu.rd of lPa., Burgess of It. I., Y., Hlulbert of Mass., and others, defended it.

Clhoate of Mlass.. Collier of N. Y., J. Con(it of N.J.. S. Con On the 2d of February, 1831, Mr. Benton iof N, Co oke of O., B.Co okulter of a N.Y., C ooperaig of’. Crie o, ‘,’ *. ~~~J., Cotwin of 0., Coulter of lPa., Craig of;‘a.. Crainle of 0., of Missouri, asked leave of the Senate to in-Crawford of P.., Creighton of O.. Daniel of Ky., J. Davis of tMlass., Dearborn of Iass., Denny of Pa.. D,wart of a., Dotroduce the following resolution: dridese of Va., Drayton of S. C., Ellsworth of Conn.. G. E
van, Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-of Ale., J. Evans of Everett of M.. Everett of Eo P~. Everet of ass., I.Eeeto Resolved bytheSenate..Vt.. Ford o f Pa., Gilmore of Pa., Grennell of Ma i., lodges resentatives of the United States of America of ass., Ileister of Pa., Ilorn of Pa., iu hes of N.J.. IlIn,tin Congress assembled, That the charter of i,lgti) of Conn., lhrie of Pa., Ingersoll of onn., ri n of O-., the Bank of the United States ought not to be esaksr of Tenn., Jeiher of d.. Keydallof I a I. King of r, ])~~~a.. Kerr of’,%I. Le,tchef of Ky., Mann of P~a., MarshaI o-f renewed. Ky., Nlaxwell of Va., MeCoy of Pa, McDuffie of S.C.. e ln nanof Pa. M ererof Va Mlliganof Del., Neweli, l’ecrne Mr. Benton supported the resolution in an of a. I., Pienlehe r of N Y., liotts of li., ofRa.I,Pnd lt,,oflph., Plei,er nof.. Io, i~f elaborate and able speech. 0,Snmso lcpr elaborate and able speech lta%,(iolph of N. J., J. neerd of Mass,.. l/oot of N.. Y. uss,1 of O., Sernores of 3Id., A-. B, Shepard of N. C.. A. 11. Slhepperid No Senator replied. of N. C., Slade of Vt., Smith of Pa., Soutlard of N. J., Speince Mr. Webster of Mass. called for the yeas of Md., Staitberry of O., Stephens of la., Stewart f I’a., and nays on the motion that leve e granted Storrsof Conn., Sutherland of Pa., Taylor of N. Y., P. Thomas and nays on.he motion that lea;ve be granted,~,fL. opi, fK. re.Y,V,c-~., of La., Tompkins of Ky., Tracy of A. Y. Vanc e of O. ve.when it was decided in the negative, as fol-pla’.ck of N. Y., Vinton ofO.,Washington,of Id.,W
atmoii:h ~~~~~~~~lows - ~~~~of ]a., E. Wlhittesley of 0., F. Wlhittesly of N. Y., E. D. White lows~~~~~~~ of La., Wicklilfe of Ky., Williams of N. C., and Young of YEAS. Ilessrs. Barnard of Pa., Benton of Mo., Bibb of Coiin.-106. Ky., Brown of N. C., Dickerson of N.J., Dudley of N.Y., NAYS.-Nessrs. Adair of Ky., Alexa nde r of Va., Anderson Forsyth of Ga., Grundy of Tenn., Hayne of S.C., Iredi’ll of of Mld., Archer of Va., Bates of Nlo.. Beardsly of N. Y., N. C., King of Ala., McKinley of Ala., Poindexter of Mliss., Bell of Tenn., eren of N.Y., Bethune of N..,.laes Blair Sanford of N.Y., Smith of S.C., Tazewell of Va., Troup of of S.C., louck of N. Y., Botildin of Va. Branu c of N. C., Ga., Tyler of Va., White of Tenn., and Woodbury of N. tI. Cambreling of N. Y., Carr of Ind., Chau(ilierof N. 11., Clinn -20. of Va., Claiborne of Va., Clay of Ala., Clayton of Ga.. Coke NAYS.-Messrs. Barton of Mo., Bell of N. II., Burnett of of Va., Conner of N. C.. W. It. Davis of S. C., Da,yan of N.Y., 0., Chase of Vt.. Clayton of Del., Foot of Conn., Frelingiuy-Doubledav of N.

Y., Felder of S.C., Fitzgerald of Tenn., sen of N. J., Hendricks of Ind., HIlolmes of Mie., Johnston Foster f a., Gaither of Ky., Gordon of V a.. Gi iffin of S.C., of La., Knight of R. I., Livingston of La., Marks of Pa., No-T. I. all of N. C,a ll of of Tenn., lIamlsons of N. f., ble, Rtobbins of R. I., Robinson of Ill., Ruggles of 0., Sey-Ilarper of N. II., llawes of Ky., IIawk ins of N. C.. 11offnan mour of Vt., Silsbee of MIass., Smith of MId., Sprague of Me., of N. Y., IIogan of N.Y., Ilolland of )Id., loward of Md., Webster of Mass., Willey of Conn.-23. Ilubbard of N. I., Jarvis of Md., C. Johnson of V a.. Kava naugrh of 5Id1. Kennon of O., A.

Kings of P’a. J. Kilts of N. On the 9th of January, 1831, in the Senate ay. Lampr of Ga., Leavitt of.,.ecompte of K., Lewisg of N. Y.,La.tr f a.,Leait ofO.,l~eomte f K.,Lewis of (the same day on which a like petition was Ala., Lyon of Ky., Mardis of Ala., Mason of a., McCarty presented to the House), Mr. Dallas presented of nd., MIotire o f Mo., McKay of N. C., Mitchell )f fMId., Newman of Ga., Nuckolls of S. C., Patton of Va., Plierson the petition of the United States Bank for a re-of N. Y., Polk of Tenn., E. C. R eed of N.Y., Renherf N. C, riewal of its charter. ]loane of Va., Soule of N. Y., Speight, Standifbr, F. newal of its charter.dir,F

The. memor l.wThomas of )Id., IV. Thompson of Ga. J. Thomson of ()., The memorial was referred to a committee Ward of N. Y., larlell of N. Y., Wayne of Ga.. Weeks of N. consisting of Messrs. Dallas of Pa., Ewing of lof N.., C. P. White of N. Y., C Pide of Ga., Ohio, Webster of Mass., Hayne of S. C., an<d Worthi,sgton of Ind.-84. JohniWston of Las. Hanof.

C,adOn the 10th of July, 1832, President Jack On the 3d of March, 1831, Mr. Dallas re-son communicated to the Senate, in which the ported a bill to renew the charter of the Bank bill originated, the act to modify and continue for the term of fifteen years from its expira-the act to incorporate the subscribers to the ~~~~~~~tion. ~United States Bank, with his objections to the Messrs. Dallas, Webster, Clayton, and others, same.

Messrs. Webster of Mass., Ilolmes of defended the bill. Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Mass., Ewing of Ohio, Clayton of Del., and WVhite, Hill, and others, opposed it. Clay of Ky., opposed the veto. Messrs. White On the 11th of June, 1832, the question was of Tenn., and Benton of Missouri, defended it. taken, and the bill was passed by yeas and The question was then put-“

Shall the bill nays, as follows:- become a law, the Presidenit’s objections to the YEAS.-NMessrs. Bell of N. Ht., Buckner of Mo., Chambers of contrary notwithstanding?”’ (a twothird vote MId.,Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Dallas of Pa., Ewing of 0., being necessary to carry it), and it was deci Fi’)ot of Connr., Frelinghuysen of N. J., HIendricks of Ind., ded in the negative Holmes of Mle., J. S. Johnston of La., Knight of I. I., Nau daiu of Del., Poindexter of Miss., Prentiss of Vt., Iobbins of All the Senators who voted for the passage of It. I., Robinson of Ill., Ruggles of 0., Seymour of Vt., Silsbee the bill originally, voted for it notwithstanding of Mass.. Saml. Snith of Md., Sprague of Me., Tipton of Ind., Eing, igt, Totalinsen of Conn.. Waggaman of La., Webster of Mass., t, asid Wilkins of Pa.-28. Naudain, Smith and Waggaman, who were NAYs.

Messrs. Benton of Mo., Bibb of Ky., Brown of N. C., absent. The neative vote was identical with ek, yt ~~~~~~~~absent. The negative vote was identical, with Dickerson of N.J., Dudley of N.Y., Ellis of MIiss..

Forsyth of Ga., Grundy of Tenn., Hayne of S.C.. Ilill of N. iH., Kane of the exception that Mr. Dickerson was absent Ill., King of Ala., Mangum of N. C., Marcy of N.Y., Miller of and did not vote on it after the veto.

S.C.. MNoore of Ala., Tazewell of Va., Troupe of Ga., Tyler of Ya,, Hugh L. White of Tenn.-20. The removal of the government deposites from the Bank of the United States was con The bill from the Senate to renew the char-summated on the 22d of September, 1833. ter of the Bank was passed by the House on Mr. William J. Duane of Pa., the Secretary the 3d of July, 1832, by yeas and nays, as of the Treasury, having declined to make the follows:  removal, President Jackson removed him and YAs. Messrs. Adams of Mass., C. Allen of Ky., H. Allen appointed Roger B. Taney of Maryland (the of Vt., Allison of Pa., Appleton of Mass., Armstrong of Va., Arnold of Tern., Ashley of Mo., Babcock of N.Y., Banks of present Chief Justice) Secretary of the Trea

Page 78 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. silry, who immediately carried out the wishes of the President. 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 action 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 celebrated protest.

YEAS.-Messrs. Bibb of Ky., Bell of N. II.. Black of Mass., Calhoun of S.C., Clay of Ky., Clayton of Dei.. Ewing of 0., Frelinghuysen of N. J., Kent of MId., Knight of R. I., Leigh of Va., McKean of Pa., Mangum of N.

C., Naudain of Del., Poinidexter of Miss., lorter of La.,.Ii,ntiss of Vt., Preston of S. C., Robbins of R. I., Silsbee of Mass.. Smith of Md., Southard of N. J., Sprague of MIe., Swift of Vt., Tomlinson of Conn., Tyler of Va., a-aggaiaan of La., Webster of Mlass.-28. NAYs. Lessrs.

Benton of MNo., Brown of N. C., Forsvth of Ga., Grundy of Tenn., Ilill of N. H., Kane of Ill.. King of Ala., King of Ga., Linn of Mo., Morris of 0., Robinson of Ill., Shepley of Me., Tipton of Ind., White of Tenn., Wilkins of Pa., Wright of N. Y.-16. The votes on both of the resolutions were identical, with the exception that Mr. Ilendricks, 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 IHouse.

At the beginning of the first session of the 23d Congress, shortly after the removal of the deposites, President Jackson nominated H. D. Gilpin, J.

T. Sullivan, P. Wager, and H. MIc Eldery as the five directors in the United States Bank to represent the government. These gentlemen were the same who had served du ring the previous year, and had the year before been confirmed by.the Senate. They were supposed to be opposed to the Bank, having made the report upon which the order for the removal of the deposites was mainly justified. Their nomination was rejected by the Senate, by yeas and nays as follows: YE.kS.-Messrs. Benton of Mo., Black of Miss., Brown of N. C.. Forsyth of Ga., Grundy of Tenn., Hendricks of Ind.. Ilill of N. H., Kne o f I l., Kin g of Ala., Linn of AMo., olcKean of Pa., Moore of Ala., M orris of O., Robinson of Il., Shepley of Me., Tallmnad,e of N. Y., T ipton of Ind., White of Tenn., Wilkins of Pa., Wright of N. Y. 20. NAYS. Mlessrs. Bell of N. Hi., Bibb of Ky., Calhoun of S. C., Chambers of M d., Clay of Ky., Ewing, of 0., i’relingbuye s en w of N.iJ., eent o f., Knigh t of R. I., wlangum of N. C., Naud:ti i o f Del., Poindexter of Miss.. Porter of La., I’rentiss of Vt., Preston of S.C., Robbins of R. I., Silsbee of Mass. Smitho o Fane of Mwe., Spraitue of’e., Swift of tt., Tomlin.son of Conn., Tyler of Va., Wag,,gaman of La., Webster of Mass.-24. President Jackson addressed a communication to the S
enate, with referen ceo to th e rejection of these nominations, on which he disclaimed all intention to call in question the act of the body rejecting them, but communicated his views of its consequences if it were not reconsidered. This message of the President was referred to the Committee on Finance, of which Mr. Tyler was the chairman, who made a report commenting upon the message of the Presideent. adverse to the renominations and recommending their rejection. The four gentlemen named were accordingly again rejected. 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 these 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 Unite d States. The third one was to the effect that the State Banks ought to be continued as the de positories of the public m oneys, and that it is expedient that further provision should be mad e prescribing the mode of selection, the securities t o be ta ken, and th e oanner and terms upon which they are to be employed. The fourth resolution provided for the appointment of a committee to investigate the affairs of the United States Bank, and to report upon its various malpractices. violations of its charter, &c., to report to the lIouse. The first resolution was adopted, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAs.-M(cssrs.

Adams of N. Y., Allen of 0., Anthony of Pa., Archer of Va., Beale of Va., Bean of N. lI., lBeardsly of N. Y., Beaumont of lPa. Bell of’enn., Blair of Tenn., Bockee of N. Y., Boon of Ind., louhlin of Va., Brown of N. Y., Bunch of Tenn.. Bynum of N. C., Cambreling of N. Y.. Campbell, Carmichael of MNd.. Carr of Ind., Casey of Ill., Chaney of 0., Chinn of La., Cmaioorne, Va., Clark of N. Y., Clay of Ala., Clayton of Ga., Clowney o!

S. C., Coffee of Ga., Connor of N. C., Cramer of N. Y., Davis of S. C., Davenport of Va., Day of N. Y., Dickerson of N. J., Dickenson of Tenn., Dunlap of Tenn., Felder of S. C., Forrebter of Tenn., Foster of On the 26th of Dec., 1833, Mr. Clay of Ky. introduced resolutions in the Senate, to the effect, that the President in his late executive roceedings, in relative to the public revenue, had assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, and in derogation of both; and that the reasons assigned by the Secretary of the Treasurv, for the removal of the public deposites 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 referred to the Committee on Finance, was the subject of an elaborate report by Mr.

Webster from that Committee, reviewing the report of the Secretary, and recommending that the resolution be adopted. The resolutions were adopted by the Senate on the 28thl of March, 1834. Mir. Clay on the 28th of May, 1834, introduiced( resolutions similar to those which had passed the Senate on the 28th of March, giving to them the character of joint re 78

Page 79 view page image

BANK OF TIIE UNITED STATES. Ga.. W. K. Fuller of N.Y., Fulton of Va., Gailbraith of Pa., rejected by the Senate, when his nominatinn Ghbolas, of Vf., Gilh,t of N.Y.. Gilii-er of Ga CGio of Ya., as Secretar cae up before it for cofir -ation. Grayson eof S.C., GOitlin of S.C.. Joseph hall of Ie.. T. 11. a Se etary ca e up before i fo confirmation. Ilall of N. C..

Ilalsey of N. Y.. Ilamer of 0.. Ilan,eg’m of On the 3d of March, 1836, the charter of lInd…Joseph Ml. Ilar[per of N. It., liarrison of P.,…Ila,th…a Jndol..seh arperofN.H, ilarriso of P l ythe Bank of the United States expired. It of N. Y.. Ilwikins f N. C.,we of Ky., hleath of Md Ifenederson of 1’.., Howell of N. Y.. Hubbard of N. 1., Ilunt-continued to work, however, under a charter ilgton of N. Y., loge of Tenn., Jarvis of JIe llohsoll of from Pennsylvania, under the title of the Ky., John of N.., Johns non f Jon of the Tenn., JonStates of a., Jothes of 0., Kaanah of e., Kinnard of Id.. Lan of Id. Pennsylvania ak of the United States the Lansin o,f N. Y., Laporte of Pa., Lawrence of N.Y., L,ay of bank under the United States charter having, N. Y.. Lea of Tenn., Lee of N. J., Leavitt of O., loyall of Va., f T, L e of J, Lev of 0. Lof Y one day before its expiration, transferred to Luc as of Va., Lyon of Ky., Lytle of O., Mani of N. Y., Mann of Pla., Miardis of Ala., Mason of Va., Mason of Me.. MIntire the bank under the state charter all of its of Mle..

McKay of N. C., McKinley of Ala., NcL,an of.. roperty. McVean of N. Y., Miller of Pa., itchell of N.Y., litcheli of O., luhlenerg of Pa., Murphy of Ala.. Osgood of lass., On the 9th of Oct., 1839, even under its Page of N. Y., Pa rks of Me., Parker of N.J., Iatterson of 0., state sanction, it ceased to exist, and stopped. D. J. Pearee of R. I.,‘eyton of Tenn., Pierce of N. 11., Pier,on of N. Y., Pin’kney of S. C., Plumer of MNlis., Polk of Tenn., Rencher of N. C.. Schenck of N. J., Sclhley.of (a., On the 21st of June, 1841, a United States Shi f N. J., Sm ith of e., Spight of N. C, Standifer, Bankwas attempted to be re-established, under of Tenn., 8toddart of Md., Sutherland of Pa., Taylor of N. e Y., Taylor of Pa., Thomas of Md., Thompson of O., Turner of a new name. Mr. Clay introduced a bill in Md.. Turrill of N. Y., Vanderpoel of N. Y., Wagene-of Pa., the Senate, from the select committee on the Ward of N. Y., Wardwell of N. Y., Wayne of Ga., Webster aofrw,l oNlon Yof yN. oY.-34.” currency, to establish a “Fiscal Bank of the of0., Wh,do fN.Y-14 NAs. Nlessrs. John Quincy Adams of Mass., John J. United States.” It passed the Senate on the Allen of Va., Ileman Allen of Vt., Chilton Allan of Ky., 28th of July, 1841, by a vote of yeas 26, nays Ashley of Mo., Banks of Va., Barber of Conn., Barnitz of [a2.,, a Barringer of N. C., B3aylies of Mass.. Beaty of Ky., Bsell of 0., o very senator who voted for the repeal Binney of Pa., Brigs of Mass., Bull of Mo., Bur;es of It I., of the Independent Treasury law voted for Cagre of Mliss., Chambers of Pa., Chilton of Ky. Choate of C.,~,- of Chambers of Pa., Chilton of Ky., Clte of this bill with the exception of Messrs. Archer, Mass. Clark of Pa., Corwin of 0., Coulter of Pa., Crane of O., Crockett of Tenn., Darlington of Pa., Amos Davis of Ky., tives, and Clayton. Messrs. Archer and Deberry of N. C. Deming of Vt., Denny of Pa., Dennis of isies voted against this bill. Mr. Clayton Md., Di(kson of N. Y., Duncan of Ill., Ellsworth of Conn., Evans f Ae., Everett of Mass., Everett of Vt., Fillmore of did not vote at all. N. Y., Foote of Conn., Fuller of N. Y., Graham of N. C., The negative vote was the same as on the Grennel of Mass, Ilall of Vt, Hard of N.Y., Ilardin of Ky., Ilarper of Pa., Ilazeltine of N. Y., Huntington of Con n., repeal of the Independent Treasur bill, [see Jackson, Johnson of Md., Lincoln, Martindale, Marshall INDEPENDENT TREASURY] with the addition of JfK.

eartyko INE., MeoasUY wihfh Va.,dditioe of 8 of Ky. McCarty of Ind., McComas of’Vas., MIlDuffei of S. Messrs. Archer and Itives, who voted for that, C., McKennan of Pa., Mercer of Va., Milligan of Del., Moore ofv a., Pope of Ky., Potts of Pa., Reed of Mass., William B. and against this, and Messrs. Buchanan, Linn, Sheliherd of N. C., Augustus HI. Shepperd of N. C.

William and Mouton who did not vote on the repeal Slade of Vt., Charles Slade of IlL, Sloane of 0., Spangler of 0.. Thomas of La., Tompkins of Ky., Tweedy of Coun., of the Independent Treasury law. vance of 0., Vinton of 0., Watmough of Pa.. Edward D. It passed the Ihouse on the 6th of August White of La., Whittlesey of N.Y., Elisha Whittlesey of O., a o Wilde of Ga., Williams, Wilson of Va., Young of Conn.-82. 1841, by yeas and nays as f ollows Thel remainn* resoution wer alo YEAS.-Messrs. Alford of Ga., Allen of Me., Andrews of Ky., The remaining resolutions were also adopted. Andrews of 0., Arnold of Tenn., Aycri,gg of N.J., Babcock of N.

Y., Baker of Mass., Barnard of N. Y., Bairton of Va., On the 11th of Dec., 1833, the Senate, by a CoBirdseye of N la Y.,Botsfa B r fnar of. Yir okf Con. B ordeo Botts of Va, Bi,,s o Brockvote of 23 to 17, on motion of Mr.

Clay, passed way of Conn., Bronson ofN. Y., BlrownTnn., rown o f Pa., a resolution calling on the President for a copy Burnell of lass., Butler of Ky., Calhoun of aIss., IV. B of th paper read by himtohisCampbell of Tenn.

T. J. Campbell of Tenn., Carithers of of the paper read by him to his Cabinet on the Tenn., Childs of N. Y. J. C. Clark of N. Y., S. N. Clark of N. 18th of Sept., 1833, justifying his intended Y., Cowen of 0., Cranston of R. I., Cravens of Tnd., Cushing course in reference to removing the public EfM5, Da vis of Ky.,Dawson of Ga., Deberry off N. C., John Edwards of Pa.. Everett of Vt., Fo,sseaden f )le., F~illm,ore of deposites from the Bank of the United States. N. Y., A. L. Foster of N. Y., Gamble of Ga., Gentry of Tenn., Gen. Jackson responded the next day, denying Giddings of 0., Goggin of Va., Goode of O., Graham of N. C., Green of Ky., Graig of N. Y., Ilaberham of Ga., Ilunt of the right of the Senate to make such a call, N. Y., Iall of Vt.,alstead of N., im. S. Iastiings of and declining to comply with its request. Mass., Ileiry of Pa. Ioward of Mich.

lison of ass., JJams Irin of Pa., James of Tenn., Johnson of Md.. I. D.

Jones of Md., Kennedy of Md, King of Ga, Lane of Ind., The committee appointed in pursuance of Lawrene of Pa., Linn u of N. Y., Mason of 0., Iathiot of 0., the 4th resolution of Mr. Polk, adopted on Mattksof t..

laxwellofN.J., yIt.rdofN. Y., Meri wether of Ga., Moore of La., Morgan of N.Y., M orris of 0., the 4th of April, 1834, consisting of Messrs. Morrow of O.. Ni,bet of Ga., Osborne of Conn., Owsley of Francis Thomas of Md., Edward Everett of Ky., Pearce of’Id.,‘endleton of 0., lPope of Ky., Powell of Va., 1.‘roffit of Intl., Ramse~y of Pa., Randlall of Me., ]Ran Mass., MIuhlenberg of Pa., Mason of Va., dIll of 0 d. Randolph o f N.J. Panler of N. C beacher - -, d,~ of~)l.,]ladiph of N. J, B syier of N. C, Itenclier Ellsworth of Conn., Mann of N. Y., and Lyle of N. C., llidway of 0., Rodney of Del., Russell of 0., Salof Ohio, reported their inability to make the toIsta. of ass., Sergeanit of Pa., Shell,pard of N. C., Simon ton of o’d., Smith of Conn., Spiigg of Ky., Stinley of N. C., necessary investigation, on account of the im-Stokely of Ohio, Strotton of N. J..

Stwrt of Va., Summere pediments thrown in their way by the Bank, of a..

Tlifrro f a., Thompson of Kv. Thompson of and the refusal of the officers and directors of l Tillinbhastf llof a. Tolinon of N.Y. Tiplett of N.Y, TrublofCn. Underwood of Ky., Van the bank to produce the books or testify.

r eisselaer of N. X. Wallace of Ind., Warre. of Ga.. Wasph The committee moved a resolution to the in iteof La, \hite lla of Conn.. Lewis W illiims of N. a. C.’,. William s of Tenn., louse to bring the president and directors j.L. Williams ofTenn., Winthrop of lass., orke of N. J before the bar of the House for contempt, but Aun. Young of Vt., John Young of 5; T.-128. the s me n r + A SAYs. aaessrs. Adams of Mass., Anqinoton of N.

C, Athe a twas heve ac1e1 u~on ofN.II., Banks of Va., Beeson of Pa., lidlack of Pa., Bowne Mr. Taney, the Secretary of the Treasury, of N.Y., Boyd of Ky., Browne of Tenn., Brown of Pu., Burke who had carried out the instructions of the of N.H., S. H. Butler of S. C., Butler of Ky., Caldwell of N. and rmoved the.d.eo**e C., Caldwell of S. C.. Campbell of S.C., Carey of Va., Chap. President, and removed the deposites, was man of Ala., Clifford of Ms.,Clinton of N.Y., Coles of VL, 79

Page 80 view page image

00 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C  ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -. 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i 7
g~~~~~~~~-zO A~~~~~ - ~~~ar t 0 - _ 0000 000~~~~~~~~~~~~~0-~~ ~

-~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ cl ~~~0 i . 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0~C

CD0 CD CD CD P. 5; CD CD n 0 tz CD 4. 0 1 tz 0 CD 0n 0 on CD t-I Pt 0 1.

(n tt w 0 0 Pi

Page 81 view page image

BANKRUPT ACT.-BANKS, NATHIANIEL P., JR. N. Y. Rogers of S. C., Saunders of N. C., Shaw of N. H., Shepperd of N. C., Shields of Ala., Snyder of Pa., Sprigg of Ky., Steenrod of Va., Sweney of 0., Thompson of Ky., Trip.lett of Ky., Turney of Tenn., Underwood of Ky.. Va.n 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 becante a law by the approval of John Tyler, Presidlent. The repeal of the Bankrupt Act was effected Iy 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., I)Deb,erry of N. C., Everett of Vt., Goode of 0., luidson of Mass., Morris of O., Osborne of Conn., Rayner of N. C., Smith of Conn., Stanley of N. C., Stokely of O., Stuart of Ill., Taliaferro of Va., Tillinghast of R. I., WTood 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, navs 13. Senators Huntington of Conn., Morehead of Ky., Phelps of Vt., Walker of Miss., Williamns of Me., and Young of Ill., who had voted for the act, voted for its repeal.

President Tyler approved the act, and the repeal became a law. Othello said of his wife, the y ” had eyes, and chose me.” I have convictions convictions of duty, con victions of principle-upon the great matters in which t he c ount ry is interested; and, as d member of the Ho use, represent in g a dis trict in the commonw ealth of Massachusetts, I have no hesitation in responding to a ny o f the in quiries propounded by the ho nor able gentle man from Tennessee to the honora ble gentle man t rom Illinois. I ask the c lerk to read the first question. The clerk read as follows: ” Am I right in supposing that t he gentleman from Illi nois regards the Kansas-Nebrasim a bill as promotive of tlhe formation of free states in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska?” Mr N. BAKS. It will be understood, of coulrse, that the phiraseology of this inquiry applies rt ther to the gentleman from Illinois [ra. Rich ardson] than to myself. I answerr, distinctly, that I do not regard the Kanisas-Nebraska bill as promotive of the fo rmation of free stat es,a inasmuch as it repeals the prohibition of the institution of slav ery over the sec tion of coun try to which tha t statute applies. I think it does not tend to the forma tion of free states. That is my answ er. The clerk re ad as follows: ” Am I rigwht in supposing he advocate s the constitution ality of the wNilmot proviso; that in 1850 he opu(l,sd its application to the territories acquired from Aiexico, only upo n the ground that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as tll Mexican local laws in those territories already abolished slavery-which oupdht to be sufficient for all FreeSoi l aa len; and that he committed him self to the po sition, that if teri torial bills (silen t upon the su bject of slavery, and leaill. the a oMexican law to operat e ) were defeated, he would vote for bills with the Wilmo t proviso in them?”

tr. BANsKS. I could give a genertal answeri in the affirmative to th at interrogatory. I believ e in the constitutionality of that act whicie is known and generally understoo d as t he Wil  mot pronviso. I believe that it is within the power of Congress to prohibit the institution of slavery in a territory bel onging to the United States. Whether m S sould advocate the pa,-d sape of such an act in ret ard to a tev rritory where it was clearly unnecessary, where bv 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 v,tli(l municipal law, I should sustain an act whicJ}

embodied the prohibition known as the Wilmot or Jefferson proviso. In regard to tlh,e measures of 1850, I can only say, that, tbeing called upon here or elsewhere, lshould have voted for the prohibition in the territortes co-. vered by those measures, if I had entertained a doubt as to the exclusion of slavery by existink nmlnicipal law. That is my answer.

The clerk read as follows: - Am I right in supposing that his theory is, that tile C~on. stitultion of the United States dloes not carry slavery to, and’ protect it in, the territories of the United States?” Mir.

B~N’KS. I do not believe that the Constitution of the United States carries the institution of slavery to the territories of the United States. My understanding is based on the declaration of Mr. Webster, that even the Con, Banksh Nathaniel P., Jr. Ax,SwFER or, IN THE IOUSsE OF

REEP’RESENTA TIVES, TO INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO 1I1-I IN JANUARY, 1856. MIr. BANKS. Mr. Clerk, I voted for the resolution presented by the honorable gentleman fism 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 le ss than simply this: that any gentleman who votes for a candidate for any office ought to kno w the opinions of that candidate. I recogniiise the right of every gentleman in this HIouse who has been voting for Speaker duringfl this protracted contest, to ascertain the opinions of any man for whom he casts his wote. 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 leatist. 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 ,tun not, therefore, called upon as a candidate to solve such difficulties as gentlemen supportin,, other persons may find in the existing cond tion of public affairs. Those who have honored 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 8 1

Page 82 view page image

TlIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of ultimate and universal freedom. It was c contemplated by the great men who fiamed it; and the world has so regarded it. The national flag, that is its syribol, 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 necessary 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 isto: those territories nor excludes it therefrom, in his opinion, leaves those territories without either local or constitutionil law protecting slavery; and that therefore the Kanusas anil Nebraika b i ll promote s the formation of slave States in Kansas and Nebraska?” Isr. BANKS. I did not see that question, Mr. Clerk, until it was broug(llt to me by a page from the desk. It is blt a repetition of the first interrogatory, with the addition of a statement of fact. In regard to that statement, I will say that it is doubted whether the institution of slavery existed in these territories at the time they were acquired. Without going into the question whether France, by the decree of 179d4, abolished it there, I will say that, if it were necessary that the Congress of the United States sh(-uld interdict 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 cannot, 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. stituti on of the United States i tself does not go toh the territories until it is carried t he re by an adt of Congress. St anding on the principle of thie English law governing the same interests, I do not believe that the Constitution of the l nited States carries t n to any territory of the United States any right to hol d s laves the re. In order, sir, that my answer should be full and satisfactory, I oug h t, perhaps, to put th e ite w,a tive 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 of t he South, a s well a s on the part of the North, in the territories of the United States; a-vel r when I speak of property I mean that which is considered property by universal law; I d o no t me an t hat which is property only because it is held as such under the l aws of a particular state, and which loses its character of property so soon as it extends beyond the limi;ts of that state, except under certain rereatione s scovered by the Constitutio n of th e Uthi ited State s. When I speak of property, I (lo not refer to that species. I describe that w-hliich is recognised as property by universal laws of men, and not that which is property ly henl it is made such by local laws of limited s ections of the country. I have no isp,, s it ion to disturb its existenc no purIt,)se to diminish o r increa se it there. I w ill .I:-n iiowledge all its rights there, accepting for that pur pose the charts establ ished by Southern states men; bu t I deny that it is such prol:,ertv as, independent of local law or Congress[,nal enactment, is protected by the Constitution in the territories of the United States. I have nothing further to say on this very ni’ce and delicate question. I believe that the Constitution 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 [Nlr.

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 interIpreted 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 b,eyond the limitations conferred by the doc trine of the sovereignty of states. No, sir! The Constitution of the United States is anl instrument, not of immediate, but The following is his response to Mr. Barks dale’s interroator i es: Mr. BANKS. I repeat, Mr. Clerk, the principle on which I answer interrogatories from any quarter, and it is, that I speak as a alley ber of this Ilouse 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 gentlemen, will draw their own inferences. What they may be, it is not for me to say. When 8.11

Page 83 view page image

BANKS, NATHANIEL P., JR. [ was elected to this thouse 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 sentiiments 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 d(lo so, and before it had attracted the atten t,on of the country; and as an answer to the fourth interrogatory put to me by the gentleman from 5Iississippi, after it had been subl)mitted to the gentleman from Illinois, I have only to say that, in the speech which I dlelivered 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 Jiunius, that it is an unfortunate waste of time for a man to spend any considerable portion 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. -)r. BANNKs. 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 Independence, that all men are created equal. In regard to the superiority of races, I am impressed with the conviction that it is to be determined ultimately by capacity for endurance. 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 respective 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: or 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 hereafter to the hereafter; but I say, at the same time, that I am in fav or of t he prohibitio n of slavery in Kansas and Nebraska. Then, in reoard to the first claus e of the int errogatory  are you in favor of restoring the Missouri restriction? I have to say that I desire that the prohibitio,n made by Southern men and Southern States the inhibitions of the institiution of slavery in the territories of Kansas laud Nebraska shall be made good to the ?eople of the country. I care not in what manner it shall be done; wheth er there n e,a restoration of thie technical and arbitrary 1;le, or by some ot her methoas, or appliances, or principles, there shall be made good to tie people of the United Statew the p rol i)itio n f or which Ae the Southern State s contracted a u(e received a consideration. I am for the sue},stoitial restoration of the prohibition as it lilts existed since 1820. Ifere are several ques tions in re,ar(s t o slavery in the district of Columbia, and the molfication of’ the ttriff laws as they nows exist. I stand here ready and desirous and determined to cooperate with the men of the United State<, who are for the substantial restoration of the prohibition of the institution of slavery in tile territories of Kansas and Nebraska. I ami1 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 cooperate in this matter what he thinks of the abolition of slavery in the District of Coluiimbia, 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 cooperate, upon such questions’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., YE:‘S. Nfessrs. Albright, Allisoin, Ball, Banks, Barbour, Barclay, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billiing,hurst, Bin,-ham, Bishop, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, lltiffinton, Burlinga,me, James II. Campbell, Chaffee, Bayard, Clarke, Ezra Clark, Clawson. Clin,gman, Colfiax, Comins, Covode, Crag-in, Cumback. Damrell, Timothy Davis, Day, Dean. De Witt, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, DIt,fee, die, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert. Grand,er, Grow. Robert s. Ilall, IIarlan, lertbert, Ilic7kman. 11olloway, Thomas R. Itorton.

lIoward, Jeweft,t Kelly, Kelsey, IKing, lKnapp, Knight, Knowlton. Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, Mlatte,son, McCarty, Nleaeham, Killian tMiller, Mlorgan Morrill, Mlott, lMurray, Nich,-ls, Norton, Anldrew Oliver, P
arker, Pearce. Pelton, Pennington, Perry. Pettit. like, Pringle, Purviance, lRitchie, Robbins, Roberts 11ob instm, Sabin, Sag,e, Sapp, Sherman, Simmono, Samuel A. Sm,iith, Spinner, Stanton. Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thm’ston. Todd, Trafton, Tyson, Weade, Walbridge, Waldron, C.

C. W ashburne,:E. B. ashburne, Israel Washburn, W atson, Belch, I}ells, Itilliasts, Wood, Woodruff, and Woodworth.-113. NAYs.-Messrs. Aiken, Allen, Bar7sdale. Bell, Irendley S. Bennett, Bococl,, Bowvie, Boyce, Bra??ch, Br0o7os, BRooM, Burnett, Catdwalalder, Jo 1i P. CAMPBELL, Lewis D. Campbell, CARLISLE. Caruthers, (eas’ie. JIotwell Ctbb, }V. R. TV Obb, Cox, Cratwfoi-d, Davidson, If. WLl-INTrR DAviS, Denver, Dow. 81, ELIECTION

OF N. P. BANKS, AS SPEAKER 03”ilIE IIOUSE 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 immediately to the election of a Speaker viva z)oce. 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 -,,hall then receive the largest vote, provided it be a n,iajority of a quorum, shall be declared duly elected Speaker of the Ilouse of Representatives of the Thirty-fourth Congress. The vote on this resolution was as follows:

Page 84 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. dell, DrU.N, Fednun(,on, E.liott, English, ETHERIDGE, EUSTIS EVAN’S, Poaulker, Florence, FOSTER, H. M. FULLER, T. J.

FilIter, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, J. MI. IIARRIS, W Harris, T. L.

Harris, IIARRISON HOFFMAN, Houeton, Ge IF Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Keitt, KE.‘NETT, Kidw,ell, LAKE .Letcher, LINDLEY, Lumpkin, A. K. MARSHALL, IIUMPHRE l.ARSHALL, S. S. Marshall, Maxwell, AMcMullen, JcQuneen Smeith, Miller, Millson, MILLWARD, MOORE, Mordecai, Oliver Or%, PAINE, Peck, Phelps, PORTER, Powell, PURYEAR, Quid 51an1, READY, RICAUD, RIVERS, Ruin.

Bust. Saneldidge, Sa& age, SCOTT, Shorter, William Smith., WILLI.M R.

SMITH, S.‘EED Stephens, Stewart, SWOPE, Talbott, TRIPPE, UNDERWOOD, V}til v’ALK, WALKER, IVWrner, Wlatkins, Wheeler, WHITNEY, Tins low, D. B.

Wright, J. V. Wright, and Z0LLICOFFER.-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, Burlingame, James I[

Camnpbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Chaffee, ]Rzra 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 It. Horton Iloward, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, KnowlIto t. Kn ox Kunkei, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, 3leachamK, Killian /1iller, Morgan, Morrill, Mlott, Murray, lNichols, iNorton Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pearce, Pelton, Pennington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Bobbins, 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, Ilendley . Bennett, Bowck, Bo wie, Boyce, Branch. Brooks, Burnett, Cadwalader. JOHN P. CAMPBELL, CARLILE, Carutihers, Caskie, Clingman, Howell Cobb, TVillianmson R. W. Cobb, Cox, Craw ford, Dateidson, Denver, Dowdell, Edmnundson. Elliott, English, ETHERIDGE, EUSTIS, EVANS, Faulkner, Florence, FSTER, Tthomas J. D. Fuller, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus’tll, J. 31ORRISON HARRIS, Samnpson TV. Ha)ris, Thomas L. HIarris Herbert, HOFFMAN, Houston, Hewett, George TV. Jones, J.

Glancy Jones, Keit, Kelly, KEAETT, Kidwell, LAKE, Letcher LINDLEY, Lumpkin, ALEXANDER K. MARSHILL, IIHUMPHREY IARSHALL. Samuel S. larshall, Maxwell, McSlullin, MTcQuee,c ,Smith Miller, MiiUson, AMordecai Oliver-, Orr, PAINE, Peck Phelps, PORTER,. Powell, PURYEA4R, Quitman, READE, READY, RICAUD, RIVERS, Ruffin, Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Shorter. Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, WILLIAM R. SMITH, SNEED, Stephens, Stewart, SWOPE, Talbott, TRIPPE, UNDERWOOD, T-,il, WVALKER,* Wvarner, Vatkins, TWells. TVheeder, WFilliams, TVins~ low, Daniel B. Wright, John V: Wright, and ZOLLICOFF.R.

100. FOR MR. FULLER. Messr& BROOM, BAYARD CLARKE,t CULLEN’, H. WINTER

DAVIS, MILLWARD,’ and IVHITNEY.-6. FoY MIR. CAMPBELL. Messrs. DUNN, HARRISON, MOORE, and SCOTT.t-4. FOR MR. WELLS.-Mr. Hickman.-1. Republicans in roman; National Americans in SMALL CAPS: and Democrats in italics.

Messrs. Broom, Bayard Clarke, Henry Al. Full er, Whitney, and Rich a r d s on, who voted fo r Mr. Aik en t he day before, did not vote for him on the last ballot. Mlessrs. Broom, Bayard Clarke, and Whitney voted for Mr.

Henry 5I. Fuller.‘Mr. Henry Al. 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 3Ir. Aiken then. Mr. Richardson had to resume a. pair with MIr. Emrie, which IMr. Faulkner had temporarily taken off his hanlds. Bennett, James Gordon. REPUBLICAN 1[OVEIEMENT FOR 1860.

The following editorial ” Notice to the political friends of Fremont”

appeared ill the New York Herald of the 15th instant: ” N,OTICE TO THE

POLITICAL FRIENDS OF FREMoNT.-The honest and out-spoken political supporters of John C. Fremont are earnestly 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 seekinig the management and control of the ltep)ublican masses throughout the country. Now is the time to begin the great mov ement 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 icountry, 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. Eni tertaining 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 seemns prettygenerally 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 Bargain and Intrigue. .(See BU’CHANAN, JAMES, and WILLIAMS, JAMES).

Messrs. Tyson and Walker since supported Mr. Buchanan. t Messrs. Barclay, Clarke, Millward and Scott since supported Col. Fremont. 84

Page 85 view page image

BROOKS, PRESTON S. trust the people of the free states will give a platform: it is our duty either to counteract united voice against allowing slavery on a them or meet them boldly, face to face, and single foot of soil where it is not now autho-battle for our ri(ghts. rized by law. Their principles were, the abolition of sla “I am, very respectfully, your obedient very in the District of Columbia, the prohibiservant, tion of the inter-state slave trade, no more GREENE C. BRONSON. slave territory, &c. Will they carry out these To Messrs. J. Cochran, and others, corn-principles? the election of Banks as speaker mittee.” of the Hlouse of Representatives, and the de feat of the army bill, teach us that we should Brooks, Preston S. meet and prepare to defend ourselves. With right upon our side, we could meet and con SYNOPSIS OF SPEECH OF, ON THE

29TH OF quer them. AUG. 1856, AT COLUMBIA, S. C. All of us agreed that if we could not live in Mr. Brooks thanked the citizens for the equality in the Union, our only course was to compliment paid him on this occasion, and for dissolve it. Ile was a cooperation disunionthe sympathy which his course had received. ist-the same as he was in 1851. Ie felt conIt was the spirit which actuated him to do vinced that South Carolina would respond to the deed, more than the deed itself, which de-his position. served their commendation. It was a deed When he said lately in the House of Reprewhich was the result of a high sense of duty; sentativ es that he had it in his power to raise and any man who held his honor above re-a revolution, it was no egotistic boast. lIe proach would have acted, under similar cir-felt that he had done as much as any one man cuiestances, precisely as he did. to concentrate the feeling of the South; and An ordinary castigation was nothing to when he spoke of revolution, he knew that excite a people as had this act of his excited had he stepped forward and smote one of their the North. Abolitionists, seeking excuses abolition crew in the house, their enmity to for their vile slanders, had made it a pretext him, would have precipitated them against for more fanaticism. It was curious that the him, and caused a revolution on that floor.

castigation of a Black Republican should be-He now came to a delicate question-the get so extraordinary an excitement. But they Presidency. The only hope for the South had used this act of his-executed under the was to support Mir. Buchanan. His oppohighest sense of duty-as an instrument to nents were Fremont and Fillmore-the former kindle more fires of fanaticism. Their motive a soldier who had never won a battle, a poliwas political power; they wished to enjoy tician who had never made a speech; his the patronage and the emoluments of the go-birth-place, too, was as hard to fix upon satisfacverniient. torily as was the identity of his father. Fill Every foot of the way from Washington to more was a man of unexceptionable moral this city he had met with kindness from the virtue; but between Fremont and Fillmore he people of the South; and it gratified him to would prefer the former, because the great believe that, were he to travel to the extremest issue would be precipitated, although the latverge of the South, he should meet with the ter was as much an Abolitionist, having voted same hearty welcome that he had experienced to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, here and elsewhere. against the admission of Texas, and had or, lie would not say there was no honor nor posed the administration of Franklin Pierce moral courage at the North; he knew there for his course on the Missouri compromise. were some men of as true courage at the North Buchanan, the speaker fra nkly admitted, as elsewhere. But what he wished to say, was not his first, second, or third choice, but was, that the moral tone of mind which would his last. Ihis first choice was Franklin Pierce, lead a man to become a Black Republican because he had manifested a disposition to would make him incapable of courage, and give the South her constitutional rights. After would involve a loss of all honor and moral Pierce he was in favor of Douglas -a true principle whatever. friend, w ho had perilled his life by his position It was plain that the defeat of the army bill on the Nebraska bill, and who had the smoke was the act of the Black Republican majority and scars of the battle upon him. in the hIouse of Representatives. He was There must be compromise everywhere-in almost glad of it; though he had voted for the society, in law, and in politics. Buchanan )riginal bill, he was of opinion it ought to was the staiidard bearer in the coming confail. lie voted for it from a sense of duty, not test, an(l the )latfoiriil upon which he stoo(l liking to do evil that good might follow. Thei was the riElit one for the South. If its prinlo1s of the army appropriation would not ciples wcr;. (cilried out, the goverunient w)unll injure the South, because all the money near-be rest()’ el to the c’on(dition of a constitutional ly was expended at the North. Iadinisi~traition. Why should we refuse to lie rather wished the army appropriation ~ take a plart in the batile? If we are bound to bill would not piLs, because it would eff(ect have civil war, and if we must dissolve the the removal of tle United States soldiers fromI Union, we niust dl( it with a full appreciation Kansas. We know the Black IeLpulblianl of the coliseceqe:ices. i1e thought there would 85

Page 86 view page image

TIIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. which strengthenedl and confirmed my previous I then finally determined, either that I would ask General Jackson myself, or get another of his firiends to ask him-whether he had ever declared he would appoint Mr. Adams his Secretary of State. In this mall ner I hol-)edI a contradiction of the report miiighit be obtained from himself, and that he nuight probably declare it was not his intention to appoint MNr. Adams. A short time previous to the receipt of the letter to which I have referred, my friend Mr. Mt arkley and myself got into conversation, as vwe very often did, bothi before and after, Ul)()n thie subject of the presidential election, anl concerning the person who would probably lbe selected by General Jackson to fill the office of Secretary of State. I feel sincerely soiry that I am compelled thus to introduce his naiiie; but I do so with the less reluctance, because it has already, without any agency of mine, found its way into the newspapers, in coi nexion with this transaction. IMr. MIarkley adverted to the runmor which I have mentioned, and said it was calculated to injure the general. lie observ ed that MIr.

Clav’s firiends were warnmly 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 MIr. Adamis or General Jackson at their pleasure; but that mnany of them would never agree to vote for the latter, if they knew lie had predetermined to irefer another to Mr. Clay, for the first office iii his gift. And that some of the friends of Mr. Adanis had already been holding out the idea that, in case hlie were elected, MIr.

Clay might probably be offered the situation of Secretary of State. I told Mr. MIarklev, that I felt confident General Jackson had never said he would a,p point MIr. AidamlIs Secretary of State; because hlie was not in the habit of conversing upon the subject of the election; and if he wert’, 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 thitnking, either that I would call uponII thei 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 whethler he would hold any conversation upon the subject. Mr. Markley urged me to do so; and oh served, if General Jackson had not determined whoiii he would appoint Secretary of State, and should say that it would not be Mr. Adams, it might be a great advantage toour cause, for us so to declare, upon his own authority; we should then be placed upon the same footing with the Adams men, and might fight them with their own weapons. That the Whtestern members would naturally prefer voting for a Western man, if there were a probability that the claims of Mr. Clay to the second office in the government should be fairly estimated; and that if they thought be no childl’s play when the conflict did come. 0)nin CO~l11~. On the first Tuesday in November next the great question would be decided. For his part, if Fremont, the traitor to his section, ,hould be successful, it was his deliberate opinion that, on the fourth of March next, the people of the South should rise in their might, muarch to Washington, and seize the archives and the treasury of the government. We should anticipate them, and force them to attack us. In conclusion, 3Ir. Brooks said he felt it to be an obligation upon him to devote all the energies of his life to repay the generous sympathy with which he had been met by his fellos citizens of the South and of South Carolina; and that whenever an occasion offered he would be ready to stand up in defence of his State. In the language of a distinguished citizen of our State, he would say that, through good and evil r-epC)ort, for weal or for Mwoe, he would stand by South Carolina. B.ARGAIN AN-D INTRIGUE LETTER

OF. To tthe ilitor of the Lancaster Jo.urnal. The Cincinnati Advertiser was last night placed in my hands by a fi’ienid, containing an address fro m General Jackson to the public, dated on the 18th ultimeo, in whicl he announces me to be th e member of Conress to wthom he had referred, in his letter to M1r. 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 presideiltal election, prior to its termination. In the month of December, 1824, a short time after the commencement of the session of Cong,ress. I heard, among other rumors then in circulation, that General Jackson had de ternmined, should he be elected President, to continue )Ir.

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 competitor 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, w-ho stood at the head of the most formidable party of his political enemies. These being mly impressions, I addressed a letter to a confidential friend in Pennsvlvania, then and still high in office, and exalted in character, and )n e Who had ever been the decided advocate of General Jackson’s election,. requesting his opinion and advice upon the subject. I received his answer, dated the 27th Dec. 1824, upon the 29th, which is now before me, and 86 Buchanan, James.

Page 87 view page image

BUCHANAN, JAMES. proper to vote for General Jackson, they could soon decide the contest in his favor. A short time after this conversation, on the 30)h 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 ilim, by which I found him surroundedl, he asked me to take a walk withl 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 question 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. Ilis 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 Ir. Clay might be included, who were aspiring 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 contradictedl 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, andn that I heal not sought to obtain it for my own satisfaction.

I then asked him if I were at lib)erty to repeat his answer. Ile said I was perfectly at liberty to do so to an y p er son I thought proper. I need scarcely remark that I afterwards availed myself of the privilege.

The conversation upon this topic h ere ended-and adin all our intercourse since, whether personally or in the coulrse of our corresponden ce, 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 answeer 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 occasion 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 Alr.

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 fi_,ht 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. lie 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. Ilad 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. W~hen the editor of the United States 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. a. or his friends, to prow pose any terms to General Jackson in relation to their Totes, nor did I ester make any such 87

Page 88 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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. “Althpugh 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 hlie requires. Now, sir, what has been his condition under our system of expansions and contractions? Ie 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.

lie still continues to receive his dollar per day, whilst the price of every article which he consumes is rapidly rising. Ie 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. tence the strikes for higher wages, and the uneasy and excited feelings which have at different periods, existed among the laboring classes. B ut the expansion at length reaches the ex ploding point, and what does the lalboring man now suffer? lie is for a season thrown out of employment altogether. Our man.ru factures are suspended; our public works are stopped; our private enterprises of different kinds are abandoned; and, whlilst 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 employment 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 absolutely necessary for his protection. He ought always to receive his wages in gold and silver.

Of all men on the earth, the laborer is most - interested in having a sound and stable currency. ” All other circumstances being equal, I agree with the Senator from Kentucky that that country is most prosperous where labor coin mands the highest wages. I do not, however, mlean by the terms’

highest wrages,’ the grestest nominal amount. During the Rev~olutionary war, one day’s work commanded a hundred dollars of continental paper; hblt proposition; and that I trusted I wshould b e 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 conversation with General Jackson, which I have detailed, I called upon Major Eaton, and requestedI 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 believed that such a declaration would have a happy influence upon the election, and I endeavored 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 request, and advised me to propound the question to the general myself, as I possessed a full share of his confidence. JA MES BUCHANAN. Lancaster, 8th August, 1827. Ext ract from Mlr. Buchanan’s sp eech on the Indep nddent Treasury, Jan. 292, 1840, which gave rise to the ” ten cent”

charge: “Wte are als o c harged by the Senator from Kentuckv with a desir e t o re duc e the wages (,f 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 eleva t e t he we althy manufacturer, at the expense of the labor ing 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. Ilea N en forbid that I should do them wrong! Of all the countries on the earth, we ought to Ihave the most consideration for the laboring man. From the very nature of our institutions, the wheel of fortune is constantly resolving, and producing such mutations in prop,erty, that the wealthy man of to-day may becomle 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 grandfathers were men of fortune. The regular process of society would almost seem to aonsist 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, thlerefre, a common interest, as it is our com 88

Page 89 view page image

BUCtIANAN, JAMIES. these scruples, and now believe that’ the acquisition of Texas will be the means of limiting, 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 acquisition of Texas be the means of gradually drawing the slaves far to the south, to a climate 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 directly in view the gradual abolition of slavery, came within one vote, if my memory serves me, of passing the Ihouse of Delegates of Virginia 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.” this woul d have scarcely purchased a break fast. T he m ore proper expr essi on would be, to say that that country i most prosperous w here labor comm a nds the greatest reward; where one day’s labor will procure not the greatest nominal amount of a depreciated currecty, bu t mo st of the necessaries a nd c omf orts o f life. If, the refore, you should, in some degree, reduce the no minal price paid fo r labor, by reducin g the amount of your b ank issues within reasonable and sa f e limit s, and establishing a metallic basis for your paper circulation, would this injure the labor er? Certainly not; because the price of all t h e 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 expansion, for a dollar and a quarter. So far from injuring, it will greatly benefit the laboring man. It will insure to him constant employimient and regular prices, paid in a sound currency, 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 hereafter. A knowledge of this fact tends to banish economy from his dwelling, and induces him to expend all his wages as rap’idly as possible, lest they may become worthless on his hands. “Sir, the laboring classes understand this subject perfectly. It is the hard-handed and firnm-fisted 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.” AIR. BUCHANAN’S SANFORD LETTER. Wa shington, August 21, 1848. T. Sanford, Esq. -De ar Sir: I have just r eceived yours of th e 12th instant, in which you submi t to me the follow ing paragraph, and ask whether it contains an accurate version of the co nversation between us, concerning my Berks county letter, on the occasion to which you refer: “Happening to meet Mr. Buchanan at the President’s levee on Friday eve nin g, I called his attention to this letter, and asked him if he intended to be unders t ood as claiming tha t the population of a territory, in an unorganized c a pacity, had the right t o control the question of slavery in such territory. He d e - clared that no such idea had ever be en 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 territory, as such, had no political right [although they possessed all the private rights of American citizens]; that they had no power whatever over the subject of slavery; and they “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 nmaintained, and ever shall maintain, in their full force and vigor, the constitutional rights of the Southern States over their slave property, 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 89 .Extract from Mr. Buchanan’s speech on the Annexation of Texas, delivered in the Senate on the 8th of June, 1844:

Page 90 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sentatives, during the first session of the 34th Cong,ress, said, that in 1819 MIr. Buchanan acted as the chairman of a committee at a meeting held at Lancaster, Pennsvlvania, in which certain resolutions wvere adopted denouncing the Missouri Compromiiise. Those resolutions are as follows: coried neither interdict nor establish it, except when assembled in convention to fiorm a state constitution. lie further authorized and requested me to make any public use of these declarations that I might think proper, to correct any iinpression which SMr. YanIcey’s construction of his languaoe in the Berks letter miz ht have made.” With the addition which I have inserted between brackets, this statement is sub,stantiallv, almost literally, correct, according to my recollection.” In my letter to Berks county of 25th August, I had said, “

Under the Missouri coimipromise slavery was for ever prohibited north of the parallel of 36 deg. 30 main.,..and south of this parallel the question was eft to be d e c i ded by the people. What people? Undoubltedly the people of the territory assemb l ed in convention to form a state constitution, and ask admission into the Union, and not [first]

adventurers or’first comiers’ who might happen to arrive in the territory, assenibled 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 Unitedl States approvedtl March 1, 1845, answers the question in the following words: “And such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of 3t6 dog. 90 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 a(lmission may desire.” Such was the description 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 slavery in the territories. What an absurdity would it then be, if, whilst asserting th’s sovereign power in Congress, which power from its nature must be exclusive, I should in the very same breath also clain 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 bv Congress. “You~rs, very respectfully, JAMEs BUCHANANr. ” 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 meeting, the members of Congress who, at the last session, sustained the cause of justice, humanity, and patriotism, in opposing the introduct ion o f 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 Hlon. J. Glancy Jones replied to the charge of Mr. Fuller, a few days afterwards, as follows: “Now, sir, I am enabled to state, on unquestioned authority, that the declaration that James Buchanan was chairman of the committee which framed those resolutions, is unfounded and untrue. I undertake here, in my place, to say to the Ilouse and the country, that Mr. Buchanan did not report the resolutions referred to; that he was not the chairman 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 appeal to the South to answer whether this fact should stand against him with the long experience 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 accusations, whether asserted anonymously or publicly, are triumphantly answered by the record of his public life.”

INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF MR. BUCHaNA,N. Fellow,-citizensI appear before you this day to take the solemn oath “that I will faith  fully execute the office of Presideln t of the U nited States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Cionstitution of the United States.” In entering upon this great office, I must humbly invoke the God of our father s f or wisdom 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 preserve our free institutions throughout manv generations. Convinced that I owe mv election to the inherent love for the Constitution 90 T. Sandford, Esq.

MR. FULLER’S CIRAPGE AGAINST MR. BUC.HA NAN. Mr. Fuller of Pa., in the House of Repre

Page 91 view page image

BUCHANAN, JAMES. 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 Ileaven has ever bestowed upon any nation. Having deteriaiaed not to become a candidate for reelection, 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 mv countrymen. I’Ce have recently passed through a Presidentia.l contest in which the passions of our fellowcitizens were excited to the highest degreec by questions of deep and vital importance; but when the people proclaimed their will the tempest at once subsided, and all was calmi. 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 selfgovernment. W1-hat a happy conception, then, was it for Congress to apply this simple rule-that the will of the majority shall governto the settlemeat of the question of donmestic slavery in the territories! Congress is neither “to legisltte sltverv 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 w-ay, subject only to the Constitution of the Uiiited 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 themselves. This is, happily, a matter of but little practical 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 understood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this miy be, though it has ever been my individual opinion that under the Nebraska-Kansas act the appropriate 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 a s it may, it is the imperative and indisr ensab le du t y of the go vernment of the U n ite d State s t o 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. That being accomplished, nothing can be fairer than to leave the people of a territory free from all foreign interference to decide their own d esti ny fo r th ems elves, subject on ly to the Constitution,sof the Unit ed States. The whole territrii al question being thus settled upon the principle of popular sovereignty-a principle as ancient as free government itself-everything of a practical nature has been decided. No other question remains for adjustment; because all agree that under the Const itution s lave ry in the states is beyond the re ach of any human po wer exce pt that of the respective states themselves wherein it exists. Mlay 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 practical importance. Throughout the whole progress 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 IJnion. 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. Tim-e 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 eventually endanger the personal safety of a large portion of our countrymen where the institution exists. In that event, no form of government, 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 Unionloving 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 material 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 dissolution, 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. Wve at present enjoy a free trade throughout our extensive and expanding country such as the world has never witnessed. This trade is conducted on railroads and canals, 91.

Page 92 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. on 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 t er rific evils which would result from disunion to every portion of the confederacy to the north n ot more than to the south; to the eas t 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 inspi red our fathers with wisdom to frame the most perfect form of gover nm ent an d un ion ever devised by man will n ot suff e r i t to perish until it shall hav e been peacefully instrumen toal, by its example, in the extension of civil and religious liberty throughout the world. Next in importanc e to t he maintena nce of the Constitution and the Union, is the duty of presii te veret vir ngf the government free from the taint, or evsen the suspicion of corruption. Public virtue is the vital spirit of republ ics; a nd his tory proves tha t when th is has decayed, and the love of money has usurped its place, although the form s of f re e government may remain for a se ason, the substance has departed for ever. Our present financial condition is w ith o ut a parallel in history. No nation has ever before b e en embarras sed from too large a surplus in its tr easury. T his almos t necessarily g ives birth to extravagant legislation. It produc es wild schemes of exp en d iture, and begets a race of sp eculators and jobbers, whose ingenuity is exerted i n contriving and p romo t ing expedpents to obta in p ublic money. The purity of official agents, whether rightfully or wronrfullv, is s u spec ted, and the character of the governm en t s uffers in the estimation of the people. This is in itself a very great evil. The natural mode of relief from this embarrassment is to appropriate the surplus in the treasury to great national objects for which a clear warran t can be found in the Constitution. Atpong these I might m en tion the extinguishment of the public debt; a reasonable increase of the navy, which is at present inadequate to the protection of our vast tonnage afloat, now greater than that of any other nation, as well as to the defence of our extended seacoast. It is beyond all question the true principle that no more revenue ought to be collected from the people than the amount necessary to defray the expenses of a wise, economical, and efficient administration of the government. To reach this point it was necessary to resort to a nodification of the tariff; and this has, I trust, been accomplished in such a manner as to do as little injur~y 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 t he adjustmen t of at revenue tariff. Bu t the squandering of the public money sinks into comparative insignificance asa temp 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 newv 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. After be coming citizens they are entitled, under the Constitution and laws, to be placed on a perfect equality with nativeborn citizens, and in this character they should ever be kindly re cognised. The Federal Constitution is a grant firon the states to Congre ss o f ce rtain specific powers; and the question whether this girant should be liberally or strictly construed has more or less divided political parties firom the beginning. Without entering into the argu mlent, I desire to state, at the commencement of my administration, that Iong experience and observation have convinced me that a strict construction of the powers of the Government 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 inljurious and unhappy consequences. Mnany 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 required for a successful administration of the government, both in peace and in war, have been granted, either in express terms or by the plainest implication.

Whilst deeply convinced of these truths, I yet consider it clear that, under the warmaking pcrwer, Congress may appropriate money towards the construction of a military road, whenl 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 provide and maintain a navy,” and to call forth - 2

Page 93 view page image

BUFFALO AND UTICA CONVENTIONS OF 1848. 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 voluntarv determination of a irav-e, kindred, and independent people to blend their destinies with our own. Even our acquisitions from Mexico form no exception. Unwilling to take advantage of the fortune of war against a sister republic, we purchased these possessions, under the treaty of peace, for a sum which was considered at the time a fair equivalent. Our past history forbids that we shall in the future acquire territory 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.

Iitherto, in all our acquisitions, the pe(op)le, under the protection of the American fiat, have enjoyed civil and religious lilerty,,s well as equal and just laws, and have beent 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 progress. I shall now proceed to take the oath pre scribed by the Constitution, whilst hullll)iy invoking, the bl)essing of Divine Providenco on this great people. the militia to “repel invasions.” Thus endowe,, i n an ampl e ma nn er, w i th the warmakinc power, the corresponding duty is required that ” th e U nited States shall protect each of the m (the states) against invasi on.” Nov,, h ow is it possibl e t o affor d this protection to Ca li for ni a and our Pacific possessions, except by m ea ns o f a military road through the t erritories of t he U ni ted States, over which men and munitions of war may be sp eed ily trans ported from the Atlantic States to meet a nd 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 availai)le acces s to th e P acific coa st; because such a pounwer would instantly close the route, across the Isthmus of Central America. It is imiip,ssie le to con ceive that,i whilst the Constitutioll has expressly required Congress to defend all the states, it should v et deny to the msa, plitby any fair c onstruction, the o nl y p oss ibl e m eans l)y which one of these states can be defended. Besidles, the government, ever since its origin, has been in the constant practice of constructing military roads.

It might also be wise to consider whether the love for the Union which now animates our fellowcitizens on the Pacific coast may not be impaired by our neglect or refusal to provide far them, in their remote and is ol a ted condition, the only means by which the power of the states, on this side of the R ocky M ou nt ains, can reach them in sufficient time to “
protect” them ” against invasion.” I f o rbear for th e present from expressing an opinion as to th e wis es t and most economical mode in which the government can lend its a d in acco mpl ishing this great and necess a r y work. I believe that many of the difficu l ties in the way which now appear formn idable will, in a great degree, vanish as soon as t he nearest and best route shall have been s at isfactorily ascertained. It may be pro per that, on this occasion, I should make some brief remarks in regard to our rights and du ti es s 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 ca,t. Our diplomacy should be direct and firan,k. neither seeking to obtain more nor acceting less than is our due. We ought to cherish a sacred regard for the independ ence of all nations, and never attempt to interfere in the domestic concerns of any, un less this shall he imperatively required by the great law of self-preservation. To avoid enltangling alliances has been a maxim of our policy ever since the days of Washington, and ls 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. Buffalo and Utica Conventions of-1818. TIIE

Utica Convention met on the 28th of June, 1848, the lion. Sam. Young, president, Gilbert Dean, Esq., of Dutchess Co., N.Y., secretary. The credentials of the Barnbl)urner delegation were returned. Messrs. Martin Grover, Preston King, B. F. Butler, and Johu Van Buren spoke. D. D. Field, Esq., read a letter from Martin Van Buren, taking ground against the action of the Baltimore Convention. Simeon B. Jewett, Esq., of Monroe Co., moved the unanimous nomination of Martin Vaan Buren by acclamation for President, which was carried with cheering. IHenry Dodge of’ Wisconsin, was nominated for Vice President. Speeches were then made by Messrs.

Rathbun, Nye, and Young. The resolutions adopted, assumed it to be the right and dtutv of Congress to expel slavery fromthe territories, and declared ” domestic slavery a great moral, social, and political evil,”

and a ” relic of barbarism.” The address reported by M,r. Butler was a strong FreeSoil one. Senator Dodge wrote an immediate letter, declining the candidacy of Vice President. I,n order to fill this vacancy on their ticket, and extend the FreeSoil 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 93

Page 94 view page image

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., andl 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 firee 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 phia, the one stifling the voice of a great constituency entitled to be heard in its deli})e 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 (f 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 their independence of the slave power, and of their fixed determiiina tion to rescue the federal government from its control: ” 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 platform of freedom, in opposition to the sectional platform of slavery. “

Resolved, That slavery in the several states of this Union, which recognise its existence, depends upon state laws alone, which cannot be repealed or modified by the federal government, and for which laws that governmient is not responsible. We, therefore, propose 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 firom the Northwestern Territory, by the ordinance of l787, unanimously adopted by the states in Congress, and the entire history of tha~t period, clearly show that it was the settled policyr of the nation, not to extend, nationalize, or encourage, but to litnit, localize, and dliscouragre slavery, and to this policy, which should never have been departed fr’om, the government ought to return. “Resolved, That our fatlhers ordained the Con stitution of the United States, in order, among other great national objects, to esta )liish justicae, pro mote th e g ener al we lre, and secure the blessingis of liberty; but expressly denied to the federal government, whichl they created, all co nstitutional power to deprive any person of life, liber ty, o r pro perty, with out due legatl process. ““Resolved, That, in the judgment of this convention, Congress has no more pomver to make a slave thapI to make a kiilh; no more power to institute or establish slavery than to i nstitute or establish a monarchy; no such poner can be f ound amonb those s pecifically congferred by the Con stitution, or deri ved by just implication from them. “

Resolved, That it is the duty of the fe deral government to relieve itself from all responsi bility for the existence o r continuance of slae very, wherever that government po ssesses constitutional authority to legislate on that subject, and is thus responsible for its exist ence. ” Resolved, That the true, and, in the juidg 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 is -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-slave 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; it made, they must be repealed. ” Resolved, That we demand freedom ana establishedl institutions for our brethren ill Oregon, now exposed to hardships, perils, andl 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 anal New Mexico. And ” Whereas, It is due, not only to this occu.sion, lbut to the whole people of the Unitedl 94

Page 95 view page image

CALHOUN, JOHN C. I great struggle that preceded the political revolution of 1801, which brought Mr. Jefferson 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 mPennsylvania about the same time (particu,larly in the case of Cobbett, delivered by Chief Justice McKean, and concurred in l1y 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. Aks my ob)ject is simply to state my opinions, I might pause with this reference to docu lcbents that so fully and ably state all the points immediately connected with this deeply nimportant sulj ect; but as there are many who may not have the opportunity or leisure to refer to themi, and, as it is possible, however clear they may be, that different persons may place different interpretations on their mean ring, 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 ftact 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 mnay-state righit, 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 firllily believe that on its recognition depends the stability ancl 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. Coule i I believe such in fact to be its tendency, to me it would be no recommendation. I yield to none, I trust, in deep and sincere attachment to our p)olitieal States, that we should also declare ourselves on certain other questions of national policy; therefore, “Resolved, That we demand cheap postage for the people; a retrenchment of the expenses and patronage of the federal fovernmenit; the abolition of all unnecessary offices and salariesl, and the election by the people of all civil officers in the service of the governmeent, so far as th e s ame mav be practicable. “Resolved, That river and harbor improvements, 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 Cong,ress, 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 resultingo-therefrom, of reasonable portions of the public lands under suitable limitations, is a wise and just measure of public policy, which will promote, in various ways, the interests of all the states of this Union; and we, therefore, rcco,-mmend 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 O., chairman, was appointed. Mr. Butler produced in this committee a letter from Martin Van Buren, which was satisfactry; 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. ThIIE
question of the relation which the s tates and general government bear to each other, is not one of recent origin. From the commence ment of our system, it has divided public sentiment. Even in the convention, while the Constitution was stru,,,ling into existence, there were two parties, as to what this relation should be, whose different sentiments constituted no small impediment in forming that instrument. After the general government went into operation, experience soon proved that the question had not termiuate with the labors of the convention. The 95

Page 96 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 the Inaxim 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 portion 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 himself; and governments, whether founded on majorities or minorities, must derive their righit from the assent, expressed or implied, of the governed, and be subject to such limit.. ations as they may impose. War there the interests are the saiime, that is, where the laws t hat may benefit one wdill benefit all, or th e 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 on e portion may be ruinous to another, it would be, on the contrary, unjust and as surd to subject th em to its will: and such I conceive to be the theory on which our Constitution 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 inistitutions. To guard against the unequal action of the laws, when applied to dissimilar and opposing interests, is in fact what mainly renders a constitution indispensable; to overlook 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 preserve free institutions. The right of suffrage alone would be a sufficient guarantee. It iz the conflict of opposing interests which renders it the most difficult work of man. Where the diversity of interests exists in separate and distinct classes of the conpmunity, as is the case in England, and was formerly the case in Sparta, Rome, and most of the free states of antiquity, the rational constitutional provision is, that each should be represented in the government as a separate estate, with a distinct voice, and a negative on the acts of its co-estates, in order to check their encroachments. In England the constitution has assumed expressly this formn, wM,ile in the governments of Sparta and Rome the same thing was effected, under different but not much less efficacious forms. The perfection 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 centuries, and raised them to so great a heir,hi institutions, and the union of these states. I never breathed an opposite sentiment; but, on the contrary, I ha ve eve r considered them the g reat instruments of preserv ing our liberty, and -
promoting the happiness of ourselves and our posterity; and n ext to thes e, I have ever held them most dear. Nearly half my l ife has passed in the service of the U nion, and wthatever pu blic reputation I hav e acqui red, is intdissolubly identified w ith it. To be too nat ional has, indeed, been considered, by many, even of m y f riends, to be my greatest political fault. With these strong feelings of attachimen t, I hav e examined, with the utmos t care, th e b earing of the doctrine in question; and so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnily believe it to be the only solid foundattion of our system, and of the Un ion itself, and th at th e opposit e doctrine, which den ie s to th e st ates the right of protecting their reise rve d powers, and which would vest in the ge ner al g ove rnment (it matters not throulgh what department ) the righ t of d e t ermining exclusively and finall y the po wer s delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereinty of the states, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is nrot stronger than that u sed by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to ive to the general government the final and exclusive right to jude rg a of its power s, is t(, make ” its discretion and not the Constittibl the measure of its powers;” and that i all l l cas es of compact between parties ]aavini r no common judge, each party has an etikal right to judge for itself, as well of the oiisti:ution, as of the mode and meas ure of reoess.” iLanguage can not be mor e explicit; ni): can higher authority be adduced. That different opinion s are entertained on thi sul)ject, I consider but as an additional aaciden ce of of tghe re at diversity of the human intelslet. uiad not able, expe rien c ed, and patriotic individuals, for whom I have the highest respect, taken different views, I would have thoughtht the right too clear to admit of doubt; but I am taught by this, as well as by many similar instances, to treat wMith deferene opinions differing from my own.

The e rj,r may possibly be with me; but, if so, I can only say, that after the most mature and con scientious examination, I have not been able to>
dItetect it. But with all proper deference, I Innsi-t think that theirs is the error, who deny wl-hat seems to be an essential attribute of the cf ncec,.l sovereignty of the states; and who attrilute to the general government a right utterly incompatible with what all acknowlel,le to be its limited and restricted character; all error originating principally, as I must think, in not duly reflecting on the nature of our’

insqtitutions, and on what constitutes the only rational object of ail political constitutio)ns. It has been wrell 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 96

Page 97 view page image

CALHOUN, JOHN C. of power and prosperity. Indeed, a constitu-left under the control of the states separately, tional provision giving to the great and sepa-to whose custody only they could be safely rate interests of the community the right of confided. This distribution of power, settled self-protection, must appear to those who will solemnly bv a constitutional compact, to duly reflect on the subject, not less essential which all of the states are parties, coinsti to the preservation of liberty than the right tutes the peculiar character and excellence of suffrage itself. They in fact have a com-of our political system. It is truly and emmon object, to effect which the one is as neces-phatically American, without example or sary as the other-to secure responsibility; parallel. that is, that those who make and execute the To realize its perfection, we must view the laws should be accountable to those on whom general government and the states as a whole, tie laws in reality operate; the only solid each in its proper sphere, sovereign and indeand durable foundation of liberty. If with-pendent; each perfectly adapted to their reout the right of suffrage our rulers would op-spective objects; the states acting separately, press us, so without the right of self-protection, representing and protecting the local and pethe major would equally oppress the minor culiar interests; acting jointly, through one interests of the community. The absence of general government, with the weight respecttile former would make the governed the ively assigned to each by the Constitution, slases of the rulers, and of the latter the representing and protecting tile interest of feebller interests the victim of the stronger. the whole, and thus perfecting, by an admii IHappily for us we have no artificial and rabl)le lbut simple arrangement, the great prinseparate classes of society. We have wisely ciple of representation and responsibility, exploded all such distinctions; but we are without which no government can be free or not, on that account, exempt from all contra-just. To preserve this sacred distribution as riety of interests, as the present distracted originally settled, by coercing each to move in and dangerous condition of our country un-its prescribed orb, is the great and difficult fortunately but too clearly proves. With us problem, on the solution of which the dura  they are almost exclusively geographical, re-tion of our Constitution, of our Union, and, suiting mainly from difference of climate, soil, in all probability our liberty, depends. Ilow situation, industry, and production, but are is this to be effected? not, therefore, less necessary to be protected Thequestion is new when applied to our pecuonby an adequate constitutional provision than liar political organization, where the separate where the distinct interests exist in separate and conflicting interests of society are repreclasses. The necessity is, in truth, greater, sented by distinct but connected governments; as such separate and dissimilar geographical but is in reality an old question under a new interests are more liable to come into conflict, form, long since perfectly solved. Whenever at(I more dangerous when in that state than separate and dissimilar interests have been those of any other description; so much so, separately represented in any government: that ours is the first instance on record where whenever the sovereign power has been divided they have not formed in an extensive territory in its exercise, the experience and wisdom of separate and independent communities, or ages have devised but one mode by which subjected the whole to despotic sway. That such political organization can be preserved; such may not be our unhappy fate also, must the mode adopted in England, and by all gobe the sincere prayer of every lover of his vernimenits, ancient or modern, blessed with country. constitutions deserviing to be called free; to So numerous and diversified are the integive to each co-estate the right to judge of its rests of our country, that they could not be powers, with a negative or veto on the acts of fairly represented in a single government, the others, in order to protect against enorganized so as to give to each great and lead-croachnients the interests it particularly repreing interest a separate and distinct voice, as sents; a principle wvhich all of our constituin governments to which I have referred. A tions recoonise in the distribl)ution of power plan was adopted better suited to our situa-among their respective departments as essenti,n, but perfectly novel in its character. tial to maintain the independence of each, lint ‘1hlie powers of the government were divided, which, to all who will duly refiec t on the slil,nlit as heretofore, in reference to classes, but ject, must appear far ni(,re essettial, fur the eo) plraphically. One general government was samne oliject, in that great and fundaaientt. tIi;i.,red fer the whole, to which was delegated distribution of powers between the states andi all of the powers supposed to be necessary to g.eneral goiverniiment. So essential is the l)iiiire,zulate the interests common to all of the ciple, that to withhold the right fronm eithe, states, leaviig others subject to the separate where the sovereign power is divideil, is. in 1,,lr:(‘ of the states, being from their local fact, to annul the division itself, and to coan l fculiar character such that they could solidate in the oue left in the exclusive p5s:,l’ lie salbject to the will of the majority of session of the right, all of the powers of the the whole Union, without the certain hazard governmnmt; for it is not possible to distinof injustice and oppression. It was thus that guish practically between a government havtlie interests of the whole were subjected, as ing all power, and one having the right to they ought to be, to the will of the whole, take what powers it pleases. Nor does it in while the peculiar and local interests were the least vary the principle, whether the dim 7 q “I

Page 98 view page image

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 incontrovertible; 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 government 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 necessary to explain the contrariety of opinions, among the intelligent, where the abstract consideration of the subject would seem scarcely t) admiit of doubt. If such be the true cause, I must think the fear of weakening the government 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 opposite 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 icalled the general government into existence with all ofits powers, which they freely surrendered on their part, under the conviction that their common peace, safety, and prosperity required it; that they are bound together 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 national power and distinction, are on the side of the Union; it does seem to me, that the fear which would strip the states of their sovereignty, and degrade them, in fact, to mere dependent corporations, lest they should abuse a right indispensable to the peaceable protection of those interests which they reserved 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 dissimilar and conflicting interests of the community, came into contact, the only alternative was compromise, submission, or force. Not so in ours. Should the general government ana 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 discontent.

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 touchin g its infraction to the parties who created it; to avoid the supposed danger s of which, it is proposed to resort to the novel, the hazardous, 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 instrument 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 conceded 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 consequences which I have stated would not necessarily follow; but its advocates have been reconciled to the doctrine, on the supposition that there is one department of the general government, which, from its peculiar organization, affords an independent tribunal through which the government may exercise the high authority which is the subject of consideration, with perfect safety to all. I yield, I trust, to few in my attachment to the judiciary department. I am fully sensible 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 depository 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 authority. There may be many and the most 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. Tlhe tariff itself is a straing case in point; and the reason applies equally to all others, where Congrress perverts a powner from an object intended to one not inltendeed, * I refer to athe authority of Chief Justice nMar,ha in the case of Jonathan Robbins. I have not been able to refer to the speech, and speak from memory. 98

Page 99 view page image

CALHOUN, JOHN C. materially vary the case. Its highest possible effect would be to retard, and not fina.lly to resist, the will of a dominant maijority. But it is useless to multiply til rguiments. Were it possible that reason could se+tle L question where the passions and interests of men are concern ed, this point would hav e been long since settled foir ever, by the state (f Vil ginia. Tie 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 sublject, it says, “It has been ob)jected” (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 observeld, 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 ab)ove the sovereign parties to tihe 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 ol)bjection is, that the resolution of the General Assemblv relates to those great and extraordinary cases, inii which all of the forms of the Constitution iiimay 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 executed 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 Constitution 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 between a state and the general government, each would have a right to maintain its opinion, as is the case when sovereign powers differ in the construction of treaties or compacts, 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 coinpact, acting as sovereign and independent communities. The general government is but its creature; and though in reality a government with all the rights and authority which belong to any other government, within the orb of its powcers, it is, nevertheless, a govern ment emanating from a compact between sovereigns, antd partalking, in its nature and object, of the chara~cter of a joint commission, the most insidious and dangerous of all the infractions; and which may be extended to all of its powers, more especially to the taxing r and appropriating. But supposind it compe tent to take cosnisanceo a in of all ilactions of every description, the insuperable o)djecti on still remains, th at it w ould not be a safe tri bu nal to exercise the powe r in question. It is an Universal and fundamental political principle, that the power to protect, can safelv be confided only to those interested in prot ectin g, or their respo nsible agents-a maximl not less tru e in private than in public affi,irs. The danger in our system is, that the general government, which represents the interests of the whole, may encroach on the states, which represent the peculiar and local interests, or that the latter may encroach on the fi)rmer. 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 controls 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 controlling 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 maiority 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 government. 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 President 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, reallv exercise all of the powers of the government 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 conclusively 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; anld, of course, to subject (against the fundamental principle of our system, and all sound po,litical reasoning) the reserved powters of the states, with all of the local and peculiar interests they were intended to protect, to the wtill of the very majority against which the protection was intended. Nor will the tenure by which the judges hold their office, however v aluable the pr’ovision in many other respects, 99

Page 100 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to the remotes.t generations; but, if not, our splendid anticipations of the future will prove buat an empty dream.

Stripped of all its coveringi, and the iiaked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated governmelit a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sover eig(nty of the states, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of gove;nment, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice tianid violence, and force, must finally prevail. Let it never be forgotten, that where the majority 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 governlnent, no constitution; or at least notling (deseriingiii the name, or serving the legitimlli-te object of so sacred an instrument. Ipow the states are to exercise this high power of interposition which constitutes so e‘3sential a portion of their reserved rights that it cannot be delegated without an entire surrender of their sovereignty, and converting our system from a federal uinto 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 languag,e of Jefferson, “the rightful judges of the mode and measure of redress.” But the spirit of forbearance, as well as the nature of the right itself, forbids a recourse to it, except in cases of dang,erous infractions of the Constitution; and then only in the last resort, when all reasonal)le hope of relief from the ordinary action of the government has failed; whet], if the right to interpose did not exist, the alternative w-ould 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 ani interval ol)taine(d to compromise differeinee., 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,ether, supersede the necessity of its exercise, by impressing on the movements of the gov  ernment that moderation and justice so esselltial to harmony and peace, in a country of such vast extent and diversity of interests as ours; -nel would, if controversy should comne, turn the resentment of the agg~rievred from thle systemn 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 understood, a substitute where the alternative would be force, tending to prevent, and if that fails, to correct peaceably the aberrations to which 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 clea rest conclusions; while to acknowledg e its truth, is to destroy utterly the objection th at th e app eal would be to force, in the cas e su ppose d. F
or if each party has a right to judre, th e n, under our system of governitent, the final covnisance of a question of conte ste d p ow er 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 principal s and a jo int co mmission or ageny, to refer th e contest to the principals themselves. Such are the pl ain di ctates of r eas on and analory both. On no sound principle can the aI e nts have a right to final cognimo ance, as against the principal s, much less to use force against them, to ma int ain their construction of their powers. Such a right w ould be monstrous; and has never, heretofore, been c laimed in similar cases. That t he d octrine is applicable to the case of a contested power between the states aend t he general government, we have the authority not only of reason and ana logy, but of the d ist inguis hed sta t esman a lready referred to. 5Ir. Jeffer son, at a lat e period of his life, after lonf experien c e and m ature reflection, sass, “W ith respect to our state and federal governments, I d o not think their relations are correctly understo od by foreigners. T he y sup ose the former subordinate to the latter. cohis is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simplein aird integral whole. But you m a y ask if the two departments should claim e ach t he same subj ect of power, where is the umpi re to decide between them? In case s of littl e urgency or importance, the prudence of both parti es will keep theth aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention 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 authorit y 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 controversies in the only effectual mode, by freeing the compact of every defect and uncertainty, by all 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 thle same time consistent with what are the relations and acknowvledged powers of the two great departments of our government.

It gives a beauty and security peculiar to our system, which, if duly appreciated, will transmit its blessings. 100

Page 101 view page image

CALHOUN, JOHN C. all political systems are liable, and which, if permitted to accumulate, without correction, must finally end in a general catastrophe. On the 27th of Dec., 1837, MIr. Calhoun subn,itted 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 d(langers, domestic as well as foreign, and the more perfect and secure enjoyment of its advantages, 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 intermedlliung of any one or more states, or a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions 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 endanger their domestic peace and tranquillity, subversive to the objects for which the Constitution was formed, and, by necessary consequence, 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 fulfilmnient of this high and sacred trust, this government is bound so to exercise its powers as to giv e, as far as may be practicable, increased s tability 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 atll 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 fatith, and a violation of the most solemn obligations. (As PROPOSED BY AIR. CALHOUN.) 5. Resolved, That the intermeddling of any state, or states, or their citizens, to abolish slavery in this District, or in any of the territories, on the ground, or under the pretext, that it is iinmmgaoral or sinful, or the passage of any act or measure of Congress trith that view, would be a direct and dangerous attack on the i nstitutions of all the slaveloldino, states. (AS AMENDED ON. MOTION OF AIR. CLAY OF KY.) 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, includin, the ceded territory; and that as it still continues in both of them, it could not be albolishe(l within the District without a violation of that good faith which was implied in the cession, and in the acceptance of the territor-, nor, unless compensation were made for the slaves, without a manifest infringeniertnt 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 nmischievous tendenev, any possible benefit which would be accoml)Iished by the abolition. And, resolved, that any attempt of Congress to abolish slavery in any territory of the United States in which it exists, would create serious alarm and just apprehension in the states sustaining that domestic institution, would be a violation of good faitih towards the inhabitants of such territory who have been permitted to settle with and hold slave<, because the people of such territory have not asked for the abolition of slavery therein, and because that, when any such territory shall bo 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 resolution, which motion was rejected by YEAS. -Messrs. Bayard, Buchanan, Clayton, Davis, yMcKeau, Morris, Prentiss, iobbins, Ruggles, Smith of Ind., Southard, Swift, Tipton, and Webster.-14. NAYs. Messrs.

Allen, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay of Ala., Clay of Ky., Cuthbert.

Ful,ton, lIubbard. King, Knight, Linn, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roane. Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Conti., Strange, Walker, Wall, White, Williams, Wright, and Young.-31. The first resolution was finally adopted by 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..

Ilubbard of N. II., Kin(, of Ala., Linn of Mo., Lumpkin of Ga., Lyon of Mich., Mc~ean of Pa., Nicholas of La., Niles of Conn., Norvell of Mich., Pierce of N. I{., Preston of S. C., Rives and Roane of Va., Robinson of Ill., Ru!,ggles of Me., Sevier of Ark., Smith of Conn., Stran,,e of N. C., Walker of Wiss., White of Ind., Williamns of Mie., Wright of N.Y., and Young of I111.-31. NAYS.-Iessr.s. Bayard of D el., Clayton o f DNl., Davi s of Mass., Knight of R. I., Morris of 0.. Prentiss of Vt., Roblbsinis of R. I., Smiith of Ind., Southard of N. J., Swift of Vt., Tip. ton of Ind., Wall of N. J., and Webster of Mass.-13. 101

Page 102 view page image

TIIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. All the senators wao voted for the first mnent-and closing with the organization of resolution voted for the second, except Mlessrs. thle g,)verrnment itself, regarded as the agent or 3I Kean, llo!)inson anud Ru,les. MIessrs. tru.:tee to carry its powers into effect. Clayton and Spence, wvho did not vote for thle I shalll pass by the Annapolis convention, onl first resolution, voted for the seeond.

whose appllication the convention which framed The neT,ati’e vote on the seon-d resolution the Coni,titution w as called; because it was a -as as follows:- partial and informal meeting of delegates from esss. Dt<, orris.

Prntiss, Smith of I., Soithlard, a few states; and commence with the Congress s,ift, Tipton Wall, ad ebster. 9. of the Colfederation, by whom it was autlhori The vote on the adoption of the third reso-tativ-ely called. TlhaLt Colng,ress derived its lution was as follows: authority fromn the Articles of Confederation YEAS h.,ssrs,. Allen, lienton, Elirk.

Brwn, Buohawn an. and these, from the unanimous agreement of C:olhoun Claiy of Al… Ctl’t. ltO. Illul}.trd. King), ll the states;-and not from the numerical Jl’leuiopki. fLeyovo, 31,,,ick Noilo,,s,. Nili; majoritv, either of the several states, or of their Pierce t o ion, Pr t o.oe.

Robin,,,er. Smith oi ts Con., Strange, WIlker, Wh ite, illiams, Wright, and population. It voted, as has been stated, by . AiS. ssBaard, Clyton, Davi. MKRen. )orrlic delegations; each counting one. A majority Prentiss, I’ugg,‘es,,Sith of Iudt., Svift, Tipto n, aidt Webster of ealchl delegation, with a few important ex -11-. ceptions, decided the vote of its respective The affirmati-e vote on the fourthl resolution state. Each state, without regard to popula was the salme as on the third, with the exception, hid(l thus an equal vote. The confederacy tion of Messrs.

Linn and 3lIerriek, whlo did consisted of thirteen states; and, of course, it not vote on this, and with the addition of a in the poser of any seven of the smallest, 3Iessrs. Bayard, Clay of Ky., Clayton, Critten-as well as the largest, to defeat the call of the den, and Grundy. conveution; and, by consequence, the forlma The negative vote was ms follows:- tion o(f the Constitutioin. Messrs. McKean M orris, Crentisso, ith of Id. an But by the first census taken in 1790-three Swift.-5.”‘rye ars after’the call the population of the The affirmative vote on the final,ad(loptionI of United States amounted to 3,394,5G3, estimated the fifth resolution, as aiendelle( by itlr. Clay, in federal1 numbers. Assuming this to have -was the same as thlat c.ii the fourtlh resolutioll, been the +whole amount of its population at w-ithl the addition of MIessrs. T.liai(ge and the time of the call, (vwhich can cause i-o mate Tipton. iitl error,) the population of the seven small The negative vote was as foll(o-ws:- est states was 959,801; or less than onethird Mesers. Davis. Knight. IcKe.i, Morris, Prentiss, Smith ()f thle w hole; so that, less than onethird of of In., Swift, and Wet,ster.-s8. the popul:[tion could have defeated the call of The vote in favor of the last resolution thle convlention. drawn up by Clay, was the same as that in’lTe convention voted, in like manner, by f.avor of the fifth, with the exception of Messrs. states; and it required the votes of a majority Clayton and Talmadge, and the addition of of thle dele;ations present, to adopt tlhe mea MIr. Merrick. sure. iThere were twelve states represented, NAr. Iessrs. Clayton, Davis. Knight, MeKean, Prentiss Rhlode Island being al)sent;-so that the votes Roblbins, Smith of Imd., Swift, and Webster. 9. of seven delegations were required; and, of course, less than onethird of the population EXTR.CT FRO.M

CAaLIOUx’s DISCOURSE ON TIJE of the whlole could have defeated the formattion CONST1TUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE of the Constitution. UNITED

STATES.‘Tihe plan, w hen adopted by thle convention, It is not an uneomnon impression, that the had again to be submitted to Congress,-anrid to government of the United States is a,overn-receive its sanction, before itcould be sl)ubmlitted ment based simply oin population; that humi-to the several states for their approval,-a nebers are its only element, and a numerical cessary preliminary to its final reference to tlhe majority its only conti ollin, power. In brief, conventions of the people of the several states that it is an absolute (democieacy. o opinrion for their ratification. It had thus, of course, to can be more erroneous. So fitr from being pass a,gain the ordeal of Congress; when the true, it is, in all the aspects in nlulill it can be delegati()nsofsevenofthle smallest states, repreregarded, pre-mniently a ogoveinnment of the senithg less than onethird of the population concurrent majority; wvith an originization coul( l a(aiii have defeated, by refusialg to submore complex and refiled(l, indeed, but far lIit it fior their consideration.

And, stiroinger better calculatedl to express the sense of the still;,-
lien submitted, it required by an exwhole, (in the only miode by Whillich tl-is can be piless [l’ovision, thle concurrence of nine of the fully and truly douec-.o wit, by ascertaiining thirteei, to estallish it between the States ratithe sense of all its parts) tlia~ ai y giiyr ()velcliet f’ ing it; wlucli put it in the power of aiiy four ever formed, ancient or onulen. Iinsteaid of states, the smallest as well as the lhrgest, to population, mere nuiiilers leigu the sle cle-rd e ict it. ITie four smallest, to wit, Dela inent, the numerical ma\jority i:’, stirictl sy Speak-ware, 1Phode Islanid, Georgia and New Ilampmng, excluded, even a5s ((ie (Itf its elemlents; as shliue, contained, by the census of 1790, a fedeI shall proceed to estllistiisi, }y an atppeal to rhl population of only 3)6,948; but a little figures~ beginining with tlle foimlaititerl of(
the niore thain one-eleveuth of the whole; hut as Ci,nstitution, regarded as tlhe funaniiien tail ].1iw inconisiderable as was their population, they which ordained and established the govern-could have defeated it, by preventing its rati 102

Page 103 view page image

CALHOUN, JOHN C.-CARUTHERIS, S.AIUEL. fication. It thus anpears, that the num,erical niaj)rity of the population had no agency whatever in the process of formninin and adoptin, the Ciin,ttit tion; and that neither this, nor aI niaiority of the states, constituted anl element in its ritification and adoption. In the provision for its amendment, it prescribes, as has been stated, two nimodles;-one, 1)by two-thlids of both tIoiises of Congiress; and the other, by a convention of delegate s from thle states, called by Congress, on the application of twothirds of their respective legislatures. But, in neithercase can the p)roposed amnendment become a part of the Constitution, unless ratified by the legislatures of thiree-f()urths of the states, or by conventions of the people of three-fourths, as Congiiress may prescribe; so that, in the one, it requires the consent of twothirds of the states to p r opose amnendments,-and, in both cases, of th reefourths to adopt and ratify them, before they can become a part of the Constitution. As there are, at present, thirty states in the Iinion, it will take twenty to propose, and, of course, would require but eleven to defeat, a pre(tpositioni to amnend the Constitution; or, nineteen votes in the Senate,- if it should originate in Congress-and the votes of eleven legislatures, if it should be to call a corivention. By the census of 1840, the federal population of all the states,-iiicliiding the three which wvere then territories, but which have since become states,-iwas 16,q77,604. To this, add Texas, since admittedl, say 110,000; making the aggregate 16,187,604. Of this amiount, 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 3,5026,811, can compel Congress to call a convention to propose amendments, ag,ainst 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 maty, in the one case, prevent the adoptioin 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-i fication of proposals to amenld, will present others still more so. Iliere the consent of three fourths of the states is 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 but776,969; aent yet, h small as this is, they can preo ent amendments, against the united votes of the other twenty-two, with a federal population of 15,410,6j35, or nearly twenty times their nunmber. But while so small a portion of the entire poipula tion can prevent an amendment, tventy-three of the smallest states, with a federal nonulation of only 7,254,400-c-Cte ateli( the C,)lstitu tion, ataiinist the uniited votes if’

the (othele seven, wzith a federall populiationi of S,9oo3,’,04. So that a numerical mino’ity of the po~pulation can amend the Constitti()n, against a decided iiumiielrical ma,tjoritvy; when, at the salie time, one-ninieteenthi of the population can pievent the otl-her eighlteen-ninieteenths frolmi amiend(ing it. And more than this: any one state, Delawiare for instance, with a federal population of only 77,043,-can prevent the other tw-entynine states, withl a federal population of 16,110,561, from so amiiending, the Constitution as to deprive the states of an equality of representation 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 the 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, incontestably prove, not onlv that the authority which formed, ratified, anti even amended the Constitution, regulates en tirely the numiierica,l majority, as one of its elements.,-but furnish additional and conclu sive proof, if additional were needed, that ours; 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, ratiO,ins, and amnend ing the constitution, act as equals, without reference to population. EXTRACTS

FRO.- LETTER OF. * To nmy Coaal;ti els: I said then, speatking of the Kiansas-Nerl aska bill, that ” I will co t pause long to dw,ell upon its part y effect; for, in my judlg,men.t. the ql, stimls inlved override all party considera,tions. It is true. this b ill is slted to us as k t adinltistraition nieasure. It is true that I a, here as a Aphid; lbut I al not here to {rive this administration ( fazctious opposition. 1 am not here to oppose any ne,,asur, brought forward by it, nmerely )ecauise it is brought forw:ml bv it. I am here, unomimitted to a blind opposition or a blind support. to follow to the end the dictates of my own judgzm(ent and conscience. and the will of those who sent me. ‘ In this instance I believe the aZ,dm,inistrationl has taken higrh national ground: that it has planted itself upon a great Amnericain principle-the principle of self-grover,nment: a principle involved in none of our party issues; a principle dearer than any party considerations; a principle upon which all sound, national imen of,,II patrties milay meet ftrd stnild(, as!rupon grerid alike cheri.shedl an] alike d{,ar. It was this principle in(rafted in the compr(omiies of 18.-X0, that ot,uimendled them so warmly to the Americ.n heart; it was this princi}ple? whtich was ratified by boti parties in their convenitions at Baltimore, an(d it is for this principl(

I speak to-day. ‘Sir, this is no war between the ddministration and its opp,ent,t-no we ar between Whists a.n-D, o(.lats a, stash; 1)ut.

dis,,2nise it as you ilacy. it is a war lb(et wen-silism on the one hand, and the right of the people to self-goveru mient on the other.” Upon these declarations I went into the can vass. I wras elected then, declaring that the I I i 10 California. AD.NIIS,SION OIF. SCe CO-IIPRO-111SE ME.’,SURES.

Caruthers, Samuel, of Missouri.

Page 104 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. your efforts, I say that I am opposed to ths 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 whol e thing is unconstitutional!-that Con gress has “no power to exclude slavery!” Still, i f he could, he would restore this un constitutional restriction! I leave it to his admir ers and supporters to reconcile and harmonize these declarations; I freely admit my incapacity.

But he gets further down South than I gofor he is a fast traveller when he does start. Hle says, “neither has the Territorial Legislature, in my judgment, any right to loeislate upon that subject, except so far as lmaly he necessary to protect the citizens of the territory 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 reaulate their own dom estic 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 dalled on to either af firm or deny tle cnstitutionality of the Wilmot proviso.” * “My political existence comimenced since thlatt 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 oblivious as his sudden conversion is marvelous.

This same Ilenry 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 FreeSoilers will hold a convention at Ilyde-Parke, on the 30th inst. There is a 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.”*
principles of the Kan sasNebraska b ill “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 fellowcitizen.s of the whole Union their heart-felt congratulations on the trinumph in the recent elections in several of the Northern, Eastern, and Western, as well as Southern States.

of the principles of the KansasNebraska bill, and the doctrines of civil ad religious liberty which have been so violently assailed by a secret political orlder known as the Know N othing party. And, though in a minority, we hold it to be our highest duty to preserve our organization.

and con tinue our efforts in the maintenance and defence of those principles, and the constitutional rights of every section and every class of citizens., against their opponents of every description, whether the socalled Republicans, KnowNothings, te Ftsipnipts; and t o this end we look with co nfidence to the support and approbation of all good and true nmenfriends of the Constitution and Union throughout the country.” It will b e seen that there are only two plank s in this platform. The one, in favor of the principles of the KansasNebraska bill the very principles upon which I was re-ele ct ed-and the o ther against the proscriptiveness of K now Nothing ism. B ea r in mind the fact, that, when I was elected, the wre were no Know Nothings in my district-that I wa s n ot one. And now, may I not ask, if there is a sinfkle honest and intelligent m an i n my district wcho believe s t hat I have “abandoned the principles upon which I wa s elected?” Or if, in view of th ese f act s, there is any one, but an intentional calumniator, who will ever again assert it? Again: It is said that I s hould h a ve voted for oIsenry M. Fuller for Speaker-that he was a good enough proslavery man (for Kennett, Lindley, and Por ter, vo ted for him); and, therefore, “some wise political teachers” argue that he is soun d enough for me! It is a suffici ansr ns at aent answer to this argument, if argument it may be called, th at K ennett, Lindley, and Porter, act upon their own judgments, under the ir own responsibilities. I act upon my judtrment, und er my responsibility. III a speech delivered by me, on the 9th day of January last, in the House, I took up the retord of thi s Mr ue. Fuller. I showed that he had vo ted f or Mr. Pennington, who had favored a motion to suspend the rules of the House, to allow Mr.

Elliott to introduce a bill to repeal the fugitive slave law, and who had voted for both MIr. 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 umst defeat * It is due to Mlr. 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, Aug,ust 18, 1849. “‘My Dear Sir:-Your favor of 15th instant was duly received, a,id the matter of Mr.

IIackley shall have immediate 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 Ilyde Park on the 30th instant, and that you will attend a~ a delegate. The Whig convention met at Ifarrisburg day before yesterday. We have received no intelligence yet, but will this evening or in the morning. Mly friends hlero are confiden t of my no mination. I ha ve re ally ve ry lit tle feeling, on the subject. The office is not to my liking-stilL, if nomicfated, I shall desire an election. If vour friends should persist in maintaining a distinct organization, and 104

Page 105 view page image

CARUTHERS, SAMUEL. Ay, “the earliest practical abolition of slat very.”

Look at it! For “free soil;” “opt posed to the extension of slavery;” in favor of its “earliest pract ical abolition;” intriguing for the nomination o f a FreeSoil conven tion; and in addition to all this, when the final vote for Speaker came-the last vote-the ls a mvote which ” tried the sou ls of men,” the vote which was to d etermine whether Banks, the political Abolitionis t, the Black mepublican, the u Northern Know Nothing, the ” Union-sliding,” the “absorption” Banks, should be elected Speaker of the America n c o ouse of Representatives, or that accomplished gentleman an d so und, national, and conservative man, Governor William Aiken; he, under the flim sy a nd miserable pret exth vrso of h avi ng paired of with a man who wa s present, being pr esent himself, dodged, and did not vote a t all! And now with his re,ord fairly before you, elected upon the principles on which I wa s elected, I su bmit it to your candor, if I would not have exposed myself to the just scorn and contempt of every g ood man of my district, of any p arty, if I ha d voted for IIenry M.

Fuller? I voted for William A. Richardson of Illinois. I knew him. I had served wit h him in the last Congress. I knew him to be the very soul of honor. A man whose ” wor d was as good as his bond;” a man whose lar ge heart could take all the Union into its affections; a ma n who wa s 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 bearin g in th ose battles; a man who ha s sto od unmove d while mad f anaticism poured its vials of wrath upon his head; a man who breasted the storm in “
itswildestragings” after the passage of the KansasNebraska bill; the man who bid them a proud and bold defiance; 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 He 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 nomination 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. hlear him: I am i n favo r of fre e soil, free speech, free lab or, an d free nlen; being a Wilmot Proviso man up to the hub, and utterly opposed to the extension of slavert.” Iw e was up to t he 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 nati onal men for the sp eakorship. ien goes o n: ‘The matter will require prudent management, and I know, of no.an who can accomplish it better than yourself. It would be bad policy to attempt it without a eertainty of success. Consult with our mutual friends, IlackIey and Johnson. and write me soon. a Yours truly, IIENRY M. FULLER.”

Thus it appears, that on the 18th day of Aug., 1849, he was a “W 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 fl)od!” I will comment no further on this letter! Mlr. 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 WVhig paper, and then supporting Mr. Fuller. Il that speech, published at the time, and uncontradicted, Mir. Fuller says: “Let the people of the South talk as they please, slavery was a dark and damning stain upon their escutcheon.”

‘- Jet us say to the proud waves of slavery, as they beat against the barriers of freedom,‘Thus far shalt thou go, an’,l 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 nstions.” * “As lords of freedom. we had a duty to perform to the South. Let us do it with a proper regard to our friends there, but let us insist on the earliest practical abolition of slavery.”* make a separate nomination, as has been suggested, it will d{ injury. You say you are friendly, and desire to aid my election. I believe you are so, and would suggest. therefore tlh.it you prevail upon your friends to make no nomination. IHow this is to be accomplished you will best understandperhaps by resolution; consult with our mutual friends, Ftrnsham and Hackley-they are both substantial, sensible iien.

and competent to advise in the matter. On the subject o f reesoil, I believe our people here and everywhere are in favor of fre d e labor and free men. I certainly am opposed to exted tdin,g slavery, and desire whatever can rightly be done to restrai n or ameliorate it s hould be done. ni It is an exciting quest ion, calculated to produce much inflammnnation and extreme opinions. I would avoid undue exwitemer t, 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 c anvass, and this question ,an hard ly b e c onsidered an issue. If I should be nominated b y the H arrisburg convention, my chief desire in securing the election will be,. to obtain a popular endorset ert of the measu re I advocated in the legislatur e last winter, and about which we bad so much trouble-the completion 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 ‘ the above extract: ” I come now to the next charge in the bill of indictment against me, which is, that on the 29th day of September, 1849, I 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 utterance 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 shouting. Some lovers of mischief sprung a sudden cry of “fire,” which disturbed and came near breaking up the meeting. The good people, with tha t instinctive 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 toodation for them. so far as I saw. The following day, I remember to have seen what purported to have been a report of my speech, but in language an d sentiment so much stronger than a ny I h ad utt ered, that I really did not recognise 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. Ile 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 entertained or expressed any sentiment in favor of Northern interfer. ence to secure the abolition of slavery, and feel quite certain that I could not have uttered the sentiment attributed to me.” 103

Page 106 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of courage and patriotism, dares to do what-wrong in principle, against the very genius ever his large heart approves and his co)l)ire-of our institutions, dangerous in practice, and hensive mind su,gests; and a m-an, too, who is should be avoided by all men, of all parties. of the We.t, western  hlo is o,f us and - itlh I objected then, and object now, to the “hole us. I wouli iot, I should not, I could(l not, I did machinery of its organization; I ol(jected( not lihesitate fior a moiment wvhicli to cii)()se-then, and I object now, to an indiscriminate this man, or Ilenry M. Fuller. Wa-, s I not riiht?

proscription of naturalized citizens fiom office; I had seen Judge Douglas of Illinois, after I objected then, and object now, to anything anxious delberation, introduce that bill, and that even looks like manking a religious test. stake his politiCal life upon the justice of its A Protestant by birth, a Protestant by eductaprii-ciplies. I hadl seen the adminiistratioi tion, by prejudice, by reason, by fiuith; a coimmiit its fortunes to it; I had seen the g,reaIct Protestant in all (I regret to say except the blodl of the national Wlhi,s in the Se,ite, iL practice), was a Catholic organization formed, the lI)u.se, in the couiitry, comie up to its sup-to brand me as unworthy of public trust beport; I had seen the Decmocracy a(lopt it as cause of nmy religious opinions, I would call an article in their creed of faith; I liadtl seen upon every honest Catholic in the land to aid the people of miy district, as almost one man, me in striking it down. As I would “have eniid(or.e the principles of that bill; antd was I them do unto me, I will do unto them.” to desert the gallant ship, with her tried and The Catholic and Protestant have fought side trustedl crew, as she plounhed her majestic by side on those battle-fields where our liberwav, unin),ved by the stormi and unshaken by ties were won; and when “pestilence has tile’)ihlows, to go out in a miserable yawvl, stalked at noon-day” through our cities, leavuo,ler tLie colmmiandl of such a “straflier” of a in( a track of desolation and death, we have ca)ptain, Snh a ” latter-day sainlt as this seecl the Protestant and Catholic ministry ILeI’-v 3A. Fuller? again laboring side by side to stay its awful Btr, it is said that SIr. Fuller is a Know ravages; to administer balm to the sick, con-N,lii”, and therefore I should have given sol tion to the dying, and decent interment Ii i l vi-te. The contest for the Speaker to the dead! If we kneel not at the same sil d(i\ eteleped Ithe fa(t that there are now altars, under the same forms, we worship the thlI.e pirtie iiin the country. The Northern same God; we are pointed to the same accountKIn, iNs )tliing and Abolition party, fused ability for sin, and to the same Ileaven as a uia,t i ti(o name of Black Republican, the (so-reward for piety! Why should not we leave Cai’ l) “‘National American,” and the Demo-controverted points of theology to the ministry 1ratic pirt. This Know Nothing party was of the churches? Why should not we laymen abrl amidst the factitious excitement manu-go on-as we should go on-in brotherly love fat(tured by Abolitionists and disunionists out and confidence? As I have opposed the of the passage of the KansasNebraska bill. dragging of politics up into the pulpit, I It spirung at once, “like Minerva from the oppose drawing religion down into politics. brain of Jove,” full armed, and entered the All thinking men agree that the only real political arena. In the morning of its exist-danger to our institutions arises from imaking ence, it was full of promise. It declared that the subject of slavery a sectional question. it wo)uld say to the angry waves, “peace-be May I not respectfully ask the Protestant mistill that it was the only broad, national, nistry of the South to pause and reflect, that if conservative party; that its great, paramount they bring the doings of churches into political mission was to save the Union, which was discussion, they might injure Protestantism?

imperilled by agitation. Relying upon these Mlay not the Catholic turn upon you with the promises, confiding in these assurances, many fact, that of three thousand preachers who good men everywhere-many in my district-denounced the judgments of God upon our went into this organization. I went twice devoted heads who voted for the Kansas(and but twice) into their councils. I “saw Nebraska bill, there was not upon the paper am.” It took two visits to see him all over. the name of a single Catholic minister? May I miade them; I saw enough, and determined he not show that none of his clergymen are in to never look on his face again! the Ihalls of Congress, while we have twenty In dealing frankly with you, it is due that odd preachers? May he not show that he has I should make this acknowledgment. I would never refused to take the “holy communion” not have the vote of an Anti-Know Nothing with a slaveholder; that his church in the in my district without his knowledge that I had North are not stirring the waters of sectional b)eei intheircouncils; norwould I have the vote strife; that they never do, and never have, iiiof a Know Nothing without his knowing that I terfered with the delicate question of slavery?

am not of his order. I may prove wanting in and by showing these things, drawing these ability to serve; I shall never prove wanting contrasts, may they not commend their churchi in candor towards you. It has been the habit to the South, and weaken yours? These are of my life to defend my course against all questions for you to consider. It is but just odds when I believe it is right, and to acknow-to a large and respectable Protestant deneledge my errors when I believe I have done mination-I allude to the regular old Baptists wrong. I freely admit to you, that I ought -to say that they have never, anywhere, at never to have gone into a secret political any time, under any circumstances, either society of any kind whatever; that they are North or South uterfered in political affairs 106

Page 107 view page image

CARUTHERS, SNAMUEL. lvhy should Protestants agitate this sub-I existing laws upon the subject of slavery a! a final and conject? hliy should they endeavor to build clueire settlemenit of that subject in spirit and in subup a political party upon a subject on which I And regarding it the highest duty to avow their opi t 1 tn e no political action? You a e lpOn suli et90so important indistinct an(lunequivotl-ev can have no political action 9 You are alt it is hercity declared, as the sense of this National ft r)idd teni to act by the Constitution of the C,,un(il that Cogrebss possesses no power,u ndler tleCon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
oerUniter Stteshe Con-ttto sy,ta I sieda te1ste. The Constitution savs, to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the states where it does or may exist, or to exclude any state C’ iCn)i,ess shall make no law resl)ectlin thefro adission into the Union, because its constitution estatbllisihmenrt of religion, or prohibiting the doesor d oes not recognise the institution of slavery as a fi ec \ei se thei eof’ Take thiscp rt of it s social ststem; and exp ressly pretermitting al exer.ise t h eo.” Tk esxpression of opinion upon the powyer of Congress to estab A a President, having sworn in.Know lish or prohibit slavery in any territory, it is the sense of i,;thing councils that he will appoint no R~ ftei (:;tiliii councilis tha St lie will aptpoii-t ao Ito-the -Nationial Council that Congress ought not to legislate iltn. * 1 ilol t~~iic~te tujeot of slavery within the ubjterritories of slavery withe man Catholic to office, is elected.

Ile takes -U,it(iid States, and that any intrfererence by Congress with ain oathl to support the Constitution of the slavery as it exists in the District of Columbia, woul, be a nited States. Thatv Constitution says that oaionofthe spirit and intention ofthe compactl y which Un ited States. That Constitution say-s, that the s tate of Maryland ceded the District to the United “ino religious test shall ever be required as a States, and a breach of the national faith.” qualification to any office or public trust he is a platform on the subject of sla There is a platfo)rm on the subject of sinunderte the U~nited States.”;Suppose, then, nuder te United State s.” Suppose, then, a very (wilth the exception of a little pretermiitman is presented for office: does he not have tin) sound-one upon which the South could to inquire, under his first oath, if the mai is stan. Th ey were conservative and just; but ai Catholic? If he is, then he must refuse * h v ‘.atholicfhs the e Xt what did the northern and the largest portion him (n that account. If he does so refuse of this so eminently national party do? They him, he violates his last oath, because he then swore lie would make ” no religious test.” Is repudiated this section; they spit upon it swr hewouild ma necessaryI They met together in their state councils, and commllent necessary? But I h ae en a kdiIwovote for a there these conservative Union-savers were But I have been asked if I would vote for a not satisfied with a simple repudiation of this man who owes temporal allegiance to a twelfth section, but go on to announce doeforeign powuer? I answer, no. I would not trines as the doctrines of the party, which, if vote for any man, of any religion, for any carried out, lead, in the strong language of office, who is bound by such an allegiance. 11.. v.; AMr. Clayv (when speaking of refusing to ad As to a spiritual allegiance, my under-iit standing, is that w.e all owe that allegiance to a state because of a constitution tolerating aPowr he lhron is out e of te Uited. slavery), ” to a dissolution of the Union a Powe r whose Thro e is outside of the United through a bloody and perilous road.” States to God, in Heaven! Stialtes-t Godw, inr aven n. Ch I give you a resolution passed by a Know But in all these views, perhaps, no Cath-Nothing convention at Cincinnati in Novenimi”e or Protestant disa~rees with ie, and I w1i ot lProi atesthem fuXrther ber last, composed of delegates from seven of wlill not elabhorate them further. A wil otelatdor tate the frtear. f the Northern and Northwestern States. They I stated to you, that the great reason for declare - my having ever gone into a council was, I my’havg er ge it a c l “That the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was an was assured that the preservation of the infraction of the plighted faith of the nation, and that it Union was the ” rock on which they built should be restored; and if efforts to that end should fail, their church”-that men who joined in the Congress should refuse to admit into the Union any state tolerating slaverv which shall be formed out of any portion North, as well as the South, made a “burnt of the territory from which that institution was excluded offering” of their prejudices, and joined with by that coDpromise.” hands locked in hands in a living chain Yes, they will not admit Kansas if she aparound the Constitution, in a common brother-plies for admission as a slave state; thus, hood, and in a common defence. I was told, according to the language of Mr. Clay, and too, that I could withdraw if I was not pleased. thus, as every intelligent man knows, leading I ask every Know Nothing who reads this, to the “dissolution of the Union by a bloody if such was not his understanding of the ob-road.”

You see by this resolution how the jects of the American order? Then I ask Know Nothings in the Northwestern States them to lay aside their partialities and preju-stand. I will show you how they stand in dices, and, thinkingly, as patriots, to look the Middle States. In the legislatureof Pennback at its history. sylvania, the Know Nothings and the Black It miet in convention at Philadelphia in Republicans, true to their instincets and actions, June last-it laid down a, platform-it put fused, and they declared, on the 12th day of forth the celebrated twelfth section. Here it January, 1856, in the follo*,ing form, to wit: 1is: “

Resolved, That we are opposed to the admission of any ‘Resolved, That the American party, having risen upon more slave states into this Union; therefore. the ruins. and in spite of the opposition, of the Whig and “

Resolved, That Kansas and Nebraska should only be Democratic parties, cannot be held in any manner responsi-admitted into the sisterhood as free states.” file for the obnoxious acts or violated pledges of either; that the systematic agitation of the slavery question by those “Opposed to the admission of any more parties has elevated sectional hostility into a positive elF save states into this Union:” the rankest and ment of political power, and brought our institutions into peril; it has, therefore, become the imperative duty of the the most damnable FreeSoilism, as well as American party to interpose for the purpose of giving peace the most direct road to dissolution! to the country and perpetuity to the Union; that, as experience has shown it impossible to reconcile opinions so In NewYork n the Empire State-the state extreme as those that separate the disputants, and as which owes its greatness to the commerce of there can be no dishonor in submitting to the laws, the the Union as it is-in that state so hound to National Council has deemed it the best guarantee of common justice and future peace to abide by and maintain the US and so dependent upon us by commercial 107

Page 108 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ties, the Know Nothings met there in state Instead of getting national Know Nothings convention, at Binghaniton, and they, too, from the North for our national man (Gover join in the swelling chorus of abolitionism, nor Aiken), we really lost two “South Ameri and resolve as follows:- cans”-Mr. Cullen, of Delaware, and Mr. “Resolved, That the National Administration, by its ge-Ifenry Winter Davis, from Maryland! So neral course of official conduct. together with an attempt to ou will see that instead of the tendencies of destroy the repose, harmonv.

and fraternal relations of the country in the repeal of the Missouri Coniproiiii-e. and the the American order being to liberalize the encouragement of aggressions upon the gover)nment of the North, its practical operation is to free-aoilize territorial inhabitants of Kansas, deserves an d ould e-the South ceive, the united condemnation of thle American people t and that the institution of slavery should receive no extenDo you want more proof? I will give it. sion from such repeal.” The Know Nothing convention, held at IPhila The meaning of which is, that Kansas, if delphia on the 22d( of February, 185C), (the applying as a slave state, should be rejected. birthday of Washington-lwhat a desecraThis is the platform upon which they went tion!) repudiate and abolish this twelfth secinto their last fight! This is the platform tion, on a separate and distinct vote, anrd by upon which they gained their victory? A an overwhelming majority; and in its steal victory which has been so much rejoiced over! place a plank which means all things to all A victory which would lead to a dissolution men, and of which a member of the convenof the Union!t Thus stand the Know Nothing,s tion, from Indiana, and a supporter of it (Mr. of New York! Let us go to the Nortlleastern Sheets), said in that convention-the New England states. Mlaiie, Connee -the New nl states. Ma*inX l “ail e wo uld assure the South that the twelfth section ticut, New Hampshire, Mlassachlusetts, all de-must be got rid of. lie was willing to accepta conmpr(omise, clare ta but the etion must be got rid of: be was willing to accept the a s pashinu mton platform; for, if there was anything” in it, “Whereas the aggressive policy which has. been uniformly it was so covered up with verbiage that a President woull pursued by the siave power, from the coititeicement of be elected before the people would find out what it was all our national existence down to the abroga,tion of the Mis-about. [LTumultuous laughter.]” souri compact, evinces a determination t to crush out’ the spirit as well as the forms of liberty from among us, and to Yes this infamous sentiment instead of subject the free states to a relentless despotisml; andl whereas the success of the Southern delegates to the National Coun-bein, received with patriotic indignation, was cil recently held in Philadelphia, in making abject and received with “tumultuous laughter!” and uneomplaining submission to proslavery letgislattion a fun-the “Washington platform,” presented b one damenta1 article in the creed of the Nationatl America n party. renders it imperative on us to express our views upon Parson French S. Evans-the defeated Black the great question of the country and the age: Therefore, Republican candidate for Sergeant-at-Arms of we declare “That the great barrier to slavery, ruthlessly broken by the present Ihouse-was adopted by that conthe repeal of the Missouri prohilition, ought to be speedily vention! restored; and that, i n any event. no state erected from any Do want proof? ever part of the territory covered by that compromise ought ever you want more proof I think every to be admitted into the Union as a slave state.” intelligent, honest man in my district, who is Though I have them at hand, I will not lot an aspirant for office, will exclaitm-” IIold, weary and disgust you with any more of these enough!” But for the benefit of the KnowNorthern Know Nothing platforms. I have Nothing aspirants for my place in the district, taken the northwest, the centre, and the I willgive two more facts. That the northern northeast. I have shown you, so that no portion of that convention telegraph to the honest man will ever deny it who reads these Black Republican Pittsburgh convention, sitplatforms, that they have gone, utterly gone, ting at the same time, that theinto practical abolitionism; that no represen- “, American party is no longer uniited.

Raise the neplb. tative-no man who values the rights of the lieanh batnner. L,et there be no further extension of slavery. South-can act with theml. The Americans are with you.” Do you want more proof? I refer you to And the still further significant fact, that the record of the present Congress. I assert after the express repudiation of the twelfth to you that three-fourths of the men who section, they denounce in their platform the elected Banks were Know Nothings. I assert repeal of the Missouri compromnise line. to you that not a single northern member of And now-I do not ask the aspirants for that party voted for Governor Aiken for my place-I do not ask those who want to go Speaker!

Thatafteralltheir”loud-mouthed” as Know Nothings to the legislature-tho,,;e irofessions of nationality, Fuller dodged; his who want to be sheriffs, county judges, squires, Itrecious little band of six threw away their or constables, &c.-but I ask the true iten of votes upon their immortal leader, and thus my district-the real people, where I have allowed Banks, who was only elected by three always found my friends-the men who have votes-who would sink the Union-who would no object but the good of their country at “absorb with the negroes”-who has not yet heart, to do as I have done abandon this determined whether he is better than a negro organization!-if it has not failed utterly, or not-yes, these northern Know Nothings completely, entirely fiiled, as a sound, nathrew away their votes, and allowed this man tiotial, conservattive party? it every intelliBanks to be elected Speaker! gent man does not know that it has so failed? Will any man of common decency-will and if every honest man will not acknowledge any man in Missouri, of ordinary self-respect, the fact? ever again abuse me for not having acted with As to the great catchwords-, “Americans the northern Fuller party? shall rule America!”-I am in favor of Amer 108

Page 109 view page image

CARUTIIERS, SAMUEL. leans ruling America. They do, they always which the whole magnificent structure of our have, and they always will rule America. government rests. I will not, by any action of But who are Americans? Your laws declare mine, deface or mar these pillars. that, when a man has been here five years-I have been often asked if I am not in favor when he will, under oath, renounce all allegi-of reorganiziinog the Whig party? I ianswer ance to any foreign prince, potentate, or that, in the present condition of parties and power-when he will prove that he is of good the country, in my judgment, such an effort mo)ral character-attached to the institutions can do no good, and might do great harm. o)f the jUnited States-he may be declared an I say to you, that we have no sound maAmerican, and your law makes him a citizen. terial North out of which to reconstruct that It is a fraud upon him, if you do not give him party. Look back at the past. Every Mhig all the rights of citizenship! 1Representative from the North, in 1849), votedl Think of it!

The poor old Pope of Rome, for the Wilinot proviso. But three of them unable even to defend his life-to protect him-out of seventy-three voted for the fugitive self-has his throne supported and upheld by sl ave law-that law which dloes but common French bayonets! We have twelve native to justice to the South, and which is command(led (ne foreign vote in the United States! Why 1 )y the Constitution itself! Not one Whig should we fear the Pope? And cannot twelve north of Mason and Dixon’s line voted for Americans manage one Irishmian? In the thie IKansas-Nebliraska bill of 185o4! On all Congress of the Unitedcl States there is but these nmeasures a maority of the Northern one foreigner! In the last legislature of our Democrats voted w itlh the South. hIave we, state-elected, as the members were, before then, not reached that point, in the North, the Know Nothing flood-there was but one; presupposed by Mr. Clay when he said, “If and( he was a leading-I might say, without the Whig party ever becomes merged -into a being invidious, the leading member of the contemptible Abolition party, 1 will abandon Senate! I allude to Colonel C. Zeigler, who it in dis,gust?’” and should not we, his old( folcamie, or was brought to this country when lowers, take his implied counsel and his proan infant eighteen months old! He is one of posed example, when lhe says, “I will act with the first intellects of our state, or any state. that party, whlatever its namtle may be, that Ile has been my political friend-my personal stands by the Conistitution aiid the Union?” To friend my supporter in every aspiration. I endeavor now to reorganize the Whig party, submit it to you, if there is not something would be but to divide and distract the sound radically wrong in an organization whichl national men of the South. would prohibit me from voting for him, merely Where have we an ally in the North, outbecause he was born outside of the United side of the Democratic organization? The,se States, though brought herewhen amere child! allies have been true to us in the past. With I have used his name without his authority. I a patriotic devotion to the union of the states, know he will pardon me, when he sees that I and a patriotic regard to the constitutional have only used it to illustrate more strongly rights of the South, they Ihave bjaredl their to our people, than I could by a hundred ar,u-bosoms to the ragings of the storim they have ments, the absurdity of this indiscriminate stood unmoved, while nimaligiiity and(
finatiproscription of foreign-born men from office. cismi have poured their fiery torrents upon If the despotisms of the Old World should them.

I take them to my heart as political ever attempt to destroy our government by brothers, and wear and cherish them there. sending their population here, I wrill not, as How stands the Democratic party? I have vour representative, pause to talk or argue given you the resolution of the present miemal)out our naturalization laws. I shall speak bers of Congress. and vote for prohibiting any foreigner from Listen to Ohio!

Steeped as she has been trealing his foot upon our soil! I shall strike in FreeSoilism’ in state convention assemat the root-not waste my time and energies l)led, with the boldness of ri-htit with the in ltpping off the branches. candor of manhood, they declare, onl the 8th I have always understood that three grand day of January last, as tollows:  lea(ling ideas run through our institutions,,1. Resolved, That slavery (being thle reature of positive giving them all of their vitality, their beauty, law, cannot exist witchout it) is a domes! i istittin al tld their power.

First, that the people are that Congress his neher the poit bt alot 1 > 1>
n r.. ~~~~~~~territory or state, nor to e~xclud~e it tlmrlefromli, but to leave capatl)le of selfgovernment. This is the cdo-the people tle, reof perfe tly friee to fo m ia(;Uate their trine of the KansasNebraska bill.

S ec ond, i tir way stlject only to the trealt wve hadl made an asylum to which the op-Constitution of the Unlited Statecs.” tat we hadmaeaaslmtwhcthop “2. lmesolveui, Tohat the riht of the leole of each parpressedt of every land might come as a refuge; ticular state aid territory to estali sh their oni coistituthat here they might worship as equals at the ii vernmenitf to rho r titilir altar of our liberty; that here they might lift for theselves iisiafutal prinds alli free o_:-riurn up their hearts to their God, according to the n h dictates of their consciences, and there should at the very fli o f thlourfr e institutions.

eis cd be none to molest them. Third, that there in the Declaration of Independence, and established by the shoulld be no aristocracy of birth. I have re-Constitution of the United States; anid we hereby endorse garded, and do regard, these as the peculiar and reaffirm this now dispnted principle.: pride and boast of my country. I regard them Contrast this with the resolves of the Know as the three grand and massive pillars upon Nothing convention at Cincinnati. 109

Page 110 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. proud position, I am with them and of them 1

Under God, I believe that the Deniocratic is the only p(-)olitical org,tniza,tioni with which we can beat back this Abolition ho(-rdc from the capitol. WCile I thus believe, I shIall continue to act with them; and when the light is done, when the victory is achieved, when our gallant old ship is again afloat in the sunshine a tnd upon quiet seas, I shall turn round to my saelmocratic brethren, and, if I hav e any unadjusted quarrels, I will settle them then. prind now, fellow-citizeds, I submit i I ha ve not redeemed my plelude, that I would set myself fcirlyhfl, fully, frankly befor e you. I trust that my position will meet with you r approval. If it sphou ld n ot, I have only to say that it has been taken after fue (leli;)eratioin -taken under a solemnn sense of duty to you and the country. 5Iv opinions are niy honest convictions, and if disapproved, I can retire from office. I cannot yield those convictions. I throw myself upon a generosity and kindness which took me by the hand when all ol)scure and unknown, and lifted me up to t seat in the Congress of the United States, ana 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 fiowii of your condemnation, or whether I will again be greeted with that plaudit ever so dear to a public man, ” Well done, thou good and faithful servant!” In any event, I am truly yours, SAMUEL CAIRUTHERS.

House of Representatives, Washington, February 28, 1856. Listen to Indiana, as she, too, speaks in her Democratic state convention. She says: “Resolved, That we approve the principles of the com prorise measures of 1850, and their application, as embodied l in the KansasNebraska bill, and will faithfully niaintain them.” Ilear the Democracy of New York, as they, too, in convention declare: “Resolved, That the determination of Congress, avowe,d in the KansasNebraska bill, to reject fromi the national councils the subject of slavery in the thr etories, and to leave the people thereof free to regulate their donestic in stitutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, is one that accorws with the seumtimIents of the Democracy of the state and with the traditional course of legislation by Congress, which, undflr D
emocratic auspices, has gradually, in successive territorial bills ex -
tendled the domain of popular rights and litmited the yan, of Congressional action; and that we believe tlis disposition of the question will result most auspiciously to the peace of Union and the cause of good governmeent.” All, everywhere, from Maine to Texas, speak the same langua,e, declare the same principles, and rally under the same flag! Is not this party national? Contrast these r e 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 o:tths-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 tinme the Southern chivalry bolt, at another the North ern FreeSoilers 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 abolishment 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! Who is it tha t does not know the Union would not survive an hour? Our d anger is not from the Pope, not from foreigners, but is from the Ab oliti onists. What, the n, is our first so lemn, p at riotic duty? It is that we should bannd toget her as on e man. I t is that we should each bring his former prejudices and lay them down upon the al t ar of our countray-that we should leave the p ast to ” bury its own dead,” and look to and fight alone for the preservation of the Con stitution and the Union! I have seen the Dem ocra cy comse down f ro m the North and up from the South, antd gatherinlg in solid column around the Constitution, declare that the rights of the South, the just equality of the states, the capacity of anal for self-governmlent, are their bonds of brotherhlood; that they will protect that Constitution against all the assaults of all the isms in the land. W~hile they continue to occupy this Clarke, Bayard, of N. Y. EXTRACT

FRO-I SPEECII OF, DELIVERED IN IIOLTS. OF 1REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 24, 1856.

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 humnan freedom.

But this, according to 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 republic, established by our fathers at such a cost of treasure and of blood, was est abli shed fo r th e purpose of extending the area of human bonydage. There appears to me somlethin, so impious in this 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 trickit 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. 110

Page 111 view page image

CLARKE, B’~YARD. I speak as a member of the great American be changed; the principles of the statute of part+ a party which has accomplisihed what 1otnmair, enacted more than thlree hundred no other party ever did. years ag(o, by our English ancestors, to curb Within a few short months, not vears, after the inordinate power and ag,,ressive policy of its establishment, it traversed this whole priestcraft, were to be violated, and the whole Union, and defeated its enemies at the ballot-vast property of the Roman Catholic Church, box, so silentlv, so certainly, so overwhelmin that state, was to be investedI in the bishop ing-l, that faction stood aghast at such a reve-of the diocese and his successor in office for lation of undreamed of power. ever, as a corporation sole! It needs no coin No matter what coml)inations were arrayed mentary to exhibit the enormity of this proin opposition-no matter what intrigues wvere ject, while its boldness must challenge the entered into to arrest its progress-no matter amazement of the most apathetic. what anathemas were hurled against its The Jesuit mind, ever alive to schemes for the friends-the result was still the same. With temporal aggrandizement of Rome, had seized thle Constitution in one hand and the Protest-eagerlythe occasion to obtain a strong foothold ant principle in the other, it went forth to in America, and so well had it played the arouse our slumbering nationality, and in the balance of power, which through the foreign name of civil and religious liberty, conquering Catholic vote it undoubtedly held, and so corand to conquer. It has rebuked the spirit of rupt had party politics grown, that this infanullification so rampant at the South, and of mous act was well nigh becoming a law of political sycophancy at the North, so potent as the state. Nor was this the beginning of an instrument of demagogueism; whetlher it aggression. The history of the Catholic priests’ seeks to barter our civil rights to propitiate star upon the Bible, in our public schools, is the slav7e-power, or our religious rights to pur-well known, and affords a striking instance chase the alliance of a despotic hierarchy, of the daring and determined character of that which never serves another except to attain priesthood. Nor yet was this all; political its own ends, and is no less the foe of replub-societies of foreigners were multiplying all licanismni than of religious liberty. over the land, with the avowed oblject of con I propose to offer a few remarks upon the trolling local, state, and even general elecprinciples, progress, and purposes of this tions, and of thus impressing upon our legisAmerican party, as I understand them. lation a policy foreign to our institutions, and I presume, sir, no apology can be necessary, detrimental to the continued peace and pro(sin this chamber, for saying, I am an American. perity of the nation. Bound by no ties of afI have none to offer, for it is my pride and fection and traditionary veneration for the boast. I was born here, as were my ancestors government, acknowledging no principle, save fir several generations before me. Nor shall that of self-interest, or the scarcely broadI offer an apology for that other boast which er interest of clanship, ready for the shambles I shall make, however presumptuous it may whenever the purchase-moniey was counted seem. I am also a Protestant, receiving my down, they exhibited, indeed, a frightful elefaith from God’s holy word, instead of resort-ment of political corruption. Scarcely aping for it to the traditions of priesteraft and preciating, if at all, the change from despotism Popery, which would hide that fountain of to republicanism, without any true apprehenpure inspiration from the people. And being sion of the responsibilities of citizenship, their both an American and a Protestant, my devo-best idea of law, the absence of restraint, they tion to freedom, civil and religious, in every exhibited a natural inclination to disregard pure form, will not, perhaps, be regarded as all regulations which curtailed any coveted a matter for wonder; nor will my resistance privilege. They had been flattered by base to pragmatical dogmas, whether issuing from demagogues to believe that they were better tilhe Vatican or from the plantation, be regarded citizens than the natives theniselves, citizens with astonishment. In the presence of those by ch()ice and not by the accident of birth great memories which cluster round the names and hence it is not to be wondered at, that of Washington and LaFayette, whose portraits they paid little regard to the sanctity of the look down upon us in this hall, as their spirits ballot box and perpetrated the nmost gross and mniay be presumed to do from above, I am dariiing frauds. And at this time where were again proud to proclaim myself an American! the Amer ican people-the children of the soil? They fought for American liberty; and I trust Absorbed in selfish party schemes, they had that I, too, am willing to labor, and. if it need no time to spare even for the contemplation, be, to die in the same holy cause much less for the refoirmation, of these crying The American party, sir, sprang from the abuses. Nay, the very evil which threatened exigencies of the times. Foreignism and to shake the foundations of our government demagogueism, in unholy alliance, were fast was, upon occasions, to them a boon; and often corrupting all the channels of government; in the closely contested election, the mercenary making innovations upon our established po-foreign cohort was brought over to decide the licy, and striking at the very foundation of issue. Unmindful of the teachings of history, our most sacred institutions. I need scarcely they never seemed to contemplate the danger tell you, sir, what was our experience in New which threatened at last to whelm their facYork, the great Empire State of the Union. tions beneath the despotic rule of these unThere the tenure of property was sought to natural allies. III

Page 112 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Well, sir, such was the melancholy state of allies itself with kingcraft, so in the new it affairs, at least within the purview of my politi-strikes hands with slavery. In either case tihe cal horizon. Catholic priests and foreigners lawofaffinityvindicates itsauthority-the alliheldthebalanceofpower, and demagogues pan-ance is natural. That is but a bastard Prodered shamelesslyto their demnands. The word testantism which fraternizes waith any form of “American,” had almost become a term of con-despotism, civil or ecclesiastical. Some have tempt, and the insolence of the foreigner would wondered that a certain classof our naturalized have been unendurable, but that a little native citizens should be found sustaining the Cinspirit and a little native muscle, which was apt cinnati platform, and the Presidential candito contract and expand suddenly on occasions, date who has merged his individuality in that were yet left. This condition of affairs was platform, while another class sustain the platindeed one over which patriotism might justly form of freedom in opposition to the aggresmourn; but it was also one for patriotism to sions of slavery. But to me there is no mysreform; and this idea of the necessity for re-tery in all this. It only illustrates the natural fi,rin seems to have occurred spontaneously, affinity of Jesuitism with slavery. That part and almost simultaneous, over the whole Union. of our foreign-born population who support In New York, the order of “United Ameri-SIr. Buchanan are, with rare exceptions, the cans,” though but few in numbers, put forth subjects of the Roman hierarchy, and consetheir energies, and by the force of strong requently firicendly to the despotic ri)iiciole, of monstrance and eloquent denunciation, do-which slavery is a logical necessity. On the feated the bishop’s property bill.

Very soon contrary, the foreign-born voters who oppose the arrogant tones of the foreign and Catholic the extension of slavery, with the platform and organs drove men together to consult and act. candidate of the Cincinnati convention, are They met at such times and in such places as generally a more intelligent class of citizens, their judgment approved-say at night and in owing no allegiance to Riome, and disdaining secrecy, if’you please-I scorn puerile denun-all alliance with the slave power, which deciation; their numbers increased, their plans grades labor and despises the laborer. The wsere matured, and soon the nation, from Maine fo)rmer are Catholics; the latter Protestants. to California, was startled by a series of un-Of course there are exceptions in both cases, looked for political results, which developed but this classification will be found generally the strange fact that there was an American correct, and the explanation of the fact will people. also be found in the natural affinity of one de Such, sir, was the birth of the American spotic system with another. Said I not rightlvy party-its progress, so far, is before us; but I that Protestantism is significant of all that protest that its history shall not be written contributes to the elevation, the progress, and until calm deliberation shall have restored freedom of our race? As a Protestant I can harmony to its councils, and effected once more do no less, then, than oppose the aggressions order and unity in its purposes and action-of the slave-power; and when I find Jesuitism till opportunity shall have been afforded to de-allying itself with that power, and striving to velope and perfect its policy. I have said, sir, secure the success of its platform and its canthat I am a Protestant; I love the word, for it didate, I cannot fail to remark, that consisis significant of all that contributes to the eletency demands from all who love the Protestant vation, the progress, and the freedom of our principle, opposition to) the usurpations of race. Martin Luther, from whose cell burst slavery, no less than relentless hostility to the the fires of the Reformation which have filled aggressions of Popery. They are twin demons; the world with light, was a Protestant; John and, (God helping me, I am resolved, within ]Iampdeu, the compeer of Milton, as illustri-the limits of constitutional action, to give no ous as he for his bold advocacy of the rights of quarter to either. man, was also a Protestant-not only against the dlesl)otic sway of the Roman hierarchy, but Clayton Compromise. against king,ly misrule no less. Indeed, as In *i(ymsue11 I 1s Indeed as Mr. CLAYTON, in a speech in the Senate, Luther illustrated the religious, so Ilainpden illustrated the political phase of Protestantism, on the 1st of March, 1854, t hs gae a him for the latter is an inevitable sequence of the tory of the measure which bore his name.

I’)rmer. The liberty of conscience, the rights In 1848, shortly after the acquisition of of indiicluality, which Protestantism affirms,, California and New Mexico, a debate iintaonize no less with civil than they do with raged in the Senate until the 12th July, * clisiastical despotism. No demonstration when I came forward and proposed to my ,f history has been wrought out more clearly brother Senators to arrest the debate, and to than this, that where the conscience is enslaved appoint a committee of eight members four liy the priest, the civil rights of the subject from the North, and four from the South; are abridged by the despot; and, on the other two Whigs from the North, two )ecmocrats ll i l where the conscience is free in matters from the North; two Democrats from the of religion, politicai freedom prevails. Inother South, and two Whigs fronm the South-to words, Protestantism results in civil enfran-take into consideration the measures then ehisement; Jesuitism, on the contrary, affili-proposed for the organization of territorial ates with, and tends to political despotism. As governments in Oregon, Califortia, and New in the empires of the old world Jesuitism Mexico. The motion was adopted, and the 112

Page 113 view page image

CLAYTON COMPROMISE. debate in the Senate was arrested. On the ” The proposal of the South to rur the line of 36~ 30’ to tdhe Pacific would have made one million si x hundred tiounext day the Senate proceeded to appoint the ad square miles of the territory, lying beyond the states, committee by ballot. They did me the honor on both sides the Rocky Mountains, free from slavery fi)r to select me as its chairman, and also elected ever, and would have left for African slavery south of 36~ as mem s of te c e wh 30’, parts of California and New Mexico, containing only as members of the committee with me, Air. about two hundred and seventy thousand square miles of Calhoun; the Senator from Indiana (Mr the most worthless part of the whole country-in other Bright); Mr. Clark of Rhode Island the words less than one-sixth in area, and less than one Bo twentieth in value of all the territory acquired bytii….nipresent President of the Senate (Mr. Atchi-mon blood and treasure. The gentlemen of th e ommiiitt.e son); my friend from Vermont (Mr. Phelps); from the North having voted down this proposal mad, by a outhern member, there was indeed, as the gentleman Mr. Dickinson of New York, and Mr. Undcer-from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] has described it, asolenn wood of Kentucky.

pause in that committee. All hope of amicable settlement The committee immediately entered activelyfor the moment vanished, and unnatural contetion seemed The committee immediately entered actively likely to prevail among us. It was then proposed to try upon the discharge of its duty. Both northern the last resor-the court established by the Constitution to and southern men expressed a desire for the settle all judicial questions-to rest the present hopes of suess> of.

thsffrtstlethsettlement on this as the ark of our safety. Twothirds of success of this effort to settle the controversy, the committee joyously concurred in the proposition.” and no more angry words passed until the We came into the Senate with three-fourths committee reported. of the committee decidedly in favor of this last Now, sir, I am compelled, in justice to both proposition, and one-fourth hesitating, but not sections of the Union, to relate in your prefixed against us at the time when we made the sence, you having been a member of the com-report. Now, sir, I desire to call the attention mittee, and knowing the truth of the facts of the Senate for a few moments to the history which I am about to state, what occurred in of what occurred in the Senate after the report that committee. As soon as we assembled, was made. a proposition was made by a member from Mr. ATCHISON, the President, (in the chair,) the South to extend the Missouri compromise here rose, and said: If the Senate will permit line to the Pacific. You, sir, remember it me, I will here state that the Senator from well. The vote upon it stood four northern Delaware has, according to the best of my remembers against it, and four southern mem-collection, substantially stated what did take bers for it. The proposition was renewed in place while that committee was in session.

every form in which we could conceive it Mr. CLAYTON. In obedience to the decision would be proper; but our northern friends of the committee, I drafted the Compromise rejected it as often as it was proposed. We Bill of 1848; and by reference to page 477 discussed it; we entreated them to adopt it. of the Journal for that year, it will be seen We did not pretend that it was a constitu-that, as chairman, I reported it as a bill “to tional measure, but it had been held by many establish the territorial governments of Oreas a compact between the North and the gon, California, and New Mexico; which was South, and in such an emergency as that read, and passed to the second reading.” The then existing, it had been justified by the opinions of the Senate on the subject of the people as a measure of peace. We argued restriction of slavery in the territories, as colthe question to show our northern friends the lected from their votes while this bill was justice, not the constitutionality, of extending pending, may be now briefly stated. such a line to the Pacific. I remember well By reference to page 490 of the same Jourthat I obtained a statement from the Land nal, it will be found that a motion was made Office which showed the effect of it; and I to strike out all the sections of the bill prothoug,ht it ought to satisfy northern gentle-viding territorial governments for California men. From that statement it appeared that and New Mexico. A protracted debate enif the line were extended to the Pacific, the sued, and on that motion the yeas were: free labor of the North would have the exclu-Braury, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of ….

~~~”.Mlessrs. Baldwin. Bradb~ury, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of sive occupation of one million six hundred Mass. Dayt(n, Dix, Dode. Felch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hlale, thousand square miles of land in the territo-IIamlii, Miller, \iles,Upham, Walker.” ries outside of the states, and the South but The nays were: two hundred and sixty-two thousand, in, Messrs. Allen, Atchison, Atherton. Badger. Bell, Benton, which, observe, slavery could only be tole-Berrien. Biorland, Breese, iright, Butler, Calltoun.

Clayton, Davis of Miss., Dickinson. Douglas, Downs, Foote, itannegan, rated in case the people residing there should Houston, Jhn of Md., Johnson o f La., Johnson of G:., allow it. The debates which followed the re-King, Levis M~ogum, Mnon, Metcalf, Pearce, Pheips, King, Lewis, Nl,,,gum, Mla.on, Metcalf, Pea,rce, Phelps, po t of the committee fully sustain all these Sebasti,tn. Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Westport of the committee fully sustain all thiese cott, Yulee.” st atements of mine. Among other things I From page 500 of the Journal of the Senate said in a speech, delivered in the Senate, for that year it appears that on the 26th of after the report, on the 3d of August, 1848,July Mr.

Clarke moved to amend the bill by which will be found on page 1207 of the Ap-adding at the end of the sixth section in rclapendix to the Congressional Globe for that tion to the territory of Oreg on, whe re sla-ery scss~~~~~~~~~~~ion:t h ertr fOrgn hr lvr session:- had been prohibited by the provisional go ” I am boundl to state. and I will now do it in the presce vement these words: f all the m’embters of the committee, northern as well as southern, that in that committee the South proposed the “Pro,ided, heees-er, That no law repealing the act of the Missouri compromise in spirit and effect; that all the terr-provisional government of said territory prohibiting slavery tory north of 36~ 30’ should be free, and all south of it or involuntary servitude therein, shall be valid, until the open to slavery, if the people there should will it.”

sanie shall be approved by Congress.” Again, I stated at the same time: , On this amendment, which was a proposi. $ 113

Page 114 view page image

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, Corwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Upham, Walker.” 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 nonintervention 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 geographical questions so much deprecated by Washington 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.” hience it was, I repeat, that I moved for the appointment of the committee. The South agreed with extraordinary unanimity to submit the validity of their claim to the Supreme Court. Many Northern gentlemen agreed to the same thing; but there was, by no ineans, the saiie 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 Representatives. It is not necessary for me to state its 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, Johnson 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:-T ” Sec. 12. And be itfurther enadm, That so much of the sixth section of the ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, as as contained in the following words, to wit:’ There shall b e neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said terri tory other than in the punishment of crimes whereof the Iarties 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, 0orwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Fitzgerald. Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Spruance, Upham, Walker.” Th e nays were: “Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Breese, Brigf ht, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Douglas Downs, Foote, Hanneg an, Houston, Hunter, Johns on o f M d., Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga., King, Le cis, .Nangum, Mason, Metealfe, Rusk, Sebastian, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Westcott, Yulee.”

On the same day-the 26th of July, 1848NNhen 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, nlays 22.” The yeas were: “Messrs. Atchison, Atherton, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, Davis of Miss., I)ickinson, 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, Yulee.” The nays were: ” Messrs. Allen, Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Bradbury, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hale, Htamlin, Metcalfe, Miller, Niles, Underwood, Upham, Walker.” ” The Senate adjourned at fifty-three minutes after seven o’clock, on the morning of Thursday, July 27th,” having been in session twenty-two hours.-See page 503 of the Journal. Well, sir, what were the principles contained 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 territories 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 I I 114

Page 115 view page image

CLAYTON COMPROMIISE.-CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY. i United States has conferred full powers on Johln MI. Clayton, Secretary of State of the United States; and Iler Britannic M-Ijesty on the RiPght Ilonoratble Sir Ilenry Lytton Butil wer, a menmber of Iler Iajesty’s MIist tl1)nor ablle Privy Council, Knight Coimaiiiiader of tlhe Most Ihonorable Order of the Bath, t d Envoy Extraordinary and Miniister Pleni)itelntialry of 1Her Britannic Majestv to the Unitedl States, for the aforesaid purpose; and the said plenipotentiaries having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be ili 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 subljects of the one, any rights or advan tages in r-egard to commerce or navigati,on 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 wa r between the contracting par ties, be exempted from blockade, detention, or capture by either o f the belligeren ts; and th is pro vision shall ext end to su ch distance from the two ends of the said canal a s may hereaf ter be found expedient to establish. [Article 3d obligates the contracting parties to protect such persons as may be employed in maiki nt, said canal. Article 4th further obligates the contracting parties to use their influence twith the govern nment possessing jurisdiction to fai;.litate the construction of said canal, and to establish two fr’ee ports, one at each end of the samne.] Ar~TICLE V.

The contracting parties further engage that, wh-ien the said canal shall have beens completed, they will protect it fi’om interruption, seizure, or unjust confiscation, and that they will guarantee the neutrality thereof, so that the said canal may forever b~ open and~ free, and the capital invested there Lin secur e. N~evertheless, the govrernmenlts of fate there. It was defeated by an indirect vote of 110 t o 97, lavinag it on the table; and by looking at the Journa l, you will ascert ain that three-fourths, perhaps fiv e-sixths, of those wh o opposed the bill, and d estroyed it by lay in, it on the table, consisted of N orthern gentlemen.

In the House on the 28th of July, 1848, VIr. Stephens of Geo., Tmoved to lay the bill on the table, which was carried by the follow ing, vote: YEAs.-z-Iessrs. Abbott of Mass., Adams of Ky., Ashmun of Mass., Belcher of TIe., Bingham of Mich., Blanchard of Pa., Bolydon of N. C., B uckner of Ky., Butl er of P a., Canby of O., Clapp of Me., Collamer of Vt., Collins of N.Y., C onger of N. Y., Cranston of R. I., Crowel l of O., Crozier of Tenn., l)arling of Wis., Dickey of Pa., Dixon of Conn., Donnell of N. C., Duer of N. Y., Dunca n of O., Dunn of Ind., Ecker t of Pa., Edswards of 0., Emnbree of Ind., Evans of 0., Faran of O., Farelly of Pa., Fisher of O., Freedly of Pa., Fries of 0., Giddings of 0., Gott of N. Y., Gregory of N. J., Grinnell of oasb., Hale of Mass., Ha ll of N. Y., Hamm o reneof Me., Hamptou of N. J., Hampton of Pa., tiHenley of Ind., Henry of Vt., liolres of N. Y., Hubbard of Conn., Hu dson of M ass., Jos. Il. Ilgersoll of Pa., Irvin of Pa., Jenkins of N. Y., K e llogg of N. Y., King of Mass., Lahm of 0., Wm. T. Lawrence of N. Y., Sid.ney Lawrence of N.Y., Lincoln of Ill., Lord of N. Y., Lynde of Wis.. MNaclay of N. Y., McClelland of Mich., MoNilvaine of Pt., Mann of Mass., Marsh of Vt., Marv in of N. Y., Morris of 0., mlullin 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., iReynolds of N. Y., Rokwell of Mass., Rockwell of Conn., Rose of N.Y., Rumsey of N.Y., St. John of N.Y., Schenck of 0., Sherrell of N. Y., Silvester of N. Y., Slingerland of N.Y., Smart of Me., Smith of Ind., Smith of Ill., Smith of Conn., Starkweather of N. Y., Stephens of Ga., Stewart of Ila., Stuart of Mich., Strohm of Pa., Strong of Pa., Tallmad,re of N. Y., Taylor of 0., Thompson of Pa., Thompson of Ind., Thompson of Ky., Thompson of Ia., Thurston of 1R. I., Tuck of N. H., Van Dyke of N.

J., Vinton of 0., Warren of N. Y., Wentworth of I1l., White of N. Y., Wiley of Me., Wilmot of Pa.-112. N.AYs. Messrs. Atkinson of Va., Barringer of N. C., Barrow of Tenn., Bayly of Va., Beale of Va., Bedinger of Va., B3irdalll 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 AMd, Franklin Clark of Me., Clarke of Ky., Clingman of N. C., Cobb of Ga., Cobb of Ala., Cocke of Tenn., Crisfield of’Id., Daniel of N. C., Dickinson of 0., Evans of Md., Featherston of Miss., Ficklin of Ill., Flournoy of Va., French of Ky., Fulton of Va., Gayle of Ala., Gentry of Tenn., Goggina 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., I nge 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 O., King of Ga., La Sere of La., Ligon of Md., Lumpkin of Md., McClernand of Ill., McDowell of Va., McKay of N.C., McLane 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., Pillsbury of Tex., Preston of Va., Rhett of S. C., Richardson of Ill., Richey of 0., Robinson of Ind., Rockhill of Ind., 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 Ye., Tompkins of Miss., To,,mbs of Ga., Turner of Ill., Venable of N. C., Wallace of S C., Wick of Ind., Williams of Me., Woodward of S. C.-97. Clzayton-BulweI Treaty. TIIE United States of America ana Iter IBritannic Majests, being desirous of consoli,i~;ting the relations of amity which so happily sulsist between them, by setting forth an e t fixinig in a convention their views and inteiiti,)is with reference to any means of coIiiunica(tion by ship canal, which may be (coniistructed between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceeans, by the way of the river San Juan de Nicartagua, and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua or Managua, to any port or place on the Pacific Ocean: the President of the 115

Page 116 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the United States and Great Britain, in according their protection to the construction of the said canal, and guaranteeing its neutrality and security when completed, always understand 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 undertaking or managing the same adopt or establish such regulations concerning the traffic thereupon as are contrary to the spirit and intention of this convention, either by making unfair discriminations in favor of the commerce 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, merchandise, or other articles. Neither party, however, shall withdraw the aforesaid protection 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 contemplated. And the contracting parties likewise agree that each shall enter into treaty stipulations 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 coinmencing and constructing the said canal, the governments of the United States and Great Britain determine to give their support and I 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 convention; a~d 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 spec ifie d i n this co nvention, to the stipulations of which contract neither of the contracting,, parties in this convention have any just cause to object, and the said pe rs ons 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 exchang e o f th e ratifications of this convention for concluding their arrangements, and presenting evidence of sufficient capital subscribed to accomplish the contemplated undertaking; 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 governments of the United States and Great Britain shall be free to afford their protection to any other persons or company that shall be prepared to commence and proceed with the construction of the canal in question. ARTICLE VIII. The governments of the United States and Great Britain, having not only desired, in entering into this convention, to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protection, by treaty stipulations, to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the interoceanic communinications, should the same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama. In granting, however, 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 Britain 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. 1The ratifications of this convention shall be exchanged at Washington within six months from this day, or sooner, if possible. In faith whereof, wre, the respective plenipotentiaries, have signed this convention, and have hereunto affixede our seals. Done at Washington, the nineteenth day of April, Anno Domini one thousand eight hun dred and fifty. JoHN M. CLAYTON{, [L. 8.] HiENRY LYTTON BULWERt. I[L.

8.1 116

Page 117 view page image

COBB, HOWELL.-COMPROMISES OF 1850. 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 government. Holding, as you do, an office of great pecuniary responsibility, and one requiring y our constant person a l attention, I cannot sanctio n the propriety of you r absence from your post for the p urpos e o f an act iv e engagemen t i n th e approa ching 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 expen se of the public interest, which might be the c ase if those holding high and important offices should absent themselves from their posts to conduct the canvass. Regarding your letter in the light of an application for leave of absence, I have withheld my approval for the foregoing reasons. Very respectfully, H. COBB, Secretary of the Treasury. On the 6th of May,1858, the Hiouse considercd the followingresolution from the Committtee on Foreign Relations, reported by Mr. Clingmnan, of North Carolina: Whereas, The treaty between the United States and Great Britain, designated as the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, is, under ‘he interpretation placed upon it by Great Britain, a surrender of the rights of this count ry, and, upon the American construction, an entangllin alliance without mutuality, either in its benefits or restrictions, and having hitherto been productive only of misunderstandings and controversies between the two governmn.ts; therefore, Resolved by the Senate and tiouse of Representatives of the United States of Americ-in Congress assembled, That the President of th e United State.s e r equestedl to take such ‘teps as may be. in his judgment, best calculated to effect a Ppeedy abrogation of said treaty.

The question being upon the engrossment of the resolution, it was decided in the affirmativeyeas 97, nays 86S; as follows: YEAS-MNessrs. Adrain, ANDERSON, Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Bishop. Blair, Bocock. Bryan. Burnett, Burns, Caskie, John B. Clark, Clav, Clemens, Cliungman, Cobb, John Cochrane, Corkerill, James Crai,, Burton Craig,e, Crawford. Curry, Dalvidson, Dewvart, Dowdell. Edmu n.dson, Elliott, English, EUSTIS.

Florence, Foley, Gartreil, Gillis, GILMER, Goode” GreenwOod, Gregg.

Groesbeck, Lawrence N. HIll, J. oIVR RISOLN-II RRIS, Thonia. L. Ilarri, I1 tskin, IIatch, IIawkins, Hickman, ltiyler, Jackson, Jenkins Jew ett, J.

Glaney Jones, Owen Jones, Ke-Ihgq. Jacob -. Kunklel, Landy Lawrenee, Leidy. McKibbin M(IQueen, IIUtMIPIREY M ARSHALL, Samuel S. Marshall.

NMason, 5IAYNARD, Miller, Moore, Isaac N. Morris, Jott, Niblack.

Pendleton, Peyton. Phelps Phillips Reagan, Reilly, RIC.AUD, Ruflfin, Russell, S,andidre, Scales, Seward, Aaron Shawv, Shorter, Singleton, Robert Smith, William Smith, Stallhorth, Stephens, Stevenson, James A.

Stewart, M iles Taylor. Watkins, White. WOODSON, Wortendyke, Augustus R. V
right, Jo hn V. Wright, and ZOLLICOFFER 97. NAYS -Messrs. Abbott, Andres s, Bennett, illingiusa-st, Binghana, Biss, Branch, Brayton, Btfiinton, Burlingeame, mpb’ell, Case, Chaffere, Itorace F. Clark, Clalisoni, Cwhofa., Cosnins, Cborvode. Cragin.!)amrell. DAVIS of u nryland Davi s of Indiana, Davi s o f Mississippi gais of Massachusetts Da,,is of lo,,a, Dean, Dick, Dodd. Durfee, n tarteso h otrrth, Faulkner, Fe,ton. Foster.

Garnett, Giddi,gs, Gilman,ao, G a, odwini, Cranger-. (row Robert B. Hall.

HIti, n, Hoard, Horton, Howard. lHughes, GeoIrIe r p. Jones, Kxlsey, Kilgore, Knapp, Lamar, Le-ch. Leiter, Letsaher. Lwt,,oy, t attesni.

3illson. _fo~>rgon. Edlacar-l Joy r,lrris, Freean t ors e. Olin,.

Palmler,,lrker. lPtit, Pike. Prriance RE,D, Ritchie. Bobbins. Jolin Sher,,an. Jud,o?, IV Sher,mann, Sickles. a)inner, lYa ito l, itilliasi St, art. it,ppa, To,spki,,.s. U tNDERWOOD, }lDade. Ttal!~ridge, rlaldrmn.

}lilltwn. (~tdwallder C }Vitshbr’rne. ERihu B. Vaslhburnte, Israel }Vashlburne, W hiteley., and Winslow-S6. Compromises of 1850. EARLY in February, 1850,* Mr. Clay presented to the Senate a series of resolutions, which, after premising the desirableness for the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union, and a settlement of all question s r elating to slavery, proposed th e following compr omise:a 1. That California with suitable boundaries, ought, upon he r application, to be admitted as one s tes of the n states of the Union, without the impo sition o f an y 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 territory acquired by th e United States from the republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law, either for its introduction or exclusion from any part of said territory; and that appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by Congress in a ll th e said territory not assigne d as within the bou ndaries of th e proposed state of California, without the adoption of any restriction or condition o n the subject of slavery. 3. That the wes t ern boundary of the state of Texas ought to be fixe d on the Rio del Norte. Commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up thatt 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 between 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 Textas, that the United States will provide for the payment of that portion of the legitimatp and bona fide public debt of that state, contrated So the joint resolution wa s ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. Democrats in ronman, Republicans in italics, Americans in SMALL, CAPS. At this point, Mir. Daniel E. Sickles, of New f~ork, moving( to proceed to the consideration of the business on the Spea,ker’s tatble, his motion was adtlopte(l, and the resolution has never since been disposed of. Cobb, Htowell. 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 himself to the service of the country, to the utmost extent required for a faithful discharge of the I 11 * The first part of this history is taken from a pamphlet published by Redfield & Co. of New York.

Page 118 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOl 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 effectual 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 Plaveholding 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 admission into the Union. It was under a motion to refer this message to the Committee on Ter ritories, 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.

Webster addressed the Senate, at great length. Mr. Webster was followed by Mr. Seward on the 11t h, in a speech favoring the immedinte admission of California. On the 12th of March, Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, moved that a series of resolutions presented by Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, be referred 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 serie s o f subject s in controversy. On t h e 8th of April, Col. Ben ton took part in th e debate, strenuously o pposing the plan of commingling so man y important and various matters in on e b ill.

Mr. Clay re plied to Mr. Benton wi th great earnestness. Mr. Foote’s resolution was amended so as to embrace Mr. Clay’s resolutions, and passed o n the 18th of April:-t YEAs.-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Borland, Bright, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clemens, Davis of Miss., Dickinson, Dodge of la., Downs, Foote, Hunter, King, Jones, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Whitcomb, Yu]ee.-30. NAYs.-Baldwin, Benton. Bradbury, Chase, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dodge of Wis., Douglas, Felch, Greenie, Ilale, 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 secure 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. Duringf the debate which followed, it was vigorously opposed by Messrs. Benton, Seward, Davis, Smith, Dav:* toll, Hale, and others, and powerfully sure ported by Clay, Cass, Dickinson, Webster, 118

Page 119 view page image

COMPROMISES OF 1880. The Texas boundary bill passed the Senate August 10, 1850, by a vote of yeas 30, nays 20. MaIngum, Foote, Douglas, and others.

On the last day of July, it had become, by a series of amendments, divested of all its original features, except the portion relating to Utah, so that Mr. Benton created considerable merriment by comparing the Senate to the woman described by Homer, who every night unravelled 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, principally 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 New Mexico territorial b ill pa sse d tbo 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: …..ERS’ -NAM - MEMBERS’

NAMES. N. Y K i 5 MEMBERS’ NAMES. a _ - 5-‘- 5 5’ “5 PQ E- - - P’- *E.

Atchison~~~~~~5 of5 Mo. yea-yea  Atchison of Mo. - - - nay nay yea yea yea nay Houston of Texas - yea yea yea yea yea Badger of N. C. - - - yea yea yea yea nay Hunter of Va. - - nay nay yea yea yea nay Baldwin of Conn.

- - nay yea nay nay yea Jones of Iowa - - - yea yea yea yea Barnwell of S.

C. - - nay nay yea nay King of Ala. - - - yea nay yea yea yea nay Bell of Tenn. - - - yea yea yea nay Mangum of N. C. - - yea yea nay Benton of Mo.

- - - nay yea yea yea yea Mason of Va. - - nay nay yea yea yea nay Berrien of Ga. - - yea nay yea yea yea nay Miller of N. J. - - - yea nay nay Borland of Arks. - - Morton of Fla. - - - nay nay yea nay Bradbury of Me.

- - yea yea yea nay yea Norris of N. H. - - - yea yea yea yea yea B-igol of Ind. - - - yea yea yea yea yea Pearce of Md. - - - yea yea nay Butler of S. C. - - - nay nay yea yea nay Phelps of Vt. - - - yea yea nay Cass of Mich. - - - yea yea yea yea yea Pratt of Md. - - - nay yea yea nay CHASE.

of Ohio - - - nay yea nay nay nay yea Rusk of Texas - - - yea nay yea yea Clarke of R. I. - - - yea nay yea Sebastian of Ark. - - nay yea yea yea nay Clay of Ky. - - yea Seward of N.Y. - - nay yea nay yea Clemens of Ala - - - yea nay Shields of Ill. - - - yea yea yea’ yea yea Cooper of Pa. - -

- yea yea yea nay yea Smith of Conn. - - - yea yea nay nay yea Darts of Miss. - - - nay nay yea yea nay Soule of La. - - - nay nay yea yea nay Davis of Mlass. - - - yea yea nay nay nay yea Spruance of Del. - - yea yea yea yea yea Dawson of Ga. - - - yea nay yea yea nay Sturgeon of Pa. - - -
yea yea yea yea yea yea Dayton of N.J.- - - nay nay yea Turney of Tenn. -

- nay nay yea yea nay Dickinson of N. Y. - - yea yea yea yea Underwood of Ky. - - nay yea yea yea yea yea Do,dge of Iowa - - - yea yea yea yea yea yea Upham of Vt. - - - nay yea nay nay nay Dodge of Wis. - - - nay yea nay nay nay yea Wales of Del. - - - yea yea yea yea yea yea Dougqlas of Ill. -

- - yea yea yea yea yea Walker of Wis.. - - nay yea nay nay nay yea Downs of La. - - - yea yea yea nay Winthrop of Mass. - - yea yea nay nay nay yea Ewing of Ohio -. - nay! yea nay yea Whitcombe of Ind. - yea yea yea yea Felch of Mich. - -. yea I yea yea yea yea Yulee of Fla. - - - 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. I. - - - nay yea nay yea Nays 20 18 10 12 18 19 Hamnlin of Me. - - - yea nay nay yea 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. In the House, on motion of Mir. 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. Ihe bill admitting California passed the lIouse on the 7th of Sept., 1850. The Utah bill passed the ouse ya on the mane day. The following table shows the vote in the House on each bill: * In addition to the above, Messrs. Fremont and Gwil, the two new senators from California, voted yea, making the vote yeas 33; nays 19. 119 The bill for the admission of California passed the Senate, Aug. 13, 1850, by a vote of 34 to 18. Whigs in roman, Soilers in SMALL CA Democrats in italic, Free

Page 120 view page image

120 ~~~~THE POLITICAL TEXTBOOS MaMBEas’NAMES. 55 a; ~5’ X llMRSAMS X=

|a S i as a v MEB5’<M5 555 “f3E.. ______~~~~~~ Eg an Pas FP~. UpP Alherton of md(. - yea |yea yea yea yea Hackeit of G3en. - -  ___ Alexander of N.

Y. - - -| nay! yea nay nay yea HaIll of M~issonri - - l yea yea yea ALLEN
of Mass. - - - - I n y yanynyIlallowaty of N. Y. - - [lay nlaya yea RAlston of Ala. - - - -yea iiay yea yea nay Hamnilton of Mad. - - -yayea nay Anderson of Teon. - - - yea yea yea nay Hammond of Md. -  ye Andrews of N. Y. - - - y e yea eaHampton of Pa. - - - [la yeay Ashe of N. C. - - -

- nay yea yea iaay Haralson of GLen. -ay nayea yea nay Ashmon of.Mass. - -

- yea, Harlran of Ind. - - na-e nay nay yea Aserell of Va. - - - - nay nay yea yea nay Harmansan of La. - - Baker of El. - - - nay yea nay Harris of Tenn. - yea na eyea nay Bay of Mo. - - - - -yea yea yea Harris of Ala.

-.,-a yea nay nay Balyly of Va. - - - - yea nay yea yea nay Hfarris of Ill. - * ye-e y e Beale of V a. - - - yea nayl yea yea yea hlay of N. Y.

- -  na ye Bennett of N. Y. - - - nay yea nay nay ilaymond of Va. - ye ye yea yea yea Biogham of Mich. - - - nay yea nay nay yea liebard of Vt. -
nay nay nay yea 8ssel of Ill. - - yea yea yea yea Henry of Vt. - na ye nay nay yea flokee of N. Y. - - - yea yea yea Hililird of Ala. - - a-naX va e e boTrn of Coon n- - - - nay yea nay nay yea Hoogland of Ohio - y e yea yea yeah Bouelan of Ala. - - - iiay nay yea nay nay Holladay of Va. - - -

-nay nay yea yea iiay ivas le of Nid. - - - yea yea yea nay Holmes of S.

C.- - - naiy y Bawlia of Mio. - - - yea yea yea yea ilonstoii of Del.- - -

- yea yeayee Boyd~~~ of K-yea nay yea yea Howuard of Texas. yea nay yea yana Brerk of Ky. - - - yea yea yea yea i-Iowe of lPa. - - - nay yeanaxy yea 13riggs o. N. Y.V - - - yea yea nay yea yea Habbard of Ala. - - -
lilly 0’y yea yea nay Brooks of N Y.V - - - yea yea yea yea HUNTEa of Ohio -.. s aye say tayea Brown of Miss. - - - nay nay yea nay nay loge of Ala.

-, nay nay yea yea a Browa of Imd. - - yea yea yea yea yea Jackson of Gen.

-* nay nay yea fleanay Bsselof Zieh. - yea yea yea yea Jackson of N. Y. -L
ay naay yea Borrowa of N. Y X - nay yea nay nay yea Johnson of Ky. -
yea yea yeye Bar of S. C.. -, - nay nay yea nay nay Johnson of Tenn. * yea yea yea yea nay Buotler of Pa… yea yea yea yea Johnson of Ark. -. - nay nay yea Butler of CBonn. - - - nay yea nay nay yea Jomes of Teon. - - -

-yea yea y ea yea nay Cabel of Fla. - - -. yea nay iiay JULIAN of Ind. - -
n ay ye altiy yea able ofOhio - - - -nay yea nay yea Kaazfmonof Texas - -
yea lacyyea yea nay Calelseell of Ky. - - - yea nay yea yea nay Kerr of Md. -. - yea yea yea muna Cadwel of N. C. - - - yea yea yea yea nay King of K. LI. - y e SNa yealvaa Calvin of Pa. - -  nay yea nay nay yea King of N. J. - n.ay osyeat lot Campbell of Ohio - - - nay yea nay nay yea J.

A. King of N. Y. - L aya siaNa y ea Carter of Ohio - - - - nay yea nay y ea King of Mass. - - -. Casey of Pa. - - - yea yea yea yea P. King of N.

Y. -. n ay N yea nySa Chandler of Pa. - - - yea yea nay nay yea la Acre of La. - * - - nay nayyeal yea a Clarke of N. i. - - - nay yea nay yea Leper of Iowa - - - yel yea yea yea yea (edndof on -.x r-yea LEVIN of Pa.

(Native American) yea yoga ea Clinenaii of NM C - nay nay yea nay Li~lefteld of Me. -. - yija yea yea yayea Cobb f Ala - - yea nay yea yea nay JMann. of P’a. - - - -yea yea yeaye yeas (blcockb of S. C. - - - nay nay yea nay nay Marshall of Ky. - - yea yea yea N ea nay Cole of Uis. - -

- nay yea nay nay yea M71ason of Ky. -. - - yea yea yea e Conger of N. VY.

- nay Matteson of N. Y. - - - nay yanay nay yea Conrad of La i -. - ~

MeClernasid of ill. - - -yea yea ya yea yea Corwinel of Ohio - - - -nay yea nay nay yea. McDowell of md. - * yea yeaye yeay Crowell of N.COa a eayaMCa,hi~ofI d -na yea e Daniely of N. C. - - - na yea nay yeay yeama Mc~isowel of Va. — -yeyenanaye Ieberr of Na. - - - -. nay yeanana yea Mc~anghsy of Pa. - - - yeanaye yea ayel mmic o Pa. — - -yea nay yea yea nye Meisonek of N.Y. - - - aye yetya nye spry f Oho - - -yea ea ny yeayea e Len ofKy. - - - yea yea nynyyea Iickeyof R Ia - - - nay yea nay nay yea Mc~anahanof Va. - * yea yeay yea yea yeay Disiic of Pas - - - ye yeay yea nyenay yea Mc~anee of Sd. C.- - n yayenay yea nay Dionaeyof Oioss - - - -
ayes yea nay yeay yea MleiLiea of Ky~s. -n -ya yea yvieal Dixon of N. Y. -

- - - na yea nyea nay yea M~eahlen of Va. - - -yanay yealyay nayle lunneanl of Iaa. - - - - yeyelyeyeye eaeo a - - - -na ny y na DalyE of M
is. - - - -d nay yeal nay nay yea Mcilaee of Ohi C- - - - na na ye a la nay 3Klrzl~nonof a. - - - ye yea, nay yeay yea nay Mil ie of Mita. - - -
nay inays yea yeaIT~ Dunham of Mas. - - - - lyea yea ny a ye yea Mooeahi of Vt. - - - - nay yi’;a n ay nay yea vansof Rd. - - - - yea yea ye yea yeay Mo eade of Vs. - - - nayea [laye~ y e~a n { Dcaitseof Wis.- - - -
gnay yea nay nay yea Millrseof Ohi - -. aytlyela n Mmainsiof Van.- - - -
lyea ny ayea yea nay Millison f Va. - - - lnay.yeanay. yeayj }llit~teso ot.Mass. - - yl nyenay yea yeayenay Mooreo of Pa. - - - - OSY(lny yea!x nayu Evan Id. - - - yeeaa y ean nay yea rehead of Ky.. - - yea yyea n2y nay yea }‘VSON of Ohio- - - Inay yea lnay nays yea Mres of L’a. - - - - i-l Il1} } I Prea/erdan of Mias - - na na yea nay nvay Morton of Vf.a. - - -

- |nay, e }*a Bicing of tTeone - - — yea yea yea yesya na orrisof Ohi. -

- - - |5y naty yea I iy ye entc rof md. - - Iyea yea ny nay yayea Nelsonofo N -Y - - - yesa ynst nay>Fredley~ of Pao-nay yea} nay nay yea|

Neta of Pa.fe - [ye. -.t V* H.; Goodeno~~~~~r of 51 - 5 yea ~~~~~~~ yea naye yea Newell of Ne.Jeainy.el| e Puller of aind.- - | yea yea |yea yea!y ea OPaslee of Pa. I. | Ye-r o e e e Getyof i.on- - - lyeay yea yeayenay yea Oldsec of Ot.i- - - - - Inlay. yea | Iy l yea Gorry of XMaiii - - -
yea yea ye n yeDay yea 11Olclp of S.. - - - h ty!yay a| loy > eeno In. - *

- - yea lla yea ye yeay POweni of No. - - -.- yea ntoay yex yeal (grmann of Mas. - - lyea Iyea ye yea yea 1 Perasle of Pa. *I -. - yea iyea!yeay yea Iyea^ 120

Page 121 view page image

COMPROMISES OF 1850. ,a ryea le -~ L yea yea r yea r yea nay nay yea nay yea nay L yea yea r yea nay yea nay yea nay ‘ yea nay yea 109 76 ea yea .ay y e yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea nay nay nay yea nay nay yea yea nay y,.a yea yea yea yea d Q Fo _.3 yes Day yes yes yes yes nay yea ye ye nay nay yea ye yea yea nay MEMBERS’ NAMES. ye a nay yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea nay nay yea yea nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea nay yea yea nay yea yea nay, yea nay yea yea nay yea nayl yea Yea yea nay X - y.e . y y e yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea Taylor of Ohio - - - - Thomas of Tenn. - - - Thompson of Miss.

- - Thompson of Pa. - - - Thompson of Ky. - - - Thurman of N.Y. - Toombs of Ga. - Tuck of N. II. - - - - Underhill of N.Y. - Van Dyke of N.J. - - -

Venable of N. C. Vinton of Ohio - - Walden of N. Y. VWaldo of Conn. - - -

Wallace of S. C. - Watkins of Tenn. Welborn of Ga. - Wentworth of Ill. - -

Wildrick of N.J. - - - White of N. Y. - - - - Whittlesey of Ohio - -

Williams of Tenn. - - - WILMOT of Pa. - - Wilson of N. II. - - - -

Winthrop of Mass. Wood of Ohio - - - - oVoodward of S.C. - - - tVright of Cal. - - - - Young of Ill. Yeas Nays Poter of Ohio Po,weU of Va. - - - -

Putuam of NC. Y.- - - Reed of Pa. - Reynolds of N. Y. .Richardson of Ill.

Risle y of N. Y. Robylins of Pa. .Robinson, of Ind. Rockwell of lass. ROOT
of Ollio -.. Rose of N. Y. .Ross of Pa. Rumsey of N. Y. Sa,ekett of N. Y.

- Sa,,age of Tenn. Sawtelle of Mie. She,eck of Olio - Sehermerhorn ofN. Y.

Schoolcraft of N. Y. &dden of Vaa. Shloppertl of N. C. Spaulling of-N. Y.

Sprague of MIich. Stanley of N. C. S4tunlon of Tenn. - StuanIon of Ky.

Steph,ens of Ga. Stetson of MIe. Stevens of Pa. Strong of Pa. SweeJser of Ohlio Sylvester of N. Y. as a state, 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 time of admission.” “Sec. 7. 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.” ” Sec.

17. And be it further enacted, That the Constitution and laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of New Mexico as elsewhere within the United States.” 2. An act to establish a territorial govern ment for Utah.-[September 9, 1850.] This act contains the same provision in regard to slavery as the preceding. 3. in act for the admission of the state of California. This has no reference whatever to slavery; the constitution of the state, however, prohibited it. 4. An act to amend, and supplementary to the act entitled “An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters,” approved February 12, 1793.-[September 16, 1850.] For this act in full see under head of FUG} TIVE SLAVES. The several acts of Congress embraced in this series of measures were five in number. 1. An act proposing to the state of Texas the establishment of her northern and western boundaries, the relinquishment by the said state of all territory claim ed by her ex terior to sa id bou ndaries, and of all her c laim upon the Uni ted Stat es, and to establish a territorial gove rnment for New Mexico. [Sept. 9, 1850.] In the fifth clause of the first section of said act is the following proviso, int roduced on the motion of Mr. Mason of Va., viz.: “Provi d ed, That nothing h erein contained shall b e c onst rued to impair or qualify any thing contained in the third article of the second section of the’joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States,’

approved M,larch 1,‘1845, either as regards the number of states that may hereafter may be formed out of the state of Texas, or otherwise.” In the second section, establishing the territory of New Mexico, is the following proviso: ” Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all that portion of the territory of the United States, bounded as follows,” &c. &c. &c., “be, and the same is hereby erected into a temporary government, by the name of the Territory of New Mexico: Provided,” &c., &c.: ” And provided further, That when admitted. I I I I I I I 121 la ,-Z ..2 E-yea nay nay nay -nay yea yea y a nay nay yea y a nay nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea nay yea yea yea nay nay yea nay nay 79 7c 1 I E… -4 0 = yea 79 .9 1. I EZ!:z nay yea yea yea yea yea nay nay nay yea nay nay yea yea nay yea …i ‘9 , ul yea nay .1y yea yea yea nay Yea yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea MEMBERS’ NA3M. Day nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay nay yea nay nay nay nay yea nay yea yea yea nay nay yea nay nay y a yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea yea nay nay nay yea ya yea yea yes yea yes nay yes 124 59 nay nay yea yea 180 1,10 97 66 1 nay yea 97 85 Democrats in italic, Whigs in roman, Free St)ilers in SMALL CAPS; one Native American, SMALL CAPS. 5. An act to suppress the slave trade in the District of Columl;i, [Sept. 20,1850,1 abolished the importation of slaves into the I)istrict for the purpose of traffic.

Page 122 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expireation of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that onethird may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen, by resignation o r otherwise, during the recess of the legislatu re of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. 3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen o f the United States, and who shall not, when ele cte d, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. 4. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, un less they be equally divided. 5. The Senate shall choo se t heir o ther offi - cers, and also a President pro tempor,e, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of Presi d ent o f the United Stat es. 6. The S enate shall hav e the so le power to try all impe achments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the Pre sident of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice s hall pre side; and no person shall be convicted without the concurre nce of twothirds o f the members present. 7.

Judgment in case of impeachment shal l not extend further than to rem o val from office, and disqualification to hold and e njo y any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the United States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. Sec. IV.-1. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. Sec. V.-1. Each Ilouse shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to ompel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each H~ouse may provide. 2. Each H~ouse mayr determine the rule of its proceedings, punish its members for disor derly behavior, and with the concurrence of twothirds expel a member. 3. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time ]publish the same, exrceptinlg such parts as mayr m theiz PREAMBLE., WiE, 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ART. I.-Of the Legislatuire. Sec. I.-1. All legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Sec. II.-1. The IIouse of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states; and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. 2. No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twentyfive years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. 3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined 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. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three; Massachusetts eight; Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one; Connecticut five; New York six; New Jersey four; Pennsylvania eight; ]Delaware one; Maryland six; Virginia ten; North Caroli;na five; S outh Carolina five; and Georgia three. 4. When vacancies happen in the representati on -from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue wroits of election to fill up such vacancies. 5. The Ilouse of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment. Sec. III.-1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years, and each Senator shall have onm e vote. 2. Immediate ly after they shall be assembled in con sequ ence of the first election, they shall be divided, as equally as may be, into Ii 122 Constitution of the United States.

Page 123 view page image

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. Sec. VIII.-The Congress shall have power: 1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States: 2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States: 3.

To regulate commerce with foreign na tions, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes: 4. To establish a uniform rule of naturali zation, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States: 5. To coin money, regulate the value there of, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures: 6. To provide for the punishment of coun terfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States: 7. To establish post offices and post roads: 8. To promote the progress of scienee and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries: 9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court: 10. To define and punish piracies and felo nies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations: 11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning cap tures on land and water: 12. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years: 13. To provide and maintain a navy: 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces: 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Urion, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions: 16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Cong,ress: 17. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all ceases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square), as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purehased, by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings: and, 18. To make all laws which shall be nees sary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers nvested by this Constitution in the government judgment require secrecv; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on thejournal. 4. Neither House during the session of Congress shall, wi t hout th e consent of the other, adjourn f or o rre than three days, nor t i) any other place than that in which the two r Houses shall be sitting. Sec. VI.-1. The senators and re presenta tives sh all receive a compensation for their services, to be a scertai ned by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their resp ective Houses, and in going t o or return inl, from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 5. No senato r or representative shall, dur ins, the tim e f or which he wa s el ected, be appointed to any civil o ffice under the autho rity of t he United States, wh ich shall have been created, or th e emo lum ents whereof shall have been increased, during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House duiring his continuance in office. Sec. VII.-1. All bills for raisin( revenue shall originate in the House of Representa tives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills. 2. Every bill which shall have passed the Ifouse of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he ap prove, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that IIouse in which it shall have originated, who shall enterthe objection at large on theirjournal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsi deration, twothirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by twothirds 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, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten 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 Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. 3.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except a question of-adjournment), shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by twothirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according tol 123

Page 124 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of the United States, or any department or officer thereof. Sec. IX.-1. The migration 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 ear one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. 2. The pr;vilege of the writ of habeas corpus snall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. 3. No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed. 4. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken. 5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a reg,ular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. 7. No title of nobility sh all be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust u nder them shall, wi thout the consent of Congr ess, acc ept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. Sec. X.-1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility. 2. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid bv any state on imports or exports shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States, and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. ART. II. Of the Executive. Sect. I. 1. The executive power shall be rested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with th e Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows: 2. Each stat e shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature the re of may direct, a number o f e lectors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Rep resentatives t o wh ich the state m ay be entitled in Congress; but no Senato o r r Representative, or person holding any office of t rust or profit unde r the United States, shall be appoin te d an elector. 3. The electors shall meet in their respecn tive states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themse lves. And they shall make a list of a ll the persons voted for, an d of the numbe r of votes for each; which list the y shall sign and ce rtify, and tr an s mit se aled to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the Pres ident of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence o f the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person h aving the gr eatest number of votes sha ll be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if the re be m ore than one who have s uch a majorit y, and have an equal number of votes, the n the House of Represen tatives shal l i mmed iate ly choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then, from the five highest on the list, the s aid House shall in like manner choose the P resident.

But in c hoosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states; the rere pesentation from e a ch state having one vote; a quorum foru f this purpos e shall consist of a member or members from t wothirds of the s tates, and a majority of al l the states shall be necessary to a choice.

In e ve ry case, after the choice of the President, the per son having the greatest n umbier o f vote s of the electors shall be Vice President. But if the re sh oul d re main two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. 4. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they shall give their votes, which day shall be the same throughout the United States. 5. No person except a naturalborn citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. 6. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powrers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President;* and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President; and such 124

Page 125 view page image

CONSTITUTION OF TIIE UNITED STATES. officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected. 7. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compen sation, which shall n ei ther be incre ased n or diminish ed during the pe riod for which he shall have been elected, an d he shall not receive within that period a ny other emolument from the United States, or any of them. 8. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall takhethe following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I w ill fai thfull y execute the offic e of President of the United States, an d will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” See. II.-1. The President shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating t o the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. 2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided twothirds of the Senators present concur: and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. 3.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session. Sec. III.-1. tIe shall, from time to time, give to Congress information of the state of thie Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them; and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, hlie may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and shall commission all the officers of the United States. Sec. IV.-1. The President, Vie Presidentd and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other bigh crimes and misdemeanors. ART. III.- Of the Judiciary. Sec.

I.-I1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time, order and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior c o urt s, shall hold their offices during good behavior; and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Sec. II.-1. The judicial power shall extend to 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; to all cases a ffectin g ambassadors, othe r public ministers, an d c o nsuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; t o controvers ies t o whi ch the United States shall be a party; to controversies betw ee n two or more states; between,a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. 2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. 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 Congress shall make. 3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as Congress may by law have directed. Sec.

III.-1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open court. 2.

Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or for feiture, except during the life of the person attainted. Sect. I.-1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Sec. 2.-1. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. 125 I ART. IV.-Miscellaneous.

Page 126 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the la nd; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwvithstanding. 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under the United States.

2. A person charged in any state with trea son, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be renmoved to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. 3. 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 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. Sec. III.-I1. New states may be admitted by Congress 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 legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of Congress. 2. Conoress 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. Sec. IV.-1. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion: and, on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence. ART. VII.- Of the Ratifcatlon. 1. The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establish ment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same. Done in Convention, by the unanimous con sent of the states present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hunared’nd eighty seven, and of the Independence of the Uni ted States of America the twelfth. In wit ness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names. GEORGE WVASHINGTON, t, and deputy from Virginia. N’~AEHR. DELAWARE. G eoroe Rea,. Gunning B,edlford Jr., John Dickin,,,n, Iichard Bassett, Jacob Broom. MASSACHUSETTS.

Nathaniel Gorman, Rufus King. MARYLAND. James M’Ifenry, Daniel of St. Tho.

Jenifer, Daniel Carroll. ART. V.-Of Amendments. 1. Congress, whenever twothirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or, on the application of the legislatures of twothirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress; provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, shall in any manner affect the first and’fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. CONNECTICUT. William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman. VIRGINIA. John Blair, James Madison, Jr. SOUTH C AROLINA., John Rutledge, Chas. Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler.

GEORGIA. William Fewv, Abra,ham’I Baldwin. WILLIAM JACKSON, Secretary.

AMENDMENTS TO THIE CONSTITUTION. Art. 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Art. 2. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. 3. No soldier shall in time of peace be ART. VI. Miscellaneozts. 1. All debts contracted and enffagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the confederation. 2.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which 126 NEW YORII, Al….dr Hauailton. N JERSFIY. William Livingston, David Brefirly, William Patterson, Jonathan Dayton. NORTff CAROI,INA. William Blount, Ri,!hard Dobbs Spaight, Jlugh Williamson. PENNSYLVANIA. Benjam”a Fanklin, Th…”

31ifflin, Robert Morris, Geor,-e Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris. Attest

Page 127 view page image

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate: the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Represent., tives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such a majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately by ballot the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by itates, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from twothirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. Sec. 2. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President, shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President: a quorum for the purpose shall consist of twothirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. Sec.,3. But no person constitutionally inaligible to the office of President shall be eli ible to that of Vice President of the United States. NOT At the fourth Presidential election, Thomas Jeff,e son and Aaron Burr were the Democratic candidates for President and Vice President. By the electoral returns they had an even number of votes. In the House of Representatives, Burr, by intrigue, got up a party to vote for him for President; and tl)e Iouse was so divided that there was a tie.

A contest was carried on for several days, and so warmly that even sick members were brought to the hIouse on their beds. Finally one of Burr’s adherents withdrew, and Jefferson was elected by one majority-which was the occasion of this twelfth article. quartered in any house wit hout th e con sent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Art. 4. The right of the people to be secure in thei r p ersons, houses, pape rs, and effects, a gainst unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oat h or aff irma tion. and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Art. 5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jurv, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war, or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence, to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be takbn for public use without just compensation. Art. 6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. Art. 7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law. Art. 8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Art. 9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Art. 10. 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. Art. 11. The judicial 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 cititens of another state, or by citizens or sulbjects of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. Art. 12. See. 1. The electors shall meet in their respective states, arnd vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the samle state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President; and they shall makie distinct Conventions, History of. THE contents under this heading constitute a synopsis of a like history contained in the columns of the New York Herald during the year 1856. The origin of the present application of the word caucus is unknown. The first regular caucuses in this country were of members of Congress, who borrowed the idea from the Whig members of the House of Commons, who, as early as 1696, introduced the system 127

Page 128 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. was the choice of the caucus, receiving 83 votes, the remainder being given to Mr. Monroe and Mr. George Clinton. The people also chose Mr. Madison, whose administration was popular, although when his term had nearly expired the North declared against him and in favor of De Witt Clinton, who was nominated by the legislature of New York. The administration members of Congress, still largely in the majority, were called to meet in caucus at Washington on the 18th May, 1812. The whole number of members was 176-Democrats, 133. Present at the caucus, 83, all of whom named Mr. Madison for reelection. One or two Democratic members from Maryland, and the majority of the New York and Massachusetts members, did not give in their adhesion to the nomination. In September of the same year, the first convention of the opposition or Federalist party was held in New York, when seventy members from eleven states appeared and nominated Mr. Clinton. The opposition excited by the anti-war sentiment proved very strong, but Mr. Madison was reelected, receiving 128 votes in the electoral colleges, to 89 for Mr. Clinton. After Mr. Madison’s second success there was a growing prejudice against these caucuses in the mass of the party, and an unsuccessful attempt was made in the first caucus held thereafter to declare that Presidential nominations by members of Congress were inexpedient. This was defeated by the friends of Mr. Monroe.

Ile had been in Madison’s Cabinet during the whole of his administration.

Mr. Monroe was denounced by a large number of the Democratic leaders as incompetent, and the caucus system was declared exceptionable. Colonel Burr desired General Andrew Jackson to be brought forward at that time, and said that if he had had a respectable nomination the Virginia caucus would have been beaten. D. D. Tompkins of N. Y. was also proposed. The members of Congress now numbered 213, of which number 138 were Republicans. The whole power of the administration was used to carry the caucus for Monroe, and no means were spared to procure that end. The opposition had united upon William II. Crawford of Ga., a sort of compromise candidate. Ilie had sat in the Senate, was a Republican, but favored a bank, and was opposed to Mr. Madison. Hle had been Minister to Franlce and Secretary at War, and was generally considered to be a man of much more ability thani Mr. Monroe. The caucus met on the 11th of March, 1816, and 119 Republican members answered to their names. The 19 absentees refused to attend, because they were opposed to this method of making nominations. Mr. Monroe received 65 votes, and Mr. Crawford 54. Mr. Monroe was chosen by the people, and Mr. Crawford accepted the post of Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Monroe’s firm, prudent, and altogether respectable administration o~nci by holding, meeti ngs at various taverns to perfect the organization and discipl ine o f the party. Irregular caucuses, both of Whigs and Toties, were he ld h ere anterior to t he Revolution, and the Green Dragon tavern in Boston has an historic fame as the place of meeting of t he Otises, Warrens, Hancocks, Prescotts, Pickering,s, and other leaders of the popular cause. From this time until after the Revolution, we hardly hear the name of caucus. The last administration of President Washington was an exceedingly stormy one. Ile was, during his second term, in a continual war with the Democratic or Republican party in Congress, and the most important administration measures were only carried through Congress by bare majorities. For the third election-of President it does not appear that there was any set caucasing to put Messrs. Adams and Jefferson before the people. Mr. Adams was recognised as the great leader of the Federalists, and although the South did prefer Mr. Pinckney, there seems to have been no great difficulty.in combining the strength of the party by giving the last-named gentleman the second place on the ticket.

Mr. Jefferson was beaten for the first place, but obtained the second. The usual process of naming candidates at that time was a trial of votes in the state legislatures. The first Congressional caucus to nominate candidates for President and Vice President that we have any account of, was said to be held in Philadelphia in the year 1800. We quote from a newspaper of that day, which states that thirty-seven representatives and nine senators were present, and nominated Messrs. Jefferson and Burr. It is important to note here that the system, which is so intensely exclusive and aristocratic, was originated by the leaders of the Democratic, then called the Republican party. It is also proper to say that the first caucuses were more like informal meetings of a certain number qf gentlemen, to express their preferences for a candidate. The first regular caucus on record was held at Washington. on the 19th of January, 1808. The chief cause of this meeting was a dispute in Virg,inia as to the succession. The legislature of that state was divided between Mr. Madison, then Secretary of State, and Mr. ,Ionroe, then Minister to England. Our readers will notice that these were the ” good old times” when the Old Dominion furnished all the high officers of state. The caucus then met to decide which Virginian should be President of the United States, for Mr.

Jefferson went out of office in such a blaze of glory that the nomination of his party was equivalent to election. At this time the whole number of members of Congress was 176, and of these only about 40 were Federalists.

The Republicans (Democrats now) numbered 136. Of these 94t, being a majority of the two Houses, attended the caucus. Mr. Madison 128

Page 129 view page image

CONVENTIONS, HISTORY OF. interesting one, inasmuch as it brought Mr.

Seward and Mr. Fillmore into public life. The party originated in the western part of New York, and grew out of a great and skilfullymanaged popular excitement. A man of the name of William Morgan had published what purported to be an expose of the three first degrees of the Masonic order.

He suddenly disappeared, and some ridiculous story was circulated about his being murdered by the Free Masons. The politicians went so far as to trump up something resembling a human body, which was asserted to be that of Morgan, and from this shallow imposture arose a storm of anti-Masonic excitement which inflicted a blow upon the order from which it has never entirely recovered. The humbug body was said by Thurlow Weed to be “a good enough Morgan until after election.” So it proved to be. The anti-Masonic party, thus originating in this state in 1826, achieved partial successes in several of the Northern states in the local elections of the next two or three years, and held a socalled National Convention at Philadelphia in September, 1830, at which delegates were present from eleven states.

After adopting an anti-Masonic platform and calling a convention, to meet at Baltimore in September, 1831, the Philadelphia meeting dissolved. At this time the opposition looked to Mr. Clay as their leader in the contest so soon to be commenced. lie was the only man in the Whig party who was thought to be strong enough to cope with Old Ihickory; but Mr. Clay being an ardent supporter of, and an affiliated member of the Masonic order, his nomination, by that section of the opposition which was organized on the basis of hostility to that Fraternity, was out of the question, and thus the enemies of General Jackson were divided at the start. The opposition had now assumed the name of National Republicans, and the Baltimore Convention was called to concentrate all the factions against the Democracy. John MoLean of Ohio, lately a prominent Know Nothing candidate, and since talked of by the Republicans, was the favorite of the antiMasons, but was strongly opposed by the National IRecpublicans. He declined; and the Anti-Masoniiic Convention nominated William Wirt of Marylan d, former ly A ttorney General, for President, and Anros Ellmaker of Pennsylvania, for Vice President. tiere we may be pardoned for digressing so far as to point out a curious fact: Millard Fillmore, last year the candidate of a secret political order, was brought into public life on the basis of bitter hostility to secret orders. of all kinds, political and social, while Judg~e Mc  Lean, the choice of the North Americans, narrow~ly escaped the nomination given to William W~irt. In December, 18’$1, the first National Ret publican Convention was held at Baltimore, and nominated tIenry Clay of Kentucky for President, and John Sergeant of Pennsllva, liated all parties, and there was no one to oppose him for his second term, when he received all the electoral votes but one.

This b rings us down to the memorable caucus of the 14th of Feb., 1824, which was insisted upon by Mr. Van Buren and other friend s of Mr.

Crawford, and wh ich b rought about several changes. First, it k illed off (,rawf ord and near ly all h is friends; second, it ki lled t he caucus system, which had grown to be an intolerable despotism; and third, it broke the back of the Republican party, which did not rise again until resuscitated by the name of Jackson. This caucus, so interesting is worth a ttention. Congress now had 261 members, of which 216 hetd affinity withth the Republican Democratic party. These were not all Crawford men, however, and were divided in opinion as to the propriety of making a Congressional nomination. It was then stated on the other side that 180

Republican members were opposed to a caucus nomination. Notwithstanding all these warnings, combined with a strong popular clamor against the measure, a meeting of the Democratic members of the Legislature was called on the date above mentioned. Only 66 out of 216 attended, and King Caucus was dead at last. Sir. Crawford received 64 votes. The great majority of the party throughout the country indignantly repudiated the nomination.

Mr. Crawford had lost much of his popularity, and he was in such bad health that it was doubtful whether, if elected, he would live to take his seat. But Virginia insisted upon having him. The members of the caucus were nearly all senators, and one paper says that only eight members of the popular branch of’ the Congresswere in attendance from twenty states out of the twenty-four. Of the electoral votes, Jackson had 99; J. Q.

Adams (Federalist), 84; Crawford, 41C’lav (th-en acting with the Republicans), 41. The election going to the House, the friends of MNr.

Clay voted for Adams to defeat Jackson, and succeeded in their efforts.

Thus was the Republican party broken up after an uninterrupted sway of twenty-four years. It was killed by its friends, and died from the effects of too much prosperity. General Jackson was placed early in the field -by the legislature of his own state, and fb)u;,d it easy to organize a strong opposition to Mlr. Adams, who was only a minority President, after all.

There was no more caucusing, and General Jackson received a large ma%i,,ritv of electoral votes. Ile was again put ,n nomination bv the legislatures of Pennsylanlla and New York, and ag~ain elected, and his administration brings us to a consideration ,f the The first convention for the nomination of a President and Vice President was the antiMIasonic meeting held at Baltimore, in Septtubmer, 1831. This party or faction is an 9 129 CONVENTION SYSTE-‘J.

Page 130 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. nia for Vice President. Thus Mr. Clay and Mr.

Wirt were placed in the field to lead the opposition, and it was hoped that the election would be thrown into the House. General Jackson’s position was a strong one, and the administration party thought of no one else for the succession. Mr. Calhoun, then Vice President, had quarrelled with the President, and it was important to select some strong man for the second place on the ticket for the succession. Jackson was accordingly nominated by the administration members of the New York legislature, and the state of New IHampshire has, in addition to the glory of presenting a President in the person of the late incumbent, the further gem in her political crown of having originated the system of National Conventions.

The legislature of New Hampshire sent out the first call for a Democratic National Convention, to nominate a candidate for Vice President. No number of delegates being mentioned, each state sent as many as could afford the time, and on the 21st of May, 1832, the Democracy mustered in great force at Baltimore, and this may be called the first National Convention worthy of the name that was ever held. General Robert Lucas, of Ohio, presided over the deliberations of this body, which adopted the celebrated twothirds rule, drawn up by Mr. Saunders, of North Carolina, as follows: Resolved, That each state be entitled, in the nomination to be made of a candidate for the Vice Presidency, to a number of votes equal to the number that they will be entitled to in the Electoral Colleges under the new apportionment in voting for President and Vice President, and that twothirds of the whole number of votes in the convention shall be necessary to constitute a choice. This is the celebrated machine which has been used to execute all the best men in the party, and which has killed off Mr. Cass. The total number of electoral votes at that time was 288, of which 283 were represented. Mr. Van Buren received 203; Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, 49 (both had assisted in the obsequies of King Caucus, and both were sincere mourners); Richard M. Johnson, 26. The Convention then adopted a platform, which in point of brevity is a model. This ticket was chosen, receiving 219 electoral votes to 49 for Mr. Clay. The anti-Masonic ticket received the electoral vote of Vermont (7). South Carolina voted for John Floyd. Pennsylvania gave its vote for William Wilkins. In this election, pledged electoral tickets became more firmly established. When the time approached for the next National Convention, which was to nominate for the succession, the Democratic party was united, while the opposition, though numerically powerful, was politically weak, being split up into various factions. The southern anti-Jackson candidate was Hugh L.

White, of Tennessee, nominated by the Alabama legislature. He was also supported by the Tennessee legislature, and by the delegation from that state in Co ngress, except Me ssrs. Polk and Johnson. An opposition meeting at Harrisburg, Pa., put General If. tI. Harrison, of Ohio, ill nomina tion. The Whigs in the Massachusetts legislature nominated Daniel Webster, and John McLean was brought forward in the same manner in Ohio.

The Convention question seriously agitated the Democrat ic party. Mr. Van Bure n and his friends were strongly in favor of a Conven - tion. General Jackson, in February, 1835, came out in favor of a National Convention to nominate candidat es foir President and Vice President. None but the friends of Van Buren favored a National Conven tion, and none but his friends appeared in the body which met at Baltimore on the 20th of May, 1835. More than six hundred delegates were resent, representing twenty-two states. Mr. Van Buren was unanimously nominated, re ceiving all the votes, and being the first Presidential nomin e e o f a Democraticl National Convention, properly speaking. There was some difficulty in getting the second place on the ticket for Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. Virginia desired Mr. Rives, and bolted from Johnson, who lost his election by the people, but was chosen by the Senate. Mr. Van Buren was elected by rather a tight squeeze. The Democratic National Convention had now come to be considered a regular institution as much as Congress, and the third of these bodies was proclaimed from Washington to be held at Baltimore, on the fifth of May, 1840. During the three years previous the opposition had gradually been gaining tremendous strength in Congress. The Whigs gained great advantages in 1837-‘38, and the voice of the best portion of the party pointed to Mr. Clay as the man to be pitted against Van Buren, who was determined to place himself before the people. The Abolitionists began their national political organization in 1839. The New York AntiSlavery Society met in Warsaw, N. Y., in November of that year, and formed itself into a nominating convention, and nominated James G. Birney, of Michigan, for President, and Francis J. Lemoyne, of Pennsylvania, for Vice President. They polled 7000 votes at the ensuing election, receiving votes in every free state but Indiana. The first National Convention of the Whig party was held at Ilarrisburg,, Dec. 4, 1839. Twenty-two states were represented by about four hundred delegates. On an informal ballot, per capita, Mr. Clay had a plurality, but no majority. Imitating the example of the Democracy, the Whigs desired to put forward General Ilarrison or General Scott. In a speech at Buffalo, Mr. Clay came colt in the most gallant manner, and told his party to put his name away, if it was considered the slightest obstacle to harmony. Small politicians weere afraid that they could not lead him by the nose, and therefore said that the antiMasons, the anti-tariff Whigs, &c., would not vote for him, and they spared no means to prevent his nomination. They also succeeded in killing off General 130

Page 131 view page image

CONVENTIONS, HISTORY OF. Scott; and General Harrison, in a vote by states, after the manner of the Democratic conventions, received 148, Clay 90, and Scott 16. John Tyler, of Va., was nominated for Vice President. The Democratic National Convention met at Baltimore, May 5, 1840. Twentyone states sent delegates. Governor William Carroll, of Tenn., presided. In order to simplify business, a committee was appointed to report the names of candidates. They reported the name of Mr. Van Buren for President, but made no report on the subject of a candidate for the Vice Presidency. R.

M. Johnson, received, however, the Democratic vote. In this convention there were about 250 delegates, representing twentyone states. The issue of this struggle is well known. Harrison and Tyler were carried into power by popular majorities, unprecedented since Monroe’s second term. But, in 1844, the Democratic party rallied stronger than ever, and the fourth National Convention, held at Baltimore, May 27, 1844, was a curious, exciting, interesting, and extraordinary body. Every state, except S.

Carolina, was represented. The number of delegates was 325, entitled to 266 votes. The Ilon. H. B. Wright, of Pa., was chosen chairman. Mr.

Saunders laid on the twothirds rule of 1832. After a long debateitwascarried: 148 to 118. Mr.Van Buren had a majority on the first vote, but not twothirds. lie fell off on the fourth ballot, and Mr. Cass had a majority. On the ninth ballot James K. Polk, cof Tenn., received 44
votes, and on the tenth he was unanimously nominated. The question of “Who is James K. Polk?” was immediately asked in all parts of the Union, except Tennessee. It was answered on the ensuing 4th of March by the Chief Justice of the United States. At the same time that the Democratic convention was held in Baltimore, a Tyler convention was held in that city, and Mr. Tyler was ut in nomination but the struggle being a hopeless one, he retired from the field in August. The Whig National Convention was held at Baltimore, May 1. It was more like a mass meeting, and the Whigs came up resolved to give Mr. Clay a chance. Ambrose Spencer, of N. Y., presided, and every state in the Union was represented. There were two hundred and twentyfive delegates. Mr. Clay was nominated by acclamation for President, and Mir. Frelinghuysen, of N. J., for Vice President. The Texas question was the great issue in this canvass. Mr. Clay wrote a letter opposing the annexation of that republic, and that killed him, while Mr. Polk was understood to stand on the platform of the “reannexation of Texas at the earliest practicable nioment,” and to go for the whole of Oregon. The Abolitionists took up the Texas question, and nominated James G. Birney for the campaign of 1844. lie received 62,140
votes. We come i now to 1848, a memorable vear in the history of conventions and party nomin1ations. The btar with Mexico had given the Whigs and the Democrats several heroes, but none appealed so frcibly to the public heart as General Taylor, whose proclivities were believed to be Whig,, but who was innocent on the s ubject of politics O t he the other hand, stood Clay and Webster, t he lights of the great Whig party, with their thousands of worshippers. The Whi? leaders resolved on the final slaughter of Clay, and, on the 27th January, 1848, a meeting of the Whigi members of Congress was held in Washington. This meeting called a National Nominating Convention, to be held at Philadelphia, on the 7th of June. The Democrats were called to meet in May, as usual, at Baltimore. It assembled on the 22d, Andrew Stevenson, of Va., in the chair. The New York difficulties were then for the first time introduced into the councils of the party. The friends of Mr. Van Buren (now called Softs) were then denominated Barnburners, and the friends of Mr. Cass (now transferred to Dickinson, and called Ilards), were termed Hunkers. The Convention voted to admit both delegations, but both declined to take part in the discussions or the votes. The twvo-thirds rule (263 whole vote) was adopted, and Mr. Cass was nominated on the fourth ballot. General W. O.

Butler, of Tenn., for Vice President. The Convention failed to restore harmony to the party in New York, and Mr. Van Buren’s friends took ground in favor of prohibiting slavery in territory to be acquired hereafter. A Convention was held at Utica, N. Y., on the 22d and 23d of June, when Mr.

Van Buren was nominated for President, and Henry Dodge for Vice President.

Mr. Dodge subsequently (June 29) declined, and a national convention was held at Buffalo in 1848 (August 9), when nearly all the free states were represented. A strong antislavery platform was adopted, and the Convention then put in nomination Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Adams, (son of President J. Q. Adams). This divided the vote in New York, and defeated the Democratic party. The Whigs met at Philadelphia on the 7th June, 1848, and held what is called the ” Slaughterhouse Convention.” The political death of Clay, Webster, and Scott had long been resolved upon-at least they were to be put out of the way for that campaign. General Taylor was the man, and he was nominated by a majority vote on the third ballot The second place on the ticket was given t(o Mr. Fillmore.* The Democracy were early in the field in 1852, and the central committee called a Conlvention to meet at Baltimore on the first of June. Hon. John Wv. Davis, of Indiana, presided. There was a tremendous crowd of delegates, and the old twothirds rule was put or 131 * Gerritt Smith was also voted for in 1848.

Page 132 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. o’which was not satisfactory to either section, and which caused the North to bolt and hold a Convention at Cincinnati in November of the same year. Another Convention met at Philadelphia on the 18th of February, 1856, where the Know Nothings cast off the old platform altogether, and adopted a new one. On that they nominated for President Millard Fillmore (Whig), for Vice President A. J. Donelson. This ticket only received the electoral vote of Maryland. The Democratic Convention nominated Messrs. Buchanan and Breckenridge, whc received the vote of all the other states, and were elected. The old FreeSoilers, with some accessions from the Seward Whigs, hell a.Conveutirn at Pittsburgh, February 22, and called a N,,minating Convention to meet at Philtadel)li’ii, June 17, 1856. The Republican Convention which met at Philadelphia in June, 1856, nominated John C. Fremont for President, and William L. Dayton for Vice President. This ticket received the vote of all the free states except Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California. by a larg e vo te. Every state, except South C arolina, was repres ented, and the numb er of delegates was 288. The Convention sat five days, most of which time was spent in ineffectual ballotings. On the 30th Virginia changed from Buchanan, and gave 15 votes to Pierce. On the 49th ballot, Mr. Pierce received all the votes but six, and was nominated.

W. R. King of Ala. was named second on the ticket. In order to preserve peace at future conventions, the following was adopted: Voted, That the next Democratic National Convention be held at Cincinnati, in the state of Ohio. Voted, That in constituting the future National Convention, in order to secure the respective rights of the states, each state shall be entitled to twice the number of delegates it has in the Electoral College, and no more; and the Democratic Committee, in making arrangements for the next Democratic Convention, provide such number of seats and secure them for the delegates elect. This is the rule for the e Con vention which was held in Cincinnati on the first Monday of June, 1856. It may be nece s sary to say, that although South Carolina has generally omitted to send deleg ations to the Democratic Conventions, she has, w i th the exception above noted, given .her electoral vote t o the nomine es of that party.

The l ast Conventio n of the Whig party met at Bal tim o re on the 10th June, 1852. George Evans of M e. presided. On the fifty-third ballot General Scott was nominated. This Convention was full 296 deleg ates from all t he states. General Scot t, being suppor ted by the Sewardites, was deserted by the National Whigs. In July, 1852, a Nat ive American C
onvention was held at Trenton, N. J., by which Jacob Broom of Pa., late a member of Congress, was nominated for President on a sort of Know Nothing platform. He received 2485 votes in all. An Abolition Convention (c alled nati onal) was held at Buffalo, Sept. 1, 1852, under the call of James G.

Birney, Gerritt Smith, and William Godell. The last named person was nominated for President, and received 72 votes in New York state. At a Convention held in Georgia in the summer of 1852, G. M. Troup was nominated as a Southern States Rights candidate for President. He received about 100 votes in Georgia, and 2000 in Alabama. The remnants of various parties met in National Convention at Pittsburgh, August 11. The New York Democracy being united on Pierce, this Convention excited no attention. It put in nomination John P. Hale of N. H., and George W. Julian of Ind. They did not carry the electoral vote of any state, but received about 155,000
popular votes. Since 1852 there have been several national conventions so called. A great party based upon the Know Nothing or Native American idea sprung up, and was successful. It held a National Convention which met in Philadelphia in June, 1855. It adopted a platform Creole Case. THiis case was presented to Congress March 21, 1842. The brig Creole, bound from Richmond, Va., to New Orleans, was freighted, among other things, with a large lot of negroes, who mutinied in a storm, killed the captain, several of the crew and passengers, and compelled some of the officers of the vessel to take her into Nassau, N. P., one of the British West India islands, where the negroes were taken care of and set free by the authorities of the island. This case was the subject of Con gressional action in both Ilouses of Conlress, and of negotiation with Great Britain.

The most intense feeling was manifested all over the Union, and particularly in the South. During the pendency of the excitement, iMr.

Giddings offered a set of resolutions justifying the inegroes in their mutiny and murder, and approving of their course, denying that the sai d negroes had vio lated any law of’ the United States; stating that they had incurred no legal penalty, and are justly liable to no punishment; and that all attempts to regain possession of, or to re-enslave said persons, are unauthorized by the Constitution, and prejudicial to the national honor. We annex them, omitting the first three: ” Resolved, That slavery, being an abridgment of the natural rights of man, can exist only by force of positive municipal law, and is necessarily confined to the territorial jurisdiction of the power creating it. “That when a ship belonging to the citizens of any state of this Union leaves the waters and territory of such state, and enters upon the high seas, the persons (slaves) on board cease to be subject to the laws of 132

Page 133 view page image

CREOLE CASE.-CUBA. censuring Mir. Giddings-ye”,s 125. nays 69, as follows: YEAS. Messrs. L. IV. Andrews of Kv.. Arnold of Tenn., Arrington of N. C., Atherton of N. II., Bgart on of Va.. Beeson of Pa., Bidlack of Pa., Black of Ga., Botts of Ya., Boyd of Ky., Brewster of N. Y., A. V. Brown of Tenn., l. Brown of Tenn., C. Brown of Pa., Burke of N. II., S. I. Butler of S. C., Wm. Butler of Ky., Wm. O. Butler of Ky., G. W. Caldwell of N.

C., John Campbell of S.C.. W m. B. Campbell of Tenn., Thomas J. Campbell of Tenn., Caruthels of Tenn., Cary of Va., Casey of I1.. Chapman of Ala., Clifford of Me., Clinton of N. Y., Coles of Va., Colquit of Ga., M. A.

Cooper of Ga., Daniel of N. C., G. Davis of Ky., Dawson of Ga., Dean of O.. Deberry of N. C., Doan of O., Eastman of N. Il., John C. Edwards of Pa., C. A. Floyd of N. Y., Fornance of Pa., Thomas F. Foster of Ga., Gentry of Tenn., Gerry of Pa., Gilmer of Va., Goggin of Va., W. O. Goode of Va., Grahala of N. C., Green of Ky., Gwin of Miss., Habershalm of Ga.

Harris of Va., John Hastings of O., Ilays of Va., Hlolmes of S. C., Hopkins of Va., Ilouck of N. Y., Houston of Ala., Ilubarsi of Va., Ilunter of Va., C. J. Ingersoll of Pa.,. IJ. Ingersoll of lPa., Jack of Pa., Cave Johnson of Tenn., Keii of Pa., J. P. Kennedy of Md., Andrew Kennedy of Ind., Lane of Ind., Lewis of Ala., Littlefield of Me., A. M,C(,hlla of Tenn., R. McClellan of N. Y., McKay of. N. C., Illallery, Marchand of lPa., Alfred Marshall of ie., John T. Mason of Mld., Mathews of O., Medill of a.,i ller of Mo.. Moore of La., Newhard of Pa., Oliver of N. Y., Ousley of Ky., Pickens of S. C., Plumer of Pa., Pow,ellof Va., Alex. Randall of Md., Rayher,f N.C.. Reding of N. II., Rencler of N. C., Rey nolds, Ihett of S. C., IRia,gs of N. Y., lRogr,s of S.C., Shaw of N. lu., Shedpperd of N. C., Sield. of Ala., WM. Smi t h a, hd o Y, Ci nd of Na., nyer of a.

Soler of d., Sp-igg of Ky., Stanley of N. C., rtee nrod of V.., Stratton of N. J., Alex. II II. Stuart of Va.., John, T. Stuart of Ill.. Summers of Va., Swene,y of 0., T’,-,iafbrro of Va.. John B. Thomipson ., io. o of Ky., Rich. 0 o. Thompson of., acob Thompson of Miss., Triplett f Ky., Turney of Tenn., Wallace of Ind. Ward o n oN. Y., Warren of a., ashington of N. C., - tioson of Ten,,., Wel ler of 0., ll estbrooke o f Pa., E. D.

White of La., Ch. II.‘illiams of Tenn., Joseph L. Williams of Ten n.-125.

NAYS.-Messrs. Adams of Mass., Allen of Me., S. J. Andrews of 0., Ay, ri,,,g of N. J., Baker of.Mass., Bird.seye of N. Y., Blair of N. Y., Boardman of Conn., Borden of Mass., Brockway of Conn., Bronson of Me., J.

Brown of Pa.. Calhoun of Mass., (‘hilds of N. Y., Chittenden of N. Y., J.

C. Clark of N. Y., Cowen of O., Cranston of R. I., Cravens of Ind., Cushing, of Mass., R. D. Davis of N. Y., Doig of N. Y., J. la,dwardls of Mio., Egbert of N.Y., Everett of Vt., Ferris of N. Y., Fessenden of’,e., Fillmore of N. Y., Gates of N. Y., P. G. Goode of O., Borden of N. Y., Granger of N. Y., Ilall of Vt., Wm. S. Ilastings of Mass., Henry of Pa., IIoward of Mich., I1eedson of’ Wass., Wm. IV. Irwin of Pa., James Li,ln of N. Y., IcKeon of N. Y., S. Mlason of 0., Mathliot of 0., Mattocks of Vt..

Mla~xwell of N. J., Maynard of N. J., MIorgan of N. Y.. Morris of O., Morrow of 0.. Osborne of Conn., Parmenter of Mass.. Pendleton of 0., Pope of Ky., Benj. Randall of Me., Ridgway of 0., Roosevelt of N. Y., J. M.

Russell of O., Saltonstall of Mlass., Simonton of Pa., T. Smith, Stokely of O.. Tomlinson of N. Y., Trumbull of Conn., Underwood of Ky., Yah Rensselaer of N. Y., Jos. L. White of Ky., Thomas W. W’illiams of Conn., Winthrop of Mass., Augustus Young of Vt.-69. such state, and thenceforth are governed in their relations to each other by, and are amenable to, the laws of the United States. ” 6. That when the brig Creole, on her late passage to New Orleans, left the territorial jurisdiction of Virginia, the slave laws of that state ceased to have jurisdiction over the persons (slaves) on board said brig, and such persons became amenable only to the laws of the United States. “7. That the persons (slaves) on board said brig, in resuming their natural rights of personal liberty, violated no law of the United States, incurred no legal penalty, and are justly liable to no punishment. 8. That all attempts to regain possession of, or to re-enslave said persons, are unauthorized by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and are incompatible with our national honor. ” 9. That all attempts to exert our national influence in favor of the coastwise slave trade, or to place this nation in the attitude of maintaining a commerce in human beings, are subversive of the rights and injurious to the feelings and the interests of the free states, are unauthorized by the Constitution, and prejudicial to our national character.” A motion was made that the resolutions do lie on the table-yeas 52, nays 125. This could not be considered a test vote; many members who were opposed to the resolutions voted against the motion, in order to kill them by a direct vote. Mr. John Minor Botts, on the same day, offered the following preamble and resolution: “Whereas, the Hon. Joshua R. Giddings has this day presented to this House a series of resolutions touching the most important interests connected with a large portion of the Union, now a subject of negotiation between the United States and Great Britain, of the most delicate nature, the result of which may eventually involve those nations in war; and whereas, it is the duty of every good citizen to discountenance all efforts to create excitement, dissatisfaction, and division among the people of the United States at such a time, under such circumstances; and whereas, mutiny and murder are therein justified and approved in terms shocking to all sense of la Bt, order, and humanity; therefore, ” Resolved, That this House holds the conduct of the said member as altogether unwarranted and unwarrantable, and deserving the severe condemnation of the people of this country, and of this body in particular.” On these resolutions a moti o n was made to suspend the rules -yeas 128, nays 68. Two - thirds not voting in t he affir rnative, the rules were not suspended. The call for resolutions still resting with the state of Ohio, Mr. Weller offered Mr. Botts’s resolution as his own. Mr.

Adams then moved to lay the whole subject on the table yeas 70, nays 12$.

The direct vote was then taken on the resolution Cuba. PROCLAMATION

RESPECTING AN APPREHENDED INVASION OF. By the President of true United State s of America: WHEREAS there is reason to believe that a military expedition is about to be fitted out in the United States with i ntention to invade the o Island of Cuba, a colon y 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. 135

Page 134 view page image

TIHE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. mitting them to make our country an asylum from oppressi6n,-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 Proclamation, warning all persons who shall connect themselves with any such enterprise or expedition in violation of our laws and national obligations that they will thereby subject themselves 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 consequence of their illegal conduct. And therefore I exhort all good citizens, as they regard our 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 government, 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 un der my hand, the twenty-fifth day of April, in th e year of our Lord [L. S.] one thousand eight hundred and fifty one, and the seventy-fifth of the Inde penldence of the United States. MILLARD

FILLMORE. 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 no w-worse t han the scotched snake-staggers to its grave, l ike a wounde d gladiator, whose fall, eve n in the a r ms of vic tory, wins for him n e ither pity no r a crown. ” These are some of the lesson s about wh ich I thi nk there can be very li ttle difference of opinion. They need onlynd t h e teaching of numbers. They need only to ount thes re sults of the ballotbox. They depend on no adjustment of the difference of pri nciple be tween the different portions of the party. They are irrespective of the question, whether the approval o President Pierce’s administra tion was made or evaded north of Mason and Dixon’s line. They still stand, no matter wh at meani ng was as signed to the Ka nsas Nebraska act anywhere.

On a simple count of the voices of the judges even admitting a northern and a southern Democrat to mean the s ame thing -it appears that the grea t majority of the count ry are tired of its men, are hostile t o its principles, condemn its mea sures, mock at its blu nders, a re we ary o f its agitations, abhor its sectional warfare, and have ordered hue and cry to be made against everything bea ring the name o f Demo crat as a disturber of the public peace. Instead of repentance and reform under the discipline administe red t wo ye ars age, the majority of the people of the c ou ntry 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 years more.

)( *X * “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, us 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 Ilouse can now do nothing. They can pass no law excluding slavery from Kansas ill 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 not likelyr 134 By the President: W. S. DERRICK, Actin, Secretary of State. t, Davis, H. Winter, of Maryland. EXTRACT from Mr.

Davis’s speech in the Ifouse of Representatives, on the 6th of Jan., 1857, on the results of the recent Presidential election: — Still more, sir, it dissipates the sweet delusion of the dead heroes of the Nebraska act, that’there was a day of resurrection for them. It demonstrates that the blast which prostrated its friends in the North was no passing fiquall; that no sober second thought has ,changed their first thought; but that a settled and unchangeable hostility throuh all the

Page 135 view page image

‘DAVIS, H. WINTER. to exist anywhere; and the Republican party government of the countrymen naturalized has nothing to do, and can do nothing. It in thousands on the eve of the electionhas no future. Why cumbers it the ground? eagerly struggled for by competing parties, “Between these two stand the firm ranks mad with sectional fury, and grasping any of the American party, thinned by desertions, instrument which would prostrate their oppobut still unshaken. To them the eye of the nents. Again, in the fierce struggle for country turns in hope. The gentleman from supremacy, men have forgotten the ban which Georgia saluted the Northern Democrats with the Republic puts on the intrusion of religious the title of heroes-who swam vigorously down influence on the political arena. These inthe current. The men of the American party fluences have brought vast multitudes of faced, in each section, the sectional madness. foreign-born citizens to the polls, ignorant of They would cry neither free nor slave Kansas; American interests, without American feelbut proposed a safe administration of the laws, ings, influenced by foreign sympathies, to vote before which every right would find protec-on American affairs; and those votes have, tion. Their voice was drowned amid the din in point of fact, accomplished the present of factions. The men of the North would result. have no moderation, and they have paid the The high mission of the American is to penalty. The American party elected a ma-restore the influence of the interests of the jority of this House: had they of the North people in the conduct of affairs; to exclude held fast to the great American principle of appeals to foreign birth or religious feeling as silence on the negro question, and, firmly elements of power in politics; to silence the refusing to join either agitation, stood by the voice of sectional strife-not by joining either American candidate, they would not now be section, but by recalling the people from a writhing, crushed beneath an utter overthrow. profitless and maddening controversy which If they would now destroy the Democrats, aids no interest, and shakes the foundation not they can do it only by returning to the Ameri-only of the common industry of the people, can party. By it alone can a party be created but of the Republic itself; to lay a storm amid strong at the South as well as at the North. whose fury no voice can be heard in behalf To it alone belongs a principle accepted of the industrial interests of the country, no wherever the American name is heard-the eye can watch and guard the foreign policy same at the North as at the South, on the of the government, till our ears may be opened Atlantic or the Pacific shore. It alone is free by the crash of foreign war waged for purfrom sectional affiliations at either end of the poses of political and party ambition, in the Union which would cripple it at the other. name, but not by the authority nor for the Its principle is silence, peace, and compro-interests, of the American people. minse. It abides by the existing law.

It Return, then, Americans of the North, from allows no agitation. It maintains the present the paths of error to which in an evil hour condition of affairs. It asks no change in any fierce passions and indignation have seduced territory, and it will countenance no agitation you, to the sound position of the American for the aggrandizement of either section. party-silence on the slavery agitation. Leave Though thousands fell off in the day of trial the territories as they are-to the operation -allured by ambition, or terrified by fear-at of natural causes.

Prevent aggression by ex the North and at the South, carried away by eluding from power the aggressors, and there the torrent of fanaticism in one part of the will be no more wrong to redress. Awake Union, or driven by the fierce onset of the the national spirit to the danger and degrada Democrats in another, who shook Southern tion of having the balance of power held by institutions by the violence of their attack, foreigners.

Recall the warnings of Washing and half waked the sleeping negro by paint-ton against foreign influence-here in our ing the Republican as his liberator, still a midst-wielding part of our sovereignty; and million of men, on the great day, in the face with these sound words of wisdom let us recall of both factions, heroically refused to bow the the people from paths of strife and error to knee to either Baal. They knew the necessi-guard their peace and power; and when once ties of the times, and the set the example of the mind of the people is turned from the sla sacrifice, that others might profit by it. They very agitation, that party which waked the now stand the hope of the nation, around agitation will cease to have power to disturb whose firm ranks the shattered elements of the peace of the land. the great majority may rally and vindicate This is the great mission of the American the right of the majority to rule, and of the party. The first condition of success is to native of the land to make the law of the, prevent the administration from having a land. majority in the next Congress; for, with that, The recent election has developed, in an the agitation will be resumed for very different aggravated form, every evil against which the objects. The Ostend manifesto is full of warn American party protested. Again in the war ing; and they who struggle over Kansas may of domestic parties, Republican and Democrat awake and find themselves in the midst of an have rivalled each other in bidding for the agitation compared to which that of Kansas foreign vote to turn the balance of a domestic was a summer’s sea; whose instruments will election.

Foreign allies have decided the be, not words, but the sword. 135

Page 136 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Declaration and Pledge. such principles, and organizing its powers in THE undersigned, members of the thirty-such form, as to them shall seem most likely first Congress of the United States, believing to effect their safety and happiness. Pru that a renewal of sectional controversy uponI dence, indeed, will dictate that governments, the subject of slavery would be both danger-long established, should not be changed for ous to the Union and destructive to its o)jects, light and transient causes; and, accordingly and seeing no mode by which such controver-all experience hath shown, that mankind are sies can be avoided, except by a strict adhe-more disposed to suffer, while evils are suffer rence to the settlement thereof, effected by the able, than to right themselves by abolishing compromise passed at the last session of Con-the forms to which they are accustomed. But, gress, do hereby declare their intention to when a long train of abuses and usurpations maintain the same settlement inviolate, and pursuing invariably the same object, evinces to resist all attempts to repeal or alter the a design to reduce them under absolute des acts aforesaid, unless by general consent of potism, it is their right, it is their duty, to the friends of the measure, and to remedy such throw off such government, and to provide evils, if any, as time and experience may de-new guards for their future security. Such velop. And for the purpose of making this has been the patient sufferance of the colonies, resolution effective, they further declare that and such is now the necessitywhich constrains they will not support for the office of Presi-them to alter their former systems of govern dent or Vice President, or of Senator or of ment. The history of the present king of Representative in Congress, or as member of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries a state legislature, any man, of whatever and usurpations, all having, in direct object, party, who is not known to be opposed to the the establishment of an absolute tyranny over disturbance of the sentiment aforesaid, and to these states. To prove this, let facts be sub the renewal, in any form, of agitation upon mitted to a candid world: the subject of slavery hereafter.

Ite has refused his assent to laws the most Henry Clay of Ky., V,wll abb of Geo. wholesome and necessary for the public good. C. S. Morehead of Ky., ILH. S. Foote of MIiss., lIe has forbidden his governors to pass laws Robrt L Rose, of N.Y., William DerC. Dason of Geo., of immediate and pressing importance, unless William C. Dawion of Geo., JJames Brooks of N.Y., Thomas J. Rsk of Texas, A. 1I. Stephens of Geo., suspended in their operations till his assent Jeremiah Clemens of Ala., R. Toombs of Geo., should be obtained; and, when so suspended, James Cooper of Pa.. M. P.

Gentry of Tn,te. Thomas G. Pratt of MId., H. W. Billiard of Ala he has utterly neglected t o attend to them. Villiam M. Gwinno of Cal., F. E.

McLean of Ky., He has refused to pass other laws for the samuel A. Elliott of Mass., A. G. Watkins of Tenn., accommodation of large districts of people, David Outlaw of N. C., Ii. A. Bullar d of La.,rge districts of people C. H. Williams of Tenn., T. S. Iiaiiniond of Va., unless those people would relinquish the right J. Philips Phoenix of N.Y., A. 1I.

Sheppard of N.C., of representation in the legislature-a right A. U.

Schermerhorn ofN. Y., Edniuid Deberry of N. John R. Thurman of N.Y., ii.

Marshall of Ky., inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants D. A.

Bokee of N.Y., Daniel Breck of Ky., only. George R. Andrews of N.Y., James L. Johnson of Ky., Ile has called together legislative bodies at W. P.

Mangum of N. C., J. B. Thompson of Ky.? Jeremiah Morton of Va., J. M.

Anderson of Tenn., places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant R. I. Bowie of All., John B. Kerr of N. C., from the repository of their public records, }. C. Cabell of Fla., J. P. Caldwell of N. C., Alexander Evans of Md., Allen F. Owen of Geo. for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into Those in italics Democrats; those in roman compliance with his measures.

Whigs. i1e has dissolved representative houses re peatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his Declaration of Independence. invasions on the rights of the people. lie has refused, for a long time after such WHEN, in the course of human events, it dissolutions, to cause others to he elected; becomes necessary for one people to dissolve whereby the legislative powers, incapable of the political bands which have connected annihilation, have returned to the people at them with another, and to assume, among the large for their exercise; the state remaining, powers of the earth, the separate and equal in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers station to which the laws of nature and of na-of invasion from without, and convulsions ture’s God entitle them, a decent respect to within. the opinions of mankind requires that they Ile has endeavored to prevent the population should declare the causes which impel them of these states; for that purpose, obstructing to the separation. the laws of naturalization of foreigners, re We hold these truths to be self-evident: fusing to pass others to encourage their migrathat all men are created equal; that they are tion thither, and ra;sing the conditions of new endowed by their Creator with certain inappropriations of lands.

alienable rights; that among these are life, tie has obstructed the administration of liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That justice, by refusing his assent to laws for to secure these rights, governments are insti-establishing judiciary powers. tuted among men, deriving their just powers lie has made judges dependent on his will from the consent of the governed; and that, alone for the tenure of their offices, and the whenever any form of government becomes amount and payment of their salaries. dlestructive of these ends, it is the right of the lie has erected a multitude of new offices, people to alter or abolish it, and to institute & and sent hither swarms of officers to harass new government, laying its foundations on Jour people, and eat out their substance. 136

Page 137 view page image

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCEF 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 conmmon 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 Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the author 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 absolved 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 following members: Ile 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 bt’y 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 punishmnent for -anv murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: For imposing t axe s on us without our consent: For deprivinu us, in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury: For traansportin g us beyond seas, to be tried for p r etended offences: For atbe)lishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein ian arbitrary governme nt, and enlarg inl its b oundaries so a s to r end er it at o nc e an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies: F or taekin g away ou r ch a rters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering, funda meTltalls, the fourms of o ur g-ivernmeysts: Fo r suspendin d ou r own legislatures, and leclarin( the mselves inve te d with p ower to legislate for u s in all cases whatsoever. ile h as abdicat ed g overnment here, by d e cltarin a us out of hi s p rotect ion, and waging war against us. ile has plund ered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the live s o f our people. Ile is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the w-orks of death, desolation, and tyranny, already be pun, with circum rsta nces of cruelty nh perfimly scarcely paralleled in the most 1arbarous ages, and totally unworthy the herle of a civrilizedl nation. Ile has constrained our fellowcitizens, t aken captiv e on the high seas, to b ear arms againist hrn W ece their countrea tF become the eecuti,enrs of their friend s and b rethren, or to fall tlhemnselves by their hands. Ile has excited do:.nestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savags.

whose known rule of warfare is an un(listing,uished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions, we hasve petitioned fo~r redr ess in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated in juries. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be theI ruler of a free people. Nor has-e we been wanting? in attention to our British brethren. W~e have warned them, from timhe to time. of the attempts by their NEW HAMPSHIRE. Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton. MASSACHUSETTS BAY. Samuel Adams, John Adam-is, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry. MARYLAND. Samuel Cha se, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll, of Carrollto; CONNECTICUT. Roger Sherman, Samuuel liuntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott. VIRGINIA. George Wythe, Richard IIeury Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin lilarri.son, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxtou. NEW YORK. William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris. NORTH CAROLINA. William Iooper, Joseph IIewes, John Peun. n UTHr CAROLINA. Edward Rutledge, Thomas IIeyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur lMliddleton. I PENNSYLVANIA.

Robert Mortois, Ben,jamin Rush, Benjamin Franklins John M,ortou, George Clymer, I 137 I JOHN HANCOCK. James Smitb, George T-ylor, James Wilson, George Ross. DELAWARE. Caesar Rodney, George ReW, Thoma,s M’Kean. RHODF, ISLAND. St,ph,, Hopkins, William Ellery. NEW JERSEY. Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Ilopkinson, John liart. Abraham Clark. GEORGIA.

ll.tt.. U,.In’nett, Lyman Ifall, George Walton.

Page 138 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. and property from domestic violence or foreign agt,ression. 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 expenses 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 institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican 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 soundness, safety, and utility, in all business pursuits. 8. That the separation of the moneys of the govvernment from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the gov:ernment, 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 amniply sufficient to guard the public interests, to suspend the passage of a bill whose merits cannot secure the approval of two-th irds o h ae and of rthe Senate an d ouse 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 declaration was uniformly adopted by our predecessors in National Conventions, an adverse political and religious test has been secretly organized by a party claiming to be excluslg;ely American, it is proper that the American Democracy should clearly define its relation thereto, and declare its determined opposition RESOLUTIONS OF.-See LETTER OF SAMUEL CARUTHERS. Democratic Platforms. THE
following platform, adopted by the Cincinnati Convention of 1856, 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 patriotism, and the discriminatingjustice of the Am erican people. Resol ved, That we retard this as an distinctive feature of ou r political c reed, which we ar e p roud 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 contras t it wi th the creed and practice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seek s to palsy the will of the consti tu e nt, and which conceives no imposture too t m onstrous for the popular credulity. Resol ved, therefore, That, ent ertaining these vienws, the Democratic party of this Union, throaugh their delegates assembled in a general C on vention, coming toether in a s pirit of cotncord, of devotion to the doctrines and faith of a free representative government, and appealinm t o their fellow citizens for the rectitude of ther int entions, renew and reassert before the American people, the declarations of principles avowed b y them when, on form e r o i a sions in general Convention, they have presented their candidates for the popular suffr agYes. 1. That the federal government is one of lim;ted power, derived solely from the Constitution; and the grants of p ower made therein ought to be s trictl y construed by a ll the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercis e d oubtful constitutional powers. 2. That the Constitution doe s not confer upon the general government the power to commence and carry on a general system of :nternal improvements. 3. That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the federal government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several states, contracted for local and internal improvements, or other state purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient. 4. That justice and sound dolicy 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 insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete an ample protection of persons 138 Democratic Caucus, 34th Congress.

Page 139 view page image

DEMOCRATIC PLATFORMS. 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 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 establishing the territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying 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 conservatisni of the Union-Non-interfereince by Congress with slavery in state and territory, or in the District of Columbia. 2. That this was the basis of the compromnises of 1850-confirmed by both the Demoeratic and Whig parties in national Conventions-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 ele ct-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 sectional agitation, combined with the attempt to enforce civil and religious disabilities against the rights of acquiring and enjoying citizenship, in our own hind), 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 mainrtai the rights of every state, and thereby the union of the states; and to sustain and advance among us constitutional liberty, by eontinuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive 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 prosperity, expansion, and preeminent example n 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 national, constitiononal, or in accordance w ith America n principles, which b ases its exclusive organization upon religious opinions and accidental birth-place. And hence a political crus ad e in the nineteenth century, and in the U nited Stat es of Am erica, against Catholic and foreign-born, is neither justifi ed by the p as t history or th e f uture prospects of the country, nor i n unison with the spirit of toleration a nd enlarged freedom which peculiarly distinguishes the American system of popular government.

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose, the we ll considered decl ara tions of former Conven tions upon the sectional issue of dom estic slavery, a nd concerning the reserved rights of the states.

1. That Congres s has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that suc h states a re th e so le and p roper judges of everything a ppertainintg to their own affairs, not prohibited bv the Co nstitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Cong ress to interfe re with questions of slavery, or t o tak e incipien t s teps in rela tion thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and th a t all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, an d endanger the stability and permanency of the Uni on, and ought not to b e countenanced by any friend of our political institutions. 2. That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace, the whole subject 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, settled 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 efficiency. 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 139

Page 140 view page image

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 of this great and progressive people. 1. Resolved, That there are questions connected 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 manifestations, 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 interest 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 appl,ied with unbending rigidity. 3. Resolved, That the great highway which nature, as well as the assent of the states most immediately interested in its maintenance, has marked out fi)r a free communication between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, constitutes one of the most important achievements realized by the spirit of modern times and the unconquerable energy of our people. That result should be secured bv 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. Wee can, under no circumstance, surrender our preponderance in the adjustment of all questions arising out of it. 4. Resolved, That in view of so commanding an interest, the people of the United States cannot but sympathize with the e fforts which are being made by the people of Central America to regenerate that portion of the continnt 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 permanent 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 adlministration 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, extended the field of commercial enterprise, and vindicated the rights of American citizens abroad. It has asserted with eminent imnpartiality the just claims of every section, and has at all times been faithful to the Constitution. We therefore proclaim our unqualified approbation of its measures and its policy. 7. Resolved, That the )Democratic party recognises the great importance, in a political and commercial point of view, of a safe and speedy communication through our own territory between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Union, and that it is the duty of th6 federal government to exercise all its constitutional 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. Be it enacted, That the money which shall be 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 ltouse, of R,epr esentatives of the United States, as shall, by la,. a uthorize their treasurers or other competent authorities, to receive the same, on the terms hereinafter specified; and the Secretary of the Tetesury shall d eliver the same t o such treasurers or othe, h r compete nt authorities, on reeivig ertificaltes of deposit therefor, signed by such competent author rities, in suvh form as may be prescribed by the Secretary afor esaid, whi ch certificats s hall express the i slal and le, tl obligations, and pledge the faith of the states for the safekeeping and repayment thereof. and shall pluge the faith of the states receiving the same to pay the said mon,(ey’s. and eve ry p art thereof, from tine to time. whenlevr the ste shall be required byht the Secretary of the Treasur. for teil purpose of defiayin,g any wantts of the public trylsury beyond the amount of the five mlloions aforesaid: o ruvi,r d, That i f an y state declines to reiciive is M proportion of the surplus aforesaid. on the terms bofore na.med. the san,e shall be dposited w ith the other states agreeings to,acc(pt the same on deposit in the proportion aforesaid: And provided further, That when said money, or any part thaereof, sll be wanted by the said Secretary. to meet alppropriationis by la,,. the sanme shall be called for, in rat(able pro,portion, within one year, as nearly as conveniently nay be, from, the different states with which the samie is deplosite,d, and sh,.ll not be called for in suiis exceeding ten thousand dollar from any one state in any one month. without pr-,vions notice of thirty days for every additional sui-f twenty thousand dollars, which may at any time be required. On the 16th of June, 1836, the bill containing this provision, which was originated by Mr.

Calhoun, being before the Senate, MAr. Black of Miss. moved to strike out the part above quoted. The motion was rejected by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS.-l-essrs. Benton of.Mo., Black of Miss., Cuthbert of Ga..

Grundy of Tenn., Niles of Conn., Walker of Miss., Wright of N. Y.-7.

NAYS.-Messrs. Buchanan of Pa., Calhoun of S. C., Clay and Crittenden of Ky.. Davis of Mass., Ewing of 0.. Ewing of 111.. Goldsboroug,h of Md., Ilendricks of Ind., Ilubbard of N. It.. Kent of Md., King of Ala., King of Ga., Knight of R. I., Leigh of Va., Linn of Mo., McKean of Pa., Mangum of N. C., Moore of Ala., Morris of O., Naudain of Del., Nicholas of La.. Page of N. If., Porter of La., Prentiss of Vt.. Preston of S. C., Rives of Va., Robbins of It. I., Robinson of Ill, Ruggles of Me., Shepley of Me., Soithard of N. J., i iI 140 Deposite Bill. Copy of that part of Act of June 23, 1836, providin, for a deposite of the surplus reve n iiue with the states.

Page 141 view page image

DEPOSITE BILL. Swift of Vt., Talmadge of N.Y.. Tipton of Ind.. Tomlinson’

nently dangerous between confederate states of Conn., wall of N. J., Webster of Mass., White of Tenn. and their common head. It is a relation a 9.’ andl their common head. It i,S a relation a] On the 18th of June, 1836, the vote was ^way-s deprecated in our federal systeml. The taken on the final passage of the bill-it was land credit system was abolished by Congress carried by yeas and nays as follows: fifteen years ago, to get rid of the relation of The veas were the same as the negative debtor and creditor between the federal govote last recorded, with the exception of Mr. verninent and the citizens of the states; and Naudain of Del., and the addition of Mlr. N,iles.even or eight millions of debt, principal andl ofDel.,ndteaddition ofinterest, was then surrendered. The collection oi’Coun. of a large debt from nunierous individual The nays were the same as the affirmative of a large debt from nut erous imdisiluae vote last recorded, with the exception of Mr. debtors was found to be almost impossible. N’iles of Conn. tlow much worse if the state itself become,s Niles of Coun. The Ilouse passed the bill on the 22d of the debtor! and more, if all the states b)ecoime Jue 1836 by eas and nais as follows:-
ndebted together! An attenmpt to collect the ‘June 13,yyesndnyasflos: debt would be attended, first, with ill blood, YEAs.-‘-Nessrs-. John Quincy Adams, Allan of Ky., Allen db ol eatne,frt ihilbod VYEA.-hry John Quincly Adams Allan of Ky., Allen then with cancellation. It must be the repreof Vt., Anthony of Pa., Ashley of Mo., Bailey of Me, Bell of Tenn., Bookee of N. Y., Bond of O., ]loon of Ind., Bliorden of sentatives of the states who are to enforce the Iass., Bovee of N. Y., Boyd of Ky., Briggs of Mass..

Bunch collection of the debt. This they would not of Ten.., Bynum of N.

C., Calhoon of Ky., Calhoun of do. They would stand aainst crediCarr of Ind., Carter of Tenn., Ca of of 11., Chambers of a y l tand together aanst crediChaney of 0., Chapman of Ala., Ch,pin of N. Y. Childs of tor. No member of Congress would vote to N. Y., Claiborne of Va., Clark of Pa., Cleveland of Ga., Conn,er .Y.,Caihorneof aClark o Ga Coier tax his state to raise money for the general of N. C., Corwin of 0., Craig of Va., Cramer of N. Y., Crane of e., Cushing of Mass., Darlington of Pa., Deberry of N. C., purposes of the confederacy. No one could Denny of la., Dickerson of N.J., Doubleday of N. Y., Evans vote an appropriation which was to become a of le., Everett of Vt., Forester of Tenn., Fowlecr of N.J.

t French of Ky., Fry of Pa., Fuller of N. Y., Galbraith of la. charge on his own state treasury. Taxition Garland of Va., Garland of La., Granger of N. Y., Grantland would first be resorted to, and the tariff and of G, Graves of Ky., Graysn of S.C.Gr ll of iss the public lands would become the fountain Griffin of S.C., Haley of Conn., Ilannegan of Ind., Hard of N.Y., Hardin of Ill., Harlan of Ky., Ilarrison of Pa., lar of supply to the federal government. rison of Mo., Ilawes of Ky., Hlawkins of N. C., Ilazletine of Taken as a real transaction, as a deposite N. Y., Ilenlderson of Pa., Heister of Pa., Hoar of Mass., Iop-s this kins of Va., Howard of Md, IIowell of 0., Ilubley of Pa. th the states, or a loan to te states, s ti Ilunt of N. Y., Huntsman of Tenn., Ingersoll of Ia., Ingham measure professes to be, and it is fraught with of Conn., Jackson of Mass., Jackson of Ga., Janes of Vt enifer of Md,Johnson of V a., Jois of Va,0 0consequences adverse to the hiarniony of the Jenifer of Md., Johnson of la. Jones of la. Jones of 0. Judson of Conn., Kilgore of O., Kinnard of Ind., Lane of federal system, and fraught with new burdens Ind., Laporte of Pa., Lawler of Ala., Lawrence of Mss., Lay upon the customs and upon the lands; taken of N.Y., Lee of N. J., Lea of Tenn., Leonard of N. y, Lewis a fiction to avoid the Constitution, as a Liucoln of Mass, Logan of Pa., Love of N.Y., Lyon of Al as a ti on to avod the Constituton, a a Mann of Pa., Martin of Ala., Mason of Mle., Mason of 0., John Doe and Richard Roe invention to conVMay of I ll., McCarty of Ind.. McComas of Va, McKnn of ey a gift under the name of a deposite, ad Pa., Mercer of Va., Milligan of Del., Miller of Pa.ont gomery of N. C.. Morgan of Va., Mor ris of Pa., Mulenberg to effect a distribution under the disguise of a of Pa., Parker ofN.J.,PattersonofO,Patten of Va., Plearce loan, and it is an artifice which makes deriof It. I., Pearce of Md., Pettigrew of N C, Peyton of Teln n Phelps of Conn., Phillips of MassC., Pickotts of s of of the Constitution, lets down the Senate Pla., Reed of Mass., Rencher of N. C., Reynolds of N. Y., from its lofty station, and provides a facile Ripley of La., Robertson of Va., Rus sel l of N.Y., e ay fo doing anything that any on ess of. C, Siels o Tno. Shn f~ t ~wah y for doing anything that any Congress of N. C., Shields of Tenn., Shinn of -N.Ji., Slade of Vt., Smith of Me., Spangler of 0., Speiglht of N. C., Standifer of Tenn., may choose to do in all time to come. It is Storer of 0., Sutherland of Pa., Taliaferro of Va., Thomson only to depose one word and instal anotherof S.C., Toucevy of Conn., Underwood of Ky., Vinton of 0., it r Wagener of Pa., Washington of Md., Webster of O., W hite t i merely to change a name-and the frownof Ky.. Whittlesey of Conn., Whittlesey of 0., Williams of ing Constitution immediately smiles on the N. C., Williams of Ky.-155.

NAYs.. Messrs. Ash of Pa., Beale of Va., Bean of N. I late forbidden attempt. Beaumont of Pa., Brown of N.Y., Burns of N. II., Claiborne To the federal government the conseof’I iss, Coles of Va, Cun ofN.~ oi~le of Y.., aquences of these distributions must be deploFairfield ofMle., Fuller of N.., Gillett of N.Y., Iall of Me.,I liamer of 0., Jarvis of Me., Johnson of Ky., Lasin of N rable and destructive. It must be remiNtted Y., G. Lee of N.Y., Loyall of Va., Mann of N.Y.. VMaon of to the helpless condition of the old confedeVa., M,Kay of N. C.. McKean of N. Y., McKiiO of Md., raey, depending for its supplies upon the voa.. oers of. C., Sickles of iN. Y.,Ta lor o f N. Y., Thomn is luntary contributions of the states.

Worse ofM.,. Tu-,rril of S. C., Sianderpe of N. Y., Taylrd of N. Y., Toll of Md, Turrill of N. Y. Vnderpoel of N.., ard of N. Y. than depending on the voluntary contribluWard well of iN. Y., Wise of Va. 38. N , ise of ~ ations, it will be left to the gratuitous Ieavings, Extract from speech of Mr. Benton on the to the eleemosynary crumbs which remaili I)epoite Bill June 17 1896-upon the table after the feast of the states is Depst B, J e 1, over. God grant they may not prove to be Mr. Benton said-The bad consequences of the feasts of the Lapithoe and Centaurs! But this distribution of money to the states are the states will be served first; and what repalpable and frightful. It is complicating the mains may go to the objects of common defederal and state systems, and multiplying fence and national concern for which the conitheir points of contact and hazards of colli-federacy was framed, and for which the power sion. Take it as ostensibly presented, that of raising money was confided to Congress. of a deposite, or loan, to be repaid at some The distribution bills will be passed first, and future time; then it is establishing the rela-the appropriation bills afterwards; and every tion of debtor and creditor between them; a appropriation will be cut down to the lowest relation critical between friends, embarrass-point and kept off to the last moment. To ing between a state and its citizens, and emi-stave off as long as possible, to reduce as low 141

Page 142 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. l exemption can only be found in its folly-the f o lly of not seeing and guarding against a vast excess of revenue, which the most ordinary understanding ought to have foreseen and prevetrted. If it were in o sr power-if we could ascertain from whom the vast amount now in the treasury wa s improp erly 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 w hich is proposed, to deposit 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.” 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 assaults, and escaped the perils of these multiplied dangers, behold the enemy still ahead, and the recapture which awaits the devoted appropriation in the shape of unexpended balances, on the first day of January then next ensuing. Extract from the speech of Mr. Buchanan in the Senate, June 17, 1836: ” What, then, is the true nature of the measure 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 prescribe payabl e to th e United States or their assigns; and, without any direction from Congr ess, he is authorized to sell and assign these certifica tes, rateably, in propo r tion to the sums receiv ed, and thus convert them into money whe nev e r it shall become necessary for the payment of any of the appropr i at io ns made by Con tress. H ow a ny const itutional objection can arise t o this dis position of the public mioney, I am u tte r ly at a loss to conceive. In order to maintain such an objection, gentlemen must establish the position that Congress do not possess the powe r of depositing the public m oney wh ere they think proper. This would, indeed, be a H ercul ean task. ” This bill provides merely for a deposit of the public money with the states; not for a don atio n of it to them. In its t erms and in its spirit, it proposes nothing more than to make the state treasuries t he depositories of a portion of the public money, instead of the deposite banks. If the states should derive incidental advantages from the use of this money, without interest, the deposite banks have heretofore used it, and, under the provisions of this bill will continue to use it, upon the very ~nme 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.” Mr. Calhoun, six years afterwards, in January, 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 deposite, 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. Congress had no right to take a cent from the people but for the just and constitutional wants of the country. To take more, or for other purposes, is neither more nor less than robbing-more criminal for being perpetrated by a trustee appointed to gu ard 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 ascertained, it ought, upon every principle of justice, to have been returned to them. But as that was impossible, the nearest practicable approach to justice was to return it proportionately 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 stockjobbers. So far from this (being distribution), the deposite act, whether viewed in the causes 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 experimnent. 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 interest in favor of a dissolution of the UnIioii, 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 Extract from the speech of Mr. Calhoun, May 27, 1836:, “But the plan proposed is supported by its iustice, as well as these high considerations of political expediency. The surplus money in t.e treasurv is not ours. It properly belongs to those who made it, from whom it has been unjustly 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 constitutional wants. To take more intentionally would be robbery; and if the government has not incurred the guilt in the present case, its 142

Page 143 view page image

DEPOSITE BILL. that the states will expend this money, and when we call upon them for payment, will it lI)e made? Suppose a minority of states refuse 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 peop le 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 public lands is the inevitable result of this measure. If it be a gift in disguise, it is a distribution of the surplus revenue, which the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] has denounced as a gross violation of the Constitution. ” Ie must ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment, and w as sorry it h ad been offered. If it was to be fully c onsidered, it wou l d renew the debate on the deposite act, as it went to change the essential principles and ter ms of that act. A majority of those w ho voted for that act, about which there had been so much said, and so much misrepresentation, had professed to regard it-and he could not doubt that at the time they did so regard it-as signply a deposit law; as merely changing the place of deposite from the banks to the st ate s, so far as related to th e surplus. The money was still to be in the treasury, and liable to be drawn out, with certain limitations and rest r ic - tions, by the ordinary appropriation laws, witho u t the direct a ctio n of Congress. The amendment, if adopted, will change the pr inciples 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 treasury, even in point of leg,al 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, with making a distribution of the public revenue to the states, in the disguise and form of a deposite; 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 objectionable; but he saw that the Senate were prepared to adopt it, and he would not pursue the discussion, but content himself with repeating his request for the yeas and nays on the question.” 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 in stalment, says Col. Benton, in his Thirty Years’ View, was paid to the states in specie, or its equivale nt; the second also in valid money, the third one was accepted in depreciated paper, and the fourth the y w ere very willing to take in the esame way. B e fore the p ay ment of the fourth instalment, the federal gover nment needed the m o ney itself, even more than t he amount alr eady deposited. To r emedy the difficulty a bill was reported to the Senate to postp one the payment of the fourth instalment of the deposite. The Finance Committee brought in a bill to repeal the obligation to deposit that instalment. This bill was opposed by lessrs. McDuffie a nd Cri ttendent, on the ground that the states had anticipated the fourth instalment by contracts for public works, and that they would suffer more from not receiving it than the federal treasury otherwise would from supplying, its place. Other Senators, says Col.

Benton, treated the deposit act as a contract which the United States was bound to comply with, by delivering all the instalments. The proposition of Mr. Buchanan was carried by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS. Messrs.

Allen of 0., Bayard of Del., Black of Miss., Bro’ wn of N. C., Buchanan of Pa., Calhoun of S.C.. Clayton of )el., Crittenden of Ky., Fulton of Arks., Grundy of Tenn., Kent of Nld., King of Ala., King of Geo., Knight of R.

I., Li,in of,To., Lyon of Mich., Morris of 0., Nicholas of La., No,ryll of Mic-h., Preston of S. C., Robbins of It. I., tRobinson of Ill., Sevier of Arks., Smith of Ind.. Southard of N.J., Strange of N. C.. Swift of Vt., Tallmadge of N. Y.. Wall of N. J., Web stera of Massnn., White of Tn., Williams of Me., and Young of Ill.-33. NAYS.-Messrs. Ben ton of Mo., Cl ay of Ala.. Hubbard of N. wI., Niles of Conn., Piere o f N. II., Rives of Va., Roane of Va., IRtigle~ of NAe.. Smith of Conn., T ipton of Ind., Walker of Miss., and WNrig,ht of N. Y.-12. In the IIouse the t bil l was ca rri ed by a vote o f 119 to 117. Mr. Pickens of S. C. moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed. IIe then moved to amend the bill so as to postpone the payment of the fourth instalnent of the deposite, until the 1st day of January, 1839. This amendment was adopted by yeas and nays as follows: YF.,s.-.Mesqr. Hleman Allen of Vt., Jno. W.

Allen of O., Anderson of Me., Andrews, Atherton of N. II. Beattv of Pa., Biicknell of N. Y., Borden of Mass., Briggs of Mass., Bronson of N. Y., Bruyn of N. Y., Buchanan of Pa.. Wm. B. Calhoun of Mass., Jno. Calhoon of Ky., Cambrelhng of N. Y., Wmn. B. Campbell of Tenn., Jno. Campbell of S.

C., Timothy J. Carter of Me., Wm. B. Carter of Tenn., Casey of In the progress of the bill, Mr. Buchanan proposed an amendment to release the Secretary from the duty of calling upon the states f,)r a return of the deposit when needed by the federal treasury, and to enact that the instalnents al read y delivered should remain in deposite with the states until called for by Congfress. Mr. Niles of Conn., opposing the amendment of Air. Buchanan, remarked: 143

Page 144 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Ill., Chancy of 0., Cheatham of Tenn., Cilley of Me., Claliborne 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., Duncan of 0., Elmore of S. C., Fairfield of Me., Foster of N. Y., Gallup of N.

Y., Rice Garland of La., Gholson of Miss., G]ascock of Geo., Grantland of Geo., Grant of N. Y., Gray of N. Y., Griffin of S. C., htall of Vt., tIarmond of Pa., Ilamer of O., Hastings of Mass., Htawkins o f N. C., Henry of Pa., Herod of Ind., Ilolsey of Geo., Iloward of d., Robt.. T.

unter of Va., In oham ute of h Conn., iJabez Jackson of Geo., Jenifer of Md., Henry Johnson of La., James Johnson f Va., Nathaniel Jones of N. Y., Jno. W. Jones of Va., Kilgtore of O., Legare of S. C., Leadbetter of 0., Lewis of Ala., Loran of Pa., Andrew W. Loomis of N. Y., Lyon of Ala., Mar,tin of Ala., Maury of Tenn., Mlaxwell of N. J. Robt. McClellan of N.Y., McClure of P’., McKim of Md., Menefee of Ky., Montgomery of N. C., Morgan of YVa., MIatthias Morris of Pa., Samuel W. Morris of I’a., Murray, Naylor of Pa., Noble of N.Y., Owens of Geo.. P almer of 1N, Y., Parker of N.Y.. Parmeter of Mass., Petriken of [a.. Pheilps of Conn., IPiekens of S.

C., Plunier of Pa., Plope of Ky., Potts of Pa., Potter of Pa., Pratt of N.

Y., Plentiss of N. Y., Rariden of Ind., Randolph of N. J.. Rhett of S. C., Richardson of S. C. Ridgway of Ohio, Rumsey of Ky., Russell of N. Y., Sawyer of N. C., Sergeant of Pa., Sheffer of Pa., Agustine 11. 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 if N. Y., Towns of Geo., Vail of N. Y.. anderveer of N. Y., Wa gner of P
a., Webster of 0., Weeks of N. II.. Albert S. White of Ind., jElisha Whittlesey of 0.. Thos. T. Wphittle sey of Conn., Sherrod Williams of Ky., Wiorthington of Md. Yell of Arks.-131. NAYS. lessrs. Adams of Mass., Aycrig of N..J., Bieme of Va., Bell o f Tenn., Biddle of Pa., Birdsall of N. Y., B,,od of 0., Bouldin of Va., Brodhead of N. Y., Clhambers of Ky., Chapman of Ala., Childs of N. Y., Coles of Va., Crary of Mich., Cranston of R. I., Curtis of N.Y., Cush ing o f 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.

I., Richard Fletcher ot Vt., Fillmore of N.Y., Fry of Pa., Gooede of 0.

Js. Graham of N. C., Wi. Graham of Ind., Graves of Ky., Grennell of Mass., Haley of Conn.. Hals tead of N. J., Iarlan o f Ky., Harrison of Mo., IIarper of 0., Itawes of Ky., IIa nes of Ga., Hoffman of N. Y., Iolt of Conn., Ilubley of MIe., Wm. It. Hunter of 0., Thos. B. Jacks.on of N.Y., Wm. Cost. Johnson of Md., Kemble of N. Y., Klingensmith of Pa., Lincoln of Mass., Arphaxed Loomis of N. Y., Mallory of Va., Marvin of N. Y., Jas. A.

Maon of Va., Samson Mason of 0., McKay of N. C., Abraham McClellan of Tenn., 0cKennan of Pa., Mercer of Va., Milliran of Del., Miller of io., Moore of N.Y., Calvary Morris of 0., Muhlenberg of Pa., Noves of Me., Ogle of Pa., Patterson of N. Y., Paynter of Pa., PIearce of Md., Peck of N.Y., Pennybacker of Va., Phillips of Mass., Reed of Mass., Reiley of Pa., nteneher 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 Ill. Toland of Pa., Toucey of Conn., Turney of Tenn., Under wood of KE., John White of Ky., Lewis Williams of N. C., Jaied W. W\illiams of N. Il., Joseph L. W\illiams of Tenn., Christopher H. Williams of Tenn., Wise of Va., Yorke of N. J.-90. Col.

Benton says: ” The three instalments already delivered were not to be recalled until Congress should so order, and it was quite certain it would never so order. At the same tim e the nominal discretion of Congress over the deposite of the remainder was denied, and the duty of the Secretary made peremptory to deliver it in the brief space of one year and at Duarter 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. athe compromise act of 183s, m aki ng periodical reductions in the tariff, until the whole dutv leas 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 insraiment could not be delivered at the time appointed, nor subsequently, and At the third s essio n of th e 34th Congress, Mr. Campbell of O., fromo the Col m pittee of Ways and Means, reporte d 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 b y th e Senate and Ilou.e of Re,pr osen tatives of the United States of America in Colgress assembhler That the money which shall be in the Treasury of the United State s on the first day of July. 1857, reserving t he sll, of $2,000.000, shall be deposited with such of t he se,veral states, iC proportion to their respective representat ion in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, as shall by law auth orize their treasurers or other ompetent arkthe rities to receive the same on the terms hereinafter specified; and the Secretary of the Tpremasury shall deliver the sam,e to sul h t re asurers or othe r conpeten t aut horities on receiving certificates of deposite thTrefon -, sig*ned by such o lnpetent authorities, in su(h form as may be prescribed by the Seeretay aforesa,id: whic,h certifiates s,hall express the usual and legal obligations anl pledge the faith of the state for the safe-keepisg and repayment thereof, and shall pledge the faith of the states re ceiving the same to pay the said amonedys and every part thereof fro m time to time, whenever the same shall be required by the Seret ary of the TDreJasury for th e purpose of de fraying any wants of the putblic Treasury beyond the amount of the two million s aforesaid: Provid,ed, That if any state declines to receive its proportion of the surplus aforesaid one the terms before Wname d, the same shal l be deposited wit h t he other states agreeing to accept the samne 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, tihe ame shall be callel for, in rateable proportions, within one year, as nearly as conveniently may be, from the different states with which the same is deposited, and shall not be called for in sums exceeding $10,000 f’om any omw state. in any one month. without previous notic e 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 de,posites shall be made with the said states in the following proportions and at the following terms, to wit: one half part on the first daly of July, 1857, and onehalf 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 affirmativeyeas 119, nays 79; as follows: YEAs. Messr s. AKERS, Albright, Allison, Ball, Henry Bennett, Benson, Bing,ham, Bishop, Bo3JcocA-, Bovie, Bradshaw, Branch, Brenton. BROOM, Burlingame. James II.

Campbell, JOFHN P. C.AIPBELL, Lewis D. Canmpbell, (Atskie, Ezra Clark, Clawson, (Clingman, Colfax. Covode, Cox, Cragin, Crai.qe, CULLEN.

Cureback, IIENRY WINTER DAVTS, Tinmothy Davis, Dean, Dick. Dickson, Dodd, DUNN, Durfee, Edie, Fartlker Flag,ler, IIENRY M. FULLER, Galloway, Ilarlan, J. MRIORRISON IIATRRIS, IXlARRISON,. IAVEN, tied],,es, IIOFFMAN, Tholloway, Thomas R. Ilorton, Valentine B. Ilorton, Ilowar(,. Ilun!hston, Keliy, Kelsey, KENNETT, King, Knapp, Knig-ht, Knowlton, Kno.x, Kunkel, ALEXANDER K.‘IIARSHALL, IIUMPHREY ]1ARSTTALL, NIcCa,‘ty, MJcMuin,. Killian Miller, Jlillsrm, Millward, Moore. MIor,gani, Morrill, Murray, Norton, Paine,‘al!le, Pennington, Perry, PORTER. P,‘ingle(, PURVIAN.CE, PURYEAR, IRE.KDY, ICAUmD. Ritchie, Robbins. Roberts. Robinson, Ruffn Sabin, Sag,e, Sapp. Scott, Sherman. Simmons, William Svieith, SNZEE1, Stanton, Stewart, Stranahan, SwoPE, Tapp,an.‘T’horington. Thurston, Tyson,* UNDERWOOD, I’AI,K, Wade, Wake. man, W a’lb]ridge Walron, Elilhu }l. W,‘ashbn,rne, Israel W.ashh~um-ie, Welch, Williams, Winsltow, Wood, Woodruff, ZO)LLICOFFER.-119. NAYS. MNessrs. Wiken. Allen, Barbour, Barclay, ]Tendley S. Bennett. B3illinghurst, Boyce, Buffington, Bturnett, Cduwa7a der, CARI.ILE, Caruthers, Chaffee, Vill’amsmns R. TV Cobb, CominS, (;rau,.ford. Damrell. Davfdson, Jacob C. Davis, Day, lDenver-, Dewdell, Elliott, E:USTIS, E~VANS, Florence, FOSTER, Thormas J. D. Fuller, Garrett, Geede, (7reee~woc, d Algutst~ts Halll, Sampson }I. Harris, Thomas l.

Harris, Herbert, HouR. ton, Jewerr, G~eorge rE. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Kidwell, LAKE, * Does not profess to be a Democrat, but supported 1r, Buchanan. 144 was finally relinquished; the states retaining the ainount they had received.

Page 145 view page image

DEPOSITE BILL.-DRAYTON AND SAYRES PARDON. Leiter, Letcher, Lumpkin, Mace, Samudel S. Marshall, M.axwefll, McQueen, Smith Miller, Morrison, Mott, Nichols, Andrew Oliver, Orr, Packer, Peck, Pettit, Powell, Qutitman, Sandidge, Savage, Sward, Shorter, Samuel A. Smith, WILLIUA R. SMITH, Spinner, Tab, Taylor, Trafton, Vail, Wa e ?er, Warner, Cadwalader C.

Washburne, Watson, Wells, Wheeler, Woodworth, Daniel B. Wright, John V.

Wright.-79. Fillmore Americans in small caps; Rep ublicans 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. Whereas, The late act of Congress, purporting to be 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 cap tu red 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 Congress 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 thereby evaded the question, richly merit the reproach of all lovers of freedom, and are fit only to be 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 assistanee for the arrest of fugitive slaves. YEAs..-Ald.

Milliken, Loyd, Sherwood, Foss, Throop, Sher, man, Richards, Brady, and Dodge. NAYS.-Ald. Page and Williams. On the succeeding night the common council of the city repealed their nullifying resolution by a vote of 12
to 1. 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:  Resolved, That it is the sacred duty of every friend of the Union to maintain, and preserve inviolate, every provision of our Federal Constitution. Resolved, That any law enacted by Congress, in pursuance of the Constitution, should be respected as such by all good and law-abiding citizens; and should be faithfully carried into effect by the officers charged with its execution.

Resolved, 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 be due,” and so long as members of Congress are required to take an oath to support the Constitution, it is their solemn and religious duty to pass all laws necessary to carry that provision of the Constitution into effect. Resolved, that if we desire. to preserve the Union, and renider 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 states to yield implicit obedience to it. Resolved, That as the lives, property, and safety of ourselves and our families depend upon the observance and protection of the laws, every effort to excite any portion of our 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 -uspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, public safety may require it; and, 10 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 pursued and overtaken, and concealed under hatches were found seventy-three slaves belonging 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 kidnappers 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 I May 8. Convicted of l.o 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 commit ted 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 I 145

Page 146 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 prerogative, 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 portion 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 Constitution and laws of the United States, has exercised the power of pardon, by way of remitting or releasing a private right or interest in a fine, penalty, or forfeiture, accrued under laws of the United States, and consummated by judgment or condemnation. The non-user of such a power in any i nstan ce, during such a great length of time, and under such multiplied prosecutions, lays the foundation 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 prerogative of granting pardons, vested in the king by the British constitution. IIaving given my advice and opinion on the question as propounded to me, with the reasons and authorities on which my opinion has been formed, it remains for you, in your highest trust and better judgment, to decide for yourself this very important question of constitutional law. I have the honor to be, Very respectfully, J. J. CRITTENFDEN. ment in the county jail as the alternati ve of nonpayment. This a ct was passed in 1796. The court d id n ot imp o se the maximum fine in e i the r case, onehalf of which, under the term laws of the law, enured to the owners of the slaves, and the other to the “
commissioners of the coun ty.” Th e costs b el onged t o th e U nited States, by whom all the expenses of the prosecution had been paid. They rema ined in jail f our years, when Mr. Fillmore p ar doned them. Record of pardon.-Cr iminal Court of prothe Distri ct of C olumbia for the c ounty of Wash ington:-United States v. Daniel Drayton. August 12, 1852.-Discharged from jall by the President of the United States, Millard Fillmore. Same v. Edward Sayres.- Also d ischarged, a t the same time, by the President. Test: JOHN A. SMITH, Clerk. In t he s peeches and addresses of Mr. Sumner of Mass., will be found an argument which he laid before Mr.

Fillmore, and to which is Eredited the i r pardon. On the 22d of April, 1852, Mr. Crittenden, the Attor ney-General, submitted an op inio n on the right of the President to pardon the prisoners, from which the following is an ,extract: Under t hes e statu tes, Da n iel Drayton and E dward Sayres were severally indicted, in the Criminal Court for the District of Columbia and county of Washington, 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 indictments, 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 upwards 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 uniform and unbroken current of opinions pronounced by the sages of the common law of England, the prerogative power of pardon, vested in the crown of Great Britain, and exereised from time immemorial, does not comgrehend such cases as those of Drayton and ayres. 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. On the 4th of Au g., 1852, Mr.

Crittenden submitted another opinion, of which the following is an extract: I shall trouble the President with no further authorities or remarks on the question he has been pleased to refer to me. I regret t t i i e y 8 146 To the President.

Page 147 view page image

DRAYTON AND SAYRES PARDON.-DRED SCOTT CASE. 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 d ischarge them from prison, and remsit the fines for which t hey wer e impri soned. SecondThat if the President cannot re mi t te n it the fines in this case, because they have become private property, he can still p ardon anId release the offending parties from imprisonm ent, b ecau se that is part of the proceedings 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 remedies 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 remnarks exclusively to the question of your constitutional power to pardon, a question of mnuch 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 luestion, not referred to me, and on which it s not my intention or province to pronounce Mere any opinion, though I shall be quite eady to express my sentiments on that subiect also, whenever it may be proper for me o do so. I have the honor to be, Very respectfully yours, J. J. CRITTr.N DE. DRED SCOTT’ exlu. Pl ea tih the ju risdictim o f th e Courts t. JoHN F. A. SA~NDFORD.) APRIL TERM, 1854. And the said John F. A. Sandford, in thic own pe proper i er son, comes and says, that this court olghtt inot to llae or take further cogtriance of the action atforesid. becn use he says tha t sai d c ause o f action, and each and ev erv of them (i f any such have accrued to the said Dre d Scott). an cru,d t o the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this ourt. an,d exclusively with in the juris dictio n o f the Cfurts c f the state of Mtissouii, for t hat, to wit: the said pl;tintitf. Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the state of Missouri. as al]-Rgel il hs ati as b is d elaration because he is a nerro of Afhic.an d,sent; hi s ancestors were of pure African blood, ant were bro ught into this country andd sold as negro slaves. and this the said Sandford is ready to vrerify. I herefore hem prays juol rn)eret, whether this court can o r will tak e fur ther Cogitance of the action aforesaid. JOHN F. A.

SANDFORD. To this plea th ere was a demurrer in the usual form, which was argued in April, 1854, whebn the court gave judg men Tht that th e demurrer should be sustained. In May, 1854, the defendant, in pursuance of an agree ment between counsel. and with the leave of the court, pleade d in bar of the ac tion: 1. Not guilty. 2. That th e plaintiff wa s a negro slave, the lawful pro perty of the def endant, and, as such, the defencaust gently laid his hand s upon him, a nd th er eby had only restrained him, as the defendant had a right to do. 3. That with respec t t o the wife and d aughters of the plaintiff, in the secon ad third counts of the ea 1. declaration mentioned, the d efendan t had, as to them, only acted in tha er, e same manner, and in virtue of the same legal right. In the first of these ple as, the plaintiff joined issu e; and to the second and third, fil e d r eplications alleging that the defendant, of his ow n w rong an d without the cause in his second and third pleas a ll eged, committe d the trespasses, &c. The counsel then filed the following agreed statement of facts. viz.: In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a ne gro slave belong ing to Dr. Eme rson, who was a surgeon in th e ar my of t he United States. In that year, 18 34. said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the state of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island. in the state of Illinois, and he ld him there eas a slave until the month of April or lay. 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerso n remoed the plain tiff f ro m said m ili tary post at Rock I slan d to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississi],i river, in th e territory kn own as Upp er Louisiana, acquired by the United States of France. and situate d north of the latitud e of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes north, and north of t he state of Miss ouri. S ai d Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery aot Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned d ate until the year 18p‘8. In the year 1835, Harri e t, who is named in the plseond count of the plaintiff’s declar ation, was th e negro slave of Major Taliaferro, wh o bel ong ed to the a rmy of the United States. In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro t ook sa id Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post, si tuated as hera, i inbefore stated. and kept he r the re a s a sl ave until the year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slave at said Fort Snelling u nto t he s aid Dr. Emerson hereinbefore namem,. Said Dr. Emerson held said Harriet i n slavery at said Fort S nelling u ntil the year 1838. In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet, at saimr Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed t o be the ir master and owner, i nter married, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and Liz zie, named in the third coun t of the plaintiff’s declaration, are th e fruit of that marriage. Eliza is abou t fourteen years old, and was bor n ot boar d t he 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 defendanlt, 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 bands 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 mayr be given on the trial for either party. It is agreed that Dred Scott brought suit for his freedomg I in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county; that there wa~ ,red Scott Case. OPINIONS OF THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES THEREON. D)red Scott, Plaintiff in Error. v. John F. A. Sanford.nis case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit ourt of the United States for the district of Missouri. It was an action of trespass vi et armis instituted in the ,rcuit Court by Scott against Sandford. Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was -ought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. 9uis county (State Court), where there was a verdict and dgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the S upre me ;urt of the State. the judgment below was reversed, and e case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was conneud to await the decision of the case now in question. The declaration of Scott contained three counts: one, ,,t Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had :aulted tIarri.t Scott, his wife; and one, that he had -fulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children. %iadford appeared, and filed the following plea: 147

To the President.

Page 148 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. not a citizen of the state of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, being a negro of African 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 overruled the plea, and gave judgment that the defendant should answer over. And he thereupon 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 reasons therein stated. If the questi on raised by it is legally before us, and the court should be of opinion that the facts stated in it disqualify the plaintiff from becoming 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 England, 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 presumed to have jurisdiction, unless the contrary 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 appellate 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 jurisdiction 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 courts Cases that may have been decided ia 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 Dred Scott was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant; and as to the issue thirdly above joined, we, the jury, find that, before and at th e 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 p roperty of the defenda nt.” Whereupon, th e c ourt gav e judgmen t f or t he defendant. After an ineffectual m otion for a new trial, the plaintiff filed the following bill of exceptions. On the trial o f t his cause by the jury, the plaintiff, to maintain the issues on his part, read to the jury the following agreed statement of facts (see agreement above). No further testimony was given to the jury by either party. Thereupon the plaintiff move d the court to give to the jury the following instruction, viz.: ” That, upon t s a n t b the facts agreed to by the parties, they ought to find for the plaintiff. The court refus ed to g i ve such instruction to the jury, and the plaintiff, to such refusal, then and ther e duly excepted.” The cour t th en gave the following instruction to the j ury, on motion of t he d efen dant: “i The jury a re instructed, that upo n t he fact s in t his case, 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 a rgued by Mr. B lai r 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 opinion of the court. This case has been twice argued. After the argument at the last term, differences of opinion 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 reargument 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 adopted in that state to try questions of this description, 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 defendant a citizen of New York. The defendant pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, that the plaintiff was 148

Page 149 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. such courts, or rules that may have been laid in the declaration, and the defendant does not down by common-law pleaders, can have no in-deny it, and put it in issue by plea in abatefluenee in the decision in this court. Because, ment, he cannot offer evidence at the trial to under the Constitution and laws of the United disprove it, and consequently cannot avail himStates, the rules which govern the pleadings self of the objection in the appellate court, in its courts, in questions of jurisdiction, stand unless the defect should be apparent in some on different principles and are regulated by other part of the record. For if there is no different laws. plea in abatement, and the want of jurisdic This difference arises, as we have said, from tion does not appear in any other part of the the peculiar character of the government of transcript brought up by the writ of error, the the United States. For although it is sovereign undisputed averment of citizenship in the and supreme in its appropriate sphere of ac-declaration must be taken in this court to be tion, yet it does not possess all the powers true. In this case, the citizenship is averred, which usually belong to the sovereignty of a but it is denied by the defendant in the mannation. Certain specified powers, enumerated ner required by the rules of pleading, and the in the Constitution, have been conferred upon fact upon which the denial is based is admitit; and neither the legislative, executive, nor ted by the demurrer. And, if the plea and judicial departments of the government can demurrer, and judgment of the court below lawfully exercise any authority beyond the upon it, are before us upon this record, the limits marked out by the Constitution. And question to be decided is, whether the facts in regulating the judicial department, the stated in the plea are sufficient to show that cases in which the courts of the United States the plaintiff is not entitled to sue as a citizen shall have jurisdiction are particularly and in a court of the United States. specifically enumerated and defined; and they We think they are before us. The plea in are not authorized to take cognisance of any abatement and the judgment of the court upon case which does not come within the descrip-it, are a part of the judicial proceedings in tion therein specified. Hence, when a plain-the Circuit Court, and are there recorded as tiff sues in a court of the United States, it is such; and a writ of error always brings up necessary that he should show, in his plead-to the superior court the whole record of the ing, that the suit he brings is within the juris-proceedings in the court below. And in the diction of the court, and that he is entitled to case of the United States v. Smith, (11 Wheat., sue there. And if he omits to do this, and 172,) this court said, that the case being should, by any oversight of the Circuit Court, brought up by writ of error, the whole record obtain a judgment in his favor, the judgment was under the consideration of this court. would be reversed in the appellate court for And this being the case in the present in. want of jurisdiction in the court below. The stance, the plea in abatement is necessarily jurisdiction would not be presumed, as in the under consideration; and it becomes, therecase of a common-law English or state court, fore, our duty to decide whether the facts unless the contrary appeared. But the record, stated in the plea are or are not sufficient to when it comes before the appellate court, must show that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue as show, affirmatively, that the inferi6r court had a citizen in a court of the United States.

authority, under the Constitution, to hear and This is certainly a very serious question, determine the case. And if the plaintiff claims and one that now for the first time has been a right to sue in a Circuit Court of the United brought for decision before this court. But States, under that provision of the Constituit is brought here by those who have a right tion which gives jurisdiction in controversies to bring it, and it is our duty to meet it and between citizens of different states, he must decide it. distinctly aver in his pleading that they are The question is simply this: Can a negro, citizens of different states; and he cannot whose ancestors were imported into this counmaintain his suit without showing that fact in try, and sold as slaves, become a member of the pleadings.

the political community formed and brought This point was decided in the case of Bing-into existence by the Constitution of the ham v. Cabot, (in 3 Dall., 382,) and ever since United States, and as such become entitled to adhered to by the court. And in Jackson v. all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, Ashton, (8 Pet., 148,) it was held that the ob-guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? jection to which it was open could not be One of which rights is the privilege of suing waived by the opposite party, because consent in a court of the United States in the cases of parties could not give jurisdiction. specified in the Constitution. It is needless to accumulate cases on this It will be observed, that the plea applies to subject. Those already referred to, and the that class of persons only whose ancestors cases of Capron v. Van Noorden, (in 2 Cr., were negroes of the African race, and im 126,) and Montalet v. Murray, (4 Cr., 46,) are ported into this country, and sold and helhl as sufficient to show the rule of which we have slaves. The only matter in issue before the spoken. The case of Capron v. Van Noorden court, therefore, is, whether the descendants strikingly illustrates the difference between a of such slaves, when they shall be emanci common-law court and a court of the United pated, or who are born of parents who had States. become free before their birth, are citizens of If, however, the fact of citizenship is averred a state, in the sense in which the word citizen 149

Page 150 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 re ignty a nd fr amed 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 admiin 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. Ile 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 restricted to the state which gave them. The Constitution has Conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so.

Consequently, no state, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing arn alien invest him with the rights and privi is used in h the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be u nders tood a s sp eaking in this opinion of that class only. That is, of those persons who are th e desce ndants of Africans who were im p ort ed in to this country, an od sold as slaves. The situation of this population was alto g ether unl ik e th at of the Indian race. The latter, it is true, formed n o par t of the colonial communities, and never amalggaated with them n sca oin social conneions or in government. Bu t although they we r e uncivilized, they were yet a free and independent people, as soci ated tog eth er i n nations or tribes, and governed by their own laws. Many of these political communities were situated in terri tories to whic h the wh ite race claimed the ul timate r ig ht of dominion. But that claim was acknowledged to be subject to the right of the Indians to occ upy it as long as they thought prop er, and neither the English nor colonial government s cl aim ed or exer cised any dominion ove r the tribe or nation bv 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 we r e regarded and treated as fo reig n gove rnments, as much so as if an ocean h ad s epara ted the red man from the white; and their fre edo m h as constantly been acknowledged, from the time of the first emig r ation to the English coloni es to the p resent d ay, by the diffe ren t governments which satceeded each othe r. Treat i es have b een negotiated with them, and their alliance sought for in war; and th e people wh o com pose thes e I nd ian political communities have alway s been treated a s foreigners not living unde r ou r gov ernment. It is true that the course of events has brought the Indian tribes within the limit s of the United States under subjecti on t the white race; and it has been found necessary, f or their sake as w ell as our own, to regar d them as in a state of pupilaTe, and to legislate to a c ertain extent over them and the t erritory they occupy. But they may, wi thout doubt, like the subjects of any o ther fore ign government, be naturalize d by th e authority of Congress, and become citizens of a state, and of th e United States; a nd if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and t ake up his abode among the white popu la tion, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people. We proceed to examine the case as presented by the pleadings. The words “1people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the g~overnment 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 sovereig~nty. The question before us is, whetheri 150

Page 151 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. e upon a perfect equality with its own citizens e as to rights of person and rights of property; t-it made him a citizen of the United States. d It becomes necessary, therefore, to detercs mine who were citizens of the several states ;e when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the govern, ments and institutions of the thirteen coloe nies, when they separated from Great Britain w and formed new sovereignties, and took their d places in the family of independent nations. it We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a state, . whose rights and liberties had been outraged e by the English government; and who declared o their independence, and assumed the powers v of government to defend their rights by force t 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 e that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, 1 whether they had become free or not, were s then acknowledged as a part of the people, , nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument. r It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortu I 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 L of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mista en. 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. lie 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 ulse; but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively en gaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world. leg-es secured to a citizen of a state under th federal government, alth ough, s o far as th s tat e alon e was concerned, he would undoub edly b e entitled to t he right s of a citizen, an c lo te ith thed with all the rights and immunitie which the constitution and law s of the stat attach ed t o that character. It is very clear, therefore, that no s tate an by any act or law of it s own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political communit y create by the Constitution of the United States. I 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 perso ns, wh( were not intend ed to be embr ac ed in this ner political family, which t he Con stitutio n 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 ctizen 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 without 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 propositions 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 intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions 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 certain 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 rossess, and placed him in every other state. 151

Page 152 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. within the province, by bill, plaint, or informa&
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 Inendependenc e and establish ed the state constitutions and governments. They show that a pe rpet u al an d impassable barrier was intended to be erected betw een th e white race and the one which they ha d re duced to slavery, and gover ned a s subjects with s o l t absolutei er and despotic power, and which they then looked upon as so far below them in th e scale of created bein gs, that intermar riages between white per sons an d 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, oir 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 theyr 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 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 regard ed b y t hem as an article of property, and held, and bought, and s old as such, in every on e of the thirteen colonies w hich united in the Declaration of Independence, and afterwards formed the Constit ution of th e United States. The slaves we mrer s nee te ere 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 correctn ess of th e prevailing opi nion of the time. The legislation of the different colonie s fur n ishes p ositive and indisputable proof of this fact. It would be tedious, in thi s opinion, to enu merat e 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, s. 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 preventing 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 p rovince, shall contract matrimony with any negro or mulatto; nor s hall any person, duly authorized to solemnize marriage, p resume to join any such in marriage, on pain of forfeiting the sum of fifty pOlndts; one moiety thereof to her MIajesty, Or 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 152 IL

Page 153 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 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 sanc 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 th e bl e s sings 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 compa rison with those held in slavery; and they were identie 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 unprofitable to the master, but few slaves were held at the time of the Declaration of Independence; 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 productions 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 carried on, and fortunes accumulated by it, without reproach from the people of the stated formed no part of t he people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, ts und erstoo d i n that day, would embra ce them, the co nduct of the distinguished men who fra med t he Declaration of Independence would h ave been utterl s araly and flagrantly incon sistent with the principles the y ass erted; a nd instead of the sympathy of mankind, t o which t he y so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation. Yet the m en wh o framed this declaration were great men-h igh in literary acquire ments-high in their sense of honor, and in capable of asserting principles inconsistent wit h thos e on which they were act ing. They perfectly underst ood the meaning of the lan guage they used, and how it would be under stfood by oth ers; and they knew that it w ould not in any part of the c ivilized w orld be sup posed to embrace the negro race, which, by commo n cons ent, had been excluded from civilized gover nme nts and the fa mily o f na t ions, and doomed to slavery. They spoke an d ac ted acc ording to he the then established doctrine s and princi ples, an d in the ordinary language of the d ay, and no one misunder stoo d them. The unhappy black race were separated from the wh it e by i ndelibl e marks, and law s l ong b efor e established, and were neve r thought of or spoken of ex cep t as pro perty, and when the claims o f th e own er or th e profit of the trad er were supposed to need protection. This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, a s i s equa lly evi dent from its provision s and language. The bri ef pre amble sets forth by whom it was formed, for wh at purposes, and for whose benefi t and prot ection. It declares th at it is fa ormed by the people o f the United St ates; 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 a nd their posterity. It sp e aks 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 description 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 necessary. But there are two clauses in the constitution 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 sancetions was unto 153

Page 154 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 engagin, g 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 i ng any change of opinion as to the relative rights and position of the white and black races in this country, or indicating that it meant to place the latter, when free, upon a 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 imports’ - tion of slaves into the state. But the scCt’on 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 induced the legislature to pass the law, and places it distinctly upon the interest and convenience of the white population-excluding the inference that it might have been intended 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 mentioned, were to be free at a certain age, the section is again introduced by a preamble assigning 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 individuals, and the public safety and welfare”showing that the right of property in the master was to be protected, and that the measure was one of policy, and to prevent the injury and inconvenience, to the whites, of a slave po pulation in th e state. And still further pursuing its legislation, we find that in the same statute passed in 1774, which prohibited the further importation of slaves into the state, there is also a provision by which any negro, Indian, or mulatto servant, who was found wandering 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 s eiz ure an d transportation-the people could have reward ed thos e wh o w ere emancipated as entitled to equal rights wi th themselves. And we may here again refer, in support of this proposition, to the plain and unequivocal language of t he laws of the several states, some p ass ed after the Declaration of Independence and befo re the C onstitution was adopted, and some since the government went into operation. We ne ed not refer, on this point, particularly to the laws of the p resent slaveholding states. Their statute books are full of provisions 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 Constitution of the United States-and the correetness of this decision is recognise(l, and the same doctrine affirmed, in i Meigs’s Tenn. Reports, 331. And if we turn to the legislation of the states where slavery had worn out, or measures 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 person 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 bastardy. 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 (-ode forbids any person from joining in marriage any white person with any Indian, negro, or mulatto, and subjects the party who shall offend in this respect, to imprisonment, aot 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 marriagfe to be absolutely null and void. It will be seen that the punishment is increased by 154

Page 155 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 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 permitted 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, because, 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 institutions 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 reenacted in its revised code of 1844. So that, down to the last-mentioned period, the strongest mark of inferiority and de gradation was fastened upon the African race in th at 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 Constitution 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 afterwards, 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 stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the state sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon-whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention 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 pro out of the town or place to which he belonged, without a written pass such as therein de scribed, was made liable to be seiz ed by any one, and taken bef ore the next authority to be ex a mined and delivered up to his master who was required to pay the charge which had acc ru ed thereby. And a subsequent sec tion of the same law provides, th at if any free negro shall travel wi thout such pass, and sh all b e stopped, seized, or taken up, h e shall Fa ny all charg es arising thereby. And this tw w as in full operation whe n the Constitu tion of the United States was adopted, and w as not repeal ed till 1797. So that up to that tim ee free negroes and mulattoes were associ ated wi th s erv ants and slaves in the police regulations esta blished 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 th e f in s truction of persons of the African race not inhabitants of the state, or to instruct or teach in any s u ch school or institutio n, or board or harbotr f or that purp ose, any such pers on, wi tho ut the previous consent in writing of the c ivil authority of the town in which such school or instit ution might be. And it app ears by the case of Crandall v. The State, reported in 10 Conn. Rep. 340, tha t up on an information filed against Prudence Crandall for a vi o lation of this law, one of the points raised in the defe nce w as, that the law was a violation of the Constitution of the Unite d States; and tht thh the p ersons instructed, al though of t he Af rican race, were citizens of other states, and therefree entitled t o the rights and privileges of citizens in the state of Connecticut. But Chief Justice Dagget, before whom the case was tried, held, that persons of that description were not citizens of a state, within the meaning of the w o r d citizen in t he Constitution of the United States, and were not therefore entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in other states. The case was carr i ed up to the Supreme Court rrr of Errors of the state, and the question fully argued there. But the case went off upon another point, and no opinion was expressed on this question. We have made this particular examination into the legislative and judicial action of Connecticut, 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 Constitution 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 altogether to the interest and convenience of the white race, we shall hardly find them elevated ~) a higher rank anywhere else. A brief notice of the laws of two other 155

Page 156 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.

And when we find the states guarding themselves from the indiscreet or improper admission by other states of emigrants 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 nlumerous 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 po w e r to c o nf e r this character upon those only who were born outsi de 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 outside of its own territory. A clause similar to the one in the Constitution, 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 of language, which is worthy of note. The provision in the Articles of Confederation was, “that the J’ee inhabitants of each of the states, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states.” It will be observed, that under this Confederation, 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 fi-ee inhabitant, in the generality of its terms, would certainly include one of the African race who had been maniumitted. But no example, we think, can be found of his admission to all the privileges of citizenship in any state of the UnionS
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 o)f 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.”

Whords 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 tection of the liberties and right s of their citi zens. I t can not be supposed that they in tended to secure tg them rights, and privi leges, a nd rank, in the new political body throughout t he Union, which every one of them denied within t he limits of it s own dominion. More e specially, it cannot be be lieved that the large slavteholding states re garded the m as included i n the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution wh ich migh t c ompel them to receive them in that character from another state. For if the ystit were s o received, and entitled to the privileg es and immuni ti e s of citizens, it would exempt them from the op eration of t he special laws and from the police regulations w hich they consi d ered to be ne cessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro rac e, who were recognised as citizens in any on tae state iofn the Union, the right to enter every other s tate whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, wi thout pass or passpor t, and without obstruction, to s ojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where t hey pleased at every ho ur 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 pub lic and in private upo n all subj ects upon which its own citizens nitht speak; t o hold public meetings upon political affairs, and t o keep and carry aros w her ever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the sa me color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and end angering the peace and safety of the state. It is impossible, it wo uld seem, to believe that the great men of the slaveholding states, who to ok so large a share in framing the Constitution of the United States, and exercised so much influence in procuring its adoption, could have bee n s o forgetful or regardl ess of their own safety and the safety of those who truste d and confided in them. Besi des, this want of foresigh t a nd care would have been utterly inconsistent with the caution displayed in providing for the admission 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 took from the several states the power of naturalization, 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, surrendered by the states, and confided to the federal government. And this powver granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of natturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign government.

156

Page 157 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 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 preceding article, to whom privileges and immunities 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 comprehensive 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 conveyed, 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 privilege 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; and also every description of persons who were not fully reeognised as citizens in the several states. This, upon any fair construetion of the instruments to which we have referred, 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 abundantly sufficient to show this. The two first are particularly worthy of notice, because many of the men who assisted in framing the Constitution, and took an active part in procuring 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 wellc)nsidered 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 another government. But the language of the law above quoted, shows that citizenship at that time was perfectly understood to be conned to the white race; and that they alone constituted the sovereignty in the government. Congress might, as we befor e said, have authorized the naturalization of India ns, because they were aliens and foreigners. But, in their then untutored and savage state, no one would have thought of admitting themn as citizens in a civilized community. And, moreover, the atrocities they had but recently committed, 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 guarding-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 because 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 subjection 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 ablebodied 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 therefore 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: ” That 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 employ, on board of any public or private vessels of the United States, any person or persons except citizens of the United States, or persons of color, natives of the United States.”’ Here the line of distinction is drawn ill express words. Persons of color, in the judgyment 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. t04, sec. 8,) in the charter to the city of Washingtve, 157

Page 158 view page image

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 eulated 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 questionwas 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 Secret ar y 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 belong to other citizens; as, for example, the right to vote, or to hold particular offices; and that aet, 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, can not vote; and when a property qualifica tion is required to vote or hold a particular office, th ose who have not the ne cessary quali fication cannot vote or hold the o ffice, yet they are citizens. So, too, a perso n may be entitled to vote by th e law of the stat e, who is. not a (citizen even of the state itself. And in some of the states of the u n ion foreigner s Iot nat u ralized are allowed to vote. And the state may give the right to free negroes and mulatto e s, but that does no t mak e them citizens of th e state, and still less of the United States. And the pr o vision in the Constitution givting 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 t o anothe r state. For then he be comes subject to the laws of the state in which he lives, and he is no long er a citizen of the sta te from which he r emove d. An d the state in which he r esides may then, unquestionably, determine his statu s 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 imnmuni ties enjoyed by its citizens. But so far as mere rights of person are con c erned, the provision in quest io n is c onfined to citizens of a state w ho are temporarily in an other state without taking up their resi dence there. It gi the vsthe m n o poiticalt rights in the state, a s to voting or holding office, or in amny other respect. For a citizeni of one state has no rig ht to participate in the ic overn ment of another. But if he ranks as at 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 notw ithst,and 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 unmeaning, andl could have no operation; and would give no rights to the citizen wihen in another state. IIe 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 158

Page 159 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. it absolutely certain that the African race Now, it is difficult to imagine how any were not included under the name of citizens question about the citizenship of Darnall, or of a state, and were not in the contemplation his right to sue in that character, can be supof the framers of the Constitution when these posed to have arisen or been decided in that privileges and immunities were provided for case. The fact that he was of African dethe protection of the citizen in other states. scent was first brought before the court upon The case of Legrand v. Darnall (2 Peters, the bill in equity. The suit at law had then 664) has been referred to for the purpose of passed into judgment and award of execution, showing that this court has decided that the and the Circuit Court, as a court of law, had descendant of a slave may sue as a citizen in no longer any authority over it. It was a a court of the United States; but the case valid and legal judgment, which the court itself shows that the question did not arise that rendered it had not the power to reverse and could not have arisen in the case. or set aside. And unless it had jurisdiction It appears from the report, that Darnall as a court of equity to restrain him from was born in Maryland, and was the son of a using its process as a court of law, Darnall, white man by one of his slaves, and his father if he thought proper, would have been at executed certain instruments to manumit him, liberty to proceed on his judgment, and comand devised to him some landed property in pel the payment of the money, although the the state. This property Darnall afterwards.

allegations in the bill were true, and he was sold to Legrand, the appellant, who gave his incapable of making a title. No other court notes for the purchase-money. But becoming could have enjoined him, for certainly no afterwards apprehensive that the appellee had state equity court could interfere in that way not been emancipated according to the laws with the judgment of a Circuit Court of the of Maryland, he refused to pay the notes until United States. he could be better satisfied as to Darnall’s But the Circuit Court as a court of equity right to convey.

Darnall, in the mean time, certainly had equity jurisdiction over its own had taken up his residence in Pennsylvania, judgment as a court of law, without regard and brought suit on the notes, and recovered to the character of the parties; and had not judgment in the Circuit Court for the district only the right, but it was its duty-no matter of Maryland.

who were the parties in the judgment-to The whole proceeding, as appears by the prevent them from proceeding to enforce it by report, was an amicable one; Legrand being execution, if the court was satisfied that the perfectly willing to pay the money, if he could money was not justly and equitably due. obtain a title, and Darnall not wishing him to The ability of Darnall to convey did not depay unless he could make him a good one. In pend upon his citizenship, but upon his title point of fact, the whole proceeding was under to freedom. And if he was free, he could the direction of the counsel who argued the hold and convey property, by the laws of case for the appellee, who was the mutual Maryland, although he was not a citizen. friend of the parties, and confided in by both But if he was by law still a slave, he could of them, and whose only object was to have not. It was therefore the duty of the court, the rights of both parties established byjudi-sitting as a court of equity in the latter case, cial decision in the most speedy and least to prevent him from using its process, as a expensive manner. court of common law, to compel the payment Legrand, therefore, raised no objection to of the purchase-money, when it was evident the jurisdiction of the court in the suit at law, that the purchaser must lose the land. But because he was himself anxious to obtain the if he was free, and could make a title, it was judgment of the court upon his title. Conse-equally the duty of the court not to suffer Lequently, there was nothing in the record grand to keep the land, and refuse the paybefore the court to show that Darnall was of ment of the money, upon the ground that African descent, and the usual judgment and Darnall was incapable of suing or being sued award of execution was entered. And Le-as a citizen in a court of the United States. grand thereupon filed his bill on the equity The character or citizenship of the parties side of the Circuit Court, stating that Darnall had no connexion with the question ofjuriswas born a slave, and had not been legally diction, and the matter in dispute had no relaemancipated, and could not therefore take the tion to the citizenship of Darnall. Nor is land devised to him, nor make Legrand a such a question alluded to in the opinion of good title; and praying an injunction to re-the court. strain Darnall from proceeding to execution Besides. we are by no means prepared to say on the judgment, which was granted. Dar-that there are not many cases, civil as well as nall answered, averring in his answer that he criminal, in which a Circuit Court of the Unix was a free man, and capable of conveying a ted States may exercise jurisdiction, although good title.

Testimony was taken on this! one of the African race is a party; that broad point, and at the hearing the Circuit Court question is not before the court. The question was of opinion that Darnall was a free man with which we are now dealing is, whether a and his title good, and dissolved the injunc-person of the African race can be a citizen of tion and dismissed the bill; and that decree the United States, and become thereby entitled was affirmed here, upon the appeal of Le-to a special privilege, by virtue of his title to grand. that character, and which, under the Consdt 15V

Page 160 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tution, no one but a citizen can claim. It is manifest that the case of Legrand and Darnall 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 construction 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 manumitted 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 U ni te d States; and the state officers and tribunals woul d b e compelled, by the paramount authority of the Constit uti on, to r eceive him and treat him a s on e of its ci tizens, exempt from t he laws and police of th e state in rela tion to a person of th a t description, and allow him to enjoy all the r ights and privileges of citizenship, without respect to the laws of Maryland, alethough such laws were deemed by it absolutely essential to its own safety. The only two p rovisions which point to them and include them, treat them as property, and make it t he d uty of the government to pro tec t it; no other p owe r, in re la tion to this r ace, is to be found in the Con stitution; and as it is a government of specia l dele g ated p owers, no au thor ity b eyo nd these two provisions can be constitutionally exerci s ed. The governmen t of the United States had no right to interfer e for any other purpose but that of protecting the rights of t he ow ner, leaving it altogether with the several states to deal with this race, whether em ancip ated or not, as each stat e may think justice, humanity, and the interests 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 relation 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 Constitution 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 inadmissible 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 same rigrhts 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. An~y other rule of construction would abrogate the judical character of this cou rt, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion o r passion of t he day. This cour t w as not created by the Constitution f o r suc h purposes. Higher and grave r trusts have been confided to it, and it must no t falter in the path of duty. What the construction was a t that time, we think can hardly admit of doubt. We have the language of the Dec laration of Independence and of the Arti cle s of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution its e l f; we have the legislation of the different states, befor e, a b out th e t ime, and since, the Consttitution was adopted; we have the legiso lation th i of Congr ess, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; an d w e have the c onstant and uniform action of the execu ti ve department, all concurr ing together, and leading to the same result. And if anythi ng in relation t o the cons truction of the Constitution can be reoarde d as settle d, it is that whi c h we now give to the word “citizen” and the word ” people.” And upon a full and careiful consideration of the subject, the court is of ofpin ion, that, upon the facts stated in the plea in a batement, 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 Circuit 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 endeavors to make out his title to freedom and citizenship by showing that they were taken by their owner to certain places, hereinafter mentioned, 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, therefore, the acts done by his owner did not make them free persons, he is still a slave, and certainly incapable of suing in the character of a citizen. The principle of 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 160

Page 161 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. ment against him and in favor of the defend-for this error. It exercises its proper and ap ant for costs, is, like that on the plea in abate-propriate jurisdiction over the judgment and ment, erroneous, and the suit ought to have proceedings of the Circuit Court, as they appear been dismissed by the Circuit Court for want upon the record brought up by the writ of error. of jurisdiction in that court. The correction of one error in the court But, before we proceed to examine this part below does not deprive the appellate court of of the case, it may be proper to notice an ob-the power of examining further into the record, jection taken to the judicial authority of this and correcting any other material errors which court to decide it; and it has been said, that may have been committed by the inferior court. as this court has decided against the jurisdic-There is certainly no rule of law-nor any tion of the Circuit Court on the plea in abate-practice-nor any decision of a court-which ment, it has no right to examine any question even questions this power in the appellate tri presented by the exception; and that anything bunal. On the contrary, it is the daily prac it may say upon that part of the case will be tice of this court, and of all appellate courts extra judicial, and mere obiter dicta. where they reverse the judgment of an infe This is a manifest mistake; there can be no rior court for error, to correct by its opinions doubt as to the jurisdiction of this court to re-whatever errors may appear on the record ma vise the judgment of a Circuit Court, and to terial to the case; and they have always held reverse it for any error apparent on the record, it to be their duty to do so where the silence whether it be the error of giving judgment in of the court might lead to misconstruction or a case over which it had no jurisdiction, or future controversy, and the point has been ainy other material error; and this too whether rclied on by either side, and argued before the there is a plea in abatement or not.

court. The objection appears to have arisen from In the case before us, we have already de confounding writs of error to a state court, cided that the Circuit Court erred in deciding with writs of error to a Circuit Court of the that it had jurisdiction upon the facts adUnited States.

Undoubtedly, upon a writ of mitted by the pleadings. And it appears error to a state court, unless the record shows that, in the further progress of the case, it a case that gives jurisdiction, the case must be acted upon the erroneous principle it had dedismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court. cided on the pleadings, and gave judgment And if it is dismissed on that ground, we have for the defendant, where, upon the facts adno right to examine and decide upon any ques-mitted in the exception, it had no jurisdiction tion presented by the bill of exceptions, or any We are at a loss to understand upon what other part of the record. But writs of error principle of law, applicable to appellate juristo a state court, and to a Circuit Court of the diction, it can be supposed that this court has United States, are regulated by differentlaws, not judicial authority to correct the lastand stand upon entirely different principles. mentioned error, because they had before And in a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the corrected the former; or by what process of United States, the whole record is before this reasoning it can be made out, that the error court for examination and decision; and if the of an inferior court in actually pronouncing sum in controversy is large enough to give judgment for one of the parties, in a case in jurisdiction, it is not only the right, but it is which it had no jurisdiction, cannot be looked the judicial duty of the court, to examine the into or corrected by this court, because we wlhole case as presented by the record; and if have decided a similar question presented in it appears upon its face that any material error the pleadings. The last point is distinctly or errors have been committed by the court presented by the facts contained in the plainbelow, it is the duty of this court to reverse tiff’s owvn bill of exceptions, which he himself the judgment and remand the case. And cer-l)rings here by this writ of error. It was the tainly an error in passing a judgment upon point which chiefly occupied the attention of the merits in favor of either party, in a case the counsel on both sides in the argumentwhich it was not authorized to try, and over and the judgment which this court must renwhich it had no jurisdiction, is as grave an der upon both errors is precisely the same. error as a court can commit. It must, in each of them, exercise jurisdiction The plea in abatement is not a plea to the over the judginent, anid reverse it for the jurisdiction of this court, but to the jurisdic-errors committed by the court below; and tivn of the Oircuit Court. And it appears by issue a mai,ndate to the Circuit Court to conthe record before us, that the Circuit Court form its judgment to the opinion pronouncedl coimmitted an error in deciding that it had.ju-byl this court, by dismiusing the case for walnt risdiction upon the facts in the case a(ld-iitted of juris(liction in tihe Circuit Court. This is by the pleadings. It is the duty of the appel-tlh(
c()nstant and iilv Liable practice of this L;tt trib)unal to correct this error, hut thit c;,urt, +here it reverses a judgiment fir want could not be done by dlismissingr the cane f,)r of juriisdiction in the Circuit Court. want ofjurisdiction herefor that w ould leas-e It cani sca rcely 1)e n~ecessary to pursue such the erroneous judgmellt in full force, and the a questio)n further. The want of jurisdiction in~jured party without remedy. Alld the ap-in the co)urt below may appear on the record peliate court therefore exercises the power fir without any plea in abatement.

This is which alone appellate courts are constituted, familiarly the case where a court of chancery by reversing the judgment of the court below has exercised jurisdiction in a case where tho 11 161

Page 162 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. plaintiff had a plain al4 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 exercised jurisdiction in a case belonging exclusively to a court of common law. In these cases there is no plea in abatement. And for the same reason, and upon the same principles, 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 averments of citizenship, that the court had jurisdiction. 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 apear by the transcript that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction. The case before us still more strongly imposes upon this court the duty of examining whether the court below has n ot c ommit te d an error, in taking jurisdiction and giv ing 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 affirmatively 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 dismnissed 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 pecuniary 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 court in sanctioning an error in the judgment which is patent on the record, and which, if sanctioned, might be drawn into precedent, and lead to serious mischief and injustice in some future suit.

Wre 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 o f er ror, is this: The plaintiff was a negro slave, belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army ofthe United States. In the year 1834, he took the plaintiff from the state of Missouri to the militar y post at Rock Island, in the state of llinois, a nhe d held hi m ther e as a slave unti l the month of April o r May, 1836. At th e tim e last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed th e plaintiff fro m said military p os t at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mis sissippi ri ver, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States of France, and s ituat e nor th o f the latitude of thirtys ix dfe grees thirty minutes north, and north of the state of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson h eld the plaintiff in s lavery at said Fort Snelling from said last-ment ione d date until the y ear 1898. In the year 1835, Iarriet, who is named in the seco nd count of th e plaintiff’s declaration, was the negro slave of Maj or Taliaferro, wh o 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 a s hereinbefore stated, and kept her there as a slave unti l th e year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slatve, at said Fort Sne llin g, 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 consen t of Dr. Emerson, who then c laimed to be their master and owne r. Eliza and Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiffs 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 IIarriet, 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 defendant, 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 U~nited 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? W~e proceed to examine the first question. The act of Congress, upon which the plain tiff relies, declares that slavery and involux~ 162

Page 163 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. t.ory 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 thirtysix 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 ourt to declare it void and inoperative, and ineapable 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 tress upon that article in the Constitution which confers on Congress the power to “dis)ose of and make all needful rules and regula’ions respecting the territory or other property )elonging to the United States;” but, in the iud(gment of the court, that provision has no )earing on the present controversy, and the )owver there given, whatever it may be, is lonfined, and was intended to be confined, t o he territory which at that time belonged to, ,r was claimed by, the United States, and vas within their boundaries as settled by the r,eaty with Great Britain, and can have no ifluence upon a territory afterwards acquired roil a foreign government.

It was a special ,ronvision for a known and particular territory, uld to meet a present emergency, and nothing .-ore. A brief summary of the history of the times, s well as the careful and measured terms in ‘hich the article is framed, will show the orrectness of this proposition. It will be remembered that, from the com:encement of the Revolutionary war, serious ifficulties existed between the states, in relaion to the disposition of large and unsettled :rritories which were included in the char-o :red limits of some of the states. And some f the other states, and more especially Mary-rnd, which had no unsettled lands, insisted o lat as the unoccupied lands, if wrested from: .reat Britain, would owe their preservation o ) the common purse and the common sword, ie money arising from them ought to be ap-c lied in just proportion among the several o ates to pay the expenses of the war, and ] ,ight not to be appropriated to the use of the -ate in whose chartered limits they might ippen to lie, to the exclusion of the other ntes, by whose combined efforts and common ‘pense the territory was defended and preewrved against the claim of the British goernmen t. These difficulties caused much uneasiness o iring the war, while the issue was in some sE Free doubtful, and the future boundaries a ‘the United States yet to be defined by eaty, if we achieved our independence. t The majority of the Congress of the Con-E aeration obviously concurred in opinion e ith the state )f Maryland, and desired to w obtain from the states which claim ed i t a ces - sion of this territory, in order that Congress might raise money on this security to carry on the war. Thi ae rs appears by the resolution passed on the 6th of SIeptemler, 1780, stro ngly urging the states to cede these lands to th’e 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 Coni gress pledged itself, that if the lands were ceded, as recomnmended by the resolution ablove men tioned, they should be disp ose d o f 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 righIits of sovereignty, and freedom, and independence, as other states. But these difficulties became much more serious after peace took place, and the boundaries of the United States were established. Every state, at that time, felt severely the pressure of its war debt; but;n 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 before them many years of heavy and burdensome 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, find fears were entertained that it might dissolve the Confederation 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 northwest 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 exciting controversy, and to enable the Congress of that time to dispose of the lands, and appropriate 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 mole conveniently governed by the United States. The example of Virginia was soon afterwards followed by other states, and, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, all of the states, similarly situated, had ceded their nappropriated landls, except North Carolina and Georgia. The main object for which these cessions were desired and made, vatas 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 163

Page 164 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 property, 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. T”hev t were about to dissolve this federative Union, t and to surrender a portion of their independ, ent sovereignty to a nes 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 implie(l 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 i n 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 thin gs under the g uardian - 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 ill common by the states, and to give to that government power to apply it to lands shoul d b e sold. It is necessary to bring t his part of t he h istory of these cessions thus distinctly into view, because it will enable us the b etter to comprehend the phraseology of the article in the Constitution, so often referred to in the argument. Undoubted ly the pow ers of sovereignty and th e eminent domain were ceded with the l and. T his was essential, in order to make it effectual, and to accomplish its objects. But it must b e remembe red that, at that time, there was no government of the United States in existence with enumerated and limited owers; w hat was then called the United States, were thirteen separate, sovereign, independent states, which had entered into a league or confederation for their mutual protection and advantage, and the Congress of the United States was composed of the representatives 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 confederation had none of the attributes of sovereignty 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 common concern. It was this Congress that accepted the cession from Virginia. They had no power to accept it under the Articles of Confederation. But they had an undoubted right, as independent 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 territory 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 governed;* 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 conmederation or league of the states in their sep?arate sovereign character continuea to I eait. 164

Page 165 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. the olbjects for which it had been destined by I to receive from the confederated states. And miutual agreement among the states before if this be true as to this property, it must be their leag(ue was dissolved. It applied only equally true and limited as to the territory, to the property which the states held in com-which is so carefully and precisely coupled iimos at that time, and has no reference what-with it-and like it, referred to as property ever to any territory or other property which in the power granted. The concluding words the new sovereignty might afterwards itself of the clause appear to render this construcacquire. tion irresistible; for, after the provisions we The language used in the clause, the ar-have mentioned, it proceeds to say, “that rangemnent and combination of the powers, nothing in the Constitution shall be so cenand the somewhat unusual phraseology it strued as to prejudice any claims of the United uses, when it speaks of the political power to States, or of any particular state.” be exercised in the government of the terri-Now, as we have before said, all of the tory, all indicate the design and meaning of states, except North Carolina and Georgia, the clause to be such as we have mentioned. had made the cession before the Constitution It does not speak of any territory, nor of ter-was adopted, according to the resolution of ritories, but uses language which, according Congress of October 10, 1780. The claims of to its legitimate meaning, points to a particu-other states, that the unappropriated lands in lar thing. The power is given in relation these two states should be applied to the comonly to the territory of the United States; that mon benefit, in like manner was still insisted is, to a territory then in existence, and then on, but refused by the states. And this memknown or claimed as the territory of the Uni-her of the clause in question evidently applies ted States. It begins its enumeration of to them, and can apply to nothing else. It )powers by that of disposing, in other words, was to exclude the conclusion that either making sale of the lands, or raising money party, by adoptilln the Constitution, would from them, which, as we have already said, surrender what they deemed their rights. was the main object of the cession, and which And when the latter provision relates so obis accordingly the first thing provided for in viously to the unappropriated lands not yet the article. It then gives the power which ceded by the states, and the first clause makes was necessarily associated with the disposi-provision for those then actually ceded, it is tion and sale of the lands; that is, the power impossible, by any just rule of construction, of making needful rules and regulations to make the first provision general, and exrespecting the territory. And whatever contend to all territories which the federal govstruction may now be given to these words, ernment might in any way afterwards acevery one, we think, must admit that they are quire, when the latter is plainly and unequinot the words usually employed by statesmen vocally confined to a particular territory in giving sutpreme power of legislation. They which was a part of the same controversy, are certainly very unlike the words used in and involved in the same dispute, and dethe power granted to legislate over territory pended upon the same principles. The union which the new government might afterwards of the two provisions in the same clause shows itself obtain by cession from a state, either for that they were kindred subjects; and that the its scat of government, or for forts, magazines, whole clause is local, and relates only to lands arsenals, dock yards, and other needful build-within the limits of the United States, which ings.

had been or then were claimed by a state; And the same power of making needful and that no other territory was in the mind rules respecting the territory is, in precisely of the framers of the Constitution, or intended the same language, applied to the other pro-to be embraced in it. Upon any other conperty belonging to the United States-asso- struction it would be inmpossible to account ciating the power over the territory in this for the insertion of the last provision in the respect with the power over movable or per-place where it is found, or to comprehend why soniial property-that is, the ships, arms, and or for what object it was associated with the iiiunitions of war, which then belonged in previous provision. common to the state sovereignties. And it This view of the subject is confirmed by the will hardly be said that this power, in rela-manner in which the present government of tion to the last-mentioned objects, was deemed the United States dealt with the subject as necessary to be thus specially given to the soon as it came into existence. It must be new government, in order to authorize it to borne in mind that the same states that make needful rules and regulations respecting formed the Confederation also formed aind the ships it might itself build, or arms and adopted the new government, to which so munitions of war it might itself manufacture large a portion of their former sovereign pow or provide for the public service. ers were surrendered. It must also be borne No one, it is believed, would think a mo-in mind that all of these same states which mert of deliving the power of Congress to had then ratified the new Constitution were make needful rules and regulations in rela-represented in the Congress which passed the tion to property of this kind from this clause first law for the government of this territory; of the Constitution. Nor can it, upon any and many of the members of that legislative fair construction, be applied to any property body had leen deputies from the states under but that which the new government was about the Confederation had united in adopting the 165

Page 166 view page image

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 tiall y 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 associated in the same clause with the other property 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 powner over persons and property, such as the confederated states might exercise in their common property, it should be difficult to account for the phraseology used, when corotsared with other grants of power and also for its association with the other provisions in the same clause. The Constitution has always been remarkable for the felicity of its arrangement of dif ferent subjects, and the perspicuit y and atp propriateness of the language it uses. But if this clause is const r u ed to extend to territory acquired by the present government from a foreign nat ion, o utsi de of th e 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 l ands b elonging to the sovereignty w hich m ight be fou nd within it; and if thit was necessary, whyr the grant of this power should precede the power to le gislate over it and establish a government there; and still mo r e 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 i t migh t acquire there.

For the words other property, nece s - sarily, by every known rule of interpretation, must mean property of a different description from territory or land. And t he difficult y would perhaps be insurmountable in endea voring to account for the last member of the sentence, which pr ovides that “nothing in this Constitution s hall be so constru ed as to preju dice any claims of the United States or any particular s tate,” or to say h ow any particu lar state could have claims in or to a ter rit ory ceded by a foreign government, or to account for associating this provision with the pre ced ing p rovisions of the clause, w ith which it would appear to have no connexion. The words ” n eedful 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 (If Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States. The words ” rules and reg,ulations” are usually employed in the Constitution in s,eaking of some particular specified powner wthich it means to confer on the government, and not, as ase have seen, when granting general powers of legislation. As, for example, in thle particular power to Congress ” to make rules for the gov ernment and regulation of the land and naval forces, or the particular and specific power to regulate commerce;” ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization;“2 ” to coin 166

Page 167 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. federated states. The language is: “and all treaties made, or which shall be 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 govvernment 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 power over territory afterwards acquired by the federal gover nment. We put aside, therefore, any argumenet, drawn from precedents, showing the extent of the power which the general government exercised over slavery in this territory, as altogether inapplicable to the case befior e 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 misrepresents 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 whichl 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 empowers 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 money and regulate t he valu e there of.” And to construe the words of which we are speaking as a general and unlimited gra nt of sovereignty over territories which the government mig ht 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. B ut if co nfined t o a particular territory, in which a government and laws had already been established, but which would require some alteration s to adapt it to the new government, the words are peculiarly applic abl e and approp riate for th a t purpo se. The necessity of this special provision in rel ation to proper t y and the rights or property held in common by the confederated states, is illustrated b y the firs t clause of the sixth article. This clause provides that ” all debts, contracts, and engagements entered into before the adop tion of this Constitution, shall be as valid aga inst the United States under this government as under the C
onfederation.” This provision, like the one under consideration, was indispensable if the new Co nst itution was adopted. The new government was not a me re change in a dynasty, or in a form of g overnment, leaving the nation or sover eignty the same, a nd clo th e d with all the rights, and bound b y all the obligat ions, of the p re ceding one. But, whe n the present United States came into existence under the new government, it was a new political body, a new nation, then for the first tim e t aking its place in the family of nations. It took nothing by succession from t he C
onfeder a tion. It had no r ig ht, a s its successor, to any property or rights of property which it had acquired, and was not liable fo r a ny of its obligations. It was evidently v iew ed in t his light by the framers of the Constitution. And as the severa l states would cease to exist in their former confederated char acter upon the adop ti on of the Constitution, and could not, in that character, again assemble together, special provisions were indispensabl e to transfer to the new government the property and rights which at that time they held in common; and at the same time to authorize it to lay taxes and appropriate money to pay the common debt which they had contracted; and this power could only be gin en to it by special provisions in the C on s t ttitution. Thae lause in relati on to t he territory end other property of the United States provided for the first, and the clause last luoted provided for the other.

They have no,onnexion with the general powers and rig,hts of sovereignty delegated to the new government, and can neither enlarge nor diminish them. They were inserted to meet a present emergency, and not to regulate its powers as a gov ernment. Indeed, a similar provision was deemed necessary, in relation to treaties mlade by the Confederation; and when in the clause next suceeeding 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 167

Page 168 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK cision upon it was not required by the case before the court. There is another sentence in the opinion which has been commented on, which even in a still more striking manner shows how one may mislead or be misled by taking out a sin gle sentence from the opinion of a court, and leaving out of view what precedes and follows. It is in page 546, near the close of the opinion, in which the court say: ” In legislating for them” (the territories of the United States), “Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of a state government.”

And it is said, that as a state may unquestionably prohibit slavery within its territory, this st-en tence de cides i n effect that Congre ss ma y lo the same in a ter ritory of th e Unit e d States, exercising there the powers of a state, as well as the power of the general governmenit. The examination of this passage in the case referred to, would be more appropriate when we come to consider in another part of this opinion what power Congress can constitution ally exercise in a territory, over the rights of person or rights of property of a citizen. But, as it is in the same case with the passage we have before commented on, we dispose of it now, as it will save the court from the neces sity of referring again to the case. And it will be seen upon reading the page in which this sentence is found, that it has no reference whatever to the power of Congress over rights of person or rights of property-l)ut relates altogether to the power of establishing judi cial tribunals to administer the laws coinstitu tionally passed, and defining the jurisdiction they may exercise. The law of Congress establishing a territo rial government in Florida, provided that the legislature of the territory should have legis lative powers over ” all rightful objects of le gislation; but no law should be valid which was inconsistent with the laws and Constitu tion of the United States.”

Under the power thus conferred, the legis lature of Florida passed an act, erecting a tri bunal at Key West to decide cases of salvage. And in the case of which we are speaking, the question arose whether the territorial legislature could be authorized by Congress to establish such a tribunal, with such powers; and one of the parties, among other objections, insisted that Congress could not under the Constitution authorize the legislature of the territory to establish such a tribunal with such powers, but that it must be established by Congress itself; and that a sale of cargo made under its order, to pay salvors, was void, as made without leg,al authority, and passed no property to the purchaser. It is in disposing of this objection that the sentence relied on occurs, and the court begin that part of the opinion by stating with great precision the point which they are about to decide. They say: ” It has been contended that by the Constitution of the United States, the judicial powter of the United States extends 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 Lnd jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable conse quence of the right to acquire territory. W7iichever 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 righlt to acquire.

They do decide that the p)w-er in Congress is unquestionable, and in this we entirely concur, and nothing will be f)ound in this opinion to the contrary. The power stands firmly on the latter alternative put by the court-that is, as “the inevitable c(;iisequence of the right to acquire territory.” And what still milore learly demonstrates that the court d d not ulea to decide the question, but leave it o)eCii for future conside ration, is the fict that t’ie c’l~e was decided in the Circuit Court by MIr. Just ice Johnson, and his decision was affinrmed by the Supreme Court. Ilis opinion’tt the circuit is given in full in a note to the case, and in that opinion he states, in explicit terms, that the clause of the Constitution applies only to the territory then within the limits of the United States, and not to Florida, which had been acquired by cession from Spain. This part of his opin ion will be found in the note in page 517 of the report. But he does not dissent from the opinion of the Supreme Court; thereby show img that, in his judgment, as well as that of the court, the case before them did not call for a decision on that particular point, and the court abstained from deciding it. And in a part of its opinion subsequent to the passage we have quoted, where the court speak of the legislative power of Congress in Florida, they still speak with the same reserve. And in page 546, speaking of the power of Congress to authorize the territorial legislature to esta blish courts there, the court say: “They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or ill virtue of that clause which enables Coingress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.“r It has been said that the construction given to this clause is new, anil now for the first time brou lit f rward. Thie case of which we are speakiing, and which has been so much discussed, show 5s that tlie fact is otherwise. It shows that precisely the samlie q1uestion came before Mir. Justice Jo)hnsoni, at his circuit, thirty years ar )a as fully considered by him,t and the samine construction giv en to the clause in the Constitution which is now given by this court. And that upon an appeal from his decision the same question was brought before this court, but was not decided because a de i 168

Page 169 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. to all eases of admiralty and maritime juris-government. The case before us depends uipon diction; and that the whole of the judicialI other and different provisions of the Constitu power must be vested’in one Supreme Court, tion, altogether separate and apart from the and in such inferior courts as Congress shall one above mentioned. The question as to from time to time ordain and establish.’ what courts Congress may ordain or establish Ilence it has been argued that Congress in a territory to administer laws which the cannot vest admiralty jurisdiction in courts Constitution authorizes it to pass, and what created by the territorial legislature.” laws it is or is not authorized by the Consti And, after thus clearly stating the point tution to pass, are widely different-are regu before them, and which they were about to lated by different and separate articles of the decide, they proceed to show that these ter-Constitution, and stand upon different princi ritorial tribunals were not constitutional pies. And we are satisfied that no one who courts, but merely legislative, and that Con-reads attentively the page in Peters’ Reports gress might, therefore, delegate the power to to which we have referred, can suppose that the territorial government to establish the the attention of the court was drawn for a court in question; and they conclude that moment to the question now before this court, part of the opinion in the following words: or that it meant in that case to say that Con “Although admiralty jurisdiction can be ex-gress had a right to prohibit a citizen of the ercised in the states in those courts only United States from taking anypropertywhich which are established in pursuance of the he lawfully held into a territory of the United third article of the Constitution, the same States. limitation does not extend to the territories. This brings us to examine by what proviIn legislating for them, Congress exercises sion of the Constitution the present federal the combined powers of the general and state government, under its delegated and restricted governments.”

powers, is authorized to acquire territory out Thus it will be seen by these quotations side of the original limits of the United States, from the opinion, that the court, after stating and what powers it may exercise therein over the question it was about to decide in a man-the person or property of a citizen of the ner too plain to be misunderstood, proceeded United States, while it remains a territory, to decide it, and announced, as the opinion of and until it shall be admitted as one of the the tribunal, that in organizing the judicial states of the Union. department of the government in a territory There is certainly no power given by the of the United States, Congress does not act Constitution to the federal government to under, and is not restricted by, the third arti-establish or maintain colonies bordering on cle in the Constitution, and is not bound, in a the United States or at a distance, to be ruled territory, to ordain and establish courts in and governed at its own pleasure; nor to enwhich the judges hold their offices during large its territorial limits in any way, except good behavior, but may exercise the discre-by the admission of new states. That power tionary power which a state exercises in esta-is plainly given; and if a new state is adblishing its judicial department, and reg,ula-mitted, it needs no further legislation by Conting the jurisdiction of its courts, and may gress, because the Constitution itself defines authorize the territorial government to esta-the relative rights and powers, and duties of blish, or may itself establish, courts in which the state, and the citizens of the state, and the judges hold their offices for a term of years the federal government.

But no power is only; and may vest in them judicial power given to acquire a territory to be held and upon subjects confided to the judiciary of the governed permanently in that character. United States. And in doing this, Congress And indeed the power exercised by Conundoubtedly exercises the combined power of gress to acquire territory and establish a the general and a state government. It exer-government there, according to its own uncises the discretionary power of a state govern-limited discretion, was viewed with great ment in authorizing the establishment of a jealousy by the leading statesmen of the day. court in which the judges hold their appoint-And in the Federalist, (No. 38), written by lients for a term of years only, and not during Mr. Madison, he speaks of the acquisition of good behavior; and it exercises the power of the Northwestern Territory by the confedethe general government in investing that court rated states, by the cession from Virginia, with admiralty jurisdiction, over which the and the establishment of a government there, general government had exclusive jurisdic-as an exercise of power not warranted by the tion in the territory. Articles of Confederation, and dangerous to No one, we presume, will question the cor-the liberties of the people. And he urges the rectness of that opinion; nor is there anything adoption of the Constitution as a security and in conflict with it in the opinion now given. safeguard against such an exercise of power. The point decided in the case cited has no re-We do not mean, however, to question the lation to the question now before the court. power of Congress in this respect.

The power That depended on the construction of the third to expand the territory of the United States, article of the Constitution, in relation to the by the admission of new states, is plainly judiciary of the United States, and the power given; and in the construction of this power which Congress might exercise in a territory by all the departments of the government, it in org~vizing the judicial department of the has been held to authorize the acquisition o! 16

Page 170 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ted States, until it was settled and inhabited by a civilized community capable of selfgovernment, and in a condition to be admitted on equal terms with the other states as a memb er of the Union.

But, as we have before said, it was acquired by the general government, as the representative and trustee of the people of the United States, and it must therefore be held in that character for their common and equal benefit; for it was the people of the several states, acting through their agent and representative, the federal government, who in fact acquired the territory in question, and the government holds it for their common use until it shall be associated with the other states as a member of the Union. But until that time arrives, it is undoubte d ly necessary that som e g ov ernment should be established, i n order to organ ize society, and to protect the inhabitants in their persons and property; and as the people of the United States could act in this matter only through the government which represented them, and through which they spoke and acted when the territory was obtained, it was not only within the scope of its powers, but it was its duty to pass such laws and establish such a government as would enable those, bywhose authority they acted, to reap the advantages anticipated from its acquisition, and to gather there a population which would enable it to assume the position to which it was destined among the states of the Union. The power to acquire necessarily carries with it the power to preserve and apply to the purposes for which it was acquired. The form of government to be established necessarily rested in the discretion of Congress. It was their duty to establish the one that would be best suited for the protection and security of the citizens of the United States, and other inhabitants who might be authorized to take up their abode there, and that must always depend upon the existing condition of the territory, as to the number and character of its inhabitants, and their situation in the territory. In some cases a government, consisting of persons appointed by the federal government, would best subserve the interests of the territory, when the inhabitants were few and scattered, and new to one another. In other instances, it would be more advisable to commit the powers of selfgovernment to the people-who had settled in the territory, as being the most competent to determine what w’as best for their own interests. But some form of civil authority would be absolutely necessary to organize and preserve civilized society, and prepare it to become a state; and what is the best form must always depend on the condition of the territory at the time, and the choice of tho mode must depend upon the exercise of a discretionary power by Congress, acting; within the scope of its constitutional authority, and not infringing upon the rights of person or rights of property of the citizen who might go there to reside, or for any other lawful purpose. It was acquired by the exercise of this territory, not fi. for admission at the time, but to b e ad mit ted as soon as its population and situation w ould entitle it to admission. It is acquired to becom e a state, and not to be held as a colony an d governed by Congress with absolu te authority; a nd a s the propri ety of admvittine a new state is commi tted to the srind discretion of Condress, the power to acquire territory for that purpose, to be held by the United States until it is in a suitable c ond ition to becom e a s tat e upon an equal footing wit h the o ther states, must rest upon the same discretion. It i s a question for the political department of the g overnment, mand not the judicial; and whatever the political department of the government shall recownise as w ithin the limits of the United States, the judicial dtepartment is also bou nd to recognise, and to admd iister in it the laws of the United State s, so far as they apply, and to ma intain inse the rritory the au t hority and rights of the government, and als o the pers ona l right s an d rights of propert y of individual citizens, as secured by the Constitution. All we mean to sa y on this point is, that, as there is no ex press regulation in the Constitution defining thie power which the general government may exercise over the person or property of a citi zen in a territory thus acquired, the court must necessarily look to the provisions and prilciples of the Constitution, and its distribu tion of pm owers, f or the rules and principle s by which its decision must be gover ned. Takint t his rule to guid e us, it may be sa fely as sumed that citizens of the United States who mint e t o rate to a territory belonging to the people of the United States, cannot be ruled as mere colonists, dependent upon the will of the gene ral government, and to be governed by any laws it may think proper to impose. The principle upon which our governments rest, and upon which alone they cont inu e to exi st, is the union of states, sovereign and independ ent within ha w bs their own limits in their internal and domestic concerns, and bound together as one people by a general g o vernment, possess ingt certa in enumerated a nd re stricted powers, delew ated to it by the th e people of the several sthtes, and exercising supreme authority with in the scope of the powers granted to it throughout the dominion of the so United States. A powor, theref,)re, in the general government t o obta in andi hold colonies a nd dependent terr itori es, ov er wh ich they might legislate without restriction, would be inconsistent with i ts ow n existen ce in i ts pr esent form. What ev er it acqu ire t acquirecquires for the benefit of the people of the several states who created it. It is their trustee acting for them, and charged w ith the duty of promoting the interests of the whole people of the Union in the exercise of the pourers specifically granted. Act the time when the territory in question was obtained by cession from France, it con tained no population fit to be associated to gether and admitted as a state; and it there fore was absolutely necessary to hold posses sion of it, as a territory belonging to the Uni d s d h f e 0 e I e I e I 170

Page 171 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY’S OPINION. 1 Congress could by law quarter a s,’:E;lir in *a house in a territory without tlc c t),.(“,it of t the owner, in time of peace; liar il tilde i,E war, but in a manner prescril)e 1, lw-. icior d could they by law forfeit then pri lCty of a citizen in a territory who was c ll c of treason, for a longer period than tlc life of I the person convicted; nor take I’iva 0 pr )) erty for public use without just conipcnratioin. The powers over person and )Ii[}t1Xy of -
which we speak are not only not gira:.ited to r Congress, but are in express terms denied, i and they are forbidden to exercise theim. , And this prohibition is not confined to the a states, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the ConstiL tution gives it power to legislate, including r those portions of it remaining under territot rial government, as well as that covered by states. It is a total absence of power everyr where within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a territory, d so far as these rights are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the states, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the general government might attempt, under the plea of implied or incit dental powers. And if Congress itself cannot do this if it is beyond the powers conferred I on the federal government-it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not author, ize a territorial government to exercise them. -

It could confer no power on any local govern ment, established by its authority, to violate the provisions of the Constitution. It seems, however, to be supposed, that - there is a difference between property in a l slave and other property, and that different rules may be applied to it in expounding the Constitution of the United States. And the laws and usages of nations, and the writings of eminent jurists upon the relation of mnaster t and slave and their mutual rights and duties, and the powers which governnlents may exerc ise over it, have been dwelt upon in the ar) gument. But in considering the question before us, it must be borne in mind that there is no law of nations standing between the people of the United States and their government, and in terfering with their relation to each other. ; The powers of the government, and the rights a of the citizen under it, are positive and prac tical regulations plainly written down. The , people of the United States have delegated to L it certain enumerated powers, and forbidden * it to exercise others. It has no power over , the person or property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States have granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the re lations of master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the government, or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognises the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of prot perty and other property owned by a citizen, discretion, and it must be held and governed in like manner, until it is fitted to be a state. But the power of Congress over the person or property of a citizen can never be a mere discretionary power under our Constitution an d fo rm of governmen t. T he p owers of the government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and plainly defined bv the Constitution itself. And when the territory becomes a part of the United States, the federal government enters into possession in the character impressed upon it by those who created it. It enters upon it with its powers over the citizen strictly defined, and limited by the Constitution, from which it derives its own existence, and by virtue of which alone it continues to exist and act as a g:Ivernment and sovereignty. It has no power of any kind beyond it; and it cannot, when it enters a territory of the United States, put off its character, and assume discretionary or despotic powers which the Constitution has denied to it.

It cannot create for itself a new character separated from the citizens of the United States, and the duties it owes them under the provisions of the Constitution. The territory being a part of the United States, the government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out; and the federal government can exercise no power over his person or property, beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved. A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition. For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the general government; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular territoryr of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due !rocess of law.

So, too, it will hardlyr be contended that I li7 I

Page 172 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. )no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a righlt to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protecuon of private property against the encroachments of the govern ment. Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every state that might desire it, for twenty years. And the government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words-too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights. Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident. We have so far examined the case, as it stands under the Constitution of the United States, and the powers thereby delegated to the federal government. But there is another point in the case which depends on state power and state law. And it is contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that hlie is made free by being taken to Rock Island, in the state of Illinois, independently of his residence in the territory of the United States; and beingff so made free, he was not again reduced to a state of slavery by being brought back to Missouri. Our notice of this part of the case will be very brief; for the principle on which it depends was decided in this court, upon much consideration, in the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, reported in 10th Howard, 82. In that case, the slaves had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio, with the consent of the owner, and afterwards brought back to Kentucky. And this court held that their statues or condition, as free or slave, depended upon the laws of Kentucky, when they were brought back into that state, and not of Ohio; and that this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgm ent of a state court upon its opnn laws.

Allis was the point directly before the court, and the decision th at th is court had not jurisdiction turned upon it, as will be seen by the r eport of the case. So in this case. As Scot t was a slave when taken into the state of Illinois by his oneliitr, and was there held as such, and brought bac, in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois. It has, however, been urged in the argument, that by the laws of Missouri he was free on his return, and that this case, therefore, cannot be governed by the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, where it appeared, by the laws of Kentucky, that the plaintiffs continued to be slaves on their return from Ohio. But whatever doubts or opinions may, at one time, have been entertained upon this subject, we are satisfied, upon a careful examination of all the cases decided in the state courts of Missouri referred to, that it is now firmnly settled by the decisions of the highest court in the state, that Scott and his family upon their return were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of the defendant; and that the Circuit Court of the United States had no jurisdiction, when, by the laws of the state, the plaintiff was a slave, and not a citizen. Moreover, the plaintiff, it appears, brought a similar action against the defendant in the state court of Missouri, claiming the freedom of himself and his family upon the samne grounds and the same evidence upon which he relies in the case before the court. The case was carried before the Supreme Court of the state; was fully argued there; and that court decided that neither the plaintiff nor his family were entitled to freedom, and were still the slaves of the defendant; and reversed the judgment of the inferior state court, which had given a different decision. If the plaintiff supposed that this judgment of the Supreme Court of the state was erroneous, and that this court had jurisdiction to revise and reverse it, the only mode by which he could legallly bring it before this court was by writ of error directed to the Supreme Court of the state, requiring it to transmit the record to this court. If this had been done, it is too plain fear arg,ument that the writ must have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court. The case of Strader and others v. Graham is directly in point; and, indeed, independent of any decision, the language of the 25th section of the act of 1789 is too clear and precise to admit of controversy. But the plaintiff did not pursue the mode prescribed by law for bringing the judgment of a state cour’t before this court for revision, but suffered the case to be remanded to the inferior state court, Mwhere it is stiIl continued, and is, by agreement of parties, to await the judgment of this court on the point. All of this appears on the record before us, and by the printed report of the case. And awhile the case is yet open and pending in the inferior state court, the plaintiff goes 1 -2

Page 173 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE. more interesting matter upon the space of this work must be the compiler’s apology for this omission. The Dred Scott decision cannot long continue, even if it is now, a political issue. Other and more exciting questions which have sprung up connected with Kansas, must necessarily absorb the public attention to the exclusion of it. The late Col. Benton, and Judge Robertson of Kentucky, have published reviews of this decision adverse to it. During this session the court has been made the theme of nmany oratorical efforts in both Itouses of Congress. Nearly every speech made by the members of the Republican party on the Kansas question, has contained an assault upon this decision. Whilst; on the other hand, Senator Benjamin and others have ably vindicated it. It will be proper here to state that the majority of the court who made the decision consisted of Mr. Chief Justice Taney of Maryland; Associate Justices Wayn-e of Georgia, Campbell of Virginia, John Catron of Tennessee, Nelson of New York and Grier of Pennsylvania. The dissenters were Associate Justices McLean of Ohio and Curtis of Massachusetts. into the Circuit Court of the United States, upon the same case and the same evidence, and ag:.ainst the same party, and procee(ls to jucldngment, and then brings here the same case fromn the Circuit Court wlhicll the law would not ha-e permitted him to bring directly from t’he state court. And if this court takes jurisdiction in this form, the result, so far as the rights of the respective parties are concerned, is i-every respect substantially the same as if it had in open violation of law entertained jurisdiction over the judgment of the state court upon a writ of error, and revised and reversed its judgment upon the ground that its opinion upon the question of law was erroneo)us. It would ill become this court to sanction such an attempt to eva,de the law, or to exercise an appellate power in this circuitous wavqy, which it is forbidden to exercise ill the direct and regular and invariable forms of judicial proceedings. Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no,,jurisdiction in the case, and could give no jl-digment in it. Its judlgmnent for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate ismsued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is not deemed necessary to burden the second edition of this work with all of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott I case. The compiler being a Southern man, might subject himself to a charge of partiality if he did not present the opinion of at least one of the dissenting judges.

Hle is free to confess that he has had somne difficulty in determining whether to embrace in this volume that of Jtudge Curtis or that of Judge McLean. The ability of both of them is generally conceded. It would b)e pre,sumin(g too much to d(lecide the point as to) which is the most able.

A careful scrutiiny of the sentiment of those who oppose the decision of the court has established the fact that they regard the opinion of Jutdge Curtis as the most satisfactory vindication of their views, and has determined its insertion instead of that of Juitge McLean. The first edition of this work contained thie dlecisiQns of all of the judges; and in pul)lshing now only that of the court and Mr. Justice Ourtis, no want of respect for the ability of the others is intended. The demand of other and Mr. Justice CURTIs dissenting. I dissent from the opinion pronounced by the Chief Justice and from the judglment which the majority of the court think it proper to render in this case. The plaintiff alleged, in his declaration, that he was a citizen of the state of Missouri, and that the defendant wras a citizen of the state of New Yor k. It is no t doubted that it weas necessary to make eachi of these alletattion s, to sustain the juris(liction of the Circuit Court. The defendant denied, by a plea to the jurisdiction, either sufficient or insufficient, that the plaintiff was a citizen of the state of Missouri. The plaintiff demurred to that plea. The Circuit Court a(liudged( the plea insufficient, and the first question for our consideration is, whether the sufficiency of that plea is before this court for judg,ment, upon this writ of error. The part of tie judicial power of the United States, coi-iferred bIy Congrless on the Circuit Coturts, being(, limited to certain described cases and controversies, the question whether a particular case is withiin the cognisance of a Circuit Court, may l)e raised by a plea to the jurisdiction of such court. When that question has been raised, the Circuit Court mnust, in the first instance, }lass upon and determine it.

Whether its determination be final, or subject to review by I I 173

Page 174 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537). If the decision be against the defendant, though hlie must answer over, and wait for a final ju(ldgment in the cause, he may then have his writ of error, and upon it obtain the judgment of this court on any question of law apparent on the record, touching the jurisdiction. The fact that he pleaded over to the merits, under compulsion, can have no effect on his right to object to the jurisdiction. If this were not so, the condi tion of the two parties would be grossly un equal. For if a plea to the jurisdiction were ruled against the plaintiff, he could at once take his writ of error, and have the ruling re viewed here; while, if the same plea were ruled against the defendant, he must not only wrait for a final judgment, but could in no event have the ruling of the Circuit Court upon the plea reviewed by this court. I know of no ground for saying that the laws of the United States have thus discriminated between the parties to a suit in its courts. It is further objected, that as the judgment of the Circuit Court was in favor of the de fenodat, a nd the writ of error in t his cause was sued out by the plaintiff, the defendant is not in a co ndition to assign any error in the record, and therefore this court i s pre cluded f rom considering th e question whether the Circuit Court had jurisdicti on. The practice of this court does not require a technical assignment of errors. (See the rule.) Upon a writ of error, the whole record is open for inspection; and if any error be found in it, the judgnent is reversed. (Bank of U. S. v. Smith, 11 Wheat. 171.) It is true, as a general rule, that the court will not allow a party to rely on anything as cause for reversing a judgment, which was for his advantage. In this, we follow an ancient rule of the common law. But so careful was that law of the preservation of the course of its courts, that it made an exception out of that general rule, and allowed a party to as sign for error that which was for his advan tage, if it were a departure by the court itself from its settled course of procedure. The cases on this subject are collected in Bac. Ab., Error II. 4. And this court followed this practice in Capron v. Van Noorden (2 Cranch, 126), where the plaintiff below procured the reversal of a judgment for the defendant, on the -round that the plaintiff’s allegations of citizenship had not shown jurisdiction. But it is not necessary to determine whether the defendant can be allowed to assign want, of jurisdiction as an error in a judgment in his own favor. The true question is, not what either of the parties may be allowed to do, but whether this coulrt Adill affirml or rever se a judgment of the Circuit Court on thc mler its, when it appeals on the record, byv a l-lea to the jurisdiction, that it is a case to which the judicial poster of the United States does not extend. The course of the court is, cohere no motion is made by either party, on its own motion to reverse such a judgment for want of jurisdiction, not only in cases where it is this appellate c ourt, must depend upo n th e will of Congress; upon which body the Con stitution has conferred the power, with certain re strictions, to establish inferior courts. to de termine their jur is diction, and t o regulate the appellate power o f this court. The twenty second section of the judicia r y act of 1789, which allows a wri t of error from final judg mients of Circuit Courts, provides that there shall be n o reversal in this court, on such writ of error, for error in ruling anyplea in abatement, other than a plea to the jurisdiction of the court. Accordingly it has been held, from the origin of the court to the present day, that Circuit Courts h ave not been mad e by Conress the fin al judges of their o wn jurisdiction in civil cases. And that when a record comes here upon a writ of error or appeal, and, on its in spection, it appears to this c ourt that th e Circuit Court had no t jurisdicti on, its judg ment must be reversed, and the cause re wlanded, to be dismissed for want of jurisdic tion. It is alle ged by th e def endan t in error. in this case, that the plea to t he jurisdiction, as a sufficient plea; th a t it shows, on inspection of i t s allegations, confessed by the demurrer, that the plaintiff was n ot a citizen of the state of Iissouri; that, up on this record, it must appear t o this c ourt that the case was not within the judicial power of the United States, as defined and granted by the Constit ut ion, becaus e it was not a suit by a citizeno of one state a,gain st a citizen of another state. To this t it is a nsw er ed first, that the defend ant, by pleading over, after the plea to the jurisdiction was adjudge dinsufficient, finally waived all bene fi t of t ha t plea.

When tha t pl ea was adjudged insufficient, the defendant was obliged to answer over. He held no alternative. He could not stop the further progress of the case in the Circuit Court by a writ of error, on which the suffi ciency of his plea to the jurisdiction could be tried in this court, because the judgment on that plea was not final, and no writ of error would lie. He was forced to plead to the merits. It cannot be true, then, that he waived the benefit of his plea to the jurisdic:ion by answering over. Waiver includes con sent. iHere there was no consent. And if the benefit of the plea was finally lost, it must he, not by any waiver, but because the laws of the United States have not provided any mode of reviewing the decision of the Circuit Court on such a plea, when that decision is against the defendant. This is not the law. Whether the decision of the Circuit Court on a plea to the jurisdiction be against the plaintiff or against the defendant, the losing party may has-e any alleged error in law, in ruling such a plea, examined in this court on a writ of error, w^hen the matter in controversy exceeds the sumS or value of two thousand dollars. If the decision be against the plaintiff, and his suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the judgment is technically final, and he may at once sue out his writ of error. (Mollan v. 174

Page 175 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. The plea was as follows: “And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper person, comes 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.” The plaintiff demurred, and the judgment of the Circuit Court was, that the plea was insufficient.

I cannot treat this plea as a general traverse of the citizenship alleged by the plaintiff. Indeed, if it were so treated, the plea was clearly bad, for it concludes With a verification, and not to the country, at a general traverse should. And though this defect in a plea in bar must be pointed out by a special demurrer, it is never necessary to demur specially to a plea in abatement; all matters, though of form only, may be taken advantage of upon a general demurrer to such a plea. (Chitty on PI. 465.) The truth is, that though not drawn with the utmost technical accuracy, it is a special traverse of the plaintiff’s allegation of citizen - ship, and was a suitable and proper mode of traverse under the circumstances. By reference to Mr. Stephen’s description of the u ses of such a traverse, contained in his e xcellen t analysis of pleadings (Steph. on P1. 176), it will be seen how precisely this plea meets one of his descriptions. No doubt the defendant might have traversed, by a common or general traverse, the plaintiff’s allegation that he was a citizen of the state of Missouri, concluding to the country. The issue thus presented being joined, would have involved matter of law, on which the jury must have passed, under the direction of tile court. But by traversing the plaintiff’s citizenship specially-that is, averring those facts on which the defendant relied to show that in point of law the plaintiff was not a citizen, and basing the traverse on those facts as a deduction therefronm-opportunity was given to do, what was done; that is, to present, directly to the court, by a demurrer, the sufficiency of those facts to negative, in point of law, the plaintiff’s allegation of citizenship. This, then, being a special, and not a general or common traverse, the rule is settled, that the facts thus set out in the plea, as the reason or ground of the traverse, mnust of themselves constitute, in point of law, a negative of the allegation thus traversed. (Stephen on P1. 183; Ch. on shown, negat ively, by a pl ea to the jurisdiction, that jurisdiction does not exist, ibut even w he r e it does not appear, affirmatively, that i t do es exist. (Pequianot v. The Pennsvlvania R. R. Co., 16 Holw. 104.) It acts upon the p rinciple that the judicial power of the United States must not b e exerted in a case to which it does not extend, even if both partie s desir o ae to hae it exerted. (Cutl er v. Rae, 7 IIow. 729.) I consider, therefore, that whe n there was a plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in a case broug,ht here by a writ of error, the first duty of this court is, sua sponte, if not moved to it by either party, to exam ine t he sufficiency of that plea; and thus to take care that neithe r th e Circ u it Court nor this c ourt s hall use the judicial power of the United Sta t es in a case to which the Const itution and laws of the Un ited St ates have not extended that power. I proceed, erin therere, to examine the plea to the jurisdiction. I do not perceive any sound reason why it is no t to b e judged by the rules of the comm-ion law applicable to such pleas. It is true, where the jurisdiction of the Ci rcuit Court deplends on the citizenship of the parti es, it is inecumb ent on the pla intiff to allege on the record the necessary citizenship; but when he has don e so, the defendant must interpose a plea in abatement, t he a l legations whereof show that th e court has not jurisdiction; and it is incumben t on him t o prove the truth of lh is plea. In Sheppard v. Graves (14 How. 27), the rules on this subject are thus stated in the opinion of the court: ” That although, in the courts of the United States, it is necessary to set forth the grounds of their cognisance as courts of limited jurisdiction, yet wherever jurisdiction shall be averred in the pleadings, in conformity with the laws creating those courts, it must be taken, prima facie, as existing; and it is incumbent on him who would impeach that jurisdiction for causes dehors the pleading, to allege and prove such causes; that the necessity for the allegation, and the burden of sustaining it by proof, both rest upon the party taking the exception.” These positions are sustained by the authorities there cited, as well as by Wickliffe v.

Owings (14 IIow. 47). When, therefore, as in this case, the necessary averments as to citizenship are made on the record, and jurisdiction is assumed to exist, and the defendant comes by a plea to the jurisdiction to displace that presumption, he occupies, in my judgment, precisely the position described in Bacon Ab., Abatement: “Abatement, in the general acceptation of the word, signifies a plea, put in by the defendanlt, in which he shows cause to the court achy he should not be im pleaded; or, if at all, not in the manner and fo~rm he now is.” This being, then, a plea in abatement, to the jurisdiction of the court, I must judge of its sufficiency by those rules of the common low applicable to such pleas. 175

Page 176 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. P1. 620.) And upon a demurrer to this plea, the question which arises is, whether the facts, that the plaintiff is a negro, of African de scent, whose ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, may all be true, anid yet the plaintiff be a citizen of the state of Mis souri, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, which confer on citizens of one state the right to sue citi zens of another state in the Circuit Courts. Undoubtedly, if these facts, taken together, amount to an allegation that, at the time of action brought, the plaintiff was himself a slave, the plea is sufficient. It has been suig gested that the plea, in legal effect, does so aver, because, if his ancestors were sold as slaves, the presumption is they continued slaves; and if so, the presumption is, the plaintiff was born a slave; and if so, the presumption is, he continued to be a slave to the time of action brought. I cannot think such presumptions can be resorted to, to help out defective averments in pleadingo; especially, in pleading in abatenient, where the utmost certainty and precision are required.’ (Chitty on P1.

457.) That the plaintiff himself was a slave at the time of action brought, is a substantive fact, having no necessary connexion with the fact that his parents were sold as slaves. For they might have been sold after he was born; or the plaintiff himself, if once a slave, might have br)ecome a freeman before action brought. To aver that his ancestors were sold as slaves, is not equivalent, in point of law, to an avermnent that he was a slave. If it were, he could not even confess and avoid the averment of the slavery of his ancestors, which would be monstrous; and if it be not equivalent in point of law, it cannot be treated as amountnmg thereto when demurred to; for a demurrer confesses only those substantive facts which are well pleaded, and not other distinct substantive facts which might be inferred therefrom by a jury. To treat an averment that the plaintiff’s ancestors were Africans, brought to this country and sold as slaves, as amounting to an averment on the record that lie was a slave, because it may lay some foundation for presuming so, is to hold that the facts actually alleged may be treated as intended as evidence of another distinct fact not alleged. But it is a cardinal rule of pleading, laid down in Dowman’s case (9 Rep. 9 b), and in even earlier authorities therein referred to, ‘ that ev;dence shall never be pleaded, for it only tends to prove matter of fact; and therefoire the matter of fact shall be pleaded.” Or, as the rule is sometimes stated, pleadings must not be argumentative. (Stephen on Pleading, :?,R4 andl authorities cited lay him.)j In Corn. D)i.. Pleader E. 3, and Bac. Abridgment, Pleas I, a, and Stephen on P1., many decisions lnder this rule are collected. In trover, for an indenture whereby A granted a manor, it is no plea that A did not grant the manor, for it does not answer the declaration except by argument. (Yelv. 223.) So in trespass for taking and carrying away the plaintiff’s goods, the defendant pleaded that the plain tiff never had a ny goods. The court saild, ” this is an infallible argument that the defendant is not guilty, but it is no plea.” (Dyer, a 43.) In ejectment, the defendant pleaded a sur render of a copyhold by the hand of Fosset, the steward. The plaintiff replied, that Fosset was not steward. The court held this no is sue, for it traversed the surrender only argu mentatively.

(Cro. Eliz. 260.) In these cases, and many others reported in the books, the inferences from the facts stated were irresistible. But the court held they did not, when demurred to, amount to such infer able facts. In the case at bar, the inference that the defendant was a slave at the time of action brought, even if it can be made at all, from the fact that his parents were slaves, is certainly not a necessary inference. This case, therefore, is like that of Digby v. Alex ander (8 Bing. 116). In that case, the de fendant pleaded many facts strongly tending to show that he was once Earl of Stirling; but as there was no positive allegation that he was so at the time of action brought, and as every fact averred might be true, and yet the defendant not have been Earl of Stirling at the time of action brought, the plea was held to be insufficient. A lawful seizin of land is presumed to continue. But if, in an action of trespass quare clausem, the defendant were to plead that he was lawfully seized of the locuis in qto, one month before the time of the alleged trespass, I should have no doubt it would be a bad plea. (See Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat.

537.) So if a plea to the jurisdiction, instead of alleging that the plaintiff was a citizen of the same state as the defendant, were to allege that the plaintiff’s ancestors were citizens of that state, I think the plea could not be supported. My judgment would be, as it is in this case, that if the defendant meant to aver a particular substantive fact, as existing at the time of action brought, he must do it directly and explicitly, and not by way of inference from certain other averments, which are quite consistent with the contrary hypothesis. I cannot, therefore, treat this plea as containing an averment that the plaintiff himself was a slave at the time of action brought; and the inquiry recurs, whether the facts, that he is of African descent, and that his parents were once slaves, are necessarily inconsistent with his own citizenship in the state of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States. In Gassies v. Ballon (6 Pet. 761), the defendant was described on the record as a naturalized citizen of the United States, residing in Louisiana. The court held this equivalent to an averment that the defendant was a citizen of Louisiana; because a citizen of ton 176.1

Page 177 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. entered, the style whereof was, “The United States of America.” To determine whether any free persons, de scended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Con federation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of either of the states under the Confederation, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confede ration, all free nativeborn inhabitants of the states of New Ilampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those states, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in the case of The State v. Manuel (4

Dev. and Bat. 20), has declared the law of that state on this subject, in terms which I believe to be as sound law inthe other states I have enume rated, as it was in North Carolina. ” According to the laws of this state,” says Judge Gaston in delivering the opinion of the court, “all human beings within it, who are not slaves, fall within one of two classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman laws between citizens and free in habitants, they are unknown to our institu tions.

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or com plexion, were nativeborn British subjects those born out of his allegiance were aliens.

Slavery did not exist in England, but it did in the British colonies.

Slaves were not in legal parlance persons, but property. The moment the incapacity, the disqualification of slavery, was removed, they became persons, and were then either British subjects, or not British subjects, according as they were or weere not born within the allegiance of the British king. Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the laws of North Carolina, than was consequent on the transition from a colony dependent on a European king, to a free and sovereign state. Slaves remained slaves. British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen. Foreigners, until made members of the state remained aliens.

Slaves, manumitted here, became freemen, and therefore, if born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the state are born citizens of the state. The Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twentyone, and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal notoriety, that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise, until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution.”” United States, residing in any state of the Union, is, for purposes of jurisdiction, a citizen o f tha t state. Now, the plea to the jurisdiction in this ca se d o es not controvert the fact that the plaintiff resided in Missour i at the date of the writ. If h e did then reside there, and was also a citizen of the United States, no provisions contained in th e constitution or laws of Missouri can deprive the plaintiff of his right to sue citizens of states other than Missouri, in the courts of the United States. So that, under the allegations contained in this plea, and admitted by the demurrer, the question is, whether any person of African descent, whose ancestors were sold as slaves in the United States, can be a citizen of the United States. If any such person can be a citizen, this plaintiff has the right to the judgment of the court that he is so; for no cause is shown by the plea why he is not so, except his descent and the slavery of his ancestors. The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ” a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.” One mode of approachIng this question is, to inquire who were citi.ens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Citizens of the United States at the time of ,he adoption of the Constitution can have been so other than citizens of the United States under the Confederation. By the Articles of -‘onfederation, a government was organized, 4le style whereof was, ” The United States of America.” This government was in existence :l,en the Constitution was framed and proosed for adoption, and was to be superseded ,y the new government of the United States f America, organized under the Constitution. .‘hen, therefore, the Constitution speaks of ‘tizenship of the United States, existing at L,e time of the adoption of the Constitution, it clast necessarily refer to citizenship under lie government which existed prior to and at ie time of such adoption. Without going into any question concerning h,e powers of the Confederation to govern the Terrltory of the United States out of the limits f the states, and consequently to sustain the elation of government and citizen in respect ;) the inhabitants of such territory, it may ifely be said that the citizens of the several bates were citizens of the United States under he Confederation. That government was simply a confederacy f the several states, possessing a few defined .owers over subjects of general concern, each ,ate retaining every power, jurisdiction, and ,iiht, not expressly delegated to the United ,tates in Congress assembled. And no power .s thus delegated to the government of the ‘onfederation, to act on any question of citi.nship, or to make any rules in respect Hereto. The whole matter was left to stand pon the action of the several states, and to ‘e natural consequence of such action, that He citizens of each state should be citizens of ,~t Confederacy into which that state had 12 177

Page 178 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. not leave these men under any reproach of inconsistency; that the great truths they as serted on that solemn occasion, they were ready and anxious to make effectual, wherever a necessary regard to circumstances, which no statesman can ca disreard without producing mor e e vil than g ood, woulr allow; and that it would not be just to them, nor t rue in itself, to allege that the y intended t o say that the Creator of all men h ad endowed the white race, exclusively, with the great natural rights which the De claratio n of Independence ab serts. But this is not the place t o vindicate their memory. As I conceive, we should deal here, not with such disputes, if there can be a dispute concerning this subject, but with those substantial faocts e v inced by the written constitutions o f st ates, and b y th e notorious practice une he nder them. An they show, in at sanner which no argument can obscur e, t hat in some of the original thirteen states, free colored persons, before and a t the t ime of the formation of the Constitution, were citizens of those states. The four th of the fundamental Articles of the Confederation was as follows: ” The free inhabit an ts of e a ch of the s e states, paupers, vagabonids, and filgitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free cit izens i n the several states.” The fact that free persons of color were citizens of some of the several states, and the consequence, that t hi s fourth Article of the Confederation would have the effect to confer on such persons the privileges and imnmuni. ties of general citizenship, were not only known to those who framed and adopted those articles, but the evidence is decisive, that the fourth article was intended to have that effect, and that more restricted language, which would have excluded such persons, was deliberately and purposely rejected.

On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Cong,ress, the deleates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article, by inserting after the word “free,” and before the word ” inhabitants,” the word ” white,” so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons.

Two states voted for the amendment, eight states against it, and the vote of one state was divided. The language of the article stood unchatnged, and both by its terms of inclusion, ” fi’ee inhabitants,” and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, “paupers, vag,abonds, and fugitives from justice,” who alone were excepted, it is clear, that undler the Confederation, and at the time of the ado)ption of the Constitutio~
free colored perso0ns of African descent might L~, and, byr reason of their citizenship in certain states, were, entitled to the privileges and immlunities of general citizenship of the United States. Did the Constitution of the United States deprive theml or their descendants of citizenship 7 That Constitution was ordained and esta. In The State v.

Newcomb (5 Iredell’s R. 2)3), decided in 1844, the same court referred to this case of The Sta,te v. Manuel, and said: ” That case underwent a very laborious investigation, both by the bar and the bench. The case was brought here by appeal, and was felt to be one of great importance in principle. It was considered with an anxiety and care worthy of the principle involved, and which gave it a controlling influence and authority on all questions of a similar character.” An argument from speculative premises, However well chosen, that the then state of opinion in the commonwealth of Massachusetts was not consistent with the natural rights of people of color who were born on that soil, and that they were not, by the constitution of 1780 of that state, admitted to the condition of citizens, would be received with surprise by the people ofthat state, who know their own political history. It is true, beyond all controversy, that persons of color, descended from African slaves, were by that constitution made citizens of the state; and such of them as have had the necessary qualifications, have held and exercised the elective franchise, as citizens, from that time to the present. (See Com. v. Aves, 18 Pick. R.

210.) The constitution of New Hampshire conferred the elective franchise upon “every inhabitant of the state having the necessary qualifications,”

of which color or descent was not one. The constitution of New York gave the right to vote to “every male inhabitant who shall have resided,” &c.; making no discrimi-m nation between free colored persons and others. (See Con. of N.Y., Art. 2, Rev. Stats. of N. Y., vol. 1, p. 126.) That of New Jersey, to ” all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth ~50 proclamation money, clear estate.” New York, by its constitution of 1820, required colored persons to have some qalifications as prerequisites for voting, which white persons need not possess. And New Jersey, by its present constitution, restricts the right to vote to white male citizens.

But these changes can have no other effect upon the presen t inquiry, except to show, th at before they were made, no such restrictions existed; and colored in common with white persons, were not only citizens of those states, but entitled to the elective franchise on the same qualifications as white persons, as they now are in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. I shall not enter into an examination of the existing opinions of that period respecting the African race, nor into any discussion concerning the meaning of those who asserted, in the Declaration of Independence, 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 of happiness. My own opinion is, that a calm comparison of these assertions of universal abstract truths, and of their own individual opinions and acts, would 178 I

Page 179 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. blished by the people of the United States,’ through the action, in each state, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon, in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that state. In some of the states, as we have seen, colored persous were among th,)se qualified by law to act on this subject.

T”liese colored persons were not only included in the body of “the people of the United States,” by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at least five of the states they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange, if wve were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were amnong those by whom it was established. I can find nothing in the Constitution which, proprio vigore, deprives of their citizenship any class of persons who were citizens o)f the United States at the time of its adoption, or who should be nativeborn citizens of tay state after its adoption; nor any power enabling Congress to disfranchise persons li)or on the soil of any state, and entitled to citizenship of such state by its Constitution and laws. And my opinion is, that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States. I will proceed to state the grounds of that opinion. Tle first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, “a naturalborn citizen.” It thus assumes that citizen,hip may b e acquired by birth. Undoubted ly, ‘his language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well Understood in this country at the time of the -doption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. At the De,laration of Independence, and ever since, the eceived general doctrine has been, in confor..ity with the common law, that free persons ,orn within either of the colonies were sublects of the king; that by the Declaration of ndependence, and the consequent acquisition .f sovereignty by the several states, all such ,ersons ceased to be subjects, and became -itizens of the several states, except so far as Mome of them were disfranchised bv the legisLtive power of the states, or availed themelves,; seasonably, of the right to adhere to te British Crown in the civil contest, and bus to continue British subjects. (SIcIlvain . Coxe’s Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209-Inglis v ;allots’ Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, p. 99;*

Shanks .~Dupont, Ibid. p. 242.) The Constitution having recog~nlsed the rule hant persons born within the several states are ;tizens of the United States, one of four things lust be true: First. That the Constitution itself has *1~ribed what nativeborn persons shall or shall 9t be citizens of the United States; or, Seconda. Thaf it has empowered Congress to do so; or, Third. That all free persons, born within th e sev e ral states, are citizens of the United States; or, Fohurth. Th at i t is le ft to each state to (leter mine what free persons, born within its limcitm,u shall be citizens of such state, and thereby be citizens of the United Stat es. If there be such a thing as citizenship of the United States acquird by birth within the s tates, whic h the Con stitution expressly recog-e nies, iand no on e denies, th en these four alter natives embrace the entire subject, and it oulyf remains to select that one which is true. That the Constitution itself has defined citizenship of the United States by declaring what persons, born within the several states, shall or shall not be citizens of the Unitedl States, will not be pretended. It contains io such declaration. We may dismiss the first alternative, as without doubt unfounded. II,ias it empowered Congress to enact what free persons, born ithin the several states,, shall or shal l not be citizens of the United States? Bef ore examining the vari ous provisions of the Consti tut i on which may relate to this question, it is impo rtant to conside or fr a mf) D ient the substantial nature of this inquiry. It is, in effect, whether the Constitution has empowered Con gress to create privileged classes within the states, who alone can be entitled to the franchises and powers of c itizen ship of the United States. If it be admitted that the Constitution has enable d Congress to declare what free persons, born with in the several states, shall be citizens of the Unitede States, it must at the same time be admitted that it is an unlimited power. If this subject is within the control of Congress, it must de pend wholly on its discretion. For, certainly, no limits of that discretion can be found in the Constitution, which is wholly silent concerning it; and the necessary consequence is. that the federal government may select classes of persons within the several states who alone can be entitled to the political privileges of citizenship of the United States. If this power exists, what persons born within the states may be President or Vice President of the United States, or members of either Ilouse of Colgress, or hold any office or enjoy any privilege whereof citizenship of the United States ie a necessary qualification, must depend solely on the will of Congress. By virtue of it, thougll Congress can grant no title of nobility, thev may create an oligarchy, in whose haln(is woull be concentrated the entire power of the federal government. It is a substantive power, distinct in its nature from all others; capable of affecting not only the relations of the states to the general government, but of controlling the political condition of the people of the united States. Certainly Twe ought to find this power granted by the Constitution, at least by some necessary inference, before we Gaul say it does not remain 179

Page 180 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. applied by the courts. Second: Determining what persons should enjoy the privileges of citiz enship, n pe t in respect to the in ternal affairs of the several states. Third: Wh at native born persons should be citizens o f t he United Sta t es. The first-named power, that of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, was granted.

and here the grant, according to its terms, stopped. Construing a Constitution containing only limited and defined powers of governmenrt, the argument derived from this definite and restricted power to establish a rule of naturalization, must be admitted to be exceedingly strong. I do not say it is necessarily decisive. It might be controlled by other parts of the Constitution. But when this particular subject of citizenship was under consideration, vand, in the clause specially in tended to define the extent of power concern ing it, we find a particular part of this entire power separated from the residue, and conferred on the general government, there arises a strong presumption that this is all which is granted, and that the residue is left to the states and to the people. And this presump tion is, in my opinion, converted into a cer tainty, by an examination of all such other clauses of the Constitution as touch this subject. I will examine each which can have any possible bearing on this question. The first clause of the second section of the third article of the Constitution is, “The judicial power shall extend to controversies between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state, claiming lands un der grants of different states; and between states, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.” I do not think this clause has any considerable bearing upon the particular inquiry now under considera tion.

Its purpose was, to extend the judicial power to those controversies into which local feelings or interests might so enter as to dis turb the course of justice, or give rise to suspicions that they had done so, and thus possibly give occasion to jealousy or ill will between different states, or a particular state and a foreign nation. At the same time, I would remark, in passing, that it has never been held, I do not know that it has ever been supposed, that any citizen of a state could bring himself under this clause and the eleventh and twelfth sections of the judiciary act of 1789, passed in pursuance of it, who was not a citizen of the United States. But I have referred to the clause, only because it is one of the places wvhere citizenship is mentioned by the Constitution. Whether it is entitled to any weight in this inquiry or not, it refers only to citizenship of the several states; it recognises that; but it does not rocognise citizenship of the U~nitedl States as something; distinct therefrom. As has been said, the purpose of this clause did not necessarily connect it with citizenship to the states or the people. I proceed therefore to examine all the provisions of the Constitution which may have some bearing on this subject. Among the powers expressly granted to Congress is “the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

It is not doubted that this is a power to prescribe a rule for the removal of the disabilities consequent on foreign birth. To hold that it extends further than this, would do violence to the meaning of the term naturalization, fixed in the common law (Co. Lit. 8 a, 129 a; 2 Ves. sen.

286; 2 Bl. Comn. 293), and in the minds of those who concurred in framing and adopting the Constitution. It was in this sense of conferring on an alien and his issue the rights and powers of a nativeborn citizen, that it was employed in the Declaration of Independence. It was in this sense it was expounded in the Federalist (No. 42), has been understood by Congress, by thejudiciary (2 Wheat. 259, 269; 3 Wash. iR. 313, 322; 12

Wheat. 277), and by cormmentators on the Constitution. (3 Story’s Com. on Con. 1-3; I1 Rawle on Con. 84-88; 1 Tucker’s Bl. Com. App. 255-259.) It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth. Whether there be anything in the Constitution from which a broader power may be implied, will best be seen when we come to examine the two other alternatives, which are, whether tll free persons, born on the soil of the several states, or only such of them as may be citizens of each state, respectively, are thereby citizens of the United States. The last of these alternatives, in my judgment, contains the truth. Undoubtedly, as has already been said, it is a principle of public law, recognised by the Constitution itself, that birth on the soil of a country both creates the duties and confers the rights of citizenship. But it must be remembered, that though the Constitution was to form a government, and under it the United States of America were to be one united sovereign nation, to which loyalty and obedience on the one side, and from which protection and privileges on the other, would be due, yet the several sovereign states, whose people were then citizens, were not only to continue in existence, but with powers unimpaired, except so far as they were granted by the people to the national government. Among the po)wers unquestionably pos sessed by the several states, was that of determining what persons should and what persons should not be citizens.

It was prac-i ticable to confer on the government of the Union this entire power. It embraced what may, well enough for the purpose now in view, be divided into three parts. First: The power to remove the disabilities of alienage, either by special acts in reference to each individual case, or by establishing a rule of naturalization to be administered and iso

Page 181 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. may direct, and the qualifications of electors of members of the House of Representatives shall be the same as for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. Laying aside, then, the case of aliens, concerning which the Constitution of the United States has provided, and confining our view to free persons born within the several states, we find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth; that it has hot attempted practically to apply this principle by designating the particular classes of persons who should or should not come under it; that when we turn to the Constitution for an answer to the question, what free persons, born within the several states, are citizens of the United States, the only answer we can receive from any of its express provisions is, the citizens of the several states are to enjoy the privileges and immunities of citizens in every state, and their franchise as electors under the Constitution depends on their citizenship in the several states. Add to this, that the Constitution was ordained by I the citizens of the several states; that they were “the people of the United States,” for whom and whose posterity the government was declared in the preamble of the Constitution to be made; that each of them was “a citizen of the United States at the time o f the adoption of the Cons titution,” within the meaning of those words in that instrument; that by them the government was to be and was in fact organized; and that no power is conferred on the government of the Union to discriminate between them, or to disfranchise any of themthe necessar y conclusion is, that those persons born within the several st ate s, who, by force of their respective constitu tions and laws, are citizens of the state, are thereby citizens of the United States. It may be proper here to notice some sup posed objections to this view of the subject. It has been often asserted that the Consti tution was made exclusively by and for the white race. It has already been shown that in five of the thirteen original states, colored persons then possessed the elective franchise, and were among those I)y whom the Constitu tion was ordained and established. If so, it is not true, in point of fact, that the Consti tution was made exclusively by the white race. And that it was made exclusively for the white race is, in my opinion, not only an assumption not warranted by anything in the Constitution, but contradicted by its opening declaration, that it was ordained and estab lished by the people of the United States, for themselves and their posterity. And as free colored persons were then citizens of at least five states, and so in every sense part of the people of the United States, they wrere among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established. Again, it has been objected that if the Constitution has left to the several states the rightful power to determine who of their ill of the United States, even if that were something distinct from citizenship of the several states, in the contemplation of the Constitution. This cannot be said of other clauses of the Constitution, which I now proceed to refer to. ” The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges a nd immunities of citizens af th e several states.” Nowhere else in th e Constitution is there anything concerning a general citizenship; but he re, privileges and immunities to be enjoyed throughout the United States, under and by force of the natio n al compact, are granted and secured. In selecting those who are to enjoy these national ribuhts of citizenship, h ow are they described? As citize ns of each state. It is to them these national rights are secured. The qualification for them is not to be looke d for in any rovision of the Constitution o r law s of the hited States. They are to be citizens of the several states, and, a s such, the privileges and imm u nitie s of gene ral citizenship, derived from and g u aran tied by the C onsti tution, are to b e e njoy ed by them. It would seem that if it had be en intended to cons titute a class of nati ve born persons within th e states, who should derive their citizenship of the United States froi the action of the Federal Government, this was an occasion for referring to them. It c annot b e supposed that it was the purpose of this article to confer the privileges and immunities of citizens in all the s tates upon persons not citizens of the United States. And if it was intende d to sec u re these rights only to citizens of the Unit ed States; how has the Con stitution he r e described such persons? Sim ply as citizens of each state. But, further: though, as I shall presently more fully state, I do not think the enjoyment of the elective franchise essential to citizenship, there can be no doubt it is one of the chiefest attributes of citizenship under the American constitutions; and the just and constitutional possession of this right is decisive evidence of citizenship. The provisions made bv a constitution on this subject must thereft)re be looked to as bearing directly on the question what persons are citizens under that constitution; and as being decisive, to this extent, that all such persons as are allowed by the Constitution to exercise the elective franchise, and thus to participate in the goverinment of the United States, must be deemed citizens of the United States. Ilere, again, the consideration presses itself upon us, that if there was designed to be a particular class of native born persons within the states, deriving their citizenship from the Constitution and lass of the United States, they should at least has-e been referred to as those by whom the President and House of Representatives were to be elected, and to whom they should be responsible. Instead of that, we again find this subject referred to the laws of the several states. The electors of President are to be appointed in sUCh mlanner as, the legislature of each state 181

Page 182 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. habitants shall be citizens of the United or holding office, or allowed to do so, I appre States, the states may make aliens citizens. hend no one will deny that they are citizens The answer is obvious. The Constitution of the United States. Besides, this clause of has left to the states the determination what the Constitution does not confer on the citi persons, born within their respective limits, zens of one state, in all other states, specific shall acquire by birth citizenship of the and enumerated privileges and immunities. United States; it has not left to them any They are entitled to such as belong to citizen power to prescribe any rule for the removal ship, but not to such as belong to particular otf the disabilities of alienage. This power is citizens attended by other qualifications. Pri exclusively in Congress.

vileges and immunities which belong to cer It has been further objected, that if free tain citizens of a state, by reason of the ope colored persons, born within a particular state, ration of causes other than mere citizenship, and made citizens of that state by its consti-are not conferred. Thus, if the laws of a tution and laws, are thereby made citizens of state require, in addition to citizenship of the the United States, then, under the second state, some qualification for office, or the ex section of the fourth article of the Constitu-ercise of the elective franchise, citizens of all tion, such persons would be entitled to all the other states, coming thither to reside, and not privileges and immunities of citizens in the possessing those qualifications, cannot enjoy several states; and if so, then colored persons those privileges, not because they are not to could vote, and be eligible to not only federal be deemed entitled to the privileges of citizens offices, but offices even in those states whose of the state in which they reside, but because constitutions and laws disqualify colored per-they, in cominmon with the nativeborn citizens sons from voting or being elected to office.

of that state, must have the qualifications pre But this position rests upon an assumption scribed by law for the enjoyment of such pri which I deem untenable. Its basis is, that vileges, under its constitution and laws. It no one can be deemed a citizen of the United rests with the states themselves so to frame States who is not entitled to enjoy all the pri-their constitutions and laws as not to attach a vileges and franchises which are conferred on particular privilege or immunity to mere any citizen. (See 1 Lit. Kentucky R. 396.) naked citizenship. If one of the states will That this is not true, under the Constitution not deny to any of its own citizens a particu of the United States, seems to me clear.

lar privilege or imnmunity, if it confer it on all A naturalized citizen cannot be President of them by reason of mere naked citizenship, of the United States, nor a Senator till after then it may be claimed by every citizen of the lapse of nine years, nor a Representative each state by force of the Constitution; and it till after the lapse of seven years, from his must be boiriie in mind, that the difficulties naturalization.

Yet, as soon as naturalized, which attend the allowance of the claims of he is certainly a citizen of the United States. colored persons to be citizens of the United Nor is any inhabitant of the District of Co-States are not avoided by saying that, though lumbia, or of either of the territories, eligib)le each state may make them its citizens, they to the office of Senator or Representative in are not thereby made citizens of the United Congress, though they may be citizens of the States, because the privileges of general citi United States. So, in all the states, nuiner-zenship are secutired to the citizens of each ous persons, though citizens, cannot vote, or state. The Ilanguage of the Constitution is, cannot hold office, either on account of their “The citizens of each state shall be entitled age, or sex, or the want of the necessary legal to all privileges and immunities of citizens in qualifications. The truth is, that citizenship, the several states.” If each state may make under the Constitution of the United States, such persons its citizens, they become, as is not dependent on the possession of any par-such, entitled to the benefits of this article, it ticular political or even of all civil rights; there be a nativeborn citizenship of the and any attempt so to define it must lead to United States distinct from a nativeborn citierror. To what citizens the elective franchise zenship of the several states. shall be confided, is a question to be deter-There is one view of this article entitled to mined by each state, in accordance with its consideration in this connexion. It is maniown views of the necessities or expediencies festly copied from the fourth of the Articles of its condition. What civil rights shall be of Confederation, with only slight changes of enjoyedl by its citizens, and whether all shall phraseology, which render its meaning more enjoy the same, or how they nmay be gained precise, and dropping the clause which exor lost, are to be determined in the same eluded paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives wav. from justice, probably because these cases One may confine the right of suffrage to could be dealt.ith under the police powers white male citizens; another may extend it of the states, and a special provision thereforo to colored per.ons and females; one may was not necessary. It has been suggested, allow all persons above a prescribed age to that in adopting it into the Constitution, the convey property and transact business; an-words “free inhabitants” were changed for other may exclude married women. But the word “citizens.” An examination of the whether nativeborn women, or persons un-fornis of expression commonly used in the der age, or under guardianship because in-state papers of that day, and an attention to) sane or spendthrifts, be excluded from voting the substance of this article of the Confedera 182

Page 183 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. tion, will show that the words “free inhabitants,” as then used, were synonymous with citizens. When the Articles of Confederation were adopted, we were in the midst of the war of the Revolution, and there were very few persons then embraced in the words “free iniabitants,” who were not born on our soil. It was not a time when many, save the children of the soil, were willing to embark their fortunes in our cause; and though there might be an inaccuracy in the uses of words to call free inhabitants citizens, it was then a technical rather than a substantial difference. If we look into the constitutions and state paIpers of that p eriod, w e find the inhabi tants or pieople of these coleonies, or the inhabitants of th is sta te, o r commonwealth, employed to designate tho se whom we should no w denominate c itizens. The substance and purpose of the article prov e it was in this sense it used these words: it secures to the free inhabitants of each state the privileges and immufoities of fiee citizens i n eve ry state. I t is not conceivable that the state s s hould hav e a greed to extend the privileges of citizenship to pertons not entitled to enjoy the privileges of citizens in the states where they dwelt; that under this article there was a class of persons in some of the states, not citizens, to whom were secured all the privileges and immunities of citizens when they went into other states; and the just conclusion is, that though the Constitution cured an inaccuracy of language, it left the substance of this article in the National Constitution the same as it was in the Articles of Confederation. The history of this fourth article, respecting the attempt to exclude free persons of color from its operation, has been already stated. It is reasonable to conclude that this history was known to those who framed and adopted the Constitution. That under this fourth article of the Confederation, free persons of color might be entitled to the privileges of general citizenship, if otherwise entitled thereto, is clear. WVhen this article was, in substance, placed in and made part of the Constitution of the United States, with no change in its language calculated to exclude free colored persons from the benefit of its )rovisions, the presumption is, to say the east, strong, that the practical effect which it was designed to have, and did have, under the f,raier government, it was designed to have, -ltd should have, under the new government. It may be further objected, that if free (colored persons may be citizens of the United States, it depends only on the will of a master whether he will emancipate his slave, and ti ereby make him a citizen. Not so. The master is subject to the will of the state. Whether he shall be allowed to emancipate his slave at all; if so, on what conditions; and what is to be the political status of the freed man, depend, not on the will of the mlaster, but on the will of the state, upon which the political star,Is of all its nativeborn inhabitants depends.

Under the Constitution of the United States, each state has retained this power of determining the political stat?s of its nativeborn inhabitants, and no excel~ tion thereto can be found i n the Const itution. And if a mast er in a slav eholding state shoul(Ih carry his slave into a fre e s t ate, and there emancipate him, he would not there by ma ke him a nativeborn citizen of that state, and consequen tly no p rivi leg es c ould be claimesl by such emancipated slave as a citizen of the United States. For, whatever powers thei state s ma y exerc ise to confer privileges of citizenlship o n per so ns no t bor n on their soil, the Cons titution of the Uni ted States doe s not recognise such citizens. As has already been said, it recog nises the reat principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship spring from the place of birth. It leaves to the states the application of that prin ciple to individual cases. It secured to the citizens of each state the privileges a n d i mmuniti es of citizens in every other state. But it does not allo w to the states the power to mak e aliens citizens, or permi t on e state to take persons born on the soil of another state, and, contrary to the law, and policy of the stat e where the y were born, make them its citizens, an d so citizeas of the United States. No such deviation from the gre a t rule of public law was contemplated by the Constitution; and when any such att empt shall be actually made, it is to be met by applying to it those rules of law and th ose principles of good faith whic h will be sufficient to decide it, and not, in my judg ment, by denying toat all the free native -born inhabitant s of a state, who a re i ts ci tizen s under its constitution and laws, ar e a lso citizens of t he United States. It has sometimes been urged that colored persons are shown not to be citizens of the United States by the fa a the fact that the naturalization laws apply only to white persons.

But whether a pe rson born in the Unit e d Sta tes be or be not a citizen, cannot depe nd o n laws which refer onl y to aliens, a nd do not affect th e sattus of person s born in the United States. The utmost effect which can be attributed to them is, to show th at Congress has n ot d eemed it expedient generally to apply the rule to c ol ored al ien s. Tha t they might do so, if thought fit, is clear. The Constitution has not excluded them. And since that has conferred the power on Congress to naturalize colored aliens, it certainly shows color is not a necessary qualification Tor citizenship 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 Mwith the Choctaws, of September 27, 1830, art. 14; with the Cherokees, of Mawy 23, 1836, art.

12; Treaty of Guadalupe 1l:dalgfo, February 2, 1848, art. 8.) I do not deem it necessary to review at length the legislation of Congress hasving more or less bearing on the citizenship of colored .persons. It does not seem to me to have anyr 183 -

Page 184 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. within the state, but to enjioy there the privk leges and immunitics 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, l)y 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 s.ouri, 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 powerof 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: Fiorst. That the free nativeborn 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. l hird. 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. Footh?J. 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 fuirther, and dissent both from what I deem their assumption of authority to examine the constitutionality of the act of Congress commonly called the Missouri compromise act, and the grounds and conclusions announced in their opinion. Ilaving first decided that they were bound to consider the sufficiency of the plea to thu,s 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 ease 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 havte reached the question of the pourer 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 th~ considerable tendency to prove that it has been considered by the legislative department of the government, tha t no su ch per sons are citizens of the United States. Undoub tedly they have bee n debarr ed from th e exercise of particular rights or p rivileges extended to whit e p ers ons, b ut I believe, always in terms which, by implication. admit they may be citizens Thus the act of May 17, 179t, for the org anizat ion of the militia, directs the enrolm ent of” everv free, ablebodi ed, wh ite m al e citizen.” An assumpt ion that n one but white persons are c itizens, w ould be a s incon sistent with the ju s t im port of thi s language, as that all citizens are ablebodied, or males. So the act of February 28, 1803 (2 Stat. at Lar ge, 205), t o p reve nt the importation of c erta in persons into states, whe n by the laws ther e of their admission is prohibited, in its first s e c tion forbid s all masters of vessels to import or br ing ” any negro, mulatto, or other person of color, n ot being a native, a c itizen, or registered seaman of the United States,”

&c. T he a ct s of March 3, 1813, sec tion 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 MN, rch 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 prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in the state, under any pretext whatever.” One ground of objection to the admni~sicn 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 184

Page 185 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. authority of the court, as described by its re peated decisions, and, as I understand, ac ktowledged 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.

Darniall (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 lbe a citizen of Pennsylvania. The bill stated that the defendant was the son of a white man ly one of his slaves; and that the defendant’s thither devised to him certain lands, the title to which was put in controversy by the bill. These facts were admi tted in the answer, and Illon these an d other facts the court made its decree, f ounded on the principle that a devise e)f lan d b y a m ast er to a slave was by implica tionu also a beques t o f h is f reedom. The facts that the d ef endant was of African descent, and wa s born a s lave, were not only before the court, bu t entered into the entire substance of its inquiries. T he o pinion of the majority of mvy brethren in this case disposes of the case of Legrand v. Darnall, by saying, among other things, t hat as the fac t that the d efend ant w as born a slave only cam e b efore this court on the bill and answer. it was then too late to raise the question of the personal disability of tile party, 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 tion 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 leg,ed 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 l How. 27), and Wickliff v.

Owings, (17 IIow. 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 the 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 decide 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 bv the plea to the jurisdiction; and I do not hold any opinion of this Court, or anty court, binding,when expressed ‘on a question not legitimately before it. (Carroll1 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 de c laration. Into that judgment, accord ing to the s ettled course of this court, nothing appearing after a ple a to the merit s ca n enter. A great question of constitutional law, deeply affecting the p eace and welfar e of t he country, i s not, in my opinion, a fi t subject to be thus re ac hed. But as, in my opinion, the Cir cui t Court had jurisdiction, I am obliged to consider the question whether its judgm ent on the merits o f the case s ho uld stand or b e r eve rsed. The r eside nce of the plaintiff in the state of Illinois, and the residence of himse lf and hi s wife in the territory acqu ired from France ly ing north o f latitude thirtysix d egrees thirty minutes, and nor th o f the state of Missouri are each relied on by the pla in t iff in error. As the residence in the territory af fects the plaintiff’s wifetend children a s well as himself, I must inquire what was its effect. The general question may be stated to be, whether the plaintiffs status, as a slave, wa s so changed by his residence within that terri tory, that he w a s not a slave in the state of Missouri, at the t ime this action was brought. In such cases, two inquiries arise, which may be confounded, but s houl d be ke pt 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 i s, whether the state of Missou r i recognises and allows the effect of that law o f the territo ry, on the status of the slave, on his return within its juris diction. As to the first o f these questions, the will of states and nations, by whose municipa l la w slavery is not recognised, has been ma nifested in three different ways. One is, absolutely to dissolve th e relation, and terminate the rights of the master exist ing under the law of the country whence the p arties came. This is said by Lord S towell, ln 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 conditions. (Wilson v. Isabel, 5 Call’s R. 430; Hunter v. Ilulcher, 1 Leigh, 172; Stewart v.

Oaks, 5 lar. 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 Mlr. Chief Justice Shawv, in the case of the Commonwealth v. Aves ( 18 Pick. 193 ), to be the law of Massachusetts. The third is, to make a distinction between 185 v

Page 186 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 L Snelling, this part of the territory ceded by France, where Fort Snelling is, together with so much of the territory of the United States c east of the Mississippi as now constitutes the state of Wisconsin, was brought under a terri torial government, under tile 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 fo,r the government of said territory, passed on the 13th day of July, 1787; and shall be subject 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 claimed in any one of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid.” 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 (Aml.

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’ Alichigan, wh-ich did not tolerate slavery, b~ut it was positively enacted that slavery and involun-‘ tary servitude, with only one exception, spe cifically described, should not exist there. It the case of a master and his slave only temporarily in the country animno non manendi, and those who are there to reside for permanen t or indefinite purposes. Thi s is said by V

Mr. Wl,eston to be the law of Prussia, and was formnerly t he statute law of several states of our Union. It is necessary in this case to keep i n view t his d istinctio n b etween those count ries whos e laws are designed to act directly on the statucs of a slave, and make him av fibeemnan, and those where his master cain obt ain no aid from the laws to enforce his rights. It is to the last case only that the authorities, out of Missouri, relied on by defendant, apply, wh en the residence in the non-slavel holdince ter r itor y was permanent. In th e 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 protectin of o ur law s, it would seem to follow, as a n ecessary conclusion, that if the slave waives the protection of those laws, and returns to the state where he is held as a slave, Iris 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 Eng,land was to put the liberty of the slave into a parenthesis. If there had been an act of Parliament declaring that a slave coniing to Eng,lan,-d 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. IHorton (5

Leigh’s Virginia R. 615). (See also HIunter v. Fletcher, 1 Leigh’s Va. R.

172; Maria Louise v. Marot, 9 Louisiana R.; Smith v. Smith, 13 Ib. 441; Thomas v. Genevieve, 16 Ib. 483; Rankin v. Lydia, 2 A.‘K. Marshall, 467; Davies v. Tingle, 8 B. Munroe, 539; Griffeth v. Fanny, Gilm. V. R. 143; Lumf)rd v. Coquillon, 14 Martin’s La. It. 405; Josephine v. Poultney, 1

Louis. Ann. R4. 329.) Bat if the acts of Congress on this subject are valid, the law of the territory of Wisconsin, 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 lace, falls under the first category, and is a lw operating directly on the status of the slave. Bv the eighth section of the act of March 6, 1820 (3 Stat. at Large, 548), it was eiaentedl that, within this territory, “slavery and~ involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishmlenlt of crimes, whereof the parties shall havwse been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, for ever prohibited: Provided, alweays, that any person escaping into the sale, fromi whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any state or territory in the United States, such fugitive may be lawsfully reclaimed, and 186

Page 187 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. is not simply that slavery is not recognised appears, from the statute or customary law of and cannot be aided by the municipal law. It the state, to be the will of the state to refuse is recognised for the purpose of being abso-to recognise such changes of status by force lutely prohibited, and declared incapable of of foreign law, as the rules of the law of existing within the territory, save in the innations require to be recognised. But, in my stance of a fugitive slave. opinion, it is not within the province of any It would not be easy for the legislature to judicial tribunal to refuse such recognition employ more explicit language to signify its from any political considerations, or any view will that the status of slavery should not exist it may take of the exterior political relations within the territory, than the words found in between the state and one or more foreign the act of 1820, and in the ordinance of 1787; states, or any impressions it may have that a and if any doubt could exist concerning their change of foreign opinion and action on the application to cases of masters coming into subject of slavery nlay afford a reason why the territory with their slaves to reside, that the state should change its own action. To doubt must yield to the inference required by understand and give just effect to such conthe words of exception. That exception is, of siderations, and to change the action of the cases of fugitive slaves.

An exception from state in consequence of them, are functions of a prohibition marks the extent of the prohibi-diplomatists and legislators, not of judges. tion; for it would be absurd, as well as use-The inquiry to be made on this part of the less, to except from a prohibition a case not case is, therefore, whether the state of Miscontained within it. (9

Wheat. 200.) I must souri has, by its statute, or its customary law, conclude, therefore, that it was the will of manifested its will to displace any rule of Congress that the state of involuntary servi-international law, applicable to a change of tude of a slave, coming into the territory with the status of a slave, by foreign law. his master, should cease to exist. The Supreme I have not heard it suggested that there was Court of Missouri so held in Rachlel v. Walker any statute of the state of Missouri bearing (4 Misso. R. 350), which was the case of a on this question. The customary law of Mismilitary officer going into the territory with souri is the common law, introduced by statute two slaves.

in 1816. (1 Ter. Laws, 436.) And the conm But it is a distinct question whether the mon law, as Blackstone says (4 Com. 67), law of Missouri recognised and allowed effect adopts, in its full extent, the law of nations, to the change wrought in the status of the and holds it to be a part of the law of the plai,,tiff, by force of the laws of the territory land. of Wisconsin. I know of no sufficient warrant for declaring I say the law of Missouri, because a judicial that any rule of international law, concerning tribunal, in one state or nation, can recognise the recognition, in that state, of a change of personal rights acquired by force of the law of status, wrought by an extraterritorial law, any other state or nation, only so far as it is has been displaced or varied by the will of the the law of the former state that those rights state of Missouri. should be recognised. But, in the absence of I proceed then to inquire what the rules of positive law to the contrary, the will of every international law prescribe concerning the civilized state must be presumed to be to allow change of status of the plaintiff wrought by such effect to foreign laws as is in accord-the law of the territory of Wisconsin. ance with the settled rules of international It is generally agreed by writers upon interlaw. And legal tribunals are bound to act national law, and the rule has been judicially on this presumption. It may be assumed that applied in a great number of cases, that the motive of the state in allowing such opera-wherever any question may arise concerning tion to foreign laws is what has been termed the status of a person, it must be determined comity But, as has justly been said (per according to that law which has next preChief Justice Taney, 13 Pet. 589), it is the viously rightfully operated on and fixed that comity of the state, not of the court. The status. And, further, that the laws of a judges have nothing to do with the mniotive of country do not rightfully operate upon and fix the state. Their duty is simply to ascertain the status of persons who are within its limits and give effect to its will. And when it is ill itiuere, or who are abiding there for defifound by them that its will to depart from a nite temporary purposes, as for health, curirule of international law has not been mani-osity, or occasional business; that these laws, fested by the state, they are bound to assume known to writers on public and private interthat its will is to give effect to it. Undoubt-national law as personal statutes, operate only edly, every sovereign state may refuse to on the inhabitants of the country. Not that recognise a change, wrought by the law of a it is or can be denied that each independent foreign state, on the status of a person, while nation may, if it thinks fit, apply theni to all within such foreign state, even in cases where persons within their limits. But when this is the rules of international law require that done, not in conformity with the principles recognition. Its will to refuse such recogni-of international law, other states are not tion may be manifested by what we term understood to be willing to recognise or allow statute laws or by the customary law of the effect to such applicatio,s of personalstatutes. state. It is within the province of its judicial It beconies necessary, therefore, to inquire tribunals to inquire and adjudge whether it whether the operation of the laws of the t 187

Page 188 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ritory of Wisconsin upon the status of the plaintiff was or was not such an operation as t e se principles of international law require e ther states to recognise and allow effect to.

And this renders it needful to attend to the p articular facts and circumstances of this ease. I t appears that this cas e came on for trial iefore the Circuit Court and a jury, up o n an issue, in su bstance, whet ther the plaintiff, to gether wit h his wife and children, were the slaves of the defendant. The court instructed the jury that, “upon the f acts in this case, the law is w ith the d e fendant.” This withdrew from the jury the consideration and d ecision of everv matter of fact. The evidence in the care on si sted of writ te n admissions, signed by the co unsel of the parti es. 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 or 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 was a trial by jury, 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 defendant. 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 plaintiffs case, as the jury might have been warranted in drawing from those admissions, the law was with the defendant. Otherwise, the plaintiff would be deprived of the benefit of his trial by jury, by whom, for aught we can know, those inferences 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 Snelling, 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 domiell prior to his residence at Rock Island, being also unknown.

Now, it is true, that undler some circumstances 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. Bult it cannot be affirmed, with correctness, that it nearer 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 le gal 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 familv to the place where his duties were to be di,s charged, form a permanent domestic establish ment there, exercise there the civil rights andl 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 hinm self liable to be called away by the orders of the government would prevent his acquisition of a technical domnicil 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 lMad. 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 rlow.), and the authorities in support of the position are there referred to. Hlis 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 c annot 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 accordance with the principles of international law that status should be recognised in other jurisdictions, ordinarily depends on the question whether the person was domiciled in the country whose laws are asserted to have fixed his statuts. But, in the United States, questions 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, front Missouri to the state of Illinois, and thence to the territory of WFisconsin, 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 tetertr were rightfully extended over the plaintiff, 188

Page 189 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. 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 il 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 him 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 marriage and the birth of children becomes strictly material.

At the same time, it is proper to observe that the female to whom he was married having been taken to the same military post of Fort Snelling as a slave, and Dr. Emerson claiming also to be her master at the time of her marriage, her status, and that of the children of the marri age, ar e also affected by the same considerations. If the laws of Congress governin g the territory of Wisconsin were con s titutiona l an d valid laws, there can be n o do ubt these parties were capable of contracting a lawful marriage, attended with a ll the us u al c ivil rights and obligations of that coitionion. In that territory they were absolutely free persons, having full capacity to enter into the civil contract o f mar - riage. It is a principle of international law, sett le d beyond controversy in Engld and and America, that a marriage, valid by the law of the place where it was con tract ed, a nd not in fraud of the law of any other place, is valid everywhere; and that no technical domicil at the place of the contract is nece ssar y t o m ake i t 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 contract of marriage must be denied. IIe 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 contracted a lawful marriage, is not the fruit of that marriage, nor the child of its father, but subject to the maxim, partus seqitiu/ventei. 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 recognise the validity of the marriage of a fugitive slave, who escapes into a state or country where slavery is not allowed, and there contracts 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 slave there contracts marriage without the consent of his master; for in this case, it is agreed, Dr. Emerson did consent; and no fur and ought, in accordance with the rules of inter n ational law, to be allowed to fix his status, must depend up on the circumstances und er which Dr. Em erso n w ent into t hat territory, and remained there; and upon the further question, wheth er anvthing was there rightfully done by the plaintiff to cause those perso nal s tatut es to operate on him. Dr. Em ers o n w as an officer in the army of th e U nited States. lie went into the ter ritory to disch arge h is dut y to the Unit ed S tates. Tfhe place was out of the jurisdiction of any par ticular state, a nd wit hin t he exclusive jurisdiction of the Uni te d Sta tes.

It does not appe ar w here the domicil of origin of Dr. Emerson w gas, nor whether or not h e ha d lost it, and gain ed a not her domicil, no r of what pa rticular state, i f any, he was a citizen. On what groun d can it be denied that all vali d laws of the Un ited States. constitutionally enacted b y Co ng ress for the government of the territory, rightfully ex tended 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, com ing from abroad. Dr. Emerson was a citizen of th e country which had exclusive jurisdi ction over the territory; and not only a c itizen, but he w en t there in a public capacity, in the service of the same so D me t e w s htvereignty hich made the laws. hateer thos e law s m,ght b e, whether of the kind denominated personal statutes, or not, so far as thev were intended by the legislative will, constitutionally expressed, to operate on him and his servan and i er nd on th e 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 refusal would be a denial that the United States could, by laws constitutionally enacted, govern their own servants, residing on their own territory, over which the United States had the exclusive control, and in respect to which they are an independent sovereign power.

Whether the laws now in question were constitutionally enacted, I repeat once more, is a separate 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 international lair, could refuse to recognise the effects (of such legislation upon the statzis of their officers atdi servants, as valid everywhere. This a,lone would, in my apprehension, be sufficient to decide this question. But there are other facts stated on the recordl w hich 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 Htarriet, named in the declaration as his wtife, anld that Eliza and Lizzie were the children of that marriage, the first named having Seen born 189

Page 190 view page image

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 has been held by this court, that a bequest of property by a master to his slave, by neces sary implication entitles the slave to his free domu; because, onlv 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. 6-9, 695, 690.) To avoid misapprehension on this importan and difficult subject, I will state, distinctly, the conclusions at which I have arrived. They are: First. The rules of international law respectine the em ancip ation of slaves, by th e rightful operation of the laws of another statet or country upon the status of the slave, while resident in such foreign state or country, are part of the commo n law of Missouri, and have not woen ab rogat ed by any statute law of that sta*~. Second. The laws of the United States, constitutionally enacted, which operated directly on and changed the statuls of a slave coming into the territory of Wisconsin with his master who wenlt thither to reside for an indefinite l ength of time, in the per for mance o f this d uties as a n officer of the Uni ted States, had a rightful opoeration on the status of the slave, and it is in conformi ty with the rule s of inter national law that this ch ange of status should be recognised every where. Tlidhir. Th e laws of the Uni ted States, in operation in the ter ritory of Wisconsin at the tim o e Mso fu s see the plaintiffs residnce there, did act directly on the status of the plainti ff, a nds change his status to that of a free man. Fourith. T he plaintiff and his wife were capa ble of contracting, and, with the con sent of Dr.

Emerson, did contract a marri age i n that territory, valid under it s laws; and thoe validity of this marriage cannot be questioned in Missouri, save by showing that it was in f raud of the laws of that state, or of some right derived from them; whi ch ca nn ot )be shown in this c a s e, because the master con sented to it. Fifth. That the consent of the maste r that his slave, residing in a country which does not tolerate slavery, mav enter into a lawful contract of marriage, attended with the civil rights and duties which belong to that condi tion, is an effectual act of emancipation. And the law does not enable Dr. Emerson, or any one claiming under him, to assert a title to tile married persons as slaves, and thus destroy the obligation of the co ntract of marriiage, Iand bastardize their is s ue, 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 Report., 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 tho 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 consent, 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 doiicil of Dr. Emerson in that territory is not ques tioned in that decision; and it is placed on a broad denial of the operation, in MissouLri, of the law of any foreign state or countrv uponi the status of a slave, going with his master from Missouri into such foreign state or coun try, even though thev went thither to become, and actually became, permanent inhabitants of suchforeign state or country, the laces wehert~
of acted directly on the status of the slave, anal changedl his s~tatu’s to that of a freeman. To th-e correctness of such a decision I cannot assent. In1 my judgment, the opinion of the mlajority of the court in that case is in conflict with its previous decisions, with a great weight of’

judicial authority in other slavreholding states, Ed with fu~ndamental 190

Page 191 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. rinciples of private international law. Mr. I peatedly asserted it could not hold itself bound Chief Justice Gamble, in his dissenting opin-by the decisions of state courts, however great ion in that case, said:- respect night be felt for their learning, ablqity, “I regard the question as conclusively set-and impartiality. (See Swift v. Tyson, 16 tied by repeated adjudications of this court; Peters’s R. 1; Carpenter v. The Providene, and if I doubted or denied the propriety of Ins. Co., lb. 495; Foxcroft v. Mallet, 4 Ilow those decisions, I would not feel myself any 353; Rowan v. Runnels, 5

Ilow. 134.) more at liberty to overturn them, than I would Some reliance has been placed on the fact any other series of decisions by which the law that the decision in the Supreme Court )of upon any other question had been settled. -Miss.)uri was between these parties, and the There is with me nothing in the law of slavery suit there was abandoned to obtain another which distinguishes it from the law on any trial in the courts of the United States. other subject, or allows anymore accommoda-In Ihomer v. Brown (16 Ilow. 354), this tion to the temporary excitements which have court made a decision upon the construction gathered around it. *

* But of a devise of lands, in direct opposition to in the midst of all such excitement, it is pro-the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court per that the judicial mind, calm and self-of Massachusetts, between the same parties, balanced, should adhere to principles estab-respecting the same subjectmatter the claimblished when there was no feeling to disturb ant having become nonsuit in the state court, the view of the legal questions upon which in order to bring his action in the Circuit the rights of parties depend.” Court of the United States. I did not sit in “In this state, it has been recognised from that case, having been of counsel for one of the beginning of the government as a correct the parties while at the bar; but, on examinposition in law, that the master who takes his ing the report of the argument of the counsel slave to reside in a state or territory where for the plaintiff in error, I find they made the slavery is prohibited, thereby emancipates his point, that this court ought to give effect to slave.” (Winney v. Whitesides, 1 Mo. 473; the construction put upon the will by the state Le Grange v. Chouteau, 2 Mo. 20; Milley v.

court, to the end that rights respecting lands Smith, lb. 36; Ralph v.

Duncan, 3 Mo. 194; may be governed by one law, and that the Julia v.

McKinney, lb. 270; Nat v. Ruddle, law of the place where the lands are situated; lb. 400; Rachel v. Walker, 4 Mo. 350; Wilson that they referred to the state decision of the v. Melvin, 592.) case, reported in 3 Cushing, 390, and to many Chief Justice Gamble has also examined decisions of this court. But this court does the decisions of the courts of other states in not seem to have considered the point of suffiwhich slavery is established, and finds them cient importance to notice it in their opinions. in accordance with these preceding decisions In Millar v. Austin (13 How. 218), an action of the Supreme Court of Missouri to which was brought by the endorsee of a written he refers. promise. The question was, whether it was It would be a useless parade of learning negotiable under a statute of Ohio. The for me to go over the ground which he has so Supreme Court of that state having decided fully and ably occupied. it was not negotiable, the plaintiff became But it is further insisted we are bound to nonsuit, and brought his action in the Circuit follow this decision. I do not think so. In Court of the United States. The decision of this case, it is to be determined what laws of the Supreme Court of the state, reported in 4 the United States were in operation in the Ves., L. J. 527, was relied on. This court territory of Wisconsin, and what was their unanimously held the paper to be negotiable. effect on the status of the plaintiff. Could When the decisions of the highest court of a the plaintiff contract a lawful marriage there? state are directly in conflict with each other, Does any law of the state of Missouri impair it has been repeatedly held, here, that the last the obligation of that contract of marriage, decision is not necessarily to be taken as the destroy his rights as a husband, bastardize the rule. (State Bank v. Knoop, 16 Ilow.

369; issue of the marriage, and reduce them to a Pease v. Peck, 18 Ihow.

599.) state of slavery? To these considerations I desire to add, that These questions, which arise exclusively it was not made known to the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United of Missouri, so far as appears, that the plainStates, this court, under the Constitution and tiff was married in Wisconsin with the conlaws of the United States, has the rightful sent of Dr. Emerson, and it is not made authority finally to decide. And if we look known to us that Dr. Emerson was a citizen bevond these questions, we come to the con-of Missouri, a fact to which that court seem sideration whether the rules of international to have attached much importance. law, which are part of the laws of Missouri Sitting here to administer the law between until displaced by some statute not alleged to these parties, I do not feel at liberty to sureast, do or do not require the status of the render my own convictions of what the law plaintiff, as fixed by the laws of the territory requires, to the authority of the decision in 15 of Wisconsin, to be recognised in Missouri. Missouri Reports. Upon such a question, not depending on any I have thus far assumed, merely for the statute or local usage, but on principles of purpose of the argument, that the laws of the universal jurisprudence, this court has re-United States, respecting slavery in this terri 191

Page 192 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 S’tates, 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 l and valuable claims. These were made, by North Carolina on the 25th day of February, 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 connexion; but I observe here that each of them distinctly shows, upon its face, that they were not only in execution of the general plan proposed by the Congress of the Confederation, but of a formed purpose of each of these states, existing when the assent of their respective 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 consideration, the unsettled territory was viewed asjustly applicable to the common benefit, so far as it then had or might attain thereafter a pecuniary value; and so far as it might become the seat of new states, to be 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, Connecticut, 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 confident expectation, founded on their appreciation of the justice of the general claim, and fully justified by the results, was entertained, that these cessions would be made. The ordinance of 1787 had made provision for the temporary government of so much of the territory 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 confer 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; their powers had been conferred and defined by the ordinance. So far as it provided for the temporary goverxnment 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 continuance of that legislative power. But the officers to be appointed for the Northwestern Territory, after the adoption of the Constitn tory, were constitutionally enacted by Con gress. It remains to inquire whether they are constitutional and binding laws. In the a rgum en t of this p art of t he cas e at bar, it was justly cons idered by all the coun sel to be necess ary t o a sc ertain the source of the p ower of Congress o ver the territory be longing to the United S tat es. Until this is ascer tai ned, 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 State s a s a terr itory. That whate ver power o f this ki nd exists, is derived by implication from t he capac ity of the United States to hold and acquire territory out of the limits of any state, and the necessity for its having some gov ernment. O n the o ther side, it was insisted that the Constitution has not failed to make an express provision for this end, and that it is found in the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To determine which of these is the correct view, it is needful to advert to some facts respecting this subject, which existed when the Constitu tion was fram ed and adopted. It will be found that these facts n ot 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 territorv 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 several states. It not only delayed the accession of Maryland to the Confederation, but at one time seriously threatened its existence. (5 Jour. of Cono. 208, 442.) Under the pressure of these circumstances, Congress earnestly recommended to the several states a cession of their claims and rights to the United States. (5 Jour. of Cong. 442.) And before the Constitution was fralned, 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 Ma~rch, 1784; that of Massachusetts 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 A~ugust, 1787, while the Conventionl for framing the Constitution was in session. It is v ery material to observe, in this connexionl, that each of these acts cedes, in terms, 192

Page 193 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. tion, must necessarily be officers of the United already stated, that not only was there a con States. and not of the Congress of the Confe-fident expectation entertained by the other deration; appointed and commissioned by the states, that North Carolina and Georgia woul.l President, and exercising powers derived from complete the plan already so far executed by the United States under the Constitution. New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connec Such was the relation between the United ticut, and South Carolina, but that the opinion States and the Northwestern Territory, which was in no small degree prevalent, that the all reflecting men must have foreseen would just title to this ” back country,” as it wa. exist, when the government created by the termned, had vested in the United States by Constitution should supersede that of the Con-the treaty of peace, and could not rightfully federation. That if the new government should be claimed by any individual state. be without power to govern this territory, it There is another consideration applicable to could not appoint and commission officers, and this part of the subject, and entitled, in my send them into the territory, to exercise there judgment, to great weight. legislative, judicial, and executive power; and The Congress of the Confederation had as that this territory, which was even then fore-sumed the power not only to dispose of the seen to be so important, both politically and lands ceded, but to institute governments financially, to all the existing states, niust be and make laws for their inhabitants. In left not only without the control of the gene-other words, they had proceeded to act under ral government, in respect to its future politi-the cession, which, as we have seen, was as cal relations to the rest of the states, but ab-well of the jurisdiction as of the soil. This solutelywithoutanvgovernment, savewhat its ordinance was passed on the 13th of July, inhabitants, acting in their primary capacity, 1787.

TheconventionforframingtheConstitu ight from time to time create for themselves. tion was then in session at Philadelphia. The But this Northwestern Territory was not the proof is direct and decisive, that it was known only territory, the soil and jurisdiction where-to the convention.* It is equally clear that it of were then understood to have been ceded to was admitted and understood not to be within the United States. The cession by South the legitimate powers of the Confederation to Carolina, made in August, 1787, was of “all pass this ordinance.

(Jefferson’s Works, vol. the territory included within the river Mis-9, pp. 251, 276; Federalist, Nos. 38, 43.) sissippi, and a line beginning at that part of The importance of conferring on the new the said river which is intersected by the government regular powers commensurate southern boundary of North Carolina, and with the objects to be attained, and thus continuing along the said boundary line until avoiding the alternative of a failure to execute it intersects the ridge or chain of mountains the trust assumed by the acceptance of the which divides the eastern from the western cessions made and expected, or its execution waters; then to be continued along the top of by usurpation, could scarcely fail to be persaid ridge of mountains, until it intersects a ceived. That it was in fact perceived. is line to be drawn due west from the head of clearly shown by the Federalist (No. 38), the southern branch of the Tugaloo river, to where this very argument is made use of in the said mountains; and thence to run a due commendation of the Constitution. west course to the river Mississippi.” Keeping these facts in view, it may confi It is true that by subsequent explorations it dently be asserted that there is very strong was ascertained that the source of the Tugaloo reason to believe, before we examine the Conriver, upon which the title of South Carolina stitution itself, that the necessity for a compedepended, was so far to the northward, that tent grant of power to hold, dispose of, and the transfer conveyed only a narrow slip of govern territory, ceded and expected to be land, about twelve miles wide, lying on the ceded, could not have escaped the attention of top of the ridge of mountains, and extending those who framed or adopted the Constitution; from the northern boundary of Georgia to the and that if it did not escape their attention, it southern boundary of North Carolina. But could not fail to be adequately provided for. this was a discovery made long after the ces-Any other conclusion would involve the sion, and there can be no doubt that the state assumption that a subject of the gravest naof South Carolina, in making the cession, and tional concern, respecting which the small the Congress in accepting it, viewed it as a states felt so much jealousy that it had been transfer to the United States of the soil and almost an insurmountable obstacle to the forjurisdiction of an extensive and important mation of the Confederation, and as to which lHart of the unsettled territory ceded by the all the states had deep pecuniary and political Crown of Great Britain by the treaty of peace, interests, and which had been so recently and though its quantity or extent then remained constantly agitated, was nevertheless overto be ascertained.* looked; or that such a subject was not over It must be remembered also, as has been looked, but designedly left unprovided for, * Alite by Mr. Justice Curtis.

This statement that some territory did actually pass by this cession, is taken fiom the ment, I have not thought it necessary further to investi opinion of the court. delivered by Mr. Justice Wayne, in the gate it. case of iloward v. Ingersoll. reported in 13 tIow. 405. It is * It was published in a newspaper at Philadelphia, in as obscure matter, and, on some examination of it, I have May, and a copy of it was sent by i. II.

Lee to Gell. Wash been led to doubt whether any territory actually passed by ington, on the 15th of July. (See p. 261, Cou. of Am. lecvs this cession. }Jut as the fact is not important to the argu-vol. 4, and Writings of Washington, tol. 9, p. 174.) 13 19-13,

Page 194 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. though it was manifestly a subject of common con cern, which belon ged to the ca re of th e general government, and adeq u at e provision fr which could not fail to be deemed neces sary and proper.

Th e admission of new states, to be framed out of the ceded territory, early attracted the attention of the convention. Aymong 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.” Nothing 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 insertion 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 p.roper mode of providing for the subject, arising out of the supposed 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 propriety 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 Congress 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 legislatures 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 belonging 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 C ong ress has some power to institute temporary governments over the territory, I believe all agree; and, if it be admitted that the necessity of some p~ower to govern the territory of the United States c ould 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 implication 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 subjectmatter of the growth and formation and admission of new states, and the disposal of the territory for these ends, were u nder cons i deration, and that so me provision therefore was expressly made, it is improbable tha t it would be, in its terms, a grossly inadequate pro vis io n; a nd that an indi spensably necessary power to institute t e mporary govern ments, and to legislate for the inhabitants of the territory, wa s passed silently by, and le ft to be deduced from the necessity of th e case. In the argument at the bar, great attention has been paid to the mean ing of the word territory.”

Ordin arily, when the territory of a sovereign power is spoken of, it refers to that tract of country which is under the political jurisdiction of that s overe i gn p ower. Thus Chief Justice Marshall (in United States v. Bevais, 3 Wheat. 386) says: “What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses? We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is coextensive with its territory.” Examples might easily be multiplied of this use of the word, but they are unnecessary, because it is familiar. But the word ” territory” is not used in this broad and general sense in this clause of the Constitution. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, 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 political jurisdiction, and so much of the sol, as had not previously been granted to individuals. These words, “territory belonging to the United States,”

were not used in the Constitution to describe an abstraction, but to identify 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 “
territoryF belonging to the United States,” as fully as if each of these essential qualities and incidents had been specifically described. I say, the essential qualitmes and incidents. 194

Page 195 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. ‘States neither admitting nor denying the val: dity of those claims; so that it was impossi ble then, and has ever since re mained iSt ipos sible, to know wh ether this territory did or did not then belong to the United States; and, consequently, to know whether it wdas withi n or with out the authority conferred by this clause, to dispose of and make rules and regu lat i ons respecting the territory of the United States. This attributes to the e minent men who acted on this subject a want of a bility and forecast, or a want of atten tion t o 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 subjectmatter 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 existence of this power. But that there was then a settled opinion in the executive and legisl,ative branches of the government, that this power did not exist, cannot be admitted, without 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 whatever doubts may then have existed, the question 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 yearns, has participated in these transactions. To question their validity now, is vain. As was saidl by Mr.

Chief Justice Marshall, in the American Insurance Company v. Canter (1

Peters, 542), ” the Constituti~on confers absolutely o the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; conse-t 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 Cerr6 v. Pitot, 6 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 confident 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 states, refers to and includes new states to be formed out of this territory, ex ected to be thereafter ceded by North CaroIina 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 dispose of and make all needful regulations respecting this territory, when ceded, as existed for a like authority respecting territory which had been ceded. No reason has been suggested why any reluctance 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 :f the debates in the Convention on this article, 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 jf members, a subject of even paramount importance. Again, in wh at an extraordinary position would the limitation of this clause to territory ‘hen belonging to the United States, place the :erritory which layr within the chartered limits )f North Carolina and Georgia. The title to khat territory was then claimed by those states, ~ nd by the United States, their respective -Jlaims are purposely left unsettled by the exy,ress words of this clause; and when cessions -here made byr those states, they were merely -f their claims to this territory, the United 195

Page 196 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. qaently, that government possesses the power power Congress to fix the extent of the appel of acquiring territory, either by conq(uest or late jurisdiction of this court; aind, finally, in treaty.” (See Cerre6 v. Pitot, 6 Cr. 33(6.) And the eighth section of the first article are the I add, it also possesses the power of govern-words, “Congress shall have power to regu ing it, when acquired, not by resorting to sup-late commerce.” posititious powers, nowhere found described It is unnecessary to describe the body of in the Constitution, but expressly granted in legislation which has been enacted under this the authority to make all needful rules and grant of power; its variety and extent are regulations respecting the territory of the well known. But it may be mentioned, in United States. passing, that under this power to regulate There was to be established by the Consti-commerce, Congress has enacted a great sys tution a frame of government, under which tern of municipal laws, and extended it over the people of the United States and their pos-the vessels and crews of the United States on terity were to continue indefinitely. To take the high seas and in foreign ports, arid even one of its provisions, the language of which is over citizens of the United States resident ill broad enough to extend throughout the exist-China; and has established judicatures, with ence of the government, and embrace all ter-power to inflict even capital punishment ritory belonging to the United States through-within that country. out all time, and the purposes and objects of If, then, this clause does contain a power which apply to all territory of the United to legislate respecting the territory, what are States, and narrow it down to territory be-the li’mits of that power?

longing to the United States when the Consti-To this I answer, that, in common with all tution was framed, while at the same time it the other legislative powers of Congress, it is admitted that the Constitution contem-finds limits in the express prohibitions on plated and authorized the acquisition, from Congress not to do certain things; that, in time to time, of other and foreign territory, the exercise of the legislative power, Congress seems to me to be an interpretation as incon-cannot pass an ex post facto law or bill of sistent with the nature and purposes of the attainder; and so in respect to each of the instrument, as it is with its language, and I other prohibitions contained in the Constitucan have no hesitation in rejecting it. tion. I construe this clause, therefore, as if it had Besides this, the rules and regulations must read, Congress shall have power to make all be needful. But undoubtedly the question needful rules and regulations respecting those whether a particular rule or regulation be tracts of country, out of the limits of the seve-needful, must be finally determined by Conral states, which the United States have ac-gress itself. Whether a law be needful, is a quired, or may hereafter acquire, by cessions, legislative or political, not a judicial, quesas well of the jurisdiction as of the soil, so far tion.

Whatever Congress deems needful is as the soil may be the property of the party so, under the grant of power. making the cession, at the time of making it. Nor am I aware that it has ever been ques It has been urged that the words “rules tioned that laws providing for the temporary and regulations” are not appropriate terms in government of the settlers on the public lands which to convey authority to make laws for are needful, not only to prepare them for adthe government of the territory. mission to the Union as states, but even to en But it must be remembered that this is a able the United States to dispose of the lands. grant of power to the Congress-that it is Without government and social order, there therefore necessarily a grant of power to legis-can be no property; for without law, its ownerlate-and, certainly, rules and regulations re-ship, its use, and the power of disposing of it, specting a particular subject, made by the cease to exist, in the sense in which those legislative power of a country, can be nothing words are used and understood in all civilized but laws. Nor do the particular terms em-states. ployed, in my judgment, tend in any degree Since, then, this power was manifestly conto restrict this legislative power. Power ferred to enable the United States to dispose of granted to a legislature to make all needful its public lands to settlers, and to admit them rules and regulations respecting the territory, into the Union as states, when in the judgis a power to pass all needful laws respect-ment of Congress they should be fitted thereing it. for, since these were the needs provided for, The word regulate, or regulation, is several since it is confessed that government is indistimes used in the Constitution. It is used in pensable to provide for those needs, and the the fourth section of the first article to de-power is, to make all needful rules and regulascribe those laws of the states which prescribe tions respecting the territory, I cannot doubt the times, places, and manner, of choosing Se-that this is a power to govern the inhabitants nators and Representatives; in the second of the territory, by such laws as Congress section of the fourth article, to designate the deems needful until they obtain admission as legislative action of a state on the subject of states. fugitives from service, having a very close re-Whether they should be thus governed solely lation to the matter of our present inquiry; in by laws enacted by Congress, or partly by the second section of the third article, to em-laws enacted by legislative power c )nferred 196

Page 197 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. by Congress, is one of those questions which and in doubtful cases should determine, the depend on the judgment of Congressa ques-judicial mind, on a question of the interpret.on which of these is needful. tation of the Constitution.

(Stuart v. Laird, 1 But it is insisted, that whatever other powers Cranch, 269; Martin v. Ihunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Congress may have respecting the territory of Cohlens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Prigg v. the United States, the subject of negro slavery Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 621; Cooley v.

Port forms an exception. Wardens, 12 Ilow. 315.) The Constitution declares that Congress In this view, I proceed briefly to examine shall have power to make “all needful rules the practical construction placed on the clause and regulations” respecting the territory be-now in question, so far as it respects the inlonging to the United States. clusion therein of power to permit or prohibit The assertion is, though the Constitution slavery in the territories. says all, it does not mean all-though it says It has already been stated, that after the govall, without qualification, it means all except ernment of the United States was organized such as allow or prohibit slavery. It cannot under the Constitution, the temporary governbe doubted that it is incumbent on those who ment of the territory northwestof the riverOhio would thus introduce an exception not found could no longer exist, save under the powers in the language of the instrument, to exhibit conferred on Congress by the Constitution. some solid and satisfactory reason, drawn from Whatever legislative, judicial, or executive authe subjectmatter or the purposes and objects thority should be exercised therein could be deof the clause, the context, or from other pro-rived only from the people of the United States visions of the Constitution, showing that the under the Constitution. And, accordingly, an words employed in this clause are not to be act was passed on the 7th day of August, 1789 understood according to their clear, plain, and (1

Stat. at Large, 50), which recites: “Whereas, natural signification. in order that the ordinance of the United States The su)jectmatter is the territory of the in Congress assembled, for the government of United States out of the limits of every state, the territory northwest of the river Ohio, may and consequently under the exclusive power contissue to have full effe,t, it is required that of the people of the United States.

Their will certain provisions should be made, so as to respecting it, manifested in the Constitution, adapt the same to the present Constitution of can be subject to no restriction. The pur-the United States.” It then provides for the poses and objects of the clause were the en-appointment by the President of all officers, actment of laws concerning the disposal of the who, by force of the ordinance, were to have public lands, and the temporary government been ap)pointed by the Congress of the Conof the settlers thereon until new states should federation, and their commission in the manbe formed. It will not be questioned that, ner required by the Constitution: and emwhen the Constitution of the United States powers the secretary of the territory to exercise was framed and adopted, the allowance and the the powers of the governor in case of the death prohibition of negro slavery were recognised or necessary absence of the latter. subjects of municipal legislation; every state Ilere is an explicit declaration of the will had in some measure acted thereon; and the of the first Congress, of which fourteen memonly legislative act concerning the territory-hers, including Mr. Madison, had been miemthe ordinance of 1787, which had then so re-hers of the Convention which framed the cently been passed-contained a prohibition Constitution, that the ordinance, one article of slavery. The purpose and object of the of which prohibited slavery, “should continue (lause being to enable Congress to provide a to have full effect.” General Washington, )body of municipal law for the government of who signed this bill, as President, was the prethe settlers, the allowance or the prohibition sident of that Convention. of slavery comes within the known and recog-It does not appear to me to be important, in nised( scope of that purpose and object.

this connexion, that that clause in the ordi There is nothing in the context which quali-nance which prohibited slavery was one of a fies the grant of power. The regulations must series of articles of what is therein termed a be “respecting the territory.” An enactment compact. The Congress of the Confederation that slavery may or may not exist there, is a had no power to make such a compact, nor to regulation respecting the territory.

lRegula-act at all on the subject; and after what had tions must be needful; but it is necessarily been so recently said by Mr. Madison on this left to the legislative discretion to determine subject, in the thirty-eighth number of the whether a law be needful. No other clause Federalist, I cannot suppose that he, or anv of the Constitution has been referred to at the others who voted for this bill, attributed any bar, or has been seen by me, which imposes intrinsic effect to what was denominated in any restriction or makes any exception con-the ordinance a compact between “the original cerning the power of Congress to allow or pro-states and the people and states in the new hibit slavery in the territory belonging to the territory;” there being no new states then in United States. existence in the territory, with whom a com A practical construction, nearly contempo-pact could be made, and the few scattered raneous with the adoption of the Constitution, inhabitants, unorganized into a political body, and continued by repeated instances through not being capable of becoming a party to a a long series of years, may always influence, treaty, even if the Congress of the Confedera 197

Page 198 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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; theact 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 thirtysix degrees thirty minutes north latitude. Of the second class, in which Congress re fused to interfere with slavery already exist in g 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 conhing 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 aets of the gravest importance, be entitled to weight in Ithe judicial mind on a question of construetion, it would seem to be difficult to resist the force of the acts above adv erted 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 precedenth tion had had power to make o ne touch ing the government of th at 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 wi tin this part of the territor of the Unte it of ed States; for it clear ly shows that slavery was there aft er to be prohibited there, and it could be prohibited only by an exer tion of the power of the U nited States, under the Constitution; no other power being capable of operating with in tha t terri tory after the Constitution took effect. On the 2d of April, 1790 (1 Stat. at Large, 106), th e first Cong re ss passed an t act accept ing a d eed of cession b y Nor th Carolina of that territory aft erwards erected into the state of Tennessee. The four th express con dition contain ed i n this dee d of c ession, after providing that the inhabitants of the territory shall be temporarily governed in the same manner as those beyond the Ohio, is followed by the se words: “Pi rovided, always, that no regula tion s made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate sla ves.” 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, Cori 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 thereto, it was one stipulation in the compact of cession, that the ordinance of July 13th, 1787, ” shall in all its parts extend to the territory contained in the present act of cession, that article only excepted which forbids slavery.”

The government of this territory was subsequently established and organized under the act of May 10th, 1800; but so mnuch of thel ordinances as prohibited slavery weas not putI in operation there.~ Without going minutely into the details ofi each case, 1 will now give reference to twoI classes of acts, in one of which Congress has/ extended the ordinance of 1787, inclunding thel 198

Page 199 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPIN1ON. the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is 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 Constitution itself, that when it confers on Congress the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States, the exclusion or the allowance of slavery was excepted; or if anything in the history of this provision tends to show that such an exception was intended by those who framed and adopted the Constitution 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, Congress 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 Congress has power to impose direct taxes on persons and property in this District.

It was insisted, that though the grant of power was in its terms broad enough to include direct taxation, 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 adirmitted in our country, than that taxation and representation must exist together. We went into the war of the Revolution to assert it, and it is incorporated as fundamental into all American governments. But however true and important this maxim may be, it is not necessarily 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 wordls of the Constitution, and as that contained no such exception as would permit the maxim to operate in this District, this court, interpreting that language, held that the exception did not exist. under it, three different and opposite views are tak en of the power of Congress respecting s laver y in the territories. One i s, that though Congress can make a regulation prohibiting slavery in a territory, the y cann ot make a regulation allowing it; another is that it can neither be established nor prohibi ted by Congress, but that the people of a territory, when organized by Congress, can establish or prohibit slavery; while the third is, that the Constitution itself secures to ev ery citizen who holds slaves, under the laws of any state, the indefeasible right to carry the m into any territory, and the re hold them as property. No particu lar clause of the Con stitution has been referred to a t the bar in support of either of these views. The first seems to be rested upon general considerations concerning the social and moral evils of slavery, its relation s to republican go vernments, it s inconsist ency with the Declaration of Independence and with n atural right. The second is drawn from considerations equally general, concerning the right of selfg over nment, an d the n atur e of the political institutions which have bee n established by the people of the United States. While the third is said to re st upon t he eq u al righ t of all citizens to go with their property up on the p ubl ic domain, and the inequality of a regul ation 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 insisted that a regulation excluding7 slavery from a territory operates, practically, to make an unjust discrimination between citizens of different states, in respect to their use and enjoym ent of the territory of th e United States. With the weight of either of ee these considerations, when presented to Congress to influence 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 authorize this court to insert into this clause of the Constitution an exception of the exclusion or allowance of slavery, not found therein, nor in any other part of that instrument. To eng,raft on any instrument a substantive exception not found in it, must be admitted to be a matter attended with great difficulty. And the difficulty increases with the importance 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 considerations. Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford rules of juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of lil9

Page 200 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Again, the Constitution confers on Congress’exception of the allowance or prohibition of power to regulate commerce with foreign na-slavery therein? tions. Under this, Congress passed an act on While the regulation is one “respecting the the 22d of December, 1807, unlimited in dura-territory,” while it is, in the judgment of Con tion, laying an embargo on all ships and yes-gress, “a needful regulation,” and is thus sels in the ports or within the limits and juris-completely within the words of the grants diction of the United States. No law of the while no other clause of the Constitution can United States ever pressed so severely upon be shown, which requires the insertion of an particular states. Though the constitutionality exception respecting slavery, and while the of the law was contested with an earnestness practical construction for a period of upwards and zeal proportioned to the ruinous effects of fifty years forbids such an exception, it which were felt from it, and though, as MIr. would, in my opinion, violate every sound Chief Justice Marshall has said (9 Wheat.

rule of interpretation to force that exception 192), “a want of acuteness in discovering ol)- into the Constitution upon the strength of jections to a measure to which they felt the abstract political reasoning, which we are most deeprooted hostility will not be imputed bound to believe the people of the United to those who were arrayed in opposition to States thought insutfficient to induce them to this,” I am not aware that the fact that it pro-limit the power of Congress, because what hibited the use of a particular species of pro-they have said contains no such limniitation. perty, belonging almost exclusivelyto citizens Befi)re I proceed further to notice some of a few states, and this indefinitely, was ever other grounds of supposed objection to this supposed to show that it was unconstitutional. power of Congress, I desire to say, that if it Something much more stringent, as a ground were not for my anxiety to insist upon what I of legal judgment, was relied on-that the deem a correct exposition of the Constitution, power to regulate commerce did not include if I looked only to the purposes of the argu the power to annihilate commerce. nmeat, the source of the power of Congress But the decision was, that under the power asserted in the opinion of the majority of the to regulate commerce, the power of Con,ress court would answer those purposes equally over the subject was restricted only by those well.

For they admit that Congress has exceptions and limitations contained in the power to organize and govern the territories Constitution; and as neither the clause in until they arrive at a suitable condition for question, which was a general grant of power admission to the Union; they admit, also, that to regulate commerce, nor any other clause of the kind of government which shall thus exist the Constitution, imposed any restrictions as should be regulated by the condition and to the duration of an embargo, an unlimited wants of each territory, and that it is neces prohibition of the use of the shipping of the sarily committed to the discretion of Congress country was within the power of Congress. to enact such laws for that purpose as that On this subject, Mr. Justice Daniel, speaking discretion may dictate; and no limit to-that for the court in the case of United States v. discretion has been shown, or even suggested, Marigold (9 Ilow. 560), says: “Congress are, save those positive prohibitions to legislate, by the Constitution, vested with the power to which are found in the Constitution. regulate commerce with foreign nations; and I confess myself unable to perceive any however, at periods of high excitement, an difference whatever between my own opinion application of the terms’to regulate com-of the general extent of the power of Congress minerce,’ such as would embrace absolute pro-and the opinion of the majority of the court, hibition, may have been questioned, yet, since save that I consider it derivable from the the passage of the embargo and noninter- express language of the Constitution, while course laws, and the repeatedjudicial sanctions they hold it to be silently implied from the these statutes have received, it can scarcely at power to acquire territory. Looking at the this day be open to doubt, that every subject power of Congress over the territories as of falling legitimately within the sphere of com-the extent just described, what positive prol:ercial regulation may be partially or wholly hihition exists in the Constitution, which reexcluded, when either measure shall be de-strained Congress from enacting a law in 1820 manded by the safety or the important int-to prohibit slavery north of thirtysix degrees rests of the entire nation. The power once thirty minutes north latitude? conceded, it may operate on any and every The only one sugg,,ested is that clause in the subject of commerce to which the legislative fifth article of the amnendments of thle Constidiscretion may apply it.” tution which declares that no person shall li)e If power to regulate commerce extends to deprived of his life, liberty, or property, witl,an indefinite prohibition of the use of all out due process of law. I will now proceed vessels belonging to citizens of the several to examine the question, whether this clause states, and may operate, without exception> is entitled to the effect thus attributed t,’ it. upon every subject of commerce to which the It is necessary, first, to have a clear view ef legislative discretion may apply it, upon what the nature and incidents of that particular grounds can I say that power to make all species of property which is now in question. needful rules and regulations respecting the Slavery, being contrary to natural right, is territory of the United States is subject to an created only by niunicipal law. This is not 200

Page 201 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. only plain in itself, and agreed by all writers I a resident on the territory of the United States on the subject, but is inferable from the Con-with his slaves, and there to hold them as stitution, and has been explicitly declared by such, but has neither made nor provided for this court. The Constitution refers to slaves any municipal regulations which are essential as “persons held to service in one state, under to the existence of slavery? the laws thereof.” Nothing can more clearly Is it n,t more rational to conclude that they describ)e a status created by municipal law. who framed and adopted the Constitution were In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (10 Pet. 611), this aware that persons held to service under the court said: “The state of slavery is deemed laws of a state are property only to the extent to lie a mere municipal regulation, founded on and under the conditions fixed by those laws; and limited to the range of territorial laws.” that they must cease to be available as pro In Ra-nkin v. Lydia (2 Marsh. 12, 470), the perty, when their owners voluntarily place Supreme Court of Appeals of Kentucky said: them permanently within another jurisdic “Slavery is sanctioned by the laws of this tion, where no municipal laws on the subject state, and the right to hold them under our of slavery exist; and that, being aware of municipal regulations is unquestionable. But these principles, and having said nothing to we view this as a right existing by positive interfere with or displace them, or to compel law of a municipal character, without found-Congress to legislate in any particular man ation in the law of nature or the unwritten ner on the subject, and having empowered common law.” I am not acquainted with any Congress to make all needful rules and regula case or writer questioning the correctness of tions respecting the territory of the United this doctrine. (See also 1

Burge, Col. and States, it was their intention to leave to the For. Laws, 738, 741, where the authorities discretion of Congress what regulations, if are collected.) any, should be made concerning slavery there The status of slavery is not necessarily in? Moreover, if the right exists, what are always attended with the same powers on the its limits, and what are its conditions? If part of the master. The master is subject to citizens of the United States have the right to the supreme power of the state, whose will take their slaves to a territory, and hold them controls his action towards his slave, and this there as slaves, without regard to the laws of control must be defined and regulated by the the territory, I suppose this right is not to be municipal law. In one state, as at one period restricted to the citizens of slaveholding states. of the Roman law, it may put the life of the A citizen of a state which does not tolerate slave into the hand of the master; others, as slavery can hardly be denied the power of dothose of the United States, which tolerate ing the same thing.

And what law of slavery slavery, may treat the slave as a person, when does either take with him to the territory? the master takes his life; while in others, the If it be said to be those laws respecting slavery law may recognise a right of the slave to be which existed in the particular state from protected from cruel treatment. In other which each slave last came, what an anomaly is words, the status of slavery embraces every this?

Where else can we find, under the law condition, from that in which the slave is of any civilized country, the power to introknown to the law simply as a chattel, with no duce and permanently continue diverse syscivil rights, to that in which he is recognised temns of foreign municipal law, for holding as a person for all purposes, save the compul-persons in slavery? I say, not merely to insory power of directing and receiving the troduce, but permanently to continue, these fruits of his labor. Which of these conditions anomalies. For the offspring of the female shall’Pttend the status of slavery, must depend must be governed by the foreign municipal on.qe municipal law which creates and laws to which the mother was subject; and upholds it. when any slave is sold, or passes by succes And not only must the status of slavery be sion on the death of the owner, there must created and measured by municipal law, but pass with him, by a species of subrogation, the rights, powers, and obligations, which and as a kind of unknown jus in re, the foreign grow out of that status, must be defined, pro-municipal laws which constituted, regulated, tecte(l, and enforced, by such laws. The li-and preserved, the status of the slave before ability of the master for the torts and crimes his exportation. Whatever theoretical iinporof his slave, and of third persons for assault-tance may be now supposed to belong to the ing or injuring or harboring or kidnapping maintenance of such a right, I feel a perfect him, the forms and modes of emancipation conviction that it would, if ever tried, prove and sale, their subjection to the debts of the to be as impracticable in fact, as it is, in my master, succession by death of the master, judgment, monstrous in theory. suits for fieedom, the capacity of the slave to I consider the assumption which lies at the be party to a suit, or to be a witness, with basis of this theory to be unsound; not in its such police regulations as have existed in all lust sense, and when properly understood, but civilized states where slavery has been tole-in the sense which has been attached to it. rated, are among the subjects upon which That assumption is, that the territory ceded municipal legislation becomes necessary when by France was acquired for the equal benefit slavery is introduced. of all the citizens of the United States. I Is it conceivable that the Constitution has agree to the position. But it was acquired c,onferred ~he right on every citizen to become for their benefit in their collective, not their 201

Page 202 view page image

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 administration. 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 powers not committed to it; and which, with all the unaffected respect I feel for it, when acting 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 borrowed from Magna Charta; was brought to America by our ancestors, as part of their inherited liberties, and has existed in all the states, usually in the very words of the great charter. It existed in every political community in America in 1787, when the ordinance 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 Congress of the Confederation alone, but the legislature 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 discovered that violation. Besides, if the prohibition 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 Ilar. and John. 107). I am not aware that such laws, though they exist in many st a tes, were ever supposed to be in conflic t with the principle of Magna Charta incrorporate d 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 violate the fifth amendment of the Constitution? Some reliance was placed by the defendant’s counsel upon the fact that the prohibition of 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 duration continues in force until repealed or abrogated 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 subsequent legislatures would confornm 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 control the action of Congress, and however reluctant 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 enacted that the crime of murder, committed in this Indian territory, north of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes, by or on any white man, should fbrever 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 misapprehension of the province and power of courts respecting the constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislature. If the Constitution prescribe one rule, and the law another and different rule, it is the duty of courts to declare that the Constitution, and not the law, governs the case before thein for j udgment. If the law include no case save those for which the Constitution has furnished a different rule, or no ease which the legislature has the power to govern, then the 202

Page 203 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE-JUSTICE CURTIS’S OPINION. inc onsistent 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. R. 454), I had occasion to consider this subject, 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 beyond 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 particular 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 territory in question. Before examining the language of the treaty, it is material to bear in mind that the part of the ceded territory lying north of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes. and west and north of the present state of Missouri, 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 re ason whi ch woul d have in duced 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 as little burdensome as possible to the then inhabitants of Louisiana, and might well exhibit even an anxious W01icitude to protect their property and persons, and secure to them and their posterity their religious and po~litieal 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 territory, which, in the language of the treaty, w~ law can hav e no op eration. If it includ es cases which the legislatur e has power to go vern, and concerning which the Constiuttution does not prescribe a different rule, the law govt erns to a tho se cases, though it may, in its terms, attempt to include others, on which it cannot o perate. In other words, this court cannot declare vo id an act of C ongress which cons tituti onally embraces some cases, though o ther cases, w ithi n its terms, a re beyond the control of Cond ress, or beyon d the reach of that particular l aw. If, ther eorefore, Congress had powe r t o m ake a law excluding slavery firom this terr itory w hile under the exclusive power of the Un it ed S tates, the use of the wor d ” forever” does not inva lidate the law, so long as C ong ress as h s the exclusive legislative power in the territory. Bu t i t is further insisted that the treaty of 1803, bet ween the United States and France, by which this territory was acquired, has so restrained the constitutional powers of Congress, that it cannot, by law, prohibi t the introd uction of s lavery into that part of this territory north and west of Missouri, and north of thirtysix 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 legislative pover in some particular manner, on some particular subject.

Such promises, when made, should be voluntarily kept, with the niost scrupulous good faith. But that a treaty with a foreign nation can deprive the Congress of any part of the legislative power conferred by the people, so that it no longer can legislate as it was empowered by the Constitution 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 exercise of those powers, is quite another matter. That responsibility is to be met, and justified to the foreign nation! according to the requirements 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 particular degree of authority, nor declared that laws so enacted shall be irrepealable. No supremacy is assigned to treaties over acts of CongDress.

That they are not perpetual, and must be in somle way repealable, all will agree. If the President and the Senate alone possess the power to repeal or modify a law found inl a treaty, inasmuch as they can change or abrogate one treaty only by making another 2 0’-U;

Page 204 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to be transferred “forever, and in full sove-I other persons, whose individual rights did n’t reignty,” to the United States, or how the come under the protection of the treaty. And United States could consent to allow a foreign inasmuch as it does not appear that any inha nation to interfere in its purely internal bitant of Louisiana, whose rights were secured affairs, in which that foreign nation had no by treaty, had been injured, it would be wholly concern whatever, is difficult for me to conjec-inadmissible for this court to assume, first, ture. In my judgment, this treaty contains that one or more such cases may have existed; nothing of the kind. and, second, that if any did exist, the entire The third article is supposed to have a bear-law was void-not only as to those cases, it’ ing on the question. It is as follows: “The any, in which it could not rightfully operate, inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be in-but as to all others, wholly unconnected with corporated in the Union of the United States, the treaty, in which such law could rightfully and admitted as soon as possible, according to operate. the principles of the Federal Constitution, to But it is quite unnecessary, in my opinion, the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, to pursue this inquiry further, because it and immunities, of citizens of the United clearly appears from the language of the ar States; and in the mean time they shall be ticle, and it has been decided by this court, maintained and protected in the enjoyment of that the stipulation was temporary, and ceased their liberty, property, and the religion they to have any effect when the then inhabitants profess.” of the territory of Louisiana, in whose behalf There are two views of this article, each of the stipulation was made, were incorporated which, I think, decisively shows that it was into the Union. not intended to restrain the Congress from ex-In the cases of New Orleans v. De Armas eluding slavery from that part of the ceded et al. (9 Peters, 223), the question was, wheterritory then uninhabited. The first is, that, ther a title to property, which existed at the manifestly, its sole object was to protect indi-date of the treaty, continued to be protected vidual rights of the then inhabitants of the by the treaty after the state of Louisiana was territory. They are to be “maintained and admitted to the Union. The third article of protected in the free enjoyment of their liber-the treaty was relied on. Mr. Chief Justice ty, property, and the religion they profess.”

Marshall said: “This article obviously conBut this article does not secure to them the templates two objects. One, that Louisiana right to go upon the public domain ceded by shall be admitted into the Union as soon as the treaty, either with or without their slaves. possible, on an equal footing with the other The right or power of doing this did not exist states; and the other, that, till such admisbefore or at the time the treaty was made.

sion, the inhabitants of the ceded territory The French and Spanish governments while shall be protected in the free enjoyment of they held the country, as well as the United their liberty, property, and religion.

Ilad any States when they acquired it, always exercised one of these rights been violated while these the undoubted right of excluding inhabitants stipulations continued in force, the individual from the Indian country, and of determining supposing himself to be injured might have when and on what conditions it should be brought his case into this court, under the opened to settlers. And a stipulation, that twenty-fifth section of the judicial act.” But the then inhabitants of Louisiana should be this stipulation ceased to operate when Louprotected in their property, can have no refe-isiana became a member of the Union, and its rence to their use of that property, where they inhabitants were “admitted to the enjoyment had no right, under the treaty, to go with it, of all the rights, advantages, and immunities save at the will of the United States.

If one of citizens of the United States.” who was an inhabitant of Louisiana at the The cases of Chliouteau v. Marguerita (12 time of the treaty had afterwards taken pro-Peters, 507), and Permoli i. NO.w Orleans (3 perty then owned by him, consisting of fire-IIow. 589), are in conformity with this view arms, ammunition, and spirits, and had gone of the treaty. into the Indian country north of thirtysix de-To convert this temporary stipulation of the rees thirtv minutes, to sell them to the Intreaty, in behalf of French subljects who then ~~~~~~~~~~~ dians, all must agree the third article of the inhabited a small portion of Louisiana, into a treaty would not have protected him from in-permanent restriction upon the power of Condictment under the act of Congress of March gress to regulate territory then uninhabited. 30, 1802 (2 Stat. at Large, 139), adopted and and to assert that it not only restrains Conextended to this territory by the act of March gress from affecting the rights of property of 26, 1804 (2 Stat. at Large, 283) the then inhabitants, but enabled them and all Besides, whatever rightaere secured were other citizens of the United States to go into individual rights. If Congress should pass any part of the ceded territory with their any law which violated such rights of any in-slaves, and hold them there, is a construction dividual, and those rights were of such a cha-of this treaty so opposed to its natural meanracter as not to be within the lawful control ing, and so far beyond its subjectmatter and of Congress under the Constitution, that indi-the evident design of the parties, that I canvidual could complain, and the act of Congress, not assent to it. In my opinion, this treaty has as to such rights of his, would be inoperative; no bearing on the prerent question. but it would be valid and operative as to all For these reasons, I am of opinion that K 204

Page 205 view page image

PRED SCOTT CASE. much of the several acts of Congress as pro-of course of the disposition which was to be hibited slavery arid involuntary servitude with-made of the cause, had argued that his client in that part of the territory of Wisconsin ly-had been fireed fr,)m slavery by operation of ing north of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes the Missouri prohibition of 1820. The opposnorth latitude, and west of the river Missis-ing counsel, paid by the defending slaveholder, sippi, were constitutional and valid laws. had insisted, in reply, that that famous statute I have expressed mny opinion, and the reasons was unconstitutional. The mock debate had therefor, at far greater length than I could have been heard in the ehamber of the court in the wished, upon thle different questions on which basement of the capitol, in the presence of the I have found it necessary to pass, to arrive at curious visitors at the seat of government, a judgment on the case at bar. These ques-whom the dullness of a judicial investigation tions are numerous, and the grav e importance could not disgust. The court did not hesitate of some of them required me to exhibitfully to please the incoming President, by seizing the grounds of my opinion. I have touched this extraneous and idle forensic discussion, no question which, in the view I have taken, and converting it into an occasion for proit was not absolutely necessary for me to pass nouncing an opinion that the Missouri prohiupon, to ascertain whether the judgment of the b)ition was void, and that, by force of the Circuit Court should stand or be reversed. I Constitution, slavery existed, with all the elehave avoided no question on which the validity nients of property in man over man, in all the of that judgnient depends. To have done territories of the United States, paramount to either more or less, would have been inconsist-any popular sovereignty within the territories, ent with myv views of my duty. and even to the authority of Congress itself. In my opinion, the judgment of the Circuit In this ill-omened act, the Supreme Court Court should be reversed, and the cause re-forgot its own diznitv which had always been manded for a new trial. maintained with just judicial jealousy. They forgot that the province of a court is simply In the Senate, on the 3d of MStarch, 1858, ““jos dicere,” and not at all “jeus dare.” They Ir. SEWARD thus spoke of this decision:- forgot, also, that one ” foul sentence does more rShrm than many foul examples; for the last At this juncture, the new Federal Adminis-do but corrupt the streamn, while the former tration came in, under a President who had ob-corruptetli the fountain.” And they and the tained success by the intervention at the polls President alike forgot that judicial usurpation of a third party-an ephenmeral organization, is more odious and intolerable than any other built upon a foreign and frivolous issue, which among the mnanifold practices of tyranny. had just strength enough and life enough to The day of inauguration came-the first one give to a proslavery party the aid required to among all the celebrations of that great naproduce that untoward result. The new Pre-tional pageant that was to be desecrated by a sident, under a show of moderation, masked a coalition between the executive and judicial more effectual intervention than that of his departments, to undermine the national legispredecessor, in favor of slave labor and a slave lature and the liberties of the people. The state. Before coming into office, he approached President, attended by the usual lengthened or was approached by the Supreme Court of procession, arrived and took his seat on the the United States. On their docket was, portico. The Supreme Court attended him through some chance or design, an action there, in robes which yet exacted public reverwhich an obscure negro man in Missouri had ence. The people, unaware of the import of brought for his freedom against his reputed the whisperings carried on between the Presimaster. The court had arrived at the concludent and the Chief Justice, and imbued with iion, on solemn argument, that insomuch as veneration for both, filled the avenues and this unfortunate negro had, through some gardens far away as the eye could reach. ignorance or chicane in special pleading, ad-The President addressed them in words as nitted what could not have been proved, that bland as those which the worst of all the Rolhe had descended from some Afiican who had man Emperors pronounced when he assumed once been held in bondage, that therefore he the purple. lie announced (vaguely, indeed, was not, in view of the Constitution, a citizen but with self-satisfaction) the forthcoming exot’

the United States, and therefore could not tra-judicial exposition of the Constitution, and iiip)lead the reputed master in the Federal pledged his submission to it as authoritative c,urts; and on this ground the Supreme Court and finlial. The Chief Justice and his assowere prepared to dismiss the action, for want ciates remained silent. The Senate, too, were of jurisdiction over the suitor’s person. This there-constitutional witnesses of the transfer decision, certainly as repugnant to the Decla-of adainistration. They too were silent, alration of Independence and to the spirit of the though the promised usurpation was to sulConstitution, as to the instincts of humanity, vert the authority over more than half of the nevertheless would be one which would ex-empire which Congress had assumed contemhaust all the power of the tribunal, and ex-poraneously with the birth of the nation, and elude consideration of all other questions that had exercised withoiut interruption for near had been raised upon the record. The counsel seventy years. It cost the President, under who had appeared for the negro lad volun-the circumstances, little exercise of magna teered from motives of charity, and, ignorant nimitv now to Dromise to the people of Kansas, 20b

Page 206 view page image

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 in their attempt to cast it off, andi hurl it to the earth, when they should conme 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, witllout 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 in 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 plaved 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 I 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 between 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 Marshall, 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 illustrious 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, slir, whether you have listened, as I have, with interest to the expressions of respect and admiraiati one f r th at come fro m the members of his bar in their familiar intercourse with each other-spontaneous tributes, worth ad 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 conscientiou s, earnest, almost pain ful se nse 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 Jeffrevs, by the Senator from Maine, [Mr. HAMLIN. This man has been charged by the Senator from New Yurk. [Mir. SEWARD] with a corrupt coalition with the Chief Magistrate of the Union. He charges, in fact -ot 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 invoked 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,goodl. It w as difficult, extremely difficult, for us all to sit here and hear Mwhat was said, and observe ~he manner ia which it was said. 206

Page 207 view page image

DRED SCOTT CASE. 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, because 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 KansasNebraska act was ever suggested, and years before the President of the United States wvas 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, adversely to Dred Scott, and was remanded to the lower court for further trial. Mr. Buchanan had, I believe, not then gone to England. 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 c ounsel for Dred Scott, finding that the op inion of the Supreme Court of the Stat e was adverse to his rights, withdr ew his ca se 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-Nel)raska act; of course, months before Mr. DixoN, the Senator from Kedtucky, first sprang upon the country, by his amendment, the question in relation to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. It ere is the record: was never carried there until they had lost all chance i n the state court; it was c arried there as the last desperate resource of defeated counsel, eager to maintain what he con ceived to be the rights of his client. Who was t he counsel? The S e n ators fr om Mis souri can tell us who R. M. Field, of St. Louis, is, and probablyteri they will verify the assertion which I make here upon hearsay-I give it only upon hearsay that he is one of the most deternin ed FreeSoilers in the state of Missouri; has always declined to vote at elections until he was able to c a st his v ote for a Frees Soil candidate, and unti l he a ide d in the election of the Fr ee-Soil Representative from the St. Louis district who now sits in the other c hamber. This case, thus instituted in November, 1853, was determined in the court b elow, 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! Whe n it reached the Supreme Court of the Uni ted States, what be came of it? What does the Senator from New York say became of it? ” The counsel who had appeared for the negro had volunteered from motives of charity, and, ignorant of course of the disposition which was to be made of the cause”which t he Senator had prev iously i nsinuated was gotten up by design-” had argued that his client had been freed from slavery by operation of the Missouri prohibition of 1820. 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 slaveholder at all; that one of the opposing counsel 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 colleague on this floor from the state of Maryland, Mr. Reverdy Johnson. That gentleman volunteered in the case as amicus curice, because 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 falnous statute was unconstitutional. The mock debate had been heard in the chamber of the court in the basement of the caplitol, in the presence of the curious visitors at the seat of gfovernment, whom the dulness of a judicial investigation could not disgust. The court did not hesitate to please the incoming President” Wphere 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, direst and personal? “Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit: on th e second day of November, in the year of our Lord 1853, came the above-named plaintiff, Dred Scott, by his attorney, and fil,td in the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Missouri district, the foIllowing declaration against the defendant, Johi F. A. Sandford.” Was tha t a cas e g otten up by des ign, between the President and the court here? It 207

Page 208 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. “The court did not hesitate to please the incoming Presi-‘ DuInn, George Grundy, of Indiana. dent by seizing this extraneous and idle forensic discussion, and converting it into an otcasion for pronouncing an CELEBRATED AMENDMENT OF. opinion that the Missouri prolibition was a void, and that, by force o tlhe Constitution.

slavery existed, with all the IN the Ihouse of Representatives, July 29, elements of property in n)ian over man. in all the territories 1856, the bill of the House, No. 75, reported of the Unlited States,. p)aramount to any popular sovereignty Mr. Grow, fro the Committee on Terri within the territories and even to the authority of Congress itself. ries, entitled, ” A bill to annul certain acts of the Legislative Assembly of the territory ‘; The day of itaugouraltin came-the first one among all the celebrations of that great national pageast that was to of Kansas, and to secure to the citizens of be desecrated by a coalition between.. the exe.-utive and ju(li-said territory their rights and privilees,” vial departments, to utd,ertminie the National Legislature r I and the liberties of the people.” t being before the body, Mr. Dunn of Indiana .and the liberties of the people.” 1 snoved an amendment in the nature of a sub Is there at solitary word of truth in this? mvda mnmn ntentr fasb Is there Ia solitary ford of truth In this? stitute for the same, the 24th section of which Not one. Is a solitary fact alleged? Not substitute is as follows one; but a broad and naked charge is made, sec.

24. And be it further enacted, That so much of the which is intended to stamp infitmiy upon chia-fourteenth section, and als o so much of the thirty-second racters hitherto beyond the breath of reproach. section of the act passed at the first session of the thirtyShiamiie shamne upon the Senator that makes third Congress, commonly known as the KansasNebraska act, as reads as follows, to wit: “Except the eighth section such charges as these, and has no proof to of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the support them! Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of noninter “The President. attendled by the usual lengthened pro-velition by Congress with slavery in the states and terricession. arrived and tookl his seat on the portico.- The Su-tories, as recognised by the legislation of eighteen hundred plreme Court attended him there. in robes which yet exacted and fifty, conmmonly called the compromise measures, is public reverence. The people, unaware of tlhe imiport of the hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true whisperings carried on between the dresident and the chief intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into justice, and imbued with veneration for both, filled the any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to avenues and gardens far away as the eye tould reach. The leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate l’resident addressed them in words as, land as those which their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only the worst of all the Ro ia. Emperors proniounced when he to the constitution of the United States: Provid,led, That assumed the purple.

tie announced (vagnuely, ondeed, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or with self satisfaction) the forthcoming extrajudit-ial exposi-put in force any law or regulation which may have existed tion of the Constitution, and pledged his submission to it as prior to the act of sixth March, eighteen hundred and authorita tive and final.” twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abol ishing slavery”-be and the same is hereby repealed; and Does anybody find that in the President’s the said eighth section of said act of sixth March, eighteen hundred and twenty. is hereby revived and declared to be inaugural? Does anybody find in the Presi-in full force and effect within the said territories of Kanseas dent’s inaugural anything on this point, and Nebraska: Provided, however, That any person laswfully 1except that he learns the question is to be de-held to service in either of said territories shall not be di charged from such service by reason of such repeal and cided by the highest tribunal of the land, and revival of said eighth section, if such person shall be permathat he, as every other good citizen is, is w,ilnently removed from such territory or territories prior to * to render obed c to tt t nal? the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight; ling to render obedience to that tribunal. and any child or children born in either of said territories, “

A few days later, copies of this opinion were multiplied of any female lawfully held to service, if in like mantier reby the Senate’s press, and scattered;, in the name of the moved without said territories before the expiration of that date, shallnobebyraoofaytigithsa,eraSenate, broadcast over the land, and their publication has date, shall nt be, by eason of any thing in this act, eman not yet been disowned by the Senate.” cipated from any servi-e it might have owed had this act never been passed: And provided further, That any person As if we were going to disown publishing lawfully held to service in any other state or territory of of > the the United States. and escaping into either the territory of the opinions of the Supreme Court of the Kansas or Nebraska. may be rerltiued and reitiosed to the United States. person or place where such service is due.

under any law of the United States which shall be in force upon the subject. “Simultaneously. Dretl Scott. who had played the hand of dunmmyinthis interesting politicil game, iinwittingly,yet The amendment of Mr. Dunn was carried to the complete satisfaction of his adversary. was voluntarily by yeas 89, ays 77, as follows:emancipated; anl thus received from his master. asa’ewar d, n,a the freedom which the court had denlied him as a right.” Those who voted in the affirmative are: Now, does not the Senator from New York essrs. Ariht, Allison all, arbour Benson, Bihop, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brent uinon, uffington, J. I. Campbell, L. D. know, was it not published in every newspa-Camtphell, Ciaffee Clawson, Colfax, Coins, Cvode, Cumper in the c(tuntry, that the slave’s master bk, nrll, Da n, I)ik. Dodd, DTN, Durf, Edi, ED wARDs. Em’irie, Flagl,er. illns,Glet Grange r, Orow,had died? Was it not known that the man Wall uri }ladler in, il w., rsca’r, (row KIlal, IIARRISON, lIAVI:N, Ilolloway, T. At.

Horton. V. who emancipated the slave was, a Black Rie-B. Ilorton, IIug,hston, Relsev. King. Knapp, Knight, Knowlpublican compeer, in the other Ihouse, of the ton, K unie i-son AItCsrty Millr,, ,organ, Mlorrill, Nichols, Norton, Oliver, Parker. Pelton, Senator fromll.NA, ew^r Y or, [Mlr. CIIAXT rr, of W]erry, Pettit, trike, 1ringle, IPurviance, litchie, S,~lin. Sage, Senator from New York, tr C IAe ofre !\lassachusetts, l who wavs-fotrced to give this Sapp, Sherman, Simmons Spinner. Stanton, Stranahan, em~~~~~~~~~~~~~ancpto fe,ii) oi,hsttr y -.ppan, Thurston, Todd.

Tra~fton~, Wade, Wakeman, Walemancipation after hbridge, Waldrong esitated, yC. C. Waslb,rn, E. B. Ltae shur, the indignant ldenunciations of the fello~- W.ashburne, Jr., Watson, Welch, tlls, Jr., Wood, Woodruff, Republlcans around hiim? Everyl)ody knows odort that, and yet here we are told by the Senator Those who voted in the negative are:that this gift ott fieetlons to the slave was the Messrs At/en Borinl Bl Bowie, IICOOM 7eu/rd gallt~l jv l isI}1aterthe lefel~lullt Butr~evt, CAMIPBELL, CARLII,E, (h(11tlhetfrs, Casl,‘ie, It. C~obb, alE rewa1rd gratnted by hbis masnter, the defendant,?J’t1Cx’-t/c(‘ift tustv eI’ib’t S s, ~~~~~~~~R. V. ()7bb, CoxX. Uraig7(e, Cra(lBtforld. (!U.L,EN. Davids1.on, DAvIS, for playing the hand of (iltnimy in it game of Day, Dentver. Deow dell, It/eduso. icn ish’ili lt/l,,ter, FosTER, cards a political n.:tmne-with the venerable FULLERS Untie Greenwood J. 5, i& } lnteto, L Chief Justice and Chief iMagistrate of the LA5KE, 1eiter, Loplzitip/,‘i I.. IjAjs5L, j S. Siicts h all, Maw Union. Shame, shame once mitre, upon the welt, h/ir, JI/ilso, Jticl1ee. Jc/>, L;;~elisi steeP. l)unYtAR Senator wh(t niakes charges like these, with-Suitetr,, A.,it lh, It. Stit/, Shit ED-, S tephr Sgew a, out the shadow of ground 1or their support! swort, tialor, TaIrE2 UNDERawooD

VALK, Italker5 Jvorner, 208 t

Page 209 view page image

DUNN, GEORGE GRUNDY.-ELLIOTT, THOMIAS D. W,tains, WImT.‘EY, Winslow, D. B.

Wright, J. V. Wright, ZlOLLICOFFER. the bill as amended, was the same as on the amendment, with the exception that Messrs. Jones of Pa., and Branch of N. C., Denmocrats, 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. Fuller of Pa., IIoffman 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.

Democrats in italics, Fillmore Americans in SMALL CAPS, Republicans in romnan. So the am endment was at sreed 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. 1X., (Republican,) was not present, vWllich rm.ad(e it 88, or one less. The vote in the negative on the passage of Elections. RETURNS OF THAT FOR PRESIDENT IN 1848, 1852, AND

1856. I~~~~~~86 82 88 1848. Whig. Dem. F. S. Taylor. Ca.. V. Buren.

Admittted since 1848. 30,314 27,046 5,005 53,215 56,629 15,804 69,907

74,745 8,100 11,178 12,125 1,126 35,276 40,206 12,178 61,070 35,281 38,058

23,940 30,687 10,389 14,781 27,763 7,560 40,015 36,901 849 218,583 114,319

120,497 138,359 154.773 35,347 185,730 172,186 11,177 6,779 3,646 730

23,122 10,948 13,837 13,747 15,001 10,418 926,016 812,256 291,075 Taylor.

Cass. V. Buren. 30,482 31,363 7,588 9,303 6,422 5,910 80 4,359 3,238

47,544 44,802 67,141 49,720 18,217 15,370 1 37,702 34,528 125 25,922

26,537 32,671 40,077 43,519 34,869 85 slature. 64,705 58,419 4.509 10,668

3 45,2S65 46,738 9 436,226 411,539 303 CncIcu SLAVE STATES. Fremont Fillmore. Buchanan. Total. Scott. Pierce. Hale. Taylor. Cms. V. B-en.

Alabama….. 25,552 46.739 75.291 15.038 26,881 30,482 31,363 A rkan,s….. 10,787 21,910 32,697 7,404 12,173 7,588 9,303

|Delaware……… 308 6,175 8,004 14,487 6,293 6.318 62 6,422 5,910 80

Florida…… 4,833 6,358 11,191 2.875 4,318 4,359 3,238

Georg,ia…………… 42,228 56,578 98,806 16,660 34,705 47,544 44,802

Kentucky…. 314 67,416 74,642 142,372 57,068 53,806 265 67,141 49,720

ILouisiana…….20,709 22,164 42,873 17,255 18,647 18,217 15,370 1
fMaryland…….. 281 47,460 39,l11 86,856 35,077 40,022 54 37,702 34,528

125 Mississippi…. 24, 195 3 5,446 59,641 17,584 26,876 25,922 26,537

Missouri….. 48,524 58,161 106,688 29.984 38,353 32,671 40,077 North Carolina… 36,886 48,246 85,132 39,058 39,744 59 43,519 34869 85 South Carolina… No popular vote. Electors chosen by Legi slature.

Tennessee….. 66,178 73,638 139,816 58,898 57,018 64,705 58,419

Texas…… 15,244 28,757 44.001 4,995 13.552 4.509 10,668 3

Virginia……. 291 60,278 89,826 150,395 57,132 72,413 1 45,265 46,738 9

Total….. 1,194 479,465 609,587 1,090,246 365,321 444,826 440 436,226

411,539 303 Buchanan over Fillmore, 130,122; over both, 128,928; Pierce over Scott, 79,505; Taylor over Cass, 24,687. REC.kPIT UL.TION. Fremont.

Fillmore. Buchanan. Total. Scott. Pierce. Hale. Taylor. Cas. V. Buren.

Free States 1,340,618 393,590 1,224,750 2,958.958 1,022,757 1,156,513

157,685 926,016 812,26 291,075 Slave States…. 1,194 479,465 609,587

1,090,246 365,32l 444,826 440 436,226 411,539 303 Total….. 1,341,812

873,055 1.834,337 4,049,204 1,388,078 1,601,339 158,125 1,362,242

1,223,7,95 291,378 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. oIr. Bridges of Pa. objected to leave being granted. Mr. Elliott moved to suspend the rules, which was lost by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS. .Nessrs. Ball of 0., Bennett of N. Y., Benson of Te., Campbell of 0., Carpenter of N. Y., Corwin of 0., Crocker of Mass., Thos. Duavis of R. I., De Witt of Mass., Dick of Pa., Dickinson of Mass., Lastman of Wis., Edmunds of Mlass., Thos. D. Elliott of Mass., Everhart of Pa., GID DIXNoGS of 0., Goodrich of Mass., Aaron liarlan of O., llowe of I’a., Daniel T. Jones of N. Y., Knox of Ill., Matteson of N.Y., t:tyall of Me.. Morgan of N.Y., Norton of Ill., Parker of In(l., lennington of N. J, Pringle of N.Y., David Ritchia ‘1liott, Thos. D., of Iass. PROPOSITION OF, TO REPEAL FUIGITIVE SLAVE LAW. Ox the 28th of July, 1854, in the House of ‘ep)resentatives, MIr. Thomas D. Elliot of ass., asked leave to introduce the following hill: “Be it enacted, &c., That an act entitled An act to amend, -d supplementary to an act entitled An act respelcting fugives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of ,eir nmasters, approved September 18, 1850, be, and the me is hereby repealed.” 14 ! I 909 :r It

Page 210 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. act would be to make Kansas a slave state, in o rder to prevent it, formed an association here , in Washington, called, if I recollect aright, “The Kansas Aid Society.” I do not remem ber all who became members of that society, but quite a number of members who were ‘
opposed to slavery in Kansas, of the Lower IIouse, and also of the Senate, became members of it, and subscribed various sums of money. I think I subscribed either $50 or $100; I am not now prepared to say which. We issued a circular to the people of the , country, of the Northern States particularly, in which we set forth what we believed were the dangers of making Kansas a slave state, and urged that steps be taken to induce per..

sons from the North, who were opposed to slavery, to go there and prevent its introduc tion,. if possible. We sent a great many cir culars to various parts of the United States, with’that object, and also communications of various kinds. I do not now remember what they were. The olject was to have persons in duce d to go to Kansas who would make that their home, and who would, at all elections, vote against the institution of slavery. I think Mr. Goodrich of Mass. was the president of the society. I am not certain about the vice presidents; probably Mr. Fen ton of N.Y., and myself, were vice presidents. The names of the president and vice presi dents were attached to our circulars, which we sent throughout the country. My recollection is, that generally those members of the HIouse and Senate who were opposed to the KansasNebraska act became members of this society, and contributed to it. The leading primary object of the associa tion was to prevent the introduction of slavery into Kansas, as I stated during the short ses sion of Congress, in a nswer to a question propounded to me by yourself, I believe. We believed that unless, vigorous steps of that kind were taken, Kansas would become a slave state.

I do not remember the caption of the subscription paper. I think no other object w.;-s mentioned or specified, except the prevention of slavery in Kansas. I think that was the sole object of the movement. I do not recollect whether Mr. Speaker Banks was a membler of that society or not, or whether Senator Seward was or not. Mr. Goodrich kept the books. My impression is, that a majority of tvose who Voted against the bill were memlber,s of that organization. I do not remember the total amount of money raised by means of that organization. We had a room here, and employed a secretary, and consequently had expenses to pay. I do not know the amount raised. I think there were persons, meblllers of that asso)ciation, w-lo were not mlehlblers of either ttouse of Congress. Mir.

Latham was appointed treasurer, but declined; and my impression is, that Mr. Blair became the treasurer; but I may be mistaken about that. I)AN’L.

MAC]I. Washin~gton City, July 1, 1856. of Pa., Russell of Pa., Sabin of Yt., Sage of N. Y., Sapp of i’., Simmons of N.Y., GERRIT SMITH of N.Y., Andrew Stue art of O.. Thurste of RM. I., Tgrout of Pa., Upham of Mass., iade of f O.. Wa lley of Mass., Elihu B. Wvashburne of 111., Israel Woashburne of Ill., Te/ls of Wis., Tappan Wentworth of Mass. 45. NAt s.-Messrs. Aiken of S. C., James C. Allen of Ill., TVH Allen of Ill., Ashe of N. C., B ailey of Ga., Barry of Miss.. Beintdn of Mo., Bocock of Va., Boyce of S. C., Breckinridge of Ky., By,idges a of a.. Brooks o S.C., Caruthers of Mo., Chamberb in of Ind.. Chastain of G a., Chrisman of Ky., Churchwell of Tenn., Clark of Mich., Clingman of N. C., C obb of Ala., Cook of Ia., Cox of Ky., Craige of N. C., Curtis of Pa., Davis of I nd., Dawso of Pa., Disney of O., DowdeU of Ala., Drum of Pa., Dunbar of La., Wd,y of Ind., Edgerton of O., Edtrnundson of Va., Elliott of Ky., Ellison of O., English of Ind., Farley of Me., Faulkner of Va.,.borence of Pa., Fuller of Me., A;./e of Va.. Greenwood of Ark., Grow of Pa., Harris of Ala., Harris of Miss., Harrison of O., Haven of N. Y., Hendricks of I nd., Henn of Ia., Hibbard of N H., tlill of Ky., Houston of Ala., Hunt of La., Johnson of O., Jones of Tenn., Jones of La., Ke/tt of S. C., Kerr of N. C., Kidwell of Va., Kittredge of N. H., Kurtz of Pa., Lamb of Mo., Latham of Caj., Letcher of Va., Lindley of Mo., McMullin of Va., McNair of Pa., McQueen of S. C.,.3lacey of Wis., Maurice of N. Y., Maxwell of Fla., Miller of Mo., Miller of Ind., Millson of Va., Morrison of N. H1., Murray of N. Y., Nichols of O., Noble of Mich., O9lds of 0., Oliver of N. Y., Orr of S. C., Peckham of N. Y., Phelps of Mo., Phillips of Ala., Pratt of Conn., Preston of Ky., Puryear of N. C., Reese of Ga., Riddle of Del., Robb~inzs of Pa., Rogers of N. C., Ruffin of N. C., Seward of (la., Shannon of O., Shlawv of N. C., Slower of Md., Skelton of N. J., Smith of Tenn.. Smith of Ala., Smyth of Tex., Sollers of Md., Stanton of Tenn., Stanton of Ky., Stephens of (a., Stevens of Mich., Stratton of N. J., Straub of Pa., Stuar-t of Mich., Taylor of N. Y., Taylor of O., Taylor of Tenn., Vail of N. J., Vansant of Md., WValbridge of N. Y., W,4tlker o,f N.

Y., Wheeler of N. Y., Witte of Pa., tright of Miss., ]t’right of Pa., Zollicoffer of Tenn.-120. Mr. Barksdale of Miss. stated, if he had been in the House he would have voted no. Those in SMALL CAPS, Free Soilers. Those in italics, Democrats. Those in roman, Whigs. Classification according to the politics of the members at the time they voted. Emancipation Party.

RESOLUTIONS OF, OF ST. Louis, MIISSOURI. WN’hereas. the pro-slaverv party of this state, calling themselves National Democrats, by their course in the last session of the legislature renewed the agitation of the slavery question, and forced the emancipation question upon the people; and whereas the Democracy of this city deem this a fi t opportunity to declar e their sentiments in regard to this question; t herefor e b e it Resolved, That we heartily endorse the course of our delegates in the last legislature. iesolved. That the gradual emancipation of slavery in the state o un, i th oi ofMissouri, i the opinion of this convention, is an open question, and o ne of vital import ance to the peop le of this state; that we disapprove of the resolutions on this subject introduced by Mr.

Carr in the legislature during its l ast sess ion, as a,, attempt to gag the free expression of opini on upon the freedom of spee ch and of the press. Resolved, That the constitution of this state provides that slaves may be em ancip ated by the consent of the owners, lay making compens ation for the same, and that graduaemancipation, upon the terms provided in the constitution is neither ” impracti, able. un wise, no r ummjust,”

if it shall appear to be for the best interests of the people of this state, and the only i wlole m of ascertaining thi s import ant fact is by full and fre e discussion of the entire subject. Emigrant Aid Society.

ORIGIN OF. THE following is the testimony of the Ilon. Daniel Mace, of Ind., who was called and sworn before the Kansas Investigating Committee: To Mr. Oliver: Immediately after the passagetof the KansasNebraska act, I, together with a number of others, who were members of Congress and senators, believing that the tendency of that 210

Page 211 view page image

EXPUNGING RESOLUTIONS.-FILLMORE, MILLARD. d Fillmore, Millard. ERIE LETTER

OF. BUFFALO, Oct. 17, 183,S. SIR: Your communication of the 13th inst e as chairman of the committee appointed by , “The AntiSlavery Society of the County of u Erie,” has just come to hand. You solicit my e answer to the following interrogatories:- 1st. Do you believe that petitions to Con gres s on the subject of slavery and the slave e trade ought to be received, read, and respect fully considered by the representatives of the e people?

- 2d. Are you opposed to the annexation of l Texas to this Union, under any circumstances, so long as slaves are held therein? 3d. Are you in favor of Congress exercis in g all the constitutional powers it possesses to abolish the internal slave trade between the states? 4th. Are you in favor of immediate legisla tion for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia? Answer.-I am much engaged, and have no time to enter into argument, or explain at length my reasons for my opinion. I shall therefore content myself, for the present, lby answering all your interrogatories in the affirmative, and leave for some future occasion a more extended discussion on the subject. I would, however, take this occasion to say, that in thus frankly giving my opinion, I would not desire to have it understood in the nat u re of a pledge. At the same time that I seek no disguises, but freely give my senti aments on alny subl)ject of interest to those for whose suffrages I am a candidate, I am ol) posed to give any pledge that shall deprive me hereafter of all discretionary power. My own character must be the guarantee for the general correctness of my legislative deportment. Ott every important subject I am bound to deliberate before I act, and especially as a legislator-to possess myself of all the information, and listen to every argument that can be adduce d by nmy associates, before I give a final vote. If I stand pledged to a particular course of action, I cease to be a responsible agent, but I become a mere machine. Should sub sequent events show, beyond all doubt, that the course I had become pledged to pursue was ruinous to my constituents and disgraceful to myself, I have no alternative, no opportunity for repentance, and there is no power to absolve me from my obligation. IlIence the impropriety, not to say absurdity, in my view, of giving a pledge. I am aware that you have not asked any pledge, and I believe I know your sound judgment and good sense too well to think you desire any such thing. It was, however, to prevent any misrepresentation on the part of others, that I have felt it my duty to say thus much on this subject. I am, respectfully, your most obedient servrant, fILLARD FILLMORE. If. Mills, Esq., Chairman. X,‘Ipunging Resolutions. 0.v the 18th of February, 1835, Mr. Benti) submitted the following resolution to the stellaltc. Ileaired, That the resolution adopted by the Senate on tils Ith.,ay of Mlarch, 1834, in the following~
words, ”’ Res,lv-d. That the President, in the late executive proceedings in, relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon him~.if authority and power not conferred by the Constitution aid laws, but in derogation of both,” be and the same is hIreby ordered to be expunged from the journals of the “,~nate because the said resolution is illegal and unjust, of -,*il example, indefinite and vague. expressing a criminal :r withut specification, and was irregularly and uncon.-titutionally adopted by the Senate, in subversion of the rights of defence which belong to an accused and impeachaI ile offi. er. a-id at a time and under circumstances to involve . peoulir injury to the political rights and pecuniary inter(,sts of the people of the United States. On the 3d of March, 1835, on motion of Mr. AWTel)ster the whole subject was laid upon the table, by a vote of 27
to 20. Mlr. Benton immediately renewed the resoluttion to stand for the second week of the next session. On the 26th day of Dec. 1836, Mr. Benton agcain introduced his expunging r esolution more elaborate than the one which he had Ireviously introduced, being in the shape of a lengthy preamble, reciting distinctly and clearly all the facts and principles involved, and closing with the following resolution: Resolved, That the said resolve be expunged from the journal, and for that purpose that the secretary of the Senate, at such time as the Senate may appoint, shall bring the manuscript journal of the session of 1833 and 1834 into the Senate. and in the presence of the Senate draw black Iiues round the said resolve, and write across the face thereof, in strong letters, the following words: Expunged by order of the Senate this - day of -, A. D.

1837. YF.AS. .NIessrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Dana, Ewing of Ill., Fulton, Grundy, Itubbard, King of Ala., Linn, MIorris, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, and Wright. NN,Ys. S%essrs. Bayard, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, )avis, Ewing of O., Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Moore, Preniiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Webster, and White. 211 It passed on the 16th day of March, 1837, I)y yeas and nays, as follows:

Page 212 view page image

TFIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. I first saw a legislative body in session; but at that time it never entered into the aspirations of mv heart that I ever should receive such a welcome as this in the capital of my native state.

You have been pleased, sir, to allude to my former services and my probable course if I should again be called to the position of Chief Magistrate of the nation. It is not pleadsant to speak of one’s self, yet I trust that the occasion will justify me in briefly alluding to one or two events connected with my administration. You all know that when I was called to the Executive chair by a bereavement which shrouded a nation in mourning, that the country was unfortunately agitated from one end to the other upon the all-exciting subject of slav ery. It was then, sir, that I felt it my dut y to ris e ab ove every sectional prejudice, and look to the welfare the he whole nation. I was compelled to a certain extent to overcome long-cherished prejudices, and disregard party claims. But in doing this, sir, I did no more than was done by many abler and better men than mys elf. I was by no me ans the sole instrument, under Providence, in harmonizing these difficulties. There were at that time noble, independent, hish -souled m en in bothel Houses of Congress, belonging to both the great political parties of the country -Whigs and Democrats-who spurned the dictation of selfish party leaders, and rallied arou nd my administration in suppo rt of the grea t measures which restored peace to an agitated and distracted country. Some of these have gone to their e ternal rest, with the blessings of their country on their heads, but others yet survive. deserving the benediction and honors o f a grateful people. By the blessings of Divine Providence, our efforts were crowned witlh signal success, and when I left the Presidential chair, the whole n ation w as prosperou s and contented, and our relations with all foreign nations were of the most amicable kind. The cloud that hung upon the horizon was dissipated. But where are we now? Alas! threatened at home with civil war, and from abroad with a rupture of our peaceful relations.

I shall not seek to trace the causes of this change. These are the facts, and it is for you to ponder upon them. Of the present administration I have nothing to say, for I know and can appreciate the difficulties of administering this government, and if the present executive and his supporters have with good intentions and honest hearts made a mistake, I hope God may forgive them as I freely do. But, if there be those who have brought these calamities upon the country for selfish or ambitious objects, it is your duty, fellowcitizens, to hold’them to a strict responsibility. The agitation which disturb~ed~ the peace of the country in 1850, waslE unavoidable. It was brought upon us by the acquisition of new territor y, for the government of which it was necessary to provide territorial organization. But it is for you to say whether the. present agitation, which distracts the country andl The following is Ga ir.

Fillmore’s letter to the Ilon. John Gayle: ALBANY, July 31, 1848. DEAR

SIR: I have your letter of the 5th instant, but my official duties have been so )ressing, that I have heen compelled to neg ect my private correspondence. I had also determnined to write no letters for publication bearing upon the contest in the approaching canvass. But, as you desire some information for your own satisfaction in regard to the charges brought against me from the South, on the slave question, I have concluded to state briefly my position. While I was in Congress, there was much agitation on the right of petition. My votes will doubtless be found recorded uniformly in favor of it. The rule upon which I acted was, that every citizen presenting a respectful petition to the body that by the Constitution had the power to grant or refuse the prayer of it, was entitled to be heard; and therefore the petition ought to be received and considered. If right and reasonable, the prayer of it should be granted; but if wrong or unreasonable, it should be denied. I think all my votes, whether on the reception of petitions or the consideration of resolutions, will be found consistent with this rule. I have none of my Congressional documents here, they being at my former residence in Buffialo, nor have I access to any papers or memoranda to refresh my recollection; but I think at some time while in Congress I took occasion to state, in substance, my views on the subject of slavery in the states. Whether the remarks were reported or not, I am unable to say; but the substance was, that I regarded slavery as an evil, but one with which the n a t i o n a l government had nothing t o do; that by the Constitution of the United States, the whole power over that question was vested in the several states where the institution was tolerated. If they regarded it as a blessing, they had a constitutional right to enjoy it; and if they regarded it as an evil, they had the power, and knew best how to apply the remedy. I did not conceive that Congress had any power over it, or was in any way responsible for its continuance in the several states where it existed. I have entertained no other sentiments on this subject since I examined it sufficiently to form an opinion; and I doubt not that all my acts, public and private, will be found in accordance with this view. I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, M IILLARD FILLMORE. Hlon.

John Gayle. The following is vr. Fillmore’s spe ech, delivered at Albany, in July, 1856: Hi-..Vat,,or and Fellozv-Citizens: This overwhelmin,-
demonstration of congratulation and welcome almost deprives me of the power of speech. tiere, nearly thirty years ago, I commenced my political career. In this building 212

Page 213 view page image

FILLMORE, MILLARD.-FLORIDA. threatens us with civil war, has not been reck-a clean breast of it. I will wash my hands of lessly and wantonly produced, by the adoption the consequences, whatever they may be; and of a measure to aid in personal advancement I tell you that we are treading upon the bririk rather than in any public good. of a volcano, that is liable at any moment to Sir, you have been pleased to say, that I burst forth and overwhelm the nation. I have the Union of these states at heart; this, iillght, by soft words, inspire delusive hopes, ;ir, is most true, for if there be one object and thereby win votes. But I can never conldearer to me than any other, it is the unity, sent to be one thing to the North and another prosperity, and glory of this great republic; to the South. I should despise myself, if I ind I confess frankly, sir, that I fear it is in could be guilty of such duplicity. For my danger. I say nothing of any particular sec-conscience would exclaim, with the dramatic tion, much less of the several candidates before poet,the people. I presume they are all honorable I Ts there not some chosen curse, men. But, sir, what do we see? An exas-Some hidden thunder in the stores of heaven, perated feeling between the North and the Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the man Who owes his greatness to his country’s ruin?” South, on the most exciting of all topics, resulting in bloodshed and organized military In the language of the lamented, but imarray… mortal Clay: “I had rather be riglht than be But this is not all, sir. We see a political President!”

part prsening anddats fr th PrsidncyPresident!” party presenting candidates for the Presidency It seems to me impossible that those engaged and Vice Presidency, selected for the first time in this can have contemplated the awful confrom the free states alone, with the avowed sequences of success. If it breaks asunder the purpose of electing these candidates by suf-bonds of our Union, and spreads anarchy and frages of one part of the Union only to rule civil war through the land, what is it less than ()ver the whole United States. Can it be pos-moral treason? Law and common sense hold sible that those who are engaged in such a a man responsible for the natural consequence lmeasure can have seriously reflected upon the of his acts, anid must not those whose acts (‘onsequtences which must inevitably follow, in tend to the destruction of the government, be l.ase of success? Can they have the madness equally held responsible? ir the folly to believe that our Southern breth-And let me also add, that when this Union ren would submit to be governed by such a is dissolved, it will not be divided into two Chief Magistrate? Would he be required to republics, or two monarchies, but be broken filwtesm ueprsrbdb1hs h republics, or two monarchies, but be broken f’,llow the same rule prescribed by those who into fragments, and at war with each other.” elected him, in making his appointments? If t man living south of Mason and Dixon’s line Mr. Fillmore concluded with a few remarks be not worthy to be President or Vice Presi-with reference to the contrast between the dent, would it be proper to select one from the pomp he had witnessed in Europe and the same quarter as one of his cabinet council or Republican welcome he had received at home. to represent the nation in a foreign country? Or, indeed, to collect the revenue, or administer the laws of the United States? If not, Florida what new rule is the President to adopt in se-THE bill establishing a territorial governle(-ting men for office, that the people them-ment for Florida became a law March 30, selves discard in selecting him? These are 1832. It met with no material opposition in serious, but practical questions, and in order either Ilouse of Congress. As it was reported to appreciate them fully, it is only necessary to the Senate, where it originated, it contained tos turn the tables upon ourselves. Suppose he followin, clause that the South, having a majority of the elec-the following clause Tloral votes should declare that they would “No slave or slaves shall directly or indirectly be intro votes, declre tt ty w i. duced into the said territory, except by a citizen of the only have slaveholders for President and V ice United States, renioving into the said territory for actual President, and should elect such by their ex-settlement, and being, atthe time of sucl removal, the bona ,lusiv-e suffrages to rule over us at the North fide owner of such slave or slaves; and every slave imported .,.vesfraeorueoeus a t h Nrth. or brought into the said territory, contrary to the provisions [)o you think we would submit to it? No, not of this act, shall thereupon be entitled to and receive his or fear a moment. And do you believe that your her freedom.” Southern brethren are less sensitive on this On motion of Mr. King of Ala. the Senate suobject than you are, or less jealous of their struck out the said provision, by yeas and X ights? If you do, let me tell you that you nays as follows:isre mistaken. And, therefore, you must see m,staken. And, t’e yu mt Ys.-Messrs. Barbour of Va.. Benton of Mo.. Brown of that if this sectional party succeeds, it leads La., D’Wolf of. I., Eaton of Tenn.. Elliott of Ga.,:aillard inevi tably to the destruction of this beautiful of S.C., lHolnies of Miss.. Johnson of Ky..

Johnisoa of La., f~rllCic reared by our’ forefathers, cementedby King of Ala., Lloyd of Md., Macon of N. C., Noble of Ind., Pleasants of Va., Smith of S. C., Sonthard of N.J.. Stokes of their blood, and bequeathed to us as a price-N. C., Van Dyke of Del., Walker of Ala., Ware of Ga., WIlle es inheritance liams of Tenn., Williamsq of Miss.-23. *AYs. Mesors. BDaton of Mo., Boardman of Conn., Brown 1 tell you, my friends, that I feel deeply, of o., Chandler of M e., Dickerson of N.J., Findlay of Pa., and therefore I speak earnestly on this sub-Holmes of Me.. King of N. Y., Knight of Ri. I., Lanman of iect (cries of “you’re right!) for I feel that Coon., Lownre of Pa., Mills of Mass., Morrill of N. II., Ctii ‘ou are i dangr. ntdeermof Maes., Palmer of Vt., Parrott of N. II.V RuggleB of N., you are in danger. I am determined to make Seymour of Vt., Thomas of Ill., van Buren of N. ~. 20. 2 1,D,

Page 214 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. YEAs. Nesrs. Anderson of N.Y., Arrington of N.

C., Ashy of Tenn., Atkinson of Va., Barringer of N. C., Bayly of Va., Belser of Ala., Bidlack of Pa., E. J. Black of Ga.,.1. Black of Pa., J. A.

Black of S.C., Blackwell of Tenn., Bower of Mo., Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Brinkerhoff of 0., Brod head of Pa., A. V. Brown of Tenn., Milton Brown of Tenn., W. J. Brown of Ind., Burke of N. II., Burt of S. C., Caldwell of Ky., Campbell of S.C., Cary of Mie., Causin of Md., Cbap man of Ala., Chappell of Ga., Chilton of Aa., Clinch of Ga., Clingman of N.

C., Clinton of N. Y., Cobb of Ga., Coles of Va., Cross of Ark., Cullom of Tenn., Daniel of N. C., Davis of Ky., Davis of Ind., Dawson of La., Dean of 0.. Dellet of Ala., Dillingham of Vt., Douglas of Ill., Dromgoole of Va., Duncan of 0., Ellis of N. Y., Farley of N. J., Ficklin of III., Foster of Pa., French of Ky., Fuller of Pa.. Goggin of Va., Green of Ky., Grider of Ky., Hale of N. tI., Hlammett of Miss., Iaralson of Ga., Ilardin of Ill.. IIays of Pa., IteTley of Ind., Holmes of S. C., Ifoge of Ill., Hopkins of Va., Houston of Ala., dIubard of Va., Hubbell of N.Y., J. B.

Ilunt of Mich., C. J. Ingers oll of Pa., Jameson of A Io., Cave Johnson of Tenn., Andrew Johnson of Tenn., Jones ofTenn., Kennedy of Ind., Kennedy of Md., KirkpatriDk of N. J., Labran he (,t La., Leonard of N. Y., Lucas of Va., Lumbtkin of Ga., Lyon of Mlich., McCausleii of 0., Maclay of N. Y., McClelland of Nich., McClernand of Ill., MSConnell of Ala., McDo well of O., McKa y of N. C., Mathew o. f a., Morri s of Pa., J. Morris of 0.. M
orse ot La., Murrlhy of N. Y., Newton of Va., Norris of N. II., Owen of Ind., Parinenter of Mass., Payne of Ala., Peyton of Tenn., Phoenix of N.

Y., Pollock of Pa., Poter of 0., Pratt of N. Y., Purdy of N. Y., David S.

Reid of N. C., Reding o f N. II.. Relfe Mo., tRhett of S.C., itter of Pa., Roberts of Miss., Rodney of of Del., Russell of N.Y., St. John of 0., Saunders of N. C., Senter of Tenn.. Seymour of Conn., Simons of Conn., SimpI son of S. C., Slidell of La., Smith of Pa., Thomas Smith of Ind., Robert Smithop of., Steenro of a., Stephens of Ga. Stiles of G., Stone o.

t. n of eKy., Stone of 0.. Strong of N. Y., Sum - mers of Va., Sykes of N.

J., Taylor of Va., Thomasson of Ky.. Thompson of Miss., Tibbatts of Ky., Tucker of Miss., Weller of O., Wentworth of Ill., Wetherod of Md., White of Ky., White of ie., Woodwa rd of S.C., Wri ght of Ind., Yancey of Ala., Y os t of Pa.-145. NAYs. Messrs. Abbot of Mass., Adams of Mlass., Baker of Mass.. Barnard of N. Y., Brengle of Md., Buffington of Pa. Carroll of N. Y., Cranston of R. I., Davis of N. Y., Deberry of N. C.. Dickey of Pa., Fish of N. Y., Florence of 0., Foot of Vt., Giddings of 0., Byram Green of N. Y., Grinnell of Mass., Edward S. Ilamlin of 0., Harper of 0., Hudson of Mass., Itunt of N. Y., Irvin of Pa.,.)entks of Pa.. Johnson of 0., Preston King of N.Y. King of Ma,ss., McIlvaine of Pa., Marsh of Vt., Morse of Me., Moseley of N. Y., Paterson of N. Y., Potter of It. I., Robinson of N. Y., Rockwell of Mass., Rogers of N. Y., Sample of Ind.. Schenck of 0., Severance of Me., David L. Seymour of N. Y., Smith of N. Y., Caleb B.

Smith of Ind., Tilden of O.. Tyler of N. Y., Vance of 0., Vintou of 0., Winthrop of Mass.-46. In the Senate, on the 1st of March, 1845, the bill from the Ieouse for the admission of Iowa and Florida being under conDsideratiorn, Mr. Evans of Me. moved an amendment iden tical with the first amendment offered to the bill in the Ilouse by Mr. Morse of Maine, an(l which is in full on the preceding column, rela tive to striking out those clauses in the Con stitution prohibiting the emancipation of’ slaves and the immigration of free negroes into the state. Mr. Evans’s amendment was lost, as followsr: YEAs.-.Nessrs. Choate of,%as,,., Dayton of N. J..

Evaus of Me., Francis of It. I., Huntington of Conn., Miller of N.)., Phelps of Vt.. Porter of Mich., Simmons of R. I., Uphamii of Vt., White of Ind., Woodbridge of Mi-h. 12. NAYS. Messrs. Allen of O., Ar(cher of Va., Ashlev of Ark., Atchison of Mo., Atherton of N. II., Bagby of Ala., lBarir,w of La., 13Bayard of Del., Benton of DIo., Bertien of Ga., Bre,se of Ill., Buchanan of 1’a., Colquitt of Ga., Crittonlden of Kyy, Dickenson of N. Y.. Dix of N. Y.. Firtifield of Die.. Footer o)f Tenn.. IIannegran of Ind]., lItaywoodl of N. C.. Ileudersol t~f iss.. IIusrer of S. C..

Johnsonl of M~d.. Lewxis of Ala…Mlc O tti.l of S. C.. M\angum of N.

C…Merrick of Mid.. Morehesd of Ky.. Niles of Conn.. Scruple of’ 111.

Soviet o f Ark., Sturgeon of Pa., Trap pan of 0., WValker of Mi;ss., Wood0/bury of N. 1I. 3. The bill was then passed by a svote of yeas 36, nays 10. The affirmative vote on the passage of the bill was the same as the negative vote last re In 1838, the people of Florida formed a state constitution without the previous assent of Congress, a census not having been taken since 1830 to ascertain the number of inhabit ants therein. It was not, however, until 1845 that Florida was admitted, a census having been taken in the mean tinme (1840), when it was ascertained that she contained a p opu la tion of between forty and fifty thousand. In a debate which took place in the Senate vin the 14th of March, 1850, subsequent to the admission of Florida, the cause of the delay of Congress in having admitted her was dis cussed. Mr. Yulee of Florida contended that the admission of Florida lingered from 1838 to 1845, because the North was unwilling to de part from the practice which had grown into use of admitting slave and non-slaveholding states in pairs, so Florida was not admitted until Iowa was prepared for admission, when they were both taken into the Union together. Mr. Douglas denied that such was the cause of the delay in admitting Florida. Mr. King of Ala. said that the South did not sustain the admission of Florida for the reason that it had not been ascertained that she had the requisite population for that purpose. On the 13th of February, 1845, the bill re ported by Mr. Aaron V. Brown of Tenn., from the Committee on Territories, for the admis sion of Iowa and Florida into the Union, be ing before the Ihouse, Mr. Morse of Me. movel the following amendment: PIrovidled. howert,r, that. so far as relates to Florida, this act shall niot take effect until after a convention of delegates, elected biy the qualified voters of Florida, bshall hawve so altered the con.titutiou aldopted by thbe convention of delegates. on the Iltl of July. 1839. as to strike from article 16th, in ssi.1 constitution.

the first and third sections il the follI)wing words, namely: Sec. 1st.

The General Assembly shall lhave no pawer to pass laws f,,r the emancipation,}f slaves. Sec. 3d. The General Assenbtly shall have p,)wer to pass laws to prevent free negr,es. mlilattoes. or other persons of color. frorm emi:rating to this state. or fromn being discharged from on boatd any vessel iu any of the ports of Florida. Sir. Morse’s amendment was rejected on a count by tellers. Mr. Morse offered an amendment which was word for word a copy of the proviso in the ac(-t admitting Missouri into the Union, prohibiting the state fromnt passing any law by which the citizens of either of the states o)f this Union shtll be excluded from the en’illyment of any of the privileges and imnCunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States. This amendment of Mr. Morse was also rejected on a count by tellers. The bill admitting Florida and Iowa into the Union, was then passed by yeas and nays as follows:be e s f a t n 9 t e e e 0 I 8 I 214 The law as it passed was silent on the subject of slavery, with the exception of a clause prohibiting the importation therein of slaves 11 from an I .y part or place without the limits of the United States.

Page 215 view page image

FORCE BILL. corded, on the amendment of Mr. Evans, with I and if any person shall receive any injury to the addition of Mr. White of Ind. his person or property for or on account of anv act by hini done, under any law of the United The negative vote was as follows:-Messrs. States, for the protection of the revenue or the Choate, Evans, Francis, Hluntington, Miller, collection of duties on imports, he shall be Phelps, Sitimons, Upham, and Woodbridge. entitled to maintain suit for damage therefor -~~9.~~”’ *in the Circuit Court of the United States in the district wherein the party doing the injury may reside, or shall be found.- And all pro The bill said nothing on the subject of perty taken or detained by any officer or other person under authority of any revenue law of slavery. It was approved on the 3d of March, the United States, shall be irrepleviable, and 1845, and thus became a law. shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law, and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof. And if any person shall dispossess or rescue, or attempt to dispossess or rescue, any property so taken or detained as aforesaid, or shall aid or assist therein, Force Bill. such person shall be deemed guilty of a mis AN ACT

FURTHER TO PROVIDE FOR THE COL-demeanor, and shall be liable to such punish LECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS.* ment as is provided by the twenty-second Be it eacted, &c., That whenever, by reason section of the act for the punishment of cereof unawuct, c o.. iatin, o tain crimes against the United States, ap funlawful obstructions, conbinations, or as.

proved thle 30th day of April, A.D. 17 90, for semblages of persons, it shall become impracti-the wilful obstruction or resistance of officers cable, ill the judgment of the President to in the service of process. ,.

s l~~~~~~~~n the service of process. execute the revenue laws, and collect the Sec. 3. That in any case where suit or produties on imports in the ordinary way, in any secution shall be commenced in a court of any collection district, it shall and may be lawful state aoa inst anv ft)r the President to direct that the cutistoni-or a y officer of the United States, house for such district be established and kept other person, for or on account of any act done und er the revenue law7s of the Unitedl in any secure place within somie port or harbor States, or under color thereof or for or on of such district, either upon land or on board ac s…….. account of anv rigfht, authority, or title, set un any vessel; and, in that case, it shall be the ount of any right, authority, or title, set up or claimed by such officer, or other person, duty of the collector to reside at such place, u e y such ofie nte pes i and there to detain all vesselsandcargoesunder any such law of the United States, it and there to detain all vessels and cargoes shall be lawful for the defendant in such suit arriving within the said district until the I?~~~~~~~~~ Or prosecution, -t any time before trial, upoii duties imp,)sed ou said cargoes, by law be prosecution, at any time before trial, upo …1 ~ t a petition to the Circuit Couirt of the United paid in cash, deducting interest according and for the district in which the . 1 *.. 1.1.

States, in and for the district in which the existing laws; and in such cases it sal e defendant shall have been served with pro t. v…

~~~~defendant shall have been served with prounlawful to take the vessel or cargo from the cess, settin forth the nature of said suit or h n s n m ~~~~~~cess, settingf fo~rth the nature of said suit or custody ot thle proper offcer of tne customs, *t ** ~~~~~custody o~~f the proper officer of the customs prsecution, and verifying the said petition )by unless b5
process from some court ot’ thle *’ * unless b process from some court of the’ affidavit, together with a certificate signed by United States; and in case of any attempt t an attorney or counsellor at law of some court otherwise to take such vessel or cargo by any of record of the state in which such suit shall force, or combination, or assemblage of persons have been commenced, or of the United States, too great to be overcome by the officers o)f the settin forth that, as counsel for the petitioner, customs, it shall and may be lawful for the hat, ahas examicounsel for the proceedings against hioner, Presidenit of the United States, or such person * s t h Peresinofns Sats ho sha pe’. taand has carefully inquired into all the mnatters ,, persons a,s he shallo have empowered for t fat set forth in the petition, and that lie believes psurp,s~e, to empl(v such paxrt of thle larnd or - ui-ap,ocs, o miliv s.hpita of teU
ie lanes o the same to be true-which petition, affidavit, iavail force8, or mlltial of the United Staltes, as*.” itand certificate, shall be presented to the sai(d IllalV 1)(? deetie,1 necessarv for the p-)urpose,f m*iv.l.eeml.r f. t. Circuit Court, if in session, and if not, to the pr eveultin;~ thle reinov a! ot such vess<el or cargo),I p-vi-t,the rem. N-, t of such ves, le r o k thereof at his office, and shall be filed in . id prote(,ctinf the officeris of) the custonls in’ . t tI.ifce. th.toi.1.sad office, and the cause shall thereupon be retaining the (ustodv there(*,f: i.n”.-,.to th..I entered on the docket of said court, and shall So,. 2.

That the’iiiisdlictiotn of the circuit i lte thereafter proceeded in as a cause originally c .rts,)f the United State-stiall extend to all *

.~..ir. ultl et eced lin that court; and it shall be the ca;se.a i 1l aw{I or equilty, arisin..r undl~er t!~e * lxiv. uit’ nii n. t lutv of the clerk of said court, if the suit wereo revetluelaws IX5SOt theP Unitedl Staten f~r which .i~~ lie of th.nited S. ac fr.~ bi h *;it,ence I i the court below l)y sumimons, tit o~ther provisions arIe nlot alread~y madle 1)y la‘1;s i essue a writ of certiorari to the statte court, I 1 equiring scaid court to send to the sauil Circuit !Cour’t the recordl andl proc(eedings inl said * 11y the eighth soetion, nf this sct the fir,t andl fif,th sec-Ctitteiei n rcelnsiisu iienn are onitinuied in tfree to the end of the first sccsionl cause (r if it were cotnitencel by e apias, he ‘f Congress of 183t, and no longer. shlil issue a writ of habeas corpus cume caniaus 215,

Page 216 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. a duplicate of which said writ shall be deli-any circuit or district court of the United vered to the clerk of the state court, (r left at St ates, in the state, that, within the limits of his office by the marshal of the district or such state, any law or laws of the United his deputy, or some person duly authorized States or the execution thereof, or of any thereto; and, thereupon, it shall be the duty process from the courts of the United States, of the said state court to stay all further pro-is obstructed by the employment of military ceedings in such cause, and the said suit or force, or by any other unlawful means, t.n) prosecution, upon delivery of such process, or great to be overcome by the ordinary cour..e leaving the same as aforesaid, shall be deemed of judicial proceeding or b)v the powers veste(t and taken to be moved to the said Circuit in the marshal by existing laws, it shall be Court, and any further proceedings, trial or lawfuil for hillm, the President of the United judgment therein in the state court shall be States forthwith to issue his proclamation, wholly null and void. Ai.i if the defendant declaring such fact or information, and re in any such suit be in actual custody on quiring all such mlilitary and other fo)rce forth mesne process therein it slh ll be the duty of with to disperse; and if at any time after the marshal, by virtue of the writ of habeas issuing such proclamation, any such opposi corpus cure causa to take the body adf the tion or obstruction shall be made in the defendant into his custody, to be dealt with ini mannner or l)y the metres aforesaid, tile Presi the said cause accordilag to the rules of law dent slhall be, and hlereb)y is authorizedi and the order of the Circuit Court, or of any promptly to employ such means to suppress judge thereof in vacation. And all attaclh-the saie, and to cause the said laws or process ilients made and all bail and other security to be duly executed, as are authorized and given upon such suit, or prosecution, shall be provided in the cases therein mentioned by and continue in like force and effect. as if the the act of the 28th of February, 1795, entitled same suit or prosecution had proceeded to final “Ani act to provide fori calling firth the militia judgment and execution in the state court. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress in And if, upon the removal of any such suit, or surrections, repel invasions, and to repeal the prosecution, it shall be made to appear to the act now in force for that purpose;” and also, said Circuit Court that no copy of the record by the act of the 3d of IMalrch, 1807, entitled and proceedings therein, in the staite court, “An act authorizing the employment of the can be obtained, it shall be lawful for said land and naval forces of the United States in Circuit Court to allow and require the platintiff cases of insurrection.” to proceed de rioro, and to file a declaration of s. G. ht in any state where the jails his cause of action, and the parties mao there - ue That il any state whe re thie jailpriso upon proceed as in actions originally brought are not allowed to e used r te ipi in said Circuit Court; and on failure of so pro-ment of persons airrested or c ommitt ed under ceeding, judgment of 7ioi pros. miay be ien-the laws of the United States, or where houses dered against the plaintiff wBith costs for the are not allowed to be so used, it shall and may defendant. itcotfrthbe lawful for any miarshal, under the direction ~~~~~defendani~t. of the judge of the United States for the proper Sec. 4. That in any case in which any party district, to use other convenient places, within is, or may be by law, entitled to copies of the the limits of said state, and to nlake such other record and proceedings in any suit or prose-provision as he may deem expedient and ne cution in any state court, to be used in any cessary for that purpose.

court of the United States, if the clerk of said Sec. 7. That either of te justices of the state court shall, upon demand, and the pay Supreme. 7.

That either of the judgsties of any districthe ment or tender of the legal fees, refuse or Supreme CDourt, or a judge of any district iiient or tender of the legal fees, refuse or urt of the United States, in addition to the neglect to deliver to such party certified copies ort:rd ned c o l a oe (of such record aind proceedings, the court of authority lreay conferred y la shall have the United States in which such record and power to grant writs of habeas corpus in all proceedings may be needed, on proof, l)y affi-cases of a prisoner or prisoners, in jail or davit, that the clerk of such state court has confinement, where le or they shall le comrefused or neglected to deliver copies thereof Iwtted or confined on, or lay ittd uthority or law, for an actonfiedo, or by ittan athort bor’ on demand as aforesaid, may direct and allow. ny act done or oitted t done such record to be supplied by affidavit, or In pursuance of a law of the United States, or otherwise, as the circumstances of tile cas,e laiy order, process, or decree, of any judge or otherw~~~~~~~~~~ise astcirusaso ics ourt thereof, ainything in any act of’Con~gress may require and allow; and, thereupon, such tort the creof anything in any act of Cnd if anges proceeding, trial, and judgmnient, may be had to the cotrary notithstaning. Ard i ny in the said court of the United States, and all person or persons to whlor such writ of habei1s such processes awarded, as if certified acopies corpus may be directed, shall refuse to alley of such records and proceedings had been the sime orshrll neglect or refuse to inake return, or shall arake a false return thereto, regularly before the said court. in addition to the renerieis already given lai Sec. 5. That whenever the President of the law, he or they shall lie deemned and taken to United States shall be officially informed, by be guilty of t misdemeanor, anid shall, on conthe authorities of any state, or by a judge of viction before any court of competent jurisdic 216

Page 217 view page image

FORCE BILL.-FOREIGNERS. tion. be punished by fine, not exceeding one thlousand dollars, arid l)y imprisonment, not exceeding six months, or by either, according to the nature and aggravation of the case. Sec. 8. That the several provisions contained in the first and fifth sections of this act, shall be in force until the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer. Approved, March 2d, 1833. “Whereas, The American authorities are scarcely authorized to se nd ba ck those who having once be en admitte d to the countro cannot earn their subsis tence in America: and, ” Whe re as, It i s much less the business of the Gfprman Em igration Society of New York to prom ote the return of such individuals; therefor e “

Resolved, Tha t necessary steps are to be taken to prevent their transportation back to this country.” The report, after a rguin g the power to pro tect society, denied by the resolution of the government of Wurtemberg, and the duty to the country to d o so, as also th e existence of the power in Congress ov er immigr ation, and the power of t he states as to the same, closes with the followi ng deductions: 1st. That it is the chief source of intem perance, and the main cause of the alarming incr ease of that great public e vil in our country. 2d. That it has filled our commercial cities with a foreign convict and pauper population, the material of which mobs are made, to such an extent as to endanger the public peace and the public morals, and to be generally re garded as a frightful evil. 3d. That it is a fruitful sourc e of pauperism, and the chief cause of it s fearfu l increase within the las t f ew y ears. 4th.

That it is a prolific source of crime, and that to it the enormous increase of crime may almost wholly be attribu ted. 5th. That it has brought upon the country a large juv en ile vagran t population, now growing u p t o pre y upon society, wh ich is fearfully on the increase, and almost entirely o f foreig n origin. 6th. That it is the source of ignorance, the mother of crime, filling o ur count ry with a people whose vicious propensities predominate o ver bot th the moral and intellectual fa c ulties, aid who, urged on by ungoverned appetites and passions, with fancied or superstitiou s objects in view, c onstitute a popular tion from whi ch th e country has no thing to expect but evil to its free institutions. 7th. That it has brought into the country a large b ody of men who ar e inimical to our fr ee institutions and our social organization, and who are devoted to dogmas and creeds, which experience as well as all past history have sho wn t o be not only in compatible witi republican institutions, or a well regulated constitutional liberty, but antagonistic to the welfare and happiness of mankind; and which, if carried out here, would make this country a pandemonium on earth. 8th.

That it has flooded our country with irreligion, immorality, and licentiousness, and is the source from whence infidelity comes. State legislation can reach many of these evils, and it behooves the state legislatures to institute the necessary measures of reform on the subject.

Among those which commend themselves as most likely to be effectivee are:  Foreigners. ARRIVALS OF, IN THE UNITED S From 1800 to 1810, From 1810 to 1820, From 1820 to 1830, From 1830 to 1840, From 1840 to Sept. 30, 1850,.

Total to Sept. 30, 1850, From Sept. 30, 1850, to Jan. 1, 1852, Fromn Jan.

1, 1852, to Jan. 1, 1853, From Jan. 1, 1853, to Jan. 1, 1854, Foreign Criminals and Paupers. ON the 16th of April, 1856, in the IIouse of Representatives, Mr. Henry M. Fuller of l’ennsvlvania, from the Committee on Foreign Relations of the House, submitted a report upon the subject of foreign criminals and paupers. The rel,ort is too lengthy (being some 150
printed pages) for insertion in this work. Besides, the subject of which it treats is fully elaborated in some of the defences of the American party contained in this work.-See MADISON LETTERS. Amongst other things, the report contains the following resolves of the government of Wurtemberg relative to the return of emigrants to that country:  ” Whereas, It has repeatedly occurred, that German emigrants to America, and a mongst them nativevs of Wurtemberg, who desired to return home on account of sickness, or incaI-pacity to labor, have been forwarded to this country by the German Emigration Society of New York: and ” Whereas, It is desirable that those who have once emigrated to America, and especially those who have been transported thither at the expense of the state, or the communes, and are unable, whether or not it be from any fault of their own, to earn their subsistence, should not return here to be a burden to the state or the commune (which in that case will have defrayed the expenses of their journey in vain): and 217 70,000 114,000 135,986 579,368 1677,330 1576,684

368,643 From Sept. 1850, to Jan. 1, 1854,. 1,118,805 3,7,’ 7,489 Total,

Page 218 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. juvenile reformatory institutions, but, good as our common schools are, much too is yet required of us in regard to them.

Thousands of children, especially those of foreigners, do not enjoy their benefits, though open to them. Thus far no legal measures have been taken to insure all the advantages of a common school education. Is it not a grave question, whether the time is not at hand when the gross neglect of parents to send their children to schools should receive some attention, and steps be taken to guard the public from the evil resulting therefrom?

6. Lastly, and most important of all at the present juncture, is the adoption and enforcement of a truly American policy on all subjects-ne which will tend to cultivate and develop a n undying at tach men t to o ur country, its history and its institutions, and to inspire a profound veneration and respect for th e examples of our patriotic revolution a ry an ces - tors. One of the first acts of the Continental Congress was to order an edition of God’s Holy Book; and it is not too much to say, perhaps, that beyond all other causes combined which enabled our forefathers to achieve independence, was the deep and universal acquaintance with that holy book, scattered among the children of a former generation, and the training of mind, and heart, and spirit which they received. Nor is it more than the truth, perhaps, to say now that it is the reranant of that spirit which has maintained our republic up to the present time. Is it not then of the first and highest importance, now that the land is flooded with foreign infidels, who, taught at home to repudiate everything to be revered in human institutions, have already here raised the black standard of atheism, and declared a war of extermination against the faith which supported our ancestors in establishing the republic, and the hope which animates us for the future-is it not, in view of all this, the sacred duty of all Americans who love their country, and mean to perpetuate its institutions, to imitate the illustrious example of their sires, and to insist upon having their children taught in our schools. the lessons of wisdom to be found only in the Bible, and thus have that holy book as one of the text-books of our public schools? Let a policy like this be adopted by the states, and let Congress exercise the powers conferred upon it, to arrest the evils so justly complained of, and the public good, the peace and prosperity of the country, and the welfare and happiness of the people, will be thereby promoted. 1. T he adoption of a state policy which will discouuteilance the e sprit du corps, now so studiously cultivated among foreigners in our largte c ities, wh ich is calculated, if no t desionied, to keep them foreigner s in feelings, sentiments, and habits, though they enjoy the be nefits of our institutions and owe allegiance to our laws.

Let their separat e and distinctive civil andl military org aniz ations, wherever they exist, be frow ned down, and a policy be pursued which will break up and destroy those foreign organizations, and oblige those belongin, to the m to identify themselves with the country of their adoption, and to be nought els e t han what they oueht to be-Americans, andr on ly Ampericans. 2. The rigid enf orcement of all license laws aiuthorizino the s al e of liquor, pr omptly punishind those who violat e them, and the adoptiol of a provisi on in all those laws, like that patsse(lb y th e recent legislature of Pennsylvania, prohibiting a license to b e g rante d for the sale of liquor to any other than a citizen of the United States. Experience demonstrates that most o f the grog shops in the cities are k ept by unnaturaslized foreig ners, who will thus be excluded from pursuing a busines s fraught with misery and crime. 9. The adoption of measures, a s far as is practicable, t o indem nify the stat e in case those landed upon its shores shall become paupers, and to compel those maintained by the public to earn their support, if possessed of sufficient health an d s trength to do so, a nd thus present to them the alternative of honest industry or starvation. A rigid enforcement of such a policy would s o on rid the public of th e bo dy of mendicants who, too indolent to work, though abundantly able to do so, now crowd our thoroughfares and fill our poorhouses. 4. The more prompt conviction and mor e certain punishment of all offenders, and the abandonmient of that mistaken zeal of philanthropy which now steps in so often between the outraged larws and their violators. 5. The estab lish me nt of institutions so as to take ch arge a nd pr ovide for all that class of j uve nile s known as delinquents or vagrants. Thouth our common school s are in a mor e advanced state than those in any other part of the world, our reform at ory efforts to save neglected and forsaken children h ave not kept pace with our progress of common school eduction, and hence our country is now cursed with so large a juvenile population growing up in vice and crime. This is an alarming evil, and demands prompt legislative attention. In a government like ours, where all power is derived from the people, they should lbe wvise, virtuous, and enlightened, lest they abuse it. Htow can we expect the nest generation to be so, if a large portion of it is permitted to grow up in sottish ignorance and brutal sensuality, and sure of becoming adepts in crime long before arriving at manhood? Not only have wve been remiss in establishing and maintaining a sufficient number of these ALABAM A.-Code of, requires mast er o f e ach vessel arriving in port, to give bonds in the sum of five hundred dollars for each of such persons is are likely to become chargeable to any county, oinditioned to pay all suebh ex 218 LAWS

OF THE SEVIERAL ST’,TES TO PREVENT THE IMMIGRATION THEREOF.

Page 219 view page image

FOREIGN CRIMINALS AND PAUPERS. r The Act of Jan. 30, 1850, is more stringent to the same end. - MASSAcIIUSETTS.-Revised Statutes of, red quires a bond of two hundred dollars from the - captain of a vessel, on each of his passengers, t that he or she will not become public charges. -

The acts of April 20, 1837, May 10, 1848, - March 16, 1849, March 20, 1850, and May 23, 1853, provide more stringent means to prer vent the immigration of alien paupers into that state, and impose heavy penalties, &c. r NEW IIA3MPSIIIRE.-Revised Statutes of, pros hibits the master of any vessel from landing an alien passenger, until he shall have first given a bond in two hundred dollars, to save the town harmless from he or she becoming chargeable thereupon. NEW JERSEY.-Acts of Jan. 28, 1797, Feb. 10, 1819, Feb. 19, 1838, are all directed to s prevent the importation of alien paupers, by the imposition of taxes, bonds, &c., to that e end. The last act gives to each town or city within which such emigrant arrives, the right to impose a tax of not exceeding ten dollars upon each alien passenger, to be paid by the captain of the vessel bringing themni in, before r he can land them. s NEW YORK.-Act of Dec. 10, 1847, requires the captain ef each vessel arriving in port, to . give a penal bond for each and every alien passenger landed by him, of five hundred dols lars, that he or she will not become a public ‘ charge. Forfeitures by failure to comply with provisions of act, constitute a lien on vessel in t which the passengers are imported. Acts of tMay 5, 1847, April 11, 1849, provide addi tional means to prevent the immigration of for eign paupers, and to secure the expense of their becoming public charges. PENNSYLVANIA.-Act of March 27, 1789, t prohibits the importation of foreign convicts into the Commonwealth, and imposes a fine of t fifty pounds and cost upon every captain of vessel or other persons bringing such convicts into the state, for every such convict so brought in, and requires such captain of ves, sel or other person to enter into a recognis’ ance to transport every such convict beyond , the limits of the United States within a rea sonable time, in default of -which they are to be placed in jail until they do enter into such recognisance. Act of April 15, 1851, declares the master of a vessel, or other persons, bringing a foreign convict into the state, guilty of misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment. ; Act of June 13, 1836, imposes upon any person, bringing a poor person into the state, a penalty of seventy-five dollars for every such person, and shall be obliged to convey such poor person out of the Commonwealth, or sup port him at his own expense. RHODE ISLAND.-Revised Statutes, section 16, imposes a fine of four hundred dollars upon the master of any vessel bringing a ]enses as any county in the state may incur in the support of such person. C ALIFOR.nIA.-Act of April 11, 1850, de clares an y person brninging int o the state any convict or convicts to be guilty of misde meanor, punishable by imprisonment for not less than three months, and a fine of one thou sand dollars for each of such convicts so im ported. The Act of Msay 3, 1853, requires the owner or consignee of any vessel, importing into the state person s likely to become public charges. ia bond in the sum of one thousand dollars for each of such persons, to save the state harmless a,s ginst all expenses for the support thereof.

CO.,N.NECTICUT.-The Revised Statutes of, im po ses a f ine on any person bringing a foreign co nvict or convic ts in to said state, of three hundred and thirty-four dollars for every such convict so imported.

DELAWARE.-Revised Statutes of, provides that masters of vessels shall first obtain a license from the county authorities, before landing an emigrant, and shall pay a tax upon each one of the same, in order to release him from liabilities to the trustees of the poor. GEORGIA.-Act of Feb. 10. 1787, provides for imnprisoning foreign convicts arriving within the limits of the state, until such time as they can be sent off. If after being sent off they return, they incur the penalty of death LotUISIx.- A.

Act of March 21,1850, requires each person not a citizen of the United States and above the age of fourteen years, landing at any place within the state, to give bond in one thousand dollars that he or she will not become, within five years, chargeable or dan gerous in any manner to the state, its citizens, or any charitable institution within the limits thereof, unless the same is voluntarily sup ported by foreigners, or citizens of foreign birth. A commutation of the bond is allowed by payment of a head tax. M_K,I-E.-Revised Statutes of, provides that no master of a ship arriving in any port shall land passengers without the permission of the selectmen of the town of arrival, unless he shall have entered into bonds with said town, to save harmless such town, and all other to)wns in the? state, against their becoming chargeabtle thereupon. Captain of vessel shall forfeit two hundred dollars for each and every passenger coming ashore, to the neglect of the provisions of this act.

A.IvRYLA.>nD.-Act of 1833, lays a tax of one dollar and fifty cents, to be paid by the master of each vessel arriving in port, upon every a~lien passenger, or shall in lieu thereof give good and sufficient bond in a sum not exceed’ inge one hundred and fifty dollars, for each of such passengers, that he or she will not become public charges within two years thereafter.. Landing of emigrants in neglect of the provisions of this act forfeits, on the part of -the captain, one hundred and fifty dollars for each passenger so landed. 219

Page 220 view page image

TIIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. foreign convict, or dissolute character, intoi the state. SOUTH CAROLINA.-Act of Nov. 4, 1788, re(uires that anv ship bringing a foreign convict! into port shall be obliged to leave said port within ten days, and shall not be permitted to receive on board any lading whatever, upon penalty of the forfeiture of the vessel, and if the master, or any other person having charge thereof, shall land any foreign convict, he shall forfeit and pay for every one so landed five hundred pounds sterling. If he shall not be able to pay such fine, he is to be imprisoned bfor twelve months. TEXAS.-Act of Feb. 11, 1850, requires a bond in the sunm of three hundred dollars from the captain of every vessel arriving in port, for each passenger brought in by him, that ]le or she will not become public charges. Bond to be commuted by the payment of one dollar for each passenger. Refusal or neglect to comply with the provisions of the act, to be visited with a penalty of five hundred dollars for each and every passenger so landed. VrERMosT.-Section 26 of Revised Statutes inmposes a fine of five hundred dollars upon every person bringing a pauper into any town in the state, wherein such pauper is not lawfully settled. VAIRGImIA.-Section 39 of Code of Virginia, imposes upon the captain of any vessel bringing a convict into the state, a fine of one hundred dollars, and three months’ imprisonment. 1. Slavery Questions.-Notwithstanding that we consider slavery to be a political and moral cancer, that will by and by u ndermine all republicanism, we deem its sudden abolition neither possible nor advis able. But we, as republican s and men, demand tha t the further extension of slavery be not con stantly urged, whilst not a single step is taken for its extermination. We demand that at leng th r eal proof s be given of the good-will s o o ften boasted of to re m ove the evil; that in particular slavery be excluded from all new territor i es indiscriminately and for ever, which measure Congress is comple te ly entitled to pas s according to the Constitution; we demand this the more, as a republica n constit ution is guaranti ed to every new state, and slavery, in t r uth, cannot be considered a repu blican element or requisite. We further demand that all and every one of the laws indirectly transporting the principle and the influence oft slavery in and upon free states, namely, the fugitive slave law, s hall be repealed, as demoralizing and degrading, and as contrary to human rights and to the Constitution; wee finally dema nd that, in all pnational affrs, tie principle of liberty shall be str ictly maintained, and e ven i n the several states it te more and more realized by gradual extermination of slavery. 2. Religiouis Questions. -Ive consider the riight of free expression of religious cons(ienice untouchable, as we do the right of f’ee expression of opinion in general; we therefore accord to the believer the same liberty to make known his convictions as we do the i(,nbeliever, as long as the rights of others are not violated thereby. But from this very principle of liberty of conscience we are (tocidedly opposed to all compulsion inflicted to) dissenting persuasions by laws unconstituitionally restricting the liberty of expression. Religion is a private matter; it has nothing to do with policy; hence it is despotism to compel citizens by political means to religious manifestations or omissions contrary to their private persuasions. We therefore hold the sabbath laws, thanksgiving days, prayers in Congress and legislatures, the oaths upon the Bible, the introduction of the Bible into the PLATFORMS OF. THE following is the Platform of the Free Germans of Louisville, Ky.: The free Germans of the Union have found it necessary to organize themselves for the purpose of being able to exercise a political activity proportionable to their number and adapted to their principles. There is a fair prospect for success for such an organization, and in this hope the free Germans of Louisville, Kentucky, h ase proceeded to lay down the following platform, which they unanimously agreed upon in a mass meeting, and make it known to the public at large as the standard of their political course. * )/ - * - The free Germans furthermore indulge in the hope that it will be possible to form a powerful reform party, embracing all who want that liberty now so much endangeredi and the progress and happiness of this our common republic to be secured on principles lasting, truly republican and democratic. They wish, after having completed their organization, to establish-with the aid of their liberal-minded fellowcitizens-such a power of votes as to be able, in 1856, to decide the victory in favor of a party of true reformers. The editors of public papers who will enter into a discussion of the platform-which we 220 Free Germans.

Page 221 view page image

FREE GERMANS. free schools, the exclusion of “atheists” from legal acts, &c., as an open violation of human rights as well as of the Constitution, and de mnand their renmoval. 3. Mleasures/llbr the welfare of the people.

As the foremost of such measures-we consider the free cession of public lands to all settlers; to occupy nature, the soil as exclusive prop erty, this no individual has a right to do; it is, for the time, the common principal fund of that population which inhabits it, and any body willing to cultivate it has an equal right to appropriate a share of the soil, as far as it is not disposed of, for purposes of common interest. It is high time that the ruinous traffic with the public lands should be abol ished, that the wasting of them by speculation should cease, and that the indigent people enter upon their rightful possession. But if this end shall be fully attained, it will be required to aid poor colonists, at their first settlement, with national means, lest said measures prove useless for these very persons who most need it. In the closest connexion with the land re form question stands that of immigration, which by its general importance should be raised to the rank of a national affair, and for which a special office of colonization and immigration should be created as a particular department of the United States government. Such a board would have to provide for the various interests of immigrants, who are now helplessly exposed to so many sufferings and wrongs and abuses from the place of embarkation in Europe to the place of t heir settlement in America. North America is neglecting herself w hen negl ecting the immigration, for immigration is the mother of this republic. The admission of citizenship must b e rendered as easy as possi ble to the immigrant s.

The welfare of a nation cannot be generally and permanently secured unless its laboring class es be made independent of the oppression of the capitalist. Labor has an incontestable claim to the value of its products.

Where it is prevented, by the want of the necessary capital, to secure this claim, it is, of course, referred to an alliance with capital of others. But if no just agreement can be obtained by this association with the capitalist, then tile state, as the arbitrator of all contendiiig interests, has to interfere. This must either aid the associations of working men by credit banks, or mediate between the claims of the laborer and the capitalist, by fixing a minimum of wages equally the value of the labor, and a maximum of labor answering the demands of humanity. The time of labor shall not exceed ten hours per day. In letting out state contracts, the preference should be given, if it can be done without runningr a risk, to associations of workmen, rather than to singrle contractors. But when given to single contractors, the latter ought to give security for pro)per waffes to the workmen employed by them. In order to enjoy “life, liberty, aGr an d happi n es s,” all indiscriminately must have the use of fre e schools for all branches of educat i on, in which, wherever a sufficient number of Germans li ve, a Ge rman teacher shou ld be employed. In order that the attainmen t of justice may no longer remain a pr ivilege for the possession of money, justi ce must be dispe nsed witho ut fees. 4. Constitutional Questions. -Considering, as we do, the Ame ric an Cons titution as the best now i n existence, w e yet think it ne ither perfe ct nor unimprovable. In particular we o hold the fo llowing amendments and additions, likewise acceptable for the st a te constitution, a s timely and proper means t o che ck the prevailing corrup tion, to w it: 1. All elections, without an y exception, sh o uld issu e directly from the people. 2. Any eligible citizen of any state m a y be elected as member of Congress by the citizens of any other st ate, and likewis e mary any e ligible denizen of a ny county be elected by the citi zens of any other county for a member of the state legislature. 3. Any representative and officer may at any time be recalled by the majority of hi s constitutents and replac ed by an other. 5. Melee Trade. We decidedly profess the principle of fre e tra d e, and will suppo r t it in all cases wher e i t may be carried through without disadvantage to the people, and wher e reciprocity is accorded by the other side. 6. Foreign Policy.- The policy of neutrality must cease to be an a rticle of our creed, and ought to be abandoned soon, as contrary to th e interests of North America. The r i ghts of American citizens and immigrants having declared thei r inten tion to be come citi zens, must the more energetically be protected in foreign countries, since every American appears to monarchical and despotical governments as a representative of revolution against despotism, and this republic ought to nonor this point of view as the only one worthy and legitimate. 7. Rights of TWoman.-The Declaration of Independence says, that ” all men are born equal, and endowed with inalienable rights, and to these belong life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We repeatedly adopt this principle, and are of the opinion that woman, too, are among ” all men.” 8. Rights of Free Persons.-In the free states the color of the skin cannot justify a difference of legal rights. There are not born two men of equal color, but still less two men of unequal rights. 9. Penal Laws. It is our opi;nion, that all penal laws can only have the purpose of correction, but never the absurd purpose of expiation. W~e therefore consider the penalty of death, which excludes the possibility of correction, to be as irrational as barbarous. 221 The followin is the platform of the free Germans of.Richmond, Va.: I

Page 222 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. dren by the state. 5. Taking possession of the railroads by the state. 6. The promotion of educationa. By the introduction of free schools, with the power of enforcing the parents to send their children to school, and prohibition of all clerical influence; b. By instruction in the German language; c. By establishing a German university. 7. The supporting of the slave-emancipation exertions of Cassius M. Clay by Congressional laws. 8. Abolitioh of the Christian system of punishment and introduction of the human amelioration system. 9.

Abolition of capital punishment. Reform in the lag of the Cntttgeneral government, as we ll as in thos e of the states. We demand-1. Universal suffrage. 2. The election of all officers by the people. 3. The abolition of the Presidency. 4. The abolition of senates, so that the legislatures shall consist of only one branch. 5. Tile right of the people to recall their representatives (cashier them) at their pleasure. 6. The right of the people to chang e the Constitution when they like. 7. All lawsuitn to be conduted without expense. 8. A department of the government to be set up for the purpose of protecting immigration. 9. A reduced term for acquiring citizenship. Reform in the foreigni relations of the government.

1. Abolition of all neutrality. 2. Intervention in favor of every people struggling for liberty. Free Trade. IN the House of Representatives, March 19, 1858, Mr. BOYCE, from the Special Committee, submitted the following report. The Special Committee, to whom -ere referred the following subjects: a reduction of the expenditures of the government; the navigation laws; the existing duties on imports; the expediency of a gradual repeal of all duties on imports, and a resort exclusively to internal taxation, respectfully submit the following report:-* The expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1857, independent of the public debt, as appears from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, are $65,032,59,)7.76. The first question is, whether those expenditures are greater than what they should be under an economical adminiistration of the government. We think they are. The best mtode of determining this question is to conipare the present total expenditures of the government with the total expenditures of the government at some past period of our history, and, further, to compare some of the leading items of our expenditure now with the leadiung items of our expenditure then. With this view, we have compared the receipts and expenditures of 1857 with 1823, the result of which appears by the following statement: 1?eform in twhat relates to religions. 1. A more perfect development of the principle of personal freedom and liberty of conscience; consequently - a. Abolition of laws for the observance of the Sabbath; b. Abolition of prayers in Congress; c. Abolition of oath upon the bible; d. Repeal of laws enacting a religious test before taking an office. “. Taxation of church property.

3. A prohii)ition of incorporations of all church p rop ert y in the nam e of ecclesiastics. Refor,m in the social condition. 1. Abolition of land monopoly. 2. Ad valorem taxation of property. 3. Amelioration of the condition of the working class-a. By lessening the time of work to eight hours for grown persons, and to five hours for children; b. By incorporation of mechanics’ associations and protective societies; c. By granting a preference to mechanics before all other creditors; d. Bv establishing an asylum for superannuated mechanics without means, at the public expense. 4. Education of poor chil Receipts, prol Expenditures.

Year. Popu lation. eceipt. rta. as to Expenditures. p no rdata, Is Military Naval Population~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. Rc ips populatin.1
population. ~~~~~~~population. 1823 10,606,540 $20,540,666 26 $1 93.66

$9,784,154 5) $0 94.24 $3,096,924 43 $2,503,765 83 1857 28,500,000

68,969,212 57 1 41.99 65,032,559 76 2 28.18 19,159,150 87 12,651,694 61

Increareof 185, 4.33 55,24,405 17 1 3394 1,062,226 4 10,14,9
ovr1827,893-,460 4S,428,546 31 48.33 55,248,405 17 1 33.94 16,062,226 44

10,]47,928S 78 T$37,032,559.76. This result is sufficiently striking, I)ut it is rendered much more so when we consider two important facts: 1st.

That 6,196,000 acres of the public land were granted during the last fiscal year for railroad purposes, whliclh miay be valued at $15,490,000, being at The contrast might be carried into inany {ther items of expenditure, and the results would be startling. But enough has been lone to show that the ratio of expenditure is fair in excess of the increase of’ population. The expenditures ought not, for very obvious reasons, to increase in proportion to the increase i,f population. But conceding that it should, the expenditures of the government, in round numbers, should not exceed: 28,000,000; whereas it is $65,032,559.T6-an excess of * The committee consisted, hesides ir. Iloyce of Miss., John A. Quitnman of Miss.. irancis E Spinner of N.Y., RIichard Mott of (O)hio, J. R.

Wortendyks of N.J.. M. R. 11. Garnett of Airginia, and R.obert P. Tri!,pe of Georgia. 222

Page 223 view page image

FREE TRADE. the rate of $2 50 per acre. 2d. That appro-ested in high duties-that is, in high taxation. priations to supply the deficiencies of the last The influence of the manufacturing class on fiscal year have been called for, amounting, in taxation is not merely in proportion to the round numbers, to $10,000,000, making the capital they represent, as compared with the total expenditures of the government, in round capital engaged in other industrial pursuits; numbers, for the last fiscal year $90,000,000! for, from very obvious reasons, some of which an excess over the ratio of expenditures in have already been incidentally alluded to, it 1823 of $62,000,000. The administration of is far beyond this ratio. As an illustration of the government in 1823 was not considered this influence, we would refer to the facts conpeculiarly economical; on the contrary, it was nected(l with the modification of the tariff pronounced at the time by some as extrava-during the last Congress. It is notorious gant, and really was much more so than the that tte only great interest represented here first term of Mr. Jefferson’s administration. at that time by outside agents was the manu Considering as established the proposition facturing interest. One of the first steps that the expenditures of the government are towards an economical administration of the far in excess of what they should be, we pass government is to place that great and active ,n to consider the remedy, if remedy there be, interest permanently on the side of low taxafor this lavish waste of the public money. tion, and the only effectual mode of doing this What is the remedy for this vast and increasis direct taxation; which necessarily implies ing expenditure? The only remedy likely, in the total abandonment of protective duties, any degree, to be effectual is to change the ex-which are but another name for bounties. isting system of taxation. The regular increase When you have put all the great interests of f our expenditures shows that it is not attribu-capital on the side of low taxes, you have table to any particular party or administration, taken one of the most decided steps that you can for this increase has gone on constantly under possibly take in favor of low taxation, which every party and every administration, with the is the necessary antecedent of economy. regularity of a great principle. To make an The next prominent evil of the present sysindividual a prodigal, you have only to supply tem of taxation, is that, by its indirect operahim with an unlimited amount of money; to tion, the people are ignorant of what they pay. make a government extravagant, you have They are ignorant of what they pay to the only to do the same thing.

Thefirst economi-government, and equally ignorant of what cal defect of our present system of taxation, they pay to the protected interests in the lby duties on imports, is, that it operates as a shape of bounties. If the object be to obtain bounty to one, and that a very important from the people the largest amount possible class-the manufacturers. without arousing them, then the indirect sys Under the operation of this first defect, the tem-the present systemis the best; but if great manufacturing class, which represents a the object be only to obtain from them the vast capital, which is intensely alive to its pecu-least amount that will suffice for the just liar interest, which is vigilant, active, powerful, wants of the government, then the direct sysand capable of prompt and ready combination, temn of taxation is the best. The happy ignois interested in increasing the taxation of the rance of the people of the United States as to government; for the higher the taxes are, if the amount of taxes they are paying is one laid on the principle of protecting their pro-great cause of their remaining so passive unducts, the better for them. Suppose the ques-der the enormous increase of our expenditures tionweresubmittedtothecotton manufacturers, which has been going on for years. If we deor the iron manufacturers, whether the duties sire an economical government, we must be on cotton and iron products should be increased candid with the people, and let each one know )or diminiished, does any one doubt what their exactly what he pays. The people, ignorant answer would be? So far as they are con-of how much tax they are paying in the encerned, they consider high duties as bounties hanced price of commodities, will tolerate an to them, and they would be in favor of them, expenditure of $100,000,000 much more paif the revenues thereby derived were thrown tiently than one of $50,000,000, when each into the sea. Under the present system of one has to pay his ascertained share directly taxation by duties on imports, this great class from his own pocket.

Economy here must be are favorable to high taxation. To form some preceded by vigilance among the constituency; idea of the stupendous magnitude of this manu-as long as the constituency are indifferent on lacturing interest, take the followvin statement, this subject, the representatives wrill be carried showing the value of the products of manufac-along unresisting in the vortex of extravature of the United States for the year 1850.- gane. (Financial Report, Executive Document, 3d Another objection to the present system is sess. 34th Cotgress, vol. 2, 1856-‘57, p. 166.) the large expenditure necessary in the pre Total value of products of manufacturesa $1,055,59 599 sent mode of collecting the revenue, in paying for 1850…….” the army of employcs engaged in the present This reference to the products of manufac-revenue service, in building costly structures tures may give us some idea of the immense in various parts of the United States, and in capital engaged in manufactures. This capi-maintaining custom-houses which do not pay tal may be estimated at $500,000,000. their own expenses. Upon this point we This vast canital is all more or less inter-would call attention to the following facts 223

Page 224 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The direct cost of collecting the revenue from or less degree, must necessarily violate the customs for the last fiscal year, ending June spirit of this provision. Another defect of the 30, 1857, $64,171,034.05, was $3,552,359.50, present system is, that it necessarily cripples employing three thousand and eighty-eight the productive energies of the country by inofficers. This is independent of the cost of terposing obstacles to the fiee exchange of the custom-houses and revenue cutters, the prodlucts. It is difficult to estimate the extent interest upon which investment would largely of loss resulting from this cause; but there increase this sum. can be no doubt it amounts to a vast sum. To see further the operation of the present * system, take the following statement: As regards the navigation laws, we do not think it necessary to go into a detailed exaiiiAmount of revenue collected, and expenditures iiation of their various provisions, especially at certain custom-houses, for the fiscal year as a bill has been reported to the Ihouse, and ending Junie 30, 1857. is now before it, fronm one of the standing com mittees, for the purpose of perfecting the de Locatio Revenue Extpendi-pxncdelt’s ox tails of the present code of navigation laws.

Lcto.collected. tures. p-dtso,1 c revenue. In general terms, however, we would say that the present regulations are unnecessarily comBelfast, Me..

$5.052.05 $6,012.87 $960.82 plex, and might, with great advantage, be Waldoboro’, M.Ne.. 1,368.02.547.14 6,179.12 simplified. There are, however, several deBWisaisset, Me.. 11:30.93 7,359.09 7,228.16 fects in principle, as we coniceive, in the naviBurlington, Vt. 8,581.70 16,285.47

7,70.3.77 llBarlstable, 1.7 930 s.703 go ation laws, to which we propose to call atten 1,462.75 11,953.20 10,490.55 5 8anadusky, 0. 567.84 4,372.66

3,804.82 tion those defects are as follows: E~lsworth,’,e.. 954.96

5.032.09 4,077.13 Elseorth, Me 0o209 40ii13 1 The requisition that American vessels Portsmouth. N. lI. 5,530.54 10984.49 5453.95 1. The requisition th at American vessels Buffalo, N… 10,140.53 16.896.51

6,755.98 engaged in the coasting trade should pay 50 O,,e-,-o, N. Y.

6.149-09 181958 55 06 5.*.49 cents per ton unless “threefo)urths of the crew Nlewark. N. J. 384.30 1,595.55 1.212.55 Pensacola.iFa.. 478.7 3

3,012.62 2.533.89 are American citizens, then only 6 cents per PerthA iboy, N.J. ],.531.73 4,471.79 2,940.06 ton;” and the further provision that AmeriAstoria, On. 4X10864 21,2.54.51 17.080.87 can vessels, entering froiii foreign ports, to pay Machiss, Me. 608.71 2,605.72 1,997.01

Plymouth, lass. 395.12 3.216.04 2.820.92 50 cents per ton unless “the officrsis and twoBridgeport, Conn. 805.44 1,766.24 960.80 thirds of the crew are Anmerican citizens.” Annapolis, 3d. 180.75 929.‘20 748.4,5

Peoria, Ill. 210.2 9.0 153.40 2. The exclusion of foreirn built vessels, Peoia,i. 210.20 though owned by Americnan citizens, from en gaginlg, with entire equality, in the coasting The total net revenue from the following and other trade of the United States. eighteen custom-houses for the last fiscal year, 3. The entire exclusion of foreign vessels, viz: Belfast, Bathl, Bangor, Portland, Waldo-owned by foreigners, from the coasting trade. boro’, Wiscasset, Burlington, Barnstable, Glou-The object of the requisition that a certain cester, Bristol, Providence, Plattsburg, Wil-proportion of the crews of American vessels mington, Del., Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, San-should be Americans, was, rno doubt, intended dusky, Toledo, and San Francisco, was to accomplish a political purpose, eminently $1,769,163.43. The total cost of the public proper in itself; to provide an American mabuildings in those places for custom-houses, rine in tinme of war. We find no fault witk ost offices, and court-rooms finished since the motive, but we think this provision, which 1850, is $2,443.776.94. The total expenditure operates frequently as a great practical inconincurred for the last fiscal year in collect-venience, is unnecessary. The occupation of in said net income of $1,769,163.43 was a sea-faring life should be left, like all other $567,839.02. employments, to the inclinations or interests Ano)ther defect of the present system is the of the people. If it is to the interests of our immense patronag’e it gives to the federal population that they should go to sea, they government. ThIis arniy of officers might, by will do so; otherwise, we should not endeavor each state paying over its assessed quota, be to compel them. There is no danger that we almost entirely dispensed with.

Instead of should sutiffer in care of war from repealing three thousand and eighty-eigrht employ6s now this provision. That patriotic class of our in the revenue system, we need, under a differ-citizens, who have, on all occasions, honorably ent sy.tein, have no more than one treasurer sustained the glory of our flag( on the sea, d in eachl state. Another prominent defect of not take their inspiration fronm this provision. the present system is its necessary inequality; We have no fear but thLt, with or without this for no taiiff’an be constructed that does not, provision, there will be.lways the material in a greater or less degree, operate as a out of which to organize a, warlike marine, nelounty on one portion of the coinmunity and cessary to the wauts of the Country, under as a d(oulel tax on the great class of consumers. the most trying circumstances that can arise. It req~lires no arguiment to prrove that in a re-Even with this provision, a large per centage, public th’ere shouldl b)e equality in taxation; 45 or R0 per cent., of our seta-t’lring men are the Colnstitiition attempts toi accomplish this foreigners. This provisioir, then, operates purpose in declarin, thtt “all duties, iniposts,!only as an unnecessary burden on tle country and excises, shall 1)e unif~rm tliroughout the durinn peace, without prolinsilng any adequate United States.” But every tariff, in a greater compensatinr result in time of war. Further, 224

Page 225 view page image

FREE TRADE. it may admit of grave consideration whether is in cheap sea transportation. When we conve would not strengthen ourselves, in case of sider the vast value of the products of the war, by encouraging foreign sailors to come United States, which are carried by water into our marine, as, once entered, they be-coast-wise on both our Atlantic and Pacific come, for all practical purposes, American coasts, the Gulf of Mexico, and the great sailors. Advancing firmly in the line of lakes-some estimate of which may be formed industrial freedom, and with a view of throw-from considering that the amount of tonnage ing off every possible shackle on the industrial engaged in this transportation is 2,247,663.74 energies of the country, we think this provi-tons, nearly onehalf of the total tonnage of the sion should be rescinded. United States-we can readily see how im As regards the second defect alluded to in portant is the element of cheap transportathe law, l)y which foreign built vessels, though tion.

The only practical mode of attaining owned by American citizens, are not admitted this result is competition, and yet we resoto entire equality, unless purchased after ship-lutely turn our backs upon this principle and wreck, and repaired to the extent of three-persevere in a monopoly. We are clear fourths of their cost, weconsider this rests that our navigation laws should be modified upon a totally indefensible principle. It is in this respect. * giving to American shipbuilders a perfect As regards the present tariff, we think its monopoly. We can see no ground of justice principal defects areupon which this monopoly can rest. Every 1.

That too large a proportion of the duties American citizen ought to have the privilege is thrown on articles of prime necessity. For to buy ships wherever he can buy them to the instance, nearly onehalf of the present revebest advantage. To compel him to buy from nue is raised from duties on cotton, woollen, American shipbuilders at an enhanced price iron manufactures, and sugar. These artiis, to the extent of that enhanced price, to concles are indipensable to the great mass of the fiscate his property, and transfer it to another. people, the laboring classes, so that an undue Such a monopoly is utterlv inconsistent with portion of the burden of taxation is thrown the spirit of our institutions. Our shipbuild- on the laboring classes. To reduce duties on rs have a right to equality; they have no articles of necessity, is, in effect, to increase right to exclusive privileges. As a question wages, as the same wages will go further. :f expediency, it seems equally indefensible. 2. It is protective in its character, as is obE,ither American built ships are cheaper or vious from the following considerations: Oriearer than foreign built. If they are cheaper, dinary cotton manufactures pay 24 per cent., “hey do not need this prohibition of foreign bagging pays 15, but all bleached, printed, turchase. If they are dearer, they do not de-painted, or dyed cotton goods and de laines erve it. It is the interest of the great mass pay 30 per cent. Manufacturers of iron pay -)f the people of the United States, both pro-24; pig, bar, sheet and all other iron, 24.

lucers and consumers, to have ships cheap, Woollen manufactures pay 24, except flannels or the price of ships enters as an element in and baizes, which pay 19. Sugars of all he cost of transportation. This monopoly kinds, 24 per cent. Manufactures of silks :ither makes ships dearer, and enhances the pay 19 per cent. Adzes pay 24 per cent. lost of transportation, or it is useless. If it Blacksmiths’ hammers and sledges, 24; boots nukes ships dearer, and enhances the cost of and bootees, for men or women, 24. The ransportation, it should be abolished. If it fact that silk manufactures, used by the rich, _complishes nothing, it is useless, and should pay 19 per cent., and cotton, woollen, iron ot encumber the statute books. We have
mnanufactures-manufacturesindispensable to eason to believe the removal of this monopoly the industry of the country-pay 24 and 30 ould permit ships to be bought cheaper. In per cent., when 20 per cent. may be assumed debate upon this subject, growing out of as the highest revenue standard of duty on ertain propositions made by the British go-these articles, indicate the deference paid to ernment to our government on this and kin-the principle of protection. A minute analy;red subjects, it was conceded in debate here, sis of the present tariff will only further illus a distinguished member from the city of trate this fact. ew York, (Hon. E.

Brooks,) that ships could 3. There are certain imports on the free list -e built in the British provinces “some twenty which should not be there, as, for instance, .er cent. or more cheaper than in New Eng-tea and coffee.

These articles, tea and coffee, and or New York.” This monopoly oughlt to are peculiarly suited for taxation. They are -e abolished in the interest of the commerce, not produced in this country, therefore there manufactures, and agriculture of the country. would be no indirect tax paid on them. They As regards the next defect in our naviga-are of general consumption, and a tax upon ;on laws-the prohibition of the coasting them, besides furnishing an addition to our rade to foreign ships this is another mono-income, now much needed, would fall equally oly which we conceive to be unjust and inex-on all classes and sections.

cdient, and which ought to be abolished. The reason of placing these articles on the If there be any one thing ill which all the free list is obvious enough. It is to prevent nople of the United States, all classes, and the necessity of reductioni on such articles 1l industrial pursuits of all sections, except introduced from abroad as enter into competi:e one class of shipowners, are interested, it tion with similar home products.

By dimin lb 225

Page 226 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ishing the free list, we could diminish the general rate of duty on inainy articles entering into universal consumption. If the policy of collecting the revenue of the government by duties on imports is to be continued, we think the tariff should be modified on the following principles: 1. A total abandonment of the policy of protection. No duty should he laid with the view of protecting any form of industry. The tariff should be considered purely as a fiscal instrumentality. We have no idea that any tariff can be instituted that will not in some degree, either more or less, operate in a protectivecharacter. Such will be the unavoidable effect of all duties on articles of a similar nature to home products. And the production of this effect becomes constantly greater, firom the fact that the cost of production is steadily decreasingo in this country, from the increase of population and capital, aided by the increase of skill and improvements in the processes of production. From this cause a lower rate of duty will operate protectively now, to what it did twenty years ago. The operation of this principle constitutes one of our objections to any tariff, as we would wish so to regulate taxation as that no class should, in any degree, derive benefit from it as a bounty. 2. Articles of prime necessity should be taxed at the lowest rate of duty, and articles of luxury at the highest revenue standard. The reasons of this aire so obvious that we do not think it necessary to enlarge upon them. Our purpose would be to relieve the producing classes as much as possible from the burdens of taxation. 3. The free list should be confined to such articles as furnish so inconsiderable an amount of revenue as not to remunerate for the trouble and expense of collection, and the raw material of domestic manufactures. According to this principle, tea and coffee should be required to pay duty. As regards the exenIption of the raw materials of manufactures, this, while a benefit to the home nmanufacturer, would operate no injury to any class, as the effect would only be to cheapen production, an advantage which would be shared by all the consumers-that is, by the great mass of the people.

* rueounfriy We now approach the subject of direct taxation. The first purpose is, to understand exactly what is meant by this system. The Constitution provides: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined 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.” ” No capitation or other direct tax shall be. laid, unless in proportion to the census or enu 2Aeratio herein beiore direct ed to be taken.” “All duties, imposts, and excis es shall be uniform throughout the Uni t ed State s.” Judge Story, commenting on the se cla use s, says: ” Wshat are direct taxes, in the sense of the Constitution, since the y ar e required to bo laid by the rule of apportionment? It is clear that capitation taxes, or, as they are more commonly called, poll taxes-that is, taxes on the poll,, heads or persons of the contributors-aro direct taxes, for the Constitution has expressly enumerated them as such.’ No capitation or ohter direct tax shall be laid,’ &c., is the language of that instrument. Taxes on lands, house, and other permanent real estate, or on parts or appurtenances thereof, have always been deemed of the same character-that is, direct taxes. It has been seriously doubted, if, in tile sense of the Constitution, any taxes are direct taxes, except those on polls or lands.”(Story Corm. Const.) “

In the year 1794 Congress passed an act laying duties upon carriat,es-for every coach, &c., &c., the yearly sum of ten dollars-and made the levy uniform throughout the United States. The constitutionality of the act was contested in the case of Ilylton v. United States, 3 Dall. R. 171, upon the ground that it was a direct tax, and so ought to be apportioned among the states, according to their numbers. After solemn argument, the Supreme Court decided that it was not a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution.” -(Story Com. Const.) Without committingfl ourselves to the correctness of Judge Story’s opinion and the decision of the Supreme Court, as to wha4_ taxes are direct, we do not propose to legit;= late in conflict with such distinction. It would seem, from the decisions of the Supreme Court, that the only direct taxes, in the sense of the Constitution, are taxes on persons and lands. These taxes are to b id by the rule of apportionment; that is tc say, each state will pay such an amount of thentire tax to be collected as theproportion itspc pulation bears to the entire population of all the states, deducting two-fifths of the slaves. All other internal taxes, except the taxes on land, and persons, would be laid according to the rule of uniformity. Such being the law, as now expounded; upon the subject of internal taxes, which ir.

cludes as well direct taxes, in the sense of th.Constitution, as all other taxes of that charac ter, the practical system which we would re commend would be as follows: Ascertain the total amount needed for thgovernmlent.

Apportion that amtong th:states, according to the rule of apportionlm-ent and let each state collect its quonta irn its owrwray, and pay over such quota, deducting toh reasonablle expense of collection. The advantages of this system would 1; 1. Perfect equality, according to the prov’ sions of the Conlstitution, ia the burdens oi I 226

Page 227 view page image

FREE TRADE. unless th ey are permitted to exchan ge the fruits of their labor to the best c adviaotnagfe. Government, t herefore, has no r ight to is ter fere by protective or pro h ibitory dutie s, and co m pel one portion of the commnunity to ex change the fruits of t heir industry, their pro ducts, with another clas s o f the communit y o,) less advantageous terms than they could ex change them with foreigners. For instance: Government cannot rightfully, by protective d ut i es, compel the wheat growers of Oh io to exchange their w heat for a les s value of good., manufactured in New Eng la n d t a than they could obtain by exchange with Englis h mia nu faecturers. To do so, is to commit a spoliation on the wheat grower s of Ohio for the b enefit of the New England manufacturers. To the gt d egree tha t these wheat growers are co m p elled by such protective duties to exchang e their pr oduc t s for a les s va lue, to that extent a spoliation is committed upon them. Sup pose government should say that labor s hould not receive more than a certain amount of wages as its recompense, no one could doubt but tha t this would be an act of the greatest injustice; that to th e ex t ent to which labor would be compelled to r eceive a less amoun t than it would obtain if not forbidden, that to that extent there would be confiscation. Every fair mind would at once revolt against such legislation as this; yet what difference is there, in principle, or the practical consd qudnces, between this prohibition of full wages and the prohibition to exchange the products of labor to the best advantage? None whatever. Thev are only different modes of attaining the same end. One of the leading purposes for which g vernment is constituted is the protection of property. The only property which a large portion, perhaps a majority, of the people of every government possess, is the productof their own labor. The right of labor is the great property right of every society. This saered property right of labor can only be fully en,joye(d by freedom of exchanges. If this free(dom of exchanges is interrupted by government, not for fiscal purposes, but for alleg,ed industrial purposes, to give a monopoly to certain forms of industry, then a blow is struck at the right of labor. It is in this light that the protective policy is so odious as an infringement of the rights of labor. If there be any right in this country which this government should respect, it shioul(h lie the right of labor.

Any legislation against this right, by which it is, in anv degree, injure/l or abridged, is in violation of justice and the spirit of our republican institutions. The protective policy does infringe up~on this right of labor, for it diminihes the value of a large portion of the labor of the counltry by prohiliting snel~l lab)or from exchanging its pr(,d(ucts to the best advantage. It i~s in this view of justice to labor, respect for this great end only property right of the toiling millions, that free exschang(e recommends itself 80 strong~ly. No iml. utstrial system can be right; taxation. The mcrtl effects of this perfec t constitutional equality could not well bo over estimated. No state, no section could com plain of paying an undue share; for each state, loyal to the Constitution, could not but lIe satisfied with the equality of the Constitu t;II. There could he no longer any complaint of class taxation.

The apportionment would simply be the result of an arithmetical calcula tion, in pursuance of the rule prescribed by the Constitution. The vast enlargement of the republic, and the increase of states, incul cates most strongly the benefits of removing all causes of conmplaints, as to the inequality of taxation, by establishing the system of equality laid down in the Constitution. The only objection to this mode of collecting the taxes is, that possibly some of the states miglIt refuse to collect their quota. But this objection could be surmountedl )by the federal government collecting the quota of such state by its own fiscal agents. 2. This system of each state collecting its ownvi quota would dispense with the services of at least three thousand federal officers who are necessary under the present system. Under the proposed system a United States sul)-treasurer in each state would li)e a.n)plyv sufficient. The advantages of this incideutal consequence would be very great ind(eed. for one of the dangers of ouri federal svstein of government is its vast patronage. TIhe effect of this vast and necessarily increasing patronage is to augment the dangers of the pre dsidential elections. The fierce struggles arising every four years, with increasin violence, fIr the possession of the government, derive a great deal of their intensity from the extensive patronage in the gift of the administration. The diminution of that patronage, one of the necessary evils of our system, cannot but recommend itself to every lover of his country. 3. Another advantage of a direct system of taxation is the fact, obvious fromn miany considerations, which we do not now propose to enlarge upon, that the least ain:uiit possible of taxation will be imposed on the people, who, knowing precisely what tlhey pa,y, will hbe - come more vigilant on this point, andl naturally insist on the utIImo.st economy in the expeniditures of the government. 4. Another advantag,e of direct taxation, perhaps not inferior to any wh’ch has been mentioned, is that it will be the least interference possible with the industry of the country. Il’nder this system, and under taxis system a.lone, industry will be left perfectly free, and we can attain the great point of entire free i rede. This involves a mnore extended consi-leration of this branch of the sub~ject. The doctrine of free tradle, or, as it may more :marprehensively he called, f ree exchangres, ests upon the great principle of justice. Esvery ndividual has a right to use his labor in the .anner. most to his own advantag~e, provided e violates the right of no other person. In;viduals cannot enjoy this right effectuallyr I 22T

Page 228 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. which reposes, as its corner-stone, upon a great injustice. The protective system, as necessarily being founded upon the idea of coinpulsory, involuntary, and inadequate exchanges, necessarily rests upon a great, undenied, undeniable, and startling injustice, which should not be tolerated in this age and in this country. So far we have considered the question of free exchanges on the ground of right. It is now proposed to consider it on the ground of expediency. The doctrine of free exchanges rests on this great industrial maxim, that individuals are better judges of their monetary interests than government can be; and if industry is left perfectly free, it will, as a general rule, take the wisest direction. This maxim is either true, or it is false. If it is true, then protection-that is, interference with industry-is unwise. If it is false, then protection is wise. Now, is it true or false? for upon this question rests the protective policy. That this maxim is true, appears from the slightest consideration. There are two elements in production, capital and labor, without which industry-the process of production, would not exist. Capital is, of all the social elements, the most sagacious.

Capital nmay be said to represent the common sense of mankind more than any other element of civilization. Capital, in obedience to the great principle of common sense, which it represents, instinctively seeks the profitable, and shrinks from the unprofitable. Profit is the genius of capital-its mind, body, soul, heart; and capital, under these dominating instincts, as naturally turns from loss to gain as the magnetic needle from the south to the north. So far as this great element of production is concerned there needs no interference of government to give it direction.

Its nature is to take the best course. So far as labor, the other element of production, is concerned, its natural instincts may, likewise, be relied on to pursue profit. Men do not labor for nothing. They labor for gain, what we call wages. Unless they could get wages, they would not labor; they would prefer to do nothing. Labor is unpleasant, and all men instinctively seek to get the most wages with the least labor. In other words, the natural tendency of labor is to seek profit, and avoid loss.

The genius of capital and labor both being so antagonistic to loss, and so attracted to gain, we think we are authorized to take for granted the maxim above announced, that individuals are better judges of their monetary interests than government. If so, then it follows that government ought not to interfere with industry, but leave it perfeetly free to work out its own’mission. If these general principles whizh w<e have been considering on the po)licy of protection be conceded, woe might r est the argument here, but, as they may still lbe contros-ertcl, we will pursue it further. The argument for the freedom of exchangese may be stated in two forms, negatively and affirmatively: negatively, by showing the im. policy o f the protective policy; affirmatively, by di rect con sider ations r econmmendiutg it. We do not hope to shed new light upon a question which has been so elaborately discussed by the greatest i n tellects for nearly a century. We can only hope to p opul arize s ome o f the most forcible views which have been taken. The practical working of the protective poli cy is this: i mpos ition of high duties on those foreign products which come in competition with home products, so as to compel the con sumers to purchase the hom e prod ucts at enhanced prices. The first fact which arrests o(ir attention from this statement is, that the foreign products are furnished cheaper than the rival home products, as, otherwise, there would be no use for the high duties. The practical effect of this, the n, is, that the consumers are prevented, by governmental interference, from buying cheap. This seems to be a very singular effect for government to aim at, because individual wisdom always suggests the idea of buying cheap. All men of ordinary sagacity, in the management of their private affairs, invariably endeavor to buy cheap. Individuals who would act upon a different principle would be considered fit subjects for a comnmitsion de lunatice inquireado. Now, it is very strange that laws should be made by government to prevent men buying cheap. If it be wise for individuals to buy cheap, why is it not wise for the whole nation to buy cheap? The very first step of the protectionists seems to be founded in a negation of the universal practice and experience of mankind in their individual relations. It is sometimes denied that protective duties increase the price of the home product. But there can be no dispute upon this point, for, unless the protective duties increase the price of the home product, what is the use of the duty? There is no other possible mode in which the duty can operate in favor of the home producer, except by increasing prices. If it does not accomplish this effect, then the duty is inoperative. But the tenacity with which the protectionists cling to the duty shows that it is efficacious. If the duty on the foreign product does not increase the price of the home product, then there can be no objection to reducing or abolishing the duty. But the opposition to reduction of duty on the part of the home producer, whose only object is high prices, demonstrates the effect produced. Iligher prices for the home product implies the expenditure of a greater amount of labor to accomplish the same purpose, for labor is the true measure of value. If it be considered nwise to waste labor, then the policy of corno pelling the consumer to buy at a higher price from the hlome producer is defensible-otherwise, it is not. The very civilization we enjoy is the fruit of labsor-saving appliances. If weo ale superior to the barbarians, it is because we can accomplish more by our labor than they can. lhe highest development of society is the accomplishment vf the greatest results 228

Page 229 view page image

FREE TRADE. with the least labor. It is for this reason that the great discoveries in the arts and sciences, magnifying to an almost incalculable extent the productive powers of human labor, have conferred such vast benefits on mankind. Strike from existence our labor-saving discoveries, our steam engines, our railroads, our magnetic telegraphs, our innumerable labor-saving appliances, and we have relapsed into barbarism. The saving of labor is not merely the genius of civilization, but civilization itself. Any policy, then, by which this humanizing process of saving labor is abridged, is not merely a pause in the onward movement of society, but a step backwards. The protective policy, then, as raising prices to the consumer, which is the same thing as requiring more labor to accomplish a given result, and thus, as attacking the problem of saving labor, is antagonistic to the great social progress of the civilized world. Again: the protected forms of industry are either profitable or unprofitable. If they are profitable, they do not need protection; if they are unprofitable, they do not merit it; for the idea of legislating to turn capital into unprofitable channels in this country, is, of all absurdities, the greatest. Look at our country, a vast continent, extending from one great ocean to another great ocean, resting on the south upon the great American gulf, and on the north upon a chain of vast lakes, with every variety of soil and climate, a vast portion of it in its virgin condition, only needing development, and promising in its development the richest returns. Does it not seem, when such vast fields of production-in commerce, in agriculture, in mining-lie inviting before us, that of all things in the world we need not hunt out and legislate to force unprofitable pursuits? In no country in the world is there such an extended field for the application of capital and labor productively as in our country. Then why not let capital and labor take spontaneously their natural direction? Why strive to force them by governmental action into barren channels? In this connexion we would allude to a great faot, which should never be lost sight of, that the protective policy does not increase capital; it only gives it a new direction. The capital remains the same after you have passed your protective laws as it did before; you only force it into new directions. If by your legislation you could increase the capital of the country, then there might be sonme reason for your legislation; but as all your laws do not increase by a single dollar the amount of capital, how futile are your effiorts for good! The popular fallacy on which the protective policy rests is the encouragemenrt of home industry. It is true you may build up certain fornms of industry, lut, in doing so, you have done it at the expense of other forms of industry. If, for instance, you have developed the woollen manufacture ly high duties and raising the prices of woollen g’)oods, you have done so at the expense of the other industrial classes which consume those woollens; for you have compelled them to give a higher price for i their woollens; and to the extent o f this en. hanced price, you have discouraged them in their industry. The most effectual protection of home industry is to letevery form of industry attain its most profitable results. This you can only do by permitting freedom of exchanges Then every form of industry exchanges its. fruits to the best advantage, and consequently derives the most profit. Protection does not increase the rate of wages, and this from a very obvious reason, because the competition among the protected forms of industry prevents profits from remaining permanently higher than the average rate of the profits of capital in the country generally; and therefore the wages in the protected forms of industry cannot be higher than the ordinary wages of the country. The facts in reference to wages in the protected forms of industry in this country bear out the theoretical proposition laid down upon the subject; for, as is well known to all who are familiar with this branch of the subject, the wages of manufacturing laborers is in no degree above the average wages in other forms of industry. - g *- Th e genius of the age i s in not hing so strikingly apparent as in the efforts to overcome all obstacles to exchanges. Look at the great lines of railroads in this country and in Europe, constructed at such immense labor and expense. Look at the steam fleets on the great oceans; the magnetic wires, spread like a net-work of thought over the civilized world, and which we are trying now, like the giants of civilization, to lay down even across the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. What is the object of these stupendous undertakings? Is it not to remove, as far as human power can, the obstacles to free intercourse and free exchanges? And yet what is the protective policy but a selfimposed obstacle to the system of free exchanges? We pause at no labor to remove the obstacles of nature, and then we interpose an artificial obstacle.

Strange inconsistency! To understand this in its full force, we must consider that the logical consequence of protection is prohibition. If it is unwise to buy from the foreigner because his product is only twenty per cent. cheaper than the home product, then it is unwise to buy from him though it were a thousand per cent. cheaper. The protective policy carried out to its legitimate conclusions would be non-intercourse with the foreigner, and the inauguration of the Japanese policy. What a termination for our railroads, steam fleets, and magnetic wires! What we need in this country more than anything else to the highest development of our industrial resources, is capital. Free trade virtually gives us this capital, because it gives us the fruits of capital. If we consume the products of five hundred millions of capital in Europe, we have, to all practical purposes, got the use of’ that capital. Freedom of exchange gives us the benefit of a vast foreign capital? To illustrate: Suppose 229

Page 230 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. that. i,..tetw of investing a hundred mil lions in woollen manufactures, we are sup lied with foreign woollens, this leaves the one hiundred millions of capital free for other pur poses; therefore, we have, in effect, added this much to our capital. Instead, therefore, of envying the advantages of other people, we ought rather to rejoice at them, and, by free exchanges, get all the benefit we can from them. Flee trade allays sectional agitation. The real strength of a government consists in jus tice. Whlien all classes and sections see that there are no bounties, no monopolies, noclass legislation, but, on the other hand, see that there is perfect justice, the government com mands the confidence of all. It is difficult to estimate the importance of this confidence. It is the bulwark of a state. Another good effect, which should be referred to in this con nexion, is this: By freedom of exchanges, you remove all interest for classes to struggle for the possess ion o f the government. If legis lation be the interest of a c lass, or classes, then each c lass strua agles to get control of the g overnment to l egislate for its peculiar benefit. By establishing the principle of free tlade, you reliev e ou r politics entirely from this on testation, s o far as the great function of taxia tion is concerned. Further, why do we extend our territory? The param oun t purp ose is the extension of our commerce. Free exchanges ive us this ex tension without the dangers of territorial expa nsion. Why not, then, take this peaceful cou rse, is b e neficial to us as to all other peo ple? This brings to mind the moral effects of free trade, bringing th e different people of the earth nearer tog ethe r i n the bonds of intereest and intercourse, thus carrying o ut the will of G odd; for why are there such various clinmates and p roductions, but to inculcate the depend ence of nations upon na tions an d comp el a u nity of interest and continual intercourse? Free trade is the cause of peace. Let it be come the common law of nations, and war will be impossible. The present emperor of France, on asceetding, the throne, announced a memorable sentiment. which has beeni much repeated, that the empire was pea-(e. This was said in especial reference to Great Britain.

But recent events show how hollow is the truce between these countries.

The reason of this is plain enough-the ports of France are almost entirely shut t(gainst Engilish trade. The consequence is, that Eng,la,nd and France are not bounid together bv material interests. they remafin two hostile camps. Waterloo never can be forgotten and peace permankently est.

lbli.shed, untlil flee commliercial intercourse or iginates a neve class8
of ideas and feelings, founded onl mutual interests and intercom m u n icationl.. Free trade is the dawrn of a new era. It is the cause of philanthropy andi Chri~sticaniy. W~hat people more proper to lewd 111 the great movement thanl the people of the Unit ed States? The genius of our institutions is the greatest amount possible of personal freedom. To extend this same degree of freedom to all forms of industry seems to be but a logical deduction from the genius of our institutions. What country better situated for free trade than the United States, occupying the best portion of a great continent, bounding on oceans, gulfs, and lakes; situate midway between the great industrial nations of Europe and the teeming and gorgeeous East, and in close proximity to the West Indies and South America? We have only to advance under the banner of free trade, to command the commerce and invite the capital of the world. By this movement we would do more for civilization, progress, peace, philanthropy, Christianity, than it has ever been the lot of any people to accomplish by a single act in the history of the world. But we need not go to England for an illus tration of the advantages of free trade. The United States, in their remarkable develop nient, present the most striking illustration of its benefits. The United States have made the most astonishing advancement in material progress of all the people in history, ancient or modern. Of all the causes operative in producing this result, the establishment by the Federal Constitution of perfect free trade be tween all the states of the Union is, beyond doubt, the most efficient. Suppose the ener gies of the country had been crippled by pro tective tariffs in every state, it would have taken us centuries to attain our present ad vanceminent. We have tested l)v experience the incalculable advantages of free trade within the wide limit of the United States; why should we hesitate to extend to its utimost expansion a system which has worked so beneficially fo)r us? There can be no go,d reason for not doing so. By our reciprocity treaty with England-the Marcy-Elgin treaty  we have given the border states of the north practical free trade, in a very great decree, with the neighboring British pr,,vinces. The results of’ that flee tra(le experimaent are most encouraging. Let us adva.nce boldly in this direction, and le,-id the nations of the earth in the great iimarch of industrial progress. Our ancestors declared the fi’eedom of the colonies; let us declare the fi’eed,lii of excha,nges; the consequences of the second declaration mav not be less important or benieficial than the first. In conclusion we may be permitted to stay that we do not venture to hope that we can inaugurate a new policy on our line of argument immediately. Such radical changres must be the work of time. We aim, therefore, not so much at immediate practical results, as to affect public opinion, and thus insure the ultimate triumph of the principle we advocate. With this view, then, instead of reporting -30

Page 231 view page image

FREE TRADE.-FREMONT, JOHN C. bills for immediate action, we have contented ourselves with forminularizing our recominendations in certain resolutions, which are hereto annexed. who, without regard to past differences, are uniting in a common effort to bring back the action of the federal government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson.

Comprehending the magnitude of the trust which they have declared themselves willing to place in my hands, and deeply sensible of the honor which their unreserved confidence, in this threatening position of the public affairs, implies, I feel that I cannot better respond than by a sincere declaration that, in th e event of my election to the Presidency, I should enter upon the execution of its dut ie s wi th a single-hear ted determination to promote the good of the whole country, and to direct solely to this end all the power of the government, irrespective of party issues and regardless of section al strifes. The declaration of principles embodied in the resolves of your convention expresses the sen timents in which I have been educated, and w hich have been ri pened i nto con victions by personal observation and experience. Wi t this declaration and avowal I think it necessary to revert t o only two of th e subjects embraced in those resolutions, and to these only beca use events have surrounded them wthh grave and criti cal ci rcu mstances, and given t t them especial importan ce. I concur in the views of the conventi on deprecating the foreign poli c y to whic h it adverts. The assumption that we have the r ight to take fr om an o ther nation its domai ns because we want them is an aban donment of the honer character which our country has acquired. To provoke hostilities by unjust a ssumptions, would be to sacrifie t the peace and character of the country, when all its interests might be more certainly secured and i ts objec ts attained by just and healing counsels, involving no loss of reputati on. Internation al embarrassments are mainly the results of a secret diplomacy, which aims to keep from the knowledge of the people the operations of the government.

This system is inconsistent with the character of our institutions, and is itself yielding gradually to a more enlightened public opinion, and to the power of a free press, which, by it s b road dis sem ination of political intelligence, secures in advance to the side of justice the judgment of the civilized world. An honest, firm, and open policy in our foreign relations would command th e united support of the nation whose deliberate opinions it would neced sarily reflect. Nothing is clearer in the history of our institutions a than the desi gn of the nation, in asserting its own independence and freedom, to a vo id giving countenance to the extension of slavery. The influence of the small but compact and power ful class of men interested in slavery, who command one section of the country and wield a vast political control as a consequence in the other, is now directed to turn back this impulse of the Revolution and reverse its principles. The extension of slavery across the continent is the object of the power which now rules the governmenti; 1. Resolved, That the vast and increasing expenditure of the federal government in dicates the necessity of a change in our fiscal system, whereby the protective policy shall be entirely abandoned, and a resort had, at as early a period as may be practicable, exclusively to direct taxation. 2. Resolved, That the existing tariff is defective, as being founded on the protective policy; as taxing certain articles of prime necessity too high; as not discriminating sufficiently so as to throw the burden of taxation as much as possible on articles of luxury, to the exemption of articles of necessity, and as placing certain articles on the free list which should pay duty; and that any modifications of the tariff which may be made, should be mad e so as to avoid these defects, and for the purpose of using the tariff merely as a fiscal Instrumentality. 3. Resolved, That the highest development of the industrial resources of the country is to be attained by the greatest freedom of exclhanges, which can only be thoroughly accomplished by the entire abolition of duties on imports, and a resort exclusively to direct taxation. 4. Resolved, That the system of direct taxation presenting the most advantages is, for each state to collect and pay over its quota. to be ascertained by the constitutional rule of apportionment; thus insuring perfect equality, and dispensing with multitudes of federal officers. 5. Resolved, That the navigation laws should be so modified as not to require any portion of the officers and crews of American ships to be American citizens, and that American citizens shall be free to purchase and sail foreign built ships on an entire equality with American built ships, and that the American coasting trade shall be open on terms of perfect equality to foreign ships. The undersigned have agreed to grant leave to Mr. BOYCE, the chairman, to make a report from the select committee, but thev do not wish to be understood as concurring’in all its conclusions and arguments, and they ask ,cave to make a minority report hereafter. MI. R. ti. GARNETT, It. P. TRIPPE. 231

W. W. BOYCE, C,airman. ]Fremont, John C. I.ETTEII OF AccEPTA.%CF, OF. New York, July 8,1856. GENTLF,,ME-.I: You call ine to,,L hih responsibility by placing nie iti the van of,t great -novemeni of the people uf the United States,

Page 232 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of the federal government, of the states and the people of both sections. Such a policy would leave no aliment to that sectional party which seeks its aggrandizement by ap)ropriating the new territories to capital in the form of slavery, but would inevitably result in the triumph of free labor-the natural capital which constitutes the real wealth of this great country, and creates that intelligent power in the masses alone to be relied on as the bulwark of free institutions.

Trusting that I have a heart capable of comprehending, our whole country, with its varied interests, and confident that patriotism exist’ in all parts of the Union, I accept the nomina tion of your convention, in the hope that I may be enabled to serve usefully its cause of constitutional freedom. Very respectfully, your obe. dient servant, J. C. FREIMON’T. a nd f r om this spiri t have sprung those kindred wrongs in Kan sas, so truly portrayed in one of your res olutio n s, which prove that the ele ments of the most arbitrary governments have not been vanquished by t he just theory of our own. It would be out of place here to pledge my s,el f to any particular policy that has been suggestedo to terminat e th e sectio nal contro versy eengend ered by political animosities, ope rating on a powerful class b anded togeth er by a common interest. A practical remedy is the admission of Kansas into the Union as a free sta te. The Sou th should, in my judgmenit, earn estly d esire su ch c tionsumma tion. It would vindicate its good faith. It would correct the mistake of the repeal; and the North, having priactically the beneft of the eagreement be tw een the two setions, would be satisfied and good feel ing be restored.

The measure is perfectly consistent with the honor of the South and vital to its interests. That fatal act which gave birth to thi s pu rel y sectional s trife, ori ginating in the schemes to take from free labor the country secured to it by a solemn cove nant, cannot be too soon disarmed of its per nicious f or ce. The only genial region of the middle latitud es l eft to t he emigra nts of the N or thern states for homes, cannot be conquer - ed from t he f ore s o he laborers who have long con s idered it as set apart for them in our i nheri tance, without provoking a des perat e strug gle. Whateve r may be the p ersistence of the Ws ot pac larticular class whi ch seems ready to hazard e very thing for the success of the unjust scheme it has partially effected, I f irmly believe that the great hea rt of t he nat ion, which throbs w ith the p atriotism of the freemen of both sections, will have p owe r to ov ercome it. They will look to the rights secured to them by the C o nstitution of th e Union as the best safel suard from the oppression of the class w hich, by a monopoly of the soil and of slave labor to t i ll it, might in time reduce them to th e extremity of laboring upon the same terms with the slaves. The great body of non-slaveholding freemen, including those of the South, upon whose welfare slavery is an ippression, will discover t hat the power of the general government over the public lands icay hbe beneficially exerted t o advance their interests and secure their independence: knowitig this, their suffrages will not be wanting to maintain that authority in the Union which is aLbsolutely essential to the maintenance of their ()Wll liberties, and which has more than once indicated the purpose of disposing of the public lands in such a way as would make every settler upon them a freeholder. If the people intrust to me the administration of the government, the laws of Congress in relation to the territories shall be faithfully executed. All its authority shall be exerted in aid of the national will to re-establish the peace of the country on the just principles which have heretofore received the sanction French Spoliations prior to 1800. IISTORICAL FACTS AS SET FORTH BY CLAIM ANTS. IN 1793, France and Great Britain being at war, committed extensive depredations on American commerce, and the merchants, alarmed, began to withdraw from the ocean, to the great detriment of the treasury, when the government, throu,h the Secretary of State (Thomas Jefferson), by a circular dated August 27, 1793, assured the merchants that “due attention will be paid to any injuries they may suffer on the high seas, or in foreign countries, contrary t o the laws of nations or to existing treaties; and that, on their for warding well authenticated evidence of the same, proper proceedings will be adopted for their relief.” (Doc. 102, p. 216.) Relying on these assurances, commercial enterprise received a fresh impulse, and a series of captures by both belligerents fol lowed. England provided for the payment of those made by her, but France, acknow ledging her liability, advanced a counter claim for the non-fulfilment of the stipulations of the treaties of 1778 and 1788, guaranteeing for ever her possessions in the West Indies, acquired or to be acquired, as an equivalent for the supplies of men and money furnished by her in our struggle for independence, and which contributed so largely to that happy event. Two successive missions were sent to France -first, Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry, in 1797, and Elsworth, Davie, and Murray, in 1799, who offered France thirteen millions of francs (which would now, at simple interest, exceed ten millions of dollars) to purchase a release from those treaty stipulations, which was refused by France as wholly inadequate; and finally these extensive claims of private citizens (comprising upwards of 700 merchant vessels and cargoes, valued at fifteen millions of dollars) were surrendered by the American government to purchase their own release from these stipulations. William Vans Murray (one of the minis. 232

Page 233 view page image

FRENCI[ SPOLIATIONS PRIOR TO 1800. ters), says, in a letter to James Madison, Se cretary of State, July 1, 1801, “I wish I had been authorized to subscribe to a joint aban donmnent of treaties and indemnities; as claims, they will always be set off against each other; onrd I consider the cessation of their claims to treaties as valuable.” (Doc. 102, p.

675.) Robert R. Livingston, minister to France, April 27, 1803, says: “The payment for ille gal captures, with damages and indemnities, was demanded on one side, and the renewal of the treaty of 1778 on the other; they were considered as of equal value, and they only formed the subject of the 2d article.” (Doc. 102, p. 717.) James Madison (then Secretary of State), Feb. 6, 1804, says: “The claims from which France was released were admitted by France, and the release was for a valuable consideration in a correspondent release of the United States from certain claims on them.”

(Doc. 102, p. 795.) John Marshall (one of the ministers) says: “I would positively oppose any admission of the claim of any French citizen, if not accomanied with the admission of the claims of American citizens for property captured and condemned for want of a role d’equipage. My reason for conceiving that this ought to be stipulated expressly, was a conviction that if it was referred to commissioners, it would be committing absolutely to chance as complete a right as any individual ever possessed.” (Journal, p. 471, No. 316.) ” Ile (Chief Justice Marshall) stated that, having been connected with the events of that period, and conversant with the circumstances under which the claims arose, he was, from his own knowledge, satisfied that there was the strongest obligation on the government to compensate the sufferers by the French spoliations.”

(Letter from Hon. W. C. Preston, U. S. Senator, S. C.) Timothy Pickering (Secretary of State in 1800) says: “If the relinquishment (of these claims) had not been made, the present French government (1824) would be respon3ible; consequently, the relinquishment by our own government having been made in :considerat ion that the F rench government relinquished its demand for a renewal of the -)Id treaties, then it seems clear that, as our government applied the merchants’ property ;o buy off those old treaties, the sums so applied should be reimbursed.” (Letter 19th November, 1824). Monsieur Roederer (one of the French minis;ers who negotiated the treaty of 1800) said, n the legislative assembly, 26th November, !801’ ” This suppression (of the 2d article) is a prudent and amicable renunciation of the espective pretensions which were expressed in ‘fat article.” Napoleon Bonaparte (First Consul in 1800) says: “The suppression of this article at ,nee put an end to the privileges which ‘rance had byr the treaties of 1778, and anulled the just claims which America might ohave made for injurie s don e in time of peace.”

(Gourgaud’s Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 95.) The following states have at var io us time s recommended to Congres s to make appr opria tions for the i nde mnity of sufferers by these spoliations: Maine, Massachuse tts, Connecti cut, Ohio, Delawa re, Alabama, New Hamp sihire, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylva nia, Maryla nd, Louisi ana, Arkansas. In January, 1803, a report of the facts, favorable to the claimants, was made by ta committee consisting of Gile s, of Virginia; Mitchill, of New Yo rk; Lowndes, of Soutl Carolina; Milledge, of Georgia; Tallmadge, of Connecticut; Williams, of North Carolina; Davis, of Kentucky, a n d Gregg, of P ennsyl vania.

February 18, 1807. Another committe e, consisting of Marion, of South Carolina; Eppes, e of Virginia; Ge orge Clinto n, of New Yo r k; Tallmadge, of Conn ecticut; Cutts, of Massachusetts; Dickson, of Tennes see; Blount, of North Carolina; Findlay, of Pennsylvania, and Tanney, of New Hampshire, made a re port, contaiinin g the follow ing emp hatic de claration: that ” this government, by expung ing the second article of our conventio n with France, of the 30th September, 1800, became bound to indemnify the memorialists for those just claims which e th ey ot herwis e wo uld h ave rightfully had on the government of France.” Subsequent reports to the same effect (twenty six in number), were made by committees of both ttouses, at the head of which stood Edward Livingston, Holmes, Webster, Eve rett, Wilkins, Chambers, Howard, Archer, Morehead, Cushing, C. J. Ingersoll, Choate, Clayton, and Truman Smith (exclusive of the reports in both Houses of the present Con gress), while not a single adverse report has been made by the majority of any committee in either House since the year 1826, when, by a resolution of Congress, they were first put in possession of all the documents con nected with these transactions. The irresistible conclusion from the pre ceding facts, supported by the uncontradicted testimony of many of the most eminent states, men known in our country, and who are per sonally cognisant of those facts, is, that an immense amount of the property of private citizens has been used to purchase for the government a release from treaty obligations, which, had they been insisted on by France, and performed by us, would have led to incalculable national injury. The Constitution of the United States (article 5 of amendments) provides that ” private property shall not be taken for the public use without just compensation.) In the words of Edward Livingston, himself an active participant in the politics of that day, ” If so, can there be a doubt, indepondent of the constitutional provision, that the sufferers are entitled to indemnity? Under that provision, is not this right converted into one that we are under the most solemn obligation to satisfy?”’ I 233

Page 234 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Remarks of Mr. Prentiss, of Vermont, on the affirmative of these two propositions is estab bill concerning French Spoliations previous to lished, the obligation of the United States to 1

8(lo, in the Senate, Jan. 13, 1835:- indemnify the claimants, would seem to be a conclusion, to which every enlightened mind _lf. Prentiss said, that having been a mem-guided by a sense of justice and good faith, her of the committee which reported the bill must necessarily come. uinder consideration, it might be expected that These claims, sir, which are now so much he would express some opinion upon its contested, grew out of acts committed by merits. Were it not for this circumstance, France in violation of the plainest principles said Mr. P., I certainly should not detain the of national law; acts characterized by an Senate a moment with any remarks of mine: enormity of violence and injustice, of which l’ut considering the situation in which the there is scarcely a parallel in history. This Senate did me the honor to place me in rela-has already been sufficiently enlarged upon in tion to the bill, connected with its acknow-the course of the discussion here; and on this ledged great importance, both to the country point I need only to refer, generally, to the and the claimants, it would not, perhaps, be-instructions to our ministers to France, to come me to remain entirely silent. I shall their correspondence, to the various acts of not, however, sir, expose myself to the impu-Congress passed in 1798 in relation to France, tation of inexcusable arrogance, as I surely to the debates in Congress of that period, and lshould do, by taking a course which might to the general sense of the nation as expressed imply a belief on my part, that I can add any-in the public journals of the time. These all thing, especially after the full and able argu-bear unequivocal testimony to the flagrant mlent of the Senator from Massachusetts, to and inexcusable wrongs commniitted by France the discussion which the subject has already on the property of our citizens; and they conreceived. I shall rather avoid going at large sequently establish beyond all question, the into the matter, and content myself with a justice of the claims on France for indemnity. somewhat general expression of my opinion, Indeed, sir, the justice of the claims was uniadverting, very briefly, to some of the more formly asserted and urged by the government prominent facts, principles, and reasons, on of the United States throughout the negotiawhich that opinion has been formed. tion. Not only so, the justice of the claims It may be proper, sir, to observe, in the was never denied by France. Mr. Livingston, outset, that I shall forbear to enter at all into who has examined the subject with his usual the inquiry, about which so much has been characteristic ability and love of justice, in said here, whether war in fact existed between his report says, that the justice of the claims the United States and France, the effect of was admitted by various acts of the French such a state of things upon the claims, or how government; and he refers particularly to the far the government was bound to proceed in informal negotiations carried on in 1797, when enforcing the claims; because, in my judg-a commission was proposed to be established ment, all these inquiries are superseded by to liquidate the amount, to be paid by the Unithe treaty, are altogether irrelevant, and would ted States to the claimants as a loan to France. confi,se and embarrass, rather than elucidate And Mr. Livingston adds, that the justice of the subject. The United States, in my opinion, the claims was admitted in all the subsequent are bound by the principles assumed and negotiations. acted upon in the negotiation, and cannot now France, then, sir, did not, as she certainly recede from them. We are bound, as it could not, deny the validity of the claims. On respects these claims, to look to the basis on the contrary, she admitted them, and set up which the treaty was negotiated and con-counter claims on her part; claims of included; and we are not at liberty to go behind demnity for the non-performance of eng,ageor aside of the negotiation and the treaty, and ments contained in the treaties of alliance and assume grounds inconsistent with those on commerce of 1778. These engagements, and which the two governments conducted the particularly that which has been so often renegotiations, and upon which the treaty was ferred to here, guaranteeing for ever to France finally concluded. her West India islands, it is well known, were Passing by, then, sir, all this, and I say it extremely perplexing and embarrassing t,) with becoming deference, as in my apprehen-the government of the United States. They sion unnecessarily introduced into the discus-had put in jeopardy the neutrality and peace sion, it appears to me that the case, notwith-of the country. France insisted upon thi, standing the documents connected with the execution of these engagements, and also sulbject are extremely voluminous, is embraced demanded a compensation for their non-perwithin very narrow limits. To my mind, it is formance. neither complex nor difficult, but resolve, It is said, sir, that there was no foundastion itself, when divested of all irrelevant matter, for tlise sdemands on the part of France, 1)einto’two simple points or propositions. Te| cause the guarantee was not a subsistingr first goes to the validity and justice of the guaialitee, but had been put an end to, te,claims originally against France; the second, gether with the other engagements ill the treato) the release or surrender of the claims by ties, by the act of Congress of 1798. Yes, sir, the government of the United States, in con-‘ the act of Congress referred to, it is true, zideratiou of an equivalent received. If the did profess to annul the treaties; and it was 2..R, I

Page 235 view page image

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS PRIOR TO 1800. scribed to themselves their own rule of action und er the treaties. This they might do. They could enact for themselves, but could not enact for France, and to say that their refusal or even incapacity to execute the treaties, destroyed all right of France, arising out of the treaties. and especially the right to an indlemnity for their non-performance, would h)e giving to those considerations an effect which does not belong and cannot be leg,itimatelv ascribed to them. The stipulations in the treaties, it should be remembered, sir, were, in terms absolute, unqualified, perpetual engagements; and if the United States should not recognise them as subsisting obligations, to be specifically executed by them, they could not deny, and did not deny, that France was entitled to an equivalent for their non-performance. It is to be observed that the United States did not set up the unwarrantable depredations committed by France upon their commerce, in bar or avoidance of her claims, but urged these wrongful acts as grounds of distinct, substantive claims on the part of the United States against her. The respective claims were treated as independent, cross claims, existing and resting on their own separate foundations, and to be settled and adjusted according to their separate, intrinsic merits. France insisted, ana continued to insist, upon her demands, up to the conclusion of the treaty of 1800. In the formation of that treaty, the claims of both governments were recognised as subsisting claims, and agreed to be made the subject of further negotiation at a future period. By a provision, however, subsequently annexed to the treaty by the French government, and assented to by the United States, the claims of the two governments were mutually released or surrendered; those on one side being given up in consideration of the abandonment of those on the other. This, sir, is, essentially and in short, the history of the negotiation; and the summary of the whole matter is, that, in the final result, the government of the United States released France from the private claims of our citizens, for a like release, on the part of France, of claims growing out of national obligations imposed upon the United States by treaties. That the release of the claims on the one side was considered and treated as an equivalent for the release of the claims on the other, is evident from the whole course of the negotiation, from the treaty itself, and also from the letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Pinckney, which has already been several times adverted to in the debate. That letter is so direct to the point, and its language withal so express and emphatic on the subject, it may not be amiss to recur to it again. Mr. Madison says: ” The claims from which France was released were admitted by France;* and the release was for a valuable consideration in a correspondent release of the United States from certain claims on them.” Mr. M~adison, from his connexion with the that very act which consummated the breach ef the treat ies on the part of the Unit ed States, and showed onclusiveloy that France was right, at least, in the fact upon which she founded her claims. The breach of the treaties commenced at an early day, and had continued for year s, and that breach was rendered entire, c omp lete, and perf ect, by t he act of which gentlemen speak. Scarcely more than a dozen years had elapsed, after France had isent her fleets an d armies to fig ht for the Unitel States the b attles of freedom, and help achieve their inde pe ndence, b efore they forgot and be San t o disreg ard the engagements they had entered into with h er. For t his there coul d b e no p ossible excuse but on the principle of self-preservation. Solemn obligations rested upon the U n ited State s, and nothing but necessity, absolute, invincible necessity, a ris ing out of the new and extraordinary state of thi ngs existing in Europe, could be urged as an excuse fo r the non-performance of the oblig ations. Bu t if u nexpected events, and unprec e dented ci rcum stances abroad, rendered the United States unable to fulfil their engagements, in terms, without hazarding their national prosperity, and perhaps their national exis tence, they co uld at least yield, and were bound by every principle to render to France, a reasonable equivalent. Admitting, sir, that the United States mit ht well excuse themselves from a specific execution of the stipulati ons in the treaties, on the special and extraordinary grounds stated, they co uld not absolve themselves from the obligation which common reason and common justice woul d substitute in place of the stipulated duties. The act of C ong res s, it is true, was a solemn and formal declaration, on the part of the United States, that they would not execute the treaties; but it did not o annul the general obligation growing out of the treaties, or ex tinguish the right of France to i nsist upon the alternative, e theher of their fulfilment, o r an i ndemnity in lieu of their fulfilment. In what code of laws or morals, it may be as ked, i s the pri nciple to be found, which enables one c on tracting party, by his ow n act and a t his own will, to cancel the obligat ion of a contract, and completely annul all right whatever of the other part y under it? O n g eneral principles of law, whe n a contract is broken by n a refusal to perform it, a new right results-a right t o deman d and have a comensation in d abmagens for the non-performance. either the act of Congress which declared the treaties v oid and no longer obligatory, nor the great inconvenience and danger which might attend the execution of them, could extinguish, or in an t by affect, the r igh t of France, at any rate, to an indemnity. That right, at least, still remained, notwithstanding the refusal or inability of the United States to perform their engagements, and could be avoided, if avoided at 311, only upon other justifiable grounds, existing distinct from and independent ofl those considerations. The most that can he ~aud is, that., by the act the United States pre 23.1,

Page 236 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. government, must have known the under sta:.iling which existed at the time; and no one can doubt that his intimate acquaintance with public affairs enabled him to give a true construction to the transaction. His assertion is high authority to show that, in the under standing of the government, as well as in fact, the United States did receive an equivalent or valuable consideration for the release of the claims. That this was so, is further manifest from the instructions given to our ministers to France in 1797, which were particularly referred to a few days since by the senator from Rhode Island. By those instructions, our ministers were authorized to stipulate with the French government to pay them the sum of two hundred thousand dollars annu ally, in lieu of the guarantee engagement. In short, sir, without going further into particulars, I think it may be safely affirmed that this view of the case is supported by the whole mass of documentary evidence; and it appears to me that no one can read the volume of documents connected with the subject without being entirely satisfied, in the first place, that the claims were just, and, in the second place, that they were relieved for a valuable consideration received. If these two propositions are true; if the claims were just, were so admitted by France, and were surrendered as an equivalent for the discharge of the United States from important national obligations, the government of the United States has appropriated private property to public use; and according to the fundamental law of the land, as well as the principles of national justice, it is bound to make compensation to the injured individuals. Sir, I hope I may be pardoned for saying, that I have spent a considerable portion of my humble life in studying the principles of law and equity, and applying them to the affairs and transactions of men; and if I have imbibed any just conception of those principles, it would be difficult to present a case against the government of more clear and undeniable equity. I may also add, that perhaps no one here has less reason to favor these claims than I have. In the state from which I come, there is not probably an individual who will derive from this bill the value of a cent. The people there have no interest in the matter, other than an interest to preserve inviolate the public faith, and maintain, unimpaired, the character of the government and the country for honor and justice. In this i hey have, and I trust will always feel, a deep interest. It never can be otherwise with a people, where liberty and law prevail, where truth and justice are revered, and maintain their proper ascendancy over the minds of men. Such a people will neither barter away national honor for money, nor witnhold money at the expense of the national honor and justice; and I could hardly fall to incur reproach from the people of the state I represent, if I were to refuse my vote in favor of claims, the payment of which is demanded, i Washington, Aug. 8, 1846. To the Senate of the United States: I return to the Senate, in which it originated, the bill entitled ” An act to provide for the ascertainment and satisfaction of claims of American citizens for spoliations committed by the French prior to the 31st of July, 1801,”

which was presented to me on the 6th instant, with my objections to its becoming a law. In attempting to give the bill the careful examination it requires, difficulties presented themselves in the outset, from the remoteness of the period to which the claims belong, the complicated nature of the transactions in which they originated, and the protracted negotiations to which they led between France andi the United States. The short time intervening between the passage of the bill by Congress, and the a roaching close of their session, as well as the pressure of other official duties, have not permitted me to extend my examination of the subject into its minute details. But, in the consideration that I have been able to give to it, I find objections of a grave character to its provisions. For the satisfaction of the claims provided for it is proposed to appropriate five millions of dollars. I can perceive no legal or equitable ground upon which this large appropriation can rest. A portion of the claims have been more than half a century before the government, in its executive or legislative departments, and all of them had their origin in events which occurred prior to 1800. Since 1802 they have been from time to time before Congress. No greater necessity or propriety exists for providing for these claims at this time than has existed for near a half a century; during all which period this questionable measure has never until the present time received the favorable consideration of Congress. It is scarcely provable. if the claims had been 236 as in m judgment it clearly is in this case, by the high considerations of national honor and national justice. Sir, to falsify one’s own words and acts, we can readily see, would disgrace an individual; and I am altogether unable to understand how the same thing can fail to dishonor the government. The simple question presented for my consideration and decision, -tnti for the consideration and decision of every honorable senator, is, is this money justly due from the 0 rnment? And in deciding this short quegtiv.‘On, I, for one, cannot allow myself to yield to arguments, however idgenious or plausible, which are founded upon assum tions totallv repugnant to the whole tenor of the negotiations with France, and flatly contradicted by the uniform declarations and ae-ts of the American government. The French Spoliation Bill passed Congress twice: once during the 29th and again during the 33d Congress. It was vetoed both times. President Polk’s veto message is as fol lows:

Page 237 view page image

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS PRIOR TO 1800. regarded as obligatory upon the government, or constituting an equitable demand upon the treasury, that those who were contemporaneous with the events which gave rise to it, should not long since have done justice to the claimants. The treasury has often been in a condition to enable the government to do so without inconvenience, if the claims had been considered just. Mr. Jefferson, who was fully ()gnisant of the early dissensions between the government of the UInited States and France, out of which the claims arose, in his annual message in 1808, adverted to the large surplus then in the treasury, and its “probable accumulation,” and inquired whether it should lie “
unproductive in the public vaults;” and yet these claims, though then before Congress, were not recognised or paid. Since that the public debt of the Revolution and of the war of 1812 has been extinguished, and at several periods since the treasury has been in possession of large surpluses over the demands upon it. In 1836 the surplus amounted to many millions of dollars, and, for want of proper objects to which to apply it, it was directed by Congress to be deposited with the states. During this extended course of time, embracing periods eminently favorable fi)r satisfying all just demands upon the government, the claims embraced in this bill met with no favor in Congress, beyond the reports of comminittees, in one or the other branch. These circumstances alone are calculated to raise strong doubts in respect of these claims; and especially as all information necessary to a correct judgment concerning them has been long before the public. These doubts are strengthened in my mind by the examination I have been enabled to give to the transaction in which they originated. The bill assumes that the United States have become liable in those ancient transactions to make reparation to the claimants for injuries committed by France. Nothing was obtained for claimants by negotiation; and the bill assumes that the government has become many ways responsible for these claims. The limited time allowed me, before your adjournment, makes it impossible to reiterate the facts and arguments by which, in preceding Congresses, these claims have been successfully resisted. The present is a period particularly unfavorable for the satisfaction of claims of so large an amount, and, to say the least of them, of so doubtful a character. There is no surplus in the treasury. A public debt of several millions has been created within the last few years. We are engaged in a foreign war, uncertain as to its duration, and involving heavy expenditures; to prosecute which war Congress has, at its present session, authorized a further loan. So that, in effect, the government, should this bill become a law, would have to borrow money and increase the public debt to pay these claims. It is true that, by the provisions of the bill, payment is directed to be made in land scrip instead ofs money, but the effect upon the treasury will be th e same. The public land s constit ute on e of the sources of public reve nue, and i f these claims be paid in land scrip, it will, from the date of the issue, to a great extent, cut off from the treasury the annual income from the sale of the public lands; because payments for the lands sold by the government may be expected to be made in scrip until it is all redeemed.

If these claims be just, they ought to be paidI in money, and nothing less valuable. The bill provides that they shall be paid in land scrip, whereby they are in effect to be a mortgage upon the public lands in the new states-a mortgage, too, held in great part, if not wholly, by nonresidents of the states in which the lands lie, who may secure these lands to the amount of several millions of acres, and then demand for them exorbitant prices from the citizens of other states who may desire to purchase them for settlements, or they may keep them out of the market, and thus retard the prosperity and growth of the state in which they are situated. Why this unusual mode of satisfying claimants upon the treasury has been resorted to, does not appear. It is not consistent with a sound public policy. If it be done in this case, it may be done in all others.

It will form a precedent for the satisfaction of all other stale and questionable claims, and would undoubtedly be resorted to by all claimants who, after successive trials, shall fail to have their claims recognised and paid in money by Congress. The bill proposes to pay five millions of dollars, to be paid in land scrip, and provides ” that no claim or memorial shall be received by the commissioners” authorized by the act, “unless accompanied by a release or discharge of the United States from all other and further compensation the claimant may be entitled to receive under the provision of the act.” These claims are estimated to amount to a much larger sum than five millions of dollars, and yet the claimant is required to release to the government all other compensation, and to accept his share of a fund known to be inadequate. If these claims be well founded, it would be unjust to the claimants to repudiate any portion of them, and the remaining sum could hereafter be recovered. The bill proposes to pay these claims, not in the currency known to the Constitution, and not to their full amount. Passed, as this bill has been, near the close of the session, and when many measures of importance necessarily demanded the attention of Congress, and possibly without that full and deliberate consideration which the large sum it appropriates, and the existing state of the treasury and of the country, demand, I deem it to be my duty to withhold my approval, that it may hereafter undergo the revisions of Congress. I have comle to this conelusion with regret. In interposing mny objections to its becoming a law, I am truly sensible that it should be an extreme caso which would mnake it the duty of the executive 237

Page 238 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to withhold his approval of any bill passed by Congress upon the ground of its expediency alone. Such a case I consider this to be. JAMES K. POLK. man, whatever may be his office or station, to give it a fsdr and candid construction.” The Chief Justice cites the provision in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, and observes: “HIlere is the principle: the fugitive is to be delivered up on claim of the master. But it required a law to regulate the manner in which this principle should be reduced to practice. It was necessary to establish some mode in which the claim should be made, and the fugitive be delivered up.” The act of February 12, 1793, provided: -. ” Sec. 3. That when a person held to labor in any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the northwest or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof shall escape into any other of the said states or territory, the person to whom such labor or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labor.

and to take him or her before any judge of the Circuit or District Courts of the United States, residing or being within the state, or before any minagistrate of a county, city, or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made. and upon proof, to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labor to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such claimant. his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labor, to the state or territory from which he or she fled. ” Sec. 4. That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant. his agent or attorney, in so seizing or arresting such fugitive from labor, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent or attorney, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given or declared: or shall harbor or conceal su,ch person, after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor, as aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars.” The judge then quotes the enactment on the subject by Congress, and concludes the opinion as follows: “It plainly appears from the whole scope and tenor of the Constitution, and act of Congress, that the fugitive was to be delivered up on a summary proceeding, without tle delay of a formal trial in a court of common law. But if he, had reall y a ri ght to fre edo m, that ri ght was not impaired by this proceeding. Ile was placed just in the situation i,l which he stood before he fled. and might prosecute his right in the state to which he belonged.” William Rawle, a distinguished jurist of the state of Pennsylvania, in his Essay on the Constitution of the United States, speaking of fugitives from justice and fugitives from service or labor, says: ” To the two latter descriptions of persons no asylum can by the Constitution of the IUnited States be afforded. The states are considered as a common family, whose harmony would be endangered if they were to protect and detain suchIi fugitives when demanded in one case by the exe(cutive authority of the state, or pursued in the other by the pe,son claiming an interest in their service.” Alexander Hamilton made the followin g statement to the New York Convention assem bled at Poughkeepsie, in June, 1788, to pass on the new constitution submitted to the states by the General Convention assembled at Phlila delphia. It is extracted from Elliot’s De bates, p. 212: “In order that the committee may understand clearly t)he p r inciples on which the General Convention acted, I think it necessary to explain some preliminary circumstances.

“Sir, the natural situation of this country seems to divide its interest into different classes. There are navigating and non-navigating statesthe Northern are properly the navigating states: the Southern appear to possess neither the means nor the spirit of navigation. This difference of sitiation naturally produces a dissimilarity of interests and views respecting foreign commerce. It was the interest of the Northern states that there should be no restraints on their nav igation, and that they should have full power, by a majority in Congress. to make commercial regulations in favor of their own and in restraint of the navigation of foreigners. The Southern states wished to impose a restraint on the Northern, by requiring that twothirds in Congress should be requisite to pass an act in regulation of commerce: they were apprehensive that the restraints of a navigation law would discourage foreigners, and by obliging them to employ the shipping of the Northern states, would probably enhance their freight. This being the case, they insisted strenuously on having this provision engrafted in the Constitution; and the Northern states were as anxious in opposing it.” “-

Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own: whether this be reasoning or declamation I will not presume to say. It is the unfortunate situation of the Southern states to have a great part of their population as well as property in blacks. Tho regulation complained of was one result of the spirit of accommodation which governed the Convention; and without this indulgence no union could possibly have been formed. And, sir, considering some peculiar advantages which we derive, it is entirely just that they should be gratified. The Southern states possess certain staples, to bacco, rice, indigo, &c. [and now, above all, cotton], which must now be capital objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations; and the advantages which they necessarily procure in these treaties, will be felt throughout all the staces. ” It became necessary, therefore, to compromise, or the JUDICIAL AND OTHER

OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT. Judge Baldwin, in the case of Johnson v.

Tompkins, said: ” The foundations of the government are laid and rest on the rights of property in slaves, and the whole structure mu.t fall by disturbing the corner stone.” Judge Iredell, in the North Carolina Conmention, referring to the Fugitive Slave clause in t he C on stitutio n, sai d:- p ” In some of the Northern states they have emancipated all of their slaves. If any of our slaves go there, and remai n there a certain time, they would by the present laws be entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern states, and to prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution.” Charles Cotesworth Pi nckne y, i n the South Carolina Convention, said: ”’ We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before.” Chief Justi ce Tilghma n, of Pa., in the case of Wright v. Deacon, said: “Whatever may be our opinions on the subject of slavery, it is well known that our Southern brethren would not have consented to have become parties to a constitution under which the United States have enjoyed so much prosIPty, unless their property in slaves had been secured. Thlis Constitution has been adopted by the free consent of the citizens of Pennsylvania, and it in the duty of every 238

Fugitive Slaves. SEE third clause of second section of fourth article of Constitution of the United States. Edmund Randolph, in the Virginia Convention, said: ” Were it ri,-ht to mention what parsed in convention on the occasloin, I might tell you that the Southern stateseven South Carolina herself-wnceived this property to be wured by these words.”

Page 239 view page image

FUGITIVE SLAVES. manner seize a freeman. It may be so, but this would be attended with mischievous consequences to the person making the seizure.”

In the case of Jack and Martin, Chief Justice Nelson, of New York, now of the Su preme Court of the United States, indulged in similar reasons. Hle said: “, The counsel for the plaintiff in error contends, the mode of lmaking the claim and of delivering up the fugitive, is a subjv,,t exclusively of state regulation, with which Congress has,oo right to interfere; and, upon this view, the cousti tuti,nality of the law of this state is sought to be sustained. ‘- It is material to look into the object if this clause of the Constitution, the evil to be guarded against, and the nature and character of the rights to be protected and enforced, in order to comprehend its meaning, and determine what powers, and to what extent, may be rightfully claimed under it. “At the adoption of the Constitution, a small minority of the states had abolished slavery within their limits. either by positive enactment or judicial adjudication; and the Southern states are known to have been more deeply inter ested in slave labor than those of the North. where slavery yet to some extent existed, but where it must have been seen it would probably soon disappear. It was natural for that portion of the Union to fear that the latter states might, under the influence of this unhappy and exciting subject, be tempted to adopt a course of legislation that would embar rass the owners pursuing their fugitive slaves, if not dim charge them from service, and invite escape by affording a place of refuge. They already had some experience of the perplexities in this respect, under the Confederation, which contained no provision on the subject; and the serious and almost insurmountable difficulties that this species of pro perty occasioned in the Convention, were well calculated to confirm their strongest apprehensions. To this source must be attributed, no doubt, the provision of the Constitution, and which directly meets the evil, by not only prohibiting the states from enacting any regulation discharging the slave from service, but by directing that he shall be deli vered up to the owner. It implies a doubt whether they would, in the exercise of unrestrained power, regard the rights of the owner, or properly protect them by local legis lation. The object of the provision being thus palpable, it should receive a construction that will operate most effectu ally to accomplish the end consistent with the terms of it. This we may reasonably infer will be in accordanrec with the intent of the makers, and will regard, with becoming respect, the rights of those especially interested in its exe cution. Which power, then, was it intended should be charged with the duty of prescribing the modle in which this injunction of the Constitution should be carried into effect, and enforcing its execution the states or Congress? It is very clear, if left to the former, the great purpose of the provision might be defeated, in spite of the Constitution. The states might omit any legislation on the subject, and tthereby leave the owner without any known means by which to assert his rights; or they might so encumber and embarrass the prosecution of them, as that their legislation on the subject would be tantamount to denial. That all this could not be done, or omitted, without disregarding the spirit of the Constitution is true, but the provision itself is founded upon the assumption that without it the acknow ledged rights of the owners would not be observed or pro tected: it was made in express terms to guard against a pos sible act of injustice by the state authorities. The idea that the framers of the Constitution intended to leave the regulation of this subject to the states, when the provision itself obviously sprung out of their fears of partial and unjust legislation by the states, in respect to it, cannot readily be admitted.

It would present an inconsistency of action, and an unskilfulness in the adaption of means for the end in view, too renmarkable to have been overlooked by a much less wise body of men. They must naturally have seen and felt, that the spirit apprehended to exist in the states, which made this provision expedient, would be able to frustrate its object in regulating the mode and ininner of carrying it into effect; that the remedy of the evil and the security of rights would not be complete, unless this power was also vested in the national government.” Judge Nelson’s opinion was affirmed by the court of last resort. Chancellor W~alworth, in giving all opinion upo n the same case, said:-o “uHowever much, th erefore. we may de plore the e xistentt of slavery in any part of the Union, as a national as well as as local evil, yet, as the right of the master to rcelaim h~ fugitive slave is secured to him by the Fmederal Constitution, I n the c as e of T he Commo nweal th v. Griffin, C hief Just ice Parker, of Massachusetts, holds this languagee: ” This brings the case to a single point, whether the statute of the United States, giving p ower to seize a slave without a w arra nt, i s constitu tional? It is difficult, in a case like this, for persons who are not inhabitants of slavehol(ling states, to prevent prejudice from having too strong an effect on thr mnT e t ow t their minds. We must reflect, however, that the Constitution w as made with some stat es, in which it w ould not occur to the nmind to inquire whether slaves were property, It was a very serious question wh en the y came to make the Constituti on, wha t sh ould be do ne with their slaves. They migrht have kept aloof from the Constitution.

That instrument was a compromise. It was a compact by which all are bound.

We are to consider, then, what was the intention of the Constitution. The words of it were used out of delicacy, so as not to offend some in the Convention whose feelings were abhorrent to slavery; but we there entered into an agreement that slaves should be considered as property. Slavery would still have continued, if no Constitution had been made. ” The Constitution does not prescribe the mode of reclaiming a slave, but leaves it to be determined by Congress. It is very clear that it was not intended that application should be made to the executive authority of the state.

It is said that the act which Congress has passed on this subject, is contrary to the amendment of the Constitution, securing the people in their persons and property against seizures, &-c., without a complaint upon oath. But all the parts of the instrument are to be taken together.

It is very obvious that slaves are not parties to the Constitution, and the amendment has relation to the parties. ” It is said that when a seizure is made, it should be made conformably to our laws. This does not follow from the Constitution; and the act of Congress says that the person to whom the service is due may seize, &c. Whether the statute is a harsh one, is not for us to determine. ” But it is objected, that a person may in this summary II, 3 9

Page 240 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. “it,If indeed the Constitution guaranties the right, and It it requires the delivery upon the claim of the owner (as can not well be doubted), the natural inference certainly is, that the national government is clothed with the appropriate authority and functions to enforce it. The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to Iee, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is intrusted. The clause is found in the National Constitution and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action, to carry its provisions into effect. On the contrary, the natural and necessary conclusion is, that the national government is bound, through its own proper departments, legislative, tihe Uicial, and executive, to carry into effect all the rights and duties imposed by the Constitution. ‘It will probably be found. when we look to the character of the Constitution of the United States itself-the objects which it seeks to attain-the power which it employs-the duties which it enjoins, and the rights which it securesas well as to the known historical facts that many of its prvisions were matters of compromise of opposing interests and opinions-that no uniform rule of interpretation can be applied, which may not allow, even if it does not positively demand, many modifications in its application to particular clauses. Perhaps the safest rule of interpretation, after all, will be found to be to look to the nature and object of the particular powers, duties, rights, with all the light and aid of contemporary history; and to give to the words of each just such operation and force, consistent with their legitiwite meaning, as may fairly secure and attain the ends proposed. It is historically well known that the object of the clause in the Constitution, relating to persons owing service and labor in one state, escaping into another, was to secure to the citizens of the slaveholding states the complete right and title of ownership in their slaves. as property, in every state of the Union, into which they migh t esc ape fromt the state where th e y were held in servitude. “The full recognition of this right and title was indis pensable to the security of this species of property in all the slaveholding states; and, indeel, was so vital to the preservation of their domestic interests and institutions, that it cannot be doubted that it constituted a fundamental atrticle, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed. Its true design was to guard against the doctrines and principles prevailing in the non-slaveholding states. by preventing them from intermeddling with, or obstructing, or abolishing, the rights of the owners of slaves. The clause in the Constitution relating to fugitives from labor manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right, on the part of the owner of the slave, which no state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control, or restrain. Any state law or regulation which interrupts, limits, delays, or postpones the rights of the owner to the immediate command of his service or labor, operates, pro tanto, a discharge of the slave therefrom. The owner of a fugitive slave has the same right to seize and take him, in a state to which he has escaped, that he has in the state from which he fled. The court have not the slightest hesitation in holding that under and in virtue of the Constitution, the owner of the slave is clothed with the authority, in every state of the Union, to seize and re.

capture his slave. ” The right to seize and retake fugitive slaves, and tim duty to deliver them up, in whatever state of the Union they may be, found, is, under the Constitution, recognised as an absolute, positive right and duty, pervading the whole Union with an equal and supreme force, uncontrolled, and uncontrollable, by state sovereignty and state legislation. The right and duty are coextensive and uniform, in remedy and operation, throughout the whole Union. The owner has the same security, and the same remedial justice, and the same exemption from state regulations and control, through however many states he may pass with the fugitive slave in his possession, in transita to his domicil.” no good citizen, whose liberfty antd property is protected by th,at Constitution, wiil interfere to prevent this provision from being carried into full effect, according to its spirit and effect; and even where the forms of law are resorted to for the purpose of evading the constitutiona.

provision, or to delay the remedy of the master in obtaining a return of his fugitive slave, it is undoubtedly the right, and may become the duty, of the court in which any proceeding for that purpose are instituted, to set them aside, if they are not commenced and carried on in good faith, and upon probable grounds for believing that the claim of the mastel to the service of the supposed slave is invalid.” Mr. Just ice Sto ry of the Suprem e Court ofn the United States, in the case of Prigg v. The State of Pennsylvania, thus defines the rights of the slave owner under that article of’the Constitution: “The clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive unquali fied right on the part of the owner of the slave, whic h Do state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control, or restrain. The slave is not to be d ischarged f rom service or labor in consequence of any s tate l aw or r egulation. The quest ion can never be, how much the slave is discharged f rom, but, w hether he is discharged from any, by the natural or necessary operation of state lawstate o t ate reg u lations. The question is not on e of q uantity or degree, but of withholding o r controlling the inciden ts of a p ositive and absolute right. If this be so, the n all the incidents to the right attach ials o; th e owner must therefore have the rightw to seize and repos sess th e slave, whic h th e local laws of hi s ow n state confer upon him a s property. Upon this grou nd we have not the slightest hesitation in holding t hat, under and in virtue of the Constitution, the own er o f a slave is clo thed with entire authority, in every state of the Union, to s eiz e and r ecaptur e his slave, whenever he can do it, wi thout any b reach of the peace, or any illegal v iolence. In t hi s sense and to this extent this clause of the Constitution may properly b e s aid to execute itself; and to requir e no aid from legislation, state or national. o mBut th e clause o f th e Constitution does not stop here; nor indeed, consistently with its professed objects, could it do so. Many cases must arise in which if the remedy of the ow n e r were con fined to the mere right of seizure and recaption, he would b e utt erly wi thou t any adequate redress. He may n o t be able to lay his hands upon the slave. He may not be able to entrce his rights against persons w ho either secrete or conceal, or withhold the slave. He may be restric ted by local legislation as to the modes of proof of his ownership, as to the courts in which he shall sue, and as to the actions which he may bring, or th e process h e may us e to compel the delivery of the s a e a te fgteslave.

Nay, the local legiation may be utter ly inad equate to furnish the appropri ate redress, by au thorizin g no proc ess in rem, o r no specific mode of repossessing the slave, leaving the owner at best, not that right which the Constitution designed to secure,-a specific de liver y and rep ossession of the slave, but a mere remedy in damages; and that perhaps against persons utterly insolvent or worthless. The state legislation may be entirely s ilen t on the who l e subject, and its ordinary remedial process framed with different views and objects; and this may be innocently a s well as designedly done, since every state is perfectly competent and has the exclus ive righ t to pr escribe th e remedies in its own judicial tribunals, to limit the time as well as the mode of rdress, and to deny jurisdiction over cases, which its own policy and its own institutions either proh ibi t o r discountenance. ” If, therefore the clause of the Constituti on had stopped at the mere reoition of the r ight without providing or contemplating any means by which it mig ht be established and enforced, in cases whe re i t did not execute itself, it is plain th at it would have been, in a great variety of cases, a delusive and emp ty annunciation. f And this leads us t o the consideration of the other part of the c lause, wh ich im pli es at onee a guarantee and duty.

It says:’ But h e (th e slave) shall be delivered up on claim of the party to w hom such la bor or service is due?’ By whom to be delivered up? In what mo de to be delive red up? aIow if a refusal takes place, is the right of d e l ivery to be enforced? Upon what proofs? When and under what circumstandces shall the possession of th e own er, after it is obtained, be conclusive of his right, so as to preclude any further inquiry and examination into it by local tribunals el otherwise, while the slave is in possession of the owner, or in transitu to the state from which he fled?

”’ These and many other questions will readily occur upon the slightest attention to the clause, and it is obvious that they can receive but one satisfactory answer. They require the aid of legislation to protect the right, to enforce the deliver), and to secure the subsequent possession of theI save. The late Senator Butler of S. C., has furnished a historical review of public sentiment at the period referred to, which is valuable for the high source from which it emanates: “, For many years the clause immediately under consideration had a self-sufficing efficacy, having all the incidents and advantages conceded to it of an extradition treaty. The common practice of the times was an honest and imposing commentary on the intention and object of the provision. A slave escaping into a non-slaveholding state could be pursued, and in general could be as easily apprehended there ax in the state from which he had made his escape. It was not uncommon for judges to remand to a slave state, to be tried, a person of color, upon an issue involving his freedom; and state courts and judicial and ministerial officers of non. slaveholding states were in the constant habit of using, as a 24(l

Page 241 view page image

FUGITIVE SLAVES. matter of recognised obligation, their power and agency in bringing about the delivery of a fugitive slave to his pursuing master.

The right of the owner to apprehend, where the slave could be identified as a fugitive, was not disputed, much less impeded by state laws or the violence of irrespsnsible mobs. The paramount authority of the ConstitutiOnl and its active energy were acknowledged by common consent.

It executed its provisions by the active co-operatiorn,f state authority, in the fulfilment of what they then recoied as a constitutional duty. The duty to deliver up seemed( to be regarded as equal to the right of the owner t,, demand his escaping servant. The term’deliver up’ h,,,l.t meaning so pregnant and obvious, that it carried with it.all the obligations by common consent. growing out of its use: as it imparted a conceded right, so it was regarded as coatain,ing s perfect obligation.

The dictate of good faith fbund in the inon-slaveholding states no disposition to evade or deny its obligations. The framers of the Constitution were then the living and honest expounders of its meaning and active operation. The jealousy of political interest was not then strong enough for hostile and unconstitutional legislation.” fugitives from labor, and to the prompt dis charge of the duties imposed by this act.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners above named shall have con current jurisdiction with the judges of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States in their res pective circuits and districts within the several states, and the judges of the superior courts of th e territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and vacation; and shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon satisfactory proof being made, with au thority to take and remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the restrictions herein contained, to the state or territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy marshal refuse to re ceive such warrant or other process when tendered, or to use all proper means dili gently to execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the motion of such claimant, by the Circuit or District Court for the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such fugitive by such marshal or his deputy, or whilst at anv time in his custody under the provisions under this act, should such fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable on his official bond to be prosecuted for the benefit of such claimant for the full value of the ser vice or labor.:f said fugitive, in the state, territory, or distr;ct, whence he escaped; and the better to enable the sa;i commissioners, when thus appointed, to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties, respectively, to appoint, in writing, ulher their hands, any one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute all such wa;  rants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties; with authority to such conmissioners, or the persons to be appointed bthem, to execute process as aforesaid to surmon and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of the proper county, when necessary to insure a faithfuil observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may be required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said warrants shall run and be executed by said officers anywhere in the state within which they are issued. See. And be it further enacted, That whenx a person held to service or labor in any An act to amend and supplementary to the act entitled “An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters,”

approved Feb ruary 12, 1793. Be it enacted by th e S enate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the persons who have been or may hereafter be appointed conimisssioners in virtue of any act of Congress, by the Circuit Courts of the United States, and who, in consequence of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for any crime or offence against the United States, by arresting, imprisoning, or bailing, the same, under and by virtue of the thirty-third section of the act of the 24th of September, 1789, entitled, ” An act to establish the judicial courts of the United States,” shall be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act. See. 2. And be it further enacted, That the superior court of each organized territory of the United States shall have the same power to appoint commissioners to take acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such purposes by the superior court of any organized territory of the United States, shall possess all tht,.e powers, and exercise all the duties, conferred by law upon commissioners appointed by the United States for similar purp-)oses, and shall moreover exercise and dischlaire all the powers and duties conferred by this act. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts of the United States, and the ,uperior courts of each organized territory of ‘Ale United States, shall from time to time enarge the number of commissioners, with a .iew to afford reasonable facilities to reclaim 16 I .241 FUIGITIVE SLAV.E LAW OF 1850. t I

Page 242 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXTBOO. ‘ Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, ThIt an person who shall knowingly and willingly oLstruct, 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 filgitive from service or labor from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other p erson 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 indirectly, 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 discovery 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 jurisdiction, 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 dollars for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the district 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 commissioner, 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 t-r attorney; or a fee of five dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivers, inclusive of all services incident to such arrest andl 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 eachs state or t errit ory of t he Un ited States, has heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another state or territory of the United States, the person or p ersons t o whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or their agent oer attorney, duly authorized by power of attorney, in writing, ackn owledged and certi fied under t he seal of som e legal officer or c ourt of t he stat e or territory in which the same may be executed, may pursue a nd reclaim such fugitive person, either by procuringo a warran t f rom some one of the courts, judges, or commissioner s aforesaid, of the proper circuit, district, or county, for the appre hension of such fugitive from service or lab or, or by s eizing and arresting such fugitive, where the same ca n be done without process, and by t ak ing, or causing such person to be taken, forthwith before such court, judge, or c ommissioner, w ho se duty it shall be to hear and determin e t he case of such claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfac tory proof being made, by d epo sition or affidavit, in w riting, to be taken and certified by such nurt, judge, or commis sioner, or by o ther satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or ot her legal officer authorized to administer an oath and take de pos iti on s u nder the laws of the state or territory from whic h such per so n owing service or labor may have hecaped, wi th a certificate of such magistracy or other a uthor ity, as aforesaid, with the seal of the proper cou rt or officer thereto att a ch ed, which seal shall be suff icient to establish the competency of the proof, and with proof, also by affidavit, o fitivo the identity of the person whose service or labor is claimed to be due, as aforesaid, that the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or persons claiming him or her, i n the state or territory from which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that said person e scaped, 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 territory in which such service or labor was due, te the state or territory in which he or she seas arrested, with authority to such claimant, 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 evidenee; and the certificatess in this and the first section mentioned shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose itdvor granted, to remove such fugitive to the tate 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. 242

Page 243 view page image

FUGITIVE SLAVES. authorized by the law of the Unitedl 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 addition 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 bv this act to grant certificates to claimancts 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 contained shall be construed as requiring the production of a transcript of such record as evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence, the claim shall be heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent in law.

IIOWrELI COBB, Speaker of the Ilouse of Representatives. WILLIAM R. KING, President of the Senate pro teiimpore. Approved, September 18, 1850.

MILLARD FILLMORE. 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 examination, keeping the fugitive in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his detention, and until the final determination 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 attorneys, whether such supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be delivered to ,iich claimants by the final determination of sti h commissioner or not. Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That upon affidavit made by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney, after such certifi,.ate has been issued, that he has reason to ap1relehcnd that such fugitive will be rescued by iFore from his or their possession before he can l)e taken beyond the limits of the state in w-llich the arrest is made, it shall be the duty )f the officer making the arrest to retain such tugitive in his custody, and to remove him to he state whence he fled, and there to deliver iim to said claimant, his agent or attorney.

Snd to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby Authorized and required to employ so many )ersons as he may deem necessary to overcome luch force, and to retain them in his service o long as circunistances may require.

The ,aid officer and his assistants, while so em’loved, to receive the same compensation, and o be allowed the same expenses, as are now -lowed by law for transportation of criminals, o be certified by the judge o f t he d ist rict lithin which the arrest is made, and paid out rf the t reasury of the United States. Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That -hen any person held to service or labl)or in ny state or territory, or in the District of Cotmbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to :hom such service or labor shall be due, his, ,er, or their agent or attorney, may apply to ny court of record therein, or judge thereof i vacation, and make satisfactory proof to rich court, or judge in vacation, of the escape roresaid, and that the person escaping owed ervice or labor to such party.

Whereupon, he court shall cause a record to be made of hie matters so proved, and also a general de~ri tionl of the person soescaping, Fitly such convenient certainty as may be-and a transript of such record, authenticated by the at~station of the clerk and of the seal of the rid court, being produced in any other state, rritoriy, or district, in which the person so eaping may be found, and being exhibited ? anff ildgge, commissioner, or other officer 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, a nd especially the last clause of that section, conflicts with the provision of the Constitution -lwhich declares 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?” It is my clear conviction that there is nothing 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, ox was intenied to suspend, the privilege of the irit of habeas corpus, or is in any mlanner in:ifliet 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 therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the 243

Page 244 view page image

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 o to the citizens of slaveholding states the com-o 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 fugitives. 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 reason (among other causes) of some minor errors in its details, Congress are now attempting by this bill to discharge a constitutional obligation, by securing more effectually the delivery of fugitive slaves to their owners. The sixth and most mat erial s ec tion in substance declares, that the claimant of the fugitive slave may arres t a nd carry him before any on e of t he officer s named and described in the bill, and provides that these officers and each of them shall have judicial power a nd ju risdiction to hea r, examine, and decide t he case i n a su mmary manner; that, if upon such hearing, the c laimant, by the requis ite proof, shall e stabli sh his claim t o the satisfacti on of t he t ribunal thus constituted, the said tribu nal shall give him a certificate, stating there i n the substan tial facts of the case, and auth orizing him, with such reasonabl e f orce as may fbe necessary, to take and c arry sa id fugitive back to the state or territory 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 persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.” There is nothing in all tlis 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 legislao.tion, may, in virtue of the Constitution and his owrn right of property, seize and recapture his fugitive slave, in whatsoever state he may find him, andt 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; i t on ly gives him an appointed and peaceable remedy, in place of the more exposed and in se cur e, but not less lawful mode of self-redress. And as to the fugitive slave, he has no ca us e t o complain of this bill; it adds no coercion to th at 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 bet ween him and his owner, and cons equently of protection to him, and mitigation of the exer cise dire ctly by the owner himself of h is p erson al auth ority. This is the const it utional a nd legal view of the s ubject, as sanction ed by the deci - sions of the Su preme Court; and to that I limit myself. The act of the 12th February, 1793, before alluded to, so far as it respects anv coustitutional question that can arise ou t of this bill, is identical with it. It authorizes th e 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 ace 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 judg,ment 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 givek rise to that question. My opinion, as before expressed, is, thathere is nothing in that clause or section which conflicts with, or suspends, or was in tended to suspend, the privilege of the writ oi habeas corpus. I think so, because the bill says not 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 bein~ neither rebellion nor invasion) would be ~; plain and palpable violation of the Constitu I 244

Page 245 view page image

FUGITIVE SLAVES.-FULLER, HENRY M. tion; and no intention to commit such a violation 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 incompatibility 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 constitutional 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 imprisoned. Without this power they could not fulfil their constitutional trust, nor perform the ordinary and necessary duties of government. It was never heard that the exercise of the legis lative power w as any encroachment upo n or suspension of th e p rivilege of the habea s corpus. It is only by some confusion of ideas that such a conflict can be supposed toexist. It is n ot w ithin t he p rovince or privi lege of this great writ to loose those whom the law has bound. That would be to put a writ granted by the law, i n o ppos ition t o the lasw-to make one part of the law destructive of another. This writ foll ows the law, and obeys the law. It is issued upon proper complaint, to make inquiry into the causes of commitment or imprisonment, and its sole reme dial power and purpos e is t o deliv er the party from ” all manner of illegal confinement.” (3 Black. Com. 131.) If, upon application to the court or juda e for this writ, or if, upon its return, it shall appear that the confinement complained of was lawful, the writ in the first instance woul d be refused, and in the last the part y would be remanded to his former lawful custody. The co ndition of one in custody as a fugitive slave, u nde r t his law, so far as respects the wri t of ha beas corpus, is precisely the same as that of all other prisoners under the laws of th e United States. The privilege of that writ remains alike to all of them, but to be judged of-g ranted or refused -discharged or enforced -b y t he prope r t ribunal, according to the circumstances of e ach case, a nd as the comm itm ent a nd detention may appear t o be legal or illegal. The whol e effect of the law may be thus briefly stated. Congress has constituted a tribunal with exc lusive 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 who m su ch servi ce or lab or is due. The judgment of every tribu nal of exclusive jurisdiction, where no appeal lies, is of neces es;ty conclusive upon every other tribunal, and therefore the judgment of the tribunal created hv this act is conclusive upon all tribunals. ~Vherever 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 viee, and to remove him back to the place or state from which he escaped. If it is shown upon the application of the fugitive fo r a w ri t of habeas corpus, it presents the issuing of t he writ-if upon the return, it discharge s the writ and restores or maintains the custo dy. The vi ew of the law of this case is fully sustaine d by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Tobias Watkins, where the court refused to discharge upo n the ground that he was in custody under the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction, and that judgment was conclusive u pon 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 pr(cess issued,”

&c., probably mean, only what the act of 1793 meant, by declaring a certificate under that act a sufficient warrant for the removal of a fugitive, and certainly do not mean a suspension of the habeas corpus. I conclude l;y 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.

CRITTFNDEN. ANSWER OF, TO INTERROG(ATORhIES IN HOUa SE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 12, 1856. Mr. Clerk, I voted for the resolution offered bv the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Zollicoffer] 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 allof those who have honored me with their confidence, that I have been ready at any and all times to withdraw my name fi’om 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 promotive of the formation of slave states. The second interrogatory relates to the constitutionality 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 245 . To the President. Fuller, Henry M., of Pa.

Page 246 view page image

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, inl 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 their 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 purposes of mutual advantage and protection. I’he states are sovereignties, limited only so far as they have surrendered their powers to the general government. The general goveriinent, thus created and limited, acts with certain positive, defined, and clearly ascertained powers. Its legislation and administration should be controlled by the Constitution; 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. l owing answer to Mr. Barksdale’s interrogn 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 do you go for the entire prohibition of slavery in all the territor i es of the United States?” I am opposed to any legislation upon th os e subjec ts, for reasons already g iven. ” Are you in favor of abolishing slavery in the Distri ct of Columbia and the United States forts, dockyards, &c.?” I am not, sir. “

Do you believe ill the equality of the white a nd black races in the United States, and do you wish to promote that equality by legislation?” I do not, sir. I acknowledge a decided preference for white people. “Are you 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 nativeborn 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 IIeaven. I allow no mortal to be my mediator; an(, .judg,ing no man, will by no man be judge(l. With regard to those of foreign birth, I dfi 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 children to love the Constitution and laws which protect them;” but I do say that in all matters of legislation, and in all matters of a(imin-iistration, Americans should govern Amer ica. ” 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.” Geor g ia and Alabama, LAWS OF, IN

REFERENCE TO S~ATE CONVEN TIONS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMST.ANCES. Liaw of Georgia. 1. Whereas, ill pursuanice of an act of the Legislature, a,pprove(d Felnrusary the 8th, 1850, in response to a proclali)ation of the Governor of the State, a convention assemb)led in the ca,pitol, at Milledgeville, on the 16tlh of Deceinber, 1850; and whereas, the said coci vention, in view of threatened a,ggressions 246 In addition to the above he made the fol

Page 247 view page image

GEORGIA AND ALABAMA.-GHENT, TREATY OF.-GOTT, DANIEL. upon the constitutional rights of the slaveholding states, adopted, among others, the following resolution: “That the state of Georg,ia, in the judgment of this convention, will and ought to resist (even as a last resort), 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 C(‘olumbia, or in places subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, incompatible with the safety, domestic tranquillity, the rights and honor of the slaveholding states, or any act suppressing the slave trade between the slaveholding states, or any refusal to adonit as a slave state any territory herea fter applying because of the existence of slav ery there in, or any act prohibiting the int rodu ction of slaves into the territories of Utah and New fMexico, or any act repealing or materially modifying the laws in force for th e re covery of fug itiv e slaves; a nd whereas ther e is reason to apprehend the h a ppening of some of these contingencies, and the state of G eorgia is unalterably de termined to adhere to the position solemnly announced in the said re solution: Therefore, 2. SECTION’ I. Be it enacted, &c., That within sixty days after the happening of any of the contingencies sp ecif ied i n the foregoing recited resolu tion, it is hereby ma de the duty of the Governor to issue his procl ama tion ordering an election to b e held in each and every cn for o county for delegates to a convention of th e people of th is state, to convene at the seat of governmrent, within twenty days after said electio t on, to consider and determine upon the time and mdode of resistance contemplated by the aforesaid rec ited 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 numb er of its senator and repres enta tive orrepresentatives 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 now held, and that all returns of elections shall be forwarded to the Governor, who shall furnish each delegate elected with a certificate of his election. 4. SEC. III. And be it further enacted, That the sum of twenty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of -ny money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to defray the expenses of said convention, 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 itfurther enacted, That the said convention shall have power to elect all such officers as may be necessary for its organization.

Approved March-lith, 1856. tha t she will redeem her pledges. and take no steps b)aekwalrd, to provide the means by whi(ch her people, in co nvent ion a ssembled, may determin e the ir course of action: Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, in Gene r al Assembly conveleam, That in the event Kansas should apply at the presen t or any fut ure s ession of Congress, ftr admrission into the Union a s a state with and undcer the constit ution heret ofor e fratmed anl adopted by he r, and c ommonly known as the Lecomp)ton Constitution, and shall be by Congress refused admission, the Governor of this state is respectfully instructed, by proclamation, 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 he shall receive satisfactory evidence of such action by Congress. Ghent, Treaty of. Tis treaty was negotiated by the Right IIhonorable James Lord Gambier, Henry Goulburn, Esq., and William Adams, Esq., on the part of Great Britain, and John Quincy Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan 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 restoration of ” slaves or other private property.” The second article provided for the cessation of hostilities and limitati on of time of capture. Te t r tichere third artile provided for the restoration of priso ner s of w ar. The fourth article defined the bo undary established by the t reaty of 1783, and provided for commissioners to mar k the s ame. The fifth, sixth, seventh, a nd eight h article s established rules to govern the proceedings of the commissioners. Th e ninth article bound the United States and IIis Britannic Majest y t o end all hostilities with Indian tribes, with whom they were then respectively at war. The tenth article reads as follows:,Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice; and whereas both tlis Majesty and the United States are desirous of conitinuing( their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to aecomnplishi so desirable an object.” ‘Thie eleventh and last article provides for the binding effect of the treaty, upon the exchange of ratifications. (ott, Daniel, of N. Y. ,CEI,EB,RATED RESOLUTION OF. In thie House of Representatives, on the 21sgt of Dec., 1848, Mr. Gott introduced the following resolution - Law of Alabama. While this General Assembly will not assume, in advance, to dictate the course to be taken by the state of Alabama in the event Ka nsas should b e refused adm iss ion into thl e Union, they nevertheless feel constrained by a high sense of duty, irn the firm conviction I 247

Page 248 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Whereatb the traffic now prosecuted in this metropolis of concert, be empowered to assume upon them the republic in human beings, as chattels. is contrary to t natural justice and the fundamental principles of our politi-selves the defence of their territory against the cat system, and is notoriously a reproach to our country enemy; and a reasonable portion of the taxes throughout Christendom, and a serious hindrance to the! collected within said states may be paid into progress of republican liberty among the nations of the earth: Therefore Resolved, That the committee for the Dis-the respective treasuries thereof and appro trict of Columbia be instructed to report a bill as soon as priated to the payment of the balance due said practicable, prohibiting the slave trade in said District. states and to the future defene of the sae. X ~~~~~~~~~states and to the future defence of the samve. The resolution was adopted by yeas and The amount so paid into the said treasuries to nays as follows:- be credited, and the disbursements made tis YEAs.-Messrs. Abbott of Mass., Ashmun of Masc., Belcher aforesaid to be charged to the United States. of Me., Bingham of Mich., Blackman of N.. Y., Blanchard of Resolved, That ite and hereby is reco P,., Butler of Pa., Canby of O., Catheart of Ind., Collarer of Vt., Conger of N. Y., Cranston of R. I., Crowell of 0., mended to the legislatures of the aforesaid Cummins of O., Darling of Wis., Dickey of Pa.. Dickinson of states to pass laws (where it has not already O.. Dixon of Conn., Daniel Duncan of O., Edwards of 0., Em bree of Ind., Evans of O., Faran of O., Farrelly of Ila.. Fisher been done) authorizing the governors or com )f 0.. Freedly of Pa., Fries of 0., Giddings of O., Gott of N.Y., manderti n-chief of their militia to make de Greeley of N.Y..

Gregory of N.J., Grinnell of Mass., tlalme, or to form voluntary MIass., Hall of N.Y., Hampton of N.J., Moses Hanmpton of PIa.. Ilenley of Ind., uenry of Vt., IIolmes of N. Y.. lubbard corps, as shall be most convenient and con of Conn.. Hudson of Mass., Hunt of N. Y., Jo,,ep~l it I,ger-formable to their on,stitutions, and to cause soll of Pa., Irvin of Pa., James I-. Johnson of N. II.. K ellogg of N.Y.. King of Mass., Lahmof O., rilliam T. Lawrenceof the same to be well armed, equipped, disci N. Y., Sidney Lawrence of N.Y., Leffer of Ia, Lord of N. Y., plined and held in readiness for service; and Lynde of Wis., McClelland of NMich., Mcllvaine of Pa., Mann tf Pa., Mann of Mass., Marsh of Vt., Marvin of N. Y., Morris upon the rquest of the governor of ether the of O. Mullin ofN. Y., Newell of N.J., Nicoll ofN. Y., Palfrey other states, to employ the whole of such de *f Mass., Peaslee of N.H.. Peck of Vt., Pettit of Ind, Polloek tachiet or corps as we ll as the reular fores of Pa., Putnam of N.Y., Reynolds of N. Y., Richey of O., R o-‘ linoen of Ind., RockhillofInd., Roc kwell of Ms ll of ell of the states, or such part thereof as may be of Conn., Rose of N. Y., Root of O., Rumsey of N. Y., St. John re(uired aid can be spared consistently with ofN. Y.. Sherri ill oY., Silvester of N. Y., Slingerland of the safe a N. Y., Smith of Ill., Starkweather of O., Stuart of Mich.,ty of te state, assti the state Strohm of Pa., Tallmadge of N.Y., James Thompson of Pa., making such request to repel any invasion Thompson of Ia., Thurston of R. I., Tuck of N. 11, Turner f thereof which shall be made or attempted by Ill., Van Dyke of N. J., Vinton of 0., Warren of N.

Y., WAent worth of Ill.. White of N.Y., Wilson of N. I1.-98. the public enemy. NAs. Messrs. Adams of Ky., Barringer of N. C., Beale of Resolved, That the following amendments Va., Bedinger of Va., Bocock of Va., Botts of Va., Bowlin of of the M’o., Boyd of Ky., Boydon of N. C. Bridges of lta., Brown of the United States be Va.. Brown of Pa., Brown of Miss., Buckner of Ky., Burt of recommended to the states represented as S. C..

Chapman of Md., Chase of Tenn., C lark af ore sai, Clato be proposed b the fr aoption of Ky., Cobb of Geo., Cobb of Ala., Cocke of Tenn., Cris.field of Md., Crozier of Tenn., Daniel of N. C., Donnell of N. C., by the state legislatures, and in such cases as D)unn of Ind., Evans of Md., Featherston of Miss.. Ficklin of may be deemed expedient by a convention Ill.. Flournoy of Va., French of Ky.. Fulton of Va., Gain y epees (of Ky., Gentry of Tenn., Goglin of Va. Green of Moo., 10al chosen by the people of the states. of Mo., Hammons of Me., Ilaralson of Geo., Ilrnianson of And it is further recommiended, that the La., lHarris of Ala., Hill of Tenn..

Ifoustn of Al a., Hou ston sttes sll pers evere in their efforts to obtai o,f Del,, Inge of Ala., Charles J. Ingersoll of Pa., Iverson of Geo., Jameson of Mo., Johnson of Tenn., Jones of Tenun., such amendments until the same shall be Jones of Geo., Kennon of 0., King of Geo., La Sere of La.. effected. Ligon of Md., Lincoln of Ill., Luimpkin of Geo., M,Clernan(

First. and direct taxes shall of Ill., McDowell of Va., McLane of Md., Meade of Va.. Miller Representatves of O., Morehead of Ky., Morse of La., Outlaw of N. C., lendlie-be apportioned among the several states which ton of Va., Peyton of Ky.. Pitsbury of Texas. Preston of Va., may be included within this Union according Sawyer of 0., Shepherd of N. C., Simpson of S.C.. Smart of Me., StantonofTenn., Stephens of Geo., Strong of Pa.. Thibo-to their respective numbers of free persons, deaux of La., Thomas of Tenn.. Thompson of Ind., Tomkiiis including those bound to serve for a term of of Miss.. Toombs of Geo., Venable of N. C.. Wallace of S.C., and excludin Indians not txed and Wiley of Me., Williams of Me., Woodward of S. C.-88. years, and excluding Indians not taxed and all other persons.

hIartford Convention. Second. No new state shall be admitted into ~~~PLATFORM OF. ~the Union by Congress, in virtue of the power granted by the Constitution, without the con RESOLVED, That it be and hereby is recom-currence of twothirds of both Ihouses. mended to the legislatures of the several states Third. Congress shall not have power to lay represented in this convention,to adopt all such an embargo on the ships or vessels of the citimeasures that may be necessary effectually to zens of the United States, in the ports or harprotect the citizens of said states from the ope-bors thereof, for more than sixty days. ration and effects of all acts which have been Fourth. Congress shall not have power withor may be passed by the Congress of the Uni-out the concurrence of twothirds of both ted States, which shallcontain provisions sub-Ihouses, to interdict the commniercial inter jecting the militia or other citizens to forcible course between the United States and any drafts, conscriptions, or impressments not an-foreign nation, or the dependencies thereof. thorized by the Constitution of the United Fifth. Congress shall not make nor declare States. war, or authorize acts of hostility against any Resolved, That it be and is here recom-foreign nation without the concurrenceof twomended to the said legislatures, to authorize thirds of both houses, except such acts of hosan immediate and earnest application to be tility be in defence of the territories of the made to the government of the United States, United States when actually invaded.

requesting their consent to some arrangement Sixth. No person who shall hereafter be whereby the said states may, separately or in naturalized, shall be eligible as a member of 248

Page 249 view page image

HARTFORD CONVENTION.-ILLINOIS. On the 23d of November. 1818, the constitution of the new state of Illinois having been submitted to Congress, a joint resolution declaratory of the admission thereof was before the house, when Mr. Tallmadge of N. Y. opposed the passage of the resolution, for the reason that there was no evidence of the size of the population of said territory reaching the standard prescribed by the law in the last session, and because slavery was not sufficiently prohibited 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 Do cember, 1818. 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 second 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 concluded, and the defence of these states should be neglected, as it has been since the comminencement of the war, it will, in the opinion of this convention, be expedient for the legislatures of the several states to appoint delegates 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 moientous may require. Resolved, That the Hlon.

George Cabot, the lion. Chauncey Goodrich, and the Hlion. 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 d elegates shall be chosen as recommended in the above resolution, if in their judgment the situation of the country shall urgently require it. Hartford, Jan. 4th, 1814. NEcRo LAw oF. In 1853, the l egislature o f Illinois en acted the following law: “

If any negro or mulatto, bond or free, shall hereafter come into thi s state an d remai n ten days, with th e intention of resid i ng in t he same, every such negro or mulatto s hall be deemed guilty o f a high misdemeano r, and for the first offen ce shall be fined the sum of fifty dollar s, to be recov ered before any justice of the peace in the c ounty wher e said negro or mulatto may be found. * If the said negro or mulatto shall be found guilty, and the fine Bassessed be not p a id forthwit h, it shall be the duty of sa id justice to commit said negro or mulatto to the custody of the sheri ff of said county, or othe rwis e keep h im, her, or them in cu st ody; * the said justice shall, at public auction, proceed to sell said negro or mula tto to any person w ho wil t pay said fine and cost s for the s h ort est time; and the sa id purchaser shall have a rig ht to compel said negro or mulatto to work for and serve out said time,” &c. In pursuance of this s tatute, the f ollo wing advertiseme nt recen tly a ppeared in an Illinois paper: STATE OF

ILLINOIS, ISS. St. Clair county. a EGAL NOTICE.-Whereas, Jackson Redman, a mulat to, was, on the 7th day of April, A. D. 1857, complaine d against.

arrested, and brought before me, the undersigned a justice of the peace for said county, and was. tried by a jury of twelve men, who found him guilty of lni uthigh misd e - meanor, and, as a first offence, fined him in the sum of $50  aereeably to the provisions of the act of February 12, 1853. to prevent the immigration of negroes or mulattoes; and judg,ment having been rendered against the said John Rteduman f,or the amount of said fine and costs of suit, which has not been paid. whereupon he was placed in the custody of tlhe sheriff of said county for safe keeping, until he is further dealt with as i.s requiire(d by law: This, thereftre.

is to gire notice that, at I o’clock, P. M., on the 18th (lay of Apri,, 1857, at my office. in B3elleville, in s’id ccmntv. I will r1,(- c,d to sell at public auction, the servif’en of the stiei.la,.knon ledian to any person or personls whlo vwil. pay saidI fine and costs. for the shortest time aeordlin,sr tea th,, provi  ns of the net aforesaid. Postedl this 8th dsay of April. A. D). 1857. C.k,SPEP. THILL, Ju.iice of the Peace.

George Cabot, James IIillhouse, Nathan Dane, John Treadwell, William Prescott, Zephania Swift, Harrison G. Otis, Nathaniel Smith, Timothy Bigelow, Calvin Goddard, Joshua Thomas, Roger M. Sherman, Samuel S. Wilde, Daniel Lyman, Joseph Lyman, Samuel Ward, Stephen Longfellow, jr., Edward Manton, Daniel Waldo, Benjamin Razard, Hodijah Baylies, Benjamin West, George Bliss, Mills Olcott, Chauncey Goodrich, William Hall, jr. Illinois.

ON the 18th of January, 1809, a bill reported by a committee of the House in pursuance of the prayer of the grand ur of the i rcounty f St. Clair, in Indiana territory, to divide said territory, and con stitute the western portion of t he same Illinois terr itory, passed that i)odv b y a vote of yeas 69, nays 37. It passed the Selnate on the 3 Ist of January, and became a. law I)v the approval of the President on the 3d of February, 1809. On the 4tlh of April, 1818, a bill passed the itouse in pursuance of the prayer (if the teritorial l-gislature of Illinois, authorizing the )eople thereof to form aI state c(o)iistitutioji,‘ttid )roviiliiig, fear the admission of such state ilto Jnioii. The ])ill passed the Senate on the 14th of April, 1818, with sundrv amendments reportl. ly the commrittee of public lands, which erle a.,ree(l to bv the ttouse, and it became a :tw on the 18th of April, 1818, by the approval .f’the P-esident. 1>1RESOr t TIONtS OF AMEPRICAN PARTY OF ILLI.NOIS, ADOIrTED J-UNE 11, 1855. ” That tlhe time hls arrived when the Ameri can party of the United States are called upon to take open, fearless, and unreserved ground upon the great question of slavery, that is now 249

Page 250 view page image

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 distracting our country upon the subject of slavery have been caused by the repeal of the MIissouri Compromise; and that that repeal was uncalled for, a gross violation and disregard of a sacred compact, entered into between the two great sections of this confederacy, 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 destroyed, 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 contests the American party in the state of Illinois will demand of its candidates for office, among other qualifications, their open and undisguised opinions upon this subject. “The essential modification of the naturalization laws by extending the time of residence 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 w ith rights of citizenship already acquired under existing laws. “Resistance to the corrupting influences IF in 1789, when the Constitution went in to 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 State,,s including whites and fre e 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,I confiningourselves 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, therefore, 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 statistical returns. It is as follows: TABLE No. 1.-Showing the increase of population by the surplus of births over deaths. Nube * i Number of births Number of deaths Per cnt. of i.Year. Name of the country. umer of i nha in the respeci the respec crease ofthe t bitants. tive year. tire year. tal population.

1850 United States - -19,987,573* 548,835* 271,890* 1.38* 1850 England and Wales - - 17,927,609 593,422 368,986 1.25 1851 France - - - v —

35,783,170 943,061 784,433 0.44 1835 Russia -. - 59,000,000

2,173,055 1,731,834 0.74 1849 Prussia – - - - 16.331,187 691,562 498,862

1.17 1850 Iholland -. - – 3,056,591 105.338 67,588 1.23 1850 Belgium -..

- – 4,426,202 120,107 92,820 0.61 1849 Portugal -.. - – 3,473,758

114,331 88.992 0.72 1852 Saxony -.. - – 1,987,832 80,322 58,739 1.08 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, 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 .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 U n i t e d States in 1850 as it woul d have been upon the policy of excluding all immigration. * The United States census of 1850 gives the births and deaths of the white and free colored population in one column, without any separation; therefore, it has become necessary to include the free colored population in all other table a i s o hereafter given. As to the slave population, th writer sees, for his purpose, no necessity to mention anything of it at all, as it has no connexion whatever with the immigration. 250 and a-,ressive polic.y of the Romish Churcii, unswerving opposition. to all foreign influence, or interference of foreign emissaries, whether civil or ecclesiastical.” Immigration. SYNOPSIS OF THE

TREATISE OF Louis SCIIADE OF WASHINGTON, D. C.

Page 251 view page image

IMMNIIGRATION. and being increased alone by the surplus oi births over deaths, would in 1850 amount t 7,555,423 whites and free colored persons, in cluding 200,000 for Louisiana, Florida, Cali frnia, and those territories which were ac quired since 1790. But upon turning to th actual returns of the census of 1850, we find the number of whites and free colored persons to be 19,987,573. It appears, then, that if th policy of excluding immigration had beer 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.-SlShowing the increase of the white andl fre coloret population of the United States, f without immigra tion since the re,pective years 1790 to 1840, after the rati of increase in 1850: . ~~~. t 1790 3,231,930 1791 3,276,530 44.600

1792 3.321.746 45.216 1793 3.:;67,586 4 5.840 1794 3,414,058 46,472 1795

3.461,172 47,114 1796 3,508.936 47,7 64 1797 3.557,359 48.423 17 98

3.606,450 49.091 1799 3,656,219 49,769 1800 3,706,674 50,455 4,412,884

1801 3.757.826 51,152 4.473,781 60,897 1802 3,809 684 51,858 4,535,519

61.738 180:3 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 h4.034 4.725,991 64.329 1806 4.024,358

54,768 4.791,209 65.216 1807 4,079,89o 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 5,201.859 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

61,9471 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 75.830 1818 4,743,769 64,5472 5,647.697 76,877

1819 4.809,233 65,464 5,724.733 77,036 1820 4,875,600 66,367 5,803.734

79,001 1821 4,942,883 67,283 5,883.825 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 5,440 580 74,058 6,4 6.174 88.154 1829 5,515,659 75,079 6,565,545

89.37 l 1830 5,591.775 76,116 6,656,149 90.604 1831 5,668,941 77,166

6,748,003 91.851 1832 5.747,172 78,231 6,841.1 25 9 3,122 1833 5,826,482

79,310 6,935,5532 94,407 1834 5.906,887 80,405 7,031,242 9.5,710 1835

5,988,402 81,515 7 128,273 97.031 1836 6,071.041 82,639 7.226,64 3 98.370

1837 6,15.,821 83.780 7,326.470 99.727 1838 6,239;757 84,936 7.427.576

1012,10 1839 6,325.865 86,108 7.53 0,076 1022500 1840 6.413,161 87.296 7.6

13.99 1 103.915 1841 6.501,662 88.501 7,739,340 105.349 1842 6,591,384

89,722 7,846,142 102,802 1843 6.682,345 90.961 7.954141 8 108.4277 2 1844

6.774,561 92,216 8064,188 109.770 1845 6,868,049 93,488 8,17.,473 111,285

1846 6.962,828 94.779 8,288,294 112,821 1847 7,,059,11 96,287 8.402.6 72

114.378 1848 7,156.530 97,415 8,518,6298 115.9u56 1849 7,2a5,300 98,7j70

8.636.18.; 1755 1850 7,355,423 100;123 8,755,364 119,179 T.BLK No. 2

Continued. …. O n.O =. O ~ 6,048,450 6,131,918 6.216,538 6.302,326

6,389,298 6,477,470 6,566,859 6,657,481 6,749,354 6,842,495 6,936,921

7,032,650 7. 129,7 00 7,228,089 7,327.836 7.428,9 60 7,531,479 7,635.413

7.740,781 7.847,603 7.955,899 8,065.691 8,176,99)7 8,404,238 8.520.216

8,637.794 8,756.995 8,877.841 9.000,355 9,1 2 4 559 9,2506.477 9.378,133

9.507,551 9.638,755 9.771,769 9,906,619 10,043,.330 10.182.927 10,323,451

10,465,914 10,610,343 111,781 113,323 114,987 116,474 118.081 119.711

121,353 123.038 124,7:35 126,457 128.202 129,971 130,7(65 13 3.5.,9

135,41:3 137.‘281 139,176 141.096i 143,043 145,017 147,019 149,048 151.10

L 153,190 155,304 157,447 159.620 161,82‘2 164,055 16(i,319 I _.4 … 2.

I-. n-o’g -4)e 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 I I 251 o,i .! 0 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 18315 1836 1837 1838 18X39

1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 8’,.468 84,620

85,788 86.972 88,172 89.389 90.622 91.873 93.141 94,426 95.729 97.050

98.389 99,747 101,124 102,519 10V3.934 105,3t68 106,822 10,8.296; 109.792

1.11,306 114,399 115,978 117,578 119,201 120,846 122.514 12,2204 12;;.91.8

127.6i.56 129.418 131.204 13‘3.014 134.8,50 136,711 138.597 140.524

142,463 144,429 8,100.093 8.211,874 8,32,5,197 8,440,184 8,556,658

8,674,739 8,794,449 8,915,802 9,038,840 9,163,575 9,290.032 9.418,234

9,548,205 9,678,970 9,812,539 9.947,952 10,085,2:33 10( 224.409 10,365,505

10,508,548 10.653.565 10,800,584 10,949),632 11,100,727 11,2.53,917

11.409,221 11,566,668 11,726,288 11,888,110 12,052,165 12,218,484 TABLE

NO. 9-Continued. ~: .o 10.856,977 11,00)6,803 11,158,696 11.312,686

11.468,801 11.627,070 11.787.523 11.950,190 12,115,1 02 12,282,290

12.451,785 12.623.619 12,797,824 12.974,333 13,153,378 13,334,874

13.518.895 13,705,4 55 13,894.590 14,086.335 14,280,726 ca ca 149.826

151.893 153.990 156,115 158,269 160.453 162.667 164,912 167,188 169,495

171,8334 174,205 176,509 179,045 181,496 184,021 186,560 189,135 191,745

194,391 Year. 1830 1831 18812 1833 1834 183.5 1836 1837 1838 18319 1840

1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 14.581,998 14.783,229

14,985,237 15,192,033 15,401,683 15,614.226 15.829,702 16,048,151

16,269,615 16,494,13 5 16,721,674 201,‘231 202,008 206,796 209.650 212,543

216,476 218,449 221,464 224,520 227,539

Page 252 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK 53,000 were slaves. Florida, in 1821, had a b o u t 10,000. California and N ew Mexico, at t h e time of their acquisition, had about 60,000. T e x a s and Oregon only brought back into the U n i o n 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 a n d free colored persons, the writer thinks ihe h as done them more than ample justice. England has had in return a considerable im migration from Ire land, Scot land, and even from the continent of Europe, invited by the enormous rise of her manufactures and commerce. England is not only a very hea lthy cou ntry, but also inhabited by a h ealthy people. Besides, it is a known fact that the population of man u facturing districts increases more than that where agriculture is the prin-1 cipal branch of occupation.

But there is another point of gr eat importance. Thpepo t he peo ple of the United States, left without immigration, would not have inc reased 1.38 per cent. ever y year. Proof he reof i s fou nd in Massachuset ts.

This state had, in 1850, 830,066 native and 164,448 foreign born inhabitants, or one foreigner to five natives. The marriages were, during the years 1849 to 1851, American s 18,986, or 220 in 10,000 of their own race; foreigners 7440, or 450 in 10,000. This is 104.5 per cent. o f foreign over native ratio. The births were in Ma ssa - chusetts in the three years 1849,‘50, and‘51, of Amer ican parents 47,982, or 578 in 10,000 of their own race; foreign 24,523, or 1491 ill 10,000 of their own r a ce. InBoston 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, 16,470were of American parentage, whil e some 14,000 were of parents one or both fore igners; and the increase from foreign parents was more than twice wha t 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 tha n 5000.

In Sufolk cou nty alr eady the births in foreign families aor ore than twice as numerous as in American, being 3R 35 i n the former, and 1737 in th e latter. Of the parents of Boston children, in 1 854, t he largest number was fr om Ireland, 2824 fathers and 2ot57 moppltn thers, while ther e were but 410 fathers and 524 miothers natives of the city, an d 533
fathers and 475 mothers natives of Massachusetts, out of Boston, or of othe r states. Cambridge had bo rn of foreign parents 422 children to 208

Amer icans; Fall R iver, 223 to 88; Lawrence, 322 to 146; Lowell, 596 to 427; Roxbury, 383 to 168; Salem, 344 to 10-0; Taunton, 221 to 142; and Worcester, 421 foreign to 320 American. The foreign ers in Massachusetts a re c h iefly of Celtic origin. In twenty years from the present time, onehalf of the young men and women in tlhe state will be of direct Celtic descendency. All the traces of a negro descendency disappear already in the third or fourth generationl, I should think that in Massachusetts the Pilgrim anld revolutionary blood, if it is not already-so, must, in very short time, become at least very thin. ‘The cause of the large increase of foreign births is simply that, whilst of the native population in 1850
there were only 49.07 per cent. over the 16th y~ear of age, the average Total white and free colored population. 7,555,423 8,955*4X.34 TABLE NO.

3.-Recapitulation. The United States would have in 18,50If without immigration since 1790 - 7,5,5.42.3 For Louisiana, Florida, &c. - - -

200.000 If without immigration since 1800 - 8.755 3C4 For Louisiana.

Florida, &c. - - - 200,0tK) If without immigration since 1810 - 10,6 10.(

4 3 For Florida, &c. - -. -. 100io.0 If without immigration since 1820 -

12,218,484 For Florida, &c. - - - - - - - 100,000 If without immigration sin,c! 1830 - 14,280.726 For New Mexico and California - 50.000 If without immigration since 1840 - 16,721.i(74 For New Mexico and California -

50.000 They had actually, however This will be to many an astonislling 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 nations since the last decen,,iulm of tle 18th centu-y. England and Wales - in 1790 8.675,000 }Increase, 2.06

Do. do. in 1851 17.922.7f8. Austria - - - - in 1792 23.5.5)00.00d D. Do. -

- - - - - in 1851 36.544.466;  r France - - - - - in 1789 26.000.00(d.

Do. - - - - - - in 1851 3.5783,170 Prussia - - - - - in 1797 8.6ti0.00 18
o  ~ - - - - - in Iq49 16,331. 1.87 Spain - - - - - - in 1797 10.351.07.5
doI do..1.33 Do. - - - - in 184 14 3 1 9 S,welden - - - - - in 1,1JO 2.1

5(4 do. 14 Do. - - - - - - in 1 849 3.316.-“5 d Sardinia (Island) - - in 1790 4.5,,990) Do. do. - - - in 1848 5,948 United States* - in 1790

3,231,930 Without immigration do. -, 2.33 since 1790 - - - - in 1850

7,555,4-23) This table clearly proves t he above estimat e of the population of the Unitel States, without immigration since 1790, to be not only a correct one, but even exhibiting a higher increase than any other country. England, the highest among them. is still, with one year more increase, twerity .sevel on the hundred b)elhind the United State,.

S.)iie persons may think doubtful that the actual increase of’ Iniglan(d and Wales is so close to that of the United States, as there has been every year a large emigration. But it must be remembenre.1 that * White and free colored. I 252 10,710,343 12,318,484 14,330,726 16.771,674

19,987,573

Page 253 view page image

IMMIGRATION. essay on immigration, puts down at 50 per cent of the total number. Should their natural increase resemble that of the foreign population in Massachusetts, as stated above, none will find my hypothetical statement out of reach of probability. These astounding results enable us to di, cuss intelligibly the effects of immigrationl upon our national progress in the great elements of strength and greatness, and wealth and prosperity. If immigration had been cut off in 1790, our population in 1850 wouldl have been about what it actually was in 1 820. 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 threefold. Number of white i1nhabitants of the United States i 1850 under 15 years…., 8,002,715 Do. over 15 years…. 11,550.353 19,553,068 Number of imriigrants in 1854 un~der 15 years…. Do. over 15 years…. 100.013

21.72 ” 360.4631 78.28 ” 460,474 100.00 ” a greater proportion than the natives. But I~~~~ always doubted it from the reason that over~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Y Value of |Value of of imports. exports. 1789-91

$52,200.000 $19,012.04 1 S1800 91,252.768 70,971.780 1810 85,400.000

66,757,974 1820 74,450.000 69.691.699 1830 70.876,920 73.819.508

1840‘131.571.950 104,805,891 1850 178,136.318 151,898.720 185o5

261,468,520 275,156,846 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., otiur commercial fleet 100 per cent., and our revenues 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 th 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 thousands of miles of railroad and canal communication which now cover our vast domain like a net-work, and furnish ready and profitable 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 amiount 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 havo 253 amount of foreigners, of the same a.oe, who arrived in 1854 and 1855, was 77.63 per cent. 40.93 pr. ct. 59-07 ” 100.00

I. Number of immigrants in 1855 un,ler 15 years…. Do. over 15 years….

53,045 23.02 11 177.431 76.98 11 230,476 100.00 11 C…,.i.1 tie,,t.

To??.3. 502.1 46 972,492 1,424.783 1.280.166 1.191.776 2,180.764 3‘515’

454 1 51-12,001 $4,.-gl),473 10,624.997 9,299.’ 37 16,779,331 24,280.8M

16,993,858 43,,,‘75,798 C-5,203,930 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 At the first glance it will seem almost incredible that the excess from immigration should alone amount in the single decade of 1840
fo 1850. to 3,215,899. But it must be remembered that the imnii,ration within these .years, as given by the custom-house reports, amounted to not less than 1,67i-,330, without those of which the custom-houses give no returns, and which Dr. Chickering, in his

Page 254 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 nativeborn 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 for t hemselves, they have also vastly contributed to the intellectual s tores of thi s country. A remarkable instance of the public spirit and generosity of foreign born citizens may be seen in the f act that t he thre e 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 granits haze 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 advantages conferred upon the native lopu]ation by their intdustry and their skill, we may well hesitate in alarm and surprise, that any movement lookingf to the arrest or curtailment of the tide of immnig~ration should for one moment hasve been encouraged by any portion of the American people.‘The principles of the Americ,an order, if carried out, would degrade the emigrant to the low position of an East Indian pariah, or a Russian serf.

exceepting spanned the c ontinent with more t ha n double our orig inal numb er. B ut it cannot be neces sary to dwell upon results so astounding to foreign nations, an d s o flatter ing 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 po pulat io n l ittle more than onethird of its present number! This contrast will be b etter appreciated, if we imagi n e the follow ing eighteen of the bright stars which row illustrate the galaxy of state s expunged fr om our nat iona l b an ner: Alabam a, Arkan sas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missou ri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, Virgin ia, a nd New York. These states have a fr iee white popula tion of twelve millions, the amount of increase resulting from immigra tion.

Instead of setting up a just claim to be ing the most h appy, and prosperous, and powerful nation on the earth, able to com Inand respect all over the world, to maintain our rights o n sea and land against any foreign combi ation, and by the moral power of our republican example to shak e the ho ary thrones of m onarc hs in the Old World, we should be a fourth rate nat i onal power, subject to con st ant d ang ers of foreign invasion, and poorly abl e to d ef y the aggressions of a foreign enemy.

These results pr o ve the wisdom of the fathers of the repub lic in resi sting the attempts o f th e British king to prevent immi g ration into the colonies, and illustrate the soundness of the policy which has enac ted liberal naturalization laws a nd given encour agement to foreign immigration. Men d o not come here mer ely for the pur p ose of improving their physical condition. This is especially shown by the sudden de crease of immigration since the political asce ndancy of t he Ame rican 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 alreadv more than the present population 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 American 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 comparatively small number who halve arrived in 254

Page 255 view page image

IMMIGRATION.-INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATS. gress; and against the prosperity of the na! tion, which has received one of its chief impulses from this policy. 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 art of it, would have no more rights than irimself.

Here he would be marked out as an inferior, useful only to dig canals and build 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! Amer ica ns must rule America!”-that is the constant war-cry of the opponents of imm igra tion. There are at present in the United S t ates twenty-seven millions of inhabitants, of which five millions are foreign er s. Th e Senate contains 62 and the House 234 memb)ers. Should the five millions be equally rep)resented in their specific qualification as f,irei,ners, of the Senators 14 and of the HIouse 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 “
glorious 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 twothirds 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 answer to these questions will put to shame the warfare which is waging upon the policy of the flounders of this republic. It is not simply a warfare upon the foreign-born citizens diffilsed throughout the Union, identified in interest with our institutions; connected by the closest ties with native born citizens; engaged in industrial pursuits, which add to the national wealth and prosperity; levelling mountains and filling up valleys for our great internal improvements; felling the forests, and spreading the area of productive agricultuire in the far West; shouldering their muskets when the toesin of war sounds; and fi:4hting and dying bravely on the battle-field 1,y 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 engrafted upon our Constitution, and carried out by liberal naturalization laws in Con Washington, Jan. 19, 1854. EFFLLOW-CITIZENS: As Senators and Repre sentttives 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 consideration in the Senate, and consequently failed to become a law. At the present session a new Netbraska bill has been reported by the Senate Committee on Territories, which, should it unhappily receive the sanction of Congress, will open all 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 unoccupied 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, fellowcitizens, 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 northeastern 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 agrain turn westwardly and follow the northern line of New Mexico to the crest of the Rtocky Mountains; then ascend northwardlv along the crest of that mountain range to the line which separates the United States fi’o(-) the British possessions in North America, on the 49th parallel of north latitude; tlheni lpursute our course eastwardly along that line to the XVhite Earth R-iver, which falls into the Missouri from the north; descend that river to) its confluence with the Missouri; descend the Missouri, along the western border of Minnesota, 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 limi~ 255 Independent Democrats. APPEAL OF, TO TIIE PEOPLE OF TI-IE UNLTFD STATES.

Page 256 view page image

TIHE POLITICAL TEXTBOOX. of that state to the point from which youll set miIt. 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 Pacific must pass this immense region, embracing 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 m o r e than thirty years regarded b y the common consent of the American people as consecrated to freedom, by statute and by compact -this immense region, the bill now before the Senate, without reason and without excuse, but in flagrant disregard of sound policy and sacred faith, proposes to open to slavery. We begzyour attention, fellowcitizens, to a few historical facts. The original settled policy of the United States, clearly indicated by thle Jefferson proviso of 1784, and by the ordinance of 1787, was non-extension of slavery. In 1803, Louisiana was acquired by purohase from France. At that time there were some twentyfive or thirty thousand slaves in this territory, most of them within what is now the state of Louisiana; a few, only, further north, on the west bank of the Missis6ippi. Congress, instead of providing for the abolition of slavery in this new territory, permitted 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 tim e, in the whole territory acquired from France, outside of the state of Louisiana, not three thousand slaves. There was no apo log y in the circumstances of the country for the continuance of slavery. The original national policy was a gains t it, and not les s the pl ain 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 existing slavery, and prohibiting the further introduction of slaves. This provision was vehemently and pertinaciously 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 disagr eement between the trwc Houses, the bill was lost. At th e next session of Congress the icontrs versy was ren ewed with increased violence. It was terminated, at length, by a compromise. Missouri was allowed to come into the Union with slave ry, but a s ection w as in - serted in the act authorizing her admission, excluding slavery, for ever, from all the territIory acquired from Fra nce, not included in the new state, lying north of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes. We quote the prohibit or y se c tion: * ” Sec. 8. Be it further enacted, That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the n ame of Louisiana, which lies nor th of thirtysix degrees an d thirty minutes of north latitude, not included within th e liupits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involutintary servitude, otherwise than as the p unishment of crimes, shall be and is hereby for ever prohibited.” The question of the c ons titutional ity of this prohibit i on was sub mitted by Pre sident Monroe to his cabinet. John Quincy Adams was the n Secretary of State; John C. Calhou n w as Secretary of War; William f. Crawford was Secretary of the Treasury; and William Wi rt was Attorney General. Each of these enminent men, three of them being from slave states, gave a written opinion, affirmingf its constit utionalit y, and t hereup on th e act receive d the sanction o f the Pres ident, himself also from a slave state. Nothing is more cert a in in history than th e fact, that Missouri could not have been admitted as a slave state, had not certain members from the free states been reconciled to the measure by the incorporation of this prohibition 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 extension of slavery into any part of the territory acquired from France, lying north of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes, and not included 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 Constitutionthis 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 calculated to awaken the worst apprehensions, and the most fearful forebodings of -future calamities, that it is now delib~erately purposed to repeal this prohibition, by implication or directly the latter, certainly, the manlier way and thus to subvert this compact, and allow slavery in all the yet unorganized territory. 256 * Act March 6, 18 U. S. Statutes at Large, U&

Page 257 view page image

INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATS. Texas to the United States, It is expressly declared that ” in such state or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be prohibited;”* and in the act for organizing New Mexico and settling the boundary of Texas, a proviso was incorporated, on the motion of Mr. MAason of Virginia, which distinctly preserves this prohibition, and flouts the barefaced pretension that all the territory of the United States, whether south or north of the Missouri Compromise line, is t o be open to slavery. It is as follows: “Provided, That nothing herein contained shall ba cons strued to inmpair or qualify anything contained in the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for annexing 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.“t We cannot, in this address, review the vAari 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 proslavery clauses of the b.ill are necessary to carry into effect the com iromises 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 firee 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. T his c ontrov ersy related only to territory acquired from France. The act, by which it was terminated, was confined, by its own ex press terms, to the same territory, and had no relation to any other. T he second acq uisition was from S pa in. Florida, the territory thus acquired, was y ielded to slavery without a struggle, and almost without a murmur. The thir d was from Mexico. The controversy which arose from this acquisition is fr esh i n the remembrance of the American people. Out of it sprung the acts of Congress, commonly known as the compromise measures of 1S8O, 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 t erritory to the invasi on 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 settlement of the controversy growing,, out of that acquisition, an d of that con troversy only. They must stand or fall by their own merits. The statesmen whose powerful support car.‘ied the Utah and New Mexico acts, never Areamed that their provisions would ever be applied to Nebraska. Even at the last session )f Congress, Mr. Atchison, of Missouri, in a .peech in favor of taking up the former Nebraska bill, on the morning of the 4th of farch, 1853, said: “It is evident that the Iissouri Compromise cannot be repealed. So :tr as that question is concerned, we might as y,ell agree to the admission of this territory ,ow, as next year, or five or ten years hence.” ‘inese fiords could not have fallen from this watchful guardian of slavery, had he su?,osed that this territory was embraced b~y the ,roslavery provisions of the compromise acts. ‘his pretension had not then been set up. It .a palpab~le after-thought. The compromise acts themselves refute this :retension. In the third article of the second1 ca.tion of the joint resolution for annexing i lihere 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 taint 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, therefor e, that the territory, covered by the positive prohibition of 182t), su s tains a similar relation to slave ry with that acquired from XMexico, co vered by no prohibi tion except that of di s pute d constitutional or Mexican law, and that the compromi ses of 1850 require the in corp oration of the prosl avery clau ses of the Utah and New Mexico bill in the Nebraska act, are mere inventions, designed to co ver up from public reprehenSioll meditated bad faith. We re he living now, no one wo uld be more forw ard, more eloquen t, or more i ndign ant, in his denunciation of that bad faith, t han Itenry Clay, the foremost champion of both compromises. In 1820 the slave states said to the free states,;‘Admiit Missouri with slavery and refrain from positive exclusion south of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes, and we wsill join you in pe rpetual prohibition north of that line.” The free states consented. In 1854 the slave states say to the free states, “M Missouri is admitted; no prohibition of slavery south of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes has been attempted; we have received the full consideration of our ag,reement; 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. t Congressional Globe, 1849-1850. p. 1552; act September 9,1850-9 U. S. Statutes at Large, 446. 2,i 7

Page 258 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. I state, in which slavery was not prohibited ty the act of 1820. Frim thirtysix 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 degrees of latitude, extends the great territory, the fate of which is now to be determined by the American Congress. Thus you see, fellowcitizens, 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 between the east and the west to pass for hundreds of miles through a slaveholding region, in the heart of th e continent, and by the influence of a federal government controlled by the slave power, to extinguish fr eedom and establish slavery in the states and t erritories of the Pacific, and thruus permanently subjugate the whole country to the yoke of a slaveholding despotism. Shall a plot against humanity and democracy, so monstrous, and so dangerous to the interests of liberty throughout 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 accomplish these ends, it will be worthless, and when it becomes worthless it cannot long endure. We entreat you to be mindful of that fundamental maxim of democracy, equal rights and exact justice for all men. Do not submit to become agents in extending legalized oppression and systematized injustice over a vast territory yet exempt from these terrible evils. We implore Christians and Christian ministers to interpose. Their divine religion requires them to behold in every man a brother, and to labor for the advancement and regeneration 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, througfh the press, by melnorials, by resolutions of public meetings anal legislative bodies, and in whatever other mode may seem expedient, against this enormous crime. For ourselves, eve shall resist it by speech and vote, and with all the abilities which God has given us. Even if overcome in the impending struggle, we shall not submit. We without t he deepest dishonor and crime can the free s tat es acquiesce in this demand. We confess o ur total inability properly to delineate te re o estb the character or desribe the onsequences of thi s measure. Language fails to expr ess t he sentiments of indignation and abhorrence which it inspires; and no vision, le ss p ene trating and comprehensive than that of the All-Seeing, can reach its evil issues. T o so me of its more immediate and inevitable c onsequences, how ever, 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 rail road? We have already raid th a t two of the principal routes, the central and the northern, traverse this territory.

If slavery be all owed there, t he settlement and cultivation of t he country must be greatly r etard ed. Inducement s to the innmitration of free labo rer s will be almost destroyed. The enhanced cost of construct io n, and the dim inish ed expectatio n of profitable returns, will p resen t almost insuperable obstacles to building th e road at all; while, even if made, the difficulty and expens e of keeping it up, in a country from which the e nergetic and intelligent masse s w ill be v irtually excluded, will greatly impair its usefuln ess and value. From the rich l ands of th is larg e territory also, patriotic statesm en have an ticipa te d that a free, industrious, and enlighenned population wi l l ext ract abundant treasures of individual and public weal th. Th ere, it has b een expected, freedom-loving- emigrants from Europe, and energetic and intelligent laborers fr om our own land, will find horiwes of comfort and fields of us eful ent erprise. If this bill shall become a law, all such expectation will turn to gr ievous disappointment. The blight of slaver y will cov er the l and. T he home. stead law, shou ld Coniress enact one, will be worthless there. Freemiien, unless pressed by a hard and cruiel necessity, will not, and should not, work beside slaves. Labor cannot be respected where anv class of laborers is held in abject bondage. We earnestlv request the enlightened conluctors of newspapers printed in the German and other foreign languag(es to direct the attention of their readers to this important matter. It is of immense consequence, also, to scrutinize the geographical character of this project. We beg you, fellowcitizens, to observe that it will sever the east from the west of the United States by a wide slaveholding belt - f country, extending from the Gulf of Mexico to British North America. It is a bold scheme :~ainst American liberty, worthy of an accomplished architect of ruin. Texas ~s already slaveholdlingf, and occupies the Gulf regfion from the Sal)ine to the Rio Grande, and from the Gulf of Mexico to the PRed Riv er. North of the Red River, and extending betwleen Texas and Arkansas, to the parallel of thirtyrsix: degrees thirty minutes, lies the Indian territory, about equal in extent to the latter 258

Page 259 view page image

INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATS.-INDEPENDENT, OR SUB-TREASURY. 259 Pa, Deberry of N.

C, Dennis of Mi, Dann of Tnd.. Edwv rds of N.., Evans of Me., Everett of Vt.. Ewing of I n,d.. Fletcher of Mln% Fillmore of-N. Y Fceter of N. Y..

Garland of VY. Garland of La., Goode of O., Graham of N. C.. Graham of Ind., Grantland of Ga., Groves of Ky.. Grenne;l of Muss.K. tlalh on of sar W wilntesi ofaN.nJ., Harlan of Ky., Harper of O., Hastings of Mass, Hawes of Ky.. Henry of Pa., Hero of Ind., Hoffman of N.Y., Hopkins of Va., Jenifer of Md., Johnson of La., Johnson of’.%d., Kenniedy of )fd., Ki~ore of 0., Legare of S.C.. Lincolin of Mass., Lyon of Aid.. Mallory of Va, Mason of N.Y., Mas.n of Va., 31,ou of ry of Tenn., 3Ray, M3axwell of N.J., McKennan of Pa..;,-nefee of Ky., Mercer of Va., Milligan of Del.. Mitche ll f N.Y, M. Morris of Pa.. Morris of 0., Naglee of Pa.. Noyes of Me, Ohgle of Pa. Patterson of N.Y., Pqsrce of Md, Peck of N. Y-Phil lips of Mass., Pope of Ky., Potts of Pa., l’tenfiss of Miss., Rariden of Ind., Randolph of N.J., IBeed of la-s., Reacher of N. C., Ridgway of O., Robertson of Va., ltobinaon of Me., Rumsey of Ky., Russell of N.Y., Sergeant of Pa_ A. II. 8hap pard of N. C., C. Shepard of N. C., Shields of Tenn.. Sibley of N.Y., Slade of Vt., Southgate of Ky., Stanley of N. C., Stuart of Va, Stone of Teon., Stratton of N.J. Taliaferro of Va., Thompson of S.C., Tillinghast of R. I., Teland of Pa., Underwood of Ky., Vanderveer of N.Y., A. J. Whiteof Ind., Wh ite of Ky., Whittlesey of O., Williams of N. C, Williams of Ky., J. L. Williams of Tenn, C. H. Williams of Tenn, Wise of Va., Word of Miss., Yorke of N. J. 1‘25 Mr. Foster of N. Y. moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was lost, and it was determined in the negative. Yeas 21; nayvs 205. On the 23d of January, 1840, the Indepen dent Treasury Bill, introduced by Mr. Wright, of NJ. Y., passed the Senate by yeas and nays as follows:  YEAs.-Mesars. Allen of 0..

Benton of Mo.. Brown of N. C. Buchanan of PL, Calhoun of S. C.. Clay of Ala.. Cuthbert of Ga., Fulton of Ark., Grundy of Tenn., Hubbard of N. UI..

King of Al&.. Linn of Mo.. Lumpkin of Ga., Mouton of La.. aNorvell of Mich., Pierce of N. I., Roane of Va., Sevier (.f Ark., Smith of Conn., Strange of N. C., Tappan of 0., Walker of Miss., Williams of Me., Wright of N. Y.-24. NAYs. Messrs. Betts of Conn., Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky.. Davis of Ma.&.. Dixon of R. I_ Henderson of Miss..

Knight of R. I., Merrick of Md.. Nicholas of La.. Phelps of Vt., PrentiLs of Vt. Preston of S. C. Robinson of Ill., Ruggles of Me., Smith of Ind., White of Ind, Young of It passed the House on the 30th of June, 1840, by yeas and nays, as follows:  YEAs. Messs. Allen of N.Y., Anderson of Me., Atherton of N. IH., Banks of V., Beatty of Pa., Beirne of Va.. Black. of Ga., Blackwell of Tern, Boyd of Ky., Brewster of N.Y., Aaron V. Brown of Tenn., Brown of Miss., Burke of N. H. Butler of S.C., Butler of Ky., Bynum of N. C-Car” of Ind.. Carroll of Md., Chapman of Al&., Clifford of 3Me., Coles of Va.. Colquitt of Ga, Connor of N. C.. Cooper of Ga.. Cooper of N.

J.. Craig of Va., Crary of Mich., Cross of Ark., Dana of N.Y.. Davee of Me.. Davis of Pa, Davis of Ind., Dickerson of N.J., Doan of 0., Doig of N.

Y.,. Dromgoole of Va., Duncan of 0., Earl ofiN. IF, Eastman ofiN. H,.-Ely ofiN. Y., Flue of N.Y., Fletcher of Vt. Floyd of N.Y., lFornance of Pa, Galbraith of Pa., Gerry of Pa., Griffin ofS. C., Hammond of Pa., Hand of N.Y., H.9stings of 0 Hawkins of N. C.. Hill of N. C-Ilillen of YKd., Iolleman ofVa., Holmes ofS. C., liook of Pa, Hopkins of Va., Ioubbard of Ala, Jackson of N.Y.. Jameson of Mo.. Johnson of Va., Johnson of Tenn., Jones of N.Y.. Jones of Va,, Keim of Pa., Kemble of N.Y., Kille of N.J., Leaedbetter of O., Leet of Pa-Leonard of N. YV Lewis of Ala, Lowell of Me., Lucas of Va., McClellan of Tenn., MncClloh of Pa.. -McKay of N. C..

Mallory of,. Y.. Marchand of P.. Medill of O., Miller of Mlo., Montanya of N.Y.. 31ont,-omery of N. C-Samuel W. Morris of Pa, Newbard of Pa. Parrish of O.. Parmenter of Mass., Parris of Me., Paynter of Pa, Petrikin of Pa,-

Pickens of S. C., Prentiss of N. YV Rammey of l. Reynolds of Ill., Rhett of S-C0 Rives of Va., Robinson of “‘0 nvdr ofIlL Specerof NY.,TaylrofN.Y.

ThmasDeL., Rogers of N.Y.. Rogers of S. C.. Ryall of N. J. Samuels a’)1d.

Titusof N.., Touey ofCoon.,Townsof Ga,Tre fVa., Shaw of N. IT., Shephard of N. C.. Smith of Me.. Smith ~ennVai of.Y. Waenerof a., ebser f 0.

Weks,of Vt., Smith of lad., Starkweather of 0., Steenrod of Vd,, V

Witte~ly o Cne,Wiliam ofN.H.,WorhintonofStrong of N.YV., Sumter of S. C., Swearingen of 0., Sweaev Yell of Ark.-fll. ~~of 0., Taylor of 0., Francis Thomas of Md., Philip F. Thomas XATL~M,,ars Adam of Mas.. Aexandr of. leno fMd., Jarob Thompson of Miss, Turney of Tenn., Van. YL~J..

Alenof., ycrggof.J ellof eanBidlederpoel of N. VY, Vroom of N. J, David D.

Warener of Pa., a’ L~ lon of0.,Bodenof aeL Breg ofMas.. alhunWatierson of lean., Weller of 0. Williams of N. H., Wil catr f ~.e.,Case of L, Cambee o Ky. Chabam NAYs. Mesars. Adams of Masa., Alford of Ga-Allen of 0., a’ ena, hila f NY.,Clrk f.Y.Cofinof.,CorlnAndrews of Ky., Baker of Mams, Barnard of N.Y.V Bell of a’~ Cranston of I L, Crockett ofTena,Crtm fNY. n, Biddle of Pa.. Bond of 0.. Betas of Va.. Blrlggs of. of Is Palintonof i’won f~aDa~sofM~? Brockway of Conna, Calhoun of MaL Campbell of&S hal home to our constituents; erect anew te standard of freedom, and call on the people ,o come to the rescue of the country from the Nomination of slavery. We will not despair: for the cause of human freedom is the cause .4 God. S. P. CrrASE, Senator from Ohio. CHAPLES SUMN]Kl, Senator from ~Inass. J. R. GIDDI CS, Representatives from E,DWARD WADEr, Ohio. ‘GERtRITT SMITH, fRepresentative from New York. ALEX DE

ITT,Representative from A~r,X. E WTT, Mass. ladependent, or Sub-Treasury.

0.-,- the 16th of January., 1838, Mr. Wright of N. Y., from the Comm~ittee on Finance, re ported an Independent Treasury Bill. it pa,ssed the Senate on the 4,th of 31arch, 18:38, by yeas and nays as follows:  .yz.ks.

4es-rs. Allen of O, Benton of’-Mo., Brown of N. C., av of Ala., Cuthbert of Ga., Fulton of Ark., Hubbard of _,., King of Ala.. Linn of Mo., Lnmpkin of Ga, Lyon of Miih, 3lorris of 0., Monton of La, Niles of Conn., N.orvell c/M i,h.. Pierce of N. H., Roane of Yd., Robinson Df Ill., ‘vier of Ark, Smith of Conn, Strange of N. C.. Trotter of ] is% alker of MLis., Wall of N. J, Williams of le., Wright .N,Ls.-MessrS. Bayard of Del., Buchanan of Pa, Calhoun a( S C., Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Crittendan of Kyv Davis et.-I ess. Grandy of Tenn., Knight of R. I., McKean of Pa., ]hrick.,iclas o f!,Id.. Hammlon of L a., Prentilfmo of Vt., Preston Nf &C, Rives of Va., Robbins of R. I., Raugnes of G Rey Smith Ind.C othard of N.J., Spence of Md., SCift of Vt., ofall mad,,,s of’ N. Y., Tipton of lad,~ Webster of Maws., W-hit. of M r. C’alhoun was in favor of the bill as it was at one time shaped, but voted aoglnst it because that portion of it providing, for a hard money currency was stricken out. 1 It was rejected in the House on the.-25th of June, 1838, by yeas and nays as follows:  Tu~s. 3fessms Anderson of MIe., Andrews of N. H., Atherton of N. H., Banks of Yd., Beatty of Pa-, Beirne ct Va., Bitknell of N.Y., Birdsall of N. Y., Boone of Ind., ~ lin of Va., Brodhead of N. Y, Bronson of’?. Y, Ba Unnof Pa-.

Bynum of N. C, Cambreleng of N. Y, Chaney o( 0, Chapman of Ala., Cleveland of Ga., Clowney of S.C., OWof Va.. Conner of N. C., Craig of Yd., Crary of’-Nich, Cmman of N. H., Davee of -Me., De Graff of N. Y, Drom..of Va., Duncan of O., Elmore of S. C., Farrington of Fairfield of Me, Fletcher of Vt., Fry of Pa., Gaalup of IL Y, Oascock of Gs, Grant of N.Y., Gray of N.Y., GriffMu A 9 L C, lidey of Conn, Hammond of 3, C,, Hiamer of O, a-~~o of Me, Hawkins of N. C., Haynes of Ga. Hol-tey ~Oa, Holt of Conn., Howard of Md., Hubley of Pa., Hunter St iI).unter of Va, Ingham of Conn.. Jackson of N. Y., Dnmon of Va., Jones of N. Y., Jones of Yd.. Keim of Pa., g9mble of N.Y., Klingensmth of Pa, Ledbetter of O., tawis of Ala., Logan of Pa., Loomis of N. Y., Martin of Ala., XcKa,y of N. C.,R. McClellan of N. Y, A.

McClellan of Tenn, )We~U’re of r’a, Miller of Me, Montgomery of N. C., Moore o.Y.. Mforgan of VP-, S. W. Mo-rri~s of Pa., Murray of Ky., ]$ibt of ~N. Y., Owens of Ga., Palmer of N.‘Y., Parker of N. T-, Parmen ter of Mass., Parrisoof’de.. Payunter of Pa.. Penny, lkrof’Va, Petriken of Pa.

Phelps of Conn., Pickens of I’Ir!lmmnet of Pa., Potter’of Pa., Pra.tt of N. Y.,.J. H. ~ttm of N.Y., Rile’y of Pa., Rhett of S. C., Richard: n of L,Rives of V., Sa-wyer of N. C., Sheffer of Pe., Sheplet 40.. Snyder of Tll’. Sp0encer of N. Y., TaylorofiN. Y., Thomasq Of 3d.. l’ltusl of N.

YI., Toucey of’Co~nu., Towns of Ga.. Turney Y-n.. Vail of N. Y., Wagener of Pa., Webster of O.. Weeks, W.Whittlesley of Conn., Williams of N.H., Worthingwn of M-Yell of Ark. Ill.’ 39 “a-  Mesrs. Adams of M1ass4.

Alexander of O., Allen of J. U. Allen of O. Aycrijzg of N J, Bell of Tenm_

Biddle _B nd of O. Borden of M~ass.,‘Brirgs of Masos.. Calhoun I”.a~

Calhoun of Ky. Campbell of Tenn., Campbell of S. -Cr of M1e. Casey’of Ill., Chambree of Ky., Chatbam ~ r,,. is o...,Clark of N. Y. Coffn of O., Corwin OO.. Canson f R L,Crockett of Tenn., Curtis of N. Y., =me o g~uf~taPari %o f ~wwon ofGa.,Daviof I I

Page 260 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. C, Campbell of Tenn., Carter of Teonn Casy of Tll., Chinn of Conn., Williams of N. C.. C. TI. Williams of Tenn…! S. of La., Chittenden of N.Y., Clark of N.Y., Cooper of Pa.. Williams of Tenu., Yorke of N.JJ, Youug of VL, Young of Crabb of Ala, Cranston of R. I., Crockett of Tenn.. Curtis N. Y.-134. of N.Y., Cushingof Mass.,DaviesofP.

DavisofKy..Dawson NATs5Messrs. Arrington of N. C.. Atherton of N. 11 of Ga., Deberry of N. C., Dennis of Md.. Dellet of Ala.. -d-Banks or Va., Beeon of Pa.. idlack of I,&.. Bowne of N. y.’ wards of N. YV Evans of Me., Everett of VI., FPAlmore cf N. B,,yd of Ky.. A. V. 3rown ofTenn.. C. Brown of Pa..ilur YV James Garland of Va., Garland of L. Gatem of N. Y., of N.

11., S. H. Butler of $. C.. W. 0. Butler of S.C.. C.,ldw.1 Gentry of Tenn., Giddings of 0, Goggin of Va Goode of 0, of N. C.. Caldwell of S.

C., Cary of Va., Clhapman of Ala.. Clrf. Graham of N. C,, Graves of Ky., Green of Ky. Grinnell of N. ford of Me., Clinton of N. Y., Coles of Va., Cross of Ark, D tnkiY, Habersham of Ga., Hall of Vt., liaungs of Mas..

Hawes ofN. C., Davis of N.Y.. Dawson of a, Dean ofO., D..,, vtf ) of Ky., Henry of Pa, Ilil of Va., Hoffman of.%.Y.. Iunt of Doig of N. Y., Edward, of Mo., Egbert of N.T., Ferris of \ N.Y., James of Pa. Jenifer of Md., Johnston of N.Y., J(,hn-Y., J. G. Floyd of N. Y., C. A. Floyd of N.Y..

Foriance of Ia., son of Md.. Kempshall of N. Y. King of Ga. Lin’.oln of W.

0. Goode of Ya., Gordon of N. Y., Gustin of Pa., larris Mass, Mcarty of Va, Marion of N. Y-Mason of 0. Mitchell of Va. John Hastings of 0., Ilays of Yi., ilolnes of of N… Monroe of N. Y, Morgan of . YI Calvary. Morris Hopkins of Va., Herick of N.Y.. tHouston of Ala., II uhard of 0., Naylor of Pa.. Nisbet of Ga., Ogle of Pa.. Osborne of of Va.. hunter of Va., Ingersoll of Pa., Jack of Ia., C. lmConn., Palen of N. Y., Peck of N. Y, Pope of Ky_ Profflt of son of Tenn., J. W. Jones of Va., Keim of Pa., Kennedy of Ind, Randall of Me., Rtandolph of N.J.. Rarlen of lnd., Md..

Lewis of Ala.. Littlefield of Me.. Lowell of Me.,h’lel Payner of N. C..

Reed of Mass., Ridgway of 0-Russell of N. lan of Tenn., MClellan of N.Y., McKay of N. C., larhnd Y., Saltonstall of Mass., Sergeant of Pa, Simonton of Va, of Pa,, Marshall of Me., Mason of Md., Matthexs of v. Slade of Vt., Smith of Coon. Stanly of N. C, Stuart of Ill., Medill of 0., Miller of Mo., Oliver of N. Y., Parmenter of Taliaferro of’ a. Thompson of S. C-Tillioghawt of R. L, Mass, Patridge of N. Y., Payne of Ala., Pickens of S.

C, Teland of Pa., Triplett of Ky, Trumbull of Conin, Under-Plumer of Pa., iteding of N. IL, Riggs of N. Y., Rogers of & wood of Ky., Wagner of N.

Y., Warren of Gas, White of La., C., Rosevelt of N. Y, Saunders of N. C., Shaw of N. II., White of Ky., Wick of Ind., Williams of Coon.. Williams of Shields of Ala, Snyder of Pa., Sprigg of Ky., bteenrod of Va. N. C., Joseph L. Williams of Tenn., Christopher IL Williams Turney of Tenn.. Van Buren of N. Y., WYard of N.Y.. I atof Teun-107. terson of Ten n., Weller of 0., Westbrook of Pa., Williaias of Md,, Wood of.N. Y. -S. On the 4th day of June, 1841, Mr. Clay in-The troduced from the Committee on Finance in The bill, as it was passed by the liouse, the Senate, a bill to repeal the Independent was “ended by that body. The Se, Treasury Law. however, concurred in the amendments, atid On the 9th of June the Senate was brought the bill, as a law,‘was approved of by MIr. to a vote, and passed the repealing law by Tyler. yeas and nays as follows: :,:. The Independent Treasury Law now in YS.-‘.Messrs. Archer of Va, Barrow of a,,Bates of Mas., existence, passed the House on the 2d of Bayard of Del., Berrien of Oa, Choate of Mass.. Clay of Ky Clayton of Del., Dixon of R. IL

Evans of Me., Grbam of N. April, 1846, by yeas and nays as follows:C, Henderson of Mi-s, Huntington of Conn,, Ker of Md, Yrh -Mess Adams of Ml, Anderson of N. T., At Mangum of N. C., Merrick of Md.. Miller of N. J.

Morehead kin-on of Va., Bayly of Va.. Bedinger of Va., Benton of of N. C., Phelps of Vt., Porter of Mica., Preuss of V N. Y, Bigga of N. C., Black of Pa., Black of S. C., Bowlin or Preston of S. C-Rives of Va., Simmons of R. 1, Smith of Mo Bovd of Ky., Brinkerhoff of O., Brockenbrough of Ind., Sonthard of N.J., Tallmadge of N.Y., Whit of Ind, Woodbridge of ~I-icbh-29. Fla., Brodhead of Pa., Brown of Va., Burt of S.C., Catheart ounInd., Chapman of Ala., Chase of Tenn., Chipman of Mich, Clarke of N.

C., Cobb of Geo., Collin of N.Y.. CooC., Clay of Ala&, Fulton of Ark, King of Ala., McRoberts of table of Md., Lullom of Tenn., Cummins of O..

Cunoig. Ill, Nicholsonof Tenn., Pierce of N. H. Sevier of Ark., Smith ham of 0, Daniel of N. C., Dargan of Ala, Davis o1ia of Conn,, Sturgeon of Pa., Tappan of O., Walker of Miss., D g of De Mott of N. Y., Dillingham of t., Dobbin of N. C., Doulq Williams of Me., Woodbury of N. I-, Wright ofN. Y., Young la of Ill, Dromgole of Va., Dunlap of Me., Ellsworth oft.

of ILIL 18. o.. Faran of 0., Ficklin of Ill., Foster of Pa., Fries of 0..

Gar On the 9th of August, 1841, the repealing rin of Pa., Giles of Md., Goodyear of N.Y., Gordon of N. F. bill was brought to a vote in the House, an~ Grover of N.Y., Hamlin of Me., Haralson of Geo., liarnan son of La., Henley of Ind., Hoge of Ill., Holmes of K C, passed by yeas and nays as follows:- Hopkins of Va, Hough of N.Y., Houston of Ala., HIunl ford of N.

Y.. James B. Hunt of Mich., Hunter of Va, Is YFAs.-Messrs. Adams of Mass., Allen of Me, Audrews of gersoll of Pa,, Jenkins of N.Y., James H. Johnson of N. U, Ky, Andrews of 0, Arnold of Tenn., Aycrigg of N. J., Bab-Joseph Johnson of Va., Andrew Johnson of Tenn.. eote cock of N.Y., Baker of Mass, Barnard of N..Y, Barton of W. Jones of Teon., Seaborn Jones of Gec., Preston dKingo a., Birdseye of N.Y., Black of Pa., Blair of N.Y., Boardman~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ten. Sebo JnesofGe., reto Va,, Birdseye of N.Y., Black of Pa,, Blair of N.Y, Boardman N. Y., Leake of Va.. Leib of Pa., La Sere of La., Lion Of of Conn,, Borden of Mas., Botts of Va.. Brigg of Mlaas, Md, Lumpkin of Geo., Maclay of N. Y.. McClean of Ps, Brockway of Conn,, Bronson of Me,, M. Brown of Tenn., J. McClelland of Mich., McCernand of Ill., Me lonell of A~ Brown of Pa., Burnell of Mas, Butler of Ky., Calhoun of McCrate of Me., McDowell of O., McKay of N. C., Martin o’

Mass., J. Campbell of S. C, W. B. Campbell of Tenn., T. J. Ky., Martin of Tenn., Morse of La., Moulten of N. B., Ntim Campbell of Tenn, Caruthers of Tenn, Childs of N. Y., of N.Y., Owen of Ind., Parrish of O., Payne of Ala.. PNt Chittenden of N.Y., J. C. Clark of N.YY, S. N. Clark of N. of Ind, Phelps of Misa, Price of Mo., Bathbun of N. Y Y, Cowen of 0., Cranston of R. I., Cravens of Ind., Cu.shing Reid of N. C., Rhett of S.

C., Roberts of Miss, swrelic e of Mass., Garret Davis of Ky., W. C. Dawson of Ga., Deberrv IMe., Sawyer of 0., Scammon of Me., Seddon of Va., Sims of of N. C.. John Edwards of Pa, Everett of Vt, Fessnden of S.C.. Sims of Mo., Simpson of S.C., Smith of Ind.. Smith e’ Me., Fillmore of N. Y, Foster of N. Y, T. F. Foster of Ga,, Ill., Stanton of Teon., Starkweather of 0.. St. John of 0 Gamble of Ga, Gentry of Tenn., Giddings of O-Gilmer of Sykes of N..J, James Thompson of Pa.. Thurman of 0., Va., Goggin of Va,, P. G. Goode of 0., Graham of N. C., Green Tibbatts of Ky, Tredway of Va., Wentworth of IIL, Wbeael of Ky., Graig of N. Y., Habersham of Ga, Hall of Vt., Hal-of N.Y.. Wick of d.. Williams of Me. Wilnit Of stead of N. C.. W. S. Hastings of Mass, Henry of Pa.. Howard Wood of N.Y., Woodruff of N.Y., Woodward of S.C. W of Miss.. Hudson of Map&, Hunt of N. YV James Irvin of Pa,, worth of N. Y., Yancey of Ala., and Yell of Ark. l2 W.’ W.

Irwin of Pa., James of Pa., W. C. Johnson of Md, NATs. Messrs. Abbott of Mass., John Q. Adams of M. Jones of Md.. Kennedy of Md, King of Ga. Lane of Ind., Arnold of R I Ashmun of’,% lass. Barringor of N C JAwrence of Pa., Lion of N.Y., Mallery of Va. Marshll of of Ten,, Blanchard of Pa, Milton Brown of Tenn Ky.,’ dawn of 0P Mathlot of O., Mu Of Vi, Maxwell ton of Pa., WillamW. Campbell of Ten f N.Ta of N. J, Maynard ofN. Y, Merrewether of Ga.. Moore of La., John G. Chapman of Md., Cocke of Tenn., Coill Morgan of N.Y., Morris of 0.. Morrow of 0.. Niabet of Ga,,CasoofII,CoeroTeo.Clrof\I sif Oshorne of Coon,, Owaley of Ky., Pearoe of Md., Pendleton Davis of Kv. Dixon of Conn. Dockery of N t I El is’ o ofo0. Pope of Ky., Powell of Va., Profft of mi.d ltamsey of Teon,, Ewing of Ind., Foot of Vt, Gentry of Teno.? Pa., B. Ilandall of Me,, Randolph of N.J., Baysier of N. C.. dings of 0., Graham of N. C.. Grider of Ky.

liarper m,,.’ Rencher of N. C.. Ridgway of 0., Rodney of Del,, Russell of Ierc fNV ilado l. onW fPI 0,,Saltonstall of Mass, Sergeant of IPa’ Shepprd of N.Ii ubhard of Coonn Iudson of Mass. Hunt of N. Y, SiononofPa, Sld-fV,,Siho Co,, Stale of it. IneslCfP., igo Ms.,KnofG…~ N.C., Stokely of 0,, Stratton of NS. J, Stuart of Va,, Sum-N.YV.. Long of Md., Mc~aughey of Ind.. M~ c.~or0’. mers of Va., Talinfrero of Va., Thompson of Ky_. Thompson Mcllvaioe of Pa., Marsh of Vt. Miller of N.Y.,-oI’.~‘Y._ of Lad., Tilllnghaat of K. I,, Toland of Pa. Tomlinson of N. N. edeo fV, olc fP. “-r. c.O V,, Triplett of N. Y., Trumbull of Coon,., Underwood of Ky., Rockwell of Mass.. Rockwell of Coon., Kook of’\,. -~.,=’ Van Rensselaer of Nv.Y., Wallace of Laji, Warren of Ga., of 0., Severance’of Me., Smith of Coon.. Smilth of N o’-., ‘Washingtn of N. C,, White of 1~, White of Ky.,, Williams Sei,to a hbdaxo a,ToU0’s 260

Page 261 view page image

INDEPENDENT, OR SUB-TREASURY.-INDIANA. Thompson of Mass., Tilden of O., Trumbo of Ky., Vinton of 0., White of N.Y., Winthrop of Mass., Wright of N.J., and Young of Ky.-66. It passed the Senate on the 1st of August, 1846, by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS. Messrs. Allen of Ohio, Ashley of Arks., Atchison of Mo., Atherton of N. H., Bagby of Ala., Benton of Mo.

Breese of Ill., Bright of Ind., Calhoun of S.C., Cameron of l’a., Cass of Mich., Chalmers of Miss., Dickerson and Dix of New York, Fairfield of Me., Hannegan of Ind., Houston of Tex., Lewis of Ala, Niles of Conn., Pennybacker of Va., Rusk of Tex., Semple of Ill., Sevier of Ark., Speight of Miss., Sturgeon of Pa., Turney of Tenn., Westcott and Yulee of Fla.-28.

NAYs. Messrs. Archer of Va., Barrow of La., Berrien of Ga., Cilley of N.

I{., John M. Clayton of Del., Thos. Clayton of Del., Corwin of O., Crittenden of Ky., Davis of Mass., Dayton of N.J., Evans of Me., Greene of R. I., Huntington of Conn., Jarnagin of Tenn., Johnson of La., Johnson of Md., Mangum of N. C., Miller of N. J., Morehead of Ky., Plearce of Md., Phelps of Vt., Simmons of R. I., Upham of Vt., Webster of Mass., and Woodbury of Mich.-25. Goldsborough of Md. and Lewis and Rand(lpl of Va.

alone voting against it. It passed the Senate on the 13th of April, 1816, with amendments, which were concurred in by the IHouse, and the bill became a law by the approval of the President on 19th of April, 1816. On the 2d of December, 1816, a committee was appointed to inquire whether any further legislation was necessary to admit Indiana into the Union. The committee reported a resolution declaring her to be one of the United States, which passed the Senate on the 6thi of Decem b e r, 1816, the t House on 9th of December, 1816, and was approved by the President on the 11th of December, 1816. Before this last resolution consummating her admission passed, her representative, Mr. IIendricks, was admitted to his seat on the floor o f the House, and voted on all questions which came before the body. In the Presidential election of 1816, Indiana chose Presidential electors, who formally cast their votes and sent them t o Washin gton. In counting the votes during the second session of the 14th Congress, before the S touse of Represen ta tives, the vote of I ndiana was about to be counted, when Mr. Taylor, one of the representat ives from the state of New York, objected to the sane bei ng recei v ed. Upon this objection being made, the Senate withdrew. Mr. Sharp, whilst the Senate was absent, offered a resolution that the votes of Indiana were properly and legally given, and ought to be counted. Mr. Taylor moved an amendment that they ought not to be received and counted. Debate ensuing, Mr. Ingham moved an indefinite postponement of the subject, which was carried. The Senate then returned, and the president thereof opened the votes of Indiana, and it was counted by the tellers. She was thus regarded as a state previous to the passage of the last resolution. The amendments made to the bill by the Senate were concurred in by the Ilouse, and it became a law on the 6th of August. At the last session the following amendments to the Sub Treasury Bill became a law: ” That each and every disbursing officer or agent of the United States, having any money of the United States intrusted to him for disbursement, shall be, and he is hereby required to deposit the same with the treasurer of the United States, or with some one of the assistant treasurers or public depositaries, and draw for the same only in favor of the persons to whom payment is to be made in pursuance of law and instruction; except when payments are to be made in sums under twenty dollars, in which cases such disbursing agent may check in his own name, stating that it is to pay small claims. “Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, that the treasurer of the United States, assistant treasurers, and public depositaries, shall safely keep all moneys deposited by any disbursing officer or disbursing agent of the United States, as well as any moneys deposited by any receiver, collector, or other person, which shall be the moneys of, or due. or owing to the United States, and for a failure so to do shall be held guilty of the crime of embezzlement of said moneys, and subject to the punishment provided for embezzlements in the act to which this is an amendment. ” Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of each and every person who shall have moneys of the United States in his hands or possession, to pay the same to the treasurer, the assistant treasurer, or public depositary of the United States, and take his receipt for the same, in duplicate, and forward one of them forthwith to the Secretary of the Treasury, and for a failure to make su(-h deposit when required by the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other department, or the accounting officers of the treasury, the person so failing shall be held guilty of the crime of Embezzlement, and subject to the punishment fir. that offence provided in the act to which this is an amendment.” DESIRE OF, TO HAVE SLAVERY

THIEREIN. In the IIouse of Representatives, on the 8thl of February, 1803, Mr. William lIenry.IIarri-. son, President of a Convention of the territory of Indiana, communicated to the body through the speaker, the memorial of said Convention, praying the suspension of the sixth article of compact between the United States and the people of that territory, so as to admit slavery for a time therein, together with a petition of the inhabitants of the said territory to the same effect. Read and referred to a committee consisting of Messrs. John Randolph of Virginia, Griswold of Conn., Williams of N. C., Morris of Vt., and Hoge of Pa. March 2, 1803.-Mr. Randolph, from the Indiana. ON the 31st of March, 1800, the House, in pursuance of the prayer of the people thereof passed a bill to divide the Northwestern Territory into two separate governments, constituting the western portion thereof ” Indiana Territory.” The Senate passed the bill with amendments, to which the House disagreed. The disagreements were reconciled, and the bill became a law by the approval of the President on the 7th of May, 1800. On the 3d of March, 1816, a bill reported in the rIouse in pursuance of the memorial in the territorial legislature of Indiana, authorizing her people to form a constitution and state government, and providing for her admission into the Union, passed the House, Messrs. 261

Page 262 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. committee to which were referred a letter from William Henry Harrison, President of the Convention at Vincennes, declaring the consent of the people of Indiana to the sus pension of the sixth article of compact between the United States and the people of that terri tory, and also a memorial and petition of the inhabitants of the said territory, made the fol lowing report: That the rapid population of the state of Ohio sufficiently evinces, in the opinion of your committee, that the labor of slaves is not ne cessary to promot e the growth and settlement of the colonies i n that region; that t his labor, demonstrably the dearest of any, can only be employed to advantag e i n the cultivation of products more valuable than any known to that qu art er of t he United States; that the committee deemn it hihliv dang erous and in expedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the Northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that tie inhabitants of Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and of emnigration. Fromn such a consideration as they have been enabled to bestow on the subject at this late period of the session, and under the pressure of accumiiulating business, they recommeind the following, resolution, which is respectfully submitted to the judgment of the IIouse: “1. Rtesolved, That it is inexpedient to suspend for a limited time, the operation of the sixth article of compact between the original states and the states west of the Ohio.” of Ind., Hamilton of Pa., Smith of S. C., WTeI ton of Ky., and Van Cortland of N.

Y. On the 14th of Feb., 1806, Mr. Garnett from the said committee submitted the following report: ” That having attentively considered the facts stated in the said petitions and memori als, they are of opinion that a qualified sus,, pension, for a limited time, of the sixth arti cle of compact between the original states and the people and states west of the river Ohio, would be beneficial to the people of the Indi ana territory. The suspension of this article is an object almost universally desired in that territory. It appears to your committee to be a question entirely different from that between slavery and freedom, inasmuch as it would merely occasion the removal of persons, al ready slaves, from one part of the country to another. The good effects of this suspension. in the present instance, would be to accelerate the population of that territory, hitherto re tarded by the operation of that article of conm pact, as slaveholders emigrating into the West ern country, might then indulge any prefer ence which they might feel for a settlement in Indiana territory, instead of seeking, as they are now compelled to do, settlements in other states or countries, permitting the introduc tion of slaves. The condition of the slaves themselves would be much ameliorated by it, as it is evident, from experience, that the nmore they are separated and diffused, the more care and attention are bestowed on them by their masters, each proprietor having it in his power to increase their comforts and conveniences in proportion to the smallness of their nulb)ers. The dangers too, if any are to be appre hentded from too large a black population ex isting in any one section of country, would certainly be very much diminished if not ei tirely removed. But whether dangers are to be feared from this source or not, it is certain Ivl an obvious dictate of sound policy to guard against them as far as possible. If this dan ger does exist, or there is any cause to appre hend it, and our Western brethren are not only willing but desirous to aid us in taking precautions against it, would it not l)e wise to accept their assistance? We should benefit ourselves without injuring them, as their pop ulation must always so far exceed anvy black population which can ever exist inll that coun try as to render the idea of danger from that source chimerical.” The committee recommended the adoption of the following resolution: “Resolved, That the sixth article of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibits slivery witlin the Indiana territory, be suspended for ten years, so as to permit the introduction of slaves born within the United States from any of the individual states.” On the 20th of January, 1807, the following resolutions were laid before and read in the ttouse of R~epresentatives: Resolved unanimously, by the Legislative Council and house of Representatives of the At the first sessi o n of the 8th C ongress, another memorial to the same effect was presented and referred in the Ilouse to a select committee. Mr. Rodnev of Del., on the 17th of Feb., 1804, made a report favoring the prayer of the petition, accompanied by the following resolution: “.Resolved, That the 6th article of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery within the said territory, be suspended in a qualified manner for ten years, so as to permit the introduction of slaves born within the United States from any of the individual states. Provided, that such individual state does not permeit the importation of slaves froin foreign countries. And provided fuirther, that the descendants of all such slaves shall, if males, be free at the ag-e of 25 years, and if females, at the aoge of 21 years.” This resolution was not acted on. On the 18th of Dec., 1805, another osem oridtl on the subject, emanating from the Legislative Council of Indiana territory, was read and referred to a committee consisting of Messrs.

Garnett of Va., Morrow of Ohio, Parke 262

Page 263 view page image

INDIANA.-IOWA. Indiana Territory, that a suspension of the I Resolved unanimously, That a copy of these sixth article of compact between the United resolutions be delivered to the delegate to Cot States and the territories and states northwest gress from this territory, and that he be, andI of the river Ohio, passed the 13th day of July, he hereby is, instructed to use his best ende”1 787, for the term of ten years, would be highly vors to obtain a suspension of the said article. a,lvantageous to the said territory, and meet Referred to a committee, consisting of the approbation of at least nine-tenths of the Messrs. Parke of Indiana, Masters of N. Y., good citizens of the same. Rhea of Tenn., Sanford of Ky., Alston of N. C., Resolved unanimously, That the abstract Morrow of Ohio, and Trigg of Va. question of liberty and slavery is not considered as involved in a supension of the said On the 12th of February, 1807, Mr.

Parke, article, inasmuch as the number of slaves in from said committee, submitted the following the United States would not be augmented by report. That the resolutions of the legislative the measure. council and house of representatives of the Resolved unanimously, That the suspension Indiana territory, relate to a suspension, for of the said article would be equally advan-the term of ten years, of the sixth article of tageous to the territory, to the states from compact between the United States and the whence the negroes would be brought, and to territories northwest of the river Ohio, passed the negroes themselves. the 13th day of July, 1787.

That article de To the territory, because of its situation clares “there shall be neither slavery nor inwith regard to the other states; it must be voluntary servitude in the saidterritory.” settled by emigrants from those in which sla-The suspension of the said article would very is tolerated, or for many years remain in operate an immniediate and essential benefit to its present situation, its citizens deprived of the territory, as emigration to it will be inconthe greater part of their political rights, and siderable for many years, except from those indeed, of all those which distinguish the stateswhere slavery is tolerated; and although American from the citizens and subjects of it is not considered expedient to force the po ~~other governments. pulation of the territory, yet it is desirable to The states which are overburdened with connect its scattered settlements, and, in re egroes, would be buenefited by their citizens gard to political rights, to place it on an equal having an opportunity of disposing of the different states. From the 11 ~~~~~~~~foing with the different states. From the avnegre wihtecanno cmortablty ofdsuposn-fte!?

iegroes which they cannot comfortably sup-interior situation of the territory, it is not beport, or removing with them to a country leed that slaves would ever become so lieved that slaves would ever become so abounding with all the out numeessaries to endanger the internal peace, and the negro himself would exchange a or future prosperity of the country. and he ngro imsef wold echane aThe current of Iemigration flowingm to the scanty pittance of the coarsest food, for a The current of emigration flowing to the plentiful and nourishing diet, and a situation western country, the territories ought all to be which admits not the most distant prospect opened to their introduction. The abstract of emancipation, for one which presents no question of liberty and slavery is not involved considerable obstacle to his wishes. in the proposed measure, as slavery now exists Resolved unanimously, That the citizens of to a considerable extent in different parts of this part of the former Northwestern Terri-the Union; it would not augment the number tory, consider themselves as having claims of slaves, but merely authorize the removal to upon the indulgence of Congress, in regard to Indiana of such as are held in bondage in the a suspension of the said article, because at the United States. If slavery is an evil, means time of the adoption of the ordinance of 1787, ought to be devised to render it least dangerslavery was tolerated, and slaves generally ous to the community, andbywhichthehope possessed by the citizens then inhabiting the less situation of the slaves would be most country, amounting to at least onehalf the ameliorated; and to accomplish these objects, present population of Indiana, and because no measure would be so effectual as the one the said ordinance was passed in Congress proposed. The committee, therefore. respectwhen the said citizens were not represented in fully submit to the House the following resothat body, without their being consulted, and lution without their knowledge and approbation. Resolved: That it is expedient to suspend, Resolved unanimously, That the situation from and after the 1st day of January, 1808, soil, and climate, and productions of the terri the sixth article of compact between the United tory, it is not believed that the number of States and the territories and states northslaves would ever bear such proportion to the west of the river Ohio, passed the 13th day of white population, as to endanger the internal July, 1787, for the term of ten years. peace and prosperity of the country. Resolved unanimously, That copies of these Iowa. resolutions be delivered to the governor of this THE bill creating the territory of Iowa by territory, to be by him forwarded to the Presi-a division of the territory of Wisconsin, passed dent of the Senate, and to the Speaker of the the Senate on the 1st of June, 1838. House of lepresentatives of the United States, The bill passed the House on the 6th of with a request that they will lay the same be-June, 1838, by a vote of yeas 118, nays 51.

fore the Senate and House of Represent ltives, For proceedings on its admission as a state, Mvel which they respectively preside.. see FLORIDA.

2C)3

Page 264 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Jackson, Andrew. NAYS.-Adams of MaFs.. Barnard of N. Y.. Jeremiah Brown, of Pa, Carro ll of N. YCpl o f (,a., Cranston f R.

I REMISSION OF FINE IMPOSED UPON. Garret Davis of Ky. Fish of N. Y.. Foot of t., Giddiigns of O., Grider of Ky., Ilaudon of Mass.. J. R. ]gerisol of’a., O. the 15th of December, 1814, General I Jnks of Kig of Ma,ls..

l.llsaioe of P., Jackson placed the city of New Orleans under Ioe, Macicly of N. Y., ]‘hoeii of N V li, (0,ln.y of ~el.. S(‘hecnk of 0., Severance of M i., Tilden of 0., Tyler of Imartial law. Mr. Louaillier, a member of the N.Y., Vance of 0., Vanieter of 0., Viuton of’)., W%inthr(p legislature of Louisiana, a Frenchman by of Ma,s l’irth, published some seditious appeals to his The bill passed the Senate on the 14th of countrymen, stimulating them to disobey the February 1844 by yeas and nays as fol commanding general. General Jackson caused lows: him to hb. arrested on the 5th of March. Judge YA. Mesr. Allen of 0., Atclinson ofo, At t of ]Iall, of the United States District Court, upon N. IL, Bagby of Ala., B1ar ro oofI eo., I,r-ese of application, issued a writ of habeas corpus tor1, Buchauan of Pa, (of Ga.. f’a irflrd o f ie., osr of TeF,-Fanc,is of R. I., Fkulto,n of Ark., lta~t,,igan of In,d., the purpose of bringing Louaillier out; but, 11ay sood( of N. C., IIecderson of Mi, Huger of S. C, Ja-ni before it was served, General Jackson caused I ga of Tenn., King of Ala., McDuJie of S.

C.. Mangun of N. the judge to be arrested, had him conducted C. Riv nadg.Scu e o f N I, up eon o f 0k, Sirge o of Pa., Tallimadge of N. Y., Topp,an f O., W~alkero Miss., WxdM beyond the limits of the camp, and then re-bu,y,f N. I., iVright of N. ~. 30. leased him, with orders that he should not NAYs.-esrs. Arche r of Va., Bates of Mfqss.. Bayard of De]., Berrien o f GCha ss., Clayton (,f Del., Dn; tol return until peace was proclaimed. f N.J., Ea,utiogton of Coinn., Mei rick of Md., On the 23d of March, 1815, General Jackson Miller of N. Jd Pearce of Md., Phlelps of Vt., Simmons of R. appeared in the United States Court to show I., Uphan, of Vt., Woodbridge of Mih. t6. cause why an attachment should not issue Democrats in italics; Whiigs in roinman. against him for contempt of court. The court The bill became a law, by the approval would not permit him to read a written de-of President Tyler, on the 16th of February, fence, verified by his oath. On the 31st of 1844. March, 1815, written interrogatories were propounded to him by the court, which he de clined to answer, when he was fined $1000 for PRESIDENT JACKSON’S PROCLAMATION

ACAINST contempt, which he immediately paid. THE NULLIFICATION ORDINANCE

OF SOUTII The bill, which became a law, refunding the CAROLINA. (Dec. 11, 1832.) fine with interest, was introduced by Mr. C. Whereas, a convention, assembled in the J. Ingersoll of Pa., and passed the House on state of South Carolina, have passed an or the 29th of December, 1843, by yeas and nays dinance, by which they declare, “That the as follows:- several acts and parts of acts of the Congress YEAS.-Messrs. Anderson of N. Y., Ashe of Tenn., Bar-of the United States, purporting to be laws for ringer of N.

C., Beardsley of N.Y., Belser of Ala., leontwn of the imposing of duties and infposts on the ioi N. Y., Bidlack of Pa., aEdw,ard J. Blackc of Ga..

James Blacki portation of foreign commodities an now porttio offoreign commodities, and now of Pla., Jtlmes.A. Black of S. C., Blackwell of Tenn., Bossier r of La., Bower of Mo., Bowlin of Io., Boyd of Ky., Jcob having actual operation and effect within the Brinkerhoff of 0., Brodhead of Pa., Aaron V. Brown of Tenn., United States, and more especially,” two acts Milton Brown of Tenn.. >Km. J. Brown of Ind., Buffilgton o the of’a..

Burke of N. H., Burt of S. C., Coldwell of Ky., Chmp for the same purposes, )passed on the 29th of bedli of S. C.. Chry of Me., Catlin of Conn., I?euben Cltlmnton May, 1828, and on the 14th of July, 1832, of Ala., Augustus A. Chapman of Va., Chilton of V a., Cli,g- “are unauthorized by the Constitution of the man of N. C., Clinton of N. Y., CObbb of Ga., Coles of va.. (I’oss of Ark., Cullon of Tenn., Dana of N.

Y., Daniel of N. United States, and violate the true meanilig C., Richard D. Davis of N.Y., John W. Davis of Ind., Du-alld intent thereof, and are null and void, andl son of La., D-an of 0., Deberry of N. C., Dellet of Ala., Dickey of Pa., Dickinson of Tenn., Dillingham of Vt., Douglas no law,” nor binding on the citizens of that of Ill., Duncan of O., Du pdap of Me., Eis of N. Y., Elmer state, or its officers: and by the said ordinance, o N. J., of N. J., Ficklin of ll., Floreneof O., it is further declared to be unlawful for any .aster of Pa., French of Ky., Frick of Pa., Gilmer of Va.. Green of Ky.. Green of N. Y., ILale of N. tI., Hamlin of le., of the constituted authorities of the state, or laummet of Mliss., Harald,,on of Ga., Hardin of Ill.. Hays of the United States, to enforce the panyment of Pa., Henley of Ind., Herrick of Me., Holmes of S C, v I[odge of Ill. Hous of of Ala., Hubard of Va., Hubbell of of the duties imposed by the said acts within N.Y., Hughes of Mo., Hungerford of N.Y., Hunt of Mich., the same state, and that it is the duty of the Chas. J.

Ingersoll of Pa., Irvin of Pa., Jameson of Mo., Cave ns of Teno., Johnson of 0, Andr~ew Johnts~on o~f Te legislature to pass such laws as niay be neces.I,,hnson of Tenn., Johnson of O., Andrew Joh~ison of Tenn., Joies of Tenn., Kennedy of Ind., King of N. Y.. Kir~patricl sary to give full effect to the said ordlilnance: of N.J., Labranche of La., Leonard of N.Y., Lewis of Ala., And whereas by the said ordinance, it is Lucas of Va., Lumpkin of Ga., Lyon of Min h.. AcCa~ slen of 0. Maclay ofN. Y., McClelandof Mi.,, tcClernand ofIll.. further ordained, that, in no case of law or McConnell of Ala., McDowell of 0., McKay of N. C.,.uthew.s equity, decided in the courts of said state, of 0, Morris of Pa., Morris of 0.

Murphy of N. Y., Ne herin shall be drawn in question the valiPa, Newton of Va., Vorri s of N. 11., Owen of Ind., Parmnenter of Mass., Patterson of N.

Y., Payne of Ala., Peyton dity of the said ordinance, or eof the acts of the of Tenn., Potter of R. I., Potter of O., Patt of N. Y., Ram-legislature that may be passed to give it effect, say of Pa., Ralhbun of N. Y., A. H. Reaci of Pa., Charles M. o. p g Refad of Pa., Reid of N. C., Redtog of N. lI., Relfe or of the said laws of the United States, no Ritter of Pa., Rogers of N.dY., Rssall of N. Y., St. John of appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court (I Smpl ofmd,, Seterof eOO &y of the Uiiited States, nor shall any copy ,rault of Conn.. Seymour of N.Y., Semis of Conn.. SY,pstm of S. C., Slidell of La., Smith of Pa., Tho mas Smith of lld., of the record be permitted or allowed for that Znith of Ill., Steenrod of a., Stetson of N. Y., Stewart of I’ purpose, and thata attenipting to Stewart of Conn., Stiles of Ga., Stone of Ky., Srong of N.,ro Y., Sykes of N.J., Taylor of Va., Thomasson of Ky., Thomptake such appeal shall be puni shed as for a son of Miss., Tibbatts of Ky., }eller of 0., Wentworth of Ill., contempt of court: Wh~eaton of N.Y., White of Ky., Williams of Mlass., Wilkins And of Pa., Wtodward of S.Sc., Wright of mid., Yost of Pa.ir. that the people of South Carolina will maui 264

Page 265 view page image

JACKSON, ANDREW. tain 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 enfo rce the said acts otherwise than tha rough the civil t ribunals 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 g,overnment, 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 Constitution, and having for its object the destruction 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 Constitution, has brought us, by the favor of Ileavert, 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 fellowcitizens have reposed n 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 measures 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 observance 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 ease, 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 reasoning 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 s esen se of dut y will requir e me t o pursue. The ordinance is f ounded, no onthon the inde feasible fight of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitution al and t oo opp ressive to be endured; but on the st ran ge posit io n that any one state may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution; that the y may do thi s consistently with the Consti tution; that the true con st r uction o f tha t i nstrument permits a state to retain its plac e 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 uncontrolled 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 pul)lic 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 Congress. 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 Congress-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 express 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 moment 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 collected anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat, that an unconstitutional 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 unconstitutional, and, has been shown, there is no appeal. If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennl 2 6,k,

Page 266 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse was formed, but formed in vain, if this fatal law in the Eastern states, the carriage tax in doctrine prevails. It was formed for import Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, ant objects that are announced in the preamble, and were more unequal in their operation made in the name and by the authority of the than any of the laws now complained of; hut people of the United States, whose delegates fortunately none of those states discovered that framed, and whose conventions approved it. they had the right now claimed by South The most important among these objects, that Carolina. The war into which we were forced, which is placed first in rank, on which all the to support the dignity of the nation and the others rest, is “to form a more perfect Union.” rights of our citizens, might have ended in Now, is it possible that even if there were no defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and express provisions giving supremacy to the honor, if the states who supposed it a Constitution and laws of the United States ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had over those of the states-can it be conceived thought they possessed the right of nullifying that an instrument made for the purpose of the act by which it was declared, and denying “forming a more perfect Union” than that supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and un-of the Confederation, could be so constructedl equally as those measures bore upon several by the assembled wisdom of our country as to members of the Union, to-the legislatures of substitute for that Confederation a form of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, government dependent for its existence on the as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery local interest, the party spirit of a state, or of of this important feature in our Constitution a prevailing faction in a state? Every man was reserved for the present day. To the of plain unsophisticated understanding, who statesmen of South Carolina belongs the in-hears the question, will give such an answer vention, and upon the citizens of that state as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable theory, to practice. could alone have devised one that is calculated If the doctrine of a state veto upon the laws to destroy it. of the Union carries with it internal evidence I consider, then, the power to annul a law of its impracticable absurdity, our constitu-of the United States, assumed by one state, tional history will also afford abundant proof incompatible with the existence of the Union that it would have been repudiated with in-contradicted expressly by the letter of the dignation had it been proposed to form a fea-Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconture in our government. sistent with every principle on which it was In our colonial state, although dependent founded, and destructive of the great object on another power, we very early considered for which it was formed. ourselves as connected by common interest After this general view of the leading prinwith each other. Leagues were formed for ciple, we must examine the particular applicommon defence, and before the Declaration cation of it which is made in the ordinance. of Independence, we were known, in our ag-The preamble rests its justification on these gregate character. as the United Colonies of grounds; it assumes as a fact, that the ol America. That decisive and important step noxious laws, although they purport to be laws was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a for raising revenue, were in reality intended nation by a joint, not by several acts, and for the protection of manufactures, which purwhen the terms of our confederation were re-pose it asserts to be unconstitutional; that duced to form, it was in that of a solemnin the operation of these laws is unequal; that league of several states, by which they agreed the amount raised by them is greater than is that they would collectively form one nation required by the wants of the government; for the purpose of conducting some certain and, finally, that the proceeds are to be applied domestic concerns and all foreign relations. to objects unauthorized by the Constitution. In the instrument forming that Union is found These are the only causes alleged to justify an article which declares that “every state an open opposition to the laws of the country, shall abide by the determination of Congress, and a threat of seceding from the Union, if on all questions which by that confederation any attempt should be made to enforce them. shall be submitted to them.” The first virtually acknowledges that the law Under the Confederation then, no state could in question was passed under a power exlegally annul a decision of the Congress, or pressly given by the Constitution, to lay and refuse to submit to its execution; but no pro-collect imposts; but its constitutionality is vision was made to enforce these decisions. drawn in question from the motives of those Congress made requisitions, but they were not who passed it. However apparent this purcomplied with. The government could not pose may be in the present case, nothing can operate on individuals. They had no judi-be more dangerous than to admit the position ciary, no means of collecting revenue. that an unconstitutional purpose, entertained But the defects of the Confederation need by the members who assent to a law enacted not be detailed. Under its operation we under a constitutional power, shall make that could scarcely be called a nation. We had law void; for how is that purpose to be ascerneither prosperity at home nor consideration tained?

Who is to make the scrutin,y h How abroad. This state of things could not be en-often may bad purposes be falsely imputed? dured, and our present happy Constitution in how many cases are they concealed by falso 266

Page 267 view page image

JACKSON, ANDREW. 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 tl e ordinance to these laws are, that the sumis ii. 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 maiy be -said of others with which they are veestel(. 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 givees 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, fellowcitizens, which is the constitutional disposition-that instrument speaks a language not to be misunderstood. Blut if you were assembled in general convention, which would you think the safest depository 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 Constitution? 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 absurd, as a general provision? Carry out the consequences of this right vested in the different 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 objection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitultionally applied. If this could be ascertained withi certainty, the objection would, with more propriety, be reserved for the laws so applying the proceeds, profe ssions? in how ma n y is no declaration of motive made? Admit t hi s doctrine, and you give to the states an uncontrolled right to decide, and every law may be annulled under thi s pretext. rteIf, therefore, the absurd and dangerou s doc t rine should be a dmitted, that a state mav annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to the presen t case. The next objection is, th at the laws in ques tion operat e un equally. This objection may tee m ad e with truth to every law that has been or can be pass ed. T he wisdom of man never yet co ntriv ed a syste m of taxation that would operate with per fect equality. If th e unequal operation of a l aw m ake s it unconstitutional, and if all laws of that description may be abrogated by any state for th a t cause, then ind ee d is the F ederal Constitution unworthy of the slightest effort for its preserv ation. We have hitherto rel ied on i t as the perpetual bond of our Union. We ae rhaeve received it as t he work the ele of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have truste d t o it as to the s heet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We h av e look ed on it with sacred adse as the palladium of our liberties, and w ith all the solemnitie s of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here, and our hopes of happiness hereafter, in its defence and support. Wer e we mi stak e n, my countrymen, in att ach ing this importance to the Constitaltion of ou r cou ntry? Was our devo tion paid to the wretched, inefficient, clumsy cont rivance which this new doctrine would make it? Did w e pledge ourselves to the support of an airy noth ing, a bubble that must be blown ammay b y the first breath of disaffection? Wvas this self-destroying, visionary theory, the w ork 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 deliberately ratify, s uch an anomaly in the history of fundamen tal legislation? Nyo. We were not mistaken. T he lette r of this great instrument is free from this radical fault; its language directly con tradict s the imputation; i ts spirit -its evident intent contradicts it. No, we do not err! Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws, an d a no ther power to re sist 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 implication. Search the debates in all their conventions-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 267

Page 268 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. but surely cannot be urg,ed against the laws Congress have no right to pass such laws; levying th( duty. this we do not allege; but because they have These are the allegations contained in the passed them with improper views. They are ordinance. Examine them seriously, my fel-unconstitutional from the motives of those who lowcitizens-judge for yourselves. I appeal passed them, which we can never with certo you to determine whether they are so clear, tainty know, from their unequal operatin; so convincing, as to leave no doubt of their although it is imnpossible fronm the nature of correctness: a,d even if you should come to things that they should be equal and from this conclusion, how far they justify the reck-the disposition which we presume may be less, destructive course which you are directed made of their proceeds, although that disposito pursue. Review these objections, and the tion has not been declared. This is the plain conclusions drawn from them once more. What meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws are they? Every law, then, for raising reve-which it abrogates for alleged unconstitutionnue, according to the South Carolina Ordiality. But it does not stop there. It rel)peals, nance, may be rightfully annulled, unless it in express terms, an importaIit part of the be so framed as no law ever will or can be Constitution itself, and of laws passed to give framed. Congress have a right to pass laws it effect, which have never been alleged to be for raising revenue, and each state has a right unconstitutional. The Constitution declares to oppose their execution-two rights directly that the judicial powers of the United States opposed to each other; and yet is this absur-extend to cases arising under the laws of the dity supposed to be contained in an instru-United States, and that such laws, the Constiment drawn for the express purpose of avoid-tution, and treaties shall be paramount to the ing collisions between the states and the gene-state constitutions and laws. The judiciary ral government, by an assembly of the most act prescribes the mode by which the case may enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever be brought before a court of the United States, imbodied for a similar purpose. by appeal, when a state tribunal shall decide In vain have these sages declared that Con-against this provision of the Constitution. gress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, The ordinance declares there shall be no apduties, imposts, and excises-in vain have they peal; makes the state law paramount to the provided that they shall have power to pass Constitution and laws of the United States: laws which shall be necessary and proper to forces judges and jurors to swear that they carry those powers into execution; that those will disregard their provisions; and even laws and that Constitution shall be the “su-makes it penal in a suitor to attempt relief by preme law of the land; and that the judges appeal. It further declares that it shall not in every state shall be bound thereby, anything be lawful for the authorities of the United in the constitution or laws of any state to the States, or of that state, to enforce the payment contrary notwithstanding.” In vain have the of duties imposed by the revenue laws within people of the several states solemnly sanc-its limits. tioned these provisions, made them their para-IHere is a law of the United States, not even mount law, and individually sworn to support pretended to be unconstitutional, repealed by them whenever they were called on to execute the authority of a small majority of the voters any office. Vain provisions! ineffectual re-of a single state. hiere is a provision of the strictions! vile profanation of oaths! miserable Constitution which is solemnly abrogated by mockery of legislation! if a bare majority of the same authlority. the voters in any one state may, on a real or On such expositions and reasonings, the supposed knowledge of the intent with which ordinance grounds not only an assertion of a law has been passed, declare themselves free the right to annul the laws of which it colinifrom its operation-say here it gives too little, plains, but to enforce it by a threat of secethere too much, and operates unequally-here ding from the Union, if any attempt is made it suffers articles to be free that ought to be to execute them. taxed, there it taxes those that ought to be This right to secede is deduced from the free-in this case the proceeds are intended to nature of the Constitution, which, they say, is be applied to purposes which we do not ap-a compact between sovereign states, who have prove; in that the amount raised is more than preserved their whole sovereignty, and, thereis wanted. Congress, it is true, are invested fore, are subject to no superior; that, because by the Constitution with the right of deciding they made the compact, they can break it these questions according to their sound dis-when, in their opinion, it has been depart(‘d cretion. Congress is composed of the repre-from by the other states. Fallacious as this sentatives of all the states; and of all the course of reasoning is, it enlists state pride people of all the states; but WE, part of the and finds advocates in the honest prejudices people of one state, to whom the Constitution of those who have not studied the nature of has given no power on the subject, from whom our government sufficiently to see the radical it has expressly taken it away-we, who have error on which it rests. solemnly agreed that this Constitution shall The people of the United States formed the be our law-we, most of whom have sworn to Constitution, acting through the state legislasupport itv-we now abrogate this law, and tures in making the compact, to meet and disswear, and force others to swear, that it shall cuss its provisions, and acting in separate connot be obeyed-and we do this, not because ventions when they ratified those provisions; 268

Page 269 view page image

JACKSON, ANDREW. but the terms used in its construction, show! it is said the parties to that compact may, it to be a government in which the people of when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart all the states collectively are represented. We from it; but it is precisely because it is a are one people in the choice of the President compact that they cannot. A compact is an and Vice President. Here the states have no agreement or binding obligation. It may, by other agency than to direct the mode in which its terms, have a sanction or penalty for its the votes shall be given. The candidates breach, or it may not. If it contains no having the majority of all the votes, are sanction, it may be broken with no other conchosen. The electors of a majority of the states sequence than moral guilt: if it have a sancmay have given their votes for one candidate, tion, then the breach incurs the designated or and yet another may be chosen. The people implied penalty. A league between indethen, and not the states, are represented in pendent nations, generally, has no sanction the executive branch. other than a moral one; or, if it should con-. In the House of Representatives there is tain a penalty, as there is no common superior, this difference, that the people of one state do it cannot be enforced. A government, on the not, as in the case of President and Vice contrary, always has a sanction, express or President, all vote for the same officers. The implied; and, in our case, it is both necespeople of all the states do not vote for all the sarily implied and expressly given. An members, each state electing only its own attempt by force of arms to destroy a governrepresentatives. But this creates no material ment, is an offence, by whatever means the distinction. When chosen, they are all rep-constitutional compact may have been formed; resentatives of the United States, not repre-and( such government has the right, by the sentatives of the particular state from which i law of self-defence, to pass acts for punishing they come. They are paid by the United the offender, unless that right is modified, States, not by the state; nor are they account-1
restrained, or resumed, by the constitutional able to it for any act done in the performance act. In our system, although it is modified (f their legislative functions; and, however in the case of treason, yet authority is exthey may in practice, as it is their duty to do, pressly given to pass all laws necessary to consult and prefer the interests of their par-carrv its powers into effect, and under this ticular constituents when they come in con-grant provision has been made for punishing flict with any other partial or local interest, acts which obstruct the due administration of yet it is their first and highest duty, as reprethe laws. sentatives of the United States, to promote the It would seem superfluous to add anything general good. to show the nature of that union which con The Constitution of the United States, then, nects us; but as erroneous opinions on this forms a government, not a league; and whether subject are the foundation of doctrines the it be formed bycompact between the states, most destructive to our peace, I must give or in any other manner, its character is the some further development to my views on this same. It is a government in which all the subject. No one, fellowcitizens, has a higher people are represented, which operates di-reverence for the reserved rights of the states, rectly on the people individually, not upon than the magistrate who now addresses you. the states: they retained all the power they No one would make greater personal sacridid not grant. But each state having ex-flees, or official exertions, to defend them from pressly parted with so many powers as to con-violation; but equal care must be taken to stitute jointly with the other states a single prevent on their part an improper interfenation, cannot, from that period, possess anv rence with, or resumption of, the rights they right to secede, because such secession does have vested in the nation. The line has not not break a league, but destroys the unity of been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts a nation, and any injury to that unity is not in some cases of the exercise of powver. Men only a breach which would result from the of the best intentions and soundest views may contravention of a compact, but it is an differ in their construction of some parts of offence against the whole Union. To say that the Constitution; but there are others on which any state may at pleasure secede from the dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt. Union, is to say that the United States are not Of this nature appears to be the assumed right ai nation: because it would be a solecism to of secession.

It rests, as we have seen, on the contend that any part of a nation might dis-alleged undivided sovereignty of the states, solve its connexion with the other parts, to and on their having formed in this sovereign their injury or ruin, without committing any capacity a compact which is called the Constioiffence. Secession, like any other revolu-tution, from which, because they made it, they tionary act, may be morally Justified by the have the right to secede. Both of these posiextremlity of oppression; but to call it a con-tions are erroneous, and some of the argastitutional right is confounding the meaning ments to prove them so have been Lmticipated. cf terms; and can only be done through The states severally have not retained their gross error, or to deceive those who are will-entire sovereignty. It has been shown that ing to assert a right, but would pause before in becoming parts of a nation, not members they made a revolution, or incur the penalties of a league, they surrendered many of their consequent on a failure. essential parts of sovereignty. The right to Because the Union was formed by compact,, make treaties-declare war-levy taxes-ex 269

Page 270 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ercise exclusive judicial and legislative pow erswere all of them funct ions of sovereirgn p owe r. Thestates, aythen, fors all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The alle g iance of the ir citizens was transferred, in the first instance, to the government of the United States - t hey became meerican 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 l ast position has not been, and cannot be denied. How then can that state be said to be sove reign and independent, whose citizens owe obedience t o l aw s n ot made by it, and whos e magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws when the y come in c onflic t w i th those passed by another? Wha t s hows conclus i vely that th e s tates canno t be said to have reserved an undivided s overei gnty, is, t hat the y ex pressl y c eded the right to punish treason -not treason against their separate power but trea st)on against th e Unit e d S tates. Tre as on is an offence a gainst ey sovereignty, and sovereignty mu s t resi de with the power to punish it. But the re served rights of the states are not l ess sacred, because they have for their common intere st ma de the general government the de pository of these powers. T he u nit y of our political character (as ha s been shown fo r another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal gov ornment we had no separate character-)ur opposition to its oppressions began as UNITED COLONIES. We were the UNITED STATES under the C
onfederation, and the name was perpetu at ed, and the Un ion 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 Illous 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 fronm 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 states 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 maijority of a convention assenm 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 o ther states, and C ongress, 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 be demanded by twothirds of the states. This suggestion, then, is another instance of the reckless inattention 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 convention to consider their complaints, why have they not made application for it in the way the Constitution points out? The ass8ertionl 270

Page 271 view page image

JACKSON, ANDREW. ‘ 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 fellowcitizens, 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 meaning 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 unconstitutionality of these laws of that description? 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 considered as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to every man of common understanding, or as imposing upon your confidence, and endeavoring to 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 know how to appreciate the exaggerated language they address to you. They are not champions of liberty, emulating the fame of our revolutionary 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 unequal 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 begun, a change in public opinion had commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent nece~ sity of a diminution of duties, had already produced a considerable reduction, and that too on some articles of general consu mption in your state. The importance of this change was understood, and you were authoritatively told that no further alleviation of your burdens was to be expected, at the very time whenl the condition of the country imperiously that they “earnestly seek” it, is completely negatived by t he omission. This, then, is the p osition in w hich we stand. A small majority of the citizens of one st ate i n t he Union have e lected delegates to a state convention: that convention has ordained that all the reve nue laws of th e Unit e d States must be repealed, or that they ar e no longer a m ember of the Un ion. The gover nor of that state has recommend ed to the legislature the raisin, 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 opposition 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 PROCLAIL 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 Congress shall devise and intrust to me for that urpose, but to warn the citizens of South Carolina, who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws, of the danger they will incur by obedience to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the convention,-to exhort 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.

Fellowcitizens 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 production 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 sulbmission to those laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offbred 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 271

Page 272 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. demanded such a modification of the duties repelled. Their object is disunion but be -s should reduce them to a just and equitable not deceived by names: disunion, by armed scale. But, as if apprehensive of the effect of force, is treason. Are you really ready to inthis change, in allaying your discontents, you cur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the were precipitated into the fearful state in instigators of the act be the dreadful consewhich you now find yourselves.

quences-on their heads be the dishonor, but I have urged you to look back to the means on yours may fall the punishment-on your that were used to hurry you on to the position unhappy state will inevitably fall all the evils you have now assumed, and forward to the of the conflict you force upon the government consequences it will produce. Something of your country. It cannot accede to the mad more is necessary. Contemplate the condi-project of disunion, of which you would be tion of that country of which you still form an the first victims-its first magistrate cannot, important part!-consider its government if he would, avoid the performance of his uniting in one bond of common interest and duty-the consequence must be fearful for general protection so many different states-you, distressing to your fellow citizens here, givning to all their inhabitants the proud title and to the friends of good government throughof American citizens-protecting their com-out the world. Its enemies have behleld our moerce-securing their literature and their prosperity with a vexation they could not conarts-facilitating their intercommunication-ceal-it was a standing refutation of their defending their frontiers-and making their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our names respected in the remotest parts of the discord with the triumph of malignant joy. earth!

Consider the extent of its territory, its It is yet in your power to disappoint them. increasing and happy population, its advance There is yet time to show that the descendants in arts, which render life agreeable, and the of the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Rutsciences which elevate the mind! See educa-ledges, and of the thousand other names which tion spreading the lights of religion, humanity, adorn the pages of your revolutionary history, rid general information, into every cottage in will not abandon that Union, to support which this wide extent of our territories and states! so many of them fought and bled and died. Behold it as the asylum where the wretched I adjure you, as you honor their memory-as and the oppressed find a refugffe and support! you love the cause of freedom, to which they Look on this picture of happiness and honor, dedicated their lives-as you prize the peace and say, We, too, are citizens of America-of your country, the lives of its best citizens, Carolina is one of these proud states; her arms and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. have defended-her best blood has cemented Snatch from the archives of your state the disthis happy Union! And then add, if you can, organizing edict of its convention-bid its without horror and remorse, This happy Union members to reassemble and promulgate the we will dissolve-this picture of peace and decided expressions of your will to remain in prosperity we will deface-this free interthe path which alone can conduct you to course we will interrupt-these fertile fields safety, prosperity, and honor-tell them that, we will deluge with blood-the protection of compared to disunion, all other evils are light, that glorious flag we renounce-the very name because that brings with it an accumulation of Americans we discard. And for what, mis-of all-declare that you will never take the taken men! for what do you throw away these field unless the star-spangled banner of your inestimable blessings-for what would you country shall float over you-that you will exchange your share in the advantages and not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored honor of the Union? For the dream of a se-and scorned while you live, as the authors of parate independencea dream interrupted by the first attack on the Constitution of your bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a country! Its destroyers you cannot be. You vile dependence on foreign power. If your may disturb its peace-you may interrupt the leaders could succeed in establishing a separa-course of its prosperity-you may cloud its tion, what would be your situation? Are you reputation for stability-but its tranquillity united at home-are you free from the appre-will be restored, its prosperity will return, hliension of civil discord, with all its fearful and the stain upon its national character will consequences? Do our neighboring republics, be transferred and remain an eternal blot every day suffering some new revolution or on the memory of those who caused the discontending with some new insurrection-do order.

they excite your envy? But the dictates of Fellowcitizens of the United States! The a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce threat of unhallowed disunion, the names of that you cannot succeed. The laws of the those (once respected) bywhom it was uttered, I;nited States must be executed. I have no the array of military force to support it, denote discretionary power on the subject-my duty the approach of a crisis in our affairs, on which is emphatically pronounced in the Coustitu-the continuance of our unexampled prosperity tion. Those who told you that you might our political existence, and perhaps that of all peaceably prevent their execution, deceived free governments, may depend. The conjuneyou-they could not have been deceived them-ture demanded a free, a full, and explicit selves. They know that a forcible opposition enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of could alone prevenit the execution of the laws, my principles of action; and as the claim was and they know that such opposition must be asserted of a right by a state to annul the 272

Page 273 view page image

I…. l.,,tes tI iiS. tUlw ofi N. C., S. V. J’arker of lnd., I’eOsdee of N. II., Penn of La.. lolk of Tenn., Porter of Mo.. ]‘rice Of N. J., Richardson of Ill., Riddle of Del. 1?o biwit wf Pa.. do bi nson of Ind., Ross of Pa., Svage of Tlenn., qc,iermierhorn of N. Y., Scurry of Tex., &.ymonur of N. Y., Seymnotr of (Co1n., Smitlh of Ala., Stanly of N. C., Staitot of T’Ienn., St(,nton of Ky., SItne of Ky., St. Aartin of La., Stroth,cr of I’a.. Stutar t of lich., Sutherland of N. Y.. Tlhop son of Ya., Walsh of MNd.. Ward of Ky., W’atkins of T’enn., lIrhite of Ky., i hite of Ala., U’iltox of Miss., l.illiams of Tenn.-103. NAYS.-nMesirs.

Atcien of S. C., Allison of Pa., Ashle of N. C.M,teerett of Ya., Babock of N. Y., ]3ailey of Ga., liarrere tf O.. Bbw)tlettof f Vt.. Boocck of Va., Bragg of Ala., Bleinton ofr d., Brbt mn of Misa., Bwuell of N.lY., (,tble of O., Camp bell of O.. Campbell of Ill., Czs,’-ie of Va., Chapman, of Conn.., Clin man of N. C., Conger of Mlich.. Daaiel of N C. lDoty Of Wis., DhURIE Of p v eis., b nstman of W is., El7ertnm of 0., Floyd., Fowl,,r Mof ass., Gaylo-d of O., Goodenow of pe., Goodrich o f Mass., Grow of Pa., Ilarper of O., ilolla l day of Va., Ilorsford of N.Y., John W. Ilowe of Pa., Thos. ML l1owe of Ila., ]! UNTER of O., ]v&~ of N. Y., Jenk,-ins of N. Y., Jo,hnson of O., John?,son of Ark., Jones of N. Y., l’rest(m King of N. Y., Mlann of Ma-ss., McQueen of S. C., MIeach,aim of V’t., Aleade of aVa., t nitlson of Va.. Molony of Ill., Ne wt n of 0., Old.s of O., Orr of S. C., Penniman of Mich., Ierkins of N. II., dloivell of Vwa., 1Rantoul of Mass., RIussell of N. Y., Sackett of N. Y.. Schoolraft of N.Y., Scudder of ass., Sart of NMe., Stanton of O., Stevens of N. Y., Stiatton of N. J., Sweetser of O.,’]‘ilompson of Ma,ss., Tuek of N. 1I., Venabl4 ,)f N. C., Walbridg e f N.Y.. W]472ace of S. C. Washburn of , Jo., W ells of N. Y, }ioodward of S.C., Yates of Il.- 74. The question recurring upon Mr.

Jackson’s resolution as amended. A division of the same was called for.

The first bhrancli, being Mr. Jackson’s ori ginal resolution, was adopted, by yeas and nays as follows: Yiosn.-e vsrs. it hillis Al41en, Wm.

Appleton, Thoa. I. B~iylly, Bocock, Blowie, Br-ag,, Brec7kenrid,7e, Broo.ks, 41bert o. B-rown, Bus y., L. Carrington, Cabell, ask. C1lw 1’, Cobb, c urrtis,. Dai iiu. Jno. a. Davis, Dauwsson, Do(kery, l~inham, F-dmnutndson, Ewing. Faulknler, Ficklin. litch, Floresice, Fre. ma77, Thos. J. D. Fuller, Gamble, Gentry, Gorman, (Crey, ilitlA Iamilton, lHammond. Hart, ]laws, IHaren,.Iendricl.s, lIen, 11iibbar-d. Hillyet, lIouston. Ilowar d. Ingersoll. JacJkson, An dree o Johnson, Jas. Johnson.

Geo. W; Jtnes, a atItz. L.addry, Letclehr, Loclhacrt, E. Cd aarsallhU, Tlumphrey Miarshall, , p Jasorti n, Maason Mcfrrle, fDonald, lcJluin, a de. Mime1 Mno. Moore, Morehe. M ray, N:lbe rs, Outlaw, Samn’l d’ olarker, Peaslee, pr’,n, Phelps, Itl/, l’riie, irichardson, r?itdle, l?obbins, Robinson. J]oss, S a rage, S rherlmerhrti, ,Surry,/ Davit L. Seymonr, Orqen S. Se?/11u0, Smith, I’reck ti l: Stacnt,ri. ati,chard II. Stantom, Abra):an P. Stevens, Ston)e, St. Af tin, Strother, Stuart, St,terla.d: G,eo. I. I’honpson, Vesalle, Wealsh. Ward, yVo,tkins, Addison e’hit., Alex. a e ulite, tVilcox, W illi dms,-1lak. I NAYS.-Messrs. Aiken, Allison,.Ashe, Averett, D. J.,at*., ………..; un people snaii De perpetuated(l. No one can doubt, that the unanimity with whlich that decision will be expressed will be suieh as to inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the prudence, the wisdom, and the courage, which it will b)ring, to their defence, will transmit them unimp,tired and invigorated to our children. May the great Ruler of nation s grant, tha t the simnal blessings with which he has favored ours may not, by the madness of party, or personal ambition, be disregarded anid lost: and may his wise providence bring those who have produce(d 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 ihosen as the only means of attaining the ,ig,h destinies to which we may reasonably  spire. 18 ackson, Joseph ., of Georgia.

Page 274 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Barrere, Bartlett, Brenton, G. TI. Brown, Buell, J. C able, Lewis D. Campbell, T/w,npson Camtpbell, Chapman.Cling’an,.

Co.ner, Dean, D,oty, DUcKrEE, Eastman,,n y b,d, n sIu, l yd, Fowler, Gaylord, Goodenow, Goodrich. Grow, IIarper. I, 7, /day. Iorsford, Thos.

MI. Iowe, Ires. Jenkins. Jno. Jc,,Ozs(nm. Daniel T. Jones, Preston King, KRhns, NMann, MJfcQue i, It Meacham, Mi7son, Miner, Molony, Newton, Orr, Peniiman. Perkins, Powell, Ranoul, Sackett, Sch)olecraft, Sc,udder, Sm(rt.

Benjamin Stanton. Stratton, Sweetser, Beiij. Thompson, Tuck, Walbridge, Wallaek, Washburn, Wells, }0)oduatrd, Yates.-64. Whigs in roman; Democrats in italics; Free Soilers in S-MALL cAPS. The second branch, being Mr.

IIillyer’s muendment, 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 Ilillver’s amendment. Messrs. Beale of Va., and Isham G. Ilarris of Tenn., stated, if they had been in the Ihouse 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 suspension of the rules to introduce. are; but I kn ow, 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 pro posed to be admitted into the Union as a slave state. IIow stood the vote o n tha t questi on? In the Htouse, northern Democrats voted - yeas 58, nays 4; all others from e oth? r, nays 37. In the Senate, northern DemocratsA12 yeas, nays n one; all other northern men yeas n one, nays 9. Therefore Florida would not have been admitted, and never co uld h ave been admitted, but for the votes of the n orthern Democrats. “Again: when Texas soug ht to be annexased, how stood the vote?

I was opposed to the acquis itio n of Texas, and therefore I make every allowance. I opposed it upon the grounds of opposition to all territorial aglrrandizement; but when the question came here, how d id the vote stand?

Northern Democrats in the Iouse-y eas 37, na ys 3; all others from the North-yeas none, nays 46. Then it tot not a single northern vote except Democratic ones. Now I a sk sou thern gentlemen if tha t is not significant? If that does n ea h hig d esn ot teach som ething? If it des not point ti something? Iere is a southern st ate askin g for admission.

We are not strong enough to admi t her, and we have to look to the North for he r admission. Who comes to our assistance! Norther n 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 fugitive slave law never cou ld have been pas sed but by northern Democ ratic votes. It only received th ree n orthern votes outside of th e Democratic party, and I belie ve they were WN’higs, and therefore it never could have been passed but for the Democratic party. ” But I come down to later times, when the KansasNebraska bill was here. Gentlemen sayiv that was not a northern and southern question. I -,ill not pretend to argue that. All that I know is what I find on the record. IIow did the vote stand? Northern Demo crats in the tlouse-veas 45, nays 38; all other representatives of the North-not one yea, nays 54. Then the KansasNebraska bill, which I regard as a southern measure, did not receive a single northern Whig vote in the tlouse of R-el)resentatives. How did it stand in the Senate? N,orthern Democrats y-eas 14, navs 4. HIow many northern Wbigs voted for it? Not one. ” Upon each and evtery one of these measures we have had to rely on the northern Democrats to carry anal 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. REASON7S OF, FOR SUPPORTING THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET. EXTRACT
from the speech of the Hon. James C. Jones, of Tennessee, delivered in the Senate, 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 s ay. I rega rd the p resent Democratic party as affording the onl and last hope of security t o the Sout h. Ge ntlemen may say,‘this is sectional.’ Be it so; I do not car e wheth er you call it sectional or not. It is a fact, and I me an to establish it from t he records. I say that, in my judgment, the Democrat ic party aff ords the best, if not blast, hope of safety and s ecur ity to the South. vuhy do I s ay so? We have had a Democratic part, and we have had a Whig party. W\e lave ha(i contest after contest. AVWhat has bee (-oie of the Whig party of the North? The northern wing of the Whig party has gone off where? They have become thoroughly abolitionize(l. 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. Thev did establish a national party; and how long did it last? It lasted until they had the first national convention, when they broke asunder-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 conservative, national, and true to the constitutional rights of the South as any party-I know they I i I 274

Page 275 view page image

JON-ES, JMES C. KE,RNETT, L M. these men with the ingratitude and iinjustiee with which you are treating some of theiii; 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 couniitrv: you have treated them with ingratitude andl injustice; and when the hour of trial and dang er 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 defend yourself. Then the end has come, and the n all bur cherished devotion to the Constitution and the Union will avail us nothing; we of the South shall be left to defend ourselves. 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.” era Democrats would have passed it over all opposition.‘It received northern Democratic votes enough to pass it without the vote of a sinage souther n Senat or; and not one northern Whig would stand by us to vote fo r it. It may be said there is nothing in that; but is it not & strange coincidence, that in each of these measures the Democrats sustained what are s,upposed to be the rights and interests of the South, an d all o thers from the North voted Sint them?- none excseept Democr ats stand in. with us, except three, on the fugitive slave bill. Am -Now, sir, when you come to the election of MIr. 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 ftr. 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 is in the preservation of our rights? Did a single one of them vote for Mr. liken? Not ,ue. Every northern vote for him was a Demo cmtie,vote, and every other northern vote was east 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 day,v.s ago? The very same thing substantially in reward 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,erred? You tell me I ought not to vote for the Democratic party. Where shall I flee for xafetv and protection for myself, for my wife, for my children, and the graves of my ances? Whom shall I -trust at the North? Here and there is a man whom you may trust; I)ut what org,anized party there may you trust, when the rights of the South are in da:,nger? 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 at man consulting the interests of the oruntrv, toceast thevotewhich I have suggested. “There is another consideration. Are we not bound by an obligation, as high, as solemn au honor itself, to stand by those who have uccored us in our hours of triall? What interest have these gentlemen of the North to ,nand hy us? If they were but consulting the leaf iudice.%, and passions, and fanaticism of their people, they would go on with the great talc, swimming, gloriously and quietly. Yet t hen the que~ston comes here, they stand byi the Constitution; they stand by its com-I Prnmi~ses; they stand by the countryr. For! that they receiv e anathemas at the N orth, and, he it saidl to our shatme, too often anathemas at tile South. To the South I would saly in] micron condemnation,‘Go on in sour work a’ mg’titude, tf you choose to peril all: treatI Kennett, L. -If., of Missouri.

DErixITIO.,- or AMERICANISM IN-MISSOURI. I AM son’ yI cannot suit the gentleman in my reply. He says the Democratic party are a unit-that they everywhere fully endorse the principles of the KansasNebraska Bill. I say they nevertheless claim and exercise the largest liberty in putting their own construe tion upon that bill; and that construction is notoriously different, not only in different sec tions of the Union, B)ut 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 ad to take it, those of us that it did not pre cisely suit-with the mercantile reservation errors excepted. But I will tell the gentleman hwhat I do believe in-namely, the principles of my party as generally understood iii mv own state, and openly published to the w,orl,l All secrecy is there discarded, and reli’i ts li tests ignored. Whatever may have b)eel tlt. tet goe. I,, I.. case in the earlv organization of our p1-Llltv e ither in M’issouri or elsewhere, its plriiiciplt;, and objects are now what I represent tlieui tt, be, patent to all the world, and I would ad,i, in my humblejudgmnent, patriotic, ant 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 275

Page 276 view page image

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. A’hom do we disgust? Not those already here, for we will take nothing from theni 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 feeling before they are made so in fact, and we claim the unquestioned right to prescribe the terms upon which they shall share our privileges. lave 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 Americans 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 citizens of foreign birth, but recently arrived, and not in all cases legally qualified, has usually controlled the result of our elections, and perpetuated 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. forth the inconveniences resulting froin file local situation of their district as a part of Vir. ginia. The memorial went on to say: “here your memorialists would acknowldtge witlh peculiar pleasure the benevolence of Virginiia in permitting them to remove the evils arising from that source, bv assuming upon themselves a state of independence.

“This they have thouglht it expedient to do on the te rms and condition s stipulated in the above recited act, and fixed on the 1st day o f June, 1792, as t he period when the said independence shall commence. ” It now remains with the President and Congress of the United States to sanction these proceedings by an act of their honorable lewis. lature, prior to the Ist day of November, 17-91, 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 vour memorialists 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 independence of this country.” O’n 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 Cong,ress. 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. IIer Senators, MIessrs. Brown and Edwards, tool their seats in the Senate without any inquiry as to what character of constitution Kentucky had formed, or anything else. lientucky. ON the 8th of December, 1790, President Washington, in his opening address to Congress, informed it, that he had received communications 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 transmitted 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 act of Virginia of the 18th of December, 1789, entitled “An act concerning the erection of the district of Kentucky into an independent state.“c T he resolutions were accompanied by a memorial of the convention of Kentucky, setting (hne original draught prepared by Thomas Jefferson.) The following resolutions passed the House of Representatives of Kentucky, Nov. 10, 1798. On f the passage of the first res olution. one dissentient; 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, two dissentients; 9th, three dissentients. 1. Resolved, That the several states composinfr the United States of Americ., are not united on the principle of unlimited submision to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Consti tution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a genera 27G

RESOLUTIO’.N-S OIF 1798 AND 1799.

Page 277 view page image

KENTUCKY. than the use be destroyed; and thus also they , guarded against all abridgment by the United States, 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 provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no laws respectin,g an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abrildg,ing the freedom of speech, or of the press,” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch that whatever violates 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 addition to the act entitled An act for the punishment 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 Constitution, 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, another 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 describedl as the subject of the said act concerning aliens-that a provision agfainst prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory; that to remove them when migrated is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.

government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reservin g, ea ch state to itself, the residuary mass eof right to thei r own selfgove rn ment; and, that whensoever the general government asuacties undelegated powders, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state accede d a s a state, and is an integral party; that this government, creaste s by this compact, was not made the exc lusive or f inal judge of the extent of the owers delegtated to i tself; since that would tave made its discr e tion, and not the ConstitUtiOl, the measure of its powters; but, that as in all other cases of c om pa ct among parti es l ha1iltg n o common judgle, each party has an equatl right to jud te for itself, as well of infractions as of the mo de and measure of redress. 2. Re solved, That the Constitution of the U nited States h aving delegated to Congress a power to punish treas on, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the Unit ed S
tates. piracies and felonies c ommitted on the high seas, and offences adainst the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever; and it b eing true,s s a g eneral principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, ” tha t the p ower s not delegated to the Unit e d States by the Constitution, nor pr ohibited by it to the states, are reserved to thie state s respectively, o r to the people,”

therefore also the same act of Con suress, p as se d on the 14th day of July, 1798, a nd entitled ” An atet in addition to the ac t entitled An act fo r the punishment of certain crimes against t he United States;” as also the act passed by theme on the 27th day of June, 1798, entitled ” An act to punish frauds committed on the Bank of the United States,” (and all o ther thei r acts which assume to create, define, or puni sh c rimes o the rha than those enumerated in the Constitution), are altoftheher void and of no fporce, and th at the power t o create, define, and pu nis h such other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains solely and exclus iv ely to the respective states, each within its own territorv. 3.

Resolved, That it is true, as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by o n e of the amendments to the Constitution, that “th e powers not delecated to therfr United State s 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 delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all law ful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and there 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 licentiouslness of speec-h and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be sepa-] ratedl from their use should be tolerated ratherI 277

Page 278 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a cified in the preceding resolutions call for im. person under the protection of the laws of mediate redress. this commonwealth on his failure to obey the 8.

Resolved, That the preceding resolutions simple order of the President to depart out of be transmitted to the Senators and Represen the United States, as is undertaken by the tatives in Congress from this commonwealth, said act, entitled, “An act concerning aliens,” who are enjoined to present the same to their is contrary to the Constitution, one amend-respective Houses, and to use their best en ~lent in which has provided, that “no person deavors to procure at the next session of Con shall be deprived of liberty without due progress a repeal of the aforesaid unconstitu (ess of law,” and, that another having pro-tional and obnoxious acts. vided, “that in all criminal prosecutions, the 9.

Resolved lastly, That the governor of accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial this commonwealth be, and is hereby autho },y an imnpartial jury, to be informed as to the rized and requested to communicate the pre nature and cause of the accusation, to be conceding resolutions to the legislatures of the fronted with the witnesses against him, to several states, to assure themi that this com have compulsory process for obtaining wit-inonwealth considers union for special na nesses in his favor, and to have assistance of tional purposes, and partiecularly for those counsel for his defence,” the same act under-specified in their late federal comnpact, to be taking to authorize the Presidlent to remove a friendly to the peace, happiness, and pros person out of the United States who is under perity of all the states that, faithful to that the protection of the law, on his own suspi-compact, according to the plain intent and cion, without jury, without publ)lic trial. with-meaning in which it was understood and out confrontation of the witnesses against acceded to by the several parties, it is sin hinm, without having witnesses in his favor, cerely anxious for its preservation; that it without defence, without counsel, is contrary does also l)elieve, that to take from the states to these provisions also of the C(onstitution, is all the powers of self-goveriinient, and trans therefore not law, but utterly void and of no fer them to a general and consolidated govern force. nient, without regard to the special delega That transferring the power ofjudging any tions and reservaLtions solemnly agreed to in person who is under the protection of the that compact, is not for the peace, happiness, laws, from the courts to the President of the or prosperity of these states; and that, there United States, as is undertaken by the same fore, this commonwealth is determined, as it act concerning aliens, is againist the article doubts not its co-states are, to submit to un of the Constitution which provides, that “the delegatedl and consequently unlimited powers judicial power of the United States shall be in no man, or body of men on earth: that if vested in the courts, the judges of which shall the acts before specified should stand, these hold their office during good behavior,” and conelisions would flow from them; that the that the said act is void for that reason also; general governlment may place any act they and it is further to be noted that this transfer think proper on the list of crimnes and punish of judiciary power is to that mag,istrate of the it themselves, whether enumerated or not general government who alrealdy possesses I enumerated by the Constitution as cognisable all the executive, and a qualified nlegative in by thein; that they may transfer its cogni all the legislative powers. sance to the President or any other person, 7. Resolved, That the construction applied who may himself be the accuser, counsel, lby the general government (as is evident by judge, an(ld jury, whose suspicions miay be the sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of evi(de(e, his order the sentence, his officer the Constitution of the Utnited States which thie exeC utioner, and his breast the sole tecord (lelegate to Congress power to lay and collect of the tranLsaction; that a very numerous and taxes, duties, imposts, excises; to pay the v lual)le description of the inhabitants of these debts, and provide for the conmmon defieance states, being by this precedent reduced as outald general welfare of the United States, and laws to the absolute dominion of one man and to make all laws which shall be necessary thie barrieriis of the Constitution thus swept and proper for carrying into execution the fiom us all, no rampart now reiiiains against powers vested bv the Constitution in the go-the passions and the power of a majority of vernnielat of the United States, or any depai tCongress, to protect from a like exportation or iiient thtereo)f, goes to the destruction of all other grievous punishment the minority of the the limits prescri)bed to their power i)y tlhe same bodly, the legislatures, judges, governors, (onristitution: That words meatit by that in-fld c)tis,,ellors of the states, nor their other strunieiit to be subt)sidiary only to the execu-peaceable inhabitants who llay venture to retion of the limited powers, ought not to be so claim the constitutional rights and liberties construed as themselves to g ie uiiliinited of the states and people, or who, for other l)owers, nor a part so to be taken as to destroy, causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the the.wh(ile residue of the iiistruiiient’ That view or marked by the suspicions of the Prethe proceedings of the general government sident, or to be thought dangerous to his or under color of those articles, will be a fit and their elections or other interests, public or necessary subject for revisal and correction at personal; that the friendless alien has been a tiiie of greater tranquillity, while those spe-selected as the safest subject of a first ex 278

Page 279 view page image

KENTUCKY. r the form of government we have chosen, and s live under one deriving its powers from its e 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 r requesting their repeal at the next session of - Congress. EDMUND BULLOCK, S. I-. R. n e e bn t iJOHN

CAMPBELL, S. P. T. Passed the I-ouse of Representatives, Nov. 10, 1798.

Attest, THos. TODD, -C. II. R. t In Senate, Nov. 13, 1798.-Unanimously dconcurr ed in. Attest, B. THURSTO.N, C. S. Approved, Nov. 19, 1798. JAs.

GARRARD, Gov. of Ky. By the Governor, HARRY TOULMIN, Sec. of State. IHouse of Represent a ti ves, Thursday, } Nov. 14, 1799. The House, acc ording to the standing ord er of the day, resolved itself into a committee of the who le Iouse, on the s tate of the common wealth, Mr. Desha in the chair; and after some time spent therein, the speaker resumed the chair, and Mr.

Desha re po rt ed 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 resoluti on th er eupon, whi ch he delivered in at the clerk’s table, where it was rea d and unianimously agreed to by the Hotse, as follows: The representatives of the go od people of this commonwealth, i n Gen era l Asse mbl y con vened, havin g mat ure ly considered the an swers of sundry states in the Union, to thei r 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 the 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 have periment bu t the citizen will s oon follow, o 1 ra ther h as already followed; for, alr eady ha s T sedition act marked him as a prey: that these and suc cessive a cts of th e sam e character, un l ess arr ested on the threshold, may tend to drive these states in to revol ution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against replublican governments, and new pretexts fox those wh o wis h it t o be believed, that man cannot be gover ne d but by a rod of iron; that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confi(lence is everywhere the p are nt 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 obli ged to t rust with power; that o ur Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the alien and sedition sects, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying 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 o,f truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of power, then, let io more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this Commonwealth does therefore call on its co-states for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning 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 anniounced as to prove their attachment to limited government, whether general or particular, and that the rights and liberties of their ostates 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 v iew this as seizing the rights of the states and consolidating them in the hands of the general government, with a power assumed to hind the states (not merely in cases made federal) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent; that this would be to surrender. 271,4

Page 280 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. denied or attempted to obviate the great truths acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth contained in those resolutions, we have now in the constitutionality of those laws, and Ile only to submit to a candid world. Faithful to thereby used as prc-e(lents for similar futuro the true principles of the Federal Union, un-violations of the federal compact-this colrn conscious of any designs to disturb the har-monwealth does now enter against them its mony of that Union, and anxious only to solemn protest. escape the fangs of despotism, the good people Extract, &c. Attest, T. TODD, C. II. R. of this commonwealth are regardless of censure In Sent, Nov., 1799Read and cl 11

~~~~ In Senate, Nov. 22, 1799 Rea,d and coni or calumniation. Least, however, the silence curred in. of this commonwealth should be construed into ttest B. TIIURSTON C. S. an acquiescence in the doctrines and princi-‘ les advanced and attempted to be maintained Louisiana y the said answers, or least those of our uEAc fellowcitizens throughout the Union who so TEiS Act of oiarcl 26, 1804 divided.ill widely difer from us ona those important uco unt ry ceded by France to the United jects, should be deluded by the expectation Statos under the name of Louisiana, into two thatwePo shall hbe deterred f t e teitories, constituting the southern portion that we shall be deterred froom what we el)n ~~~~~~~~~~-itheatiic tli cr)f the tcrritory of’ Orleans. ceive our duty, or shrink from the principles thereof the territory of Orlelns. contained in those resolutions-therefore, The tenth setion of the bill contained the Resolved, That this commonwealth considers following provision: the Federal Union, upon the terms and for the It shtil not be lawful for any person or peron.s to im purposes specified inthe late compact or bring into the said territory. fi-om any port or plase purposes specified in the late coact, as con-within te limits of the United States, or to ause or pro ducive to the liberty and happiness of the,ore to be so imnportel or brought. or knowingly to aid or several states: That it does now unequivocally I’ ll shall oaw,. been imported sthe first day of vay. one declare its attachment to the Union, an to thousan d sevet hunredannety-eit -ty port or that compact, agreeably to its obvious and place withiii the limits of th United States., or wi tav real intention, and will be among the last to b oe SO iprted from ally port or psa o te dit. t dit a..,o~~~~~~~~~~~f the Unlited, States,;.aii, very Nelono Fndls.slt seek its dissolution: That if those who adiin-being thler(of cosiotel before ainy coult within ai tei ister the general government be permitted to tory,hai c(impeteit jui dicti,. h1 feit snd pay for (3
j.1.,t,~,e,eah algad every slave so ilmnorted or hrought. the sun of transgress the limits fixed by that compact, three hundr dollars one loiety fer the use of the Unitel by a total disregard to the special delegations Stateo the use of the perso or aeron, 11 ~~~~~~~~~~ho shall sue~ for tile saniv;,id no saeorslvssal of power therein contained, an annihilation of directly or inllirectly. be i)troduei d in to si.d t(rritory ex the state governments, and the creation upon cept tby a citizen of the United States, removing into sti( their ruins of a general consolidated govern territory r tual nd at h timof sue removal bolla fide owner of such slave or sinyes and ewery ment, will be the inevitable consequence: slave im ported or b-ou,ght into the sai territ,ry. (-oitr:ry That the principle and construction contended to the proiiosf t shall theeup b titld to fir by sundry of the state legislatures, that receive hi or her the general government is the exclusive judge The bill authorizing the people of Orleans ofl the extent of the powers delegated to it, territory to form a constitution and state stop nothing short of despotism-since the governmient, reported in the Ilouse by Mr. discretion of those who administer the gov-Maconl, of North Carolina, from a coiminittee ernment, and not the Constitution, would be to whomi had been referred the nlmemorial of the measure of their powers: That the several the legislature of that territory, was brought states who formed that instrument being to a vote in the IIouse on the 15th of January, sovereign and independent, have the unques-1811. tionable right to judge of the infraction; and The opposition to the bill in the IHouse grew that a nullification by those sovereignties of out of the want of power contended for by all unauthorized acts done under color of that those who opposed the bill to admit new states instrument is the rightful remedy: That this created out of territory not originally within commonwealth does, under the most deliberate the limits of the United States. To use the reconsideration, declare that the said alien and language of Mr. Quincy, of Massachusetts, sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable who spoke against the billviolations of the said Constitution; and, how- “The creation of new states or political ever cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender sovereignties, without the original limits of its opinion to a majority of its sister states, in the United States,;s a usurpation of power matters of ordinary or doubtful policy, yet, not warranted by a soundt construction of the in momentous regulations like the present, Constitution.” which so vitally wound the best rights of the The vote on the I.Lssange of the bill in the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence Ifouse was yeas 77, nays 36. as highly criminal: That although this coin-The negative vote wa’s as follows:monwealth, as a party to the federal compact, Messrs. Bigelow of Mas., Blaidseel of N.

Ii.. Chamberlain will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does of N. Ii., Chiiiiihcrliii of vt.. Clutenden (f vi.. Daveuport of Conn., Ely of 1.as..

E~mott of N.Y., (m *ds.borllngh of Nd., at the same time, declare that it will not now, Gold of N. Y.. iLale of N. 11.. [leister of Pa., IHubbtl’.ird of Vt., or ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a consti-illuntington of Coim., Jackoan of 1I I., leukius of Pi., Key of ld.. Lewis of va., R.. It. Livingston of N. Y., Mcuride tutional manner every attempt, at what quar-of N. C., Milnor of Pa., Moseley of Coon., lieiarson of N. c.. ter soever offered, to violate that compact. Pitkin of Conn.. l’otter of 1.I., Quincy of Mass., Stanley of And, finally, in order that no pretext or N. C., Sturge’s of Conn., Swoope of Ya., Taggart of Mass., nd, f inally,iorderthtorTalmadge of Conn., Yan Dyke of Del., Van thorn of Md.. au arguments may be drawn from a supposed Rensselaer of N.Y., Wheaton of Mass., Wilson of N. H. -280

Page 281 view page image

LOUISIANA. In the Senate, January 30, 1811, on motion of Mr. Dana to amend by inserting the fol-I lowing proviso, Pr)vide,l, That this act shall not be under st),ood 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: Y,,,s.-Mes,rs. Bradley of’Vt., Champlin of R. I., Dana of (CoII… German of N.Y.. Gilman of N. II.. Goodrich of Conn., lorsey of Del., Lloyd of Mass., Pickering of Mass., Reed of Md. 10. .xY,.. cssrs.

Campbell of O., Clay of Ky., Condit of N. ,.. Frankin of AN. C., Gaillard of S. C., Gre,,gg of lPa., Lambert N… Lcib of PLa.. M.atthewson of Rt.

I., Pope of Ky., Robin.sl, of V t.. Smith of Md., Smith of N. Y., Tait of (a., Taylor f,f S. C., Turner of N. C., Whiteside of Tenn., Worthingtou of O.-18. On m;)tion of Mr. Dana, further to amend, Provi(ldel, T”lhat this act shall not be understoo3l to a(ldmit such state into the Union as aforesaid unless there shall be a constitutional amendmient empowering the Congress to admiit 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, Inays 17. r[‘he vote was the same as in the previous amendment, with the exception that Messrs. Bradley, IIorsey, and Robinson did not vote at all on this. The bill passed the Senate on the 7th of February, 181 1l, by a vote of yeas 22, nays 10. YEAS. Messr.~. Anderson of Tenn., Brent of Va., Campbell. Clay, Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Franklin, Gailliard, Gregg, Lambert. Leib, Matthewson, Pope. Robinson, Smnith of MId., Smith of N. Y., Tait, Taylor, Turner, Whiteside, W’orthington. NAYS.

ies.srs. Bayard of Del., Champlin, Dana, German, Oilman, Goodrich, Ilorsey, Lloyd, Pickering, Reed. The ieouse and Senate disagreed upon some amendments, which agreements w ere finally reconciled, arnd the bill became a law by the approval of the President on the 20th of February, 1811. AMERICA,N PARTY OF. From speech of Mr. George Eustis, of La., in Ilouse of Representatives, January 7, Isi-6: We hold, sir, in Louisiana, and we hold it as a cardinal inaxim-an(d 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 Piiiladlelphia platform; and, sir, I now repu diate it in totoe. I c are not, sir, what construc tion gentlemen, in per fect good faith, may be pleased to put upon it. I know that gentlem en have addressed th is Iouse, and told us that they meant nothing by the eighth article of the Philadelphia platform;th at is to say, that the construction which they place upon it could no t be conside red as offensive as against Al erica n Catholics, and th erefore as inoperative aid innocent as aga inst tha t cla ss of our citizens. But, Mr. Clerk, as I said be fore, I care not w hat construction they put upon it. I l ist e ned with pleasure to th e re marks of t he e loquent gentleman from the Louisville district [Mr.

IIumphrey Marshall], and I am satisfied that th at gentleman agreesa with me entirely. I am satisfied that t he 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 religiou s liberty, what he says comes from the bottom of his heart, and that he s tands with me, where every American tmut st a nd, upon the broad b asis of rei gious 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 of fensive and insulting to the Ame rican 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 American 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 meat 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 Congress 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, lays 23. The negative vote was as follows: Messrs-. B.‘eecker of’N.

Y., Champion of Conn., Chittenden of Vt, Ely of Mass., Emott of N. Y., Fitch of N. Y., Jackson :if R. I., Law of Conn., Lewis of Va., Livingston of N. Y., Mlilnor of Pa.. M,s.ly of Conn., Pearson of N. C., Pitkin of aonn., Quincy f gvro of ass., of Mass., Sammons of N. Y., eybert of Ila., Stuart of Md.. Sturges of Conn., Tallmadge -f Conn., Wheaton of Mass., White of Mass. The bill passed the Senate on the 31st of MNarch, 1812, with some amendments, which ,Yere concurred in by the House, and it be:alue a law by the approval of the President, .n the 8th of April, 1812.

Thus Louisiana was admitted as a state. I I 281

Page 282 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. against Catholicism; and I would rather that 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 honorn ble gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens], whether he would vote for a Catholic whose religious opinions lie 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 dlenounce 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 ocket, to see if the money he has belongs to lhim, as to take that position towards the American Catholic-as to dare to presume to ask I him whether lie 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 institutionis, makes me blush for my coun trymen when I see the Protestant Church soil ing its robes by draggling them in the illire of politics. Your legislatures are filled with gentlemen 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 tha:t 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 unworthy of participating in the great councils of this country? Does the gentleman find his authority, or will he find it, in the Constition of the United States? Whill the gentleman 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 inhabitants clothing. And, sir, what can it mean? I believe it means nothing. It is a mere abstraction-a mere idle concession to the prejudices (,f one class of religionists-and has no place in a national platform. And I undertake to show to this tlouse, if they will take the decl aration of the members of the National A hAmerican party upon this floor, and i f they will exa mine th e e ighth article of the Philaielphia platform, that th ey will f ind that it means nothing be cause the cardinal prineiple the great principle, according to my understanding-if the American platform, is this; that none but nativeborn Americans should be elevated to office; therefore, if none I)ut nativeborn Americans ar e to be elevated to office, all foreigners are exclud ed-fo reign Catholics are excluded, foreign Protestants ire excluded, an d foreign J ews-ar e excluded. And they are no t excluded on acount of their religioni, but on account of their birth; therefore, if foreign Catholics are excluded ont account of their birth, and not o n account of their religion, the only Catholic s w ho re ma in to be dealt with, and the only Catholics who (-an come up and be considered as candidates by the Amu erican party, a re the American Catholics. T hey ar e the on l y Catholics who can be considered as can did ate s by the America n party h, because all foreigners are excluded; tand, a s I s a id before, foreign Catholics are excl uded by coming within that designation.

Mr. VALK. I suggest to the gentleman from L ou isiana, with great courtesy and kindness to him, that, at this particular stage of the proceedings in the call of the roll, he s hould be kind enough to suspend his remarks for the present. [Laughter, and cries of “Go on!”] Air. EUSTIS. I would accept of the gentleman’s suggestion) but I beg to inform him that I ha ve but li ttle more to say. The gentlemen whom I am addressing nowu ar e not the Democratic party of this Hlouse. The gentlemen whom I am now addressing belong to the National 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, however, 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 article of the Philadelphia platform, according to 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, gentlemen, 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 ally thoughts to the prospects of this Ameriean party, that that article has driven thousands from our ranks who coincided with us in other respects. The American people are ,generous, and you have excited that generosity. They mrill not agree with you in this crusade 282

Page 283 view page image

LOUISIANA.-MADISON LETTERS. were guarantied to them? Will the gentleman 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 r tell the gentleman where he will find it. H e 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 tlemian will find it in that spirit by which Pro testants were driven from New England by their fellow Protestants in our colonial days. Ife will find it in that spirit which made the Episcopa liansof VirginiadriveawaytheirPuritanbreth 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 Louisiana has a right to be heard; for, if I am not mistaken, the legislature of Louisiana was the first legislature which passed re,outions 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. I closed my first number by stating what I conceived to be the vital principle of th e Ame rican arty-the principle which, like the main spring of a watch, imparts activity to its whole machinery. Let u s now consider what are the mea s ures and policy which these Americans propose to adopt, to give practical efficiency to this great principle.-The re is, doubtless, among the members of that partv, as among the membehs of all other parties, much difference of opinion in regard to matter s of detail; and mutual forbearance and c oncession must and will be practised in givin g s hape t o their measures. No one can, therefore, tell with certainty what form the ay ay ultimat e ly as sume. For the present, I w ill refer to the ac tion of the National Council as the most a uthe ntic exposition o fois the opinion s of th e 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 American independence.

3d. Americans must rule America, and to this end, nativeborn 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 entitled to all the rights of nativeborn citizens; but, 5th. No person should be selected for political station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognises any allegiance or obligation, 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 maintenance 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 solely to the individual states, and nonintervention by each state with the affairs of any other state. 7th.

The recognition of the right of the nativeborn 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 mDErECrE 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 lion. A. It. 1I. 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 deeprooted attachment to our own country-its Constitution, its Union, and its laws-to AmeriCaD men, and American measures, and Ameri I 283 can interestsr, in other words, a fervent patriotisin-which, rejecting the transeendeiital 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 IIUDgarv, or Cub,,t-would guard with vestal vi’i’aiice 9 American institutions and American interests against the baneful effects of foreign influence. No. 2. Madison Utters.

Page 284 view page image

TtIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, I have heard this difficulty suggested as being withl the privilege of admission into the Union, fatatl to the objects of the American party.

whenever they have the requisite population But the objection is wholly without fi)undlaf,r one representative in Congress. Provided tion. The Constitution of the United States always, that none but those who are citizens provides in terms “that Congress shall have of the United States, under the Constitution power to establish an unifi)rm rule of natuand laws thereof, and who have a fixed resi-ralization.” Article I. Section VII.

clause 4. dence in any such territory, ought to partici-This provision has repeatedly been the sul,pate in the formation of the Constitution, or ject of judicial consideration and interpretain the enactment of laws for said territory or tion, and although the opinion was at one state. time expressed by the Circuit Court of the 8th. An enforcement of the principle that United States for the District of 1’ennsylvano state or territory ought to admit others nia, that the power was concurrent in tl(he than citizens of the United States to the right staite and federal governmencts, that opinionl of suffrage, or of holding political office.

has lon(r been overruled, and it is now hel(l 9th. A change in the laws of naturaliza-by Judge Iredell, in U. S. i,. Fellat(), 2 l)‘Ltion, making a continued residence of twenty-las, 3701: Ju(lge Washington in G-,)rdl()i i. one years, of all not hereinbefore provided fl)r, PIrince, 3 Wash. C.

C.‘I. 313; by Ju(ig(‘ an indispensable requisite for citizenship here-Marshall, in Chirac v. Chirae, 2 Wheaton, after, and excluding all paupers, and persons 269: by Judge Story, in Ihouston v. Moore, convicted of crime, from landing upon our 5 Wheaton, 40; by Chancellor Kent, 1

Coniiii. shores; but no interference with the vested 42 3; and by Judge Taney, in Norris v. Bosrights of foreigners. ton and Smith v. Turner Iloward, that the 10th. Opposition to any union between exclusive power is in Congress. The remarks Church and State; no interference with reli-of C. J. Taney are so clear, not only in regari(l gious faith, or worship, and no test oaths for to the power, but also as to the policy of exoffice.

ercising it, that I readily adopt his argument, 11th. Free and thorough investigation into as far more satisfactory than any I could offer. any and all alleged abuses of public function-lie says:aries, and a strict economy in public expendi- “It cannot be necessary to say anything tures.

upon the article of the Constitution which 12th. The maintenance and enforcement of gives to Congress the power to establish an all laws constitutionally enacted, until said uniform rule of naturalization. The motive laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared and object of this provision are too plain to iiull and void by competent judicial autho-be misunderstood. Under the Constitution rity. of the United States, citizens of each state are These propositions may be classed, for entitled to the privileges and immunities of greater perspicuity, under three heads.

citizens in the several states, and no state I. Those that relate to reforms in the natu-would be willing that another should deterralization laws which require legislation. mine for it, what foreigner should become one II. Those that relate to the appointment of its citizens, and be entitled to hold lands and election of officers, which are purely mi-and vote at its elections. For without this nisterial. provision, any one state could have given the III. Those that refer to the general policy right of citizenship in every other state; an,l of the party in the management of the governas every citizen of a state is also a citizen of ment, which appeal both to the legislative the United States, a single state, without this and executive departments. provision, might have given to any number I intend to discuss these subjects in the of foreigners it pleased, the right to all the order in which they are stated. privileges of citizenshi) in commerce, trade, It is proposed to modify the naturalization and navigation, although they did not even laws in four particulars:- reside among us. 1. To make them prescribe uniform rules “The nature of our institutions under the of naturalization throughout all the states and federal government, made it a matter of absoterritories.

lute necessity that this power should be con 2. To exclude convicts and paupers from fided to the government of the Union, where the country. all the states were represented, and where all 3. To extend the period of residence of the had a voice; a necessity so obvious, that no applicant for naturalization, so that he may statesman could have overlooked it. The arhave time to understand our language and tide has nothing to do with the admission or become acquainted with our laws and institu-rejection of aliens, nor with imamigration, but tions, before he is intrusted with the right to with the rights of citizenship. Its sole object participate in their administration. was to prevent one state from forcing upon all 4. To guard against fraudulent abuses of the others, and upon the general government, the right of naturalization. persons as citizens, whom they were unwil I am aware that there is a very prevailing ling to admit as such.” idea that Congress has no constitutional power Another subject of kindred character, if not to provide by law, that the rules of naturali-indeed falling under the same head, will also) zation shall be the same in all the states; and doubtless engage the attention of the party, 281

Page 285 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. 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 brougiht to the attention of Congress by Mr. I)avis of Massicl-iusetts, who made a long and able speech to the Senate, on presenting certain resoiutioiins of the legislature of Massachusetts oni the sutject. In 1838, Mr. Van Buren, in reply to a call of the IIouse, sent a message to Congress, “ccompanlied by many documents. A bill was reported to correct the evil, but amidst the press of business it was overslaughlied.-See Congressional Globe 183,7-‘38, page 489, and 1838-‘39, page 168. In 1845, Mr. Berrien made an elaborate report on the subject, accompanied by a great mass of testimony establishing in the miost conclusive nianner the certainty andi mag,nitude of the evil.-See Sen. Doc. 173, 28th Cong. No final action, however, was taken. In 1847, Mr. Buchanan, as Secretary of State, adopted measures to obtain information oni the subject, and a report was made by Mr. A. D. Mainn, on the 13th September, 1847. On 1st January, 1855, Mayor Wood, of New York, aIddressed a strong letter to President Pierce, invoking his aid. lie says: “It has long been the practice of many governinents on the continent of Europe to get rid of paupers and convicts by sending them to this country, and most generally to th i s port, (N. Y.) Tthe i ncreas e of cr ime here can be traced to this cause, rather than to defect in criminal laws or their administration. An examination of the criminal and pauper records, shows conclusively that i it is b ut a smaill proportion of thes e unfortunates who are na, tires of this country. One of the very heaviest burdens that we bear, is the support of these people, even when considering the direct cost, but when estimnatin, the evil influence on society, and the contaminating effect upon all who come within the range of their depraved minds, it becomes a matter exceedingly serious and demanding immediate and complete eradication.”* Mayor Wood being & Democrat and in no way attached to the American party, I presume he will be regarded as good authority, and I will here rest this branch of the sub.ject, and I hope I may console myself with the reflection, that as far as we have 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 t he want of unitoimitv in the state constitutions ill reg ard to the rig ht of s uffrage by foreig ners.

By tale constitution of Virginia, none but citizens of the United States can vote, and as no on e c an legally become a citizen of th e United States unless he h as been a resid ent of t he cou n try for five years, it folI)ws that no one can be a voter in Virginia, who has not been a resident of the United Sitates for five years. But by the constitution anf I llinois, it is provided (Art. 2, s. 27), ” th at in all elections, all whit me male inhabitants a4)ove the age of 21 years, having resided in the state six months next p receding the electi on, shall enjoy the right of an elector.” Now as the v o t e of every man cast in Illiioois for members of the legislature which elects U. S. Senators, for members of Con -
gress, and for P re side ntial electors, has a direct bearing on the interests of Virginia, it is -hell aworthy of i nqui ry whe ther Virgin ia is, under th e Cons titu tion, t o b e governed by the votes of aliens. It is a new a nd at grav e question. Ther e is certainly a difference in formo between the question of elective franchise and the question of naturalization. But is not this system of al lowing alien s to vote before they are naturalized an abuse, if not an evasiot of the Constit ution? A sensible writer on the subject has well remark ed, ” if individual s tates can admit to the elective franchise those who ae anot citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, no t only the f ederal ower 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 reqtlisition to correct it? 2. It is proposed to exclude by state and federal authority, con icts and paupers from la,ndin, on our shores, to corrupt the morals of citizens, to plunder our property, to fill our penitentiaries and almshouses, and to burden our people with taxation for their support. This is no new policy, and it will at once coimmiend itself to the favorable regard of all reflecting men. It is an evil which attracted the attention of the founders of the republic lit an early day, and has from time to time b~een presscj upon the attention of the governiiient, ))tit thus far no adequate measures of preventitn have been adopted. Oia the 16th of September, 1788, the Continental Congress, then about to close its labors, adloptedl the fo)llowing resolution: “

Resolvedl, that it be, and it hereby is recommended to the several states to pass proper laws to prevent the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the U. S.“Journal, page 867. On the 13th November, 1788. Virginia did * In confirmation of Major Woo(l’s statement, I refer to the following filets. derivel from the census tah -s of 1850: The whole numnb,er of criminals in the United Staitus luring the preedin,Iz year was 26.(j79-of these 12,988 were natives andl 13.691 were foreigners. Tthe following is a table showing the ratio in four of the Northern states Mllass.aehlusetts. New Jersey. Native cr-imin,als - -

3.366 Native criminals - - - 34f Forign do. - - 3,884 oein to. - - - - 257

New Yor k. Pennsylvania. Native criminals - - 3.9(2 Native criminl.s - - -

564 Foreign do. - - - - 6,317 Foreign do. - - - - 293 In the free states there -el, 10,822 native criminals and 12.988 foreig,n. Ty, the slave states there were 2,166 native criminals and 1,902 f,reign. 285

Page 286 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. high importance to the respectability and character of the American name; the x me ration he had for, and the attachment he hali to this country, made him extremely anxi,LiuS to preserve its good fame fnom injury. lti, hoped to see the title of a citizen of Amrneri(. as highly venerated and respected as a citizeii of old Rome. I am clearly of opinion t]l: rather than have the common class of v a.., paupers, and outcasts of Europe, that we h:s{ better be as we are, aind trust to the natural’ increase of our population for inhabitants. 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 tiue be able to bring testimonials of a proper and (I(. cent behavior. No man, who wi()uld ble a credit to the community, would think su(-li terms difficult or indelicate; if ba.d men should be dissatisfied on this account, and shouldl (le cliine to imimigrate, the regulation will have t beneficial effect, for we had better keep su(li out of the country than admit them into it.” Theodore Sedgwick of Mass. in the sene debate said:  “Ile was against the indiscriminate almit sion of foreigners to the highest rights of hu man nature, upon terms so incompetent to secure the society from being overrun by tl;e offecasts of Europe; besides, the politcy (f settling the vacant territory by iimmigrati,ti is of a doubtful nature. ~ * The citizens of America preferred this counr try, because it is to be preferred; the like principle he wished might be held by every man who came from Europe to resi,tle here: but there were at least some grounds to fe, ir the contrary; their sensation,, inipre,nateil with prejudices of education, acq.ired under monarchical and aristocratical governments, may deprive them of that wish for Ipure re publicanism, which is necessary, in order to taste its beneficence with that magnitu(de which we feel on the occasion. Some kil,il of probation, as it is termed, is absolutely necessary to enable them to feel and be seileble of the blessing-without that probati(on. we should be sorry to see them (cxeicisce i “A foreigner, who comes here, is not desirous of interfering imnediately with (oul’

politics, nor is it proper that he shoul(l. IIis immigration is governed by a different principle: he is desirous of obtaining and holding property. I should have no objection to his doing this from the first inomelt he sets his foot on the shore in America; but it appears No. 3.

The boon of citizenship is one of the hig,h est privileges which any country can bestowo (on the subjects or citizens of another. It carries with it rights and duties of the gravest I.haracter. It imposes on the person natural ized the obligation of obedience to th e laws, and i t confers on him the right to protection, in his person and property, by the whole power of th e governmnent. It is a privilesge which, in most countries, both ancient and modern, was and is conferred with great cau tion. Amongfl the Romans it was a mark of great distinction, prized as of th e highest value; and the simple announcement by a n 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 allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and state, in all matters 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 beyond the American party she requiring a renunciation of ecclesiastical and civil allegiance, whilst the Americans demand only a renunciation of civil or temporal allegiance. By act of 17 9, Maryland required the applicant for naturalization to subscribe a deelaration 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 anv 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 optxaitioIi in either House of Congress, but a number of members availed themselves of the o-p)ortuLnity to express sentiments which are almost identical with those of the American party of the present day. James Jackson of Ga. said:  ” IIe conceiv ed the present subject to be of 286
pro,,ressed in the examination of the propositioiis of the Ai-yierican party, notbin, has yet 11 licen discovered in conflict with ” the cause of civil and religious freedom.”

Page 287 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. influence had been brought to bear with fearful power on the minds of the people, and nothing but the firmness of Washington and the veneration which was felt for his character, could have stayed the angry storm. This seems to have opened the eyes of Congress. In 1795, a much more stringent naturalization law was passed, which required the applicant 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 citizen or subject.

2d. lie was required, when admitted, to take an oath “that he has resided within the United States five years at least,” and one year within the state or territory 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 renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, 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: ” Ie 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 glorious 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 his to me that we ought to be cautious how we admit fo reign er s to the o ther privileges of citizenship, and that for a reason not yet mentioned; perhaps it m ay allud e to the n ext gener ation more th an to this; t he pre sent inhabitants were most of them here when we overe en eagied in a long and hazardous war. They have b een active in rearing up the present government, and feel, perhaps, a laudable vanity in having effected what its mo st sanguine friends hardly dared to contemplate. There is no danger of these people losing what th ey s o g reatly esteem; but the admission of foreigners to all places of government may tincture the system with the dregs of their former habits, and corrupt what we believe the most pure of human institutions.” H er e we have th e principl e 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 unexploi ed, and when along our whole western 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 fore.gners 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 surprise, 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 proceedings, in violation of our obligations of neutralitv, and intended to involve us in a war with Engfland. By his artifices he raised up a strong French party in the country, and when Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson interfered to arrest his unlawful proceedings, he boldly denounced them both, and threatcned to “appeal fronm the President to the people.” Much exceitement ensued, for foreign I 297

Page 288 view page image

TIIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. people seemed to lose sight of their own affairs in their anxiety about the questions which atgitated Europe to its centre.

There were two great parties in the public councils, and amiongst the people; one of which was partial to England, and the other to France.

Foreigners flocked to our shores and openly attemipted to control the politics of the country. Under circumstances like these, the law of 1795’

was found to be inefficient, and it was ,le eemed necessary to frame one better adapted v thie exigencies of the times,-externding the term of residence before naturalization to fourteen years, and requiring the applicant at the time of making his declaration to enter onI the record a description of his person, age, occupation, nativity, &c., so as to establish his identity, and to prevent imposition by a frauodulent use of his papers. This certificate was to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State. Th is bill was fully discussed by many distingtished 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 American party, that I cannot forbear firom giving a paragraph or two from it. I allude to the speech of Robert Goodloe llar)cr. Ile said: “Ile believed that it wa.s 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 apprehensive these evils would greatly increase lie 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. IIe thought this was a proper season for maki n g a declaration. Ile believed the United States had experience enough to cure them of the folly of believing that the strength and happiness olf the country would be promoted by admittin g to the rights of citizens ip all the congi regat ions of people who resort to the se shores fiom every part of the world. Under the s e i mpre ssions, which, as he supposed they would hav e the same foroo upon others as upo n himgself, he should not de tain the committee by dilating upon, -he proposed to a men d th e resolution by adding to it the following words, viz.:‘that provision 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. larper said he was for giving foreigners esveriy fatality of acquiring, property, of holding proper ty, of raising; their tamilies, and of tran~ fbrring thleir property to their thmlilies. lie swns willing they should~ form citizens for us; but as to the rights of’ citizenlship, he was not w illing they should be enjoyed, csept by persons born in this country. lie did not thlink es-en this was desirable by the persons them.

selves. Whxy, he asked, did foreigners seek countrymen more wise and virtuous than any other people on earth; hence he believe d t hem better qualifi ed to administer and support a republican government. Thi s ch aracte r of’ Americans was the result of early education, aided indeed by th e disci p line of the revolution.” *X X “Much information [he said] might be obtained by the expe ri en ce of otheers, if, in despite of it, we we re not determined to be guided only by a vision ary theory. The andcient repub lics of Greeced me and Rome [said he], see with what jealousy the y gu ar ded t he rights of citizenship against adul teration by oreipgn mixture. The S wiss nation [ he said, in ino dern times, had not been less jealous on the same s ubject. I ndeed, no exaimple cou ld be found, in the history of ma n, to auth orize the experiment which had be en made by the United States. It seemed to have been adopted bly universal practice as a maxivi, that the republican cha racter was in no tbeay to be formed but by early education. In some instances, to form this character, those propensities which are generally considered as almost irresistible, were appeased and subdued. And shall we [he asked] alone adopt the rash theory, that the subjects of all governmbents, despotic, monarchical, and aristScrati( al, are, as soon as they set foot on American ground, qualified to participate in administering the s.overeignty of our country?

Shall we hold the benefits of American citizenship so cheap M to invite, nay, to almost bribe, the discontented, the ambitious, and the avaricious of every country, to accept them?” Mr. Wm. Vals Murray of Maryland, declared: ” Ile was quite indifferent if not fifty emigrants came into this country in a year’s time. It would be unjust to hinder them, but impolitic to encourage them. tie was afraid that conting from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption, they might contaminate the purity and simplicity of the Aimerican character.” Mr. Ezekiel Gilbert of New York said: “The terms of residence, before admIiitting, taliens, ought to be very much longer than that mentioned in the I-ill.” MIr. Theodore Sedgwick of MIassachulsetts said: “lie aFreedl to the idea of Mr. Gilbert.

Ile wished that a method could be found of perreiitting aliens to possess and transmit property, with,)ut at the same time giving them a right to vote.” No. 4. Aly last number was devoted to the consideratiori of the naturalization laws of 1790 and 179t5, and the opinions expressed by distinguished statesmen wh-,ilst those bills were under consideration. I come now to the lawv, of 1798. B1etw,en 1793 and 1798 our country had been the scene of great excitement. The 288

Page 289 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. 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 political antagonist, John Adams, so as to reduce the term of residence to five 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 the.r 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. Blut 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 Sappy, 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 Ilouses 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 i 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 ignorance of our laws, and natural partiality to the countries of their birth, are not reasonab1o residence i n this countr y? He supposed it was eith er t o b etter their condition or to live tinder a government beer ten en ter and mor re free than the one they had left. But was it necessary these p ers ons should at o nce become entitled to take a pa rt in t he concerns of the government?

He believed it was by no means necessarsy, e ither to their happines s or prosp erity, ren(? he was sure i t would not tend to the hap)in es s of this country. If the native citizens are not indeed adequate to the performance of the duties of government, it might be expedient to invite legislators or voters from other countries to do that business for which they themselves are not qualified. But if the peoI)le of the country, who owe their birth to it, are adequate to all the duties of the government, he could not see for what reason strangers should be admitted; strangers, who, however acceptable they may. be in other respects, eould not have the same views and attachments with native citizens. Under this view of the subject, heo was convinced it was an essential poiiev, which lav at the bottom of civil society, that Ino foreigner should be permitted to take a part in the government. There might have been, NIr. H. acknowledged, individual exceptions, and there might be again, to this rule, but it was necessary to make regulations general. and he believed the danger arising from admniitting foreigners, generally, to citizenship, would be greater than the inconveniences arising from debarring from citizenship the most deserving foreigners. He believed it would have been well for this country, if the principle contained in this amendment had 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 practical evil was not of one-tenth the magnitude it has now attained. Yet who questions his patriotism? Who dreamed that he was arrayed against the ” cause of civil and religious r’eedom?” In the same debate Wm. Craik, of Maryland, raid: “He was disposed to go much further than .s proposed in the bill, in restricting aliens rom becoming citizens of this country. He s-hould have no objection to say that no fo-eigner coming in this country after this time .hall ever become a citizen.” James A. Bayard, of Delaware, said: ” Aliens cannot be considered as members )f the society of the United States. Our laws re passed on the ground of our policy, and .-. lhatever is granted to aliens is a mere matter ,f favtor, and if it is taken away they have no igrht to complain.” Upon the general principle of discouraging cessive immigration, I will, on this branch ,f the question, quote but one other authority, nd that is from the writings of Thomas Jeforson. Candor compels, me to admit that, when Mr. offerson became a candidate for the Presi 19 289

Page 290 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. !causes for declaring this to be one of the rights quiring record instead of parol proof of actual incommunicable in future to adopted citizens.” residence for the time prescribed by law.

Jefferson’s Writings, v. 9, p. 453. No man at all familiar with the proceedings Ihow does this sound in the ears of Demo-of courts of justice, can have failed to be im cracy? pressed with the facility with which such What would Mr. J. have thought if he proof is now obtained, and to be shocked with could have seen the day arrive when, instead the perjury in such cases which is hardly dis of an aggregate of half a million of foreignii guised. Gangs of men come to the witnesspopulation, there would be an annual in-box and swear for each other, with as much flux of that number, of the worst classes of readiness as they would go through any other Europe? mere matter of form. Then, indeed, would he have uttered, withl I But we are not left to conjecture in regard increased earnestness, the sentiment which we to the existence of fiaud of this character. find in one of his letters:- We all remember the celebrated case of the “I hope we may find some means in future Plaquemine frauds, when 1044 votes were cast of shielding ourselves from foreign influence-in a district which contained but 400 voters. political, commercial, or in whatever form at-We also remember the other frauds of 1844, tempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from which became the subject of investigation joining in the wish of Silas Dean, that there before the Senate of Louisiana on an imwere an ocean of fire between this and the old peachnient of Benj. C. Elliott, judge of the world!” City Court of the city of Lafayette. Upon the How it must horrify the Anti-Americans trial it was discovered that the judge had of the present day to find that the first and fraudulently issued 1748 false certificates of most eloquent teachers of the doctrines of the naturalization, and, being duly convicted, he American party were the sages of the Relo-was removed from office. lution and the framers of our Constitution! Similar frauds have been practised to a The naturalization laws were changed in very great extent in Baltimore, Philadelphia, many particulars by the acts of 1802, 1813, and New York. and 1816. The last-named act guarded with In 1844 the subject was brought to the atpeculiar care against abuses, by introducing tention of Congress, and on the 27th January, new provisions, which made the identification 1845, Mr. Berrien, from the committee on the of the applicant more certain, and required Judiciary, made an elaborate report accomthe proof to be matter of record. This was a panied by voluminous testimony taken at difmost valuable feature in the law. It required eirent points, to establish the frauds. This that the applicant should, when he made his report will be found in Sei). Doc. 173, 2d sesdeclaration, file a description of himself so sioni of 28th Congress. Five thousand extra minute as to clearly establish his identity, copies of the report were ordered to be printed, and when he obtained his certificate of natuand it is a singular circumstance that the ralization this description was incorporated printing of the extra copies of the report was into it and constituted part of it. The law ordered by a strictly party vote-every Demoalso provided that the date of the recorded crat in the Senate voting against it! declaration should be the evidence of the The commissioners who were appointed to commencement of residence of five years. take the testimony reported that they had The effect of this was to exclude parol evi-summoned indiscriminately witnesses of both deuce on this point, and thereby to prevent political parties, but they add, “they regret fraud and perjury. that those thus subpoenaed belonging to the In May, 1828, this law was altered so as to Demnocratic party have generally omitted or strike out the provisions requirilng the appli-rcfi’isel to attend!”

cation to be entered of record five years lct’i)re his, to say the least of it, is a significant naturalization. The object was to disl)ense fLct.

with record evidence, and to substitute the AWithi developmients like these before us, and parol testimony of witnesses to prove riesi-wlihei there is reasoni to believe that the eledeuce. This change in the law was made a tions in 1844, both in Louisiana and New few months before an exciting Presidlential Yoilk, were carried by fraudulent votes, and election. One of those who urged the change that the issue of the Presidential election was was Mr. Buchanan, who had, on a private oc-theieby changed, is it to be wondered at, that casion, admonished his countrymen against the citizens o(f tle United States should be the dangers of foreign influence. That clihange arnro,;3ed to a senso of the danger and degrawas doubtless made to conciliate the foreign dation to which tlhey are subjected, by leaving vote, and in all probability had that effect. thie “whole policy of the country regulated As might have been anticipated, it threw open and controlled l)y the fraudulent conduct of a wide door for fraud, and it has brought upon aliens?” the country a train of evils the magnitude of What good man, whether he be a native or which it would be difficult to conceive. adopted citizen, will withhold his aid in cor The American party now propose to guard recting abuses like these? It is quite as imagainst these frauds, not only by an extension portant to the conservative, law-loving natuof the time of residence, but by restoring the ralized citizens, as to the natives of the country, provision of the acts of 1798 and 1816, re-and I am persuaded that it is only necessary 290

Page 291 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. 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 own sense of right and duty, without dictation 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 matter 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/J tion-that men who think alike should vote toether? Do not Whigs and Dem6crats consut together in their respective primary meetings, caucuses, and conventions, and agree to vote together, so as to accomplish their common 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 aainst 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 commor,warfare on our liberty and independence nd may not Americans of the present daI lawfully and rightfully unite their votes against foreigners, as well as against the Demnocrats, who use them to oppress us and deprive us of our constitutional rights? Oh! but this is proscription! Proscription!-It would cause a smile-if it did not provoke a graver feeling-to hear such a word froni Democratic lips! Verily, our adversaries should take the beam out of their own eye before they seek to remove the mote from their brother’s eve! They talk of proscription! Was it no proscription in them to banish every Whig from the public srvice, and to put Democrats in their places Was it no;- proscription to deny to 73,000toters, representing near half a million of Virginians,a s ingle member of Con’ressin violation of the Constitution, and o the official oaths of the legislators who gerrymandered the districts? 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 der noiced fierce and unrelenting warfare on the American party? Have they not proclaimed that not even a county officer of the American party is to be spared? All, without regard to qualification or public servi(e, 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 guardians of popular rights-have the hardilhood to cry out “proscription”

against Americans, because they love and trust their own country to brin te’fc to the ir knowle dge, to secure their codial cooperation in the patriotic effort neaw on foot, to guard against similar mischiefs in future. Iy nest number will be devoted to the consideration of the propriety of giving a preference to native citizens, in the exercise of the power of appointment and-election to public offices. . No. 5. .

IIaving 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 slections and appointments to office. gTheir eneral proposition is, to give a pre-! f erence to native citizens over foreigners, for e places of public trust. They do not a ro U.ose an absolut e and entire exclusion of all t[ureigners, 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 bv a reference to the 5th article, which, in terms, recomnise,tthe selection of officers of ” foreign birth.’/ The announcer[nt of this preference of Americans for their own countrymen has been met by the most bitter denunciations by the courters of the foreign vote. It-ha-s 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 #le,ree 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? ‘7.2. Is there anything in it contrar to the letter or spirit of the C’onstitution?

3. What was the opinion of the fathers of the republic on the subject? /t 1. ls it wrong in principle?f,tIere let it be remembered that it is not propiosed to legislate f,n this subject. No one has yet suggested the flea of enacting a law to exclude foreigners /tromn office. All that is contemplated is, to atwaken and to organize the American senti *nent 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 :an(n the power of appointment, to give a pre ference to Americans for public stations. What w,ill be the effect in practice? Every In.,n will be left free to exercise his constitu tional ri(ght 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 ny discretion, I do not choose to vote for a foreigner, has any one a right to complain? iI 291 I

Page 292 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. men more than they love and trust the men to the subject of naturalization. I presuino of other countries! / no member of the D)emocratic party desires a What is patriotismIbut the love of our own i total repeal of the restrictions imlpsed by the countrvy? Not merely the love of its broad naturalization laws. No one asks that foreign- .plains, its beautiful rivers, its lofty moun-ers, immediately on their arrival in this coun tains and green hills and fertile valleys, but trv, may be admitted to all the rights of citi the love of our countrymen-of the gallant zenship without sonme probation. I have yet men and lovely wqomen, who constitute the to meet the man, of any party, who contends chief element of the country which we are for that proposition. There are few, if any, taught in infancy it is our highest duty to who think that the present probation of five love, and serve, and, if necessary, to die for!

years is too long. And shall we forget all these lessons of our Bearing this in mind, let us pursue the sub childhood, shall we obliterate from our minds ject further. all the early lessons of patriotism, and at the The argument against the American party bidding of demagogues-who are courting proceeds on the assumption that they propose foreign votes, to aid in the advancement of to do injustice to foreigners. Now if injustice their selfish purposes-adopt the notion that is to. be done, it must be by infringing some atriotism is a crime, and that it is a duty to right that foreigners possess. This leads us love foreigners as well, or better, than the to inquire if they have any right whatever to sons of those who achieved our independence, become naturalized, unless we choose to con and established our liberties? Long may it fer it on them by law? No jurist will con be before such sentiments find a response in tend that they have.

But if they have such the hearts of Virginians I -. a right, would not that right be as effectually But letus now proceed to inquire whether invaded by a restriction of five years as bv the American party are seeking to inaugurate one of fifteen or twentyone years? The dip a new principle, unknown to our fundamen-ference would only be one of degree.

The tal laws and at war with their spirit? imposition of an illegal tax of five cents on nmy The principle of preference of natives is em property is as much a violation of my rights, bodied in our constitutions, both federal and as one of five dollars would be. And so a re state; and in the latter by the aid of the vote striction on my natural rights for five years, of Ir. Wise himself. is as palpably unjust as one of twentyone No foreigner can, by the organic laws of -vears. The one may be more burdensome the United States, and of our commonwealth, than the other, but it is no more a violation be President or Vice President of the United of abstract right. If then the Democracy con States, or Governor or Lieutenant Governor of tend that the rights of foreigners are to be Virginia! iolated by the proposed policy of the Ameri This great American principle is to be found can party, they are inevitably driven, by their in both these instruments. own argument, to contend for a repeal of all Now if the principle be wrong, it should be restrictions. But they will assume no such po stricken out of both. If injustice has been sition, for they know that naturalization is a done to our adopted citizens-if the “cause of mere matter of favor, which any government civil and religious freedom” has been invaded may rightfully grant or withhold at its plea by those prohibitions, then they ought to be sure, and may repeal or modify as circum expunged from our fundamental laws I stances may render expedient. But who will venture to make the proposi-Thus it is clear that upon this point, too, tion? Not Governor Wise, certainly, for he Mir. Wise and his party do not differ in prin helped, by his vote, to en,graft them on the ciple from the American party. They will constitution of Virginia!

admit the right to impose restrictions on for it is apparent therefore that the principle eigners, and the expediency of doing so. They is not wrong, and the complaint must be not are content with a residence of five years as a against the principle, but against the extent prerequisite to citizenship; we think that too bto which it is proposed to carry it in practice. short a time, and contend some for ten, some Every friend of the Constitution as it stands, for fifteen, and some for twentyone years. [
lust concede that it is proper to prefer natives Thus the whole question revolves itself into I for the highest executive offices. The only dis-one of time, and not of principle. The ques-pute is whether this preference shall be ex-tion is not as to the propriety of a probation, tended to inferior officers. Or in other words but as to the length of that probation! the question sinks from one of principle into It is consoling to the American party thus, one of expediency. And it therefore necessa-by a logical analysis of the matters really in trily follows, that even Mr. Wise and his party issue between them and the Democracy, to find are Americans in principle-and the only the latter sanctioning our principles, and giv differeuce betveen them and the American ing as the weight of their great names, on our party is one not of principle, but of degree. side of the question! We are happy to find ‘They are not quite so intensely American as them recognising the cardinal doctrines of the we are-that is all. They stop at the half-| American party, and we confidently antici way house while we go to the end of our pate, that after the next Presidential election journey l shall have revealed the fact, that their foreign The same remark applies with equal force allies, whom they have b,~ assiduously courted, 292

Page 293 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. have deserted them, and gone over to the Black 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 countrymen to foreign countries and foreign menthis 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 opposed to the principles or spirit of our fundamental laws, because we find it incorporated in both the federal and state constitutionsand in regard to the highest offices known to our federal and state governments. On 1 th of March, 1778, general orders were issued for one hundred men, “to be annexed to the guard of the commander-in-chief, f or t he purpose of forming a corps to be instructed in the manceuvres 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 fin d, among the other qualifications required, the following: “They must be Americans born.” In a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in 1777, ar,d to be found in a recent publication entitled ” Maxims of Washington,” p. 192, the following passage occurs: ” You will therefore send me none but natives, 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 na tives, as I do not want to create any invidious 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. “II 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 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 practice of those who were its founders, for instruction and guidance; for, however much our country may have progressed in the arts aind sciences, since the days of the Revolution, I doubt whether we have made any material adIv-ance within that time in patriotism or knowledg,e of the true principles of the Constitution.

Acting on this idea, I now ask your attention to what the fathers of the republic thought )f’ that doctrine of the American party which declares a preference for natives of the country over foreigners, for all places of public trust. The first evidence to which I will refer on this point is a resolution reported to the Continental Congress in 1777, by a committee, of which Thomas Jefferson was chairman, and 1Mr. Sherman, Mr. Gerry, Mr.

Read, and Mr. Williams were memb ers. It is in these %vords: ” Resolved, That it is inconsistent with the Interests of the United States to appoint any p)erson not a natural born citizen thereof to the office of minister, charg6 d’affaires, consul, or vice-consul, or to any other civil departnment 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 quoting but a few passages from his writings. Before doing so, however, I will call attention 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 enlist 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 good and complete arms. 293 11 Given,tt headquarters, at Cambridge, thiis 10 July, 1775. IIORATio GATES, Adj. Gen.” By Ilis Excellency, George Washington: “General Orders. ” Parole-Dorchester; Countersign-Exeter. “The General has re,,it reason and is displeased with the ne,li,,ence and inattention of those officers who have placed as sentries at the outposts, men with whose characters they are unacquainted. Ile, therefore, orders that for the future no man shall be appointed to those stations who is not a native of this ountry; this order is to be considered a standing one, and the officers are to pay obedience to it at their peril. 11 Fox, Adj. Gen. of the day.” No. 6.

Page 294 view page image

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 bind 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 officer 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.” During his Presidency he wrote thus: “Philadelphia, Nov. 17th, 1794. “Dear Sir: * My opinion with respect to immigrat ion is, that, except of useful mechanics, and some particular description of men and professions, there is no use of entcouragement. I am, &c., ” G. WASIIINGTON. ” 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 characters among our own countrymen, who conceive, and justly, where there is no great preponderance of experience or merit, that they are entitled to all the offices in the gift of their gov er nme nt. I am, &c., “G.

WASHINGTON. “To J. Q. Adams, American Minister at Berlin.” White Plains, July 24th, 1778. “Dear Sir: The design of this is to touch cursorily upon a subject of v ery great import ance to the well-beingof these states, much more so than wille appear at first siaht-I mean the appointmen t of so many foreigners to officess of high rank and trust in our service. “The lavish manner in which rank has h itherto be en b estow ed on these gentlemen, will certainly be productive of one or the other of thes e two evils, either to make us despicable i n the eyes of Europe, or become a means of pouring th em in upon us like a torrent, and adding to our present burden. But it is neither the expe nse nor t he trouble of them I most dread; there is an evil more extensive in its nature and fatal in its conse quence to b e apprehended, and that is, the drivinn of all our offic er s out of the service, and throwing not o nly o ur own army, but our military councils, entirely into the hand s of foreigners. “The officers, my dear sir, on whom you cmust dep end f orthhe defence of the cause, distinguished by length o f servi ce and military mlerit, will not subm it muc h, if any, longer to the unnatural promotion of men over them, wh o have nothinbeg more than a l ittle plausibilitv, unbounded pride and ambition, and a persev erance in the application to support their pre tensions, not to be resisted but by uncommon firmness; men who, in the first instancie, say they wish f or nothing more than the honor of serving so glorious a cause as volunteers, th e nex t d ay sol icit rank w ithout p ay, the day follo wing want money advanced t o t e d in 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 j ustice 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 q command in the line This will be productive of inuch discontent. In a word, althoug,h 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 principles fr(r,m those which govern the rest. ” Adieu. I am, most sincerely yours, “GEORGE WASHINGTON. ” To Gouverneur Morris, Es~q.” 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 mi litar y, upon forei gners, to the ex clusion of our own citizens. ” Yours, &c. G. WASHINGTON.” To Sir John St. Clair, he wrote thnus: ” 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 assumle, from the fact that he sanctioned them, that those sentiments are both wise and patriotic? And yet presumptuous men, who set themselves up as wiser and better than Washington, 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 (lay, or in that of the Illustrious Father of his Country? In discussing the sulbject of naturalization, I have already had occasion to present some passages fromn the writings of Mr. Jefferson, showing his opinions of the unhappy effects .)f immigration and foreign influence, aniid his conviction that no foreigner shlould 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 Farther 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 minister II 294

Page 295 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. expedient to grant to any others than citizeps a participation in political power. ” Sir, I repeat it again, altlihough I know but little, because it has not come in my way to know much, of this foreign pop)ulation theLt is streaming on our shores, I do know something 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 American 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 expense 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 apparent from the fact, that when he nominated IMr. Gallatin, as one of the commissioners to negotiate the treaty of peace with Great Britain, Wim. B. Giles of Va., Samuel Smith of Md., and Mr. Stone of N. C., strongly oposed 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. Air. Madison afterwards nominated Mr. Gallatin as Minister to France, and he was confirmed in the absence of the abo-ve-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 Federal Constitution. Mr. John Randolph was also a strong Amer ican in his sentiments. When the bill for chartering the Bank o thth e United States was before Congress, Mr. R. m oved t o ad d 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 )ehavior.” Niles Reg. 10, 31-47. But there is another authority which among all professing to be Democrats will, I presume, he regarded as of the most important character.

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 Decem to France, i n 1788, he wr ote to Mr. Jay in the ftllowing words: “Native citizens, o n s everal valuable accounts, are preferable to ali ens or citizens alien born. Native citizens possess our languag,e, know our laws, customs, and commerce, have general acquaintance in the United States, give better satisfaction, and a re m ore to be relied on in point of fidelity. To avail ours elves of native citizens, it appears to me to be advisable to declare by standing law th at no person but a native citizen shall be capable o f the o ffice of consul.” Again, s hortl y af t er h is election to the Pre sidency, he add ress ed a political l etter to Nathaniel Macon, dated Washington, May 14th, 1801, in which he details to Mr. Macon many of his reforms. In th is letter we find t he f ollowi ng remarkable para graph: ” An early r ecommenda tion had been given to the Postmaster General, to employe no printer, foreigner, or revolutionar ty tory any of his offices.” AVe m ay judgeis of his distrust of foreigners whe n we find him classing them with tories! George Ma son the a ut hor of the Bill of Rights, and of the Virg inia Cons ti t uti on of 1i76-a man who was pronounced by Mr. Jlefferson to be ” him self a host,” and ” a man of th e firs t ord er of wi sdom,” also expressed his c oncurrence in this doctrine of the American party. In the convention which framed the Federal Constitution, four years’ residence had been roposed as a quali f icatio n for letion ion to the enate of the United States.

Gouverneur Morris proposed to substitute fourteen years, allef,in g 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 distinguished 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 very 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 295

Page 296 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. her, 1798, are regarded as of but little less authority than the Constitution itself. No c onvention of the party, stat e or federal, closes its sessions without a rev erent 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 Americ an parts? Bv reference to the New Series of tening s Statutes at Larg e, 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 Congrress o}f 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 t-he same source, and is recorded in the same journal with the other resolutions of‘98-‘99, which constitute the basis of their political creed. Ilow can they discriminate between them? Ilow 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 V. C. Bryant, published an article on the sub ject (which was copied by the Globe,) fiom which the following is an extract: “

The appointment of a man named Reynolds, an alien, Ibv 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 surprised at anlything done by Mr. Webster.”’ I Xwill close this article {already too much extended), by a genm from the celebrated oration of 5[~r. Buchanan, the favorite candidate of the Democracy of Virginia for the Presidency. This oration was delivered at Lancaster, P’a., on 4th of July, 1815. ~Mr. B.

said, ” Again we stand neutral t~ 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 hlie 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 (MIr. 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 exclusively American feelings. Foreign infltlence has been, in every ag,e, the curse of republics. HIer jaundiced eyes see all things in false colors. The thick atmosphere of prejudice, by which she is ever surrounded, excludes 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, proclaimning peace when there was no peace, and lulling its defenders into fatal security while the iron hand of despotism was aimning a deathblow at her liberties. Already our infant republic has felt her withering influences. Already she has involved 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, pauperisin, social and political order, and to Southern institutions: If the inquiry were propounded to any candid man, wvhether, in his opinion, there is any great nation in Europe, at the present time, which is capable of sustaining republican institutions, the answer would necessarily be in the negative Enugland, the most enlightened and best educated in the principles of liberty of all lthe 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:ts progress in the arts and sciences, has twice made the ab’, And, fafter p.ss.n through the most appalling scenes of anarchy and blood, has relapsed into despotism. Nei 2”

Page 297 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. 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 sin” 1790 (the earliest date from which we have any information to be relied on), to the begin ning of the year 1855. F From 1790 to 1800 the number of ;tom. A yiimmigrants was 50,000 1800 1810 - - -

70,000 1810 1820 - - - 114,000 1820 1830 - - - 135,986 1830 1840 - - -

579,370 1840 1844 - - - 334,339 1844 1855 - - - 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 conceal 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 “..” 1848 - - - 309,000 …” 1849 - - - 66,000 From 31st Dec. 1849 - - - 315,000 “..” 1850 - - - 408,000 ” 1851 - - - 398,000 ” “

1852 - - - 400,000 “..” 1853 - - - 460,000 ther letissia, Prrissia, nor Au stria hav e ever -itentired on the hopeless attempt. The spas itodic convulsions in Italy and Hungary have not been mark ed by a single circumstance tending to indicate that tho se who inc i ted the steeple to in sur recti on had the faintest comprehens ion of t he principl es of national freel)omi. An d yet it i s f rom these countries th at the im migrants flock to our shores. As a general rule, too, I may add that thos e who (o-ome are not of the bette r classes-not those who are educated and prosperous in their own i,)untry-but tion the ignorant, the st arving, and the dep raved, those who “leave th a their country for o nt od t their cuntry’s good.” That there are many exceptions, I am willing to admit, but that the general remark is correct, will not be yenied l,y any who have seen the hordes of foreigners who are c rowdi ng to our Northwestern states, or who have visited our lines (f internal improve ments and the outskirts and alleys of ou r cities, or who have inspecte d the criminal calendars of our courts. A ss uming t hese proposi tions t o b e t rue, the inquiry very naturall y s uggests itself, if these people-even the best of them are incapable tf maintaining a free government at home, what additional qualifications do they acquire i)r the fulfilment of the high functions of a citizen of a republic, by be ing transported oacross t he Atlantic? Can they change their ;iature,-their habits,-their prejudices, by a change in their geographical position? Do they become wiser and better men by a voyage ‘cross the oce an? No one will contend for a p roposition so absurd upon its face.. How then can we expect immigrant s, fort hwith to understand he the theory and practical operations of our complicated systems of governments, andl to be prrepared to pa rt icipa te intelligently i n their administration? I f the whole population was of th is char acter, all will admit that our government could not stand many y ears. Nay, if onehalf or onethird of our )eople were foreigners, of recent importation, it must b e manif est, th at t he ex istence of our institutions would b e 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 t) 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. Ignorance may be tolerated in a’subject, because lie has lno part to perform but to yield obedience. Bult where the people are the sources o,f all powder 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 machinery must at once become deranged, and the most disastrous consequences ensue. i 297 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 contiguous countries.

Page 298 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. It will, I doubt not, be safe to adopt the From these figures, it is easy to see what estimate of many well-informed persons, that has been at least one potential cause of the, for the year 1853, the aggregate immigration relative decline of the South in representation of the United States, by land and sea, was not and influence in the national counicils. short of half a million of souls! But unfortunately for the country it hap In this connexion, let us look at some other pens, that as the number of immigrants infacts derived from the census tables, and in creases, their character for intelligence and regard to the accuracy of which there can be virtue, and all the qualities that make good no doubt. citizens, depreciates. In 1850 the white population of In the early days of the republic, the immi Virginia was 894,800 grants constituted one of the most valuable Maryland 417,943 classes of our population. Thev were;ene North Carolina 553,028 rally men of adventurous spirit-of energy, South Carolina 274,563 intelligence, and education men who were Georgia 521,572 attracted here by commerce, or the arts, or Alabama 426,514 the learned professions. Their education and Louisiana 255,491 refinement fitted them for association with Florida 47,203 the most cultivated society, and they soon It will be seen that at the rate of immigira-assimilated to the circles in which they moved. tion in 1853, there arrived in this country, Such were the Scotch and Irish merchants, every year, a sufficient number of persons to who settled in the valleys of the Rappahanmake a state embracing( as large a white popu-nock, the Potomac, and the James. Such lation as Maryland or Alabama! and within were the refugees who fled from the horrors a fraction enough to make one having as large of the bloody days of the Goddess of Reason! a white population as North Carolina or But what is the character of the great mass G4eorgia! of those who crowd our immigrant ships now? Every two years there would be enough to They are the most ignorant of their countrybalance the white population of Virginia! men-.those who fly from starvation in their Every six months there would be almost native land-whose highest aspiration is to enough to offset South Carolina or Louisiana! satisfy the cravings of nature-who are igno And every five weeks a sufficient number to rant of our laws, of our language, and of our act as a counterpoise to the entire white popu-institutions-and whose idea of liberty is comlation of Florida!! and every year enough to prehended in the license to drink all the whisweigh down in the political scale ten such key they can get, and to indulge in the luxury states as Florida!! of riots and the gratification of provincial Is this a picture to be contemplated with animosities, without hindrance from the offipleasure by the citizens of America? cers of the law. But there is one other aspect in which I I appeal to the history of the country, an(l would present the subject to the people of the to the personal observation of every man who Southern states. has seen large bodies of them assembled, on In 1850 the aggregate whilf population of public works, and in populous cities, for the all the slave states was 6,547,993. truth of the picture that I have drawn. Assuming the immigration to continue what Yet such are the people who are imported it was in 1853-making no allowance for its to this country at the rate of half a million a, increase, though the tables show it had been year, and by fraudulent devices, in a few weeks progressively and rapidly increasing every or months, invested with all the privileges and year-it will be seen that in thirteen years a franchises of American citizens! Such are foreign population would be poured on our the men who are to give tone to our politics shores equal to the entire white population of and to mould our legislation! Theirs is to be the fifteen slave states! the standard of intelligence, and patriotism, The next inquiry is, where do these foreign-and devotion to liberty, which is to be coners settle? suited by aspirants to places of honor and The census tables enable us to answer that trust, to be conferred by their suffrages! Each question with accuracy. one of these is to weigh as much in the politi In 1850 there were in the free states, of cal scale as a Washington, a Ilenry, a Jefferforeigners - - - - 1,924,011 son, or a Madison, of the olden time; or a Do. do. slave states 316,673 Rives, or Mason, or Ihunter, or Summers, of Or, in other words, about six out of seven the present day I of immigrants settled in the free states. And because our American feeling revolts But this statement is too favorable to the at this, we are to he taunted with bei;g hostile South, for it is well known that a large pro-to the “cause of civil and religious freedom I” portion of the foreigners, reported as residents of the South, were only temporary sojourners, as laborers on railroads, canals, &c., and as To qualify a people for a republican governsoon as their contracts were completed, they meat, they must not only have intelligence would naturally seek a climate and a popula-and virtoc, but they must undergo a systent tion more congenial to their constitution and of training and instruction in tl e principles their tastes, in the Northern states. of liberty, and in the practical workings of fr(e .” 8 From these figures, it is easy to see what has been at least one potential cause of tho,relative decline of the South in representation and influence in the national couiicils. But unfortunately for the country it ba pens, that as the number of imi-iiigrants increases, their character for intelligence -,in(] virtue, and all the qualities that make good citizens, depreciates. In the early days of the republic, the iinmigrants constituted one of the most valuable classes of our population. Thev were;enerally men of’ adventurous spiri-of energy, intelligence, and education-nien who wei-t,attracted here by comn-ierce, 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 Itappahannock, the Potomac, and the James. Such were the refu(,ees who fled from the horrors of the bloody days of the Goddess of Rea-son But what is the character of the great mass of those who crowd our iinmigrant ships now? They are the most ignorant of their countrtmen-those who fly from starvation in their native land-whose hi(,hest aspiration is to satisfy the cravings of nature-who are ignorant of our laws, of our langua(,e, and of our institutionsand whose idea of liberty is comprehended in the license to drink all the whiskey they can get, and to indulge in the luxurv of riots and the gratification of provincial animosities, without hindrance from the officers of the law. I appeal to the history of the country, and to the personal observation of every man who has seen lar,,c bodies of them assembled, on public works, and in populous cities, for tho 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,i year, and by fraudulent device,-,, in a few weeks or months, invested with all the privileges and ‘tize’! Sh are franchises of American ei ii,,; the men who are to give tone to our politics and to mould our le,,,islation! Theirs is to bo the standard of intelligence, and patriotism, and devotion to liberty hich is to be consulted by aspirants to laces of honor and w trust, to be conferred by their suffrages! Each one of these is to weigh -i,s much in the political scale,ts a Washin(,ton,,t Ilenrv, a Jpfferson, or a Madison, of the olden ime; or a Rives, or Mason, or Ilunter, or Summers, of the present day I And because our American feelin revolt,,q

Page 299 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. institutions. They must learn to reverence the their fathers, the dangers and troubles by law and to obeyit. They must acquire self-re- which the country was surrounded, and the spect, and self-confidence, and understand that difficulty with which they were surmounted, their well-being is inseparably interwoven with should look with jealousy on everything which the peace and good order of society.

They tends to put their priceless heritage in peril? must comprehend that the restraints of social Is it to be wondered at, that, knowing the organization are not the arbitrary impositions complexity and delicacy of the great machine of tyrannical power, but the voluntary sur-intrusted to their charge, they should be uni render of a portion of their natural liberty willing to see it surrendered to ignorant, in for the more secure enjoyment of the residue. competent, or unfaithful hands? Without such a training, the efforts of our Ilow is it possible that foreigners can have ancestors to establish our present form of gov-the same interest in, and attachment to, our ernment would have proved an abortion. For country and its institutions as Americans? more than one hundred years, they were edu-All their early recollections are associated with cated in the principles of free government, a far distant land. Their traditions, sympa under the fostering care of the mother coun-thies, and affections (if they be good men) are try. Widelyseparated from England, thecolo-all with the homes of their childhood. As nies were necessarily intrusted with the power Archbishop Iugh,es renmarked, with equal of legislation, subject of course, to the super-truth and beauty, “I would not exchange the vision of the supreme government of Great bright menmories of my early boyhood, in Britain. This led the colonists to study the another land, and under another sky, for those principles of freedom, engrafted during a long of any other man living, no matter where ho succession of ages on the British constitution, was born.” and to practise them in the regulation of their Who does not concur in the noble sentiments own affairs. When the crisis, therefore, ar-expressed by henry Clay, in the Senate, oii rived in their affairs, caused by the attempt of the 7th of February, 1839-” The Searcher of the mother country to violate the rights of the all hearts,” said he, “knows that every pulsacolonies, they were prepared to understand the tion of my mind beats high and strong in the wrong that was about to be done them, and to cause of civil liberty; wherever it is safe and assert the true doctrines of liberty in their practicable, I desire to see every portion of own behalf. the human family in the enjoyment of it. But The protracted struggle of the Revolution, I prefer the liberty of my own country to that and the dangers and sufferings incident to it, of any other people, and the liberty of my also tended to enlighten the minds of the peo-own race to that of any other.” ple, and to fit them for the high responsibili-Shall we then jeopard the liberty of “our ties of their position. Discussion was the own country” and “our own race” by intrustorder of the day throughout the colonies. The ing it to the custody of people of foreign counablest men of the country were busily engaged tries, and of a race alien to our own? in explaining to the people, in oral harangues, But let us now turn to the statistics of pauand published addresses, the nature of the perism, crime, intemperance, and vagrancy, evils with which they were threatened. The and see what revelations they will make in whole country was aroused to the highest regard to the virtue and intelligence and capitch of excitement. Informattion was greedily pacity for selfgovernment of our foreign pop sought for by all classes.

The works of Mil-ulation. ton, Locke, and Hampden were in every hand; The report of the superintendent of the and there never has been a day, when the census shows that, in 1850, there was exmind of a nation was so thoroughly aroused, pended in the United States, of public money and so well instructed, not only in regard to for the support of paupers, $2,954,806. This the particular questions involved, but also in was, of course, independent of all private regard to the abstract nature of the rights and charities. duties of the government and the people, as The number of paupers supported was were the colonists at the close of the Revo-134,972, and of these, 68,538, or more than lutionary war. onehalf, were foreigners! Thus taught in a seven years’ school of New York had, in that year, 40,580 foreign trial and adversity, when they came to forma paupers, and only 19,275 natives. In that government, they brought to the council chain-state, one in every sixteen of her foreign popber an amount of knowledge of the true prin-ulation was a pauper, whilst of the native popciples of freedomn which, I venture to say, no ulation, but one of every one hundred and nation of the present day could equal. But twenty-seven was of that class. with all these advantages, it was after long In Pennsylvania, one in fifty-four of the trial and tribulation that they were enabled foreign population was a pauper, and one in to consolidate their liberties, by the adoption three hundred and forty-two of the native popof the admirable system of government under ulation.

which we live. From other sources, such as the Prison Dis Is it a matter of surprise then that Ameri-cipline Journal, American Register, Americai eans-the descendants of those who accom-Almanac, &c., the following facts have been plished this great work, and who have learned, ascertained:not on]y from history, but from the lips of From 1837 to 1840, there were 8671
persons 299

Page 300 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. relieved and maintained in Massachusetts at public expense, and of this number 6104 were fo,reigners. The number received into the Baltimore Alhnshouse in 1851 was 2150, of which numl)er about 900 were Irish and Gernmans. In 1854, the whole number received was 2358, of whom 1398 were foreigners; 641 being G(‘ermans, and 593 Irish. In Louisville, the number of inmates of the Almshouse was 164, of whom 135
were foreigners. In Buffalo, New York, the returns of commitments to the Work-IHouse are as follows: Native. Foreig n. T otal. 1852 254 708 962

1853 318 83‘2 1150 1854 344 854 1198 1855 360 1022 1382 Total, 4years, 1276 3416 4692 In Charaber sburg, Pennsylv ania, the T ranscript s ays, th at during a period of nine months, 553 paupers we re received at the PoorHouse of Franklin county, of wh om 522 were foreigners. In New Orleans, the num ber of commitm ents to the city Work-Ilouse for two weeks ending 3d August, 1855, was 108, of whom 92 were f oreigners. I might extend these details almost indefinitely, bu t thos e that I h ave given must be sufficient to satisfy any reasonable mind of the ch aract er of the mass of the immigrants. Crime. -I have already, in connexion with the letter of Mayor Weood, and t o confirm his statements, s hown that more th an half the criminals of our country are of foreign birth. I will now add a few more specific facts from the different states. I n Massachusetts there we re, according to the tables of 1850, 7250 convicts, of whoim more than half were foreigners and throughout 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 numbe. was 744, of whom 460 were foreigners. But without going more at large into the subject, I will state the general fact, that according 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 N~ew York, Brooklyn, A.lbany, and Buffalo, the number of convictions in 1852 was 3733, of whom 2802 w^ere tbreigfners. Of three hundred and one arrested in New York for drunkenness, in the first week in Aug~ust, 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 statistics above cited, must necessar ily create disorde rit, riots, and violations of law in any co-in mu nity into which th ey may be thrown.

The tables themselves shows that fact. But such persons bring other and indirect evils o n the country whi ch, if possible, are m ore fatal to its security than those to which I have r eferred. When they become invested with the right of suffrage, carndidates for office wi ill seek their votes, and, in order t o get them, will pander to their prejudices, co nsult t heir ple asure, and adopt ev ery nieains to win their favor. To do th i s, the office-hunter must sink to their le-el. tie must promise to do what accords with their wishes and tastes. Ile m ust associate with them, drink with t hem, fla tter theg n, an d, if need be, bribe them! In thi s wa y t he candidates become prostitutes, and the representatives be co m e corrupt. After election, being anxious to retain their places, their eyes are con stan tly fixed onetiu the voters, and their legis lative action is s h3aped, no t by a regard to the principles of the Constitution and the welfare of the coun trv. but by a desire to conciliate the favor of this potential element in elections. And having made large sacrifices to secure their seats, they th ink it but fair to seize the earliest opportuni ty to reimburse the emselves by plunder ing the treasury, under the guise of’ some con tract or claim on the government. IHave 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 distribution laws at nominal prices, but palpable, and I had almost said corrupt bids, by political aspirants, for the foreign vote? The dignity and independence of’ the officer is destroyed by practices like these, and he soon becomes a supple tool in the hands of an unscrupulous 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 themn-money, ready money, will be demanded-yea, has been, and is now iin 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 Pretorian ba,nds to put up the imperial crown of Romiie at i.auctiori! Continue to import hordes of ignorant ande depraved foreigners, and clothe them with then elective franchlise, and~ the day is not far distant when the party that can command the most money weill control the elections; andl men of property w ill justify themselves with the idea that they are b~uyi;ng their peace because the alterna’tive left theml is corruption or agrarianism. 300

Page 301 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. pies; but as this is a picture of their doctrines in “the green tree,” let us see how they exhibit themselves when more fully developed. With this view, I submit the following extract from a German paper published in St. Louis: ” The first and most principal mark whereby we distinguish ourselves from religious people is, that in a belief on a God. and that which connects itself with this belief, we recognise 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 hobgoblins God, future existence, eternal retribution, are permitted to maintain their ghostly existence. It is therefore the greatest task of every genuine revolutionist to put forth his best powers for th e des tructio n of flauitious non-trio, viz.: the hobgoblins, God, future existence, and future rewards and punishments. No revolution is more than half executed unless the vi et nerve of the great arch-monarch beyond the stars is cut asunder; every attempted 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! An(l yet we find men denouncing the American party as ” hostile to the cause of civil and religious 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! I had proposed, in this number, to present some views of the bearing of foreign immigration 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 consideration of the true relations of the American 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. But this is not the only form in which the evil of foreign influence on political affrirs developes itself. Many of the educated foreigners bring with them the most distorted views of the ends and views of social organization. Many of them are infidels, atheists, socialists, andl agrarians, and by their wild a nd b er a demoralizin, i deas corrupt the very fountain s of liberty. Mormonism is a striking illustration of this spe cies of foreign importation. In it w e behold the most disgusting exhibition that the civilized world has ever w itnessed of imposture, irreligion, and beastly licentiousness, in troduc ed into the heart of our country, and sustained by the aid and influence of foreigners. The polit ical and religious-or rathe r antireligious - theor ies of many of th e Germans, ar te quite as s hocking to the moral sense of the ipass of our people, as the practic es of the Mormons are revolting to t heir idea s of decenvc and propriety. It is well known, that some years ago ian association was formed, under the title of ” F ree Germans,” having it s head quarters in Louisv ille, with branches in all the principal cities of the Union, which entertained and s ought eefe to give efficiency to the most dangerous and anarchical doctrines. In March, 1854, the branch in Richm on d published a platf o rm of its principles, and the measures des igne d to carr y them into practice. This platfor m is now before me, a nd I would gladly incorporate i t into this article, did not its leng th forbid. But I hope a d in that during the canvass it will be repub lish ed at large, so that every Virginian may see and reflect upon it. It’ denou nces slavery as a “political and moral cancer”- protests against the extension of slavery into any new territory-dematnds a repeal of the fugitive slave law, as demoralizing and degrading, and e ain a as contrary to human ri ghts and to th e Constitution-and insists “that in national affairs the principle of liberty s hall be strictly maintained, and even in the seve ral states it be more and more realized, by gradual extermination of slavery.” It further affirms that ” in fre e stat e s the color of the skin cannot justify a difference in legal rilghts.” ‘This platform also holds that ” Sabbath laws, Thanksgiving days, prayers in Congress, and legislativ e oath s upon the Bible, the introduction of t he B ible into free schools,” &c., shall be abolished ” as an open violation of human rights.” It also demands a free cession of lands to all 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 representative at pleasure.

Neutrality in our foreign relations to be! abandoned. W5omen to have the same politi-| eal rights and privileges as men; and the] death penalty to be abolished in all cases. ~This is a summary of their avowed princi No.

9. There is no subject on which the American party has been more misunderstood and nisi 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 peculiar 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 individuals the right to worship God accordin g to the dictates of their own consciences, on the American party. But I affirm that all these charges are untrue. The American party 301

Page 302 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK 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 Dmen, 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 t4, show the danger of the ultramontane doctrine, and its irreconcilable antagonismn to the principles 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 propositioni-! 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 present position of parties on this most important question. Politicians are not generally very well informedcJ on questions of an ecclesiastical character, and 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 vear 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 supremacy in temporal affairs. This at once drew from Mr.

Chandl er, himse lf a membler 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 Coingress not being profoundly versed in Catholic lore, were fit ones silenced, and the speech went to the country as a conclusive answer to the unjust charge against the church. But unfortunately for M~r. Chandler, neither Protesttanats 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, 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 betws een e ach individual and his Creator. It recognises the f reedom of religious opinion, and of r eligious w or ship, in the broadest sense es ont 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 gio us faith and worship of the one than of the other. Individual mem be r s of the order may be disposed to go fur ther, but I challenge the production of evi denc e t o show that the Am erica n organization, as a party, asserts an y such doctrines. Turn to the authentic exposit ion of the pr inciples of the party, an nounced at P
hiladelphia, and see If i t gives co u nten anc e to any s uch idea. The only pro visi ons in the Philadelphia platform which bhear o n the subje ct 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 or obligation of a n y d escription to any foreign prince, po tentate, or power, or who refuses to recognse 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 Catholics on account of their faith or worship. On the contrary, the doctrine emphatically proclaimed 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 declarations 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 praetises 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 brotherhoods and sustain them, 302

Page 303 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. teemed with articles denunciatory of the thority by virtue of his commission from speech of Mr. Chandler as insincere, or Jesus Christ, as the successor of Peter, the founded in ignorance or cowardice. prince of the apostles, and visible head of the Professor MIcClintock was among the fir., church. Any defence of them on a lower to correct the error. He said, “if Mr. Chan(ld-gr(und must, in our judgment, fail to meet ler had been well informed on the subject, he the real points in the case, and is rather an would have told his auditors there are two evasion than a fair, honest, direct, and satins parties in the Catholic church on this ques-factory reply. To defend their power as an tion: one (the ultramontane party) affirming, extraordinary power, or as an accident in and the other (the Gallican party) denying (lhurn(h history, growing out of the peculiar that the Pope, by reason of the spiritual circiumstances, civil constitution, and laws of power, has also a supreme power, at least the times, now passed away, perhaps for ever, indirectly, in temporal matters.” may be regarded as less likely to displease IIe then proceeds to state the relative non-Catholics, and to offend the sensibilities strength of the two powers, and shows that of power, than to defend it on the ground of the ultramontane is largely in the ascendancy, divine right, and as inherent in the divine and that the Gallican party is a mere faction, constitution of the church; but even on the which is rather tolerated than cherished by low ground of policy, we do not think it the the church. Indeed, Gallicanism is stigma-wisest in the long run.

Say what we will, we tized as the “half-way house to Protest-can gain little credit with those we would conantism.” ciliate. Always to their minds will the tem PIrofessor McClintock then says: poral power of the Pope, by divine right, ~~~ loom up in the distance, and always will they It remains for me briefly to set forth the believe, however individual Catholics here and present state of Roman Catholic opinion. The there may deny it, or nominal Catholic govuiltramnontane doctrine is held, 1st, by the ernments oppose it, that it is the real Roman Pope; 2, by all the cardinals, without excep-Catholic doctrine, to be reasserted and acted tionl; 3, by all, or nearly all, the Italian the moment that circumstances render it prul)ishops; 4, by a majority of the bishops of dent or expedient. We gain nothing with (ierniany, Spain, and Portugal; 5, by about them but doubts of sincerity, and we only twothirds of the French bishops. Among weaken among ourselves that warm and genethe religious orders it is held,-1, by the rous devotion to the Holy Father, which is Jesuits without exception, as no man can be due from every one of the faithful, and which .(Imitted to the order who denies it; 2, by a is so essential to the prosperity of the Church, lmajority of the members of the other (sixty in her increasing struggles with the godless ,fr more) religious orders, which vie with each powers of this world.’-Brownson’s Review other in devotion to the Pope, each of them Jan. 1854.” lihaving a general at Rome. As for the Catho-The Dublin Tablet, a Catholic publication lic journals,-1, the Civito Catolica at Rome of high authority, is equally emphatic in its was established for the very purpose of main- (ondeinnation of Mr. Chandler’s speech. The taining this theory, and does maintain it most writer, after arguing to prove the power of (effectually; 2, the Historisch Politische Blat-the Pope to depose sinful sovereigns, says:t.r, the most eminent Papal journal in Ger- “Mr. Chandler goes a great deal furthermany, is strongly ultramontane; 3, the Uni-we are sorry to refer to him so often-and i ers, of Paris, is more ultramontane than trenches on the real spiritual power, which he Bellarmine; 4, the Belgian papers, I think, is so anxious to guard inviolate. IhIis words without exception, are on that side; and 5, are these:’ I deny to the Bishop of Rome the Brownson’s Review, in this country, is what right resulting from his divine office, to interI have shown you above. fere in the relations between subjects and their “I have now done all that I promised to do sovereigns-citizens and their governments.’ in the beginning. MIay I not hope that, after “It is impossible that he can mean what reading this letter, you will rise in your place these words imply. The Pope is at this ntoin Congress, at the first convenient opportu-ment interfering in Piedmont, defending one nity, and restate your theory of the church? class of citizens there against the governme)t D)oes not your reputation as a scholar and a -and yet, in the Ihouse of Representatives, a gentleiman need such a vindication as you can Christian denies the right! Governments minv ,nly make by’defining your position anew? and do prohibit good works, and the Pope inIf you do not do this, my confidence in your terferes. They also encourage and co-ilmit candor and ingenuousness will have been evil-the Pope interferes, and good Chl.istins sadly misplaced. If you do, I beg you to prefer the Pope’s authority to that of thee read in the course of your speech, the follow-state. The godless colleges in Ireland the img truthful passage from the coryphaus of hierarchy in England, the trouble in PiedlRoman Catholic editors in America:- mont-all bear witness together against this ‘ There is, in our judgment, but one valid unchristian opinion which must have escaped defence of the Popes, in their exercise of tem-from the speaker, who did not ponder his poral authority in the middle ages over sove-words.” reigns, and that is, that they possess it by The closing paragraph of the article in the divine rigbt, or that the Pope holds that au-Tablet is in these words: 308

Page 304 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. blending obnoxious political sentiments with religious opinions, immunity can be claimed for both, under the broad shield of the freedom 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.a,ne branch of the Roman Church avowed their purpose to war on the freedom of religion-to strive to gain the ascendancy in this country, with the view to prostrate it at the footstool of Rome-to persecute Protestantsand 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 Americans were roused to resistance. ” The old Gallican leaven, driven out of the Old World, foments in the New, and the exploded opinions of obstinate men in Europe seem to have found favor in some quarters in America. Humanly viewed, the matter i easy of explanation; bu t it is not the less perilous, for unsound theories about the exs tent of the ecclesiastical power will never convert heretics, but are sure to pervert Catholics.” The opinions expressed by Mr. Chandler in the above extract fro m his speech, are precisely the o pinions of the American party, and yet whe n America ns announce the m, t hey are charged with being persecutors and enemies of religious freedom! The American party de ny th at t he Pop e has any temporal or p ol itical p ow er outside of his own dominions. T hey deny that the subjects o r citizens of any other govern me nt owe him a ny political allegiance. They deny tha t the Pope has any power to depose sovereigns or to overthrow republics. They deny that he has a right to absolve citizens or subjects from he r their alleiance to their own government. And the y utterly repudiate the idea that there is a paramount allegiance due to him which overrides their own government. And as a corollar y to these propositions, they are unwilling to vote for any man for public office, in this c ountry, who holds the opposite, or ultramontane doctrine. They hold that the Constitution of the U nited States is the su preme law of the l and, and no man who d eni es tha t proposition ought to hold office un der it. T he y 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 government 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 recognition of the temporal power of the Pope is a part of the Catholic religion, and therefore you are interfering with their religious freelom! 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 Theolore Parker, II. WV. Beecher, andl others of their; fanatical stripe! And would our adversaries 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 In my last number I furnished some striking proofs of the extraordinary pretensions of the dominant party of the Romish church, to temporal power in the Pope.

Before passing from this point, I will add further evidence to support my position. Brownson’s Review is the accredited organ of that party. Ile ostentatiously parades the names of the archbishops and bishops on the cover of his book, to give the stamp of authenticity 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, approval, and endorsemento 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 exposition of the devotions of his church. In his number for January, 1853, he savs: ” 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 supremacy, and that the temporal order must receive its law from her.” ” Whenever the occasion occurred, she a& serted her power, not in empty words only, but in deeds, t o jud ge sovereigns, kings, andi Coesars, 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 witth i 304 No. 10.

Page 305 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. 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 relinghuysen, were the nomi ngees of the Whig party for the Presidency 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 Prei 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: ” ie 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 r are abilities, but apparen tly void of both mor al 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 ballotbox.-To those who are citizens, we say, vote your principles, whatever they may benever desert them do not be wheedled or terrified-but vote quietly, seriously, and unobtrusively. Leave to others the noisy warfare 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 Frelinghuvsen. 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 5Iissions, the t~iend and patron of the Kirks and Cones, we have much to say. Wie hate his intolerance we dislike his associates ard axe shudlder at the blackness and bitterness of that school of sectarians, to which he belongs, and amongst whom he is regarded as an. authority.” Presbyterianq 1 Do you hear that! And do p o litics, that she has received no mission in regard to t he p ol itical order. * C

* In opp osing the nonjuring bishops and priests, they believed they were only asserting their national rights as men, or as the state, and were m erely resisting th e unwarrantable assumption of the spiritual power. If they had been distinctly taught, that the pol itic al authority i s alway s subordi nate to the spiritual, and had grown up in the doctrine that the nati o n i s n ot competent to d efine, in relation to th e ecclesias tical power, its own rights-that the church defines both its powers and her ow n, and t hat though the nation may be, and ought to be independent, in re lation to other nations, it has and can have no independence in the face of the church -the kinfl dom of God on earth; they would have seen at a glance, that t o s uppo rt t he c ivil authority a,ga ins t the spirit ual, no matter in what manner, was the ren unciat io n of their faith as Cathol ics, and the actual or virtual assertion of the supremac y of the temporal power.” In the s ame number, page N o. 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, h is m isdeeds, his tyranny and oppression, forcfited his trust and lost his right to the allegianc e of hi s subjects, and therefore w hethe r they are s till held to their allegiances, or are rel eased from it by the law of God. If she hav e the right to judge, she has the right to pr onounce judgment, and order its execution: thefrefore, to pronounce se nte nce of d eposition upon the prince, who has forfe ite d his right to reign, and to declare his subjects absolved from the allegiance to him, and free to elect themselves a new sovereign.” I might multiply authorities on this point, almost indefinitely, but it would seem to be unnecessary. Those who are disposed to pursue 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 rinciples, tolerate sentiments like these? Is rt not obvious that they are diametrically opposed 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, endorsed by his church,-all power is in the Pope. Ile is the supreme judge. If oppressed the people must look to him for redress. They have no inherent and inalienable rights and the doctrines of the Declaration of Independernce are all dangerous falsehoods I But let us now come to the more immediate purpose of this number, which is to show the ggressive spirit of the ultramontane’Catholics-their hostility to freedom of religion  their intolerance of Protestantism their inierference in politics, and their determination, Df possible, to brin~ this country under the| :omlnlon of Rome.I 20 305 I

Page 306 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. yqou think that Americans are warring on civil I as he had taken pains to conciliate it by ap an(d religious freedom, when they seek to re-I pointing one of its members to a positiol in buke sentiments of this character! his cabinet. But the moment a controversy Appeals like these had their effect. The arose between the United States and Catholic Catholics were rallied to the polls, and de-Austria, in regard to Kosta’s case, we find cided the election. Brownson, with the instincts of a Jesuit, ma On the 9th November, 1844, Mr. Freling-king his religion paramount to his civil oblihuysen wrote to Mr. Clay as follows: “More gations, and taking sides against his own than 3000, it is confidently said, have been country. In his number for January, 1854, naturalized in this city (New York) alone after reviewing the case, he says: “The secret since the 1st of October.-It is an alarming of the whole transaction is not difficult to difact that this foreign vote has decided the vine. It was to get up, if possible, a war with great questions of American policy, and con-Austria, in accordance with the plans and artracted a nation’s gratitude.” dent wishes of Ludwig Kossuth. For this But hear Brownson again:- purpose, we doubt not, Kosta returned, or was “

Heretofore we have taken our politics ordered by Kossuth to return to Turkey, and from one or another of the parties, which di-very possibly with the knowledge and approvided the country, and have suffered the onebation of our jacobinical government!” inies of our religion to impose their political Thus we see no political attachments-no dloctrines upon us; but it is time for us to be-gratitude for past favors, can bind this “Coryg,-in to teach the country itself those moral and phieus of Catholic editors,” when the interests political doctrines which flow from the teach-of his sect are in anywise involved! Cathoings of our own church.

We are at honme licism is the all-absorbing idea! here, wherever we may have been born; this Thus, in his October number, 1852, Brownis our country, and as it is to become tho-son says: ” The sorriest sight to us, is a roughly Catholic, we have a deeper interest in Catholic throwing up his cap and shouting public affairs than any other of our citizens.‘all hail Demiocracy!”’ This, too, at the very ‘The sects are only for a day, the church for time that he was supporting the Democratic ever!” party in the Presidential contest! lec would Here we have a candid declaration, from sooner have heard the cry,’ All hail Catholicthe accredited organ of the church, that ism!’ and he was only using Democracy as an thenceforth Catholicism is to be made an instrument to advance his primary wish!

element in the party contests of the country. These passages are sufficient to show that Catholic politics are to be taught by the press, the Catholic press and Catholic church have and Catholic votes are to be employed to make avowed their purpose to enter the political the country “thoroughly Catholic.” arena, and to make their religion an element True to his professions, and keeping his eye in the future party contests of the country. single to Catholic interests, we find Brownson hear, too, how the “Freeman’s Journal” alternately denouncing both the great parties invokes the Catholic Irish in this country to of the country, and vilifying without measure bear themselves: their leading men. “Irishmen learn in America to bide their Gen. Cass having made a speech in the time.

Year by year the United States and Senate in favor of free worship and the rights England touch each other more and more of conscience for Americans abroad, Brown-nearly on the seas. Year by year the Irish son, after commiserating his “confusion of are becoming more powerful in America. At ideas” and “drivelling,” said in his number length the propitious time will come;-some for October, 1852:- accidental, sudden collision, and a Presidential “We are glad to see Gen. Cass laid on the campaign at hand.

We will use the very proshelf, for we can never support a man who fligacy of our politicians for our purposes! turns radical in his old age.” They will want to buy the Irish vote, and we When Mr. Fillmore’s administration closed, w ill tell them how they can buy it in a lump, it was thus noticed by the “Freemian’s Jour-from Maine to California, by declaring war on iial,” the organ of Archbishop Ilughes-the Great Britain, and wiping off at the same irovocation being a letter written l)y. tinme the stains of concessions and dishonor Everett, asking the Grand Duke of Tuscany that our Websters, and nmen of his kind, have to release Medais from imprisonment:- permitted to )be heaped upon the American It does not escape the independent jiudg-flax by the violence of British agents.”

nient of the universe, that the administration, Who can wink so hard as not to see that a now happily defunct, has been as bigoted as religious and not a political war was in the it has been imbecile. The universe congratu-mind of the writer-a war not to advance lates the country upon having elected a states-American interests but to promote the cause mnan for President, and for permitting the Uni-of Catholicism in Ireland, was the real abject tlarian ex-preacher, late Secretary of State, to in contemplation! return to his pulpit, to proclaim that Jesus is IIaving thus shown the purpose of the lot God, and Mr. Fillmore himself to become organs of the Catholic church, to become a a village lawyer.” party to the political contests of the country, From this it would seem that Gen.

Pierce with a view to the advancement of its interests’ was a special favorite of the Catholic Church, let us now see in what way the power thus 306

Page 307 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. 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 iiig of the labors of Mr.

tiastings, 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 t lraps and follow hreimt!” The PittsburghmCatholic misiter, referring t o the same subject, said, “For our own part, we take th is o ppo rtu nity of explaining ou r hearty delights a t the suppression of the Pro testant Chapel in Rome. This may be thoughtn intoleran-but whe n, we would as k, d id we ever profess to be tol eran t to Protestantism, or to favor the d octrine that Protestantism ought to be tolerated? On the contrary we lhate Protestantism-we detest it with our whlole heart and soul, and we pray that our aversion to it may never decrease. WVe hold it meet that in the Eternal City, no worship repugnant 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 relig ious 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 expedient, he would imprison you-banish youfine 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 conimendable degree of candor! The Boston Pilot very ingenuously observes:’ No good government can exist w%vithout religion; and there can be no religion without 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 ‘he 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 churchts divinely constituted judge.” On the lath of August, 1852, the Pope adIresseal to his followers an Encyclical letter, )f which the followingf is an extract:  ” The absurd and erroneous doctrine or ~vings, in defence of liberty of conscience, is most pestilential error a pest of all others, =,ost to be dreaded in a state.”

I The Shepherd of the Valley, a leading ra per, formerly published at St.

Louis, Lisi mLi, said: “Protestantism of every discription, Catl(h l]icity inserts in her catalogue of moral sins, she endures it when and where she must, but she hates it and directs all her energies to effect its destruction!” Again, on 23d of Nov., 1851, that paper says: ” The church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when and where she must, but she hates it, and directs all liPr energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever 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 tetching them to read, and coni 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 iniitatolr.” The Ramiibler, in 1853, says:  “Religious liberty, in the sense of a liberty possessed by every man to choose his rcligioi, is one of the most wretched delusions ever foisted on this age l)by the father of all deceit.” Brownson, in his October number, 1852, pave 456, says: “The liberty of heresy and unlbelief 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 shall now clcse 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 IIuss; 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 diot likewise burn Luther; this happened because there was not found somne prince sufficiently politic to stir up a crusade against Protestantism.”

These citations will show which party has manifested the intolerant and aggressive spirit m-which party is opposed to the “cause of civil and religious freedom!” 307

Page 308 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 he thrown off without incurring the odium (,f being “renegades,” and subjecting themselves to the denunciation of having “sneaked away.” I had thought that with all true patriots the obligation to country was stronger than that to party. That parties were mere instruments to subserve the ]Jest interests of the country, and that it was not only the right but the duty of every patriot to leave his party when hlie 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 sentiment as the offspring of a patriotic spirit. The right to change his party relations, is one which has been exercised by Mr. Wise himself, 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? hlis 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. Wise ought to extend the same toleration and charity to others, who have thought proper to change their political relations, which he claims for himself. Ie 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 powerful 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 disinterestedness, and should at least protect them from i mputations 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 W~higs can be reclaimed by the new nomination at Philadelphia, says I offer no commen ts of my own, but lea ve every reader to judge for himself. The price of l iberty is ete rnal vigilance. The remark applies to religious as w ell as to civil libe rty. All w e ask of the people is to be vigilant. Do not be so eng,rossed with the ordinary business of life, as to close your eyes to the important evx ents that are transpiring a round 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 monstrous as to seem incredible; but history tells u s th at bloody p erse cu tion h as, in former times, been the order of the day. Miartyrdom has been suffered, and the massacr e 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 American party. They feel no disposition to interfere with the faith or worship of the ultramontane Catholics, but they are unwilling, by elevating them to positions of trust and influence, 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 additional numbers, one of which will be devoted to the examination of the grounds on which Mlr. 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 partieularly to the subject of ” renegades,” ” conscientious Whigs,”

and the mongrel or mulatto ticket. Mr. Wise, in his letter, says: ” We gladlv took them (the Whigs) in exchange 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 criticism. It is true that many independent and upright Democrats, disatisfied with the prin 308

Page 309 view page image

MADISON LETTERS. , Wise, at least by the concurrent voice of the nation, “

Washington-like!” 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.

Fillmnore 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. lie had been nurtured in its lap; he had been reared in its conservative principles; he had proudly borne its banner both in victory 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 -ts reckless extravagance-from the conviction that his denunciations were just. IIe could a,t, therefore, when the old advers-:.y of that perty retired from the conflict, eat his ownI I<tr retract his own charges, and falsify Lis w hole life, by affiliating with a party which he ha4
contended to be unworthy of trust. inter,s:. might have dictated such a course, but duty’ and patriotism forbade it. Mr. Fillmore sam the Democracy, in violation of all its pledges renewing the agitation of the slavery question which he had conposed-opening the flood gates of sectional strife, and endangering the peace and security of the Union.

Knowing that the only available power to stay the torrent 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 manfiully againiist the Democracy; crying aloud and sparing not; denouncing its harsh tyranny, its vindictive proscription, its reckless prodigality, its gross usurpations of authority not conferred by the Constitution, its official corruptions will now consent to impliedly admit that all their charges were false, that all their clamors were mere idle words, and(l tanmely 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 hL cherishes anv such hope, I think he sadly mistakes the ~netal of wehiclh 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 success and its incidents, has been the object for which they struggled. Thley are not now prepared to admit that their whole career has been one of falsehood and unfounded calumny Mr. Wise, time will show. I think they cannot 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 m emb ers from their allegiance?

Was not Mr. Fillmore then the choice of the Whigs of Virginia? Was he not universally conceded to be a conservative,constitution-lovi ng, l aw-abiding, and law-enforcing chief magistrate? Did he not fulfil every requisition of the Jeffersonian test?was he not honest and capable, and fa ithful to the Constitution? Did he not perform all his dutie s t o the S
outh and to the North with strict fidelity an d imparti ality? Did he not restore harmony to a d istracted country? Did he not se e that the laws were faithfully executed? Did he n ot m aintain the hono r of our country inviolate at home and abroad? Did he pander to sec tional prejudices, or seek by deuplicity-l ook ing one way and rowing another 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 Unionloving Whigs and Denocrats? IIas he intrigued or manceuvred 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 support him? The Democracy profess to regard the slavery question as the great question of the day.

Has not Mr. Fillmore proved himself sound on that? Where is the Democrat who has given as strong evidence as Mr. Fillmore of his determination to uphold the guaratntees and compromises of the Constitution? And can any one doubt that, if elected, he will do the same thing again? Why then not support 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 sentimentthat he loves his own country and his own countrymen better than foreign countries and foreign men-sufficient to cancel the debt of gratitude which Virg,inia owes him, and to obliterate from the hearts of her sons the record of his virtues and his patriotic devotion to the national welfare? Oh no! It cannot l,e! The hearts of the Whigs of Virginia will leap toward him. They will remember his ability, and fidelity, and truth, and although they may even differ with him on some of these questions, they will make them secondary to the great object of securing domestic tranquillity, and placing in the chair of Washington a man whose administration, in times of peculiar peril, was pronounced, if not by Mr. 309

Page 310 view page image

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, Unionloving 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; n)w, that a sure guarantee is given to them, by a presentation of their own trusted favorite Fillmore, aN 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, t he Democratic; the black man’s party, the Black Republicans; the cross of Northern and Southern KnowNothings, the ticket of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson.” That there will be important issues presented in the coming election is unquestional)ly 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 solemnn pledge given at Baltimore in 1852, promised not to agitate again, but which, in violation of their pledge of fitith to the country, they have reopened 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 country to be extricated from the difficulties which now environ it? And the reply comes u’ at once, by invoking the aid of the man who settled similar difficulties before.

Common sense would seem to indicate the propriety 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 -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 the admission of Missouri, can be seen by reference to the history of the latter. Matteson, Gilbert, Edwards, and Welch. ALLEGED CORRUPT CONGRESSIONAL COMBINA TIONS. ON the 9th of January, 1857, Mr.William II. Kelsey, a member of the tiouse of Represen. t ati ves fro m the s tat e of N ew York, rose in hit 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 IIotose have entered into corrupt combinations for the purpose of passing and of preventing the passagte of certain measures now pending before Con gress: Therefore Resolved, That a onmmitt~,e e,onsisting of five members, be appointed lby the Srea,ker, with p(,wer to send for persions Bend papirst to inlvestig,ate saidl charges; and that said committee report the evidence taken. and what action. in thei juir nudinent. is n ecessary o n the part of the Iouse, without any unnece.,sary delay. Mr. PAIN-E. I scarcely know, 5tr. Speaker, whether to say anything in relation to this matter or not. I know nothing about the editor 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 proposition made in this House, by a menmber of this ttouse, upon this very subject. [“Name! name!”]. I shall not name the gentleman at this time. It was with feelings of indignation that I heard the proposition.

The reason I did not resent it was because it would have been a violation of the rules of this Ilouse. The reason I did not denounce it to the IIouse was b)eeause, during the pendency of the struggle for the organization 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 310 ous storm, and you were again beset b tempests, would you not a second time Ca I hin. to the helm?

Why then should not the people of the United States again avail themselves of the services of the statesman whose wisdom and patriotism guided them in 1850 through perils like those that now threaten their safety? MADISON.

Page 311 view page image

MATTESON, GILBERT, EDWARDS, AND WELCH. credit he received for divulging the fact was that of being laughed at, a nd of being charged that he d id not accept of the br ib e m erely because there was no such place as was offered to him. I say now distinctly uponthis foor, th oato there is not an entire want of truth i n the alleaations contained in that article; that a distinct jroposition has been made by a member of this louse, and in rel ard t o the Minnesot a land bill, that $1500 would be guarantied to a member fo r his vote for that bill; and when the committee is raised and I am called up on, I will give my evidence before the committee. After some farthe r debate the resolution weas adopted. T he Speaker appointed the committ ee the next day, to consis t of Messr s. Kelsey of N. Y., e r r oS C, Dis of S.C., Davis of Md., Ritchie of Pa., and Warner of Ga. On the 19th of February, 1857, the committe e reported the following resolutions thlrouh the members of the committee respectively under whose name the resolutions appear. The committee were unanimous in their conclusions 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 resolutions. 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 3Ioines grant to have here and to use a large sulm of money and other valuable considerations corruptly, 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 associatil 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 and wilfully assailed and defamed the character of this lieuse, and has proved himself unworthy to be a member thereof. Resolved, That Orgamus B. Matteson, a member of this ilou.ve from the state of New York, be, and is hereby expelled therefrom. By Mr. Davis of Md.: Resolved, 1. That William A. Gilbert, a member of this itouse 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 c,pies of the book of the said Triplett on the pension and b,,tunty 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 land and some stock given or to be given to him. Resolved, 3. That William A.

Gilbert, a member of this it iuse from New York, be forthwith expelled from this Ilouse. By M~r. Ritchie of Pa.: Re~solved, That Francis S.

Edwards, a member of this lIouse from the state of New York, did, on the 23d daty of December lust, attempt to induce Robert T. Paine, a member of this H~ouse 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 P’aine for his support of the said bill. Resolved, That the said Francis S. Edwards be, and he tJ
hereby expelled from this H~ouse. By Mr. Davis of Md.: Itesolved. That William W. Welch did corruptly com bhine with William A. Gilbert, a member of this Ilouse 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 nland 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 procure money from James R.

Sweeney for reporting favorably 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 Ilouse 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, Hendley Os.

Bennett, Bishop, Bliss, Bowie, Boyce, Bradshaw, Branch, Brenton, BROOM, Buffinton, Burnett, Cadwaader. James II. Campbell, JOHN P. CAMPSELL, CARLILE, Caruthers,Caskie, Clawson, Ctingoman, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Comins, Covode, Cox. Craige, Crawford, CULLEN, Damrell, Davidson, HENRY

WINTER DAVIS. Jacob C. Davis, Day, Denver, De Witt, DowdeU, DUNN Durfee, iEdmundson. Elliott, Emrie, EUSTIS, Faulkner, Flagler, Florence, FOSTER, HENRY M. FULLER, Thlomas J. D. Pluller, Galloway, Garnett, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, Ilarlan, J. MORRISON HARRIS, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Har-ris, HARRISON, HAVEN, Ierbert, HOFFMAN, Thomas R. toirton, Valentine B. Horton, Houston, Jewett, George W. Jones, Keitt, Kelly, KENNETT, Kidwell, Knapp, Knight, Knox, Kunkel, LAKE, Letcher, LINDLEY, Lumpkin, ALEXANDER K. MAR SHALL, Samuel S Marshall, Maxwell, McMullin, AMcQueen, Smnith Miller, Millson., Millward, MOORE, Morrill, Morrison, M
ott, Orr, Packer, P.UNE, Parker, Peck, Pennington, Perry, Pike, PORTER, Powell, Purviance, PURYEAR, Quitman, READS, I{EADY~, RICAuD, Ritchic, Robbins, Roberts,Rufflin,Rust, Sabin, Sandidge, Sapp, Savage, Scott, Seward, Shorter, William Smith, WILLIAM R. SMITH, Spinner, Stanton, Stewart, Strandhan, Talbott, Taylor, Todd, Trafton, Tyson, UNDERWOOD, Vail, VALK, WValker, Warner, Cadwalader C. Washburne, WVatkins, Wheeler, Winslow, Wood, Daniel B. Wright, John V. Wright, ZOLLICOFFER.-145.

NAYS.-Messrs. Albright, Henry Bennett, Burlingame, Lewis D. Campbell, Chaffee, Bayard Clarke, Colfax, Tim othy Davis, Dickson, Granger, 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 elicited by the committee having charge of the subject. and reported to this hlouse in the case of William W. Welch, a member thereof, and that no further proceedings shall be htd against such member. Which was agreed to by the followingvote: YFEAs,.-Messrs.

AKERS, Albright, Ball, Barbour, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bishop, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, BROOM, Buffington, Burlingame, CadwaIader, James It. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell. Chaffee, Bayard Clark, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax, Comins. Corvode, Cragin, Cumback, Timothy Davis. Dean, De Witt, Dickson, Dodd, Durfie, Edie, Emrie, Etherilge, FIlagler, lIEN’RY M. FULLER, Galloway. Granger, Robert 1. Ihdil, Ilarlani, J. MORRISON HARRIS, Herbert, IIodges, Hollo)ay, Thow:is R. IIorton.

Valentine B. IIorton, howard, tlu-ghston, Aeliy, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Letcher, LINDISEY, ALEXANDER K.

MARSIHALL. IUMPISREY MARSHALL, McCarty, Killian Miller, Millssm, Mluward, iMooRE, Morgan. Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Norton, PAINE, Parker.

Peck, Pelton, Pennington, l’ei ry, iPettit, Pike, PoxrT-, Pringle, Purviance, Robbins, Roberts, Sabin, Sage, 1311

Page 312 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. .sndidge, Sapp, Scott, &tard, Sherman. Simmons, Samu1 Gran,-er, IHarlan, Herbert. Hedges, Ilolloway, Tliomas R. A. Smith, WVilliam Smith, WILUAIM R. SMITH, Spinner. Stan-l|orton. lowtrd.

lIughston. KEkNNETT. King. Knapp, K(un ton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston, Todd. Traf-kel, Ioiter. LINDLI;Y, Mace. AL;XAINDER K.

M.AStVtAI,LI, M ilL ton, UNDERWOOD, Wade, Wakeman, Waldron. Ca:dwaldt-r smn, Mlillward, lorgan. Morrill. Nichols, Andrew Oliv.r, C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washit,rne, |‘arker, I’elton. Pennlinogton.

I’ettit, Por-TEa, Pringle, Q;itf Watson, Wells, Williams, Wood, Woodruff, Woodworth.- man, IICAUD, Robbins, lloberts. Rlobinson, Sabi,, Sati 119.

Sapp, Simmons, Stalton. STEWART. SWOPE, Tappan, Thoring. NAYs. Messrs.

Allen, Hendley S. Bennett, Bw’e, Burnett, to. Thus-.ton. Todd, Trafton.

lail, Walbridge, Waldron, JOHN P. CAMPBELL, Casuthers, Cuskie, Williamson R. W. (bb. C,.dwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Watson, Cox, Crawford. CULLEN, HIENRY WINTER DAVIS, L’nsdell. DuNN, le/ls, WHITNEY, }Vinssow.-88. Edmundson. Eliott, Florence, FOSTER, GOode, Auyustus Ill, .ampson }V Harris, Thomas L. Ilarris. H.AVEN, HOFFMAN, Democrats in italics, Fillmore Americans iq Houston, JeweW, George W. Jones, Kidwell, LAKF. Lumpl in, SAL CPITALS, Republicans in roman. McQueen. Orr, Pcker, READE. READY, RICAUD, Ruffin, Siorter, .etoar~t, Wab’cer, Warner, Whecler…-4t. Rewa,-t, Water, Warner, Wheeler.-411 bill Befoire the resolutions relating to Messrs.. The committee reported the following bill:- Mtteson an othe rs had passed, the state lM~ltte,,ion andl others hadl passed, thf, state A Bill to protect the people against corrupt and secret in- )f New York had elected representatives to fluenee in matters of legislation. Be it enacted by the Senate and liouse of Rlepresentatives the next, or the 35th Congress. Amongst the of the United States of America in Congress assemble, reresentatives elected Mr. Matteson Was r That no person shall, directly or indirectly, otfer or agree, to give any money or other valuable thing, or security for turnted as a member of the 35th Congress. any money or other valuable thing, to any person for the On tile first day of the Congress MIr. Matte service of such person, or of any other person. in aidinig, or anwered to his name nd was sworn in.

adlvocating, or pro(uring, the passage or defeat of any e na sure before either House of Congress, or any commsittee of On the 25th February, 1858, Mr. Harris, of either House, to be paid or delivered on the contingency of Ilinois introduced tle following resolutions: the passage or defeat of any measure before either House of Congress, or before any committee of either lHouse: and Whereas, at the last session of Congress, a that no person shall agree to accept or receive. or shall ac-select comlmlnittee of this Ilouse reported the cept or receive, any money or other valuable thing for aid-ing, or advocating, or procuring, the passage or dfe:et of foiO lng resolutions, to wit: any meas.ure before either House of Congress, or betfore any (1lere the resolutions on the preceding page committee of either House; and that every bargain, co rlti to Mr. Matteson, were repeat.) tract, or security for any such compensation on any such contingency, and all shifts and contrivances to cover or con-And said comnittee also reported the facts veal such bargain. are hereby declared null and void; and upon which said resolutions were predicated, the parties to any such bargain, contract, agreement, or wih re published with the reports of the understanding, as well the party to pay as the party to re ceive the money or other valuable thing, or security there-Ilouie; nnld whereas the first of said resolu for, on any such contingency as is above indicated, are tions was adopted by the Iouse of Represen hereby declared guilty of a misdemeanor; andl on conviction thereof before any court of the United States having julis-ttl ives on thle 27thi of February last by a vote diction of the said offence, shall suffer imprisonment in the of 145 ttyes to 17 ioes, and the said second re common jail for not less than six months, nor more than t y s one year. and be subject to a fine of not less than one hu soluton ws dopted y the ouse on tile dred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. same day withont a division; and whereas the Sec. 2. That no person having any interest in the passage said Mtteson had, prior to atny vote being or defeat of any measure before either House of Congressg and no agent or person acting for or representing any otlher taken on the last resolution, resigned his seat person as agent or attorney, in law or in fact, forpour in tlls louse aud thus avoided the effect of aiding, or advocating the passage or defeat of any meas.ure before either House of Congres.q, or before any committee of the same, had it been passed; and whereas the either house, shall approach, converse with, or explain to, said Matteson is a mnemb.er of this Ilouse. with or in any manner attempt to influence, any nmember of the imputations conveyed by the passagie otf the ,qther Ilouse relative to such measure, without first di-puttns e pas e tinctly disclosing to such member whether he is interested first twot of the fore(going resolutions still uipon personally in his own right or as agent for any other’persn I In without ti een susequently in the passage or defeat of such measure; and any p.sor u sy who shall violate the provisions of this section is hereby r-electedt I)v his constituents: Therefore declared guilty of a niis(ldemeanor, and on conviction thereof, ]?e.(veol, lI -t Orsaimus B.

Mattestn, a men before any court of the United States, be punishd y her f th ouse frot the Stt of New York, prisonment for not le.ss than one month nor more than one year, and by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor b)e, and is hereby, expelled from this IHouse. more than one thousand dollars. Tle same li vine been read, The hill was passed on the 28th of Feb. After delite, 1857, by the following vote:- hre ries)lutions were, on nmotion of Mr. Sew YEAS.-Messrs. Aiken. Allison, Henaley S. Bennett, Benson ard of Georgia, referred to a select ominittee l’ingham. Burnett, Ctdsoalader, James Ii. Campbell, JoiiN On the 22d of March, 1858, Mr.

Sew.ard, from ‘. CANIPaELL, Lewis D. Campbell, CARLSLF.,. Caruthers, Caskie th sele coniittee, conistin Ezra Clark, Clingsnan, Williamson R. W.

Cobb, Cox, Cra, f -LI elf ford. CULLEN. Cumback, Davidson, HENRY WINTER

Dtvis, Messrs. Grow of Pennsylvania, lIuyler of New Day, Dean, Dick.

Doedel. DUlNN, Durfee, mudo. Ell, Jersey, and Curtis of I)wa, made a report. Fmrie, EvSTIS, EVANS, hbulkner, Poence, FOSTER,. Caroett. G9.d, Greenwesod. J. MORRISON HARRIS, Samps,oz W: lIa,ris The committee, after detailing the facts It Thomas L. Harmis, IAVEN. HOFFMaN. Valentine B.

Hlorton, the case, discussedl tlte power of the ltouse as Houston. Jewett, Ge,rge IV Jones, Kelly, AKidwell. Kibt, follows Knowlton, Knox, If/her, Lumnpkin, oHU1PHREY eARRJLIA fllos - .%muel S. Marshall, Mazxel, McQueen, Killian Miller, Smith With the expiration of the 34th Congress MHler, )tOORE M,rison Mott. Norton Orr, 1icier IPe Perry. Pi~ke. Pweil’P, Ot n KOR,r HEADY iltcb its pouwer s euded. Its judgment had been proRuftin.indoidge, Satc age. Scott, ward, Sherman,,Snuet sA. nesutirei.

Mr. Mattosti, if l.nIv other respon,?mith, WilFiam Smith. WILLUAM R.

SMITH. Spinner Strana-silility arttschel tO h im was amenable to the han, Talibott, Taylor. UKDrR WOOD, VALK, Wade, Wakemasn, Walker, Wornmer, Wa W
esr, Williams. Wood. people of his diSt1it. Ti0 e f:~ct ot Mr.

MatteWoodruff, Woodworth, Daniel B. Wright, John r Wright. son’s electiion tis t}he 35th Ctttresrs was known YA)L1JCOFFER.-104. 1 1. os NaYs.-Messrs.

Albright, Allen, Ball, Barbour. Barclay, onse ot.r..on the 34t1 Ilenry Bennett, Billinghurst, Bishop, Bliiss, BcocAk, Bcm’ie, Cti,sgress, alnldj if tlhe Ilituse hiaq tho right to Itradshaw. Brenton, Bnoos. Buflinton, Burlingame. Chat-declare a (iisquaiitictiiin oxitiuding the .ee. Cliwson, Colfax, Comins. Covede, Craiye, Darmrell. J hico er I. t’. Davis, Dent,er, De Witt, Dickson, Dodd, Edie, ETr$ERIDoz, oer accused f’ ronl his seat, it is not ea sy to Flqler,;NDsx Ha rtns, Thomas J. V. FuUer, ts’lloway, conceive, upon any fair principle uf reasoning, 312

Page 313 view page image

MATTESON.-McKINLEY, JOHN. Resolved, That it is inexpedient for this Iiouse to take any further action in regard to the resolutions proposing to expel O. B. Matteson. 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. why the IHouse 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 Ilouse 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 ‘teprive them of their rights and privileges. To exert it would be a flagrant usurpation of powers never granted to this body, and would iltimately annihilate the power of the people iii the choice of their representatives. It is a rluestion of usurpatio n up on the one side, and Amnerican freedom upon the other. While this House should scrupulously guard and protect its own privileges and purity, it ,,hould be equally cautious not to invade the p)rivileges of the people. Can any reasonable doubt be entertained as to the power claimed, it should be permitted to remain with the people, who, wisely under our system of governiiment, are confided with the duty of selecting their representatives everv two years.

The committee, while they are not prepared to admit the jurisdiction of the HIouse over the question as now presented, yet, as the resolution referred to them proposes the expulsion of the member from New York, and seeks to go beyond the resolutions of censure of the Iouse of Representatives of the 34th Congress, it b)ecamte necessary, in view of the diversity of opinion upon the subject of jurisdiction as to its rights and privileges, to look for the facts tipon 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 )‘oper determination of the case. tlence, the co~mmittee felt it due to principle and to the ,-ccused to give him the privilege of appearing :efore the committee, that he might b’ heard f he desired. Mr. Matteson accordingly ap,eared and submitted his statement, which is -resented to the consideration of the House. The propriety of this view of the subject . ill at once be admitted, as this House seeks ,) punish the member to the full extent known :) the Constitution upon a bare resolution, :ithout providing for any trial, or affi)rding to lie accused any means of defence. Whatever rgumenits may be deduced from the resolution ,f the last House contemplating the expulsion of Mr. Matteson, still no decision was had hereon, and the resolution was laid upon the :-ble. Whether, upon a direct vote, two’iirds of the members wNould have voted for :is expulsion, is not fo~r your committee to deermline. The mnode of’ proceedling~, shouldl tile urisdiction be a~ssumed, w^ill b)e for the House :~ determine, 19okingr to the grealt principle inollved and the member to h~e affectedl thereby. All of which is respectfhllly subm)llitted. J.MEs L. SE\ aRo, C/hcairanlz. GAI,I,sn. A. GRow5, John’ I1
vrLSR. McKinley, John, late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, lON

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 $10 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 apply 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 exclusively. In the face of this fact, the debates in the convention, certain numbers of the Federalist, together with Mr. Madison’s report to the legislature of Virginia in 1799eleven years after the adoption of the Constitution-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 language and clearness of diction in the Constitution 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 318

Page 314 view page image

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 separate and distinct classes of persons intended to be provided for by thi. clause. Although they are both subjects of commerce, the latter class only is the subject of trade and importation. 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 conmmerce or importation, 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 reimove at pleasure from one place to another andi when they determined to migrate or remove from any European government to the United States, they voluntarily dissolved the bond of allegiance to their sovereign, with the intention to contract a temporary or permanent allegiance to the government of the United States, and if transported in an American ship, that allegiance 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. Itaving thus shown that there are two separate and distinct classes included in, and provided by, the clause of the Constitution 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 exemption from the prohibition of Congress was confined exclusively to the states then existing, 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 subl)ject of migration antl importation was complete throughout the United States after 1808. The power to prohibit the admission of “all1 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 w hole power over the sub)ject belongs exclusively to Congress, aoln connects itself indissolubly w ith the power to regulate commerce faith foreign natiosii. tlow 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 314 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 thev 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 q’uestions 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 consideration, to the line which separates it from the reserved powers of the states, and plainly established the power of the states over the same subjectmatter beyond that line. The clause of the Constitution alread y referred to in this case, taken in connexion with the provision which confers on Congre’ss 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 suject; 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. lt therefore follows that passengers can never be sub ect to state laws until they become a portion of the population of the state, temporarily or permanently; and this view of the sub ect seems to be fullv sustained by the case above referred to. Were, it even admitted that the state of New York had power to pass the statute under consideration, in the absence of legislation by Congress on this subject, it would avail nothing in thisgease, because the whole ground ba(i been occupied by Conress before that act was passed, as has been f’ullly shown by the eceding opinion of y brother Catron. k)e laws referred to in that opinion show coneltisively that the passengers, their moneys, their cloting, their baggage, their tools, their iniplements, &c., are permitted to land in th(

United States without tax, duty, or impost. I therefore concur in the opinion, that the itidl  ment of the court below should be rever;ed.”

McLean, John, Justice. OPINION OF, IN SAME CASE. JUSTICE MCLEAN thus distinctly recognise(I the internal police power of the states: ” The acknowledged police power of,t 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 I)e removed. Merchandise from a port where -i contagious disease prevails, being li,tl)le to communicate the disease, may be excluded and, in extreme cases, it may be thrown into

Page 315 view page image

McLEAN, JOIIN.-MIEXICAN WAR. trusted with full powers to adjust all ques tions in dispute between the two governments w ith 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 Herrera 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 mov ement of American troops under General Taylor to the banks of the D)el Norte opposite Matamoras, caused the Mexican forces to assum aa belligerent a tt it ude. On the 12th of April, 1846, General Ampudia, the n in command of the Mexican forces, notified General 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 he 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 communicated to Congress by President Polk, on the 11 th day of May, 1846, who asked for supplies 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 consideration 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: 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,. thie law of nature, and is possessed b y man in hies individua l capacity. Ile may resist that ofhiceh does harm him, whether he be assailed )Xv an assassin, or approached by poison. And it is the settle d co nstru ctio n of every renula tion of commerce, that, under the sanction of its general law s, n o person can introduce into a commv unity malignant diseases, or anything which contaminate s its morals, or en dangers it s safety. And this is an acknowledged prin ciple applicable to all g en eral regulations. Individuals, in the enjoyment of their own rights, mu st b e careful not to injure the rights of’ others. ” From the explosive nature of gunpowder, a city may exclude it. d Now th is is an article of commerce, and i s n ot kn own to carry infec tious disease; yet, to gu ar d against a contin gent i njury, a city may prohibit its introduc tion. These exceptio n s are always implied in commercial regulations, where the general governm ent is admitted to have the exclusive powter. Theyft are not regulat ions of commerce, b ut acts of self preservation. And although they affec t commerce to some extent, yet such effect is th e r esu lt of the exercis e of an und oubted pow er in the state. X “In all matter s of government, and especially of police, a wide discretion is necessa ry. It is not susceptib le of an exact limit ation, but must be exercis ed u nder the changing exigencies of society. In the progress of population, of C realth, and of civilization, new and vicious indulgencies spring up, which require restraints that c an only be impo sed by the legislative power. When this power shall be exer ted, how far it shall be carried anqwhere it shall cease, must mainly depend upoffthe evil to be remedied. Under the pretence of a police regulation, a state cannot counteract th e comm e rcial power of Congress. And yet, as has been shown, to guard the health, morals, sand 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 operation of the general commercial law is limited to the existing exigency. ~ X “The police power of a state and the foreign 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, distinct, and independent, and are essential to both governments.” “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 Ilouse 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 termination, 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 tihemen, 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. Mexican War. O 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 315

Page 316 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. That the sum of ten millions of dollars, be and the same I NAYS.-MeV,rs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Bagby, is hereby appropriated. out of any Ioneoy in the Treasury Benton, Breese, Bright, Canmeron, Cass. Colquitt, Dix, lIouso,r to coine into the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, ton, Jarnagin. Jenness, Johnson of Md., Johnson of La., for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this act into Lewis, Niles, Pe!iiiybaeker, IRusk, Semple, Sevier, Speight, effect.”

I Sturgeon, Turney, Westcott, Yulee.-28. Mr. Hlolmes of S. C., denounced the pre-The bill finally passed the Senate, there amble as base, fraudulent and false. being only two negative votes-Messrs. Thos. Mr.

Bayly of Virginia was unwilling at that Clayton of Del., and John Davis of Mass. time to vote a declaration of war, but consid-Messrs. Calhloun, Berrien, and Evans reered withholding the supplies under the cir-fused to vote at all on account of the preamcumstances a greater evil. ble. Mr.

Albert Smith declared the preamble to Senators Crittenden and Upham answered be “false in facts, and operating as a fraud “ay, except the preamble.” upon the nation.” Messrs. Mangum, Clayton, and Dayton en The vote was taken, and here it is:- tered their protest against the preamble.

The first question was on striking out the As passed by the Senate it was amended, first section and inserting in lieu thereof the which amendments were concurred in by the section moved by Mr. Boyd, hliereinbefore re-Ikuse, and the bill became a law on the 13thli recited. of May, 1846. On this question MIr. Rockwell of Con. de-On that day the President issued his promanded the yeas and nays. clamation declaring war to exist between the Mr. Winthrop wished the question divided, United States and Mexico.

and put last on what he contended was a preamble. The Thirtieth Congress a ssembled on the After an argument on the question of order, 6th of Dec., 1847, with a Whig majority of 8 the chair ruled that the amendment was one, opposed to the administration of Mr. Polk, the and could not be divided. remarkable gain of 71 Whig or opposition The question being put.

the amendment was members upon the preceding Congress. adopted by yeas and nays as follows:- On the 15th of Dec., 1847, Mr. Calhoun in YEAS.-MesSrs.

Stephen Adams, Auderson. Arnold. Atkin-troduced a resolution declaringP)n, Baker. Bell. Benton, Biggs, James Black. Jas. A. Black, “That to conquer and hold Mexico either as Bowlin, Boyd, Brinkerhoff.

Brockenbrough, Brodhead, Mil-ton Brown, William G. Brown, John H.

Campbell, Cathcart, province, or incorporating it into the Union, John G.

Chapman, Rteuben Chapman, Chase, Chipman, is inconsistent with the avowed object of the Clarke, Cobb. Cocke. Collin, Cullom, Cummins, Dniel, war contrary to the settled policy of the govDarragh, Jefferson Davis, De Mott, Dillingham, Dobbin, Douglas, Dromgoole, Edsall, Elsworth, Erdman.

Faran, ernment, in conflict with its character and geFicklin, Fries, Garvin, Gentry, Goodyear, Gordon, Graham,. nius and in the end nust be subversive of Grover, Ilaralson, Harmansoni, Henley, hloge, Ilopkins.

Itough, George S. Houston, Ilungerford, Jas. B. Ilunt, all our free and popular institutions.” Charles J. Ingersoll. Joseph R. Ingersoll, Jose-ph Johnson, ” Resolved, That no line of policy in the Andrew Johinson, Geo.

W. Jones, Kennedy, Preston King, farther prosecution of the war should be l,eib, La Sere, Levin, Ligon, Lunipkin, Maclay, McClean, McClelland.

McClernand. McC onnell, Joseph J. McDowell, adopted, which may tend to consequences so James McDowell, McKay, John I’. Martin, Barclay Martin, disastrous.” Morris, Morse, Moulton, Niven, Norris, Owen, Parish, Payne.

Various resolutions were introduced in th, Perrill, Pettit, Phelps, Pollock, Price, Ramsey. Rathbun, Reid,uced n the Relfe. Ritter, Roberts, Sawtelle, Sawyer, Scammois, Leonard IHouse of Representatives, by different memII. Sims. Thos. Smith,Robert Smith, Stanton, Starkweather. b r ti to the hers, relative to the war. 5t. John, Strong, Thibodeaux, Thomasson, Jacob Thompsonf e C Thurman, Tibbats. Towns, Tredway, Trumbo, Wentworth, A sews by Mr. Iolmes of S.C., entitled t Wheaton Wick, Woodruff. Yell, Young.-123. project for peace and free trade with Mexico, NAs. Nhessrs. Abbott. John Q. Adams, Ashmun, Barringer, Bayly, Bedinger, Blanchard, Buffington, Burt, W. agreeing to re-cede all the territory taken from W. Campbell, Carroll, Cranston, Crozier, Culver, Garrett Mexico beyond the Rio Grande in consid(leraDavis, Delano Dockery Dunlap, John II. Ewing, dwi 11-tion of free ingress and egress for our citizens Ewing Foot, Giddings, Griler.( Grinnell, IIamlin, -Ia1mpton,.

Harper, Herrick, Ililliard, E. B. iolmes, IE. I Holmes, Jno. in New Mexico and Upper California, and of w. Houston, E. W. liubard, Sam. D. Hubbard, Ilud son, carrying on trade as fully as any of the MexiHunter, Daniel P.

King, Thomas B. King, Lewis McGaughey, of the c McHenry, Mcllvaine, Marsh, Miller. Moseley, Pedleton can citizens of these provinces. Rhett,Joh n A.

Rockwell, Root Schenck, Seddon, Severance, Mr. Richardson of Ill.

intro(duced resoluAlexander D. Sims, Simpson, Truman Smith, Albert Smith, tions advocating a prosecution of hostilities Stephens Stewart, Strohm, Benjamin Thompson, Tilden,. Toombs, Vance, Vinton, Winthrop, Woodward, Yancey. 67. vigorously. The bill as amended, on motion of Mr. Boyd Mr.

Stephens of Ga. introduced an’tinendpassed by a vote of 122 yeas to 14
nays. T”he ment, that the present war with Mexico should negative vote being as follows:- not be waged witlk a view to conquest, either by the subgugation or dismetberment of that Messrs. John Quincy Adams and Ashmun of Mass., Cran-I ston of R. I., Culver of N. Y.. Delany and Giddings of o., republic, and expressive of the desire of the Griunell, Hudson and King of Mass., Root of 0., Severance Utited States to terminate hostilities upon of Me., Strohm of Pa., Tilden and Vance of terms honorable to both parties. In the Senate a war was made upon the pre-Mr.

Botts of Va. offered as a substitute, amble of the bill. resolutions to the following effect: A motion to strike it out was lost by the fol-A”That a preservation of the national integlowing vote:- rity, a strict observance of the limitations of YEAs.-Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Berrien, Calhoun, Thomas the Constitution, and a resistance to executive Clayton, John M. Clayton, Corwin, Crittenden, Davis, Day- * c ton, Evans, Huntington, McDuffie, Mangum, Morehead, encroachment, is the highest duty of the repillmmonu8 Upham, Woodbridge.-18. resentatives of the people; that a war of con 16

Page 317 view page image

MEXICA.N WAR. quest is violative of the Constitution and ge-due to our citizens at the comnimencement of lius and spirit of our institutions; that the the war; and that a convention shall be en.resent war was not brought on bv the act of tered into by the two na tions to provide for Iexico; that it was the unauthorized act of the liquidation of those claims and the modo the President; that we have no right to claim of payment. indemnity for the expenses of the war; that Mr. Hudson called for the previous question the honor of this nation does not consist in on the resolution. exacting territory from Mexico to which we After much discussion about disposing of lhave no claim, and yielding to Great Britain the resolution, movements to lay it on the territory the title to which was declared to be table, &c., the resolution was disagreed to by clear and unquestionable, and that to pursue 41 yeas, 137 nays. the weak and evade the strong does not pre-Mr. Dickey of Pa. moved a preamble and(

Feiit the honor, courage, or greatness of our resolutions deprecating the present war with leople in their true light: Mexico, and to appoint a joint committee of That to exact indemnity from Mexico would five from the Houses to confer with the Presi involve us in the sustenance of a principle in dent and to report to each House, in secret or all future wars which would cause us either open session as it may be proper, the best mode to surrender the same or be engaged in interof terminating the same. minable conflict; that no new territory can Mr. IIamnpton of Pa.

introduced a preamble be annexed to the United States by virtue of and resolutions providing for the admission a war, without involving the agitation of do-into our Union of such Mexican territories riestic difficulties, begetting sectional animosi-whose people may apply therefor. ties, and weakening the ties which bind us Mr. Houston of Del., previous notice having together. The resolutions continued in very been given, introduced the following joint re much the same spirit in opposition to the war, solution of thanks to Major Gen. Taylor - and are too long to be afforded space in these Resolved by the Senate and hIouse of Re columns. presentatives of the United States of America Mr. Thompson of Ind. gave notice of a pro-in Congress assembled, That the thanks of position which he should submit, when in Congress are due, and they are hereby tenorder, pointing out the terms to Mexico upon dered to Major General Zachary Taylor, and which peace might be established. through himn to the officers and soldiers of the The previous question not being seconded, regular army and of the volunteers under his the discussion of these resolutions was laid command, for their indomitable valor, skill, over to a future day. and good conduct conspicuously displayed on On the 22d of Dec., Mr. Lincoln, of Ill., in-the 22d and 23d days of February last, in the troduced a resolution calling upon the Prcsi-battle of Buena Vista, in defeating a numerous dent to inform Congress whether the spot on Mexican army, consisting of four times their which the first blood was shed, was American number, and composed of chosen troops under soil or not. their favorite commander, Gen. Santa Anna, Mr. Toombs offered a resolution that the and thereby obtaining a victory over the enedismemberment of Mexico, as an indispensable my which, for its signal and brilliant characcondition of the restoration of peace, was ter, is unsurpassed in the military annals of neither required by the honor or interest of the world. the republic. Resolved, That the President of the United Mr. Vandyke of N. J. offered a resolution States be requested to cause to be struck a that the order stationing General Taylor on gold medal with devices emblematical of this the banks of the Rio Grande was an act of splendid achievement, and presented to Major aggression in itself, and the immediate cause Gen. Taylor, as a testimony of the high sense of the conflict between the two nations; that entertained of his services on that memorable the war should not be prosecuted any further; occasion.

that our forces should be withdrawn from Rcsolved, That the President of the United Mexico, &c., &c. States be requested to cause the foregoing re solutions to be communicated to Major General Taylor in such manner as he may deem best On the 3d of January, 1848, Mr. Hudson calculated to effect the objects thereof. mioved the following resolution:- Mr. Evans intimated his desire to offer the Resolved, That the committee on military following amendment:affairs be directed to inquire into the expedi-Resolved, That the capitulation of Monterey ency of requesting the President of the United meets with the entire sanction and approbaStates to withdraw to the east bank of the Rio tion of this Congress; and that the terms of Grande our armies now in Mexico; and to that capitulation were as creditable to the propose to the Mexican government figrthwith humanity and skill of the gallant Taylor as. a treaty of peace on the following bases, the achievement of the victory of Monterey namely: That we relinquish all claim to in-was glorious to our arms. demni,y for the expenses of the war, and that Somc conversation ensued bet~;een the the boundary between the United States and Speaker, Mr. Schenck, Mr. itvans, and others. Mexico shall be established at or near the Mr. Ihouston of Del., to obviate all difficuldesert between the Nueces and the Rio Grande; ties, moved the previous question on the that Mexico shall be held to pay all just claims original resolution. all,

Page 318 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 territory embraced within the limits set forth in said bill. The law prescribed that the convention 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 directly an opposite course of action, and reaching opposite conclusions. Under the law the President was required to issue his proclamation recognising Mic-higaan to be one of the state s o f the Union wlJen she complied with the requirements o f the same. tIad this condition of things arisen in the recess of Congress, President Jackson said he woul d h ave recognised the action of the con venti on wh ich had originated from the people themselves. But as Congress was then in session, he deemed it proper to lay the subject 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 footing 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 27th 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 member of the House. The previous question was not seconded. The speaker again announced the question to be on a motion by Mr. J amison t o refer to the committee on military affairs. Mr. Henley move d to a mend, b y adding an ins tr uction to the committee to add the words “en gag,ed asth we r i ei the ere in defending the righ t s an d honor of the nation.” On this he ask e d fo r the yeas and nacys. Mr.

Ashmun moved to amend the amendment by adding the words ” in a w ar unneces sarily and unconstit utiona lly begun by the President of the United States.” Mr. McLane said before he recorded his vote he desired The Speaker int erpose d, and informed the gentleman from Mar yland that debate was not in order-if it became the sub ject of debate, it would go over until to-morrow. Mr. McL ane said he ha d 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 t o the amendmen t; andy, i, be ing taken, they resulted as follows: YEAs.-Messrs. John Q.

Adams, Ashemun, Barringoer, B arrow, B elcher, B ott s, Br ady, Buckn er, Canby, Clingman, LCocke ar ne, Col a rner, Congeler, C roder, LmCrozier, Dickey, Dixo n, D onn ell, Duer, D aniel Duncan, Garnett Duncan, Dunn, Mr, Eck ert, Edards, Alexander Evans, Nathan Evans, Fisher, Fulton, Gayle, Gentry, Giddings, Goggin, Grinnell, HIale, Nathan K. Hall, Jaks. G.

Hampton, HIaskell, IHenry, John W. Housto n, Hubb ard, Hudson, Irvin, Kellogg, Thos. B. Kin, Sng, D a. K ing, Linacolhn, Mclvaine, Marsh, M
arvin, Mullin, Nes, Newall, Preston, Putnam, Reynolds, Julius Rockwell, John A. Rockwell, Root, Rumsey, St. John, Schenck, Shepperd, Sherrill, Slingerland, Caleb B. Smith, Truman Smith, Stephens, Andrew Stewart, Strohm, Sylvester, Taylor, Thibodeaux, Tompkins, Richard W. Thompson, John B. Thompson, Toombs, Tuck, Van Dyke, Vinton, Warren, Wilson.-85.

NAYs.-Messrs. Beale, Bedinger, Birdshall, Backl, Bowdon, Brod head, Wm. G.

Brown, Charles Bro wn, Cathcart, Chase, Beverly L. Clark, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cummins, Daniel, 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, Lahm, La Sere, Sidney, Lawrence, Leffler, Lord, Lumpkin, M’Clelland, M’Clernand, McDowell, McLane, Mann, Meade, Miller, Morris, Morce, Murphy, Peaslee, Peek, Phelps, Pilsbury, Rhett, Richardson, Richey, Robinson, Rockhill, Sawyer, Sims, Smart, Robert Smith, Stanton, Starkweather, C. E. Stuart, Strong, Thomas, Jas. Thompson, Jacob Thompson, William Thompson, Thurston, Turner, Venable, Wick, Williams.-81. 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 n orthern 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 ant should receive the assent of a convention Military Approriation Bill of 1856. LAST DAMY

OF TIIE CALLED SESSION. tSATURDAY, August 30, 1856, in the hIouse of Representatives, Mr. Campbell of Ohio, by leave, reported from the Ways and:leans 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 318

Page 319 view page image

MILITARY APPROPRIATION BILL OF 1856.-MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL. 319
enactment of the body claiming to be the ter-Dick, Dickson, Dodd, DUN.N, Durfee, Edie, Edwards, Emrie, ritorial legislature of Kansas. Flagler, Galloway, Giddiogs. Gilbert, Granger, Grow, Iarlan, Holloway, horton of N.

Y., Howard, Ilughston, Kelsey, The previous question was seconded, and King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, under the operation thereof, the bill was rea,d I Mace, Matteson, McCarty. Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, under he open e, te bl wa. ra Norton, Oliver of N.Y., Parker, Pelton, Pennington, Pettit, a third time and passed, by the following Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Robin vote:- son, Sabin, Sage, Sapp, Scott, Sherman, Simmons, Spinner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington. Thurston, Todd, YEAS.-Messrs. Albright, Allison, Barbour. Barclay, Henry Trafton, Wade, Wakeman, Walbridge, Waldron. Washburne Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bliss, Bradshaw, of Wis.. Washburne of l111., Washburne of Me., Welch, Wood, Brenton, Buffington. James H. Campbell, Lewis D. Camp-Woodruff, Wvoodworth.-98. bell, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax, Comi mocrats in ialics, Republicans in roman, Cragin, Cumback, Damrell, HENRY WINTER

DAVIS, Tialotlhy Davis, Dean, De Witt, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, Durfee, Edie, Fillisoore Americans in SMALL CAPITALS. EDWARDS, Emrie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert, Gran ger, Grow, Harlan, HAVEN, Holloway, Thomas R.

Horton, lioward, IIughston, Kelsey, King,. Knapp, Knight, Knowl-insters of the Gospel. ton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Matteson, McCarty, Morgan, PROTEST OF THREE THOUSAND AND FIFTY (.P Morrill, Mott, Murray, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, IPelto,i Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purvianee. Ritchie, Robbins, NEW ENGLAND AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF Roberts, Robison, Sabin. Sage, Sapp, Scott, Sherman, Sim-THE NEBRASKA BILL. mons, Spinner. Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston, Todd, Trifton, Tyson, Wade,Wakeman, Walbridge, Waldron, On the 14th of March, 1854, Mr. Everett Cadwalader C.‘ashburne. Elihu B. Wa.shburne, Israel of Mass., in the United States Senate, pre Washburne,‘elch, Wells, lvilliamns, Wood, Woodruff, Wood-sented the memorial as follows svorth.-St9. r~~~~~ented the memorial as follows: w,orth. 99. NAYS. Messrs. Airmen, AKERq, Barksdale, Bell, Hiendlley S. To the lhonorable the Senate and house of Bennett, Bocock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Cadwalader, in Cgress JOHN P. CAMPBELL, CARLILE. Caskie, Clingman, Howell Cob Representatives n Congress assembled: l~7lliamnson R. TV Cobb, Cox’ Craige, Crawford, CULLEN, Doe-The undersigned, clergymen of different dell. DuN. Bsoundsn,,Elliott, E

THIERIDGE, Florence, Thomas religious denominations in New England, J. D.

Fuller, Geede, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, J. MORR SON I[SRl Sai mpson IV

Harris, Thomas L. Ilarris, HARRISON, hereby, in the name of Almighty God, and in Hicktnan, IIOFFMAN., Houston, Jewett, George ITV Jones, J. his presence, do solemnly protest against the l’ancy Jones, KENNETT. Kidwell, LAKE, Letcher, Lumpk,in, Lc ALX ER K MARSHALL. HUMPREY S ax passage of what is known as the Nebraska MIace, ALEXANDER K. M.ARSHALL, HIUMPHREY

MARSHALL. 2}lax, sell, M-cfullen, cQVeen. Smith, Miller, Millson, Mfordecai bill, or any repeal or modification of the exist Ol-ver Ot-r, Pennington, Phelps. Powell, PUTRYEAR, Quitmal ing legal pr ohibitnf that TICAUD, RIVERS Ruffin, Rist, Shorter, TVilliam Sith. nIL-c LIA R. SMITH, Stanton, Stewart, Talbott, Vil, Iaulker, IVar-of our national domain which it is proposed ,er, Vieeler, Daniel B. Wright, John V. Wright.-77.

to organize into the territories of Nebraska In the Senate, the bill having been taken up and Kansas. We protest against it as a great for consideration, Mr. Hunter moved that the moral wrong, as a breach of faith eminently Kansas proviso be stricken out of the bill, unjust to the moral principles of the commuwhich was agreed to by the following vote:- nity, and subversive of all confidence in na YEAS. CessrS. ADAMS, Allen, Bayard, BELL of Tenn., tional engagements; as a measure full of Bright, Brodhlead, Brown, Butler, Cuss, Clay, CRITTENDEN, danger to the peace and even the existence of Douglas. Geyer, HOUSTON, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of beloved Union, and exposing us to the Tennt., Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, THOMPSON of Ky., Toucey, our Welter, IFright.-26. righteous judgments of the Almighty: and NAYS. Messrs. Durkee, Foot, Foster, IHarlan, Trumbull, your protestants, as in duty bound, will ever Wade, Wilson.-. pray. The vote in the Senate on the passage of ston Mass. March 1, 1854. the bill as amended, was the same as the last except one less in the affirmative, Mr. Bell of The memorial, after a long debate, was Tennessee, who voted on the previous vote ordered to lie on the table.

being absent. e,wovtdothprvoOn the 8th of May, 1854, Mr. Douglas prebein absent.y In the House, a message having been resented the following memorial, which was ceived from the Senate, announcing that that ordered to lie on the table body had passed the Army Appropriation Bill To the Honorable the Senate and house of with an amendment striking out the Kansas Representatives of the United States, in proviso, the House proceeded to consider the Congress assembled: amendment whe it was agreed to by the The undersigned, clergymen of different following vote: 
religious denominations inii the Northwestern s.-essrs. Aien, AE, Barksale, Bell, Bennett of states, as citizens and as ministers of the Gos YEzks.-‘-Nessrs. Aik-en, AKERS, Barksdale, Ball, Bennett of Miss., Bocock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Bturnett, Cadwtalader, pel of Jesus Christ, hereby, in the name of CAMPBELL of Ky., CARLILE, Cask-ie, Clingmanz, Cobb of Ga..

Almighty God and in his presence do eb,bb of Ala, Cox, Craige. Crawford, CULLEN. Davidson, DAVIS of d., Denver, Dowdell, ElInundson, Elliot, ETHIERIDE solemnly protest against the passage of what EVASTIs, EvaN.

Faulkner, Florence, Fuller of Me., Goode. is known as the “Nebraska Bill,”

or any (;re,?0ood. 1Hall of Ia., HtARRIs of Md., Harris of Ala., laris repeal or modification of existin legal roho)f 1l., IIARRISON, HAVEN, Hickman, IIOFFMAN, Houston sepeal or’ existing al Jewtt, Jones of Tenn., Jones of Pa., Keitt, Kelly, KENNETT, bitolns of slavery in that part of our national fKid,ell, L:F, Letclher. Lunpk in, A. K. MARSHALL of Ky, domain which it is proposed to organize into ]r..MARSEH, of Kv., Marshall of Ill.. Maxwell, McMlcn McQueeen, Miller of Ind., Millson, Oliver of Mo., Orr, l’acier the territories of Nebras,a all cansas. ]t’., Phelps, PORTer, Pow ell. PIUREAR, Quitnoan, RCAUD, WVe protest against it as a great moral 11vcu.s. t’un, Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Setcard, Sh’orte r, i a* Smith of Tenn.. Smith of Va., SMITH of Ala., se,Sa phens, wrong; as a breach of faith eminently inj ustloart, SwoPs, Talbott, Taylor. Tyson, UIUXDRWOOD, Jail, loous to the moral principles of the commu Woalter, tIbrmer, Creels, Wheeler, WnITNEY, V’lliams. Winslow, nityv and subversive of all confidence in naVright of Miss., WVright of Tenn., ZOLLICOFFER.-101. Navs.-NMessrs. Albright, Allison, Barbour, Barclay, Ben-toonal engagements; as a neasure full of oatt of N.Y., Benson, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bliss. Brad-danger to the peace and even existence of:ur shaw. Brenton, Buffington, Campbell of Pa., Campbell of O., 1 l Uo r Chaffee. Clark of Conn., Clawson, Colfax, Comins, Csvode elov and exposure to the ae, 2ragin, Cumback, Darerell, Davis of Mass., Dean, De Witt, judgments of the Almighty.

Page 320 view page image

TIHE 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. II. Richardson, John Clark, S. Bolles, R. F. Shinn, J. V.

Watson, Luther Stone, W. A. Nicholas, A. W. Henderson, Joseph H. Leonard, Fitch. J. AfcNamara, Minnesota. ON the 24th of December, 1856, Mr. Rice, of Minnesota, introduced a bill to authorize the people of Minnesota to form a state government preparatory to their admission into the Union, which was referred to the Committee on Territories. Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on Territories, on the 31st of January, 1857, reported back the bill with an amendment 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 subject of the boundaries of the proposed state, and this I can do in a few moments.

A portion 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 Minnesot a, about ninety thousand square miles, which, if th e people of Minnesota shall adopt a state constitution, will be left to be organized under the name of Dacotah, as a prope r name of Indian derivation. The general pro visions of the bill are the same as t hose o nt aine d 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 Pennsylvania. Mr. GROW. For th at pu rpose I withdraw the previous question. Mr. PiELPS. 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 o f it wil l be west o f the M ississippi river. Mr.

PHIIELPS. Very well. Mr. Speaker, I desi re als o to make ano t her inquiry. I be lieve, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has frequently advocated on the floor th a sth tic of this ouse the snctity of compacts. I believe he has frequently referred to the Missouri restriction of 1820 as a compact made by the Congress of the United States, whic h ought to have bee n observed. Mr. GROW. C e rtai nly; 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 sacredness of the ordinance of 17 87? Mr. GRow. Certainly. Mr. PnrELrs. 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 thlan five states shall be formed out of said territory. 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 appointed 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 presentation 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 of the senators from Illinois and In d i ana, a,nd that w e regar d th he wh ol e t one and spirit of tha t debate on the par t of the opponents of said memorial, as an outrage upon the privilees of a large and respectable body of citizens, upon the dignity of the Senate, and upogn the claims of the divine name, word, and institutions, to which we owe our proit)unrdest hono r and reverence.” These resolutions were passed with but one dissenting, voice. It was further resolved that the above protest should be published in the religious and secular papers in the Northwest; and to accomplish this object, that the editors of our city papers request their exchanges to reprint it. The various ministers who may feel (lisposed to sign the protest, are requested to send their names to Philo Carpenter, Esq., Chicago, Illinois. A. M. STEWART, Chairman. J. McNAM,tRA, Secretary.

820

Page 321 view page image

MINNESOTA. 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 Constitutionas 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. GARNETT. With the permission of the Idouse, I will ask the gentleman from Penn sylvania what is the difference between the size of Minnesota, as bounded in the original b ill, 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 or,ganized 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 Mlissouri. As to its population, so far as the best information 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 ized by the ordinance of 1787, are already or ganized; and now the gen tleman, or th e Com mnittee on Territories, proposes to embrace within the limits of a nother state, a portion of territory which it was stipulated by those w,ho framed that ordinance should be em br ac ed i n one of these five state s. Mr. GROW. I neve r kn ew a question to be so lon, 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 ordinance is no compact whatever. I only desired 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 1787-an ordinance which I believe has no binding influence on the country, and which I have never regarded as binding on me. Mr. GROW. It is due to myself, I believe, to reply to this question. I have no dispositioIl whatever to engage in debate on any bill or question that may come before the Htouse tA)-day.

What does the gentleman from Missouri propose to do with that part of the territory which is left outside of the limits of the proposed state? Would he let it stand forever in an unorganized condition? Is that what the gentleman proposes? Or should it be organized into a separate state, so as to make six states out of the Northwest Territory? Will the gentleman trample down his own proposition? Five states have been formed out of the Northwest Territory, as required by the ordinance 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 incorporate it with other territory never under the ordinance of 1787, which of itself would make a large state.

How, then, is the ordinance f 1787 violated? It comes with a bad grace from aL member of this House from the state :f Missouri to raise such a question here toJay, when the Platte country was taken from i.he ordinance of 1820 and included within the limits of that state. It comes with a bad leace from a gentleman coming from a state ivhiclh has trampled upon the sacredness of -;onipacts, to come here and complain that we eke trom under the ordinance of 1787 a little -tr. ip of territory which was left outside the iraits of all organized states. And now, beause it is to lie included within an organized atal, it is, for~sooth, a great breach of corn,aet!

MNr. PaELPS. I want to make a correction. Mr. GRow. I will yield for the pulrpose of 11owing the gentleman to make a correction, 0it be short. 21

321 These five states, the entire number author

Page 322 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-B300OK. kind, so far as the forms are concerned. Sec-YeAs. Mesrs. Aiken, Albright, Allen. Allison, Ball arbour. Bcnson, Billingliurst. Bliss, Bocock, Brenton, Buftions for school purposes are set apart the same finton, Cad,walader, Caruthers, Bayard Clarke, Clingnian, as in Iowa. It provides the same restrictions [lowell Cobb, Colfax, Cragin, Damrellz Davidson, Jacob C. in regard to natural streams in Minnesota, as Davis, Da y evickson, Dodd,,,mrie, Englibh, i.regard to *atu l. m. Florence, Thomas j. D. Fuller, Gra wger, Grow, Augustus are contained in bills of this kind heretofore nai, larla, Ilerbert, Ilickman, Iod’ecs, liolloway, Thomas passed. The bill is in the usual form; and ipp nwto,0n oadIuhonestt ps. tlorton, Valentine B. Itorton, Iloward, Ilughston. Jewett, pass~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ed.Tebl si h sa om n lly, Knapp, Knowlton, Knox, Leiter. Mace, Samuel S. Mlarindeed, in drawing it up it was like taking a -hall, Matteson, McCarty, Killian Miller, Smith Miller, Morform-book, and drafting this bill from it, withl gao, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Parker, Pe,k, Pelton, the exception of the boundaries.

I’erry, Pettit, Phelps, Pike, Pringle, Quitman, Satin, Sage, the ex ceptionof the bou r. Sande Sapp Scott, Sherman, Simmons, Samuel A. Smith, Mr. SMITH of Tenn. I desire to ask the gen-Spinner. Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington,Tliurston, tleman from Pennsylvania a question. I have’y n, vde, Wakeman Walbidge, alron, Cadwlader C. I.‘ashburne, Elihu B.

Washburne, Isr’l W ashburne, wathad some opportunity to examine the original kins, WVathon, Wells, Wheeler, Williams, Woodworth.-97. bill, but have not been able to examine the N,Yas.-Messrs. Akers, Barksdale, Ilendley S. Bennett, substitute-and I desire to know of the gen-Bingham, Bowie, Bradshaw, Burnett, James II. Campbell, .substitute;dIdeietknwfth-Lewis D. Campbell, Carlile, Caskie, Ezra Clark, Williamson tleman from Pennsylvania if the only differ-it. W. Cobb, Comins, Cox, Crawford, Cullen, Timothy ence between the original bill and the substi-Davis, Dean, Dowdell, Dunn, Durfee, Elliott, Etheridge, is in reference to the boundaries, Faulkner, Garnett. Goode, Greenwood, J.

Morrison tute is in reference to the boundaries? Harris. larrison, Ilaven, Houston, George W. Jones, Ken Mr. GRow. The committee made a slight nett, King, Knight, Kunkel, Lake, Letcher, Lumpkin, alteration in the boundary as contained in the Alexander K. Marshall, McMullin, Millson, Millward, Moore, alterationinthbudysctindrew Oliver, Mordecai Oliver, Paine, Pennington, Powell. original bill referred to us. In the original Purviance, Puryear, Ready, Ricaud, Robbins, Roberts, b ill the boundary proceeded from the southern tuffin. Savage, Seward, Shorter, William Smith, William e x t r e m i y of Le Ts to te Act. Smith. Stephens. Swope, Talbott. Todd, Trafton, Underextremity of Lake Travers to the juncture of wood, Vaik, Walker, Whitney, Woodruff, Daniel B. Wright, Kampeskee Lake with the Big Sioux River, Zollicoffer.-75. thence down the main channel of that river So the bill was passed. to the northwest corner of the state of Iowa. Pending the call, many members changed In the substitute we proceed from the south-their votes, and the following explanations ern extremity of Lake Travers in a direct line were made:to the head of Big Stone Lake, thence through Mr. COLFAX stated that Mr. Cumback was its centre to the outlet, thence by a due south confined to his room by illness. line to the state of Iowa. That is the only Mr. COMINS stated that his colleague, Mr.

change in the boundaries. Chaffee, was confined to his room by sickness.

Mr. SMITII of Ten. Is that the only differ-Mr. MORGAN stated that Mr.

Flagler was ence? detained from the Riouse by indisposition. Mr. GROW.

Then the original bill had no Mr. IIARRIs of Md. Mr. Speaker, as I unprovision guarantying the uninterrupted navi-derstand it, this bill reaffirms the doctrine of gation of the common highways that pass squatter sovereignty and alien suffrage, and through Minnesota and along its borders. 1 if that be so I cannot vote for it. I ask, sir, We provide that such navigable waters shall if in order now that the section of the bill be common highways, and for ever free to the relating to the qualification of voters in the inhabitants of that state, and to all the other territory may be read, that the House may citizens of the United States. know the fact. These are the only two material changes Mr. GROW. I object. which we have made in the bill referred to us. Mr. PURYER.R. I hope there will be no obAll other changes are merely verbal. jection. The original bill was the same bill which Mr. Gnow. I object. was referred to the committee with our amend-Mr. PURYEAR. If I can defeat the bill by ments thereto. As those amendments would voting, I shall vote “no;” but I decline voting require a separate vote, the committee, in at present. order to facilitate business, have reported a Mr. TODD. I vote “no” on this bill on acsubstitute containing the amendments which count of the alien clause.

were included in the original bill. MIr. WHITNEYr. I vote “no” upon the alien Mr. SMITH of Tenn. Then I shall vote for feature of the bill. the bill. Mr. MORRISO.X. I was not in the Ilall when The substitute was then adopted. m name was called. Ihad I been, I should The bill, as amended, was ordered to be Ihave voted in the atffirmative. engrossed and read a third time; and being Mr. BROOM.f. Ilad I been within the bar engrossed, it was accordingly read the third when my name was called, 1 should have time. svoted ” no.” Mr. GROW moved the previous question upon Mr. PHELPS.

1 desire to inquire of the genthe passage of the bill. tleman from Pennsylvania if “Sam” is in The previous question was seconded; and this bill? [Laughter.] the main question ordered to be put. Mr. WATKINS. Mr.

Speaker, I rise for the Mr. FLORENCE demanded the yeas and nays purpose of asking on which side my name is upon the passage of the bill. recorded.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER. The gentleman’s name is The question was taken; and it was de-recorded in the affirmative. cided in the affirmativeyeas 97, nays 75; as Mr. WATKINS. I voted in the affirmative, follows:- Iand designed so to vote. I did so with a full 822

Page 323 view page image

MINNESOTA. knowledge and appreciation of all the points The history of affairs connected with the involved in the pending measure. If I were action of Minnesota under the enabling act not aware that it is not in order to do so, I cannot better be described than by a quo should like to explain the reasons why I so tation from Judge Douglas’s report to the voted, and why 1 was strictly consistent in principle, policy, and upon the record in cast-Senate of the 26th of January, 1858 mg that vote. “On the 26th day of February, 1857, Con Mr. SMITH of Tenn. stated that his colleague, gress passed an act entitled’An act to autho MNr. Wright, was detained from the House by rize the people of the Territory of Miiinesot:t illness. to form a Constitution and State Government The vote, as above recorded, was then an-preparatory to their admission into the Unioi nounced. on an equal footing with the original States.’ Mr. GROW moved that the vote by which By the third section of said act it was providedl the bill was passed be reconsidered; and also’ that on the first Monday of June next moved that the motion to reconsider be laid (1857), the legal voters in each representative on the table. district then existing within the limits of the The latter motion was agreed to. proposed state, are hereby authorized to elect Mr. JONEs of Tenn. I move to amend the two delegates for each representative to which title by adding the words “and for other pur-said district may be entitled according to the poses.” I wish to say that the title should apportionment for representatives to the terri be altered, because the bill is for other pur-torial legislature, which election for delegates poses besides the admission of a state. One shall be held and conducted, and returns provision of the bill is that five per cent. of made, in all respects, in conformity with the the proceeds of the public lands sold within laws of said territory regulating the electicit that state, after deducting the expenses, shall of representatives; and the delegates so electbe paid over to the state of Minnesota. I am ed shall assemble at the capitol (of said terriperfectly willing that that should be done. tory on the second Monday in July next But it goes further. (1857), and first determine, by a vote, whe Mr. GRow.

I rise to a question of order. ther it is the wish of the people (of the propose(l The merits of the bill are not in question on a state to be admitted into the Utioti i at that motion to amend the title. time, and if so, shall proceed to form at con The SPEAKER. That is undoubtedly cor-stitution and take all necessary steps for the rect; but it is competent for the gentleman establishment of a state government in confrom Tennessee to speak of a provision of a formity with the Federal Constitution, subject bill which is not mentioned in its title. to the approval and ratification of the people of Mr. JONES of Tenn. The bill goes on to the proposed state.’ The construction placed provide that the state shall vest or appro-on this act by the peopleof IMinnesota was, that priate that five per cent. in the construction the term’repireseritatives’ embraced the mnemof internal improvements. That is not the bers of both branchles of the territolrial legislat admission of the state. I am willing to give ture, and hence that the said convention might the people of Minnesota the five per cent., be composed of one hundred and eight, insteai but it is to be in consideration that they do of seventy-eiiht delegates, to which it woull not tax the public lands. If that had been be limited if’ the word representatives reprovided in the bill, I should have voted ferred only to the nmembers of the IIouse of for it. Representatives of said legislature.

Under Mr. GROW. I have only a word to say. this c,)nstruction of the enal)ling act, one The title of the bill corresponds with its pro-hundred and eight delegates were elected, and visions. I call the previous question. assembled at the capitol of the territory iin The previous question was seconded, and pursuance of its provisions, when a disagree:he main question ordered; and under its ment arose in respect to the legality of the operation the amendment of the title was not electio()i of certatin delegates who, held crtiti-Lgreed to. cates of election, which resulted ill the orga In the Senate the objection to the bill con-nization of two separate bodies, each claiming :isted in the clause permitting alien suffrage. to be the duly constituted convelntion in puiBy reference to the part of this work under suance of the said act of C,)tigress, the one he head of “Alien Suffrage,” the proceedings holding its sessions in the till’ of lrresl,entln the Senate in detail will be seen. The bill tives with fity -eiT,lit mei~ers, and tl.e cther aving passed with that clause stricken out, in the coui( il chamnber aith fifty-five saeni was reconsidered on motion of Mr. Hale, bers. ELach cr)nentit(n prlocecede(i to foirm a -nd the clause retained. It finally passed the coastitution, but before either hai1 eOncludei[ ;enate on the 25th of February, 1857, by yeas its labors, wiser anid more ci,neiliititly counsnd nays as follows:-
sels pievailed so far as to iniduce the tppoint YEAS Messrs. Allen, Bell of N. Ii., Bigler, Bright ment of t joint c<,maittee of coifirence, cetni:ass, Collamer, Dodge, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fish, posed of ten delegates, five of whoiii were stitch, Foot, Foster, Green, Hale, Hfarlan, James, John letd ec 2 il oiitt ‘t~hJO~e9
t~~fF~oasletoareepuhleaiaiansamei’tuh-etd by each consvention, wrhichl commlitteeX ;n. Jones of Ia., Nourse, Pugh, Sebastian. Seward, Stuit b ciart e o, oombs, Toucey, Trumbull, Wade, Weller and Wilson.-31. agreed uponsi a constitution and made dupliNAY8.-Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Brod-cate copies of the same, and reported one of -ad, Brown, Butler, Clay, Crittenden, Fitzpatrick, Oiyer, s * houston, Hunter, Iverson, Jones of Tennessee, Mason said duplicaLtes to each of sa i d conventions, watt, Reid, Rusk, Slidell, Thompson of Ky., Yulee.-22.

respectively. The copy of the constitution 323

Page 324 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the laws which have bseen passed at the same session, and said amendments shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rjection; 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 alterations or amendments shall be submitted at the same time, it shall be so regulated that the voters shall vote for or against each separately. Sec.

2. Whenever twothirds of the members elected to each branch of the legislature shall think it necessary to call a convention to revise this constitution, they shall recommniend 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 electors 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 H-ouse of Representsa tives, who shall be chosen in the same manner, and shall meet within three months after their election for the purpose aforesaid. ARIT. VII.-Elective Franchise. Sec. 1. Every male person of the are of twentyone 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 en titled to vo te at such election, in the election district of which hie shall at the time have been f or ten days a resident, fbr all officers that now are or hereafter may b e elective by the people: 1st. Whit e ci tizens of the United States. 2d. White person s of foreih n b irth, who shall have decla red t heir inten tion to be come citiz ens, conf ormably to the laws of the United States upon the subject of naturaliza tion. 3d.

Persons of mixed white vid iand Indian blood, who have ad opted the cus toms a nd habits of civilization. 4th. Persons of Indi a n blood residing in this state, who have atdopted the language, customs, and habits of civilization, after an exam ination before an y 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 withi n t he state. Sec. 2. No person not belonging to one of the class e s sp ec if ied in the preceding section no pers on who has been convicted of treason or any felony, unless restored to civil rights; and no person under guardianship, or who may be?ion combos meittis, 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 asylunm, 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. Submission of the Constitution to the People.

Sec. 18. In voting for or against the adoption of this constitution, the words ” for constitution” or ” against constitution” mav be written or printed on the ticket of each voter; but no voter shall vote for or against this constitution 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 constitution shall be deemed to be adopted as the constitution of the state of Minnesota; and all the provisions and obligations of this constitution, and of the schedule hereunto attached, shall thereafter be valid, to all intents and purposes, as the constitution (of said state. On the 26th of Januar y, 1858, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, reported a bill, which was amend ed and passed on the 7th April, 1858, in the following shape: An Act for the admission of the State of Minnesota into the Union. Whhereas an act of Congress was p a sse d February tw enty-six, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, entitled “An Act to authorize the people of the Ter r itory of Minnesota to form a Constitution and State Governm ent preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States;” and whereas the people of said territory did, on the twenty-niintlh day of Aug,ut, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, by delega,,tes elected for that purpose, form for themselves at con stitution and state government, which is reo ART. XIV.-Amenrdmeits to the Constitswtion. Sec. 1. Whenever a majority of both houses of the legislature shall deem it necessary to alter or aiiend this constitution, they may propose such alterations or amendments, which proposed amendments shall be published with 324 thus reported to both conventions w,,ts adopt(-d by each of them.” MATERIAL EXTRACTS FROM

CONSTITUTION OF MINNESOTA. Bill of Rights.-See. 2. There shall be neither slaverv nor involuntary servitude in the state oth;rwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been dulv convicted.

Page 325 view page image

MINNESOTA. YEA Messrs. Abbott, *Adrian, Amndrews, Arnold, Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Bennett, Billinqhurst, Bliss, Bocock, Bowie, plloce. Branch. Br an,, B,ffntom, Burlingame, Burnett, Burns. CampbeU, Caruthers,, (tse.

Caskie, Chaffee, *Chapman, Clanrk of Missouri, Clah, C o bb. John Cochrane, *Corkerill, Col.ax. (,Cminso,.CAode, ragin, Craig of Missouri.

Craig of N. C., Crawford, Curry, Curtis, Da,.?ell, Davidson, *Davis of Ind., Davies of Mliss. oBt, Dewrt, Dick, Dimnick, Dodd, Dowdell, }Edmnundson, Elliott, English, Farnsworth, Faulkner, Fenton, Florence, Foley. Gartrell, Gillis Gilman, Goode, Goodwin, Greenwood. Gregsb, (roesbecek, Grow, HGal of Mass.. Hartlan, tlar is of III., *Ilaskin, H
oatch, *Ilickman. Hoard, Hopkins, lioestim, lifwar -d, luiyler, Jackson, Jenkins, Jewett, Geo. a w. Jones J. Glanry Jo nes, Ow en Jones, Kellogg, Kelly. Kigore, Knapp, Landy, Lawrence. Leach, Leidy, Leiter, Letcher, Lvejoy, Maclay, McQueen, Marshall of Ill., Mason, Jlfttes,n, Miller, MNillson. Moore. Morrill, Moriis of Ill., Sl,orse of N.Y., Mott of Ohio, Niblack, Nichoks, Palmei-, Parke,-, Pendleton, Pettit, Peyton. Phelps, Phillips, Pike, Potter, Powell, Purviance, Quitman, Reagan, Reilly, Ritchie, inussell, SCndi dge, Savage, Scales, Scott, Shaw of Ill., Shaw of N. C, Sickles,, Singleton, *Smith of Ill., Slmith of Tenn., Sinner, St(venson, Stephens, Stewart of Md., Slewart of i’a..‘appan. Taylor of La., Taylor of N. Y.. Thayer, Vade, tValbridye. olaldron V,lon, I,lVashburne of Wis., Vashburne of t,ne Washhbrne of 111., Watkins, White, Whitely, Wilson, Winslow, Wo,d, Wortendyke, Wright of Geo., and Wrigl-It of Tenn.-157. NAYS Messrs. ANDERSON, Bingham, Blair. Clark of Conn., Clawson, DAvis of Md.. Timothy Davis of Iowa, Dean, Dodd, e tEdie, EcsTIs, F,,,ter, Garnett, Giddings, GIL,MER., Granger, IAmRRIS of Md., II.L, Horton, Kelsey, Kunkel of Pa., MARSHALI,L of Ky., MNAYNARD, Morgan, AlMrrris of Pa., Morse of Maine, Olin, RItEADY, RICAUD, Robbins, Ruffin, Sherman, wlmith of Va.. Stnton, TRIPPE, UNDERWOOD, WOODSON, and ZOLLICOFFrR-38. publican in form, and wr.,r,atified and adopted y the people, at an election held on the thirteenth day of Octol)er, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, for that purpose: Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate anii Houzse of Representatives of t he UUn ited S tates of Anzerica, in Congre.ss assenbled, 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 footing w ith the origi nal states in all respects whatever. SEc. 2. And be i t f?tr th e U enacted, That said state sh all be ent itled t two representatives in C ong ress un til the next apportionment for representatives amongst the several states.

SEC. 3. Aned be itji rther eBi(ted, That from and after the admission of the State of Mlinnesota, as hereinbefoie provided, all the la ws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same firce and effect within that State as in other States 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 powers Ae asric r o the district court of the nited States for th e district of Iowm a, shall be estal)lished. The judgI,e, attorney, and marshal of the United States, for the said district of Minnesota, shall reside within the same, and shall be entitled to the samie 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 fi’om the Supreme Court of Minnesota Territory, the mandate of execution 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 MNininesota, 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 Minnesota Territory as to all such cases, with fll power to hear and determine the same, and to award roesne or final process therein. Passed the Senate April 7, 1858. Attest: ASBURY DICKENs, Secretary. By W. IIIClz’Y, Chief Clerk. This bill passed the Senate by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS -Messr,. Alle-n, BET.L. Bigter. Biggs, Bri_~ht, *Broderiek. lBrown, (amer!rn (!ha,,dler. Clark. c, C RITTENDEN.

Dixn. Doohittle, *Douzas. Durkee. EvanTs.. Fitch, Fitzpatrick. Foot, Fossr, Grven, Gwin. Hale. tlamlin, lfammono,. llTtn. Om IsTo.1. l’lunter.

Johnson. of Ark., Johnson o,f Tenn.. Jem,,s. King. Mlor,Mao, P o lk,uh.

Sebastian,.,‘trd,,‘m,ns, S..S….. S. Tho~mpson of Nf.A.. Tz >(lils. Trie mbttll. IV, de. }Iri7-.gm. MWright. N.xss 3Iessrs. Clay, KExNxErD~. anid Yulee 3. Demorcralts in roman; Republicans in italics; Americalns in S_xlr,h C.~PS; asterisk pre,fixed, Anti-Lecompton Democrats. Democrats in roman; Reputiblicans in italic; Americans in SMALL CAPS; asterisk prefixed, Anti-Lecompton Democrats. The Hlon. Ienry M. Rice and lion.

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 th r e e Representatives to Congres s, Messrs. W. W. Phelps, James M.

Cavanaugh, and George L. Becker, were declared to be elected. T he act of admission allowed the state burot t wo member s of the Ilouse. Messrs.

Phelps and Cavanaugh, the two Repre sentatives 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 questiont in the Ilouse as to the admission of Messrs.

Phelps and Cavanaugh. The question was referred to the Committee orn Elections. Mr. Ilarris, from the Committee on Elections, reported a resolution giving Messrs. CaManaugh and Phelps their seats o n their prima facie right, but not precluding any su bsequent contest of their right to the same. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Maine, from the minority of the Committee on Elections, offered the fillowing amendment: “Tih,at Messrs. W. W. Phelps and J. M. Catvsana.ugh are not entitled to be admitted and sworn is members of this Itouse.” Mr. STEPIEN’S, of Georgia, demanded the yeas and nays upon the amendment. The yeas and ina,ys were ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided( in the negativeyeas 74, nays 125; as follows s: The bill passe d the I ysse, on the 1 1tlo of ,Iay, 1858, bv yeals and nays, as follows: 325

Page 326 view page image

JLiT mU iouse a motion marie by Mir. 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.

larper of S. C. Mr. Thiatcher 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 hIouse on the 27th of March, 1798. The Senate con curred in the aiime ndet o f the Blouse on the 29th of March, 1798, and the bill thus became, with the approval o f’ the President, a law. During the last session of 25 th Congress a memorial was presented fros tp e territorial legislature of Mississippi, praying that it, people be authorized to form a state govern.

ment, and be atdmitted into the Union. TJhe petition was acted on at the first session of the 14th Congress at bill to that effe.ct was brought to a vote in the Ilouse on the 30th of’ March, 1816, when it passed, tile yeas being 70, the nays 53. The negative vote was ats follows: Mess,.rs.

Alexa,nder of O., llae,r of ll’l…Baker of N. J., 130” ofR. I., Bradbury of Mas., rcerdeo a,Bono Mat,s., Burnside of Pa., Chipman of Vt., Cill,ey of N. IT., Clayton of Del.. Cooperof Del., Cuilpeppe~r of N. C.. Cuthbert o,f Geo., Dave.nport of CoDnn., E’d war-ds of N. C.. G.,-to. ofN. C., (]ol.d of N. Y., Golds,borough ofl Md., Grf f Ila., Hl,N if. Ilawes of Va..IHl,-sterof Pa… Hopkinson of Pa..If[ulbe,rt of Ma~ss., Jewett of V’t., Ken.t of N. Y.. L:(,o f I’t. imw~ ofr Conn.. Leowis of Va.. Love~tt o,f N. Y, Msh,fft. ir of P..,.‘cosely of Conn.,. Nelso(n o,f Mas.Jicke-ri.g otf Mass,.. Plitkin of C,,mn., RiandoIlph of Va,..!oeofVa..

(r~vl,so Mats. Sot’rthard of N. J.. Sta nford,f N St, St turns (,,f s.

Strong, of Mass., Sturges-of Conn., Tagsar~~t of ts: Telf,ir of Geo., Tuck,,, f V… Vo.-e of N. II.. Wa,r1 of M’ass.,War of N. J., Da.!i,:l WebI)ster of N. 11., Wlilc,ox of N. If. In the Sena,te, on the 25th of April, 1816, the bill was indefinitely postponed on m-otion of’ Mr.

Barbour of Va. The objection urged ag,ainst this bill was the vast extent of territory covered by the limits of the proposedL state. ,o~,;ll.,.a~.

D~ewarl, laro, tlorge T alior, Ms Talr”.’)r ERwooD, WIatkins, White-.

W”hit,-]l-y, Wnhw WOODSON, wortendyke, John V. Wright, and ZILLICOFIR

125. So the amendment was not agtreed to. Demiocrats in roma(n; Reopublica,ns in italics; Amneric,ans in S.MIALL CAiPS; asterisko prefixed, Anti-Lecompton Democrats. M YE;,,s-‘!Messrs. Adrain,. Ahl, AIDFR,)I:s,., Arn.o’ld. Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Blishop. B/s.,’, J;oac,),k.: y%,-e. l;i’un. lur c nett, Burns. CaLapbeC. Caruthul’S

(‘askie. *(‘hapnIan. J h 2 B. Clark, Clay. iee s. Lo) John Co hrane.; ckerill,t C.‘iins, Corning. (;,v’(4e,:;Cox, J..mies t t.l i’ Drn h astssionofth 1t Congress, Curry, Ctti, Dvdo.*,vs,, f nia~,mDaiofis ois.~ppi. iktmws Dew a r it, aDmemoria wasndon pEsen,tedfo,te ertra Egihaul ne, lor.enco. toley. atl ils u~e Greenwood, Gregg, io e ewature of Msispi pryig thtnt Hluyler, Jako, Jenkin. Jwi.oer:..Is J.

Giancy Jones Owen JotIe. i(,iliojy,lly la m nt U. Kunkel, J,hn I2 Khepttl was i,atdy, the firs LeD’er Maly. cKibbjin, Mc44uiee ,r-of th 14t Conres-a ilt htefc a shall, Maso n, Miles, hil brought to a vot i t o e t 3 h -sa~c N. l.ri~.Ntl~.*‘nll~n q)tn hvl ga.. Phillips I~Itle. I wetl.

1’arv.lnce. Quitnt. a..:{~ MacR86,weetpaa-h ya en ga. Reilly, Iiober&
lit’llin l~s~el 70a~.q,s S,theay,3 Seward *Aaro ha, lhe negatII. vohasw.t-iasa Ta.-lo.t, (Ge-orge Taiyloir, Mile.s Tay,,r UNEf,a r. Mass. Vatli no Wh’irte,yk Whi t Ms nielof’Pa. Chipmh~. ofoDON Votnyk, (ihlyho N. i.

I%‘right. and ZoI.L:COFFF:R I:;6. NAYs-.Mi.ssrs. Abbott. Ades i~~gu.’,B’~bm Blair. Buflins,,n. siossie/q se. ossy s. (r,e 1a:e of N.

Pu,uce 5i’ I isofoV. (l. loveit lfl. VDaws hf Mafyltn.,~rt~isr of licinj Assspp. L stcu~l s, llL.Des,cv. i,’ ci. o.,. o f Cn. lane. ll~btr G.;:.

sGio,,,H’hfc. O;,.‘itkn oern..Isdil of,t, vau.. l, rt, ofVm. ltt, w,.‘sd, Itlo, K,i,app. L j.,,1UIPiI~1RSL, tfts’. 1Ill.dn5. MotsoS gan oM,r,ill. H.

()I A. M[,,sc, M,,tt. I hsichols.m. 1’ft.. or itlg. it i ofdeo,u biul’q/e Vitt: is sioal ideOw’ C. lt sijurde, Bi,‘is BJ.iVashlntrne, ]sracl tk.shbu, rqe, and 1 ~o So the resolitioii w’,ts agreed to; and Miessrs.

Cavatnaugh aiid Plielps were duly rworn in as Rep)rescentatives fromi the state of iimae,ota. I I The original resolution was agt~reed to b~y yeas and nays; as follows:

Page 327 view page image

MISSISSIPPI.-MISSOURI. A ter of Vt.. Huntington of Conn.. Irving of N.Y..

Kinsey of N. J.. Ki rtlaind of N.Y., Lawyer of N. Y.. l.inolii of Mass.

Linn of N.J., Livermore of N. IH., W. Maclay of Pa.. W. 1’. Maclay of Pa., Marchland of Pa., Mason of It. 1., Merrill of Vt., Mills of Mass., R.

Moore of Pa., S. Mloore of lPa., M~orton of Mass., Mosely of Conn., Murray of Pa., Nelson of Mass., Ogls of M sa., Orr of Mass.* Palmer of N.Y., l’atterson of Pa., Pawling of Pa., Pitkins of Conn., Rice of Mass., Rich of Vt. Richarbi ws of r t., Rogers of Pa., Buggles of Mass., Sampson of Mass., Savage of N. Y. Schuyler of N.Y., Scudder of N.Y., Sergeant of Pa.t Sherwood. Silsbee of Mass., Southard of N. J., SpenMer of N. Y., lallmadge of N. Y., Taylor of N. Y., Terry of C onn., Tompkins of N.Y., Townsend of N. Y., Upham of N. II., Wallace of Pa.. Wendover oS N.Y., Westerlo of N.

Y., lf ihsteside of }‘a., Wilkin of N.Y., Williams of Conn., Williams of N. Y., Wlilson of Mass., and Wilson of N. Y. 87. NAYs. Messrs. Abbott of Geo., Anderson of Ky., Austin of Va., Ball of a., Birbour of Va., Bassett of Va., Bayly of aMd., 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., Cruger-of N.Y., Culbreth of Md., Davidson of A. C., Desha of Ky., Edwards of N. C.. Ervin of S. C., Fisher of S. C., Garnett of Va., Ihall of N. C., Ilarrison of O.. I olmes of ass.C Johnson of va., Johnson of Ky., Jones of Tenn., Lewis of Va., Little of Md., Loundes of S.., McLane of D~el., McLeatn of 111., McCoy of Va., Mtarr of Tenn., Mason of Mass., Middleton of S. C., It. Nelson of la., T. M. Nelson of bla., the sbitt of S. C., New of Ky., Newton of Ya., Ogden of A. Y., Owen of N. C., Parrott of N. II., Pegram of Va~, o Peter of M hd., R ie d ull of V a.. Pleasants of Va., Poindexter of Missi., Reedl of Md(., Rhea of Tenn., Ringgoldl of hid., Robertson 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 Rid., Storrs of N. Y., Terrell of Geo., Trimble of Kit., Tucker of Va., Tucker of S. C.. Tyler of Va… W\alker of Ky., and W\illiams of N. C.

76. At t he seco nd sess ion of the 14th Congress a bill was passed and became a law, dividing the territory, and constituting a territorial government for the easter n p o rtion of the territory of Mississippi, which was called Alabama. A bill was then r eported i n t he S enate, authorizing the people of the western portion of M\ississippi territory to forms 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:m Messrs.

Ashman of Mass., IDaggett-of Conn., Goldsborough of Md., Hunter of R. I., King *>f N. Y., Macon of N. C., Mason of 1!. I-I., Smith of S. C., Thompson of N. II., Ticksenor eof Vt., Varnum of Mass. The bill passed the H~ouse on the 3d of March, 1817, and became a law, by the approval of the President, on the 1st of March, 1817s. A joint resolution, consummnating her admission, passed the Senate on the 3d of D~ecember, 1817. It passed the House on the gth of IDecember, and was approved by the President on the 10th of D~ecember, 1817. branch of said amendment, beiot italicized, was agreed to by a 32, nay s 78. the affirmative on this amendsa~me as on the other, less Messrs. tpbell, Linn, Mason, Schuyler, , the four former of whom voted ~mendment. Mr. S. Smith, who last amendment, voted ay on ive vote was the same, with the Mr. Smith and Mr. McLean, the m did not vote at all on this vote, addition of Messrs. Beecher, an, and Mason. bs ordered to be engrossed, by the 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 territory of Missouri, praying said territory may be permitted to form a constitution and state government, which memorial was referred. In the Itouse 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 footing with the original states,” being under conBideration, the question was taken on the following amendment submitted by Mr. Tallmadge of New York:  “lThat the further introduction of slavery, or involuntary servitude, be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the part y 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 twentyfive years.” A division of the question being called for, it was taken; first, on that part of the amendient italicized, which was carried by yeas and nays as follows:-o YEAS.-Messrs. Adams of Mass., Allen of Iaiss., Anderson of Pa., Barber of O., Bateman of N.J., Beecher of O., Bennett of N.J., Boden of Pa., Campbell of O., Clagett of N. II., Comstock of N Y., Crafts of Vt., Cushman of N. Y., Darlington of Pa., Drake of N.Y., Ellicott of N.Y., Folger of Mass., Fuller of Mass., Gage of Ma~ss., Gilbert of Conn., Hlale of N. Ii, Hall of Del., Ilasbrouck of N.Y., IIerrick of 0., Hendricks ol Ind., Herkimer of N.Y., Heister of Pa., Hitchcock of O., Hlopkinson of Pa., Hostetter of PL, Hubbard of N. Y., Itun N. States. 1 North Carolina 2

South Carolina Georgia  Kentucky - - Te nne ssee - - 1 Ohio -.-.-. 1

Indiana - - Mississippi Louisiana  The said bill passedl 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 amendmfrnt of Mir. Tallmadge. A division of the question being called for, the question was taken on striking o)ut the last branch of said provision, being the part not italicized, and it was decided in the affirmative: 

YrAs. Messrs. Barbour of Va., Crittenden of Ky.. Dagge.tt of Conln., Dana of Conn., Eaton of Tenn., Edwards of ll.*, Eppes of Va., Fromentin of La., Gaillardl of S.CO., Goldsbo. rough of Md., Ilorsey of Del., Johnson of La., King of N~. 327 following vote States. New HampshireMassachusetts -

R~hode Island- - Connecticut  Vermont - v - New York – New Jersey -.

PennsylvaniaDelaware - *. Maryland — V irginia Yo 15 7 5 25 5 21 2 2 1 Y.

N. 1 10 1 2 4 1 6 5 1 1 1 97 56 o o o o o

Page 328 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. T., Lacock of Pa., Ieake of Miss., Macon of N.

C., Morrow ed another resolution on the subject of proof O., Otis of Mass., Palmer of Vt., Roberts of Pa., Sailird of N.Y.. Stokes of N. C., Stover of N. II.,‘Tait of Ga., Talbot hibiting the introdution of slaves into the of Ky., Thomas of Ill., Tickenor of Vt., Van Dyke of Olc., territoiries west of the Mississippi. Laid on Williams of Miss.. Williams of Tenn.-30. NAYs.-Messrs. Burrill of R. I., Dickerson of N. J.. Mellen tle table, 82 to 62. of Ma.rs., Morril of N. H., Noble of Ind., Ruggles of 0., and In the liouse of Representatives, January wuion of N. J.-7. 3, 1820.-The bill for the admission of the’ On striking out the first branch of 4the state of Maine into the Union, and to extend amendment, being the part italicized, the vote the laws of the United States to such state, was yeas 22, nays 16. The vote was, in con-was passed, and sent to the Senate. parison with the vote on the last branch of In the Senate, January 4, 1820, Journal, the amendment, as follows: Messrs. Daggett, page 72.

The said bill was read and referred Dana, King, Morrow, Roberts, Sandford, Sto-to the Committee on the Judiciary, consistilng ver, Tickenor, who voted for striking out the of Messrs. Smith of South Carolina, Leake of other, voted against striking out this. Mr.

Mississippi, Burrill of Rthode Island, Logan Taylor, who did not vote on striking out the of Kentucky, and Otis of Massachusetts. last, voted against striking out this. January 6, page 84.-Reported with amend The vote by states was as follows:- ments-these amendments provided for the States. Y. N. States. Y. N. admission also of Missouri into the Union. New Ilampsbire- - 2 South Carolina - - 1 This form of amendment contained no clause Massachusetts - - 1 1 Georgia… - 1 Rhode Islanld- - - 1 Kentuc ky -.-.-. 2 waee ~~rl# lvr Masschuett - -1 1Geogia –— whatever concerning slavery. Oonnecti(ut - - 12’ Tenneco - -.-. 2 January 13, page 100.-Considered. Mr. Vermont - 1 lh~iina~ 22 Roberts moved to recommit, and leave out New Yo k….2 Louisiana… New Jersey - - - 2 Indiana - 2

Missouri. Pennsylvania - 1 1 MisMlsippi - 2 January 14, page 102.-Mr.

Roberts’s meD~elaware -… 2 Illinois -… Maryland -.._ tion rejected-yeas 18, nays 25. This bill was Virginia - 2 22 lb debated from day to day until February 2, North Carolina 2 1890, when the question was taken on Mr. In the House of Representatives, March o, 1819.-On the question to concur with the Senate in striking out the aforesaid clause.

It was determined in the negativeyeas 76, nays 78. In the Senate, March 2, 1819. On motion I by MrTait of Ga., Resolved, That the Senate adhere.

(No dinision.) In the Ihouse of Representatives, March 2, 1819.-On motion by Mr. Taylor of N. Y., Resolved, That the House of Representa - kives adhere. It was determined in the aflirmative-veas 78, nays 66. So the bill was lost. States. Sout~h Carolina - Georgia -… Kentumky - - - Tenn essee - - - Ohio -.-… Louisiana - - - Indiatna  Mfississippi — I llinois - -

— Alawbama - - - Y. N. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16‘27 States. New tlamps<hiro Ma.t~aeh u,etts  lMhoae Island - - Conn ecti cut - - - Vrermnont -.-.-.

N’ew Ytork - - - Newr Jersey Pen ns.ylvanuia Dc lawaI e.. Marylanld -.-.-. *Virginia.. North Carolina — On the 8th of December, 1319, Mr.

ttohlnes 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 stitution formed for the state.

Referred to a committee of five mzembers. M~r. Scott, delegate from M~issouri, presented a memorial from the people of Missouri, prayinlg to be authorized to form a constitution of state government, and to be admitted on an equal footing with the original states. Referred to a select committee. On the 14th of December, or. Taylor of IN. Y., introduced a res~olution proposing an inquiry into the expediency of prohibiting by law the introduction of slaves into the territories west of the Mississippi. [The committee were afterwards discharged fromt 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 momo} YEAS. Messrs. Merrill of N. II., Mellen and Otis of Mass., Danea o f Cosn., Burrell of R. I., Tichenor of Vt., King and Sanford of N.Y., Dickerson and W ilSon of. J., Lowrie and Roberts of Pa., Ruggles and Trimble of 0., Noble and Taylor of lnd. 16. NAYS.-XMessrs. Parrot of N. II., Hunter of R. T., Lanman of Con’n.. Palmer of Vt., Van Dyke of Del., Lloyd and Pink ney of Md..

Barbour and Pleasants of Va., Macon and Stokes of N. C., Gailliard and Smith of S.C., E~llot andi Walker of pGa., Johnson and Logan of Ky., Eaton and Williams of Tenn., Brown and Johnson of La., Leak and Williams of Miss., Ed warads and Thomas of 111., KingT andl Walker o~f Ala. 27.

February 3, 1820, page 137.-Mr. Thomas submritted the follow~ing; 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, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, shall be neither slavery nor involunjtary servitude, 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 Ilabor or service is lawfully claimed in an!I 328 Y.N. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

1 1 2 2 2 o o o o 2 2 ‘2

Page 329 view page image

MISSOURI. state or territory of the United States, such fugitive imay be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid, and February 7, page 145.-Mr. Thomas withdrew 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 affirmativeyeas 23, nays 21; as follows: 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, agrecably 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. South Carolina - Georgia - - - Kentucky - - - Tennessee - - Ohio - - - -

Louisiana - - - Indiana - - - Mississippi - - Alabama - - - Illinois - - -

- States. New Hanpshire Massachusetts - Rhode Island - Connecticut - -

Vermont - — New York - - New Jersey - - Pennsylvania - Delaware - - -

Maryland - - - Virginia- - - North Carolina - This amendment being lost, The question then recurred on the last amendment, proposed by Mr. Thomas, And it was determined in the affirmativeyeas 34, nays 10-as follows: States. South Carolina - Georgia - - - Kentucky - - - Tennessee - - - Ohio - - - - Louisiana - - Indiana - - - Mississippi - - Illinois - - - -

Alabama - - - 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 hereby 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 let. On motion by Mr. Elliott, of Georgia, it wa s 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 -tct] slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwvise 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 :ame, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any state or territory of the United states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimd, and conveyed to the person claiming his or ler labor or service as aforesaid. On motion by Mr. Trimble, of Ohio, to miend said amendment by striking out the .w ords within the brackets, and inserting the folowing: “All that part of Louisiana [as ceded iy France to the United States] which lies ;est of the Mississippi river, except that part -.:hich is contained in the state of Louisiana, States. South Carolina - Georgia - - - - Kentucky - - Tennessee - - Ohio -.  Louisiana - - - Ind iana - - - Mississippi - - Illinois - -

- Alabama - - - FOR THE AMEN:D.M’ENT. -Messrs. Brown, Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, Eaton, Edwards, Itorsey, Ilunt,:r, Johuson of Ky., Johnson of La., King of Ala., King of N.Y., Lanman, Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Lowrie.

Mellen, Morril, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pinkney, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Thomas, Ticheor, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker of Ala., Williams of Teun., Wilson.-34. AGAINST THE AMEN]DMENT.-.Messrs. Barbour. Elliott, Gaillard, Macon, Noble, Pleasants, Smith, Taylor, Walker of Gm, 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, an d the b ill read a third time?” it was determined in the affirmativeyeas 24, nays 20-as follows: States r Y. N. States. Y. N.

New Hampshire - 1 1 South Carolina- - - I 1 Mass.achusetts - - - 2 Georgia - - - - - 2 Rhode Island - - - 1 1 Kentucky - - - - 2 Connecticut - - - 2

Tennessee - - - - 2 Vermont - - - - - 2 Ohio - - - - - - 2 New York - - -

- - 2 Louisiana - - - - 2 New Jersey - - -. 2 Indiana 2 Pennsylvania 2

Mississippi - - - - 2 Delaware- - - - 2 Illinois - - - - - 2 Maryland - -

- 2 Alabama - - - - - 2 Virginia - - - - - 2 North Carolina - - - 1 1.24

20 YEAS.-Messrs. Barbourr, aBrown, Eatron, Edards, Elliott, Gaillard.

Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Ky., Johnson of La., King of Ala., Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Parrott, Pinkney, Pleasants, Stokes, Thomas, Van Dyke, W
alleer of Ala., Walker of Ga., Williams of Miss., Williams of Tenn.-24.

NAYs. M1essrs. Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, King of N.Y., Lanman, Lowrie, Macon, Mellen, Morril, Noble, Otis, Palmer, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Smith, Taylor, Tichenor, Trimblet Wilson.-20. So the bill was ordered to be engrossed, and read a th i rd t ime to -morrow. Feb. 18, 1820, page 170.-The bill passed, with the amendment, without a division. In the House of Representatives, Feb. 19, 329 Y. N. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Y. N. 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 20 24 States. New I-Iimpshire 4as.-ach,L”tts Rhode Island Connecticut - - Vermont - - - New York liew J,,,,ey flennsyl,,a.ia 1)l.war. Nla,yland Virginia - - - North Carolina Y. N. . 2 - 2 . 2 2 . 2 .

2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 Y. N. 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 - 2, 23 21 2 2 2

States. New Hampshire lassachusetts - Rhode Island - Connecticut - -

Vermont - - - New York - - New Jersey - - Pennsylvania - D,Iaware - - -

-,Nla,,yland - - - 1-irgini.a - - - North Carol!Da - Y. N. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 Y. N. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 34 10 2 1 1

Page 330 view page image

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 4elegate from Missouri, moved to refer the bill and amendments to the Commnittee of the Whole; which was determined in the negativeyeas 70, nays 107. (See Journal of hIouse of Representatives, page 230.) Mr. Alexander Smyth of Va. 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. Tavlor’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 affirmativeyeas 93, nays 72. Feb. 23, page 241.-The question was then stated: “Will the House disagree to the residue of the amendments of the Senate to the said bill, except the ninth section?” and it was determined in the affirmativeyeas 102, nays 68. Feb. 23, page 242.-The question was then stated: “Will the IHouse 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 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, otherwise than in the punishnent of crimes 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 reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid. And i t was also determined in the affirmativeyeas 159, nays 18 as follows: Mr.

Macon of N. C., called for a div ision of the question, so to be taken separately on each amendment; one containing provisions for 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 U nion,” &c. It was determined in the neg,ativce yeas 21, nays 23; as follows: States. South Carolina - Georgia -.  Kentuckliy - - - Tenn,essee - - - Ohio -. - - - Louisiana - - -

Indiana - - - Mississippi - Illinois - - - - Alabama - So the Senate refused to recede from their amendment for the admi ssion of Missouri. On the question to recede from the residue of the amendments, prohibiting the further introduction of slavery into the territories of the United States, north of 36~ 30’ north latitude, it was determined in the negativeyeas 11, nays 31; as follows: States. South Carolina - Georgia -… Kentucky -

- - Tennessee - - — Ohio - - - - - L,ouiisiana - - - Indiana Mississippi - - Illinois -… Alabama - - - So the Senate refused to recede from their amendment prohibiting the further introduction of slavery in the territories north of 36~ 30’. On motion by Mr. Barbour Of Va., Resolved, That the Senate insist on their amendment for the admissi on of Missouri.

On motin u y Mr. Rober ts of Pa., Resolved, Tha t the Senate insist on their other amendment prohibiting the further introduction of slavery into the territories of the United’States. So it was Resolved, That the Senate insis t on ai l the ir amendments disagreed to by the Iouse 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 Ilouse insist on their disagreement to said amendments providing for the admission of Missouri?” States. New lHampshire - MNassachusetts - - Rhode Island - - Connecticut - - - Vermont - — New York - - - New Jersey Pennsylvania - - Delaware - - - - Maryland - - Virginia - - - - North Carolina - - So the House disagreed to all the amendments 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.., “That the Senate recede therefrom,” 330 States. New ll.mpsbire - I,las,achusetts l,’,hode Island -

C,‘o,3necti(-ut New York - - - New Jersey Peniisylvan Delaware - - -

M.rylan(I - - - North Carolina Y. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Y. N. 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1

1 2 2 f2 21 23 2 2 2 States. New Ilampshire cbusetts - l,’,hode I.-land -

Connecticut - - Vermont - - - New York - - - New Jersey - - Pe.nsylvania -

Delaware - - - Maryland - - - Virginia - - - North Carolina - . N. 2 2 2 2

. 1 1 2 2 2 2* . 2 . l ill 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 11 33 States. South Carolina - Georgia - - - Kentucky - - - Tennessee - - Ohio - - - - Louisiana - - -

Indiana - - - Mis,sis.-ippi- - Illinois - - - - Alabama - - - Y. N. - 6 -

18 2 - 2 - 7 . 4 2 - 25 - 3 3 - 20 2 - I - 5 4 - 20 1 - 11 1 Y. N. 9 6 7 1

1.1 I 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 159 18 * Pinckne.,,,-tnd Lloyd. t William R,. King and Walker i Macon. D Stokes.

Page 331 view page image

MISSOURI. It was determined in the affirmativeyeas tude in the said state, otherwise than in the 97, nays 76; as follows:- punishment of crimnes, whereof the party States. Y. N. States. y. N. shall have been duly ccnvicted: Provided, New liampshire - - 6 South Carolina - - 9
always, that any person escaping within the Msahsts- - 15 1 Georgia …..

 6 ]:od sanedS- - 2 Kentgucky - 8 same from whom labor or service is lawfully ftnecticut - - - Tennessee - - - - 6 claimed in anv other state, such fugitive may 1,ermo’t - - - - 6 Ohio - - - - - - 6 1 be lawfully re rlaimed, and con veyed to the New tork. 24 Louisiana - - - 1… e New Jersey - - - 4 1 Indiana - - - - 1 person claiming his or her labor or service, as y’eoslvania - - 21 2 Misiissippi — - - 11aforesaid: Provided, nevertheless, that the )eary - lalno i s - - - - - said provision shall not be construed to alter layi d - -8 Alabama -.-.-. A irgiia - - - -

1* 22 — the condition or civil rights of any person now North Carolina -

- 11 97 76 Iheld to service or labor in the said territory.” So the House of Representatives insisted on The question was then stated on agreeing their disagreement to the Senate’s amendment to this amendment, when for the admission of Missouri. Mr. Storrs of N. Y. moved to strike out The question was then taken: “Will the these words: “And shall ordain and establish IIouse insist on their disagreement to the that,” and in lieu thereof to insert the followamendment of the Senate, prohibiting the ing: further introduction of slavery into the terri- “And be it further enacted, That the followtories north of 36~ 30’?” ing propositions be, and the same are hereby, And it was determined in the affirmative-offiered to the said convention, for their free yeas 160, nays 14; as follows: acceptance or rejection, to be incorporated States. Y. N. States. Y. N.

into the constitution of the said state as artiNew Haml)shire- - 6 South Carolina - - 9 cles of compact between the said state and the Massachusetts - - 19 2 Georgia - — 5 Rhode Island - - 2 Kentucky — 8

United States, viz.: That there be neither Connecticut - - - Tennessee - -

- 5 1 slavery,” &c., as above. Vermont - - - 4 1 Ohio -. –— 5 1 New York - - - - 25 Louisiana - - 1 - IAnd, on the question to agree to this amendNew Jersey - - - 3 2 Indiana - - - 1 ment of Mr. Storrs, it was determined in the Pennsylvania - - 20 3 Mississippi - - - 1 negativeyeas 82 nays 98. Delaware - - - - Ililnois - - - - - 1 Maryland - - - - 6 2

Alabama - - - iThe question was then taken on agreeing to Virginia - - - -

22 1 - — the above amendment made in the committee North Carolina - - 10

1 160 14 of the whole, and passed in the affirmative So the House of Representatives insisted yeas 94, nays 86. upon their disagreement to all the amend-A motion was then made by MIr. Taylor of mnients of the Senate, and notified the Senate N.Y. further to amend the said bill by striking thereof. out these words: “And the said state, when In Senate, Feb. 28, 1820, formed, shall be admitted into the Union upon On motion by Mr.

Thomas, an equal footing with the original states, in Resolved, That the Senate ask a conference all respects whatever;” and in lieu thereof to on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on insert, And if the same (that is the Ionstitusaid amendments. tion) shall be approved by Congress, the said Ordered, That Mr. Thomas of Ill., Mr. Pink-territory shall be admitted into the Union as ney of AId., and Mr. Barbour of Va., be the a state, upon the same footing as the original managers at the said conference on the part states. of the Senate. And the question being taken thereon, it Ordered, That the secretary notifythe House was determined in the negativeyeas 49, of Representatives accordingly. nays 125. In’louse of Representatives, Feb. 29, 1820, No further amendment being proposed, the Resolved, That this House do agree to the question was then taken, “

Shall the said bill conference, &c., &c. be engrossed and read a third time?” and Ordered, That Mr. Holmes of Mass., Mr. passed in the affirmativeyeas 93, nays 84. Taylor of N. Y., Mr. Lowndes of S. C., Mr.

In House of Representatives, Mar. 1, 1820. Parker of Mass., and Mr. Kinsey of N.J., be On the question “Shall the bill pass?” and it the managers at the said conference on the passed in the affirmativeyeas 91, nays 82; part of this House. as follows: Feb. 29, 1820.-The House took up the YEA.-Mesrs. Aden of N,kerof S; ^ 1. 1~~~~~Yr EAs.-Messrs. Adams of MNass., Allen of N. Y., Baker of amendments made in committee of the whole N.Y., Bateman of NJ., Beecher of O., oen of Pa., rush to the “bill to authorize the people of the of O., Buffum of N. I., Campbell of O., Case of N. Y., Clagett Territory of Missouri to form a constitution of N. H., Clark of N. Y., Cook of Ill., Crafts of Vt., Cushman of Mass., Darlington of la.. Dennison of Pa. De Witt of N. and state government, and for the admission Y., Dickinson of N.Y., Dowse of Mass., E~ddy of R. ]., }d(,f such state into the Union on an equal foot-wardsofCoon., dwardsofPa Fsyot.Y oigerofMass. i with th lsaes”an o Ford of N.Y.. Forrest of Pa., Fuller of Mass., Gross of N.Y., ir~ with the original states,” and concurred Gross of Pa., Guyon of N. Y.. IIackley o f N.Y.. Hall of N.

therein, with the exception of the following Y., Hazard of R. I., ilemphill of Pa. Iendricks of Ind. amlendlment:- Herrick of 0., HIibsham of Pa., IIeister of Pa., till of Mass., ” am ndmest Ilostetter of Pa., Kendall of Mass., Kensey of N.J., Kiusley “; And shall ordain and establish, that there of Me., Lathrop of Mass., Lincoln of Mass., Linn of N.J., shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servi-Lyman of N.Y..

Maclay of Pa.. Marchand of Pa., Meech of fit., R. Moore of Pa., S. Moore of Pa., Monell of N. Y., Mor ton of Mass., Moseley of Conn., Murray of Pa., Nelson of -* Nelsond Mass., Parker of Mass., Pattersn of Pa, Phelpis of Conn. 331

Page 332 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Philson of Pa., Pitcher of N.Y.. Plumer of N.

It., Rich of by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, vt..

Richalrds of vt., Richmond of N. Y., Rogers of Pa., Ross!a of cie of 0., F(uss of Conn., Sampson of Mass., Sergeant of Pa., otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, Silsbee of Mass.. Sloan of 0., Smith of N. J., Stouthard, Ste-whereof the party shall have been duly convens of Con-, Street of N. Y, Strong of Vt., S togof N.T victed, shall be, and is hereby, for ever prohibY., Tarr of Ia.. Taylor of N. Y., Tomlinson of Conn., Tompkins of N. Y., Tracey of N. Y., Upham of N. I., Van Rens-ited: Provided always, that any person escaselaer of N. Y., W allace of Pa., W
endover of N. Y., W hitman ping into the same, from whom labor or serof lass.. Wood of N. Y.-91. NAYS.-of essrs. Alexander of Va., Allen of Tenn., Ander-vice is lawfully claimed in any state or terrison of Ky., Archer of Md., Archer of Va., Baldwin of Pa., tory of the United States, such fugitive may Barbour of %a., B.yley of Md.. Bloomfield of N. J., Brevar be l afully reclaimed and conveed to the be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the of S.C., Brown of Ky., Bryan of Tenn., lurton of N. C., Burwell of Va., Butler of La., Cannon of Tenn., Cobb of person claiming his or her labor or service as Geo., Crowell of Ala., Culbreth of Md., Culpepper of N. C., aforesaid. Cuthbert of Ga., Davidson of N. C., Earle of S.C., Edwards of N. C., Erwin of S. C., Fisher of N. C., Floyd of’Va., Foot The said amendment was agreed to in Seof Conn., Fullerton of Pa., Garnett of Va., Ihall of N. C., nate without a division. Ia.rdin of Ky., Holmes of Mass. l, Johnsonole of. Ohio then moved to amend Va.. Jones of Va., Jones of Tenn., Kent of Md., Little of Md Lowndes o f S.C., McCoy of Va.,‘McCreary of S. C., McLatne this new section by striking out the following: of Del.. McLean o f Ky., Mlason of Mass, Mleigs of NY. Mer- “

All that territoy ceded b France to the (er of Va., Mitealf of Ky. Neale of Md., Nelsoi of Va., Nte r ritory b ton of Va.. Overstreet of S.C. Prke r of Va., Pinckney of S., United States, under the name of Louisiana, C..

Pindall of Va., Quarles of Ky., Randolph of A a. Rankin which lies north of 36~ 30’ north latitude, not of Miss., Read of Ga., Rhea of Te,nn..

Iiinggold of M1d., Ro of, d ofla., Rhe of leon included within the limits of the state contenmbertson of Ky.. Settle of N. C., Shaw of Mass..

Simkins of S. C., Slocum ofN. C. Smithof Md., B.SmithofVa..A.Smyth plated by this act,” and inserting in lieu of Va., Smith of N. C., Storrs of N.

Y., Strother of Va., Swea-thereof the following:ringeu of Va., Terrill of Geo.. Trimble of Ky.. Tucker of Va., T’uckerof S. C., Tylerof Va., Walkerof N. C., Warfield of Nd., All that part of Louisiana west of the MisWilliams of Va., Williams of N. C.-82. sissippi ceded by France to the United States, Vote classified by states:- except the state of Louisiana, the territory States. Y.N. States. Y. N. included in the proposed state of Missouri, New Hampshire.. 4 SouthCarolina.* 9 and the Arkansas territory east of the 17~ or Massachusetts…16 3 Georgia….. Rhode Island…

Kentucky….. 8 940 of longitude (agreeably to Melish’s map.) Rliod~~e Ilndt. c ky… (onnecticut…. 6 1 Tennessee……. 5 On the question to agree to this amendment, Vermont…5Oho…. New York…24 2

LonOisiaona….. 6 1it was determined in the negativeyeas 12, New York….24 2 Louisiana.. .. 1 New Jersey…. 5 1 Mississippi… 1 nays 30, as follows: ennslai _. 2 lbm……1 Sate V. N* Sts V. s States. New Hampshire Massachusetts. Rhode Island. Connecticut.. V ermont… New York… New Jersey.. Pennsylvania. Delaware… Maryland Virginia… North Carolina. In Senate of United States, March 2, 1820. The aforesaid bill, from the House of Representatites, was received and taken up, and on motion by Mr. Barbour of Va. to strike out the clause “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 twentv-five years,” as an amendment; and it was agreed to-yeas 27, nays 15; as follows: The title of the bill was then amended by adding thereto the following:” And to pro hibit slavery in certain territories.” And the bill was passed without a division, and sent to the tIouse of Representatives. On the reception of which in the Ihouse of Representatives, the managers of the conference on the disagreeiiig votes on the anmendments to the “bill providing for the admission of the state of Maine into the Union,” made a report (which is in the journal of the Ihouse of Representatives, page 275), recommending 1st. That the Senate recede from all their amendments to the bill for the admission of Maine, and 2d. That the bill of the IIouse of Representatives to enable the people of Missouri to form a state government, &c., should be so amended as to strike out the clause prohibiting slavery within the state to be formed, and to insert a new section prohibiting slavery in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 30’ north latitude, not included within the limits of the state of Missouri, &e. The said report was read and ordered to lie on the table. The House then took up and proceeded to Y. N.

States. 1 1 South Carolina 2 Georgia… 1 1 Kentucky.. I 1 Tennessee..

Ohio…. 2 Louisiana.. 2 Mississippi.. 2 Alabama… State.s. New Hampshire Massachusetts. Rhode Island. Connecticut.. Vermont… New York… New Jersey.. Pennsylvania. Delaware… Maryland… Virginia… North Carolina.

Th e said clause was therefore stricken from the bill of the House of iepresentatives. On motion by Mr. Thomas to amend said bill by adding thereto the following, as a new section: 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 36~ 30’, north latitude, Not included within the limits of the state contemplated 332 States. South Carolina Georgia… K,-ntuky.. Tennessee.. Ohio…. Louisiana..

Mi,,sissippi. Al.bama.. Indiana.. Illinois… Y. N. 2 . 2 2 2 . 2 2 2 2 2

2 12 30 .2 :1 .2 .2 .2 2 2 2 2 2 Y. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 27 2 2 2 2 2 15

Page 333 view page image

MISSOURI. NAYs.-Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Alexander. Allen of Mass.; Archer of Va., Barbour, Buffum, Burton, Burwell, Butler of La.. Cobb, Edwards of N. C., Ervin, Folger, G,ariett, Gross of N. Y., H all of N. C., IIooks, Jo hnson, Jo nes f a., Jone of Tenn., McCoy, Metcalf, Neale, Newton, Overstreet.!‘ark1;r of Va., Pinckney, l’indall, Randolph, Ree(l, Rhea, Si,.ikin.s. Slocumb, B. Smith of Va., A. Smyth of Va., Swearilgen, Terrell. Tucker of Va., Tyler, Walker of N. C., hi illiatus of Va. ;2.

consider the amendments proposed by the Se, nate to the bill to authorize the people of Missouri to form a constitution, &c., &c.; “and the said amen(ldients being in exact conforImity to the report, or recommendations of the committee of conference herein recited,” the question was first taken on striking out the clause prohibiting slavery in Missouri, and it was carried in the affirmativeyeas 90, nays 87, as follows: YEAS.-MessrS.

Abbott, Alexander, Allen of Tenn,, Anderson, Archer of Md., Archer of Va., Baldwin, Barbour, 1Bayly, Bloomfield, Brevard. Brown, Bryan, Burton, Burwell, Butler of La., Cannon, Cobb, Cocke, Crawford, Crowell, Culbreth, Culpepper, Cuthbert, Davidson, Earle, Eddy, Edwards of N. C., Ervin.

Fisher, Floyd, Foot. Fullerton, Garnett, Hall of N. C., Hardin, lill, Holmes, Hooks, Johnson, Jones of Va., Jones of Tenn., Kent, Kinsey, Little, Lowndes, McCoy, Mc1Creary, McLane of Del., McLean of Ky:, Mason, Meig.s, Mercer, Metcalf, Nealo, Nelson of Va., Newton, Overstreet, Parker of Va., Pinckney, Pindall, Quarles, Randolph, Rankin, ]teed, Rhea.

Ringgold. Robertson, Settle, Shaw, Simpkins, Slocumb, Smith of N. J., Smith of Md., aw. Smith of a., A. S myth of Va., Smith of N. C., Stevens, Storrs. Strotier, Swearingen. Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of Va., Tucker of S. C., Tyler, Walker of N. C., Warfield, Williams of Va., W*illiams of N.

C.-90. NAYS.-Messrs. Adams, Allen of Mass., Allen of N. Y., llaker.

Bateman. Beecher, Boden, Brush, Buffum, Butler of N. II., Campbell, Clagett, Clark, Cooke, Craft.,, Cushman. D)arlington, Dennison, Dewitt.

Dickinson, Dowse, Edwards of Pa., Fay, Folger, Ford, Forrest, Fuller, Gross of N. Y., Gross of Pa., Guyon, Hackley, Hall of N.Y., ttazard, Hemphill, Hendricks, Iterrick, IIibsham, Hiester, Ilostetter, Keudall, Kinsley, Lathrop, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, Lyman, Maclay, Mallary, Marchand, Meech, R. Moore, S. Moore, Monpell, Morton, Moseley, Ilurray, Nelson of Mass.. Parker of Mass., Patterson, Phelps, Philson, Pitcher, Plumer, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Rogers, Ross, Russ, Sampson, Sergeant, Silsbee, Sloan, Southard, Street, Strong of Vt., Strong of N. Y., Tarr, Taylor, Tomlinson, Tracy, Upham, Vau Rensselaer, Wallace, WVendover, Whitman, and Wood.-87. Those who voted in the affirmative and negative are as follows, by states: States. Y. N. States. Y. N. New IHampshire.. 6

South Carolina.. 9 Massachusetts…. 4 16 Georgia…… 6 Rhode Island…

1 Kentucky…. 8 Connecticut…. 2 4 Tennessee…. 6 ‘Vermont….. 6

Ohio…… 6 New York…. 2 22 Louisiana.. *. 1 New Jersey…. 3 3

Indiana….. 1 Pennsylvania… 2 21 Mississippi…. 1 Delaware…… 1

Alabama….. 1 Maryland….. 9 Illinois….. 1 Virginia…. 22 - - North Carolina.. 12 90 87 States. South Carolina. Georgia… Kentucky..

Tennessee.. Ohio…. Louisiana.. M ississippi.. Alabama.. Indiana…

Illinois… So the House concurred in all the amendments of the Senate, and the bill was passed by the two Houses. The following is a copy of it as it became a law: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 slavery in certain territories. Sec. 1.

Be it enacted by the Senate and IIouse of Repr esentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inh abitants of that portion of the Missouri territory included within the boundaries hereinafter designated, be, and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government; and to assume such name as they shall deem proper; and the said sta te, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever. The 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th sections of the law embrace mere matters of detail, having no connexion with the great question which is now agitating the country. The 8th section, which is what is generally known aa the Missouri Compromise, is as follows: Sec. 8.

And be it further enacted, That in all that territory ceded by France to the Uni, ted States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirtysix degrees and thir ty 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 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 reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. Approved 6th March, 1820. The main question was taken on concurring wi th the Senate in inserting in the bil l, i n l ie u of the state restriction, th e c lause inhibiting slavery i n the territory north of 36~ 30’ north latitucde, and was decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays as follows: Y.As. essrs.

Allen of N. Y.. Allen of Tenn., Anderson A rch e r of Md., Baker, Baldwin, Bateman, Bayly, Beecher, Bloom field, Boden, Brevard, B rown, Brush, Bryan, Butle r of N. II., Campbell, Cannon, Case, Clagett, Clarke, Couke, Cook, Crafts, Crawf ord, Crowell, Culbreth, Culpepper, Cushman. Cuthert, Darlington, Davidson, Dennison, Dewitt, D)ickinso,n. Dowse, Earle, Eddy.

Edwards of Pa., Fay, Fisher, Flh)yd, Foot, Ford, Forrest, Fuller, Fullerton, Gross of Pa., Coupon, IIacklay Idll of N. Y., Ilardini. Hazard, Hemphill, liendri,‘ks. IIerrie-k. Iibsham. Hiester, Hill. Holm,.e, Ilostetter, Kend,all, Kent, Kinsey, Kinsley, Lathrop, Little, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore. Lownels, Lyman, MIaclay, McCreary, MNcLane of Del., MeLean of Ky., Mallary, Marchand, Mason. Mei,s,, Mercer, R. Moore, S.

Moore, AMonell, Morton, Nlosely, Murray, Nelson of Mlass., Nelson of Va., Parker of lass., Patterson, Plhilson, Pitcher. l’lumer, Quarles. Rankin, Rich, Richards, Rtichlmond. Ringgold, Robertson, Rogeers, Ross, Russ.

Sampson, Sergeant, Settle, Shaw, Silsbee, Sloan, Smith of’. J.. Smith of Md. Smith of N. C., Soetlhard. Ste venr, Storrs, Street, Strong of Vt., Strong of N. Y., Strother, Tarr. Taylor, Tomlinson, Tompkins, Tracy, Trimble,‘T’ucker of S. C., Uph um, Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Warfield, 11
endever, Williams of N. C., Wood.-134. TIHE SECOND MISSOURI COMPROMISE. In the constitution formed by Missouri there was a clause requiring the legislature to pass laws prohibiting the emigration of free 383 States.

New Hampshire Massachusetts. Rhode Island. Connecticut.. Vermont… New York.. New Jersey.. Pennsylvania. Del,-tware… Maryland… Virgi.ia…

North Carolina. Y. N. . 5 1 .16 3 . 2 . 5 . 5 . 25 1 . 6 . 23 . 1 . 8 1 .

4 18 . 6’ 6 Y. N. . 5 4 . 2 4 . 7 1 . 4 2 6 I . I . 1 . I . I 134 42

Page 334 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. people of color into the state; and this restriction opened up the question, and produced re sistance to her admission. On the 23d November, 1820, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Lowndes of S.

C., from the select committee to whom was re terred the constitution formed for their gov ernment by the people of the state of Mis souri, made a report, concluding with a joint resolution, “that the state of Missouri shall be, and is hereby declared to be, one of the United States of America, and is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever.” On the 29th of November, 1820, a similar resolution was reported to the Senate from a select committee, and it was subsequently pass.ed, and sentto the HouseofRepresentatives. On the 29th of January, 1821, on motion of Mr. Clay, the House went into committee of the whole on the resolution from the Senate for admitting Missouri into the Union, with a caveat against the provision, if there be any, which conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. On the 22d of February the resolution was further considered, and, after much discussion, Mr. Clay moved the appointment of a com mittee of thirteen to consider the Senate’s resolution; and this being agreed to, the fol lowing gentlemen were appointed the commit tee, viz: Messrs. Clay of Ky., Eustis of Mass., Smith of Md., Sergeant of Penn., Lowndes of S. C., Ford of N.

Y., Campbell of Ohio, Archer of Va., Hackley of N. Y., S. Moore of Penn., Cobb of Ga., Tomlinson of Conn., and Butler of N. H. On the 10th of February Mr. Clay from the above committee made a report for the admis sion of Missouri into the Union. This report was intended to obviate the difficulties caused by the restriction in the constitution of Missouri, and Mr. Clay earnestly invoked a spirit of harmony and concession. The resolution attached to this report, being the Senate resolution as amended by the committee, was rejected by the House by a vote of 80 to 83. This vote was 76 Representatives from the South and 14 from the North in the affirmative. The 14 Northern affirmative votes being as follows: Messrs.

Baldwin of Pa., Bateman and Bloomfield of N. J., Clark of N. Y., Eddy of R. I., Guyon and Hackley of N. Y., Hill of Mass., Meigs of N.Y., Shaw of Mass., Smith of N.J., Stevens of Conn., Storrs and Tompkins of N. Y.

Eighty Northern and three Southern Representatives in the negative. The three Southern Representatives being Messrs. Edwards of N. C., Randolph of Va., and Terrill of Ga. Mr. Livermore of N. H. moved a reconsideration for the purpose of giving every member an opportunity to vote on the important question. The reconsideration was carried on the 13th of Feb. by yeas 101, nays 66. And the resolution was again rejected by a vote of 82 to 88. In addition to the northern rep resen tat ives who voted ay on the reso l ution before, Mr. Ford of N. Y. did so on this vote. Mr. Terrill of Ga., who voted against the resolution before, did not vote cn this vote.

Messrs. Randolph and Edwards again voted against it. Mr. Garnett of Va., Nho voted for it before, voted against it on this. Otherwise the vote sec ti onally was the same. The southern representatives who vote d no, did so because of the amendment of the House committee to the Senate resolution, which was intended to negative the clause in the consti tution of Missouri against the emigration of free negroes into the state, if said clause be in ,onflict with the Federal Constitution. Feb. 22.-In the House Mr. Clay moved the appointment of a committee, to act with one from the Senate, to consider and report in regard to the admission of Missouri. Agreed to-101
to 55. The following gentlemen were elected the committee on the part of the ttouse, as fol lows: Messrs. Clay of Kentucky, Cobb of Georgia, Hill of Maine, Barbour of Virginia, Storrs of New York, Cocke of Tennessee, Rankin of Mississippi, Archer of Virginia, Brown of Kentucky, Eddy of Rhode Island, Ford of New York, Culbreth of Maryland, tIackley of New York, S. Moore of Pennsylvania, Stevens of Connecticut, Rogers of Pennsylvania, Southard of New Jersey, Darlington of Pennsylvania, Pitcher of New York, Sloan of Ohio, Randolph of Virginia, Baldwin of Pennsylvania, and Smith of North Carolina. In the Senate, on the 24th of Feb. 1821, on the announcement of a message that the Itouse had appointed a committee of conference, Mr. Smith of South Carolina, opposed it, and Mr. Barbour of Virginia, and Mr. Holmes of Maine, supported it. The Senate concurred by a vote of 29 to 7, and a committee was appointed to meet the HIouse committee, and the following gentlemen were appointed: Messrs. Holmes of Maine, Roberts of Pennsylvania, Morrill of New Itampshire, Barbour of Virginia, Southard of New Jersey, Johnson of Kentucky, and King of New York. On the 26th Feb. 1821, Mr. Clay, from the joint committee, reported a joint resolution for the admission of the state of Missouri, upon condition that the restrictive clause in her constitution should never be so crltstrued as to authorize the passage of any law lby which a~ny citizen of any other state shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States. [This resolutit,:n is printed hereinafter.] Mr. Clay briefly explained the views of the committee, and the considerations which in. duced them to report the resolution. H~e con, 334

Page 335 view page image

MISSOURI. son of Ky., Johnson of La., King of Ala., Lowrie, Morril, Parrot, Pleasants, Roberts, Southard, Stoles, Tolbot, Taylor, Thomas. Van Dyke, Walker of Ala., Williams of Miss., Wril liams of Tenn.-26.

NAYvs.-Messrs. Dana, Dickerson, King of N. Y., Knight, L.nman. Macon, Mills, Noble, Otis, Palmer, Ruggles. Saro Ibord, Smith, Tichenor, Trimble.-15. A motion was made to read the resolution a third time forthwith, but it was objected to, and, under the rule of the Senate, of course it could not be done. Oi the 28th, the resolution from the House of Representatives, declaring the admission of the state of Missouri into the Union, was read a third time, and the question on its final pas sage was decided as follows:  YEAS.-NMessrs. Barbour. Chandler, Faton, Edwards, Gail. lard, Holmes of Me., Holmes of Miss., HIrsey, IHunter, John Tsos of Ky., Johnson of La., King of Ala., Lowrie, Morril, Parrott, tinckney, Pleasants, Roberts, Southard, Stokes, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, Van I)yke, Walker of Ala., }Halker of Geo., IViUiams of Miss., W~illiams of Tenn.-28.

NAYS.-Messrs. Dana, Dickerson, King of New York, Knight, Lanman, Macon, Mills, Noble, Otis, Ruggles, San ford, Smith, Tichenor, Trimble.-14.

Southern men in italics, Northern men in roman. The following is Mr.

Clay’s compromise: Resolution providing for the admission of Missouri into the Union on a certain condi tion. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Missouri shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the o riginal states, i n all respects whatever, upon the fundamental condition tha t the fo ur th clause of the twenty-sixt h section of the third article of the Constitution, submitted o n the part of the said state to Congress, shall never be cons trued to authorize the passage of any law, and that no land shall be passed in conformity thereto, by wh i ch a ny citize n of either of the states in this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment o f an y of the privileges and immunities t o which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That the legislature of the said state, by solemn public act shall declare the assent of the s aid state to the said fundamental condition, and transmit to the President of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of said ac t; upon th e receipt wher o t e reo f th e P resident, 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 W. TAYLOR, Speaker of the IHouse of Representatives. JOHN GAILLARD, Speaker of the Senlate, pro terns Approved, March 2, 1821. J A NIES MelNRot. This new compromise, the one under whicls 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 sidered this resolution as being the same in effect as that which had been previously re ported by the former committee of thirteen members; and stated that the committee on the part of the Senate was unanimous, and that on the part of the House nearly so, in favor of this resolution. After further debate, the previous question was ordered, and the main question put, viz.: “Shall the resolution be engrossed and read a third time?” It was decided as follows: For the third reading… 86 Against it. 82 The resolution was then ordered to be read a third time this day, but not without con siderable opposition. T he resolution was accordingly read a third time, and put on its passage. Mr. Randolph, in a speech of some twenty minutes, delivered the reasons why he should not vote for the resolution. The final question was then taken on the resolution, and decided in the affirmative, as follows: YE.As. Messrs. Abbott, Alexapler, Allen of Tenn., Anderson, Archlr of Md., Archer of Va., Baldwin, Ball, Barbour, Bateman, Bayly, Blackledge, Bloomfield, Brevard, Brown, Bryan. Butler of La., Cannont, Clark, Clay, Cobb, Cocke, Craxwnf)rd, Conwell, Culbreth, Culpepper, Cuthbert, Davidson, Eddy, JDtu~ards of N. C., Fisher, Floyd, Ford, Gray, Guyon, IIackley, Hall of N. C., Hardin, Hill, Hooks, Jackson, Johnson, Jomes of Va., Jones of Tenn., Little, McCoy, MfcCreary, McLean of Ky., Mleigs, MVercer, Metcalf, Montgomery, S. Moore, Moore, _~eal. -Velson of Va., Newton, Overstreet, Pinckney, Ra h id, Rei ggd, Rea,.Riol, obertson, Rogers, Sawyer, &Settle, Shaw, Sip)pkins, Smith of N.J., Smith of Md., A.

Smnyth of Va., Smith of N. C., Southard, Stevens, Storrs, Swearingen, Trisnble, Terrell Tucker of Va., Tucker of S.C., Tyler, Udree, IValket, Ilarfield, Williamns of Va., Williams of N. C.-87. NAYs. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Mass., Allen of N. Y., Baker, Beecher, Boden, Brush, Buffumn, Butler of N. I., Campbell, Case, Clagett, Cok, Cushman, Dane, Darlingtou, Dennison, DeWitt, Dickinson. Edwards of Conn., Edwards of Pla., Eustis, Fay, Folger, Foot, Forrest, Fuller, Gorham, Gross of N. Y., Gross of Pa., Hall of N. Y., HIemphill Iendricks, ierrick, Hibsham, Ilobart, Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsey, Kingsley, Lathrop, Lincoln, Livermore, Miaclay, McCullough, Mallary, Marchand, Meech, Monell, R. Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Nelson of Mass., Patterson, Parker of Mass., Phelps, Philson, Pitcher, Plumer, Randolph, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Ross, Russ, Sergeant, Sillsbee, Sloan, Street, Strong of Vt., Strong of N. Y., Tarr, Tomlinson, Tracy, Upham, Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Wendover, Whitman, Wood.-81. So the resolution w as passed, and ordered to be sent to the Senate for concurrence. On the H6th of February, in the Senate, Mr. Holes of n aaine, from the joint committee of the two touses, reported a resolution for the admission of Missouri int o t he Union, which was read and laid on the table. On t he 27th, the r esolut ion hav ing pass ed the House, was taken up in the Senat e. After an unsuccessful attempt by Mr. Macon to strike out the condition and proviso, which was negatived by a large majority, and a few remarks by MIr. Barbour in support of the expediency of harmony and concession on this momentous subject The question was taken on ordering the resolution to be read a third time, and was decided in the affirmative by the following vote: YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Chandler, Eon, EUiot, Gail14rd, Holmes of Me., Holmes of Miss., Horsey, Hunter, John 835

Page 336 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. “Although I had laid down as a law to myself never to write, talk, or even think of politics, 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 Fcderal and Republican threatened nothing, because it existed in every state, and united them together by the fraternism 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 i rritations, u ntil it would kindle such mutual and mortal hatred as to render separ ation preferabl e to eternal discord. I have been among the most sanguine in believing that our Un ion would be of long d uration. I now do ubt it much, and see the event at no great distance, and the direct consequence of this question; not ba the line which has bee n s o 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 capable of selfgovernment. This treason against human hope will signalize their epoch in future history as the counterpart of the model of their predecessors.” View s of M r. JEFFERSON on th e Miss ou r i Compromise: “

T he question is a mere party trick. The leader s of federalism, defe ated in their schemes of obtaining p ow er by rallying pa rtisans to the princ ipl e of inon archismn-a principle of personal, not of local division-have changed their tact and thrown out anoth er barr el to t he whale.

They are takin. advantage of the v irtu ous feeling of the pe ople to effect a division of parties by a geog raph ical l ine; they expect that this will insure them, on local p rinciples, the majority the y could never obtain 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 difficulty, and uinite their councils with ours in devising somiie reasonable and practicable plan of getting rid of it.” Jefe,son’s Wi-ititigs, Vol. 1. I n a letter to Mr. Adam s, d ated Jan. 22, 1821, he says: “Our an x ieti es in this quarter are all concentrated in the ques tion, What does the holy alliance, in and out of Congress, mean to do with u s on the Missouri question? And this by the w ay, is but the name of the case; it is only t he John Doe or Richard Roe of the ejectment. the real question, as seen in the states afflicted with this unfortunate population, is, Are our slaves to b e presented with freedom and a dagger? For, if Congress has the awier ato regulatie the conditions of the inhabitants of the states within the states, it will be but another exercise of that pow er to declar e that all shall be free. Are we, then, to see alain Athenian and Lacedsemonian confederacies? To wage another Peloponnesian war to settle the asce ndancy between them? Or i s this the tocsin of merely a servile war? Tha t remains to be seen; but I hope not by you or me. S urely they will parley aw hile and give us time to get out of the way. What a bedlamite is man!”

I n 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 interests of the slaves; that they had been usedl 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: ” Ian o o thank you, my dea r sir for the copv you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constitu ents on the Miss ouri question. * Bu t this momentous quest i on, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened me and filled me with te rror. I consi dered 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 pri nciple, 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 Ji’o.

HIolmes, dated Moiiticello, 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 is without his hopes, nor scrutpulous as to the means of fulfilling them.“Letter to Mr. Madison. 336

Page 337 view page image

MISSOURI. ” 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 hinm the author of the socalled 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 renmark lable 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 ti on is a breaker on which we lose the Mis souri country by re volt, an d w hat more, God only knows.’ ” To understand the full force of these ex pressions, it must be borne i n mind tha t the questions enumera ted were th e grea t a nd ex citing political questions of the day, on which part ie s divided. The banks and bankrupt law had long been so. Manufactures (or what has since been called the pro tective tariff) i was at the time ta su bject of great excitement, oas was the S panish treaty; that is, the treaty by which Florida was ceded to the Union, and by which the western bound ary between M e xico and the United State s was settled, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. All these exciting party questions of the d ay Mr. Jeffer - son regarded as nothing compared to the Mis. souri question. He looked on all of them as, in their nature, fugitive; and t o use his own forcible expression,’ would pass off un der the ship of state like waves in a storm.’ Not so that fatal question; it was a breaker on which it was destined to b e strand ed; and yet his name is quoted by the incendiaries of the p resent day in support of, and a s the author of, a proviso which would give indefinite and universal extension of this fartal question to all the territories. It was compromis ed the next year by the adoption of the line to which I have referred. Mr. Holmes of Maine, long a. mrember of this body, who voted for the mieasure, addressed a letter to ir. Jefferson, enclosing 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 mian 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 better occupied than in listening to it.” The secretary here read the letter hereinbefore containe’d. “Mark, said he, Mr. Jefferson’s prophetic words! Mark his profound reasoning! “”It, the question, is hushed for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a finall sentence. A geographlicall line coinlcidingr with a markied principle, mnorl <and political, once conceived and held up to) the angry pas ” 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. nsrom the battl e of Bunker’s IIill to o the treaty isf P’orris. w e never had so ominous a question. It eve n damps the j oy with which I hear of your high health, and w elc omes to me the want of it. I thank God I shall not live to witness its issue.” Letter to Johln Ada-s, De cemiber 10, 1819. ” The line of division lately marked out be tween different portions of our confederacy, is such as will never, I fear, be obl i terated, and we ar e now trusting to those who are gainst es in position and principle, to fashion to their own form the minds and affections of our youth. If, as has be en es timated, we send th ree hundred thi ousand dollars a year to the northern seminaries for the i nstruction of our own sons, then we must have five hundred of onr 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 retledy.”-Letter to General Breckenidj-i(e, Feb. 11. 1821. “The Missouri question is the most portentous 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 soarce.” Letter to Xir.

Moitroe, March 3, 1820. Views of Mr. CALHOUc-on the Missouri Compromise.

In his s peech onn the Oreon bill, 1st session 3oth 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 restrictions prohibiting slavery, a comp romis e l ine was adopted between the North and the South; but it was d on e unde rcircumstances w hich nale it nowise obligatory on the latter. It is true, it was moved by one of her distinguished 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 bv superior numbers, in opposition to her strenuous efforts. The South has never given her sanction to it, or assented to the lH)wCer it asserted. She was voted down, and ha., simplv acquiesced in an arrangement which she has not had the power to reverse, and which she could not attempt to do without disturbing the peace and harmony of the UTnion-to which she has ever been adverse. Acting on this principle, she permitted the territory of Iowa to be formed, and the state ia) be admitted into the Union, under the compromise, without objection; and that is now luoted by the senator from New York to )rove her surrender of the power he claims or Congress. 22

I ,;037

Page 338 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sions of men, will never be obliterated, and I question, and none where the power to which every new irritation will mark it deeper and it has been attempted to trace it does not deeper.’ exist, as I have shown, I trust, to be the case “Twenty-eight years have passed since in this instance.” these remarkable words were penned, and On the 19th of February, 1847, Mr. Calhoun there is not a thought which time has not thus thus declared his opposition to the Missouri far verified, and it is to be feared will continue Compromise: to verify until the whole will be fulfilled. Cer- ” Sir, here let me say a word as to the comtain it is that he regarded the compromise line promise line. I have always considered it as as utterly inadequate to arrest that fatal a great error-highly injurious to the South, course of events which his keen sagacity anti-because it surrendered, for mere temporary cipated from the question. It was but a’ re-purposes, those high principles of the Constipi isve.’ ” tutionl upon which I think we ought to stand. “Mark, said Mr. Calhoun, the deeply mel-I am against any compromise line. Yet 1
ancholv impression which it made on Mr. Jef-would have been willing to acquiesce in a ferson’s mind: continuance of the Missouri Compromise, in ”’ I regret that I am to die in the belief order to preserve, under the present trying that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the circumstances, the peace of the Union. One generation of 1776, to acquire selfgovernment of the resolutions in the House, to that effect, and happiness for themselves, is to be thrown was offered at my suggestion. I said to a away by the unwise and unworthy passions friend there,’ Let us not be disturbers of this ,f their sons, and that my only consolation is Union. Abhorrent to my feelings as is that t-) be that I live not to weep over it.’ compronlise line, let it be adhered to in good Can any one believe, after listening to this faith; and if the other portions of the Union letter, tha Jefferson is the author of the so-are willing to stand by it, let us not refuse to called Wilmot proviso, or ever favored it?

stand by it. It has kept peace for some time, And yet there are at this time strenuous efforts and in the present circumstances perhaps it i,aking in the North to form a purely sectional would be better to be continued as it is.’ But party on it, and that, too, under the sanction it was voted down by an overwhelming majoof those who profess the highest veneration rity. It was renewed by a gentleman from a {or his character and principles! But I must non-slaveholding state, and again voted down speak the truth, while I vindicate the memory by an overwhelming majority. of Jefferson from so foul a charge. I hold he ” I see my way in the Constitution; I canis not blameless in reference to this subject. not in a compromise. A compromise is but lie committed a great error in inserting the an act of Congress. It may be overruled at provision he did in the plan he reported for any time. It gives us no security. But the the government of the territory, as much mo-Constitution is stable. It is a rock. On it we dified as it was. It was the first blow, the can stand. It is a firm and stable ground, on first essay’to draw a geographical line coin-which we can better stand in opposition to ciding with a marked principle, moral and fanaticism, than on the shifting sands of cornpolitical.’ It originated with him in philan-promise. thropic but mistaken views of the most dan- “Let us be done with compromises. Let us gerous character, as I shall show in the sequel. go back and stand upon the Constitution!” Others, with very different feelings and views, followed, and have given to it a direction and Congress Hall, March 2, 1820, impetus which, if not promptly and efficiently 3 o’clock at night.

arrested, will end in the dissolution of the Dear Sir: I hasten to inform you that this Union and the destruction of our political inmoment we have carried the question to admit stitutions.” Missouri and all Louisiana to the southward “I have, I trust, established beyond con-of 36 deg. 30
min. free of the restriction of troversy, that neither the Ordinance of 1787, slavery, and give the South, in a short time, nor the Missouri Compromise, nor the prece-an addition of six, and perhaps eight, memdents growing out of them, nor the authority bers to the Senate of thi United States. It is of Mr. Jefferson, furnishes any evidence what-consid(lered here by the slaveholding states as ever to prove that Congress possesses the power a great triumph. The votes were closeover the territory claimed by those who advo-ninety to eighty-six (the vote was so first decate the twelfth section of this bill. But ad-clared)-produced by the seceding and abmit, for the sake of argument, that I am missence of a few moderate men from the North. taken, and that the objections I have urged To the north of 36 deg. 30 min. there is to be, against them are groundless-give them all by the present law, a restriction, which you the force which can be claimed for precedents will see by the votes I voted against. But it -and they would not have the weight of a is at present of no moment; it is a vast track, feather against the strong presumption which uninhabited only by savages and wild beasts, I, at the outset of my remarks, showed to be in which not a foot of the Indian claim to soil opposed to the existence of the power. Pre-is extinguished, and in which, according to cedents, even in a court of justice, can have the ideas prevalent, no land-office will be open but little weight, except where the law is for a great length of time. doubtful, and should have little in a delibera-With respect, your obedient servant, tive body, in any case, on a constitutional CIIARLES PINCKN3Y. 338

Page 339 view page image

MISSOURI. should not complain of the measure after having given it their united vote on sever,al occasions. Mr. BUTLER. Will the gentleman allow me a single word? Will he do justice to the South ern gentlemen by saying that they voted f)r the Mi ssouri compr omise as a peace offering, after they had found the count r y brought into jeopardy by the Wilmot proviso?

They ath quiesced in it as a peace offering-as a colm promise-and not as giving up their r ights. Mr. DOUGLAS. I SO un derstan d i t. Mr. BUTLER.

One word concernin g my col league (Mr. Calloun). I think t he Senator from Illn ois (Mr. Do uglas) is right in saying that my colleague voted for the amendment to the Oregon bill, but throughout the whole dis cussion I think he took occasion to s ay that, though he acquiesced in it, he did not approve of fit. Mr. DOUGLAS. I take great pleas ure in say ing that I believe the Souther n gentle me n did vote for the Missouri compromise as a peace offering and a co mpromi se. It was offered by me and r eceived by te n them in that spirit. But I must be permitted to s ay that it seems some wha t e xtraordin ar y tha t that rs whic h the y a ll voted for as a compromise and a peace offering should now be de no unced as an act o f North - ern a ggre ssion. Because it was tendered an d receive d as a peace offering, it shou ld ne ver be c alled an act of aggression. In regard to the effects of the Miss ouri compromise upon the que stion of slavery I ha ve but a few words to say. I do not t hink that it did have a ny prac tical effect on th at question, one way or the other. Missouri was admitted into the Union with slavery. This must necessarily have been done, whethe therhe compromise had be en 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 constitution 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 thirtysix degrees thirty minutes to the fortyninth 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 compromise, therefore, had no practical bearing upon Judge DOUGLAS on the Missouri Compronrise. Extract from his speech in the Senate, March 13, 1850: The next in the series of aggressions com rlained of by the Senator from South Caro flina 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 i)romise 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 tle slightest complaint that it was unfair to anv section of the country. In 1846 it received the support of every Southern member of the hIouse of Representatives, Whig and Democrat, without exception, as an alternative measure to the Wilmot proviso. And again, in 1848, a s a an amendment to the Oregon bill, on miy motion, it received the vote, if I recollect right, and I do not think that I can possibly b,e 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 t4) the ordinance of‘87, in the series of aggressions 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 compromise 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 cannot 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,ions as a slavery exactionist, a dough-facend many other kind and polite terms of similar import were applied to me, and my name tvas published in certain newspapers with -lack marks drawn around it, with the view )f concentrating popular odium upon me and he party to which it is my pride and pleasure o belong. And now,-sir, the very measure .vhich drew all these anathemas and denunciaions upon my devoted head, is now represented )y the Senator from South Carolina as a mea=are of deadly hostility to Southern interests; measure calculated to limit and diminish the Pea of slavery more than any act of the goerinment during its whole history. Be this q it may, I think that Southern gentlemen 339

Page 340 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. on the amendment extending the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific; and it was decided in the affirmative, as follows: the question of slaverv-it neither curtailed nor extended it one inct. 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. YEAS.-NMessrs. Atbhison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Miss., Dichinson, Douglas. Downs, Fitzgerald. Fo,,te, Hanne gv. n, Houston, Johnson of Md., Johnson of La., Johnsosi of Ga., King. Lewi,s. Man(gumll, MNeson, Met,nlf, Plearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon. Turney, JUnderwood.-33.

NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Ather-tom, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Maqs., Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Fecb, Greene, HIle. Hamlin, Miller, Nlilee, Phelps, Uphanm, WVal-er, Webster, Jiastcott.-22. The bill, with this amendment, came before the House on the next day; and the amendment of the Senate extending the Missouri line to the Pacific was non-concurred in by the following vote: YEAS. Nessrs. Adams. Atkinson, Barringer, Barrow, Bayly, Beale, Bedinger, Birdsall, Bocock, Botts, Bowdon, Bowlin, Boyd, Boydon, Brodhead, Charles Brown, A. (4. 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. Goggin, Greene, Willard P. all, Iaralson, Harmanson. Harris, claskell, hill.

Ililliard. Isaac E. lolines, George S. hlouston, Charles J. Ingersoll, Iverson, Andrew Johbson, Robert W. Joih nson. Geor geW. Jones, John W.

Jones. Kaufman, Thomas Butler King, Ligon, Lumpkin, McDowell, McKay, McLane, Maeade, Morehead, Outlaw, Pendleton, Ihelps, Pillsbury, Preston, Rhett, Roman, Sheppard, Stanton, Stephens, Thomas, Jacob Thompson, J. B.

Thompson, Robert A. Th ompson, Tompkins, Toombs, Venable, Wallace, Woodward. 82. NAYs.-Messrs. Abbott, Ashmun, Bingham, Blanchard, Brady, Butler, Canby, Cathcart, F. Clark, Collamer, Collins, Conger, Cranston, Crowell. Cummins, Darling, Dickey, Diclinson. Dixon, Duer, Daniel Duncan, Dunn, Eclert, FEdsall, Edwasds Emsbree, Nathan Evans, Faran, Farelly,.Fchlin, Fisher, Freedly. Fries, Gott, Gregory. Grinnell, Hale, Nathan K. Hall, Ilam.mons, James G. Hampton, Moses Hamptot, Ienzly, I-enry. Elias B. Ho,lmes, John W. Houston, Hubbard, Hudson, Hunt, Jose.ph R. Igaer solle, Jenkh i ns, Klellogg, Kennon, D.. P. King, W.. Lawrence, Sydney lawrence, Lincoln, Lord, Lynde, Daclasy, McClelland, McClernand, cIlailne, Job Mann, Horace Mann, ac M, Marsh, MarFin, Miller, ,‘n-ris, Mullen, Ml’urphy, Nelson, dies, Newell, Nicoll,.alfre., Peaslee, Peck,, Petre, ]ettit, Poll,ock, Putnam, Reynold., Richey, Robinson, RockhiU, John A. Rockwell. Root, Rose, Rumsey, St. John. Sawyer, Schenck, Sherll, Sylvester, Slingeo’and, Smart, Caleb B. Smith, Robert Smith, Truman Smith, StarAweather, Andrew Stewart. Charles E. Stuart, Strohme, Strong, Tallmadge. Taylor, James Thompson, Richard W]. Thompson, William Thompson, Thurston, Tuck, Turner, Va,n Dylke, Vinton, W0arren, W2entworth, White, Wick, Williiams, Wilmot.-121. The IIouse 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: YF4s. Iessrs.

Allen. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Breeme, Bright, Cameron, Clarke. Cotwin.

Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dicl.inson, Dix, Dodge, Douglas, Felch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hale, tIamlin, Hannegan, liouston, Miller, Miles, Phelps, Spruance, Uphamn, }IValer, Webster.-29. N YS. Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Butler, Calhoun, Davis of Miss., Downs, Foote, Hunter, Johnson of Md.. Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga,., Lewis, Mangum, Mason. Metcalfe. Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Turney, Underwood, Westeott, Yulec.-25. [Northern men in small capitals; Southern men in roman.] Gen. CAS on the Missouri Compromise. From a speech made on the 20th of February, 1l54. Mr. President: I have not withheld the expression of my regret elsewhere, nor shall I withhold it here, that t his question of repeal of the Missouri compromise, which opens all the disputed points connected with th e subjec t of Congressional act ion up on slavery in t he Territories of the United States, has been brought before us. I do not think the practical advantages to result from t he mea sur e w ill outweigh the injury which the ill-feeling, fated to acce ompany the discuss ion of this subject through the country, is sure to produc e. And I was confi rmed in this impression from what was said by the Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. Jones,) by the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Dixon,) and from North Carol ina, (infr. Badger,) an d als o by the remarks which fell from t he Senator from Virginia, (M r. Hunter,) and in which I fully co ncu r, t ha t the South will n ever receive any benefit from this measure, so far as respects the extens ion o f slavery; for, legislate as we may, no human power can est ab lish it in the regions defined by these bills.

And such were the se nt i ments of two eminent patriots. to whose exertions we are greatly indebted for the satis factory termin ation of the difficulties of 1850, a nd who sinc e passed from their labors, and, I trust, to their rewa rd. Thus believing, I should have been better con t en t had the whole subject been left as it was by the bill when first introduced by the Senator from Ill inois, without any provision r egard ing t he M iss ouri co mpromis e. I am aware that it was reported that I intended to propose the repeal 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 transferred to history. It belonged to a past generation; 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 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: n “When it shall be made to appear to the President of the United States, by satisfactory evidence, that the people inhabiting the ter 340

Page 341 view page image

MIISSOURI.-MONROE DOCTRINE. ritory of California (or so much of said territory as is comprised within the limits proposed by this bill, as the boundaries of the state of Calitornia), assembled in Convention, have ;greed 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 s,entative until after the next census of the inhatbitants of the United States, the said state of California may be adnmitted 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~ 30’ of north latitude, known as the Missouri Compronmise Line, as defined by the eighth section of an act, entitled’ An act to authorize the people of the Miissouri Terri-i tory to form a constitution and state governmient. and for the admission of such state into thle Union on an equal footing with the original .states, and to prohibljit slavery in certain territories,’ approved March 6, 1820, be, and the sanie is herebl)y declared to extend to the Placific ocean: and the said eighth section, together with the compromise thlerein effected, is hierel)by revived, and declared to be in full foree 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 iy yea.s and nays, was rejected by the followig vote: YEAS. Messrs. Atchison. Bad.qer, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, B,tler, Cie,&ens Divis of NMiss., Dawso,t, Downs, I’ote, iuston, Huter, King.

Mc’urn, Masm, MJlrton, Pearce, ‘ratat BRu.~A,,,bstian. Soule. Turney.

1’u%ee. 24. Ys.-M.srs. Baldwin, Berton, Bratdlbury. Bright, CasE, Cltrke, ooper, Davis of ass., Dyton. Dickinson, Dodgee cf W\is., D-die, of Ia., DoughsI. E,wing. Fel-h, Greene, Hate, l[.trin, sJones. Norris, l’h.lps, Seard Sields, Smith, .,)lrwlnc, Stur,eon, Ul,derw,od, Uphani, IVales, Walker, UWhitcomb, and W’inthlrop.-3 2. S)uthern men in italics, Northern men in rolman. enel citizens, and under which we have enjoyed in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfliendly disposition toward the United Monroe Doctrine. FROM PRESIDENT MIONROE’S SEVENTH ANNUAL MIESSAGE, DECEMBER 2D, 1823. “I T was stated, at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then mak-ing in Spain and Portugal t(
improve the coindlition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remiarked that the result has been, so far, very different firomn what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the gli,e, with which we have so much intercourse, atil( from which we derive our origin, we have alwiays I)een anxious and interested s petrsh ci ti teanxious and in tres, osp T I ta theo aiedt er1s) byul fore SinthI ute zens of the United States cherish seutimetits proper, on a principle satisfactory to themthe most friendly in favor of the liberty and selves, to have interposed by force in the inter 341

Page 342 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. h a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on m the following conditions, and not other t wise: i1st. That he shall have declared, on oath or , affirmation, before the supreme, superior, dis1 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 h admission, that it was, bonafide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and ‘ to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity e to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sov s 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. e 2dly. That he shall, at the time of his apt plication to be admitted, declare, on oath or affirmation, before some one of the courts t aforesaid, that he swill support the Constitu tion of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure c 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 hlie 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 requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which b 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 be then admitted to be a citizen 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 nal concerns of Spain. To what extent suc o interposition may be carried, on the same prin ciple, is a question to which all independen 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 wa, adopted at an early stage of the wars whict 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 it 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 manl~ policy; meeting, in all instances, the jus claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to these continents circumstanices are eminently and conspicuousl3 different. It is impossible that the allied pow ers should extend their political system to ant 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 anv form, with indifference. Ifl we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, a,id their distance fro,m eaich 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 Naturalization. LAWS OF THE UNITED

STATFS RELATIVE THERETO: THE first act of Congress ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” in accordance with the power conferred by the eig,hth 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 842
saine course.”

Page 343 view page image

NATURALIZATION. the United States after the passing of this ast, on his application to be naturalized, as evidence of the time of his arrival within the United States. Sec. 3. And whereas doubts have arisen whiether certain courts of record in some of the states are included within the description of district or circuit courts: Be it further enacted, That every court of record in any individual state having common law jurisdiction, and a seal and clerk or prothonotary, shall be considered as a district court within the meaning 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 t.”’ United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any on e of cthe sald states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twentyone 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 jutrisdiction 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 citizen 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. .is declaring, on oath or affirmation, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity t o any f oreign prince, p otenten tate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, po t entate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subj ect; a nd. moreover, on its appe ar ing, to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years he has behaved as a mtan of go od moral character, attached to the Constitution of the United States, and welldisposed t o th e 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 nobilit y in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an exp r ess renun ciatio n of hi s titl e or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required i n thi s p rovi so to be pe r formed in the court, shall be re cor ded by i er the clerk thereof: And pn ro vided, also, That any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdict io n of the Un it ated States at any time between the said twenty-n inth day of Janua ry, on e thousand seven hundre d and ninety-fi ve, and the eighteenth day of Jun e, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, may, within two years aft er the p assing of this act, be admitt ed t o bec ome a ci tiz en without a cou rnpliance with th e firs t co ndition above specified. Sec. 2. Pr ovided, a lso, That, in a dditi on to the directions aforesaid, all free white persoins., beine aliens, wh o may arrive in the United States after the pass ing of this act, shall, in order to become citizens of the tUnited States, make registry and obtai n certificates in the following manner, to wit: every person desi rous of bein g naturalized shall, if of the a, e of tw ent y-o ne years, make report of himself, or, if under the aiSe of twentyone years, or held i n service, shall be reported by his parent, guardian, master, or mistress, to of the clerk of the district court of the district whe re such alien or aliens shall arrive, or to some other court of record of the United States, of either of the territorial districts of the same, or of a particular state; an d such r eport shall ascertain the name, birthp l ace, age, nation, and allegiance of each alien, together with the country whence he or she migrated, and the place of his or her inte nded settlement: and it shall be the duty of such clerk, on receiving such report, to record the same in his office, and to grant to the person making such report, and to each individulal concerned therein, whenever he shall b~e reqluired, 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 pursuant to this act to an individual or family, fifty cents; and such certificate shall be exhibitedx bo the court by every alien who may arriv e in I 343 An act in addition to an act intituled 11

An act to establish an uniform rule of naturali zation, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that sul-)ject.” 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 dayl Of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, and the fourteenth day of April, one thousand ei,,ht hundred and two, and who has continued to reside within the same, n,‘I be admitted t6 become a citizen of the U. lie States without a compliance with the first condition specified in the firat section of the act,. intittiled “An act to estal)lish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subj ect.”

Page 344 view page image

THE POLITICAiL TEXT-BOOK. Sea. 2. That when any alien who shall have tion tobe admitted acitizen of the United States complied with the first condition specified in in pursuance of said act, who shall have arthe first section of the said original act, and rived within the limits and under the jurisdicwho shall have pursued the directions pre-tion of the United States since the eighteenth scribed in the second section of the said act, day of June, one thousand eight hundred and may die before he is actually naturalized, the twelve, and shall each I)e recited at full widow and the children of such alien shall he length in the record of the court admitting considered as citizens of the United States, such alien: otherwise he shall not be deemed and shall be entitled to all rights and privi-to h ave complied with the conditions requisite leges as such, upon taking the oaths prescribed for becoming a citizen of the Unite-d States; by law. I and any pretended admission of an aliein eho Approved, March 26, 1804. shal l liave a rrived with in the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States since the An act for the regulation of seamen on board said eighteenth day of June, one thousand the public and private vessels of the United eight hundred and twelve, to be a citizen, States.

after the promulgation of this act, without Sec. 12. That no person who shall arrive in such recital of each certificate at full length, the United States from and after the time shall be of no validity or eict under the act when this act shall take effect, shall ibe ad-aforesaid.

mnitted to become a citizen of the United Sece. 2. Provided, That nothing herein con States who shall not for the continued term tained shall be construed to exclude from <,f five years next preceding his a dmission as admission to citizenship any free white per pforesaid, have resided within the United son who was residing within the limits and States, without being at any time during the under the jurisdiction of the United States at said five years out of the territory of the Uni-any time between the eighteenth day of June, tepulcad pStatevs. one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, Approved, March 3, 1813. and the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and tw:o, and who, having con An act supplementary to the acts heretofore tinned to reside therein without having made passed on the subject a of an unieform rule a court of aturalization record, as aforesaid, may be entitled to become Benit eated c.Tht becons a citizen of the United States according to the B te it en acted, &c.. That persons resident act of thi e 26th of March, one thousand eight within the United States, or the territories hundred and four, entitled “An act in addi thereof, on the eighteenth day of June, in the tion to an act entitled’ An act to establish an year one thousand eight hundred and twelve, uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal who had before that day made a declaration, the acts heretofore passed on that subject.’” aecording to law, of their intentions to becone Whenever any person without a certificate of citizens of the United States, or who, ay the such declaration of intention as aforestaid shall Axisting laws of the United States, were on that make application to be admitted a citizen of (lay entitled to become citizens without making the United States, it shall be proved, to the suich declarationr, may be adnmitted to become satisfaction of the court that the applicant citizens thereof, notwithstand the nthey shall twas r ding ing within the limits and under the Bie alien enemies at the times and in the lan-jurisdiction of the United States before the ier prescribed by the laws heretofore passed fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight ohn that subject: Provided, That nothing here-hundred and two, and has continued to reside in contained shall be taken or construed to within the same, or he shallnot be so admitted. w in-tderfore wtha day p r a dena dheclapratenion, 1

~~~Ainterfere withrn e residence of the applicant within the and removtl, agreeablyn to law, of tany alient limits and under the jurisdiction of the United (enemy at any time previous to the actual iia-States for at least five years immediately pre turalizatin of t uh U nit.ceding the tiome of such dapplication shall be Approved, lasu lty 30 t de, w1. proved by the oath or affirmation of citizens .-.lav ~of the United States; which citizens shall be An act relative to evidence in cases of natura-named in the record as witnesses. And such lization. continued residence within the limits and Be it enacted, &c., That the certificate of under the jurisdiction of the United States, report and registry required as evidence of the when satisfactorily proved, and the place or tine of arrival in the United States, according places where the applicant has resided for at to the second section of the act of the fourteenth least five years, as aforesaid, shall be stated of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and set forth, together with the names of such entitled “An e act to establish an uniform rule citizens, in the record of the court admitting f naturalization, and to repeals t the acts here-the applicant: otherwise the same shall not tifore passed on that subject,”

and also a cer-entitle him to be considered and deemed a tificate from the proper clerk oproe e rothonotary citizen of the United States. A,f the declaration of intention, made before a Appro ved March 22, 1816. r-,urt of record, and required as the first condition, according to the first section of said act, An Act in further addition to “An act to esohtApll be exhibited byeveryalien, on his applica-tablish an uniform rule of naturalization, 344

Page 345 view page image

NATURALIZATION. 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 and two, and the eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and who has continued to reside within the same, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States without having made any previous declaration of his intention to become acitizen: Provided, That whenever any person without a certificate of such declaration of intention 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 eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, 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 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 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 hiiu to be considered and deemed a citizen of the United States. Approved, May 24, 1828. he act to which this is an addition shall, if the 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. hin ins the<Z sai act, 1or inanysubeun ac, Apoe,Jn 688 Approvedonr ~ay notwithstanding.4 Views favorable to naturalization expressed Approved ay 26, 1824. in the Convention which formed the Constiin act to amend the acts concerning naturali-tution. zation. Mr. Governeur Morris (Federalist) moved Be it enacted, &c., That the second section of to insert fourteen yea,rs, instead of four years’ !le act entitled “An act to establish an uni-citizenship, as a qualification for senators. irm rule of naturalization, and to repeal the Mr. Madison (Republican) was not adverse cts heretofore passed on that subject,” which to some restrictions on this subject, but could -as passed on the fourteenth day of April, one never agree to the proposed amendment. iousand eight hundred and two, and the first Should the Constitution have the intended etion of the act entitled “An act relative to effect of giving stability and reputation to our vidence in cases of naturalization,” passed on government. treat numbers of respectable ic twentv-second day of March, one thousand Europeans, men who loved liberty and wished ‘,hlt hu(lndred and sixteen, be, and the same to partake its blessings, will be ready to trans-e hereby, repealed. fer their fortunes hither. All such would feel 345

Page 346 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the mortification of being marked with suis-among us. America was indebted to emigrapicious incapacities, though they should not tion for her settlement and prosperity. covet the public honors. He was not appre-Mr. Wilson (Republican) remarked that hensive that any dangerous number of stran-almost all the general officers of the Pennsylgers would be appointed by the state legisla-vania line, of the late army, were foreigners, tures, if they were left at liberty to do so; and no complaint had ever been made against nor that foreign powers would make use of their fidelity or merit. Three of her deputies strangers as instruments for their purposes. to the Convention, Morris, Fitzsimmons, and Dr. Franklin (Republican) was not against himself were also not natives. a reasonable time, but should be very sorry to On the motion to make the term four years see anything like illiberality inserted in the instead of seven, the vote stood: Connecticut, Constitution. The people in Europe are Maryland, Virginia-Ayes, 3. New Ila m,friendly to this country.

We found, in the shire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylcourse of the Revolution, that many strangers vania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Caroserved us faithfully, and that many natives lina, and Georgia-Noes, 8.

took part against their country. When for-The adverse views of the early fathers of eigners, after looking about for some other the republic, who were opposed to naturalizacountry in which they can obtai n more happi-tion will be found under the head of “MADIness, give preference to ours, it is a pioof of’ attachment which ought to excite our confi-SON LETTERS.

dence and affection. Mr. Randolph (Republican) never could Nebraska and Kansas. agree to the motion for disabling foreiguers THE whole region comprised within the for fourteen years from participating in the boundaries of the territories of Nebraska and public honors. IIe reminded the Convention Kansas (excepting that portion on its southof the language held by our patriots during west border which formerly belonged to the revolution, and the principles laid down in Texas), originally constituted the upper part all the American constitutions. lie would go of the province of Louisiana.* The section a,- fa,r as seven years, but no farther.. ceded by Texas, not incorporated into the ter Mr. Wilson (Republican) said he rose with ritory of New Mexico, consists of the tract feelings which were perhaps peculiar, men-extending from the north boundary of Texas tionling the circumstance of his not being a (lat. 36~

30’) to the Arkansas River, between native, and the possibility, if the ideas of some 100~ and 103~ of longitude; and also of that gentlemen should be pursued, of his being narrow strip between the 38th parallel andt incapacitated from holding a place under the the Arkansas river, stretching north towards very Constitution which he had shared the the 42d parallel; which together are roughly trust of making. He remarked the illiberal estimated to contain about 30,000 square estimated to contain about 30,000 square complexion which the motion would give the miles whole system, and the effect which a good France acquired its claim to the entire Valsystem would have in inviting meritorious ley of the Mississippi from the discoveries of foreigners among us, and the discouragement Joliet and Marquette, in June, 1673; of La and mortification they must feel from the de-Salle, about the same time, who gave the name grading discrimination now proposed. of Louisiana to all the region between the On the motion of Mr. Morris, the vote socalled Illinois country (afterwards called stood: New hlampshire, New Jersey, South East Louisiana) and the Gulf of Mexico, and Carolina, Georgia-Ayes, 4. Massachusetts, declared it to be an appendage of France; Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary-from the settlements made on the shores of land, Virginia, North Carolina Noes, 7. Louisiana Proper, in 1699, by Ib)erville an(l Mr. Rutledge.

Seven years citizenship Bienville; and from undisputed possession having been required for the House of Repre-held from 1712 to 1732, under the charter of sentatives, surely a longer time is requisite Louis XIV.

Adventurous traders, advancing for the Senate, which will have more power.

from both north and south into the interior, On the question for nine years: New Hanip-established their posts throughout the Valley, shire, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, South until they possessed a chain of forts extendCarolina, Georgia-Ayes, 6. Massachusetts, ing from the Great Lakes to the Gulf; among Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland-Noes, which was Fort Orleans, built in 1719, on the 4. North Carolina divided..

Missouri River, near the mouth of the Osage, On the 13th August, 1787, the question and the present town of Jefferson City. again came up on a motion to strike out seven, In 1760, when the war broke out between and insert four years, as the required term for Great Britain and France, the latter cbmcitizenship of a member of the hIouse of Rep-menced negotiating with Spain a secret treaty resentatives.. (ratified Nov. 3, 1762), conveying to Spain all Mr. Madison (Republican) wished to main-of the Louisiana Province west of the Missistain the character of liberality which had sippi river with New Orleans &e. This wa been professed in all the constitutions and’ publications of America. He wished to invite * The beginning of this chapter is from a historical narratoreigners of merit and republican principles tive by Charles Colby, A. M. 346

Page 347 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. its admission as a state was considered in Cong,ress.

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 los t. Sixteenth Congress-1819-1821.-In Dec. 1819, a bill was reported, authorizing the formation of a st ate constitution fo r Missouri, which was finally passed, embracing the cele brated Missouri compromise. Mr. Douglas of Ill.

gave notice in the ttouse of Representatives, on December 11, 1844, of a motion for leave to introduce a bill to esta blish the territory of Nebraska. On I)eceni 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 comn-iitted 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 OR 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 recommitment 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 Committee on Territories to inquire into the expediency of organizing the territory; but no further action was taken until the Itouse of Representatives had passed its bill for that purpose. The proceedings of the Itouse on this subject were as follows:-On the first’ .day of the session, 3Ir. tlaUl gave notice of not published until 1764, after the general “Treaty of Paris,” made in 1763, by Great Britain, F ra nce, and Spain, when France c eded Canada to G reat Britain, with all of the l,ou’isiana Province east of the Mississippi. Thus F ra nce disposed of all her territory in North America. In 1764, the settlement of St. Lollis w as commenced; and by th is event a new impulse was given to the foundation of trading posts and small settlements in the lower part ofale o the valley of the Missouri river. By the treaty o f 1783, at the close of the rev olutionar y war, the United States ac q uired from Great Britain all of East Louisi ana; and Spain, retaini ng her p revious pors sessions, received in addition the whole of Florida. Settlements now rapidly increased al o ng the bank s of the great rovers, and trade flourished. Th e Unit ed Stat es obtained (Oct. 20, 1795) the f ree navig ation of the Missis sippi, which had becom e an urgent p ublic want; but Spain afterwards threw so many obstacle s in the way of trade, that it is proba ble hostilities with that nation were only prevented by its c ed ing Lou isi ana to France, Mar ch 21, 1801, in accordance with the treaty of San Ildefonso, on Oct. 1, 1800. About this perio d g e neral attention was dra wn, by many circums tances, to a considerati on of the probable dest iny o f th onh tn o the Great Mi sis issippi V alley; and the earnest sentiment of ou r p e ople began to be generally manifest in the p ublic pre ss, which, with great unanimiiity, called on Congress to make arrangements for purchasing the entire province. Mr. Jefferson, deeming it des irabl e th at the count ry sh ould at once e expl ored, addressed Congress Ja n. 18, 1803, recomme nd ing that means for such purpose b e taken without delay; and, h is s uggestion s having been approved, he commissioned Captains Lewis and Clarke to explore the Missouri and its principal branches to their sources. Nego tiations were commenced with France; and the conditi on of he r a ffairs so favored the projected purchase, that it was soon consummated. The treaty of Paris, signed April 13, 1803, and perfec ted o n the 30th of that month, transferred Louisiana, wi th 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 country was divided into two sections: th e first Insisting 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 instituted on the 19th October ensuing, by Gen. W. H. Harrison, then Governor of Indiana. The territory of Missouri was established (Julio 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_ topulation, that as early as 1818 34’, :,.:…:. -.1 -.

Page 348 view page image

THILE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. settlement by the whites, without detriment to the rights of the Indians. II. Rich, Fort Leavenworth, [Sutler at Fort L.]

W. I. Dyer, [Licensed Trader.] Rev. Joel Grover, [Missionary.] 11. Dawson, Kickapoo, [Farmer.] Rev. Thomas Johnson, Shawnee Mission, [one of the Nebraska delegates.] it R. C. Miller, [Tradler,] John Pate, [Clerk,]

ePeter Dessout, [Ilalf-breed,] Lewis Vieaux, do., Chas. Vieaux, do., =

Fred. Sloyce, do., Soldier’s Creek, George Dyer, [Clerk for Trad(r.]

Joseph Lorton, [has an Indian wife.] Joseph La Frombois, [Ilalf-breed(l.]

Joseph Kennedy, Pleasant-Ridge, [Indian wife. 1 A. S. Smnith, do. 11.

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. Iligbee, [Indian family.] J. Wilson, [St. Mary’s Catholic Mission.] Robert W. Wilson, Fort Riley, [Sutler, Clerk for II.

Rich.] The citizens of Nebraska, and of the states bordering that territory, were much disappointed by the SenaLte’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 convention of the inhabitants of the territory, as -t united demonstration in favor of its organlization. This was held at the Wyandotte Mission, July 26, 1853, when resolutions were adopted in favor of electing a delegate to Congress, and provisional officers were chosen. These officers, on August 1 ensuing, announced that an election for such purpose would be held at Belleview 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. -were not of course, on the original notice, but were furnished to the autbor ly a member of Congress: 32d Congress.-2d session.-A bill providing a territorial government for Nebraska, embracing all of what is now the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, was introduced in the IIouse by Mr. Richardson of Ill., and passed that body on the 8th of Feb. 1853. It w as silent on the subject of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The vote in the IIouse on its passage was as follows: YFAs.-‘Nessrs. Charles Allen of MNass., Willis Allen of Ill., Allison fIa.11ckofNY.BreoO,Blof a.. lcok of N.Y.. Barrere of 0., Btilbi,bha.,s of Pa.. Bu.,by of O., JJs. Cable o f 0., Lewis I). Canpbell of 0.,Glhomlsono Ca mpb ell of II,. Coartter of O., C(lark of I… Clev-elanid of Conn..

Clingmnanl of N. C., Dairl,y of Nlo., John G. Dvi.s of Ind., l)awso o f La., Deaw o f N. Y., Dt ild Ila-k of bPa.. rDoy of Nii,s. ounc an of Ma u kee f b is., 1astman3 of Mis.. o dgerton of O., Evy ns of MId., FickliT i of Ill. Fitch of Ind., Flor-nee of Ga., amle of Ila., Gayle or O pdd Ib of 0., Gimrings of., Gilmore of Pa.. Goodrich of Mass. Gormaon of Ind. i o, Gre.,y of Ky., n ro of l itrs.. lill of Mo., Hlaiper of O., H1art oif N.

Y., len i in ks of nd., Ilibl)ar(e of N. II., Iohlladay of’ V., WJ1 W.

Ilowe of Ila., Thoinas Y. flow of N. Y.. Icngersoll o f Conn.. Isles of N.

Y.. Jesnkisoucinst of N.Y.. Andrew Joon of Tenn.. Johnsok of O.. J. Glatm uy Jones of I la., Ilreston0 Kinrg of N. Y.. Lanidry of La., Little of ass., Loockhart of 1nd.. Cne of Ind., Dan i (tf tt assN., MDonald of Ne..

C.,D uli Vn of Ila..,uNair of’a Miller of Nlo., Molony of 111., Ileiiry I). Moore of Pa., Morri SoIn of P’a., MAlrra,y of N. Y., Ne,wton, of 0..

Andrew Parker of 1’a.. Penniman of Mlinth., Perkis of N. I1..!‘o-rter of Mo.. Pto(well of Va., Price of N. J1.. }tIed of Al., l.ichardson ot ll., lRolbbins of la., a oie of N. Y., Sabin )f rt.. Origen S. Seynour of Conn., Skelton of N. J., Snart of Me.. Smith of Ala., i,!,njaniin Stanton of 0., Stone of Ky.. St. Ma,rtin of lA., Stratton of N. J.. Stuart of Nich.. Taylor of 0., Tlhurston] of R. I..’ ownshend of O.. Walbri(dge of N.Y., Ward of Ky., WN’ashburne of Me., Watkins of TenTn.. Wlch of O., Wells of N. -, illiams of Tenn.. Yates of li.-98. NAYs. Mes.-rs.

Abercrombie of Ala.. William Appleton of Mass., Ave,rett of Va.. Boco.,k of Va.. Bw-ie of Md.. Brooks of N. Y., Albert G. Brown of Miss.. (?askie ef Va.. Clastain of Ga., Colb of Ga.. Colcock of S. C.. Co(tt luau, of NMd., Doaniel of N. C., Dockery of N. C., Duubam of Ind., Edmundsn of 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, Septemlo er 20, 1853. The object of this call is to secure the adolption 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 already citizens, or desire to become such; and to prepare suclh instructions to said delegate, as to the measures to be adopted for expediting the organization of the territory andl its .1)48

A provisional governilieiit was the result of this.

Page 349 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. Va.. Samton W. Harris of Ala., Haws of N.Y.. Haven of N. Y.. Ilein of la., IIorsford of N.Y., Ilouston of Ala.. Iioward of Tex., Thomas M. liowe of Pa., Jackson of Ga., George W. Jones of Ten,., Letoher of Va., McQueen of S.C., Meathamip of Vt.. Millson of Va…lorehead of N.

C.. Orr of S.C., Outlaw of N. C., Itos of Pa.. Stanley of N. C., Abraham P. Stephens of N. Y.. Strother of Va., Sutherland of N. Y., Venal)le of N.

C.. Wall.ace of S. C., Walsh of Md., Wildrick of N. J., Woodward of S.

C.-43. Durinof the debate on th is bill on the 8th of Feb., 1853, the following di alogu e took place: Mr. JOHN W. IItOWE. I wish to i nquire 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 wvhether he or the committee were intimidated on account of the platforms of 1852. [Laughter.] The gentleman pretends to be something of an AntiSlavery man; at least I have understood so. Mr. GIDDINGS. 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 Louisiana, which lies north of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by that act (MNissouri), slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than for crimes whereof the parties slhall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby for ever prohibited.” This law (said Mr. Giddings) stands perpetually, and I did not think that this act would receive any increased validity by a re-enactiiient. 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 1 epealed. Mr. JOHN W. IeOwE. I should like to know from the gentleman from Ohio, if he has not some recollection of a compromise made since that time? Mr. GIDDINGS. That does not affect the question. and from Msssissippi. I had thought tha t Arka nsas, Missouri, and Iowa, wer e more particularly interested in this question. Mr. President, I will n ow state to the Senate the views which induced me to oppose t his pro position in the early part of the session.

I had two objections to it. One was that t he Indian t it le in that territory had not been extinguished, or at least a very small portiona of it had been. An othe r w as the Missourii compromise, or, as it is c ommo nly called, the slavery restriction. It was my opinion at that tiete-and I am not now ve ry clea r on that subject-that the law of Congre ss, when the state of Missouri wa s admitted into the Union, excluding slavery from the territory of Louisiana north of 36 deg. 30 min., would be enforced in that territory unless i t was specially rescinded; and, whether that law was in accordance with the Constitution of thle United States or not, it would do its work, and that work w ould be to preclude slavehol(lers from going into that territory. But whe n I ca me to look into that qu estion, I found that there was n o prospect, n o hope of a repeal of the Missouri Compromise, excluding slavery from that territory. Now, sir, I a m fre e to admit that at this moment, at thi s hour, and for all time to come, I should opbpose the organization or the settlement of that territory unless my co n sti - tuents and the constit uents of th e whole South, of the slav e states of the Un ion, c ould go into, it upon the s am e footing, with equal rights andl equal privileges, carrying that species of propertry with them as other people of th is Union. Yes, sir, I acknowledge that that would have governed me, but I have no hope that the restriction will ever be repealed. I I have always been of opinion that the firs t great error committed in the political history of this country was the ordinance of 1787, rendering the Northwest Territory free territory. The ne xt gre t error w as the Missouri compromise. But they are both irremediable. There is no remedy for them. We must submit to them. I am prepared to do it. 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. In the Senate, on the 3d of March, 1853, Mr. Douglas having reported the House Bill back, without amendment, it was laid on thle table, on motion of Mr. Weller, by yeas and tnatys as follows: ~E.s.

essrs. Adams of Miss., Bayard of Del., Be ll of TII,x..,-]ndflanodler Ark., Brdhead of Pa., Butler of S. C., Da is of Mas Y., Dawson of Gna., De Saussure of S. C., Downs of l,Mr. Af N. Y., F itzpatrick of Ala., Ilouston of TIex. 1!uter of Va., M1allorv of Fla., Morton of Fla., P’helpls of Vt., Rusk of Tex., Sebastian of Ark.. Smith of Conn., Sonle of 1a.. Spruance of Del., Underwood of Ky.-23. NAys.-.lMessrs. Atchison of Mo., Bright of Ind., Cooper of Pa.. Dodge of Wis., Dodg,e of Ia., Douglas of Ill., Felch of Mich., Foot of Vt.. Geyer of Mo., Hamlin of Me., Jones of In., Norris of N. II., Shlields of Ill., Toucey of Conn., Wade of O., Walker of Wis., Weller of Cal.-17. During the debate on this question the following, remarks were made: Mr. ATCHISON. (Mr. FOOT in the chair.) I did not expect opposition to this measure from the quarter from which it comes-from Texas In the Senate of the United States, January 4, 1856, Mr. Douglas, froni 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 report, as follows: The principal amendments which your comm ittee deien it their duty to colmmnend to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are those in which the principles established by the compromise measures of 1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial organizations, are proposed to be affirmed and carried *e The c ommittee on territories of the Se oate cansisted of IMessrs. ]Doug,las of Ill… Houston of Tex..

Johnson of Ark.. Bell of Tenn., Jones of la., and Everett of Mao&. I I 349

Page 350 view page image

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, thos e measures were intended to have a far mor e comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of th e d ifficulties arising out of the re c e nt acquisition of Mexican terri tor yv. They were des igned to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all tim e 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 protecting or prohibiting slavery, was not repugnant to that instrument, as was evidenced by the fact, that onehalf 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 protection of law, whether that property consisted in persons or things.

The difficulties arising from this diversity of opinion were greatly aggravated by the fact, that there were many persons 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 territories 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 thirtysix 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 thlq punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is here by, forever prohibited: Provided always, That an 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 byvalid enactment. The decision of this question involves the constitutional power of Congress to pass laws prescribing 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 authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories, the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void; while the prevailing sentiment in large portions of the Utnion sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the territories with his property, 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 1850. As Congress deemed it wise and p.rudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of-the true intent of the Constitution and the extent 350

Page 351 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 proposition affirmed by the act of 1850, known as 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 bv 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 Supreme Court of the United States. Third: That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives 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 operation, in the precise language of the compromise 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 Territories, 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 operations of this act, to wit: Beginning at the southwest corner of the state of Missouri, thence running west on the line of thirtysix 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 Mountains; thence northward along and upon the 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 t he cours e pur sued on th at memorable occla sion, either by affirming or rep eal ing the 8th section of th e Missouri act, or by any act de clarator y of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.

Your committee deem it fortunate for the ece of the country and t he securit y of the “nion, that the controve rsy th en resulted in the ad option of the compro mise measures, w hich the two great political parties, with sin gular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and proclaimed to the world,s s a final settlemen t of the contro versy and an end of the agitation. A due respect, the refore, f or the avowed opinions of senators, a s w ell as a propers ense of patriotic duty, enj oins up on your committee the propriety and neces sity of a s tric t adherence to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjustment in all their territorial bills, so far as the sam e ar e not locally inapplicable. Those enactments embrace, among other thing s lesos materi al to the matters under consideration, th e following p rovisions: “W ohen ad m itte d as a state, the said territ ory, or any por t ion of the same, shall be’ receiv ed into the Union, with or without slav ery, as their c on stitution may prescribe a t the time of their admission.” ” That the legislative power and authority of s aid territory shall be vested in the governor and a legislative assembly.”

” T hat the legislative power of said territory sh all ext end 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 nonresidents 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 allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner 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 matter, property, or title in controv ersy; 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 created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom; and each of the said 851

Page 352 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. measures cf 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 Comprom.ise Act] was superseded by the pr in iples of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise measures, and is hereby declared inlopera tive;” and inserting “which, being inconsistent with the principles of ,ton-intervention by Congress with slavery in the states atd territories. as recognised by the legislation of 1850, coin sdionly called the Compromise measures, is hereby declares inoperative and vo(id; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or statb. nor to exclude it therefrom. but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic inatitu 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, an([
an additional section inserted, which provides for the continuance of the present policy of the government towards the Indians. On moti on of Mr.

Douglas, all appropriations were stricken out. Feb. 8, Wednesday. -Mr.

Everett continued the debate in opposition to the bill. Feb. 9, Thursday.-A-Mr. Smith addressed the Senate in opposition to the bill. Fe b. 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 Indians 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 concluded his speech, and Mr. Douglas’s amendment was adopted, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Adams of Miss., Atchison of Mo., Bayard of Del., Bell of Tetn.. Benjamin of La., Browin of Miss., Butler of S. C.. uss of 3lich., Clayton of Del., Dawson of Geo, Dixon of Ky., Dodge of Io., Douglas of Ill., Evans of S.C., Fitdzpatrick of Ala., Geyer of Mo., Gwin of Cal., Hunter of va., J(,hnson of Ark.. Jones of Io.. Jones of Tenn., M/ason of Va., Morton of Fla., VNor-is of N. Ii., Pearce of Md., Pettit of Ind.. Pratt of oMd., Sebastian of Arks., Slidedl of La., Stuart of Mieh.. Thompson of Ky., T,onoTbs of Geo., Wetler of Cal, and Willianms of N. I{.-35. NAYs.-Melssrs. Allen of R. I., CnAsE of 0., Dodge of Wis, Everett of Mass., Fish of N. Y.. Foot of Vt., Houst,m of Tea. Seward of N.

Y., SUMNER. of Mass., and Wade of O.-10. Mr. Chase then moved to aminend the section by adding thereto the following words:’ Unde r which the people of the territories. through their appr(,pria’,e 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 prsen ted the resolutions of the legislature of New York requesting its senators and repro sentatives to oppose the bill, addressed the Senate for three hours in opposition to tho bill. Mr. Pettit moved a postponement to Monday, which was carried. Feb.

20, Monday. A very large number summit of said range of mountains to the fi)rtyninth parallel of north latitude; thence eastward on said parallel to the western boundary of the territory of Minnesota; thence southward, on and with said boundary, to th e Missouri river; thence down the centre of the main channel of said river to the state of Mlissouri; thence south, on and with the western boundary of said state, to the place of beginning, 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 portion of the same, shall be received into the Ulnion with or uithout slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission. On the 16th of Jan., 1854, Mr. Dixon of Ky. gave noti ce to the Senate that when the bill to establish a territorial government for the territory of Nebraska should come up, he w oul d off er the f ollowing am endment: - “That so muc h of the 8th section of an act approved March 6. 18‘0, entitled’ An act to auth orize the p eopl e of Missouri territory, &c., &e., as declares that, in all that territory ceded by France to the United States u nder the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-Fix degrees thirty miinute.s north latitude, slavery ard involuntary servitude. sthervise than in the ptnishment of criutes. wh ereof the parties shall have been duly convicted shall be for ever prohibited,’ shall n ot be so con strued as to apply to the territory contemplted by this a ct, or to any other territory of the Unite States; but that the citizens of the several states or territories shall be at liberty to take antud 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 entitled as aforesaid, and approved as aforesaid, had never been pased..” On the 17th of Jan. Mr. Sumner gave notice of an amendment, providing that the Missouri compromise should remain in full force. On the 23d of Jan. Mr. D ouglas stated, t h at the Committe e on Territories had determined 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, “Iwas 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 inoperative. Mr. Chase then addressed the Senate in opposition to the repeal of the Missouri compromise. On the 4th of Feb. Mr. Dixon of Ky. replied to Mr. Chase. On the 6tth 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 portion of the bill relating to the compromise 352

Page 353 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. of petitions and remonstrances against the of Vt., Gu,in of Cal., Hamlin of nle., Tlituston ofTex., Tinter thill wrere presented by Senators Seward, Chase, of Va.. Jones of Ia.. Jones of Tlenn., Hasp of Va., Mortoli of Fla., _,orri., of N. if., Pettit of Ind., Pratt of Md., seward of Sumner, and others. MIr. Dodgoe of Iowa pre-N.

Y., Sl ields of ill., Sliddl of ILa., Smith of Coon., Stuart of Mh. bcy of Conn., W’alker of Wis., DleofCal., Wlig sented the memorial of Hadley D.

Johnson, lic ofCon., er of is., le of Cal., tleleg,ate from the territory of Nebraska, claim-NAs.-esrs. Adams of Miss., Brown of iss. Ddge of ilig for the people of that territory the right to wis,, Johneso of Ark., Rusk of Tex., Sbastian of Ark.-6. legislate for themselves on the subject of sla-. I Mr. Clayton then moved his amendment* very, and that Congress should leave the prohibiting ” Alien Suffrage,” and it wva.s (Ique.stion to the decision of their own choice; re to as follows: - wichi was ordered to lie on the table and be printed. When the consideration of the bill YEAs.-Mes.srs. Adams. Atcehison, Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Brs,dhead, Brown.

Butler, Clay, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, was resumedil, Mr. Pettit spoke for three hours X;:ans isltrick s, iustnt, Ilunter, Jeso Jones of in favor of the bill, and Mr. Cass briefly re-Tv,, )orton, Pratt, &lastian, Slidel.‘23. on”tc some pNAYs. Mesrso.b CHA.sE.. Dodge of Wis., Doge of la., Doug sponded tc some personal remarks made by las, Fesseod(en, Fish.

Foot, GCin, Ilamlin, Jones of In., Vor Mr. Pettit. ri. Petit, Sewa-d, Shields, Smith, Suart, SUMNE.R, Toucey, F’eb. 21. Mr. Sumner temporarily yielded Wade, Ifolier, Ikiliams.-21. the floor to Mr. Cass, who spoke bilefly on the The boundary provisions were so amended power of Congress to establish governments as not to interfere with those of Utah. for the territories. Mr. Sumner then spoke at’The bill was ordered to be engrossed and length against the bill. read a third time, by a vote of yeas 29, nays 12. Feb. 23, Thursday.-Mr. Toombs spoke for March 3, a long debate ensued.

The Senone and a half hours in defence of the bill, ate continued its session through the night showing its constitutionality, and just dispo-until the morning of the 4th, Mr. Douglas sition of the slavery question.

speaking in defence of the bill until half-past Feb. 24.-The resolutions of the legislature three in the morning. Mr. hiouston replied of Massachusetts protesting against the bill until near five. The bill was then passed by were presented. MIr. Douglas said that the yeas and nays as follows: friends of the bill desired to take the vote upon YEAs.-Messrs.

Adams of Mis., Atclhison of Mo., Badger of its passage on the next Wednesday. Mr. N. C., Bayard of Del., Benj.amin of La., Brodhead of Pa., Br,own of Miss., Butler of S. C.. Cass of Michi., Cla,y of Ala., Chase said he should have several amendments Browsn ofGiss, Duier of KC.,DCads of Micli Clay of Ala., D swon of Geno, ])ixon of Ky., Dodge of la., D,,mylas of Ill., to offer. Mr. Hunter spoke one and a half Evans of S.

C., Fitzpatric7 of Ala., Geyer of Mo., Gwin of hours in support of the bill; and was followed Cal., ner of a, Jonson of Ark., Jones of Ia, Jone of Teno.. Mason of Va., Morton of Fla., Norris of N. II., Pettit on the same side by Mr. Butler. of Ind., Pratt of Md., RIusk of Tex.,,Sebastion of Ark., Feb. 25. Mr. Butler concluded his speech, Slields of Il., Slidel of La.. Stuart of MAlich., Thompson of and MAessrs. Brown of Mass., and Dodge l,Ky.i Tiotwopsonl~S of N. J., loucey of Conn, Vedler of Cal., and Messrs. Brown of Mass., and Dodge If~illia~r,s of N. tI.-c37. of Iowa, continued the debate in favor of the NAs. M.srs. Bell of Tenn., CHASE of 0., Dodge of Wis., bill. Fessenden of MIe., Fish of N.Y., Foot of Vt., Ilatslin of Me., H/iseston of Tex., James of R. I., Seward of N.Y., Smith of Feb. 27.-Mr. Cass spoke at length in favor Conn., SUMNER of Mass., Wade of 0., IValker of Wis.-14. of the bill, and was followed by Mir. Cooper,) of P the b i, and was lollowed by Mr. Cooper Satisfactory reasons were given for the abof Pa. against it. of PB-gis)i.snC f Senators Bright, Toonibs, and Allen, Feb. 28.-Messrs. Brodhead of Pa., and sence f Senators Bright, Toobs, and Allen Thompson of N. J., defended the bill. On the 7th of March Messrs. Clayton and On the 1st of March, 1820, Mr. Clayton of Everett stated, if they had been present they Del. addressed the Senate would have voted against the bill. On the 2d of March, Mr. Clayton conclude March 14, Tuesday.-Mr. Everett pre. nhi te 2d of ar, r. Clayton concludedeh. sented the mammoth memorial,t signed by -his speec,h. 3 5 lr A running debate then ensued on a memo-3050 clergymen of New England, of different A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~reliusdnoning eate othesng eanste na eo rial presented by Mr. Chase, from a public religious denominations, protesting against ,leeting in Ohio, severely animadverting upon the passage of the bill. Subsequently, Mr. ?enators.has amendmentDouglas called for its reading, and a debate Mr. Chase’s amendment of February 15, ensued; in which Messrs. Douglas, Mason, vas lost by a vote of yeas 10, nays 36.’

dButler, Pettit, Adams, and Badger, condemn Teaffirmative te asasfollosed the tenor of the memorial, and Messrs. Everett, Houston, and Seward, defended it; Mesr.e CHA3SE of 0., Dodge of Wis., Fessenden of TMe.-, and the subject was then laid upon the table i.h of N. Y., Foot of Vt., Hamlin of Me., Seward of N.Y., nith of Conn., SuMNER of Mass., Wade of 0. 10. Mr o r Cmon, to Wadmen of IIouse of lepresentatives, 1853, December MSr. B
ger movved to ha mend by insert-12, Monday.-Tlie Speaker announced the ,P
ied, Tat nothing herein contain-appointment of the standing committees, and 1 shall be construed to revive or put in force the Committee on Territories was constituted nlaw - or regulation which may have existed of Messrs. W. A. ]lichardson (chairman), of ,tier to the act of 6th March, 1820, either pro-Ill., John McQuecn of S. C., John L. Taylor cctin,, establishing, prohibiting, or abolish-of Ohio, D. I. Bailey of Ga., Wmn.

Smith iwtn sl~ivery. of Va., E. W. Farley of Md., W. II. English The amendment was adopted as follows:-‘ TEAS. Messrs. Alcbison of Mo.. Badger of N. C., Bell of *The vote on this amendment was omitted by mistake eln., Benjamin of La., Brodeead of Pa.. Butler of S. C.. Clay, from under the head of” Alien Suffrage.” 7 Ala., Dawson of’ Ga.. Dixon of Ky., Doldge of In., Douglas i ]’ For copy of this memorial Fee under head of “MiISTI’iR

‘Ill., Evans of S. C., Fish of N. Y., FiLtarick of Ala.} Foot OF THE

(osrat,” 23 s; ii

Page 354 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Ind., P. Phillips of Ala., and A. W. Lamb I of the Whole, lengthy speeches on the bill ,f Mo. were made, by Messrs.

Stephens, Campbell Dec. 20.-Mr. Phelps presented the memo-and Kerr. rial of Thomas Johnson, praying to be ad-Feb. 20.-In Committee of the Whole, Mr. miiitted as a delegate in Congress from theI Ewing spoke on the history of the Missouri territory of Nebraska; which was referred to compromise, &c. Committee on Territories. I Feb. 21.-The Homestead bill being still Dec. 21.-On motion by Mr. Richardson, under consideration, Mr.

James C. Allen* of the Committee on Territories was discharged Ill., delivered a lengthy speech on the comfrom further consideration of the memoriali promises of 1820 and 1850, and the general of Thomas Johnson, praying to be admitted Nebraska-Kansas question. is a delegate, &c.; and the same was referred Feb. 24, Friday.-The resolutions of the to Committee on Elections. legislature of Massachusetts, against the bill, Dec. 22.-Mr.

Henn (on privileged ques-were presented, which were ordered to lie on tion) presented the credentials of Iladley D. the table and be printed.

Jfohnson, delegate from Nebraska territory; March 6, Monday.-The resolutions of the and on his motion they were referred to com-legislature of Maine on the bill were presented. inittee on elections. Mr Miller of Mo., in March 14.-Mr. Appleton asked leave to pursuance of previous notice, introduced ” a present a remonstrance’against the repeal bill to organize the territory of Nebraska,” of the Missouri compromise, signed by 3050 which was read a first and second time by its clergymen (Protestant) of New England (the title, and referred to Committee on Territories. same as presented to the Senate 200 feet long, 1854, Jan. 23, Monday.-Mr. Phelps pre-the paper backed with cambric). Mr. Boyce sented the memorial of Thomas Johnson and obljected; and as the rule requires unanimous Iladley D. Johnson, praying for the estab-consent, this remonstrance was removed from lishment of two territorial governments, and the hall. the extinguishment of Indian titles to the ter-March 15, Friday.-In Committee of the ritory lying west of the states of Wisconsin Whole on the new Deficiency bill, speeches and Iowa. were made in favor of the Nebraska-Kansas Jan. 30.-The resolutions of the legisla-bill, by Messrs. Bridges of Pa., and Brooks ture of Rhode Island, against the repeal of of S.C. the Missouri compromise, were presented. March 20.-Resolutions from the legisla M3r. Pringle of N. Y. offered a resolution, in-tures of Georgia and Mississippi, in favor of structing the committee on territories to report the bill, were read and ordered to be printed. at an early day a bill, similar to that which March 21, Tuesday.-There was an unpassed the House last session, providing for the usually full attendance of members, indicatorganization of the territory of Nebraska; but, mig the consideration of subjects of more than an objection rising, the resolution went over. ordinary interest. Mr.

Richardson moved that Jan. 31. Mr. Richardson, from Commnit-the IIouse go into Committee of the Whole on tee on Territories, reported “A bill for or-the state of the Union, with the design of ganizing the territories of Nebraska and Kan-reachling, as early as possible, the Iouse bill aIs.”

(H. R., No. 236.) Mr. English said, on the calendar to organize territorial governthat a minority of the committee were opposed ments for Nebraska and Kansas: and after to a part of the bill as reported; and submit-some remarks this was negatived-yeas 84, ted his views, with proposed amendments. nays 108. On motion of Mr. Cutting, the Mr.

Richardson resumed, and moved that it House proceeded to consider and dispose of )be referred to the Coimmittee of the Whole on the business on the Speaker’s table, on which the State of the Union, and printed. ALn ex-was the Senate bill on Nebraska and Kansas. (iting running debate ensued, but the motion When this was reached (being the fourth in ewas carried, and the iiiniority report also ordler), it was twice read by its title; and Mr. ordered to be printed. The House bill is the Ili(-hardson moved that it be referred to the same as the original bill of the Senate, ex-Committee on Territories. Mr. Cutting moved ceptin_ a very few lines regarding the b)ouInd-its reference to the Committee of the Whole aries, Zc. on the state of the Union. Mr. Richardson, Feb. 1.-The first petition against the bill not vielding the floor, said, that he desired to was presented, and thenceforward their nulni-have the bill referred to the Committee on )er steadily increased. Territories, for the purpose of amending it in Feb. 14.-Mr. Mace of Ind. spoke for an some particulars; and that to refer it to the hour on the Nebraska bill, and against the Comiittee of the Whole would be to kill it by repeal of the Missouri compromise; and was indirection, as it was not likely that it would f,)llowed by Mr. Skelton of N.J. on the same l then (so low on the calendar) be reached during side.! the present session. Mr. Cutting again made Fob. 17.-The IIomestead bill being under his motion, remarking that this was for the consideration, MIr. Meacham got the floor, purpose of giving it deliberate consideration; spoke against the bill and the proposed repeal that he was favorable to the principle of popuof the Missouri compromise. Feb. 17.-The resolutions of the legislature * Mr.

Allen’s speech was the first speech from the North of New York were presented. In Committee in the House made in avor of the bill. 354

Page 355 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. had been injurious, that the ordinance of 1787 was unconstitutional, in defence of sla very, &c. 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. Cling,man of N. C. and Wright of Pa. argued in favor of the Senate bill, each ex cepting only Mr. Clayton’s amendment; sand Mr.

Matteson of N. Y. spoke against it. April 5.-Messrs. Chandler o’ Pa., Nicholas of Ohio, and Washburn of Ill., 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 selfgovern ment in accordance with the Constitution. April 6.-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 restricti i, and that the passage of the bill would end all legislation in Congress on sla very, and give perpetual peace to the country. iMr. 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 slaverv in the territories. April 10.-When the’Iouse 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 Rouse 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 1’eice 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, whas 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. IHarris of Miss., Smith of Va., Barry of Miss., Zollicoffer of Tenn., English of Ind., Cox of Ky., 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 lar sovereignty, opposed to the proviso of Senator Badger, and had objections to the restriction on the right of suffrage; that it wvas eminently favorable to the North (which is more in terested in it tha n the Sout h), a nd th at a full discussion w oul d pr ov e i t to be so, &e. Mr. Richardson suggested that the bill b e 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 p re vious question. Many members asked Mr. Cutting to withd raw the demand, b ut he declined-; :rnd 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 l the state of the Union, wi th an order to be printed, and was placed in order upon the ,,.alendar.

IMr. Cuttin g move d to reconsider t he vo te just made, and to lay the motion to reconsider onii the table, which was agreed to yeas 110, IlsI,ys 96; and the House adjourned. The prog’Iess of the vote on the main question was watched by the Ilouse and galleries with great ainxiety and doubt, as the decision on the covmmitment of the bill was viewed somewhat as a test of its strength in the Ilouse. March 23, Thursday.-Speeches were delivered on the Nebraska bill. Mr. Millson of Va. opposed it as received from the Senate, -speciallys Mr. Badger’s amendment, and sayfig that it was unjust to the South. Sir. lunt ,f La. also took decided grounds against the )ill, arguing that the repeal of the Missouri estriction would be a breach of good faith. ilr. Breckenridge of Ky. made a stirring peech in its support, and reviewed the objecionis which had been urged. Ite took strong rounds against the course pursued by Mr. utting and other professed friends of the -ill, and intimated that Mr. C. had soub-ht, nder the guise of friendship, to utterly decat the bill. The discussion thlroughout comranded the earnest attention of the Ilouse aid galleries, and was considered amongst the idlest of the session. March 27,‘Ionday.-The Ifouse havinC -one into Committee caf the Whole on theCivil -ld Diplomatic Appropriation bill, Mr. Cub ing addressed the committee in relation to is procedure on the Nebraska-Kansas bill. ‘he remainder of this day’s session was ociipied by the spirited debate which then insued between Messrs.

Cutting and Breckenilde, and which was characterized by bitter ‘id sarcastic personalities. March 28. Ir. Yates of Ill. and ir. ‘ranklin of M\d. spoke in opposition to the 7ebraska-Kansas bill. M~arch 29. Two speeches were delivered i the Nebraska-Kansas bill-M~r. Barksdale M Wiss.

in its favor, and M~r. Norton of Ill. frainst it. ~March 30. Mr. Keitt of S. C. spoke for an ~ur, showing that the Missouri restriction 355

Page 356 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ham of Ind., Caskie of Va., Greenwood of NAYs.

Messrs.BallofO.,BanksofMaS.,BeleherofCnn. Bennett of N. Y., Benso,n of Me., Benton of Mo., Btigg of Ark., Stanton of Tenn., Henn of Ia., Witte of Tonn.,n Ca,mpbell of O., (I,rpoter of N.Y.. Chandler of Pa., Pa., and Chastain of Geo. Crocker of Mass., C,ullom of Tenn., Curtis of Pa., Thomas Davis of R. I. Dean of N. Y., De Wiitt of Mass., Dickc of Ila., Against the bill, by Messrs. Ileister of Pa., [aDicnson of tass., Drun of la., Eastman o f Wis., Ederton Taylor of 0., IHughes of N. Y., Sapp of Ohio, of O., Flmands of’lass., lhomas D. Eliot of lass. lliso n Walley of Mass., Simmons of N. Y., Davis of of O. Etherie of Ten., F,hart of Pa. Faley of H-. _ Bl of 0., Gro P., P o N, Fenton of N.Y., Flagler of N. Y., Fuller of Me., (Gamble of R. I., Ball of O., Grow of Pa., Perkins of N..,Pa., GIDDINGS of O., Goodrich of Mass., Grow of Ila., Iarrn Elliott of Mass., Carpenter of N.Y., Farley of Harlan of O., Andrew, J. Iharlan of Ind., IItrrison of O., Me., Ilamson of 0., Upham of Mass., Mayall of Pa. tiughes of N.Y., aIuen of La., Johnsoner of O.I., IfJones of Pa-., Hlughes of N.

Y.,‘loot of La., JohnsonOfO,JDSO Me., Flaglerof N.Y., GiddingsofO., Etheridge N. Y., Kittredge of N. I., Knox of Ill., Lindsky of O., of Tenn., Bennett of N. Y., Wade of 0., Banks Lyon of N.Y., McCulloch of Pa., Mace of IDd., Matteson of N. o Ms._’, Parker,,f’., P m of. Y., Mayall of Me., Meachami of Vt., Middleswarth of a., illof M,ass., Parker tf Ind., Peckham of N. Y., son of Va.,,Mean of N.Y., Morrison of N. H. Murray of Taylor of Tenn., Wentworth of Mass., Dean N. Y., Nichols of O., Noble of Nieh., Norton of Ill., Andrew of N. Y., Wheeler of N. Y., Benton of Mo., Oliver of N.Y., Parker of Ind., Peck of N.Y.. Peckham of N.Y., .., Weler o. ~., Benton o Pennington of N.J., Perkins of N.Y., Pratt of Conn. P
ingle Knox of Ill., Pringle of N. Y., Ilowe of Pa., of N.Y., Puryearof N.C., Daniel Ritchie of Pa., Thos. Ritehey Seymour of Conn., Edmands of Mass., Pen-of O., Rogers of N. C., Russell of Pa., Sabin of Vt., Sage of N.Y., g N. _., an Sag o N Y Sapp of O., Seymour of Conn., Simmons of N.

Y., Skelton of nington of N.J., and Sage of N. Y. N.J., GERRIT SMITn{ of N.Y., Ilestor L. Stevens of Mich., Mr. Richardson of Ill., who reported the Stratton of N.J., Andrew Stuart of O., John L. Taylor of O., closed the d t on it in Cof Nathaniel G. Taylor of Tenn. Thurston of R. I., Tracy of bill, closed the debate on it in Committee of Vt., Trout of Pa., Upham of Mass., Tiade of O., TValley of the Whole, on the 19th of May, 1854.

Mass., Elihu B. Washburne of 1 l., Israel 14ashbur-e of Me., Wells of Wis., John Wentworth of Ill., Wentworth of Mass., Mr. Stephens of Ga.

moved to strike out el of. J eno Il Wheeler of N. Y., laktes of 1l1. 100.

the enacting clause of the Senate bill, so as to’.i g i bring it before the House, which motion was Demlitioniscrats in roman, c hgs n ta lrs.

Ab)carried. itionists in SMALL CAPS. The Committee then rose, and its chairman The action in the Senate upon its return, (Mr. Olds of O.,) reported to the Iouse its ac-was to concur in the amendment of the House r tion in striking out the uenactin clau se striking out the Clayton amendment, which tion in striking out the enacting clause. vt The House refused to concur in the action vote, upon the motion of Mr. Pearce to renew of the Committee in striking out the enacting the Clayton amendment, will be found under clause. (This was the result the friends of the head of” ALIEN SUFFRAGE.” the bill engineered to reach. The bill being The vote on the final passage of the Senate then before the House perfect for its action.) bill, as amended by the House, was yeas 35, On the 22d of May, Mr. Richardson moved nays 13, as follows:to substitute the House bill therefor. This YEAs.-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Botler, Cass, C(a,y, Dawson, Douglas, Fitzpatrick, bill was the same as the Senate bill, omitting Gwin, Honter, Johnson, Jones of Ia., Jones of Tenn., Mallory, the Clayton amendment. Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, For the vsote on substitutinhIc Shields, Slidell. Stuart, Th ompson of Ky., Thompson of N.J., For the vote on substituting the same, which TTos,zs, Toucey, Welle,r, milv,,tis, Wright.-35. was carried, see under head of ” ALIEN SUF-NAYs.-Messrs.

Allen, Bell, CHOASE, Clayton, Fish, Foot, FRAGE.” Gillette, Hamlin, James, Seward, SUM.NER,W ade, Walker.-13. The bill as amended, passed the House on The bill is as follows: the 22d of May, 1854, byr yreas and nays as**
the 2d of May, 1854, by yeas and nays as oA Bill to organize the Territories of Nebraska follows: and Kansas. Y,IAS.-Messrs. Abercrombie of Ala., James C. Allen of Ill., Strike out all after the enacting clause, and Willis Allen of Ill., Ashe of N. C., David J. Bailey of Ga., Thomas H.

Bayly of Va., Barksdale of Miss., Barry of Miss., insert: Bell of Tex., Bocock of Va., Boyce of S.C., Breckenridge of That all that part of the territory of the Ky., Bridges of Pa., Brooks of S.C., Caskie of Va., Chastain United States included within the following of Ga., Chrisman of Ky.. Churchwell of Tenn., Clark of Mich.. Clingman of N. C.. Cobb of Ala., Colquitt of Ga., Cox of Ky., limits, except such portions thereof as are Craige of N. C., Cumming of N.Y., Cutting of N. Y., John hereinafter expressly exempted from the op  tG. Davis of Ind., Dawson of Pa., Disney of O., Dowdelil of ratos of this act, to wit: beinning at Ala., Dunbarof La., Dunham of Ind., Eddy of Ind., Edmund-of tis act, to it e nn at son of Va.,John M. Elliott of Ky., English of Ind., Faulkner point in the Missouri river where the fortieth of Va., Florence of Pa., Goode of Va..

Green of O., Greenwood parallel of north latitude crosses the same of Ark., Grey of Ky., Hamilton of Md., Sampson W. Harris of Ala., Hendricks of Ind., Henn of Ia., ltibbard of N. Ii., thence west on said parallel to the east boun Hill of Ky., Ilillyer of Ga., Houston of Ala., Ingersoll of dary of the territory of Utah on the summi Conn., George W. Jones of Tenn., J. Glancy Jones of Pa., Roland Jones of La., Kerr of N. C., Kidwell of Va., Kurtz of of the Ro cky lountains; th ence on said surr. Pa., Lamb of Mo., Lane of Ind., Latham of Cal., Letcher of -nit northward to the fortv-niiith parallel of Va.,Lilly of N.J., Lindley of Mo. M.acd onaldofe.,cDou-north latitude thence east on said paralle gall of Cal., McNair of Pa., Maxwell of Fla., Nlay of Md.. John G. Miller of Mo., Miller of Ind., Olds of O., Me,rdecai to the western boundlary of the territory of Oliver of Mo., Orr of S. C., Packer of Pa.. John Perkins of Minnesota ~
thence southward on said boundLa., Phelps of Ri., Philips of Ala., Powell of a., Preston of Ky., Ready of Tenn., Reese of Ga., nichardson of 11., Rliidle ry to the Missouiri river; theuce doll n the mali of Del., Robbins of Pa., Rowe ofN. Y.* Ruffin ofN. C., Shan-channel of said river to the place ot beleinnix non of O., Shaw of N. C. Md, S iingletoni of Miss, be, and the same is herebv, created into a tern S a ulASmt ofTenn, William SihoVa,Wi~lla n. Smith of Ala., George W. Smyth of Tex., Snod grass of Va.

porary gov ermnment bv the iiaiieo of the territoy Frederick P. Stanton of Tenn., Richard. Stanton of y,en a itl s st Alexander IH. Stephens of Ga., Straub of Pa., Stuart of Mich. John J. Taylor of N.Y., Tweed of N.Y., Vail of N. J., Van-or states, the saidl territory, or any portion oi sant of Md., Walbridge of N.Y., Walker of N.Y., Walsh of the samne, shall bee received into the Unio, N.Y., Warren of Ark., Westbrook of N.Y., witte of Pa., with or without slavery, as’their constitutioDaniel B. Wright of Miss., Hendrick B. Wright of Pa., ao/J/f.er of Teno.-lil3. may prescribe at the time of their admission 356

Page 357 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. tries of Congress; and, in case of the death, removal, resignation, or absence of the governor from the territory, the secretary shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute and perform all the powers and duties of the governor during such vacancy or absence, or until another governor shall be duly appointed and qualified to fill such vacancv. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power and authority of said territory shall be vested in the governor and a legislative assembly. The legislative assemlily shall consist of a council and house of representatives. The council shall consist of thirteen members, havinrg,, the qualifications of voters, as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years.

The house of representatives shall, at its first session, consist of twenty-six menmbers, possessing the same qualifications as prescribed for members of the council, and whose term of service shall continue one year.

The number of representatives mnay be increased by the legislative assemtl)ly, from time to time, in proportion to the increase of qualified voters: Provided, That the whole number shall never exceed thirty-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 nmay be elected, respectiv ely. 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 superintenid such election and the returns thereof, 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 legral votes for the house of representivyes, shall be declared by the governor to be duly elected members of said house: Provided, That in case two or more persons voted for shall have all equal number of votes, and in case a vacancy shall otherwise occur in either branch, of thle legislative assemlylul, the governor shall order a new election, and the perso)ns thus elected to the legislative asse/n Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to inhibit the government of the United States from divsidin said territory in t o two or mor e territori es, in such man aner and a t such times as Congress shall deem-convenient and proper, or froom attaching any por tion of said territory to any other state or territory of the United States: Provided t er, f urther, That nothing in th is act contai ned shall be construed to itmpair the rights of person or pro perty now pertaining to the Indi an s in sair territory, so ln as such rights sihall remain unextinguished b y treaty between the United S tate s a nd 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 territoriial limits or jurisd icti on of any s tate or territo ry; b ut all such territory’ shall be excepted out of the boundaries, anrd constitute no part of the territory of Nebraska., until said tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United States to b e included within the sa id territory of N e braska, or to affect the authoritv of t he governonen t of the United States to bake any regulati ons respectingr such Indians, their lands, property, or other righlits, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to miake if this act had never passed. Sec. e. And be it further enacted, That the executive power and authloritv in and over said territory of Nebraska shall be vested in at governor, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President (,f the United States.

The governor shall reside within said territory, an.iid shall be commianrder-in-clhief of the militia thereof. Ile may,rant 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 Presiildent can be made known thereon - he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed t,) office under the laws of the said territory, and shiall 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 vears, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States; he shall record and preserve all the laws and proceeding(,s of the legislative assembly hereinafter constituted, and all the acts and proceedings of the Governor in his executive department; lie shall transmit one cop) of the law s and journals of the legislative as-sem~bly within thirty (lays after the ease of each session, and one copy o,f the exsecutive proceedings and ,fficial correspondence semli-anlnually on the first days of January and July in each year, to the President of the Unitedl States, and twno copies of the laws to the President of tile Senate andl to the Speaker of the Ilouse of Rleoresentatives. to be depositedi ill tile lib~ra 357

Page 358 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 witlh the advice and consent of the legislative couIi cil, appoint &Il 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; andl shall lay off the necessary districts for mein bers of the council and house of representi.

tives, and all other officers. Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, lThat no member of the legislative assembly slihall (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 wL.s a member, during the term for which he weas elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term; but this restriction shall not 1be applicable to mnem)bers of the first legislativ e assenmbly; and no person holding a conimhis siOll or appointment under the United States, except postmasters, shall be a menimber of the legislative assembly, or shall hold any office under the government of said territory. Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That tihe judicial power of said territory shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, prol)bate courts, and in justices of the peace. The st1
preme court shall consist of a chief justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and(l who shall hold a term at the seat of governmient 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 f ied. The said territory shall be divided into) three judicial districts, and a district court shall lie held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the supreme court, at sucl tinmes and places as may l)e prescribed lby law; and the said judges shall, after their al)pointments, respectively, reside in the district which shall be assigned them. Thejurisdictiorn of the several courts herein provided for, blotl appellate and original, and that of the pro bate courts and of justices of the peace, shall be 1a limited by law: Provided, That justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy whlen the title or houn(itaries of land may lie in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundredl d ollars; and the said supreme and district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery a.( vdwell as common law jurisdiction. Each distri e tr court, or the judge thereof, shall appointl its clerk, who shall also be the register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the court may be held. Writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals, shall be al bly shall meet at sueh place and on such (ay is the g ov erno r shall appoint; but thereafter, the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning the representatio in in tle 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 (lay of the commence itient of the regtular 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 mllay continue sixty days. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every free white mate inhabitant above the age of twentyone 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 withier 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: Pro)vide(l, That thie right of suffrage and of’

lolding 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 :n 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 extendI to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this aict; 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 nonresidents 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 grovernor of the territory; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the house in which it orig,inatedl, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, twothirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall lee senit, torethei weith the objections, to the other homse, by which it shall likewise be reco~nsidlere~t, and if approv ed by two-thirdls of that house, it shall beecome Ja lawR. But in Xall such cases the votes of both houses shall b~e determilined by yeas and nays, to be enlterell on the joturnal of each house re~spectively. If anv bill shal~l not be returned by the governor u:ithin three days (Sundays excepted) after it shlall have been presenltedl to hlim, the samle shall b~e a 358

Page 359 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. entitled “An act to amend, and supplementary to, the aforesaid act,” approved Septetmbei eighteen, eighteen hundred and fifty, be, and the same are hereby, declared to extend to and be in full force within the limits of said Territory 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 appointed( arnd 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 y ears, and until his successor shall be appointed 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 regColations 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 nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed by the President of the United States. The governor and secretary 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 territory, 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 United 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 officers in said territory, before they act (,; 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, whiclh said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted by the person taking the same to the secretary, to be by him recorded as afore* said; and, afterwards, the like oath or a~ffirmar tion shall lbe taken, certified, and recorded, in such manner andl form as may b~e prescribed by lawv. The governor shall receive an annual salary of two thousandl five hundred dollars. Thle chief j ustic e and associate justices shall each receive arn annual salary of two thousand dollars. The secretary shall receive an annual lowed in all cases from the final decision of said district cou rts to thi e supre me c ourt.

urnder such re,uldations as may be prescribed by law; but i no case o remov ed to the supreme Court s hall trial by jury be allowed ill said cou rt. T he supreme court, or the justices thereof, shall aploinbt its own clr eerk, and eer clerk svall holdl his of fice at the pl easure (ff’ thie ourt f)r which he shall have been appoaintel. Writs of error, and appeals fisom t he final de cisi on of usid supreme court, sa hall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of th e U n ited States, in the same manne,t der and uner 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 theher competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; excep t only that in all cases involving title to slaves, the siLi(l w rits o e of error or appeals shal l be allowend ans decid ed b y the said supreme court, w i thout rei,ard to the value of the matter, property, or title in cont r oversy: and except also that a writ of er ro r or appeal shall also be allowedc to the Supreme Cour t o f the United States, from the decision of th e s ai d su preme court crea ted by this act, or of any judge there of, or of the district courts c reate d by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habea s corpus, involvint the ques ti on of p ersonal freedom: Provided, That nothing h ere i n c on ta ined shall be construed to apply to or a ffect the provisions of th e “act respect ing f ugitives urom ju stice, aan( p erso ns escaping from the service of their m a ster s,” approved Febru ary twelfth, seventeen hundred and ninety three and the ” act to amend a nd suppleme ntary t o t he aforesaid act,”

approved September eivhteen, ei gteeen hu ndr ed and fifty; and each of the said d istrict c ourts shall have and exerc ise the s ae same jurisdiction in all cases arising un derito af the Constitution and las of the United States as is ves ted in th e c ircuit and district courts of the United S tates; and the said s up r eme and di strict courts of the said territory, and h e m e the respectiv e judges there of, sha ll and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same a r e granted by the judges of the United St ates in the District of Colunbia; and t he fir st six days of every term of sa id courts, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, shall be appropriated to the trial of causes arisi ng u nder the said Constitution and laws, and writs of error and appeal in all such cases shall be mad e to the s upreme court of said territory, the same as in other cases. The said clerk s hall receive in all such cases the amn e f ees which the clerk s of the distri ct c ourt s of Utah T’erritory now receive for similar services. Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of an act entitled ” An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping froml the service of their mn~sters,“i approved February twelv e, sev enteenl hulndredi and ninety-three, anld the pro)visions of the act 359

Page 360 view page image

TIlE 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 assemnbly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance lit tile sessions thereof, and three dollars each f)r every twenty miles’ travel in going to and returning from the said sessions, estimated according to the nearest usually travelled route; anrid an additional allowance of three dollars shall be paid to the presiding officer of each house for 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 htouse; and the chief clerk shall re ceive four dollars per day, and the said other Officers three dollars per day, during the session t)f the legislative assembly; but no other ofti 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 dlinary occasion the governor shall think proper to call the legislature together. There shalll })e appropriated, annually, the usual sum, to be expended by the governor, to defray the coln tingent expenses of the territory, including the salary of a clerk of the executive depart ment; and there shall also be appropriated, innually, a sufficient sum, to be eApende(d by the secretary of the territory, and upon,an estimllate to be made by the secretary of the treasury of the United States, to defray the ,lxpenses of the legislative assembly the i)rinting of the laws, and other incidental ex Ienses; sand the governor and secretary of the territory shall, in the disbursement of all moneys intrusted to them, be governed solely I)y the instructions of the secretary of tilhe treasury of the United States, and shall, semialnnually, account to the said secretary for the manner in which the aforesaid moneys shall have been expended; and no expenditure shall loe made l)y said legislative assembly for objects inot specially authorized by the acts of’ (Congress making the appropriations, nor be, yond the sums thus appropriated for such ,,Itjects. Sec. 13. And be it further enacted, That the legislative atssemnbly of the territory of Neliraska shall hold its first session at such tieme aind place in said territory as the governor thereof shall appoint and direct; and at said tirst session, or as soon thereafter as they shall deem expedient, the governor and legislative ussembly shall proceed to locate and establish the seat of government for said territory at such place as they may deem eligible; which S place, however, shall thereafter be subject to lie changed l)? the said governor and legislative assembly. Sec. 12x. Anal be it further enacted, That a delegate to the IIouse of Representatives of the United States, to serve tfr the term of two years, who shall be a citizen of the United Stattes, riay b e ele ct ed by the voters qualitier to elect nmembners of the legislative assenmbly who shall be entitled to the same rights and( privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the delegates from the several other territor ies of the United States to the said House of Reprc 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 n)anner 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 locallv inapplicable, shall have the same force and efect 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 nonintervention by Con gress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognised by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the com prom)iise 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 fi’om, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic inisti tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be coIn 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. estat)lishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery. Sec. 15. And be it further enacted, Thitf there shall hereafter be appropriated, as has been customary for the territorial govern merits, a sufficient amount, to be expended under tile 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 buildings 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, legi.slative assembly, judges of the supreme court, secretary, marshal, and attorney of said territory, and such other persons, and under such reg~ul~ations as shall be prescrib~ed by lasw. Sec. lit. And b~e it further enacted, That whlen thle lands in the staid territory shall Ise surveyed under the direction of tid’e governmnert of tile United States, prepatratory to bringing same into msarket, sectionls numbered sixteen and~ thirtysix, in each township ill sarid territo,ry, 1shalil’as, andX
the same ate bleret 360

Page 361 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. by, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said territory, and in the states and territories hereafter to blie erected out of the same. Sec. 17. And be it further enacted, That, until otherwise provided by law, the governor of said territory may define the judicial dis tricts of said territory, and assign the judges who may be appointed for said territory to the ieveral districts; and also appoint the times iLnd 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 ilaces of holding the courts, as to them shall seein proper and convenient. See. 18.

And be it further enacted, That atll officers to be appointed by the President, Iy and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for the territory of Nel)rauska, who, by virtue of the provision s of any law now e xistinS, or which may be enacted during, the present Con3,ress, a re required to give security for moneys that may be intrusted with them for disbursements, shall give such security, at such time and place, tand in such manner as the secretary of the treasury may prescribe. Section 19
begins that part of the bill which provides for the gov ernment of Kansas.

This is literally the same as. section 1 of bill, exc ep t th e bou ndaries of K ansas a re substituted for those of N ebraska, and the word “

Kansas” for ” Nebraska,” wherever the latter occurs. 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‘1 Nebraska,” wherever the latter -word occurs. Section 31 provides for the location of the  eat of government of Kansas. Section 3.7, the last section of the bill, is as -llos:-. And be it further enacted, That all treaties, aws, and other engagements made by the go.emrnnient of the United States with the Indian ribes inhabiting the territories emb,)ra,ced ,within this act, shall be faithfully and rigidly observed, notwithstanding anything containled n this act; and that the existing agencies and .uperintendencies of said Indians be continued ,ith the same powers and duties which are ,ow prescribed by law, except that the Presilent of the United States may, at his discreion, chang e the location of the office of supern.tendent.

Pa.ssed the Ifouse of Representaltives, May ~o 1854. ritory of Kansas, and Daniel Woodsun,‘of Virginia, secretary. Mlr. Burt, of South Carolina, was appointed governor of Nebraska, but soon died; and Clark W. Izard, of Arkansas, was appointed in his place. Thoma s B. Cumming was made secretary. So far as Nebraska was concern ed, no excitement of any kind marked the initiation of her t errit orial existence. ithe persons who enmigrated there seemed to regard the pursuits o sesa of tusiness as of more interest than the discussion of slavery. Kansas, less fort unate than her s ister Nebraska, became at once the battle-field of a fierce political conflict between the advocates of slavery and the free soil me n from t he North, who went there t o r esist the establish.ient of th a t institution in the territory. This much to be deprecated condition of thinrs 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 Ion. T. W. Denver, as member of the 34th Congress from Calitornia, 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 satisftictioD, and to possess the elements of an executive for so turbulent a territory. We will, however, begini at the beginning, and( avoid any further diversion fiom a succinct history of the political excitement iD Kansas. On the 20th of Dec., 1854, the lon. John W. Whitfield, delegate elect from the territory of Kansas, was sw orn in and adllit ted to a seat in the House. It had been al leged that his election was carri e d by the importation of Mi ssourians into the territory; but no contest was m ad e upon his right, a nd h e held hi s position du rin g the re main der o f e thte ythirty-third Congre ss.

During the reces s betwe en the 4th of March and the lst of Dec. 1855, the history of Kan sas was marked by events f ully elaborated in official document s hereinafter contained, which preclude the necessity of a d etail ofb them here. The removal o f the seat of government by the territorial legislature from the place which had been fix ed by Gov. R
eeder, 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 ProSlavery party, as they are re spectively called, endorsed the action of the legislature. ] Gov. Reeder, in the mean time, was removed JOHN 0 I. FORgsEY, Clerk, 1touse of Rrespesit(ati,es. The lfon. A. II. Reeder, of Eaq,ton, Penn-as governor. -lvatnia, was appointed governor of the ter-The Free State party met at Big Springs, 361 A.tta..3t:

Page 362 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. mid resolved to repudiate the acts of the territorial legislature, and organize a state governmealt. A convent ion was accordingly called, and held by them, at Topeka, on the fourth Tuesday of October, and framed what was called the Topeka Constitution, and set on foot a state government which, figuratively speaking, was Jttt in motion, and bringing the officers elected tinder it in conflict with the regularly constititted 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, tnder the act of the territorial legislatuire prescribing the mode and manner of holding elections, &c. The free state miien 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 accorditigly, on the 9th of October, held an election elf their own, and polled their votes for Gov. Reeder as delegate. The President, in his annual message, referred to the condition of affairs in Kansas; but they assumed so frightftil a mien during January, 1856, that he made them the subject of a special message to Congress, before yet the Hlouse had been organized.

That message was read to both Ilouses on the 24th of Jan., 1856, and is as follows:  To the Senate and tiouse of Representa tives: 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 republican government, distributing public authority among lawfully created agents-executive. judicial, and legislative-to be appointed[
either by the general government or by the territory. The legislative functions were intrusted to a Council and a Ilouse of Representatives, duly elected, and empowered to enact all the local laws which they might deem essential to their prosperity, happiness, atnd-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 twentyone years, being ail 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 Legislative 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 Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the 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 their serveice, should be allowed to vote or hold office in ei ther territory by reason of being on service ther ein. Such of the public officers of the territo (ries as, by the pr ovi sions of the act, were to be appointe d by the ge ner al government, inoeluding the governors, wer e appoin ted and commissioned in due season; the law having bee n e nacted on the 30th of May, 1854, and the commission of the g overnor of the te rritory of Nebraska being dated on the 2d day of August, 1854, and of the territory of Kaisas on the 29th day of June, 1854. Among the duties imposed by the act on the governors was that of directing and superintending the political organization of the respective territories. The Governor of Kansa. was required to cause a census or enumeration 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 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 andl the returns thereof; to declare the number of the members of the Council and Hoeuse of Representatives for each county or district; to declare what persons might appear to he duly elected, [and to appoint the time and place of the first meeting of the Legislative Assemblyr. Ill sBUS

Circumstances have occurred to disturb the course of governmental organization in the territory of Kansas, and produce there a condition 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 require. A brief exposition of the circumstances referred to, and of their causes, will be necessary to the full understanding of the recommendation which it is proposed to submit. The act to organize the territories of Nebraska 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 territory considered as an inchoate state are entitled, in the exercise of selfgovernment, 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 existing states to decide, according to the provisions and principles of the Constitution, at what time the territory shall be received as a state into the Union. Such are the great po 362

Page 363 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. forded for systematic interference of the pet ple of individual states. This interference, in so far as concerns its primary causes and its immediate commencehment, was one of the incidents of that pernic ious 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 misdireoted zeal in the attempt to propagate 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 particular views of social organization on the people of the future new states, now perceiving that the policy of leaving the inhabitants of each state to judge for themselves in this rc  spect was ineradically rooted in the convictions of the people of the Union, then had recourse, 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 inhabitants in its internal organization, and thus to anticipate or to force the determination of that question in t his in choat e state. With such views, associations were organized in some of t he states, and their pur posest were pro c laime d th rou gh the pre ss in language extremely irritating and o f fensive to those of whom the colonists we re to beco me the neighbors. Those designs and acts had the necessary consequence to awaken emotions 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 ensued.

Under these inauspicious circumstances the primary elections for members of the Legislative 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 imputations 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 received and considered the returns; declared a large majority of the members of the Council and the Ilouse of Representatives “dulv elected;” withheld certificates from others because of alleged illegality of votes; appointed a new election to supply the place of the persons 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.

Leg~islative Assembly of the territory. Those dec~isions of the returning officers and of the governor are final, except that, by the stance, the same duties were devolved on the (G’overnor of Nebraska. While by this act, the principle of consti tution f or each of t he territori es was one and the sam tie, and the details of organic legisla tion regarding both were as nearly as could be iden ti cal, and while the territory of Ne braska was tranqu ill y and successfully organ ize(d in the due course of law, and its first lt,eislative Assembly met o n the 16th of Jan. l55, the organization of Kansas was lon,, delayed, and has been attended with serious dlitiiculties and embarrassments, partl y the consequence of local mealadministration, and )artly of t he unjus tifiabl e interferenc e of the nhabitants of some o f the sta te s foreign by residence, interests, and right s t o the territory. The governor of the territory of K a ns a s, commissioned, as before stated, on the 29th of June, 1854, did not reach the designated seat of his government until the 7th of the ensuing October; and even the n failed t make the first step i n its legal organization-that of ordering the census or enumeration of its inlabitants-until so late a day that t he election of the members of the Legislative Assembly did not take place until the 30th of March, 1855, n or it s meeting un til the 2d of July 1855. So that for year ayfter the territory was constituted by the act of Congress and th e officers to be appointed by the federal ex ecu tive had been commissioned, it was without a complet e gove rnment, without any legisliative authority, without local law, and of course without the ordinary guarantees of peace and public order. In o ther 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 associate d communities, allowed h is attention to be diverted from of ficial obligation by other objects, and himself set an example of the violation of law in the performance of acts which rendered it my duty, in the sequel, to remove him from the office of chief executive magistrate of the territory. Before the requisite preparation was accomplished for election of a territorial legislature, an election of delegate to Congress had been held in the territory on the 29th day of November, 1854, and the delegate took his seat in the Ilouse of Representatives without challenge. If arrangements had been perfected by the governor so that the election for members of the Legislative Assembly might be held in the several precincts at the same time as fo-r delegate to Congress, any question appertaining 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 judgre of the validity of the return of the delegate, and would have been determined before conflicting passions had become inflamed by time, and before opportunity could have b~eenl af 36

Page 364 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. parliamnentary usage of the country applied to the organic law, it may be conceded that each Ilouse of the Assemblv must have been coirnl)etent to determine, in the last resort, the qualifications and the election of its members. ‘The subject was, by its nature, one appertaining exclusively to the jurisdiction of the local authorities of the territory. Whatever irregularities 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 present purposes the legislative body, thus constituted and elected, was the legitimate Assem-a l)ly of the territorv. Accordingly, the governor, by proclamation, 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 general business of legislation was entered upon by the Legislative Assembly. But, after a few days, the Assembly resolved to adjourn to another place in the territory. 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 Asseaml)ly 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 temporarily from Pawnee City to Shawnee Mission.

For the same reason he continued to refuse to sign other bills, until, in the course of a fewi days, he, bv official message, communicated to the Assembly the fact that he had received notification of the termination of his functions as governor, and that the duties of the office were legally devolved on the secretary of the territory; thus to the last recognising the body as a duly elected and constituted Legislative Assembly. It will be perceived that, if any constitutional defect attached to the legislative acts of the Assembly, it is not pretended to consist in irregularity of election, or want of qualification 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 was of exceptionable origin, for the reason that, by the e xpress terms of the org anic the the seat o f g overnment 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 governmlent, 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 unlawfully 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 incompatible provision of act of Congress. But.no such provision exists. The organic act, as already quoted, says, ” the seat of government is hereby located temporarily at Fort Leavenworth,” and it then provides that certain of the public buildings there “may be occupied and used under the direction of the governor and Legislative 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 governor shall appoint,” the word ” place” means place at Fort Leavenworth, not place ainwhere 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 instances. But, however this may be, it is most unreasonable to suppose that b y the terms of the organic act Congress intended to do inmpliedly what it has not done expressly-tthat is, to forbid to the Legislative Assembly the power to choose any place it might see fit as the teni porary seat of its deliberations. That is proved by the significant language of one of the subsequent acts of Congress on the subject, that of March 3, 1855, which, in making appropriation for public buildings of the territory, enacts that the same shall not be expended ” until the legislature of said territory shall have fixed by law the permanent seat of government.” C:ongress, mn these expressions, does not profess to be granting the power to fix the permanent seat of govern meat, but recognises the power as one already I 364 0

Page 365 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. granted. But how? Undoubtedly by the com-I mental or any;ther federal law, and to the prehensive provision of the organic act itself, authority of the general government. which declares that “the legislative power of In such an event, the path of duty for the the territory shatll extend to all rightful sub-executive is plain. The Constitution reqliir jects of legislation consistent with the Consti-ing him to take care that the laws of the Uni tution of the United States and the provisions ted States be faithfully executed, if they be of this act.”

If, in view of this act, the Legis-opposed in the territory of Kansas, he may lative Assembly had the large power to fix the and should place at the disposal of the marshal permanent seat of government at any place in any public force of the United States which Its discretion, of course, by the same enact-happens to be within the jurisdiction, to be ient, it had the less and the included power used as a portion of the posse colitaetlus; and, to fix it temporarily. if that do not suffice to maintain order, then Nevertheless, the allegation that the acts of he may call forth the militia of one or more the Legislative Assembly were illegal byreason states for that object, or employ for the same of this removal of its place of session was object any part of the land or naval force of brought forward to justify the first great the United States. So, also, if the obstruction movement in disregard of law within the ter-be to the laws of the territory, and it be duly ritory. One of the acts of the Legislative As-presented to him as a case of insurrection, he sembly provided for the election of a delegate may employ for its suppression the militia of to the present Congress, and a delegate was any state, or the land or naval force of th,e elected under that law. But, subsequently United States. And if the territory be invaded to this, a portion of the people of the territory by the citizens of other states, whether for the proceeded without authority of law to elect purpose of deciding elections or for any other, aaother delegate. and the local authorities find themselves un Following upon this movement was another able to repel or withstand it, they will be and more important one of the same general entitled to, and upon the fact being fully ascharacter. Persons confessedly not constitut-certained they shall most certainly receive, the ing the body politic, or all the inhabitants, aid of the general government. but merely a party of the inhabitants, and But it is not the duty of the President of without law, have undertaken to summon a the United States to volunteer interposition by convention for the purpose of transferring the force to preserve the purity of elections either territory into a state, and have framed a con-in a state or territory. ITo do so would be stitution, adopted it, and under it elected a subversive of public freedom. And whether governor and other officers, and a representa-a law be wise or unwise, just or unjust, is not tive to Congress. a question for him to judge. If it be constitu In extenuation of these illegal acts, it is tional-that is, if it be the law of the land-it alleged that the states of California, Michigan, is his duty to cause it to be executed, or to and others, were self-organized, and, as such, sustain the authorities of any state or territory were admitted into the Union without a pre-in executing it in opposition to all insurreovious enabling act of Congress.

It is true tionary movements. that, while, in a majority of cases, a previous Our system affords no justification of revoact of Congress has been passed to authorize lutionarv acts; for the constitutional means the territory to present itself as a state, and of relieving the people of unjust administrathat this is deemed the most regular course, tion and laws, by a change of public agent yet such an act has not been held to be in-and by repeal, are ample, and more prompt dispensable, and, in some cases, the territory and effective than illegal violence. These has proceeded without it, and has nevertheless constitutional means must be scrupulously been admitted into the Union as a state. It guarded-this great prerogative of popular lies with Congress to authorize beforehand, sovereignty sacredly respected. or to confirm afterwards, in its discretion. It is the undoubted right of the peaceable ]tut in no instance has a state been admitted and orderly people of the territory of Kansas upon the application of persons acting against to elect their own legislative body, make their authorities duly constituted by act of Con-own laws, and regulate their own social instigress. In every case it is the people of the tutions, without foreign or domestic molestaterritory, not a party among them, who have tion. Interference, on the one hand, to prothie power to form a constitution, and ask for cure the abolition or prohibition of slave labor almission as a state. No principle of public in the territory, has produced mischievous law, no practice or precedent under the Con-interference; on the other for its maintenance stitution of the United States, no rule of rea-or introduction. One wrong begets another. son, right, or common sense, confers any such Statements entirely unfounded, or grossly exower as that now claimed by a mere party aggerated, concerning events within the terri the territory. In fact, what has been done tory, are sedulously diffused through remote is of revolutionary character. It is avowedly states to feed the flame of sectional animosity so ia motive and in aim as respects the local there; and the agitators there exert themselves law of the territory. It will become treason-indefatigably in return to encourage and stiable insurrection if it reach the length of mulate strife within the territory.

organized resistance by force to the funda-The inflammatory agitation, of which the 365

Page 366 view page image

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 themnselves, 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 nonresidents in elections, nor by unauthorized military force, to attempt to encroach upon or usurp the authority of the inhabitants of the terr 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 imperative 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 organized 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 selfgovernment assured to them by the Constitution and the organic act of Congress. Although serious and threatening disturbances in the territory of Kansas, announced to) me by the governor in December last, were speedily quieted, without the effusion 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 tendency 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 interference. This, it seems to me, can best be accomplished by providing that, when the inhabitants of Kansas may desire it, and shall be of sufficient numbers to constitute a state, a convention of delegates, duly elected by the qualifled voters, shall assemble to frame a constitution, 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 lawr to that effect. On the 11th of February the President is sued a proclamation setting forth that: Whereas, indications exist th at publi c tranquillity 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, sulvert by violence all present constitutional and legal authority: It also appearing that persons 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 providing arms for the same purpose: And it further a earin_ that combinations within the terrmtory are endeavoring, by the agency of emissaries and otherwise. to induce individual 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 determination of the future institutions of the territory, if carried into action from within the same, will constitute the fact of insurrection, and, if from without, that of inivasive aggression, and will, in either case, justify and require 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 combinations to retire peaceably to their respective abodes, or he would use the power of the local militia and the available forces of the United States to disperse them, &c., &c. Your committe e de em this aon appropriate occasion to state briefly, but distinctly, the principles upon which new states may be admitte and territories organized under the authority of the Constitution of the United States. 4 I 366 rih 0 e FRA.-;KLIN PIERCP:. Washington, Jan. 24, 1856. It was referred in the Senate to the Committee on Territories, and in the Ilouse to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. On the 14th of Fe])., 1856, Mr. Florence of Pa. presented in the Ilouse the memorial ()f A. 11. Iteeder, contesting the seat of John W. Whitfield, delegate from Kansas, which w.-ts referred to the Committee on Elections.

On the 12th of Marcli, Mr. Douglas, from the Comniittee oil Territories, submitted to tbu Senate the followin,, rep,-)rt:’

Page 367 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 s enumerated among the powers expressly dele gated in the Constitution, the question arises, whience does Congress derive authority to or> anize temporary governments fo,r the terri tories preparatory to thleir atdimission into the Uni)lii on all equal footing with the original states? Your committee are not prepared to adopt the reasonling which deduces the power fromn that other clause of the Coinstitution which says: ” Crtongress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulationis 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 seemni to have been enm ployed for the purpose of conferring uponi Congress the power of disposing of the public lands and other property b)elonging 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 become residents thereon. The word “territory” was an appropriate expression to designate 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 dscriptive of the whole body of the people, constituting a distinct political community, who have no representation in Congress, and consequently no voice in making the laws uponi which all their rights and liberties would depend, 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-empltion righlits to actual settlers, for the establishment of land offices in the several states and territories, 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 I)r(tectiii( ani(i flit posing of the public domain and other property belonging to the United States. These needful rules and reulalltions; mar<1 l,e embraced, and usucally are tbu,d, in ge,,l (rall laws applicable alike to states ands( terrlit,)ries, wherever the United States may ]~c tile owner of the lands or other property to lee reg,ularted or disposed of. It can snake no difference, under this clause of the Constitution, wshether the “territory, or other property, belonging to the United States,” shlla1 be situated in At state of the Federal Union is a sovereign bo,wer, limited only by the Constitution of the l’iiited,1

States. The limitations which that instrument has ipo.p{Psedl,ire few, specific, and uniform ap,liealble alike to all the states, old and new.

‘rllhre is no authority for putting a restriction tai)ere the s,everei ghnt t of a n ew st ate, which the eit,h.utitu tiom has not placed on the original states. Indeed, if such a restriction could be illli)i.ed on any state, it would instantly cease t,) tee a st ate with in th e meaning of the Federal iI,en stituution, and, in c o sequence of the ine equality, w(hul tassi li ilate to the condition of a luingo fcice or depe ndency.

Hence, equality ;.ln~,; all the states of the U nion i s a fundaiiel-ti.on principle in o ur federative system -a ,rinsiinle emt b odied i n the Const itution, as the })Isis upon which the Am eric an Union res ts.

.t’lri(tan slav ery exi sted in all the colon ies, t ti(er the s anction of the British government, Alior to the Declaration of Independence. ihen th e Constitution of the United States was adop ted, i t b ecam e the supreme law and lend of union between twelve slaveholding states atnd on e non-slavehol ding s tate; each state reser ved the right t o decide the question of slavery for itself-to continue it as a domestic ins titution so lon(, as it pleased, and to abolish it when it chtose. In pursuance of this reserved right, six of the original slaveholding states have since ablolished and prohibited slavery within their limits respectively, without consulting Congress or their sister states, while the other six have retained and sustained it as a domestic institution, which, in their opinion, had besome so firmly engrafted on their social systemlis, that the relation between the master sold slcove could not be dissolved with safety tv} either. In the mean time, eighteen new states have been admitted into the Union, in ,,},elience to the Federal Constitution, on an equal fDoting with the original states, including, of course, the right of each to decide the question of slavery for itself. In deciding tiffs question, it has so happened that nine of lihese new states have abolished and prohibited -ilavery, while the other nine have retained and regulated it. That these new states had at tile time of their admission, and still retain, an equal right, under the Federal Constitution, with the original states, to decide all questions (,f domestic policy for themselves, including that of African slavery, ought not to be seriously questioned, and certainly cannot be tuccessfully controverted. 367

Page 368 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Ohio or Kansas, in Alabama or Minnesota, in thorizes the admission of new states. This California or Oregon; the power of Congress power, however, being an incident to an exto make needful rules and regulations is the press grant, and resulting from it by necessame in the states and territories, to the extent sary implication, as an appropriate means for that the title is vested in the United States.

carrying it into effect, must be exercised in Inasmuch as the right of legislation in such harmony with the nature and objects of the cases rests exclusively upon the fact of owner-grant from which it is deduced. The organic ship, it is obvious it can extend only to the act of the territory, deriving its validity fronm tracts of land to which the United States pos-the power of Congress to admit new states, sess the title, and must cease in respect to must contain no provisionor restriction which each tract the instant it becomes private pro-would destroy or impair the equality of the perty by purchase from the United States. It,roposed state with the original states, or imwill scarcely be contended that Congress pos-pose any limitation upon its sovereignty which sesses the power to legislate for the people of the Constitution has not placed on all the those states in which pul)lic lands may be states. So far as the organization of a terrilocated, in respect to their internal affairs and tory may be necessary and proper as a means domestic concerns, merely because the United of carrying into effect the provision of the ConStates may be so fortunate as to own a portion stitution for the admission of new states, and of the territory and other property within the when exercised with reference only to that limits of those states. Yet it should be borne end, the power of Congress is clear and exin mind that this clause of the Constitution plicit; but beyond that point the authority confers upon Congress the same power to make cannot extend, for the reason that all “powers needful rules and regulations in the states as not delegated to the United States by the Conit does in the territories, concerning the terri-stitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, tory or other property belonging to the United are reserved to the states respectively, or to States. the people.” In other words, the organic act In view of these considerations, your com-of the territory, conforming to the spirit of mittee are not prepared to affirm that Con-the grant from which it receives its validity, gress derives authority to institute govern-must leave the people entirely fiee to form ments for the people of the territories from and regulate their domestic institutions and that clause of the Constitution which confers internal concerns in their own way, subject the right to make needful rules and regula-only to the Constitution of the United States, tions concerning the territory or other pro-to the end that when they attain the requisite perty belonging to the United States; much population, and establish a state government less can we deduce the power from any sup-in conformity to the Federal Constitution, they posed necessity, arising outside of the Consti-may be admitted into the Union on an equal tution, and not provided for in that instru-footing with the original states in all respects ment. The federal government is one of dele-whatsoever. gated and limited powers, clothed with no The act of Congress for the organization of rightful authority which does not result di-the territories of Kansas and Nebraska was rectly and necessarily from the Constitution. designed to conform to the spirit and letter of Necessity, when experience shall have clearly the Federal Constitution, by preserving and demonstrated its existence, may furnish satis-maintaining the fundamental principle of factory reasons for enlarging the authority of equality among all the states of the Union, the federal government, by amendments to notwithstanding the restriction contained in the Constitution, in the mode prescribed in the 8th section of the act of March 6, 1820 that instrument; but cannot afford the slight-

(preparatory to the admission of Missouri into est excuse for the assumption of powers not the Union), which assumed to deny to the delegated, and which, by the tenth amend-people for ever the right to settle the question ment, are expressly “reserved to the states of slavery for themselves, provided they should respectively or to the people.”

Hlence, before make their homes and organize states north the power can be safely exercised, the right of thirtysix degrees and thirty minutes north of Congress to organize territories, by institu-latitude. Conforming to the cardinal printing temporary governments, must be traced ciples of state equality and selfgovernment, directly to some provision of the Constitution in obedience to the Constitution, the Kansasconferring the authority in express terms, or Nebraska act declared, in the precise language as a means necessary and proper to carryinto of the compromise measures of 1850, that, effect some one or more of the powers which “when admitted as a state, the said territory, are specifically delegated. Is not the organi-or any portion of the same, shall be received ration of a territory eminently necessary and into the Union, with or without slavery, as proper as a means of enabling the people their constitutions may prescribe at the time thereof to form and mould their local and do-of their admission.” Again, after declaring mestie institutions and establish a state go-the said 8th section of the Missouri act (some vernment under the authority of the Constitu-times called the Missouri compromise, or Mition, preparatory to its admission into the souri restriction) inoperative and void, as bUnion? If so, the right of Congress to pass ing repugnant to these principles, the purpose the organic act for the temporary government of Congress, in passing the act, is declared in is clearly included in the provision which au-these words: 368

Page 369 view page image

‘ NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.’ states of the Union are united in one for eertain purposes, yet each state, in respect. to everything which affects its domestic policy and internal concerns, stands in the relationr of a foreign power to every other state.; “Hlence 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 confederacy 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 Kansas-Nebrska 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 produced by the invasion of the territory by a Missouri mob, which had overawed and outnumbered and outvoted the bonafide 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 returns,”

or to “set forth specific cause of complaint or errors in the conductin’

or returning of the election” in any one of the seventeen districts 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 emigra,nt aid societies, unless the governor and judges of ~ It being the true Intent a nd’meaning of this act not to late rlavery into any state or territory, nor to exclude it thaefrom but to I e-ve the people thereof perfectly free so form anld regulate their domestic institutions in their own,ay, subjc only to the Constituuon of tAd Unimte Ltates..-. The passage of the KansasNebraska act ws strenuously resisted by all persons who thought it a less evil to deprive the people of new st ates and territories of the right of state equality and selfgovernment under the C
onstitution, than to allow them to decide the slavery question for themselves, as every state of the Union had done, and must reta in the undeniable right to do so, so long as the Consiitution of the United States shall be maintained as the supreme law of the land.

Finding,oposition to the principles of the act unavailing in the halIs of Congress and under the forms of the Constitution, combinations were immediately entered into in some portions of the Union to control the political destinies, and form and regulate the domestic institutions of those territories and future states, through the machinery of emig nt aid societies. In order to give consistency and efficiency to the movement, and surround it with the color of legal authority, an act of incorporation was procured from the legislature of the state of Massachusetts, in which it was provided, in the first section, that twenty persns therein named, and their “associates, successors, and assigns, are hereby’made a corporation, by the name of the Massachustts Emigrant Aid Company, for the purpose of assisting emigrants to settle in the-West; and for this purpose they shall have all the powers and privileges, and be subject to all the duties, restrictions, and liabilities set forth ia the 38th and 44th chapters of the revised mtutes” of Maasaohusetts..’. .,.’., ’” The committee here entered into a detail of the -lassachusetts Emigrant Aid Society and remark — ” When a powerful corporation, with a capital 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, ,red employing a corresponding number of men, all under the management and control of nonresident 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 fixedl purpose of wielding all its power to C,ntrol the domestic institutions and political de,stinies of the territory, it becomes a question of fearful import how far the operations of the company are compatible with the rights gnfd liberties of the people. Whatever may I* the extent or limit of Congressional authority over the territories, it is clear that no individual state has the right to pass any law or authorize any act concerning or affiecting th territories, which it might not enact; in IXeference to tiny other state. ” It is a. well-settled.

principle of constitutioal lawv in this country, that while all the 24 869

Page 370 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. (lection were parties to it; and your commit-special elections, to be held on the 24th of tr’e are not prepared to assume a fact, so dis-May, to fill those vacancies, and, at the same reputable to them, and so improbable upon time, granted certificates of election to eleven tihe state of facts presented, without specific councilmen and seventeen representatives, lharges and direct proof. In the absence of whose election had not been contested, and ill proof and probable truth, the charge that whoin hlie adjudged to have been fairly elected. ite Missourians had invaded the territory and At the special election to fill these vacancies, .niitrolled the Congressional election by fraud three of the persons whose election on the .iid violence, was circulated throughout the 30th of March had been set aside for the rea l’iee states, and made the basis of the most insoins already stated, were reelected, and in flaniimatory appeals to all men opposed to the the other districts different persons were re irinciples of the KansasNebraska act to emi-turned; and the governor having a’Ldjudgei grate or send emigrants to Kansas for the them to have been duly elected, accordingly lurpose of repelling the invaders, and assisting granted them certificates of election; thus their friends who were then in the territory in making the full complement of thirteen couln putting down the slave power, and prohibiting cilmnien and twenty-six representatives, of slavery in Kansas, with the view of making it whom, by the organic law of the territory, a free state. Exaggerated accounts of the the legislature was to be composed. On the large number of emigrants on their wy-under 17th day of April the governor issued his the auspices of the emigrant aid companies proclamation, summnoning these thirteen coun with the view of controlling the election for cilmnen and twenty-six representatives, whom members of the territorial legislature, which he had coi iissi-ned as having been fairly was to take place on the 30th of March, 1,55, electedl, to assemble at Pawnee City on the 2d were published and circulatel. These ae-day of July, anrid organize as the legislature counts being republished and believed( in I of the territory of Kansas. Missouri, where the excitement had alreiuly It appears from the journal that the two been inflamed to a fearful intensity, inducede houses dlid assemble, in obedience to the go;t corresponding effort to send at least an I vernor’s proclamation, at the time and place f qual number, to counteract the apprehended appointed by him, tand, after the oath of office result of this new importation. had been duly administered by one of the The election was held in obedience to the judges of the Supreme Court of the territory proclamation of the governor of the territory, to each of the members who held the goverlwhich prescribed the mode of proceeding, the or’s certificate, proceeded to organize their tf,rm of the oath and returns, the precaution-respective houses by the election of their ofli-rry safeguards a,gainst illegal votiir, and the cers; and each notified the other, by resolumode of contesting the election, which were, tion, that they were thus duly organized. in substance, the same as those already re-Also, by joint resolution, appointed a comferred to in connexion with the Congressional mittee who waited on tihe governor, and inelection. When the period arrived for the formed him that ” the two houses of the governor to canvass the returns, and issue cer-Kansas legislature are organized, and are tificates to the persons elected, it appeared now ready to proceed to business, and to rethat protests had been filed against the fairness ceive” such communication as hlie may deem ,f the proceedings and the correctness of the re-nicessary. turns, in seven out of the eighteen ele(tiol l dis-In response to this joint resolution, ” a tricts into which the territory had ieen diritlel, inessagXe from the governor, by Mir. HIiggins, for election purposes, alleging fraudulent anl his lprivate secretarv, transmitting his me, illegral voting by persons who were not.t( tual s ae, a s received, and ordered to be read.” settlers and (jualifiedl voters of the territory.‘J’he mnessage commences thus:-“

To the It atlso appears that in some of these ic,tested loi-rrr’ble the Counicil anr, IIouse of Rleprecases the form of the oath administerel to tle t scntatives of tile’I’erritoriy of Kansas,” &c., &C. .judges, and of the returns made by thm, l’rolm this messae, as well asfrom all the ofliwvere not in conformity to the proclamntiorn of cial ac ts of the (rovernlor precedinig it, having the governor. After a careful investigrattioll referenceto the election arid return of the meiii(,f the facts of each case, as presented lby the betrs arid the coniening of the two houses for lereturns of the judges, and the protests aii(l l-gislative business, tihe conclusion is irre sistible, legations of all persons who disputel the rair-that up to this period of time the governor had hiess of the election and the correctness of the i nectver conceived the ide.-if, in(leel, hie has returns, the governor came to the cutoiclsi,i since entertained it -tthilt tihe two houses were that it was his duty to set aside the elettion 1spurious anrd -auduleint asse m vblies, having nIi in these seven disputed districts, the effect of rigrhtful authority 6o pass Iawis which would which was, to create two vacancies in the i0e binding upoin the peophl of Kanasas. On Council, and nine in the House of Representa-the first day of the sessioni, and1
iririrediately tives of the territory, to be filled by a new after tire org’mization of tlte house was election; and to change the result so far as to effected, the foll)wing resolution was adopted: cause the certificate for one councilman and “Resolved, That all persons who may desire to onteom one lrepresentative to issue to different persons the seats of any persons now holding certificates of election than those returned as elected by the judges. as memnbers of this house, may present their protests to the . committee on eredentlds, and that notice thereof shalh bs Accordingly the governor issued his werits for given to Wte poldlng such certiticatea” 370

Page 371 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. - provisions of this act;” and the twenty second section of the s ame act provides that “the person s thus elected to the le,, slat ive Assembly shall meet a t such pla ce and on such day as the governor shall appoint” fur the first meeting. These two provisions, beine parts of the same act, and having reference to the same subjectmatter, must be taken together, and receive such a construction as will give’ull effec t to each, and not render e ither nugatory. Wh ile, t herefore, the governor wees authori ze d to convene the lenislature, in the first instance, at such place as he should appoint, still he was required, by that provision wh ich made Fort Leavenlworih the temporary seat of g overnment, wi th th e view of using some of the public buildings, to designate a. the place some one of the publi c buildsages winthin the military re servation of Fort Leavenwortlf. IIad not-Congress, in the mea ntime, interposed and changed the law. as here presented, the governor would not have been au thorized to have convened the legislature at “Pawnee City,” or at any o ther place in the territc ivo than some one of th e publi c buildings at Furt Leavenworth, as provided i-l the organic act. - In view of the fact that the Secr etary of War had intimated an opinion that a ll o f the public buildin, at Fort Leavenworth were needed fbr military purposes, and th a t the location of the seat of governm ent, even temporarilt, withi n the lines of a military reservation, where the mi lita ry law must necessr-i rily. prevail, would be inconvenient i f not injurious to-the public service, the following provision was adopted in the appropriation bill of the 5th of Aug., 1854, for th e purpose of enabling the gov ernor to erect buildings for the temporary seat of government at so me i more suitable and convenien t poi nt i n the territory:, “That in the event that the Secretary of War sball d eem it iuansistennt with t he interest of the military service to furnish a suote,i-nt portion of t he military h uildeing. at Fort Ljeavenworth f,,r the use of the territorial governiuent of Kana, tile ful of twentyfive thousand dollars sha,ll be., and in that,,ntin,ency is hereby appropriated. for the erection of pub,lic buildings for the uce of the legislature of the territory of Kan.,s. to i,e expended under the direction of the governor of said territory.” Und er ths p rovi sion, taken in connexion with that clause of the organic act which authorized the,t-,vernor to convene the legislature at such place as he should appoint, helX would have had the right to establish the tei.Orary seat of government and erect the pubiIic buildings at Pawnee City, or any other place he might have selected in the territory instead of Frort Leavenworth, but for the fat that on the -Id of Siarch, 1855, and before any portion of the sloeyedhad been epene~mle2l,u(Al even the site slce,Cnrs aoaft ther.~pplropriation of twentyfive thousandl dollars fbr pub~lic buildings, with the preyis,, ” that said money-, or ainy part thereof, or any portion of the nlonev heretofore appropriated or this purpose. shalil not be excpendedl until the legislalture of salidl territory shall havec fined 1 )y las the permanen1t seat of goven [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 G(overnor Reeder in all his disputes with the legislature, whilst denying their right to do thus and so, never regarded them as otherwise than as the regularly constituted legislature of Kansas. The suspension of intercourse between Governor Reeder and the legislature after their removal to the Shawnee Mission, on the ,,rround 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 Aupust, the journal of the IIouse of Representatives says: ” The folowing message was received from Governor A. II. rieeder, by Mr. Lowry, his private secretary: To the honorable the members of the Council and IHouse .f 1’epre.sentatives of the Territory of Kansas. ‘“CF.fiTLE.EN: Although., in my message to your bodies undler date of the 2lst instant, [ulL,] I stted that I w bs unable to convince myself of the legality of your sea,ion att thii place. for reains then given, and although that opinion still re’nains unchanged. yet, inasmuch as my reatone were not sati factory to your holy. and the bills passed by y-our houses have been up to this time sent to me for approval, it is proper that I should inform you that after your a,ljoutrn. meat of yesterday I rec.ived official notification that nmy functions as Governor of the Territory of Kansas were teruinated. No suc,oLor having arrivel. Secretary Woo(Lqon will of course perform the duties of the office as acting p vernor. A II. ItZZDEl” Inasmuch as Governor Reeder dissolved his official relations with the legislature, and d uenied 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 tempoarily 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 th i s 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 “1 rightful subject of legislation,” is too plain to admit of argument; hence the power is clearly included in this general,rant, and nay be exercised at pleasure by the legislature, unless it shall be made to appear that Congress, by some other provision, has imposed restrictions or conditions upon its exercise. Thie thirty-first section of the organic act provides, ” that the temporary seat of government of sai:d territory is hereby located at ‘Fort Le.-Lvenwvorth; and that such,portions of the pul)ic buildings as may not be actually use,1 and needed for military purposes may be occuipie(d and used, under the direction of the governor and Leg’islative Assembly, for such puliic purposes as may be required under the I 371

Page 372 view page image

TIEI POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. nent.” This provision did not confer upon the le,gislature anly power in respect to the lo-a cation of the seat of g)vernment, either temporarily or permanntlyo v, whilch it did not previously pos,ess; for the general grant, extending to all “rightful el)jects of legislation,” necessarily inicluded the right to determine the place of liol(ling its sessions. The object a well as legal efflct of this provision, was to restrain the governor from expending the appropriatioin uintil the voice of the people of Kansas should be expr.sced, through their legislature, in the,eleetlon of the place, leaving 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 building, at such place as the legislature shlould designate for the permanent seat of government of the territory. Under this view of the subject, it is evident that the legislature wits clothed with legitimate authority to enact the law in obedience to which its session w. adjourned from Pawn ee City to Slaw eice Mission, and tha t its enactments, made at the latter place, must have th e s ame force aqtd validity that they would have possessed lhatd not the removal taken place. Your committee hiave not considered it any part of their duty to xamine and review each enactment and provimion of the large volume of laws adopted lhy the legislature of Kansas upon almost every rightful subject of legislation, and affectin~
nearly every relation and interest in life, with l view eithier to their approval or disapproval lhy Congresq, 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 Constitution, as well am b)y the very terms of the Kansas-Nebraiqka 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 tlheiy have no representatives, to give or withllh(hl their assent to the laws upon which their rights and liberties may al depend. Under these laws marriages have taken place, children have been born, deaths have occurred, oestttes have been distributed, contracts have been made, and rights have accrued which it iR not competent for Congress to divest. If there:an be a doubt in respect to the validity of tlhore laws, growing out o0 the alleged irregularity of the election of the members of the I(“,,i’lature, or the lawfulness of the p)lace wrhere its sessions were held which it is compectent for any tribunal to in quire into, with aw viols to its decision at thi~ day, and after the series of events which hate ensuled, it must be ax jud~icial question, oveJ which Congrwess ca lavell~r no control, an6 which can lie deltermninted only by the court~ ofjustice, under the protection and s;anctiox af the Constitution, When it was proposed in the last Congreas to annul the acts of the Lelisclative Assegblyt of Minnesota, incorporating certain railroad companies, this commi ttee rep orted a gainst the proposition, and, instead of nndullinat, the lo cal legislation of the territory, recommended the ps s ha t te re peal t of that clause of th e organic act of Minnesota which reserves to Coness the right to disapprove its laws. That rep omn meddation was based on the theory that the people of t he territory, being citizens of the fnited State s, were entitled to the privilege of selfgovernment in obedience to the Consti tution; and if, in the exercise of this rig ht, they had made wise and just laws, they ought to be permitted to enjoy all the advantages resulting from them: while, o n th e co ntrary, if they had made unwis e and un just laws, they should abide the consequences of the ir own acts until they discover ed, ackno wledged, and corrected their errors. It has been alleged that gross misrepresenta tions have bee n made in respect t o t he charac ter of the laws enacted by the leslaturo.of tKansas, calculated, if not des igned, to preju cdice t he public mind at a distance against those who enacted them, and to create the im pression tha t it was the duty of Congress to inte r fe re and annul them. In viesw of the violent and insurre ctionary meas ures which were being taken to resist the laws of the t er ritory, a convent ion of delegat es, 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 shade s of pol itical opinions, “Wpigs, Democrats, Ero-s slavery men, and Free-state men, all metrand ha rmonize d together, a nd forgot their forme r differences in t he common danger that see me d to threaten th e pea ce, good order, and prow perity of this community” This convention w as preside d over by the governo r of th e ter ritory, assisted by a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court; and the address to the r citizens of the Unite d States, among other disi tinouished names, bears the signatures of the United States district attorney an d marshal, for the territory. [The committee then quote from an address of said meeting in explanation of said laws.] e A few days after Governor Reeder dissolved s his official relations with the legislature, on , account of the removal’of the seat of governB ment, and while that body was still in session, s a meeting was called by ” many voters,,” to t assemble at Lawrence on the 14th or 15th of f August, 1855, ” to take into consideration e the propriety of calling a territorial conyens tion, preliminary to the formation of a state , government, and other subjects of publc L-interest.”’ At that meeting the following s preamble and resolutions were adopted with 4 e but one dissenting voice:  r”W~hereas the people of Kiansabs territory have been Finde tl tst settlement~ and now ame, without any lw-makingb power: 8 therefore, “lBe it resolved. That ore, the people of Kansas territory, a1 in mass meeting assembled, irrespective of party dt.~ti nctionD nfuencod by a ommon necessity, And greatly dosirou~ d 372 I

Page 373 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. promoting the common good, do hereby call upon and re-I and destroy the same by thrusting it into his quest all bona fide citizens of Kansas territory, of whatever political views or predilections, to consult together in their mouth, and biting and chewing it. Although respective election districts, and, in mass convention or sotnewhat mutilated by the “tooth prints,” it otherwise, elect three delegatesforeach representativeof the bears internal evidence of being a genuine Assembly, by proclamation of Governor Reeder of date lath Sarch, 1855; said delegates to assemble in con-document, authenticated by the original signavttion at the town of Topeka, on the 19th day of September, tures of “G. W.Hutchinson grand general,” 1855, then and there to consider and determine upon all subjects of public interest, and particularly upon that hav-and “J. K. Goodwin, grand quartermaster.” ig, reference to the speedy formation of a state constitution, On the last page was a charter of the Kansas with am intention of an immediate application to be admitted Io Wstht tthe oto Nl(legion, authorizing the said George Warren, as a state into the Union of the United States of America.“‘t from whose mouth the document was taken, to This meeting, so far as your committee have form a new regiment. been able to ascertain, was the first step in [The committee here quote from the charter that series of proceedings which resulted in largely. Amongst other things, is] the process the adoption of a constitution and state gov-of initiating new recruits, who are properly emmnent, to be put in operation on the 4th of vouched for by members of the order, the the present month, in subversion of the terr-preliminary obligations to observe secrecy, torina government established under the au-the catechism to which the candidate is subthority of Congress. The right to set up the jected, and the explanations of the colonel in state government in defiance of the constituted respect to the objects of the order, which are authorities of the territory, is based on the thus stated: assumption ” that the people of Kansas terri,umpttn “that the p l of “First, to secure to Kansas the blessing and prosperity tory have been since its settlement, and now of being a free state; and. secondly, to protect the ballotbox are, without any law-making power;” in the from the leprous touch of unprincipled men.” face of the well known fact, that the territorial These and all other questions being satislegislature were then in session, in pursuance factorily answered, the final oath is thus of the proclamation of Governor Reeder and administered: the organic lass of the territory. On the 5th the or-anie law of the territory. On the 5th With these explanations upon our part, we shall ask of of Septeimber, a “territorial delegate conven-you that you take with us an obligation placing yourself in tion” assemibled at the Big Springs, “to take the same attitude as before. into consideration the present exigencies of OBLIGATION. ‘-I. —.ini the most solemn manner, here, in political affairs,” at which, among others, the the most solemn manner, here, in the presence of Ih0avcn and these witnesses, bind myself following resolutions were adopted:- that I will never, nor cause to be revealed, either by “Resolved, That this convention, in view of its recent word, look or sign by writig, printing. engraving, paintrepudiation of the acts of the socalled Kansas Legislative ing or in an ann whatsoever anything pertaining to Assenbly, respond most heartily to the call made by the this institution. save to persons duly qualified to receive the lpeople’s convention of the 14th ultimo, for a delegate con-same. I will nvr rveal the nature of the organization, vention of the people of Kansas, to be held at Topeka o tle piace of meetiog the fact that any person is a member athe place of me~eting, the fac,t that any person is a member the 19th instant, to consider the propriety of the formation of the same, or even the existe,ce of the organization, ex tiie~~~~~~~~~~~~~o 1the sn,ame, tor c n iere the propritync of the formaiationeptpr,osglyulfetrevteae Seoul of a state constitution, and such matters as may legitimately cept to persons legty qualified to receive the same. Should ~~~c,,t~me before it. I at any timne withdriiw, or be suspended or expelled from ” I,,L-d, That we owe no allegiance or obedience to the is organization, I will keep this obligation to the end of ctent of this spurious leislature that If any books papers, or moneys belonging to this tleialaw enavtet nof thlisdpuityous leislatufrceUo that peopl teir laws hae no validity or binding force upon the people organization be intrusted to my care or keeping I will faith *f Ka.,s,s ad that every freeman among us i-s at full fully and completely deliver up the same to my successor in liberty consistently with his obligations as a citizen and a ffie, or anyone legally authorized to reeive thm. I will man to defy aud resist them if he choose so to do. never knowingly propose a person for membership in this order who is not in favor of making Kansas a free state, and R’esolved, That we will endure anl submit to who is not i favor of making sas free ste, a n longer than the best interests of the territory require, as I fl tifid will exert his entire influence to bring the least of two evils, and will resist them to a bloody issuebout this esult. I will support, maintain and aide by h. ,,n a,, we ascertain that peaceonorable movemedies shall fil a ny h t made by the organization to secure and forcible resistance shall furnish any reasonable prospect this great ed.

hich will not conflict wit the laws of the that in the meantime we recommuntry and the Constitution of the United States. I will o,f success~; a~nd that in the meantime we recommend to on,ufl.higytfran.ulrteiddtsoiae friends throughout the territory the orgauization andl dis-n hinc gryvote orandsuprfortthe ti ada tnominated ripliie of volunteer companies, and the procurement and by this orgaization i preference to any aid all others. lp~reparation of ~ arms.”

” T’o all sf this obligation I do nmost solemnly promise and preparation of arms.” ro i affirm, binding myself under the penalty of being expelled With the view to a distinct understanding from this organization, of having my name published to the f the meaning of so much of this resolution several territorial encampments asa perjurer before Iteaven .th e * e an g f o. h and a traitor to my country, of passing through life scorned ;t relates to the “organization and discipline and reviled by man.

frowned on by devils, forsaken by of volunteer companies, and the procurement angels, and abandoned by God.” and preparation of arms,” it may be necessary The ” closing ceremony” is as follows: to state that there was at that time existing in, [Colonel.] Fellow-soldiers: I trust this review has been the territory a secret military organization, both pleasant and profitable to all. We met as friends; let which had been formed for political objects us part as brothers, remembering that we seek no wrong to any; and our boud of union in battling for the right must prior to the alleged invasion, at the election on tend to make us better men. better neighbors, and better the 30th of March, and which held its first citizens. We thank you for your kindness and attention, grand encam n a. 8 and invite you all to be present tat our next review, to be “grand encampment at Lawrence, Feb. a, holden at-, on - next. at o’clock, P. M.

Sentinels 1555.” Your committee have been put in pos-you will open the doors, that our soldiers may retire plea session of a small printed pamphlet, contain-cantly and in order.” ing the “constitution and ritual of the grand Your committee have deemed it important encampment and regiment; of the Kansas to give this outline of the “constitution and legion of Kansas territory, adopted April 4. ritual of the grand encampment and regiments 1855,” which, during the recent disturbances of the Kansas legion,” as constituting the in that territory, was taken on the person of secret organization, political and military, in one George Warren, who attempted to conceal obedience to which the public demonstrations 373

Page 374 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. necessary for giving the notices conducting the election of delegates, making the returns, and assembling the convention.

WVith regard to the regularity of these proceedings, your committee see no necessity for further criticisn, 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 iii 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, atnd 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: “Gentleimen 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 re,p resentative body ever assembled in the territory,” &c. Mr. Emery said:’

Now, Mir. Chairman, what does this resolution contemplate? What is proposed to be done? It irst proposes to supersede the present weak and inefficient territorial government, and h ence it enunciates the fuudo 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 auth,, rity in American politics, which is this: whenever anv It of government becomes destructive of the ends fbr 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 firne theories of human rights into facts, to practically apply this great principle to the wants and the necessities of the down trodden people of Ka,,sa.s. I do not question this right of the people, and certainly no gentlemnian on1 this floor mill disagree with me. If he does, he occupies a most extraordJi n,ary position, and consisteney would suggest that he witi] draw from this body. No), when ise say that we will talus measures to supersede and render ulnnecessary that thiig now extended over us called a territorial government-who’ll we say and m aintain that wse have a right, guarantied by the Convstitt ion. tohave a f(orni of goverinientresting on our own onsent and free will, we are dinr what. as Americaii liizeiures, we ha,ve a rig,ht to do; we onlv propose to carry out the doctrine, iuuch a)uscd and grossly misrepresentel as it has Ienel th oean the doctrine of squatter sovereigltly, under swhin h we are o isenstiled here to41ay, and in pursusia e of the principlts of which we hope to extricate (ourseives from our present unhllappy condition.” have been made to subvert the authority of th e t erritorial government established by Con gress, by set ting up a state government, eithe r with or without the as se n t of Congress, as circu ms t ances sh ould determine. T he endorse ment of th is mi lit ary orga nization, and the re commendation by the Big Springs conven tion for ” the procurement and preparation of arm s,” accompanied with the distinct declara ti on that we ” will resist them [the laws enact ed by the K ansas legislature] to a bloody issue,s a s s o on 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 pre tation th an t htha t, in the eve nt that the courts of justice sh all sustain the validity of those laws, and C ongress shall refuse to ad mi t Kansass s a state with the consti tution to be for m ed at Topeka, they will set up an inde pen dent government in defiance of the federal authority. T h e sam e p urpo s e is clearly indicated by t he oth er proceedings of this convention, in which it is declar ed th at ” w e wit h scorn repudiate the election law, so called,”’ and they nomin at e Go vernor R e eder 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 mi nister oaths; and the returns to be made, and resul t p rocl aimentd, 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 addres sed the convention as f ollows; and amo ng other things, said: ” He urged the Fre-St ate men of Kansas to forget all minor issues. a nd pursue determined ly the one great otject, never swerving, but staeadily pressing on, as did the wise men who fo,llowed the star to the manger,. looking ba,ck only fc)r fresh en( oura p gem,ent. l ie counselled that peac eful resist ance e be m ade to the tyrannical an d unjust laws of the spu r iou s legislature; t hat appeals to the courts, to the ballot box. and to Congres.s. be. made for relief from this oppressive load; that violer,ce should be deprecated as lon,, as a single hope of peaceable redress remained; but if, at last, all these should tila-it. in the proper tribunals, there is no hope ta,r our dearest rights, outraged and profsned-if we tire still to suffer, that corrupt nmen may reap harve.ts watered bv our tears-theti there is one more chance for justice. (God has provided. in the eternal frame of things. redress fbr every wrong; and there remains to us still the stea.dy eye anO the strong arm, and we must conquer, or mingle the bodis of the oppressors with those of the oppressed upon the soil which the Declaration of Independence no longer protect.<.

But he was not at all apprehensive tha,t sch., at crisi.s would ever arrive. Ike believed that justice m11ight be f,unxd far short of so dreadful an extremity; and, even should fin.apeal to arms -ome, it was his opinion. that it’ we are well prepared, that moment the victory is won.”

In pursuance of the recommendation of the class meeting held at Lawrence on the 14th of August, and endorsed by the convention held sit the Big Springs on the 5th andl 6th of Septemlber, al conv~ention was hehld at Topeka on thle 1ith and 20th of September, at which it was determined to hold another convention at the same place on the fourth Tuesdaly of’

October, for the purpose of forming a constitution and state government; and to this end such proceedings were had as were deemed In ripply to the advocates of immediate state organizationi, Mlr. Delahay, of Leavenworthi, said: ”Unler thel defined rights of sqiiatt,.r sovereigntv, a enunciated by the Kanisas-N(ebraska act. it seen s reasomt;l thlat the people have the right to take upon teslves tl,i huldenls f a government; but I questi,,n the riglst of timki I eeople of Kansias to orgnie a new government creatid m (tCongress. The gentlefa from ar e Colonel i, lni. $
hs a.-,ssumed as a fundamental po,sition, in adw.ating ax immediate state organlization, that neiithler e t r local law exists in this territory.

Sir. I mu,,st dissent from that position. I delny, Mr. Chairre,re. th,t a territrt i governmient can be legally aolisli.el by the leti(n o another government. I hold, on the contrary. and 1 thi!ik that my position would be sullpp)rt(d by our highest legal authorities, that the power of a territorial govirlliset I ea ses only by thie ena( tient of the body whi(
h created it ill other words. that the government and laws of K,t,r s,s can be albolishecd b)v C,ngress alon-e, aItnd are 1,,y(old th, reach, of this territ(iry, or any other Iotwir I do not l,re teoI to denly that. as all civil power is derived fi’om this people, they have the, mral right to abolish unjust laws. or to overthrow obnoxious governmients by force,: but I do question the expediency of effct a reform in Kansas t,y any overt act of rebellion. For I mlust confess, AMr. Chairman, while I east not the shadow of su.picion on the motivate of the advocates of this measure, that from the point cf view fiom which I regard this question, it appears to me to be an act of rebellion.” Your committee have made these voluminous I 374

Page 375 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. ganic law, the legislature of the territory of Michigan passed an act providing for a convention 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 ascertained 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 at 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 admission as soon as may be consistent with the Federal Constitution. Upon this point your committee adopt the legal opinion of the Attorney General of the Unit ed States (B. F. Butler), as expressed in the following extract: extracts from the best authenticated reports which th e y have been able to obtain of the proceedings of the conve ntion, fo r the purp ose of showing that it w as distinctly understood on all si des that the a doption of the proposition fo r orga niz ing the stat e g overnment before the ass ent of Con gress for t he adm ission of the state should be obtained, was a decision in favor of repudiating the laws and overthrowing the territorial government, in defiance of the authority of Congress. By this decision, as incorporated into the schedule to the constituti on. t h e vote on th e ratification to the constitu tion was to be held on the 15th of December, 1855, a nd the election for a ll state officers on the third Tuesda y of January. 1856. The thir d section of the s chedule is as follows: “iC he G eneral Assembly shall meet on the 4th day of iarch, A.D. 1856, at the city of Topeka, tat u12m., at w hich time and place the governor, lieutenant-goernor, secretary etof state judges of the supreme cour t, treasurer, auditor. state printer, reporter and clerk of supreme court, and attorney-general, shall appear, take the oath of (offic,e, and enter upon the discharge of t he duti es of their respective offic es under this constitution; and shall continue in office ill the same manner, and during th e Fame period. the, would h:ive done had the y been elected on the first Monday of August, A.D. 1856.” T he elec tions for all these officers were held at the times specified; a nd on the fourth day of th e present month she new government was to have b een put in operation, in conflict with the territorial government established by Congress, and for the avowed p urpose of subver ting a nd over throw ing th e same, without r ef erence to the action of Congress upon their applicatio n for admi ssion into th e Un i on. Your c omm itte ae are not aware of any case i n the h istory of our own country which can b e fairl y c ited as an examp le, much less a ju stification, for these extraordinary proceedings. Cas es h ave occurred in which the inhabitants of particular territories have been permitted to form constitutions, a nd take the Ini tia tory steps f or th e organization of s tate 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 recognised by the government of the United States. MIiclhigan, Arkansas, Florida, and California, afre sometimes cited as cases in point. MichiI,,an 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 th~an 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 C,ongress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and state government.” In pursuance of this provision of their or ” 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 Stato.. lAmong these is the right to assemble and to petition ths 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 clhosen by such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning Congress to abrogate the territorial gbvernment, and to admit them into the Union as an independent state. The particular form which they may give to their petition rannot 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 judgme nt meets the sense of the people to be affected by it. If, therefore, the citizens of Arkansas think proper to aeccompany their petition with a written constitution, framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by it convention of delegates chosen by such assemblies, I perceive no legal objection to their power to do so, nor to any mie(asures which may be taken to collect the sense of the people in respect to it; provided, always, that such measures be commenedt 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 commenc-d and prosecuted with a design to subvert the territorial government, and to establish and put in fore in its place a new government. without the consent of Congres, will be unlawful. The laws establishing the territorial government must continue in force until abrogated by Congress; and, in the mean time, it will be the duty of the g,,ernor, and of all the territorial officers. as well as of th. President, to take care that they are faithfully executed.”

On the 11th day of January, 1839, a co mmittee 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 decided at the election of delegate to Congress in the month of May of that year; that a decided 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 lltl of January, 1839; and that, on behalf of the 3 7 ‘)

Page 376 view page image

THiE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. with limited powers to pass laws of a local charscter tFourth. a superior co,irt (tribunal suserior) of the territory, consi.-ting of four judges and a fiseal. Fit’thl, a preict a,sd sub a iefects for each distri at, who ar-e charged with thle pre servation of the pubI~lic ordel and the execution of thle laws: their (uties corrspoid.

in a great nmeaisure. with those of district marshals an., shlerifT.-.

Sixtlh. a juidge of first in stance, tfor each district. Thisi offi(ce is, by a custon) net irlc-onsistenlt with the laws, rested in the first alcalde,of Ilhe di.trict. Seventh. alwaldes, who have oncurrent jurisdic tion among themselves in the same district, but are saib(er: dinate to the higher judicial tritunals. Eig hthb, local jii tires of the pea e. in th,vu:tamientos, or towniunil aThe poers and functions of all these officers, are fullv de fined in the laws of the country, and are almost ide,,tical with those of the corresponding officers in the Atlantic and Wi estern States.” On the 3d of April, 1849, President Taylor h 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 f acto in California, and to make known to the pe o ple hi s opinions and w ish es in ripect to t he form atio n of a consti tution and state government preparat ory t o their adncission into the U nion. What these opini ons and wishes were, are distin ctly stated my rsnt by the President i the following extract fio his special message t o Con gress o n the 23d of January, 1850: ” I did not hesitate to express to the people of those ueter.o ritories nmy desie that each territory honuld, if prepared to comply with the requiitios of the Constitution of sar the Uni ted States, form a p lan of a state constitution, and submit the same to Congress. with a pray er for admission l into the Union as a state; but I did not anticipate, suggest, or au thorize the establishmnt of anv such governmen-tt without the assent of Congres.s: nor did I authorize any government agent or officer to interfere with or exercise aly influetnee or control over the election of delegates, or over any con vention, in mlaking or or it)ing their domestic institutions, or any of the provision,s of their.,,roposed constitution.

On the contrary, the instructions by my orde~rs were, that all measures of domiestic policy adlop,ted b,y 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 aly government republican in its character, to be at the proper time submitted to Con,gress, yet it was to be distinctly understood that the plan of such a government Imut. at the slt,, e time, be the result of their own deliberate clioie. 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, defi ning what was understood to be the leg,al position of affairs heyee and pointing out the course it vas 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 wveter of thle peopl e, in o)rder that the w,ishles of the people of California may be clearly and fully expressed. Of course., the constitution or plan of al territorial etovernment fo~rmed hy this convention can have no letgal lbree tint approved by Congr ess.” On the 12th clay of October, General Riley, acting gotvernor, issued the following proclamation:_ “TCo time People of California. “The delegates of the peop~le, assembled in convention, have fo)rmed a constitution which is now presented for ytouz ratification.. The time and maxnnerw of voting on this con-. stitution, anld of holding the firstt general elections are 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, althlough 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, according to the treaty acquiring the country from Spain, and the then ratio of representation, which awarded a member of Congress to each 47,700 inhai 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 iiot 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 ination of the constitution and state govern ment of CaliforniLt are peculiar. During the M’exican war the country was conquered and occupied by our troops, and the civil govern inent was administered by the military autho rities under the war power. According to an tfficial communication of General Persifor F. Smith, acting governor of California, to a committtee of citizens of San Francisco, und er date of March 27, 1849, withholding his ” re cognition and concurrence” in their proposi tion ” to organize a Legislative Assemlblyi, and to appoint judges and other ministerial offi cers, and to enact suitable laws to establish trinciples 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 foillowing opinions as the decision of the executive on the points stated: 1. That at the conclusion of the treaty asith Mexico, on the 30th of May, 1848, the mili tary government existing in CalifoiriiiL 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 governaent. It also appears, from the proclamation of General Riley, acting governor, to the people (fat, h ihe ftepul f California -ay go-lerl ,f California, dated June 3, 1849, that a government do facto was constituted as fol “.4 brief summara of the organization of the present government may not be uninteresting. It consists-Fir st of a governor appointed by the supreme government; in lefault of such appi,intment, the office is temporarily veste’d il the conmmanding military officer of the department. The liowers and duties of the governor are of a limited character. but fully defined and pointed out by the laws. Second, a secretary. whose duties and powers are also properly deLanxl. Third, a territorial or departmental legislature, 376

Page 377 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. ele,arly set forth in the echedule. The whole subject is.9 therefore left for your unbiassed and deliberate considera tion.

‘*The prefect (or per.-on 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 permanent welfare and happiness of the people of the new state, is the sincere and earnest wish (f 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. RILEY, “Brevet Brig. Gen. U.S. A., and Governor of California. “Oflicial: ” II.

W. IIALLECK, ” B revet Captai n and Secretary of State.”’ These. facts and official papers prove con (lusively 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 fairnesse, in justification or palliation of the revolutionary movements to subvert the government which Cong ress has established in Kansas. Nor can the insurgents derive aid or comfort from the position assumed bv 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 th e organic lanw, and set up a state government in opposition to the one the n in existence, u nder th e char t er granted by C harle s the Second of England. Those who were engaged in that unsuccessful struggle assumed, as fundamental truths in ,,ur 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 charter under which the existing government was :)rganized contained no provision for changing :r amending the same, and the people had not lelegated that right to the legislature or any :)ther tribunal, it followed, as a matter of -ourse, that they had retained it, and were at iberty to exercise it in such manner as to them :hould seem wise, just, and proper. Without deeming it necessary to express any )pinion on this occasion in reference to the m,erits of that controversy, it is evident that he principles upon which it was conducted are got involved in the revolutionary struggle now woing on in Kansas; for the reason, that the overeighty of a territory remains in abeyance, auspended;n the Urnited States, in trust for the ,eople, until they shall be admitted into the Jnion as a state. In the mean time they are ntitled to enjoy and exercise all the privileges qd rights of selfgovernment, 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 fronm the constitution through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection to allmiatis ad Oct whic the limitations and restrictions which that constitution imposes. Wlence, it is clear that the pe ople of the territory have no inherent s overe ign right und er the Constitution of the Unit ed States to annul the l aws and resist the authority of the territorial government which Congress has established in o b ediencet to the C onstitution. It now only remains for your committee to respond to the two specific recomm en dat ions of the Presi dent in h is speci al m essage. They are as follows: ” This, it seems to me, can be best accomplished by pro - vidinse R that, whe n the inhabitants of Kansas may desire it, and shall be of sufficient numbers to constitute a state, a convention of delegat es, 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 s tate. I respectfully recommend the enact ment of a la w to that effect. w”I recommend, also, that a special appropriation b e m ade to defray any expens e which msa y be come requisite in the execution of the laws o r the maintenance of public or der iu the territory of Kansas.” In compliance with the first recommenda tion, your committee ask leave to report a bill au th or izing the legislature of the territory to provide by law for the election of de l egates by the people, and the assembling of a convention to formi a constitution and state government, preparatory 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 auithority of the legislature, that the territory contains ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty inhabitants-that being the number required bv the present ratio of representation for a member of Congress. In compliance with the other recommendation, your committee propose to offer to the appropriation bill an amendment appropriating such sum as shall be found necessary, by thle estimates to be obtained, for the purpose indicated in the recommendation of the President. All of which is respectfully submitted to the Senate by your committee. Minority Report ofethe Senate Committee on Territories, made March 12, 1856, by Judge COLL.AMER, 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 training, under the guardianship of Congress, prow 377

Page 378 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. lation of the functions of the territorial goverenment, and actually appointing its principal functionaries. This practice conlmenced with this national governmient, and was continued, with uninterrupted uniformity, for more thai sixty years.‘lbis practical contemporaneous construction of the constitutional power of this government is too clear to leave room fior doubt, or opportunity for scepticism. The peace, prosperity, and success, which attended this course, and the results which have ensued, in the formation and adnmission of the thirteen states therefrom, are most conclusive and satisfactory evidence, also, of the wisdonm and prudence with whichl-this power was exercised. I)eluded( must be that people who, in the pursuit of plausible theories, become deaf to the lessons and blind to the results of their owyn experience. Let us next inquire by what rule of uniformity Congress was governed, in the exercise of this power of determining the condition of each territory as to slavery, while remainintg a territory, as manifested in those thirteen instances. An examination of our history will show that this was nst done from time to time by agitation and local or party triumphs in Congress. Tile 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 furttiler importation in some instances, as in Mississippi and Orleans territories) suffered to remain. The fact that it had been taken an/l 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 prohibited; so that in either case the country settled up without difficulty or doubt as to tile character of its institutions. In no instance wva,s this difficult and disturbing subject left to the people who had andl who might settle in the territory, to be t he re an everlasting ]one 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, improper for local legislation. And though, whenever the. people of a territory come to form their own organic law, as an independent state, they would, either before or after their admission as a state, form and mould their institutions, as a sovereign state, in their own way, yet it must be expected, and has always proved true, that the state has taken the character her pupilage has prepared her for, as wseln in respect to slavery as in other respects. IIenec, six of the thir. teen states are fr ee 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 slaveholdinlg states, because slavery was allowed in them by Congrea~ paratorv to assu ming their proud rank of manhoodl awi sovereign and independent states. This period of’ their pupilage was, in every case, a pe riod of the good offices of parent and child, in the kind relationship susta ined betw ee n the national and the territorial governmierent, and may be remem bered wi th f eelings of gratitude and pride. We have fallen on different times. A territory of our governiient i s now convulsed with violence and disctrd, and the whole family of our nation is in a state of excitement a nd a nxiety. The national execu tive p ow er is put in motion, the a rmy in requisition, and Congress is invoked for interference. In this case, as in all others of difficulty, it !tccmtes snecessary to inquire what is the tru e .u.se of existing trouble, in order to apply effectawl cure. It is but tem porary palliatives to deal wit h the ex te r n al and more obvious manifestatio n s and developments, while the real, procuring cause li es un atte nded to, and anc o)rrecte(l, thand unremoved. It i s said r th a t organized opposition to law exi sts in Kansas. That, it existing, may t)ro rd:l”lg bse suppressed by the President, by the use of th e army; a nd so t, too, may invasions b e a rmed bod i s from Missouri, if the executive be sincer e i n it s effo rts; 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 Sat this subj ect, in it s true character and hist4,ry. Wherein does this Kansas territory differ from all our other territories, which have een so p eacefully and successfull y carried through, and been developed into the manhood of independent states? Can that difference account for existing troubles? Can that difference, as a cause of trouble, be removed? The first and great point of difference between the territorial government of Kansas and that of the thirteen territorial governnents before mentioned, consists in the sutbject of slavery, the undoubted cause of present trouble. The action of Congress in relation to all those thirteen territories was conducted on at uniform and prudent principle, to wit: To settle, byr a clear provision, the law in relation to, the subject of slaver: to be operative in the territory, while it remined suchl; not leaving it in any one of those cases to be a subject of controversy within the same, while in the lastic 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 property belonging to the United States.” Settling the subject of slavery while the country remained a territory, bras no higher e:;ercise of power in Congress than the regu 3119

Page 379 view page image

NEBRASKA. AND KANSAS. 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 admris i’)n of the state of Missouri into the Union. Muchl controversy and discussion arose on the (quiestion whether a prohibition of slavery within said state should be inserted, and it re:4ulted in this: that said state should be ad iitted without such prohibition, but that slaverv should be for ever prohibited in the rest of that country ceded to us by France lyingl north of 36~ 30 north latitude, and it was 8, dollm. This contract is known as the Mis s-liri compromise. Under this arrangement, MAissouri was admitted as a slaveholding state, thle 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 tercd tihe same before 185)4 dill so under that law. for everc forbidding sIlavery therein. in 1854, Congress passed an act establishilng two new territories-Nebraska and Kanss’ts-in this region of countrv, where slavery had been prohibited for more than thirty years; and, instead of leaving said laws aga’finst sla-ivei y in operation, or prohibiting or exl)ressly allowing or establishing slavery, Con gress left the subject in said territories to 1)e discussed, agitated, and legislated on, from time to timie, andt the elections in said territories to be conducted with reference to that subject, from year to year, so long as they should remaini territories; for, whatever laws iiiig,ht 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 t,) the revision of Congress, so that they would be made with caution. In these territories, that was omitted.

The provision in relation to slavery in Nel)raskt and Kansas, is as follows: ” The eighth section of the act preparatory to the admiission of Missouri into the Union (which beirt inconsistent with the principle of noninterv ention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories, as required by the legislation of 1850, 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 said territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to foirm 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 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 he re w as a clear fieldl for competition-an open course for the ra(.ve of rivalship; the goal of which was, the ulti mate establi shment of a sovereig,n state; and the prize, the reward of everlasting libertv and its institutions o n the one hand, or thge perpetuity of sla very and i ts concomitants oint the other. It is the obvious duty of thii.

government, while this law continues, to sede this manifesto faithfully and honorably andl honestly performed, even though it.- 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 prc 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 apathv? 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 enjoyiment of the people of the states where it exists, but not to be extended, more especially as it gives, or may give, politica,l 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 slavery, if not in the abstract a ble.ss,ing, at least as ionov existing, a condition of society best fo~r both white and black, while they exist together; while others regard it as no evil, but a,s 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 controvrersy, and experience seems to showt it interminable.,, M~any, and probably a large majority of this nation, lovers of quiet,, entertained the hope that, after 1850, the socalled compromise measures, even though not satisfactory to the free states, whould tie kept by their supporters, and made by them what they were professed to be, a finality on the subject of the exrtenlt 379

Page 380 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. -‘ eceeding, it was not to be expected that the e people of the slaveholding states would take s no active measures to secure a favorable result t by votes in the territory of Kansas. Neither -
could it be expected that the people of the i f iee states, who regarded the act of 1854 as a double breach of faith, would sit down and , make no effort, by legatl means, to correct it. s It has been said that the repeal of this proe vision of the Missouri compromise, and breach c of the compromise of 1850, should not be re rgarded as a measure of the slaveholding states, f because it was presented b)y a senator from a e free state. t The actions or votes of one or more indivis dual men cannot give character to or l)c reu garded qs fixing a measure on their section or , party.‘llie only true or honest mnode of des termining whether any measure is that of any w 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 representas 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, t which has violently agitated the country fier many years, and whicllh has been attempted to ; be settled twice byv compromise, as before stated, does not remain settled. The Missouri compromise and the supposed finality by the l acts of 1850 are scattered and dissolved by the - vote of the slaveholding states; and it is not t to be disguised that this uncalled-for and disturbing measure has produced a spirit of re sentment, fromn 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 wavv 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 t heir character, political or religious views, or place of nativity. Now, whtt is the right and the duty of the ; people of this country in relation to this lmat ter? Is it not the right of all who believe in the blessings of slaveholdiiing. and regard it as the l)est 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 minided to go? This right becomes a duty ti) t all who f)llow their convictions. All who 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 become permanent inhabitants and voters,,and to vote as often as the elections occur in favor and limitations of slave territory; more espe cially, after t he assurances contained in the inau gu ral address of President Pierce. Thi hop e wa s fortified Mwi th the consider ation tha at that time Congress had, by different provi sions, settled by law the condition of freedom o r slaver y fo r all the territory of the U nite States. These hopes h’ave 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 n, such provision was required for its exclusion as the condition of the country and its laws were a sufficient barrier; and therefore the sustained them, because it would complete the series, and finish the provisions as to slaver2 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 ob)ject 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 slavery had been prohibited, and rendered it proper, and onlv proper, to declare such pro ibitions 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 slaveholdin(g states in 1820 secured the admission of Missouri as a slaveholdinig 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 freeand by this they obtained only a sufficient number of votes from the free states, as counted with theirs, to a,dopt 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 1b th -these compromises disregarded, and all their provisions for freedom declared inoperative and void, by the vote of the slaveholding states, with a very few honorable exceptions, anal a minority of the Totes of the free states. After this extraordinary and inexcusable pro 380

Page 381 view page image

- NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. has in fact taken place. If violence has taken place, as the natural, and perhaps unavoidable, consequence of the nature of the experiment, 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 substituted for peaceful measures there, legal provisions 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 b)y 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, establishing 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 fronm 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 facilities for transportation to all peaceable citizens who desired to become permanent settlers in s aid territory, an d providing the rein hotels, mills, &c., for the public accommodation of that new country. The Governor of Kansas having, in pursuance of law, divided the territory into districts, and procured a census thereof, issued his proclamation for the election of a Legislative 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 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 defenseless inhabitants, and by their own votes elected a large maiority of the members of both Ilouses of said Assembly. On the returns of said election 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 Ilouses, equally vicious in fact, but apparently good by formal returns, the inhabitants thereof, borne down by said violence and intimlidation, 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 u~ninformed in relation thereto, issued cer tificates to the memlbers who appeared by saidl format returns to have been elected. of the establ ishment of slavery, and thus control the elections, an d p reserv e it a slave state for ever, is nei ther unlawfu l nor censurable. It is and woulse b e h ighly praisew orthy and commendable, b ecause it is u sing lawful means to carry forward honest convictions of public gohrd. All lawfully associated effort to that end is equally commendable. Nor will the application of opprobriou s ep ith e ts, and calling it propa,gandism, change its moral or leg,al character, from whatever quarter or source, official or otherwise, such ethehets may come. N eithe r should they deter any man from peaceably performins, his d ut y by following his honest convictions. On the o ther hand, all those who have seen and realized the blessing s of u niversal liberty, and believe that it can only be secured and promo ted b y the prohibition of domestic slaver y, and that th e elevation of honest industry can n ever succeed where servitude makes l ab or degrading, should, as in duty bound, pu t forth all reasonable exertions to advance th is g reat object by lawful means, whenever perm itted by the laws of their country. W hen, thererefore, Kansas was presented, by law, as an open fie ld fo r 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 c ontrol, in a legal way, the elections there for this object. This could only be. lawfully effected by permanent residence, and continued and repeated effort, during the continuance of the territorial government, and permanently remaining there to form and preserve a free state constitution. All those who entertained the same sentiments, 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 bv united efforts, by voluntary associations or corporations, or by state assistance, as proposed in some southern states, it was all equally lawful and laudable.

This was not the officious intermeddling with the internal affairs of another nation, or state, or the territory of another people. The territory is the property of the nation, and is, professedly, open to the settlement and the institutions of every part of the United States. If lawful means, so extensive as 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 opposition to, the law establishing the territory, then the declarations and provisions of that lav there but a premeditated delusion, which not only allowed such measures, but actually invited them, by enacting that the largest umber of the settlers should determine the oondition of the country; thus inviting efforts fiqr numbers. Such an invitation must have been expected to produce such efforts on both idea, It now becomes necessary to inquire what 381

Page 382 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOKL 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 by 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 question. 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 nuend(lo, calculated to promote a disorderly, dangerous, or rebellious disaffection among the slaves in this territory, or to induce sucli slaves to escape from the service of their masters, or to resist their authority, hlie shall be guilty of a felony, and be punished lby 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 at 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 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 t(, vote until the contrary is shown; and if ally one, when required, shall refilse 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 re.c.idence necessary, and provided for the immediate payment of a polltax; so providing, in ecfct, that on the eve of an election the people of a neighboring state could come in, in unlimited numbers, and, by taking up a In relation to those districts which the go vernoiL so set aside, o rders were by him issued f)r new election s. In o ne of these district s, th e s ame proceedings were repeated by men from Miss ouri, and in others not, and certifi wates were issu ed to t h e person s elected. a This Legislat ive Assembly, so e lected, as sembled at Pawnee, on the 2d day of July ape55, that being the time and place fo r hold in,, said meeting, as fixed by the governor, by a uthority of law. On assembling, the said Houses proceeded to set as id e and reject those members so elected on sai d sec ond election, except in -the d istr ic t w here the men from Missour i had, at said el ecti on, chosen the s ame persons they had elected at the said first elec tion, and to admi t a ll 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 fact 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 M 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 twothirds 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 legitimate Assembly, sitting at that place. They continued passing laws there, from the 16th dar of July to the 31st day of August, 1855. On the 15th day of August last, the governor of said territory was dismissed from office, 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 without 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 perlectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own wav,” 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, i n all its bearings, rights, and relationships. Among these must, of course, be the question, W~hat was the stateof the existing laws, and the nodifications that might be required on that subject? The law had declared that its *‘true intent and meaning was not to legislate slavers into the territory, or exclude it therefrom.” This would, of course, leave to that people the inquiry, What, then, are the existing rights 882

Page 383 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSA& residence of a day or an hour, pay a polltax, in numerous instances in our historv, tile and thus become legal voters, and then, after people of a territory have, without any pre. voting, return to their own state. They thus, vious act of Congress, proceeded to call a conin practical effect, provided for the people of vention of the people by their delegates; Missouri to control elections at their pleasure, have formed a state constitution, which has iand permitted such only of the real inhabit-been adopted by the people, and a state legisanits of the territory to vote as are friendly to I lature assembled under it, and chosen Senathe holding of slaves. tots to Congress, and then have presented said They permitted no election of any of the constitution to Congress, which has approved officers in the territory to be made by the peo-the same, and received the Senators and meimple thereof, but created the offices, and filled bers of Congress who were chosen under it them, or appointed officers to fill them, for before Congress had approved the same. Such long periods, and provided that the next an-was the case of Tennessee; such was the case iual election should be holden in October, of Michigan, where the people not only formed 1856, and the Assembly to meet in January, a state constitution without an act of Con1857; so that none of these laws could be gress, but they actually put their state governchanged until the lower House might be ment into full operation and passed laws, and (.hanged, in 1856; but the Council, which is it was approved by Congress by receiving it elected for two years, could not be changed, as a state. The people of Florida formed so as to allow a change of the laws or officers, their constitution without any act of Congress until the session of 1858, however much the therefor, six years before they were admitted inhabitants of the territory might desire it. into the Union. When the people of Arkan These laws, made bv an Assembly created sas were about forming a state constitution, ly a forcign force, are but a manifestation of without a previous act of Congress, in 1835, the spirit of oppression which was the parent the territorial governor applied to the Presiof the whole transaction. No excuse can be dent on the subject, who referred the matter round for it in the pretence that the inhabit-to the Attorney-General, and his opinion, as ants had carried with them into said territory then expressed and published, contained the a. quantity of Sharpe’s rifles-first, because following:that, if true, formed no excuse; secondly, it is “It is not in the power of the General Asuntrue, as their Sharpe’s rifles were only ob-sembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the tained afterwards, and entirely for the pur-purpose of electing members to a convention pose of self-defence, the necessity for which to form a constitution and state government, this invasion and other acts of violence and nor to do any other act, directly or indirectly, threats clearly demonstrated. These laws were to create such government. Every such law, obviously made to oppress and drive out all even though it were approved by the governor who were inclined to the exclusion of slavery; of the territory, would be null and void; if and if they remained, to silence them on this i passed by them notwithstanding his veto, by subject, and subl)ject them to the will and con-a vote of twothirds of each branch, it would trol of the people of Missouri. These are the still be equally void.” He further decided laws which, the President says, must be en-that it was not rebellious or insurrectionary, forced by the army and whole power of the or even unlawful, for the people peaceably to nation.

proceed, even without an act of Congress, in The people of Kansas, thus invaded, sub-forming a constitution, and that the so formdued, oppressed and insulted, seeing their ter-ing a state constitution, and so far organizing ritorial government (such only in form) per-under the same as to choose the officers necesverted into an engine to crush them in the sary for its representation in Congress, with a dust, and to defeat and destroy the professed view to present the same to Congress for adobject of their organic law, by depriving them mission, was a power which fell clearly within of the “perfect f.eedom ” therein provided; the right of the people to assemble and petiand finding no ground to hope for rights in tion for redress. The people of Arkansas that organization, they proceeded, under the proceeded without an act of Congress, and guarantee of the United States Constitution, were received into the Union accordingly. If “peaceably to assemble to petition the go-any rights were derived to the people of vernment for the redress of (their) griev-Arkansas from the terms of the French treaty ances.” They saw no earthly source of relief, of cession, they equally extended to the but in the formation of a state government by people of Kansas, it being a part of the same the people, and the acceptance and ratifica-cession. tion thereof by Congress. In this view of the subject, in the first part It is true that in several instances in our of August, 1855, a call was published in the political history, the people of a territory have public papers for a meeting of the citizens of been authorized by an act of Congress to form Kansas, irrespective of party, to meet at Lawa state constitution, and, after so doing, were rence, in said territory, on the 15th of said admitted by Congress. It is quite obvious August, to take into consideration the pry that no such authority could be given by the priety of calling a convention of the people act of the territorial government. That clearly of the whole territory to consider that subject.

has no power to create another government, That meeting was held on the 15th day of paramount to itself. It is equally true, that, August last, and it proceeded to call such coo 3831

Page 384 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. vention of delegates to be elected, and to without retracing steps or continuing violence, assemble at Topeka, in said territory, on the or by force compelling obedience to tyrannical 19th day of September, 1855, not to form a; laws made by foreign force; and that is, by (constitution, but to consider the propriety of admitting that territory as a state, with her c(alling, formallv, a convention for that pur-free constitution. True, indeed, her numbers p,ese. are not such as gives her a right to demand The minority report then gives a detailed admission, being, as the President informs history of the nmovements which brought about us, probably only about twentyfive thousand. The Constitution fixes no number as necessary, the Topeka Conventon, and says: and the importance of now settling this ques l)elegates wert elected and they met at tion may well justify Congress in admitting Topeka, on the fourth Tuesday in October, th!iis as a state, at this time, especially as we 1855, and formed a constitution, which was have good reason to believe, that if admitted submitted to the pe(ple, and was ratified by as a state, and controversy ended, it will imthem by vote in the districts. An election of mediately fill up with a numerous and sucstate officers and members of the state legis-cessful population. lature has been had, and a representative to At any rate, it seems impossible to believe Congress elected, and it is intended to pro-that Congress is to leave that people without ceed to the election of senators, with the view redress, to have enforced upon them by the to present the same, with the constitution, to army of the nation these measures and laws Congress, for admission into the Union. of violence and oppression. Are they to be WVhatever views individuals may at times, dragooned into submission? Is that an exor in meetings, have expressed, and whatever periment pleasant to execute on our own free ultimate determination may have been enter-people? tained in the result of being spurned by Con-The true character of this transaction is gress, and refused redress, is now entirely matter of extensive notoriety.

Its essential immaterial. That cannot condemn or give features are too obvious to allow of any succharacter to the proceedings thus far pursued.

cessful disguise or palliation, however compli Many may have honestly believed usurp-cated or ingenious may be the statements, or ation could make no law, and that if Congress however special the pleadings, for that purmade no further provisions, they were well pose. The case requires some quieting, kind, justified in forming a law for themselves; but and prudent treatment, by the hand of Conit is not now necessary to consider that mat-gress, to do justice and satisfy the nation. ter, as it is to be hoped that Congress will not The people of this country are peacefully releave them to such a necessity. lying on Congress to provide the competent Thus far, this effort of the people for redress measures of redress which they have the unis peaceful, constitutional, and right. Whether doubted power to administer. it will succeed, rests with Congress to deter-The Attorney-General, in the case of Arming; but clear it is that it should not be kansas, says: “Congress may at pleasure met and denounced as revolutionary, rebel-repeal or modify the laws passed by the lious, insurrectionary, or unlawful, nor does territorial legislature, and may at any time it call for or justify the exercise of any force abrogate and remodel the legislature itself, by any department of this government to check and all the other departments of the territoor control it. rial government.” It now becomes proper to inquire what Treating this grievance in Kansas with inshould be done by Congress; for we are ingenious excuses, with neglect or contempt, or formed by the President. in substance, that riding over the oppressed with an army, and he has no power to correct a usurpation, and dragooning them into submission, will make that the laws, even though made by usurped no satisfactory termination. Party success authority, must be by him enforced and exe-may at times be temporarily secured by adroit cuted, even with military force.

The measures devices, plausible pretences, and partisan adof redress should be applied to the true cause dress; but the permanent preservation of this of the difficulty. This obviously lies in the Union can be maintained only by frankness repeal of the clause for freedom in the act of and integrity. Justice may be denied where 1820, and therefore the true remedy lies in it ought to be granted; power may perpetuate the entire repeal of the act of 1854, which that vassalage which violence and usurpation effected it. Let this be done with frankness have produced; the subjugation of white freeand magnanimity, and Kansas be organized men may be necessary, that African slavery anew, as a free territory, and all will be put may succeed; but such a course must not be right. expected to produce peace and satisfaction inl But if Congress insist on proceeding with our country, so long as the people retain any the experiment, then declare all the action proper sentiment of justice, liberty, and law. by this spurious foreign Legislative Assembly J. COLLA.,ER. utterly inoperative and void, and direct a reorganization, providing proper safeguard for On the 27th of February, 1856, Mr. Grow legal voting and against foreign force. reported from the Committee on Territories, a There is, however, another way to put an bill to annul certain acts of the territorial end to all this trouble there, and in the nation, legislature of Kansas. 1384

Page 385 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 Conmpromise) 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,” witt 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 t-ion 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’. It, 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 th at “when admitted as a state, the said terriitory, or any portion of the same, shall be iureceived into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may p)rescribe at the time of admission.” hence all thit teri ritory, to which it is now proposed to apply I the Missouri restriction for the first time, I under the plea of restoring the Missouri coinr promise of the 6th of March, 1820, is protected fifon any such invasion of the iights of the inhabitants to firm and regulateotheir own Th e bill coming up on the 29th of July, Mr. Dunn moved his celebrated amendment, which is referred to under the head of “DUNN’s AN.NDME.-‘T,” and where the reader will find the action of the House passing the bill and amendment. The title of the bill was then chanced 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 comnittee by Mr.

Douglas on the 11th of Aug., 1856. After discussing other portions of the bill, the report goes on to consider the 24th section of M3r. 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)ressly repudiates and condemns the great fundamental principles of self-goveirnment and state equality which it was the paramount object of the Kansas-Nelbraska act to maintain and perpetuate, as affirmed in the followin(n pr,vision: ” It being the true intent and meanint, of this act n)t to le gislate slav ery 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.” Not content with repealing this wise and just provision, and condemning the sound constitutional principles asserted in it, the bill proceeds to legalize and establish, for a lim;_te(d time, hereditary slavery, not only in the erritory of Kansas (where there is no other h-)cal or affirmative law protecting it than the inactments of the Kansas territorial legislautre, which have been alleged to be illegal and fild, and which the HIouse of Re,presentatives, ,y amendments to the appropriation bills, -ave instructed the President not to enforce), -tit also in all that part of New Mtexico which is proposed to incorpo)rate in the territory ,f Kans., and where slavery wras prohibited -y the MIex:,ican law, and it is not pretended h,at there is any territoliel enactment recog,niing or est,ablishing it. Itaving thus asserted ,d exercised the po,)wer (-of introducing and itblisliing slavery inl the territories y)v act f Con(gress, and declaring,, children hereafter ‘)rn therein t,o t)e slave,-, for i;.fe and their pos,rity after tlhem,- provide(l thley slll b)e re ved therefrom’,ithi a specified perlioil, the ill proceeds to aflirm’red exercise the po)w-er f prolli;ting x1slavery, i the saIen territories )r ever from aiind a,fter- -J.nuary 1, 185S, b)y iret’tillzin(! n puttin i,, ll,rc’ thec fi,llowing r,visioii, beinig, the 8th se( tiOi of the act :.e;llarclh 6, 1820, t),-it:-} zinc. An,,l be it further en,cte-l, That all tlint territory coe v’,)y Fra,nce to the site. States, under the iiaiiie of Lvuisiana,, ili}l lies north ef this tv-Msix degrees and irty minutes north latitude, not included 25 385

Page 386 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. domestic affairs in their own way, by the sol-X
of 1850, and rendered imperatively necessary einn guarantees contained in the compromise 1 in order to establish and perpetuate the prinmeasures of 1850, which blotted out the geo-ciples of selfgovernment and state equality graphical line as a dividing line between free in the organization of territories and admisterritory and slave territory, and substituted sion of new states. For these reasons your for it the cardinal principle of selfgovernment, committee cannot concur with the House of in accordance with the Constitution. Representatives in the proposition to blot out But it will also be observed that the bill from the organic act of Kansas and Nebraska under consideration does not propose to limit those essential provisions and cardinal princithe restriction to the territory acquired from ples, the’faithful observance of which can ‘T’exas, nor the country on the east side of the alone preserve the just rights of the inhabilRio Grande, but extend it across that river tants of the territories and maintain the peace, over a portion of the territory acquired from unity, and fraternity of the republic. The Mexico, which was never claimed by Texas great object is to withdraw the slavery quesnor embraced within the Louisiana purchase, tion from the halls of Congress and remand and to which there is no pretext for asserting its decision to the people of the several states that the Missouri compromise ever applied. and territories, subject to no other conditions If, in the application of the 8th section of the or restrictions than those imposed by the act of the 6th of MIarch, 1820 (commonlv Constitution of the United States. Those procalled the Missouri compromise), over so large visions of the bill under consideration which ai district of country to which it never had any introduce and establish slavery, together with previous application, it be the policy of the those which albolish and prohlibit it, are alike liouse of Representatives to return to the obnoxious on thie score of principle, inasmuch obsolete idea” of a geographical line as a as they assert and exercise the right of Condlividing line in all time to come between slave gress to fi)rm and regulate the local affairs territory and free territory, a perpetual bar-and domestic institutions of a distant and disrier against the advancement of slavery on tinct people without their consent and regardthe one hand and free institutions on the less of their rights and wishes. To avoid all l,ther, the measure falls short of accomplishing misconstruction, however, upon this point, the whole of their object in not extending the your committee deem it proper to remark that line to the Pacific Ocean. Your committee their objections do not apply to that part of can perceive many weighty considerations the bill which extends the provisions of the founded in policy, although wanting the sane-fug(itive slave law to the territories of Kansas tion of sound constitutional principles, which and Nebraska, and provides “that any periiiight be urged in favor of such a measure, son lawfully held to service in any other state inasmuch as the barrier once erected from or territory, and escaping into either the ter(cean to ocean-permitting slavery on the one ritory of Kansas or Neb)raska, may be reside and prohibiting it oin the other-if uni-claimed and removed to the person or place versally acquiesced in and religiously observed where such service is. due, under any law of as a patriotic offering upon the altar of our the United States which shall be in force ,ommon country, would put an end to the upon the subject.” In this clause your comcontroversy for ever, and form a bond of peace mittee are rejoiced to find a frank and conand brotherhood in the future. But, unfor-scientious acknowledgment of the duty of tunately, when this expedient was proposed Congress to provide efficieiit laws for carrying 1)y the Senate in 1848, it was indiignantly re-into faithful execution the provision of the )udiated by the Ihouse of Representatives, Constitution of the United States which proand as a consequence the whole country was i(ides for the rendition of fugitive slaves as plunged into a whirlpool of sectional strife well as all other obligations imposed by that fnd angry crimination, which ilariedtl the instrument. greatest and purest patriots of the land fo I’[‘le preservation of our firee institutions detiie safety of the republic, and was only res-pell(ls upon a faithful (iobservance of the Con(-,ted from the impending perils )by the a(op-stitution in all its parts; and the assurance tion of the compromise measures of 1850, thus furnished that the representatives of the lwhich abandoned the policy of a geographiical people are ever readiv to provide new and addiline, and substituted for it the great princi-tional guarantees when supposed to be necesp,les of selfgovernment and state equality, in sary for the faittiful performance of thae 4l)edience to the Federal Constitution. In constitutional ol)ligation, which has been the view of the history of the past, your commit-sublject of the severest critic ism in some por tee can perceive no safety in the filture tiois of the country cannot fail to gratify except in a strict and religious fidelity to the every true friend of the Union. In this case true principles of the Constitution as embodied however, no such legislationi is necessary, in in the adjustment of that unfortunate centre-asniucli as the organic act of Kansas and Nc versy, and adopted by the whole country as braska extendedl the provisions of the fugitive rules of action to be applied in all future time, slave law to both of those territories. when in the progress of events it should be In alluding to the 15th and 16th sections of necessary to organize territories or admit new the bill it says:states. The KansasNebraska act was the It will he observed that these two sectiorn logical sequence of the compromise measures recgnise the validity and binding force of tl 386

Page 387 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. ‘is, by its terms, confined in its application to such crimes as shall be committed “within any fort, arsenal, dockyard, magazine, or any other place or district of country under the sole alnd exclusive jurisdiction of the United State.s,” and “upon the high seas and navigable waters out of the jurisdiction of any particular state,” but has never been held or construed to apDly to the territories of the United States.‘the act of the 3d of Mfarch, 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 dian..” 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 granting a general amnestv 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, bvby the passage of the bill under consideration, and the Senate, bv its bill for the admission of Kansas into the cnion, have each recognise(l 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 repugnant to, or in confict with, the great principles of liberty and justice, as guarantied by the Constitution 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 territory. By the 18th section of the bill, which has twice passed the Senate, and now remains orn the Speaker’s table of the House of Representatives unacted upon, and only awaits the favorable action of the House to enable it to become a law with the President’s approval, all the ohnoncious laws, which have been the subject of so much censure and complaint, are swept out of existence, leaving none in force in said territory except such as are usual, proper, and necessary in all civilized communitie.s for the protection of life, liberty, and property. Your .entire code of Taisaenacted at the Shaiwnee lission, by the legislature of Kansas territor, y, an d pro vid e for t he fa ithful execu tion of .,I those enactments except the criminal code. All justices of the peace, constables, sheriffs, anid a!! other judicial and ministerial officers, Lloyd in office, are required to continue to exerci.,e and perform the duties of their respective oflices. 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, tfuctions, 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,Iission, except the criminal code. 4 All suits, process, and proceedings, civil and eriminal, at law and in chancery, and all inlictments and informations which shall be landing and undetermined in the courts of the territory of Kansas or New Mexico, when -this act shall take effect, shall remain in said H-urts where pending, to be heard, tried, pro.(ecuted, and determined, in such courts, as though this act had not been passed.” The election laws, and the laws concerning slaves ,uied slavery, and all laws protecting the rights ,,f 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, f-)r 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 prosecutions are to be commenced for ” any viola4ion or disregard of said leg islative’enactments at any time.” Such is thelegislation provided fir in these two sections of’the bill They reCognise the validity of the laws enacted at Shawnee Mission, and provide for the enforcement of all of them except in cases of criminal prosecution. Your committee are unal)le to perceive how the passage of such a. bill would “restore peace, quiet, and securitv to the people (f Kansas. It has been alleged that there are in that territory organized bands of lawless ,and desperate men, who are in the constant habt)it of perpetrating deeds of violence-mur1ering and plundering the inhabitants, stealin!, their property, burninc, their houses, and ,Iriving peaceable citizens from the polls on election day, and even from the territory The remedy proposed in the bill is to grant t’, the perpetrators of these crimes a general amnnesty for the past, and a full license in the future t-o continue their bloody work. There is nlo law in force in Kansas by which murdler, robbery, la~rceny, arson, and ,,hr crimes -known to the criminal codes of all , ivilized states, cain be punished, except under the code enacted byr the legislature of Kansas at thle Shawnee MIission.

The provisions of “A.n act for the punishment of crimes against the United States,” approved A&pril 30, 1790, 887

Page 388 view page image

..L…Jur LI,a, part ot-tlie Kansas code which provides for the punigmont of murder,- rob6ry, laroeny, annd otheor criminal offences shall be enf,,r(eo1, or, wletliher all persons guilty of those o)ff’ences ellLll be turned loose to prey upon tile collllulnoity with legalized ilmpunity. It is true that there im, appal)rently, another point of diffbrenee between the two Houses, arisiig,, out of thle (liestion whiether the people of lKaTiil1 Mhill I)0 ititliorized tA elect delegates to a colvelltimll (witlh )roper and satisfactory saft-guiards Tiilimt fraud, violence, and illegalvr voting) tuid form a constitution and state governnlmetprepariLtory to their admission into thile UIIill, or wI ether the territory shall be rcorganizo(l id iL cr,rdaliiee with the provisions of thle b11 from tlloe llouso and left, for some years to cOlme, in that condition. While the li011uso of Itolremontatives has recently expressedf its l)r(e[r(,nrO for the l]tter proposition, y thle passogo of the ill under consideration, your comiijllittfoe are not permitted to assume tlhat they ltveLO iisulporall)lo objections to the ad(nti#sion of KanHlss at titm tiiie, for the reason that at fNw woeks previous they passed a bill to admit tiltt territ)ry ais a state with the o ToLeka (toistitiltiol.

lleneo the chiange of policy oil tioe i)art of the’louse, in abandonlnl. t estato i)venent with thie Topeka constittitioii, tid sul(ti ttiig for it thle lproposition to rtor,naollizo thll territory and( leave itin that con(1itioli, mliust lie tatkeii only as a strong expression of a il,eield preference on the part of the liouso for tlioe bill uTnder consideration, and not conclusive e’vihl(e of insuperable objectioIs1 to a tair I)ill, witlI proper and suitable guallrlntee. aligiiiitlll frultl and illegal voting, to authorize tho peoplo of K~ansas to form’a con-. stitutioti antd state governinent at this time. Wllieo tl)h Sen\late Ilill, nowr pendin, before tl.ie, ll~iOut’, is fii’r nuI illipartitli in all its pro-t visbul,‘with illlnlt’ niul saltisfictory safegua..rds1 ilgltinst il!,,,,al antd frno,1(ulent voting,;. tle bill 1riiiii thle li,ise to roorg’anize the territory onitaiiis n, s ulh provisions and affords no sueli n.~i.‘ill:’(,: It, leaves the qualificat tiols lof t.o vitors at the first clection the Vumo as.tihey wesre tiriaer thie lKansas-Nelbraska act, w%ith ti,i; aim….1_’;… force, the b ill expressly provtdes ta t no e crieminal 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 anv n umber of persons fromn Maissouiri or Iowa, from South Carolina or Massachusetts, or from any other part of the world, may enter the territory on election day antl 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 outrag,es mn the territory of Kansas. No measure can restore peace to Kans.-q which does not effectually protect the ballotbox against -fraud and violence, and impart equal and exact justice to all the inhabitants.

Under existing circumstances, your committee are unable to de’vise any measure which will more certainly accomplish these desirable objects than the bill which has twice passed the Senate, and now only awaits the concurrence of the tlous& of Representatives, with the approval of the President, to become the law of the land. For these reasons your committee recommend that the bill from the House of Representatives 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 preparing an entire new bill. The bill was laid on the table, with the di,tinct understanding that it should be deemnR a test vote on the rejection of the bill. The’ vote was as follows: Yi;.~s. Ie~R.~. AD.tMs., Allen, Br.LI. of Tenn., 3eniamin, 2liifs, Bigler, Brio7ht, Brodrhextd, Brown. Butler. Cas.. Ckla, D)o,ugla.s. (:e;r, 1”tpatri.: Geyer. I:. Itunter.le son, Jone-, of T’en..

31alory. Mlason. Pralt. P,fgh” lCecil,,,. basti,,. Slide’l.

Atuart.‘J’H,;;.of K?Y., Th.. j’,tp,,, or0. J. Toorobs. In,cey, $rellei.

Wright, }‘tdee.-.~. NA-Ys.-.M,.s,rs. 431li of N. 11., Cellamer. Fearenden.

Fi.4 Foot, Foster, “ale, larlan, owvard, Truiubull, Wuade, W,L

Page 389 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. The following is a copy of the bill, preceded by an extract from Mr. Grow’s report accompanying it: ” Why should their present application be rejected, and the y be forced t o pass through the mockery of another elec tion, under the au tho rit y of th is territorial legisla ture, an d subject to another invasion of nonresidents? Immediate action is necessary in order to put an end to the strife in the territory, which, the Presi dent inf orms u s,trete threatens the peace not only of Kansas, but of the Union. ” Th e re presentatives of freedom and of slaver, struggling for supremacy, rally to the pla ins of Kans as with the i mplement s o f w ar and violence. Is the bitterne ss engender ed i n these conflict s to b e allayed, and the dangers of bloodshed to be averted, by C ongress authorizing the peo’ple of the territory at some future time to do what they already have the right to do without any such authority? An act of Congress authorizing them to form a state constitution confers no right that they do not already possess, and is no redress of present grievances, or relief against unjust and oppressive laws. ‘ The only political question upon which the people of Kansas are divided, and the one that has caused all the troubles in the territory, as well as the excitement over the whole country, is the existence of slavery within its limits, and until that question is settled, there can be neither peace in the territory, nor tranquiillity in the country.” On the 7th April, 1856, the memorial of the Senators and Representatives of the socalled state of Kansas, accompanied by the constitution of said state, adopted at Topeka, praying the admission of the same into the Union, was presented, aud referred to the Committee on Territories. Mr. Grow of Pa., on behalf of the majority of the Committee on Territories, consisting of himself, Messrs. Giddings of Ohio, Granger of N. Y., Purviance of Pa., Morrill of Vt., and Perry of Maine, reported a bill to admit Kansas as a state under the Topeka constitution. Mr. Zollicoffer of Tenn. submitted a minority report from the same committee, with a bill providing for the formation of a constitut ion and state govern ment, and the admission -f Kansas as a state. The bill of the majority of the committee admitting Kansas under the Topeka constitut ion, was rejected on the 30th of June, by yeas and na s as follows: YeAs. Mesw rs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Ba rbour. ITl,nry I leneti t. PBenson, Billighurst. Bin gham, io, Bishop, Blis, Br andh,aw, Brenton, Buffinton, Bur lingame, J. If. Cam,,bell, Lewis D. Campbell. Baya rd Clarke, Ezra Clark, Cl awson, ;C’olfiax i, Coios, Cooe, Cragin.

Cume,ba,cek, Dam rell. Ti mothy Davis, Day, Dean, De Witt, Dik, Dickson.

Dodd, Durfee, Ei, EDIkRwB, Emrie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddings, Gilbert, .;ranger. Gro w E, Robert B. tall, Ilarlan. Iickman, Holloway, Thomas R.

Ilorton, Valentine B. Ilorton, IIoward, iltghs.ton, Kelsey, King. sKnapp, Knight, Knowlton. Kox Kulkl. Letiter, MNlatt en, McCarty, Meiacham, Killian Mi ller, illard, MooRE, Morgan, Morril, M urri ay, Nichols, Andrew Oliver c, Parkero, Pearce, Pelto, ennigton, erry, lPettit, Pike, PurViane.

Robbins, Roberts, Robison, Samie. rage, Sap, Scot t. Sherman, Simmons Spinner, Stanton ;trandarlrid aan, Tappan, Thoringto, Thurs ton, Todd, Trrfton, ade, akema nl, Walbridge l do, aldron, Cad alader C. ashtburne.

Elibu II. o anhburne, Israel Washburn e, Watson. Welch lood, Woodruff, Woodwortlh.-106. NAYi,. Nessrs. Aik-en, Allen, Barclay, Barksdale. Bell, eIndley S. Bennett, B-&cock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Brooks, !mRoomI, Bur-ett, Cadwalader, Joan P. CAMPBELL, CARLILE, {ltarutbers. Cas/l,ie, Howell Cobb. Williamson R. W. Cobb .)x, Craiqe, -rawford, CULLEN, Davidson, De,?ver-, Dowdell, )u,NN, Flmundson. Elliot, English. ETHERIDGE, EUSTIS, ErAse, hulklner, Florencl, FOSTER, Thru,mas J. D. Fuller. I Gle, reetwooH.d Ai4,gutstus Htll, J. MIORRISON IIARRIS, -.npso~t IV IIa?-is, IIARRISON, IIAVEN, Herbert, IIOFFMAN, IInsion, Jewett, George W. Jones, J.

Gla6cy Janes, Keitt Kelly, KENNETT. Aidwel4 LuKe, Letcher. LINDLEY, Lumphin AL. EXNDER K. MARSHALL. IIUMPHREY MARSHALL, Samuel S.

MIarshall,Maxwdl. McMullen, McQieen. Smith Miller,MiUson, ./oralecitt Oliver. Orr, Pucker, PAINE, Peck, _Phlps, PORTER, 7’Owetl. PLRYEAR, Quiitoran, READY, RICAUD, RIVERS, Ruffin, lutst. Sandidge, Savage. Seward, Shorte-, Samuel A. Smith, William 5’,ith. WILLIAM R. SMITH, SNEED, Wephe-is, Stewart. -rO,,Tl&btt, Taylor, TMiPPE, UNDERWOOD, VALK, Walker, Warner, Wlathins, Wheeer, WHITNEY, Williams, Daniel B. Wlgd, John V.

Wright, ZOLLICOFFER.-107. Mr. Barclay of Pa. moved to reconsider the ivote. The question was taken on the 3d of July, nd carried, yeas 101, nays 99. The question was then taken on the passage -:f the bill, and it was carried, yeas 106, nays 107,. The vote is so nearly like the other, that it ,s unnecessary to give it. It was the same, with the exception that several gentlemen had h)aired off, which decreases the vote on both ides, and Mr. Barclay changd his vote, w~hich, with the addition of Messrs. Meacham and Pringle, who did not vote before, b~ut .toted ay on this vote, carried the bill. The bill of Mr. Grow was as follows: A bill for the admission of the State of Kansas into the Union. Whereas the people of Kansas have presente.l a constitution, and asked admission into the Union, which constitution, on due examination, is found to be republican in its forni of government: The 1st section defines the boundaries of Kansas. SEC. 2. And be it fititter enacted, Thiat the state of Kansas shall be entitled to two senators anal one representative in Congress. SEC. 3. And be it fuel/hers enacted(, That the said stare of Kansas is admitted into the Uni(n upon the express condition that the people of said state, thlrough their legislature or otlherwise, shall never interfere with the primary dispoisa,l of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right to, dispose of, the sate shall bre impaired or ques tioned, or any other restrictions or limitations imposed thereon than are embraced in the fol 389

Page 390 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK, lowing section of this act; and that they shall Committee on Territories, from which comuit. nlever lay any tax or assessment of any descrip-tee Mr. Douglas, on the 8th of July, 1856, tion wlhatsoever upon the public dolllain of tlhe reported back a substitute therefor, being the tInited States; and in no case sltll nonresi- bill passed by the Senate and sent to tlhe (lent proprietors, wlh, are citizens of the United House, for the admission of Kansas. States, be taxed higher than residents; and The substitute of the committee was adopt that all the navigable waters within the said ed on the same day, by the following vote: state shall be colmmlon highways and forever YEAS.-Messrs. ADAMS, Bayard, BELL of Tennessee, Be, firee, as well to the inhabitants of said state jamin, Biggs, Blight, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, C(lss, Clay, ais to the citizens of the United States, without CRITTENDEN, Douglas, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverso,, any tax, impost, or dutv therefor.

Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Pugh, Reld, -y tax, mpost, or duty therefor. Sebastan, Slidell, Stuart, THOMPSON of Kentucky, Toombbs, SEC. 4. And be il faI t’ter enacted, That the Toucey, Weller, Yulee.-32. ,.oing, nropos n d te s e a’ Nars.-Messrs. Bell of New Hampshire, Collamer, Dodge, lot!owing propositions be, and tile samiie are Durkee, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Hale, HIamlin, Seward, Trun h!iereby, offered to the state of Kansas, for the bull, Wade.-13. free acceptance or rejection by the legislature The vote on the passage of the bill as of said state, which, if accepted by the same, amended was the same as above, with the ex shall be obli,,gaLtory (on the LUnited States and ception that Messrs. Butler and Mason were upon the state of Kansas, to wit absent on the second vote. First. That sections numbered six teen and The bill was never acted on by the House. thirtysix in every towvinshlip of put)ic lands in said state, and where either of said sections, During the first session of the 34th Con or any part thereof, has been sold or otherwise gress the following bills appertaining to Kan been,lisposed of, other lands, equialent thiereto sas were introduced in the Senate:.nd as contiguous as mav lbe, shalil be granted “A bill to restore order and peace in Kan in said state for the use of schools. sas;” “a bill supplementary to’ an act to Second. That sevcnty-two sections of land organize the territories of Nebraska and Kan shall be set apart and reserved for tile use and sas,’ and to provide for the faithful execution support of a state university, to be selected by of the said act in the territory of Kansas, ac the governor of said state, subject to thie appro-cording to the true intent and meaning there val of the Commissioner of the General Land of;” and an “amendment proposed by Mr. office, aind to he app,-“Ipriate,l and applied iil Seward, to the bill (8. 172,)‘to authorize the suchl manner as tilhe legislature of saidl state people of the territory of Kansas to form a pitay prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but constitution and state government, prepary for no other purpose. tory to their admission into the Union, when Third. ThaLt ten entire sections of land, to they have the requisite population;’ ” and lIe selected by the g,)vernor of said state, in “an amendment” proposed by Mr. Toombe legal subdivisions, shall be grlante(l to said as a substitute for the last named bill, (S. state for the purpose of co)mpleting the public 172.) lbuildings, or for the erection of others at the These bills, together with the bill reported seat of government, under the directi(tll of the from the Committee on Territories on the 12th legislature thereof. of March, to authorize the people of Kansas Fourth. That all salt spril,g.

witlins said to form a constitution and state government, state, not exceed(ling twelve in nuiii)(mr, with preparatory to their admission into the Union, six sections of lanld atdjoiiing, (or as cOItitgulus were referred together to the same committee. as may be to each, shall be gralLntedl t(o s1idll On the 30th of June, 1856, Mr. Douglas, from state for its use; the snme tobe sele:te I the the said committee, made a report reeomIgoveriior thereof w itlins ione yeaii aftt(I tile mending the adoption of Mr. Toomnbs’s bill for admission of said stte, anl, whel so sele te, I the admission of Kansas as a state, &c. to be used (Ir (lisp,sel (If o 11 su(.-I terl. Ci)ll-This bill being before the Senate on the 2d( ditiions, and regulatiols as the lerislaru.‘e s}all of July, 1856, direct: Piiilsied,‘illat i1;) stIt splili o,r Ilr,,l. Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, moved an amendthe right whereof ix noow verstel il mIv ii,li-1 ment to the effect that, until the territorial vidual o(r individuals, or swhich nli-ys lie ]eie- - legislature acts upon the subject, the owner after confirmed,or l t l(lel t iiv ilIili-iil,II;l of a slave has no authority to take his slave to or individuanls, shall I)y this article be initel Kansas and hold him as such therein, that to saisd state. every slave so taken for the purpose of settle Fifth. That five per cent (of the net pl.()eeeds ment is free, unless there is some valid act of f sales of all publlic lit,ls lying., wit n1(i sa.Lid a duly constituted Legislative Assembn})lyofsail state, which shliall bIe s11l1 by C‘11nle.s after territor under which he may be held as i tile (ilnission {f said state into tihe Ulliln, slave. aft11r dedul ting all tile expee:lses i1-i,tolt to tile The amendment was rejected by a vote of salie, sihall he paid tol said staie. fill the pul-yeas 9, nay, 34. pose of imaiking pulilic roallds 111(1 inter nal ills-The negative vote is as follows:provelneuts, Its the legisl;ture Stiloll (liroct. Messrs. ADAMS. Allen, Bayard. BELL of Tennessee, Bn.ju. niun, Biggs, Bigler, Bright. Brodheud, Drown, Cass, Clay, CRITTENDEN, Dodge, DougZJlas, Evans, Fitzpotrick, Aeyes, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Proatt. Ptughs Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, THoMIPsoN of Ky., Soom.s, Touwt This bill was referred in the Senate to the Weletr, Fight, Isute 390

Page 391 view page image

NEBRAS.KA AND KANSAS. Bell. Collarmer, Fessenden, T’oot, Foster, Hale, Sew ard, T rumbull, Wad e, and Wils on. Several other amendments were offer e d, w hen the bill was passed by yeas and nays asb follow s: YEAs. Messrs.

Allen. Bayard. BELL of Tenn., Benjamin Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Bradhe,ad, Be-own. GOss. Clay, CRITTgN DE.N, Douglas, Evans, Fit2patrick,. Geyer, tIu?,fer, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Ia., M3allory, Pratt. Pugh, Reid, &ebastian, Slictell. Stuart, THOMPSON of Ky., Torombs, Toucey, Wte/er, Wv.ight,.Iulee. NAYS.-MNlessrs. Bell of N. tI., Collamer, Dodge, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, iale, Seward, Trumbull, Wvade, 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. Mr.

Trumbull then moved an amendment, ‘1’hat the provision in the Nebraska-Kansas act, declaring it to be the true intent and mneaning thereof not to legislate slavery into Kansas, nor to exclude it therefrom, &c., was iiitenled to and does confer power upon the people of Kansas through its territorial legisl.ature to exclude slavery from said territory, ,r to recognise and regulate it therein. Mr. Benjamin moved an amendment to the gimendment, “subject only to the Constitution the United States,” which was adopted. TIhe amendment s en was amended was rejected, yeas 11, nays 34. The nays were as follows: .esssr,. AID.MS, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodeo. Brown. Cass, Clay, CRITTENDEN, Dodge, Douglas. Los. Fitzpatrick, Geyer-, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of la.. MVllory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell. oxtart, TiiomPso.’/ of Ky., Toombs, Toucey, IVeter, Wiight, I,lee. Mr. DUNN. I ask, now, the indulgence of the Ilouse, 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 sonime 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 suspended, 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 ilays. The yeas and na’ys were ordered. The question was taken; and there wereyeas 102, nays 73; as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Aiken. Allison, Ball, Barksda7e, Bell, IIenry Bennet, Hendley S. Bennett, Billinghurst, Bishop, Branch, Burnett, Lewis D. Campbell, Caruthers, GOskie. Howell Cobb, WiUlliamson R. WV Cobb, Cox, C-aige, Crawford, CULLFN, Davidson, HENRY WINTER DAVIS, Day, DUNN, Edmundson, EDWARDS, Elliott, English, EUSTIS, Florence, FOSTER, Thomas Jr.

D. Fuller, Giddlings, Goode, Greenwood. J. MORRISON HARRIS, Sttpson W.

Harris, Thomas L. Harris, HIAnIIsaON, HAVEN, HOFFMAN, Valentine B.

liorton, Iouston, Jewett, Gemnge IV; Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Kidwell.

Lu?opkin, IUMPHREY MARSHALL, Samuel S. arshail, Maxwe, JcMullin, Meacham, Killian Miller. Smith Miller, Millson. MOORE, Morrill, Mott, Nichols, Peck, llhelps, PORTER, Powell, Pringle, PuRYEAR, Quitmnan, READE, IREADY, RICAIJD, lRitehie, RIVERS, Ruffin. Sabin, Sage, Satvige, Scott, Seward.

Sherman, Samuel A. Smith, Wim. Smith, NVILI,IAM t. SMITH, SNEED, Stanton, Stephens, Stewart, Stranahan, SwoPE, Talbott, Thorington, TRIPPE, Tyson UNDERWOOD, Vait, VALK, Warner, Watkins, Wil liams, Win?slow, Daniel B.

Wright, John V. Wright, ZOLLICOFFER.-1o2. Na-si.-Messis Barbour. Benson, Bishop, Bingham. Bliss, Bowie, Bra,dshaw, 1Brelton, BROOM, Buffintin, Burlingame, CARLILE, Chaffee, Clawson, Colfax, Conins. Covod(le, Cragin, Cuniback, Dart-ell, Dickeon, Dodd, Durfee, Emrie-, Flagler, Galloway, Gilbert, Granger, Grow, Robert B. Ilall, Harlan, IHolloway, Tliom:as K.

litorton, llughston, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Knox, LAKE, I,eiter, Mattesoi, McCar ty, Morgan, Norton, Andrew Oliver,‘arker, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Plurviane, liobbins. Sapp, SIhoter. Simmons, Spinner, Tappan, Thurston, Todd, Trafton, Wade, Wal bridge, Waldron. Cedwalader C.

Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburne, Watson, Welch, Wells,‘Whitney. Wood, Woodruff, Woodworth.-73. Mir. Tr umbull introduced an ame ndment nullifying all the laws of the territorial legishLturie of Kansas, and prohibiting any persons it oiii holding  office under the authority thereof. Rejected, yeas 11, nays 36. Nays the same as negative vote in last amendment, with the addition of Messrs. Allen anid 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 Edith any penalty or punishment.

Prohibiting a test oath firom being required from any officer; inuring trial by jury, as at common law, and qualification of jurors according thereto; prolib,iting the pre-payment of a tax as a qualificaltion for a juror; preventing Indians not gcnised by treaty from voting, and preventi pi igo rosecutions for treason, unless it be for l..,yingwar against the United StatWs, or of :1 I~ i:ng. to their enemies, giving them aid and ,.-,,Iltof.,rt. (,!:‘ried, yeas 40, nays 3. ‘I’l’e Tnegative vote being Messrs. Brown, FI’t:-,atrick, and Mason. .Il. C1llamer moved an amendment, That, i:il ite people of the said territory shall form l s~tl Ygovernment, slavery therein, except rt i alrime, shall be prohibited. Provided :!Iwztv., That any person escaping into the >al)m, t~om whom labor or service is lawfully Mlaimed in any state, such fugitive may be la(twfullv reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming nis or her service or labor as aforesai(i. Yeas 10, nays 35. The affirmative vote is as follows: Messrs. 39‘1 ADMISSION OF KANSAS. YF,AS-‘Nl,.r. Bell of New Hampshire, Collamer, Durkee, F,-,-,e.dei,, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, aud lVil.,ion.

Page 392 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. On the 19th of March, 1856, a resolution the territory a fair election cannot be held being before the House to empower the Corn-without a new census, a stringent and well inittee on Elections to send for persons and guarded election law, the selection of ilmpar apers in the Kansas Contested Election case, tital judges, and the presence of United States r. Dunn of Indiana moved an amendment, ltroops at every place of election. which was adopted, providing for a commit-Eighth. That the various elections held by tee of three members of the House to proceed the people of the territory, preliminary to the to Kansas, and make a thorough investigation formation of the state gorernmnent, have been of all matters connected therewith, and report as regular as the disturbed condition of the all the evidence collected to the I’ouse. territory would allow; and that the constitti Oh the 24th of March, 1856, the Speaker tionI passed by the convention held in pursui appointed the following gentlenmen the corn-ance of said elections, embodies awill of a nia iiiittee:-Messrs. Lewis D. Campbell of Ohio, jority of the people. William A. IHoward of Mich., and Mordeca~i OVillivam A. Howard of Mi ci., and Mordecai The minority report concluded as follows: ()liver of Missouri. )r. Campbell afterwards declined, and Mr.

First. That at the first election held in the John Shermall of Ohio was appointed ian his territory under the organic act, for delegate sbn te e-ad aio. Oi wsaonto Congress, General John W. Whitfield re The committee proceeded to Kansas and ceived a plurality ofthe legal votes cast, and Tade their investigations, and returned with s duly elected such delegate, as stated in n-iade their investigations, and returned with the majority report. the testimony, which, with their report, was Second. That the temaJrorito repor t.wa submitted to the House; that of the majority I a3e‘“ll That the teritoria legislature ant of the committee, Messrs.

Howard and Shel-a lelly constituted body, and had power to mnan, on the 2d of July, and that of the mine-pass valid laws, and their enactments are ritv, Mr. Oliver, on the 11th of July, 1856, therefore valid. aud referred to the Committee on Electious Third. That these laws, when appealed to, It would be a senseless waste of space to have b)een used for the protection of life, attempt either to condense the reports or the liberty, and property, and for the maintenance testimony into a form admissible into this of law and order in the territory. work.

Nothineshortofthe entire story would Fourth. That the election under which the No ~sthing delegte JohfW Wheietfirestrwold, wsittieldd satisfy, and that would occupy a volume twice sitting delegate, John Wv.

Whitfie ld, as held, the size of this. The details are so unsatis-was in pursuance of valid law, and should be icetory and so contradictory, that, even if it regarded as a valid election. ‘ats possible to embrace them herein, the:y Fifth. That as said Whitfield, at said elec would confuse rather than e-nlig,hten. 11 would confuse rather than enlihten. ion, received a large number of legal votes The majority report reached the following without opposition, he was duly elected as a co)nclusions:-
delegate to this body, and is entitled to a seat First. That each election in the territory, on this f loor as such. held under the organic or alleged territorial Sixth. That the election under which the law, has been carried by organized invasion contesting delegate, Andrew 11. Reeder, claims his. seat, was not hold under any law, but in from the state of Missouri, by which the people hisetws snot held under any law, but in of the territory have been prevented from ex-titeptuous disregard of all law; and that ercising the rights secured to them by the it should only be regarded as the expressioin crcsnthranic law. tebyteof a band of malcontents and revolutionists, (organic law. Second. That the alleged territorial legisla-and consequently should be wholly disregardtrre was an illegally constituted body, and ed by the touse. had no power to pass valid laws, and their Seventh. As to whether or not Andrew I-. eimactments a,re therefore null and void. Reeder received a greater number of votes of Third. That these alleged laws have not, as resident citizens o0 the 9th, than J. W. Whita general thing, been used to protect persons field did on the 1st of October, 1855, no testi d property, and to punish wrong, but for mony was taken by the committee, so far as a property, and toful punish wrong, but forses. the undersigned knows, nor is it material to) ulnlawful purposes. teise Fourth. That the election under which the the issue. sitting delegate, John W. Whitfield, holds his On the 24th of July, 1856, Mr. Washburne .,eat, was not held in pursuance of any valid presented a majority, and Mr. Stephens of law, and that it should be regarded only as Georgia, a minority, report from the Committhe expression of the choice of those resident tee on Elections on the Kansas Contestedl citizens who voted for him. Election case. SIr. Washburne concluded Fifth.

That the election, under which the with the fiollowing resolutions:c’ontesting delegate, Andrew H. Reeder, claims Resolved, That John W. Whitfield is not enhis seat, was not held in pursuance of law, titled to Ad seat in the House as a delegate from nmd that it should be regarded only as the the territory of Kansas. cxpressi(n of the resident citizens who voted Resolved, That Andrew tI. Reeder be adt;ir hiij.

meitted to a seat on this floor as a delegate Sixth. That Andrew H. Reeder received a from the territory of Kansas. greater number of votes of resident citizens The resolutions were brought to a vote in than John W.

Whitfield, for delegate. the House on the 1st of August, 1856. Seventh.

That in the present condition of | The first resolution, declaring Mr.

Whitfiel1 392

Page 393 view page image

I’uaRY.aR, Quitmlan, REAIDE, REA_DY, RICAUD, Richrardlsoun,l. -S ]tIVERS, Ruffin. Rust, Sandidge g, Sa &age, Seward, Shoiter Scuel A. Smitl, Wiliam Smitle, WILLIAM R. SMITH, SNEED, YEAS. Nes srs. Allbriht, Allison, Ball.

Barbour. Barclay, ,tephel.s. Stewart, SwOPE, Talbott, Taylor-,‘RIPPE, UNDER IIeiry Bennett, Benson. Billinghurst, Bishop, Bliss, BralWo))D, Vail, t,ali,er, Warner, WVatkins, WVinslow, Daicl B. sB, renton, BufBinton, James II. Campbell, Chaffee, Ezra Wfright, John V. Wright, ZOLLICOFFER.-92. Clark, Clawsou, C olfax. Corins, Covode, Cragin, Cumback, Darerell, Dean, Dick, Dodd, Durfee, Emirie, Flagle,r, Gallo The second resolution, declaring Mr. Reeder Dar odd, Durfee Lrie, lagler, Gll way, Giddings. Granger, Grow, Ilarlan, Ilolloway, Hughto be entitled to a seat, was rejected by yeas ston I Kelsey. King, Knapp. Kniglht, Knowltoi, Kn.ox.

Kunxand nays as follows:- kel, Leiter, Matteson, McCktrty, Killian Miller, Millwanl, Morgran, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nortonl, Andr ew Oliver, YEAs.-Messrs. Albriglit, Allison, Barbour. Barclay, IHenry Morgan, Morrill, lott, Murray Nrton, Andrew Oliver, RYnne.t,-Benson, Blb iugiu,Parker, P ear ce, Pelto P, Pennington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, I en1tt, B enso nl, BilliCglurst, Bliafss Bradslaw CIa enton, Pringle, Purvianie, Rtitchie. Robbins, Roberts, Sabin, Sapp, IBuffinton, Jame” II.

Campbell, Chaffee, Ezra Clark, C]aiw. F,,ii, Colfax. Comins, Covode, Cragi, Cumbark Dh’mrell, Sd-drin~nn Simnions, Spinner, Stanton, Stranialhaui, Tappan, lFy, DfanDik. Comickuson. DTodd, Wade, Walbridge, Cadwalader C. Wlashburne, Elihu l)ay, Dean, Dick, Dickson, Dodd, Dturfee, Edie, Eimri-ie, Flagier, It. N%‘a,l,))urn.. Israel Washburne, Watson, Wood, Woodruf (Gallowas, Giddings, ill)ert. Grow, Robert 1B. ]all, Ilarilann, oodwortls-84 lI lolloway, Tbomas R. Ilorton, Hughston. Kelsey, Knapp, NAYS.-essr ie,Bococ, kwie,Branch, CadwaladWer, Inight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, M atts, Le is D. C pell, CARL, C i, Clgnan iia o Nl:Carty, Killinn Miller, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Nichols, X V C lrawf-d, ICENRY kVINTER DAVIS, DovIcll, DUNN N-rton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pelton, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Elliott, E awish, ESTI, Faulkne r, FWIN Ence.

FOSTER, GxDe Fllotty~lish, ErsoTIS Faolkn’er, Florence. FOSTER, Gin)de~, Pringle, l’urviance, Robbins, Roberts, Salin, Sage, Sapp, G-eenwood, IIAVEN, Hickman, Valentine I. ho,rtoi, HBstoni sherman. Spinner, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurs-ere W Jones, J. G6ancy J(ies, Keitt, Kelly, Kidwell, t,,,l, Todd, Traftwn, W ade. Wakeman, Wal)ridge, Wallron, Ltc r, IUIREY ARSHLI, Samul S. Marsha asburne tlih B asbbnne IraelLotchcr, Lumpkino, Ilu,SIrRr.~ M.ARSHALL, Ssameei S. Marshall, :adwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. *1ashburne, Israel Maxwall, M c3ullin, Smith Miller, Alson. MooiRE. Phelps, Vashbburne, Watson, Welch, Wood, Woodruff, Woodworth. u.ll, Mcisllisi, Snil V il er, Milison. MooitE.

Phelps. POITER. Qulitnian, RiEADE, Richardson, RIvERs, Ruffin, Rust,  88.

~~~~~~~~~~~~Sandlidge, Savage, Sewardf, Shorter, Wiliam Smith, SNEED) ,NA~.. ‘essrs. Aik-en, Ball, Barksdale, Bell, Hendley S. St de, Savage, &war, Shoter, Willia SUith, SNED, le,neltBey, Bewart, SWOPE., aylor, Thurston, Tyson, UNDERWOOD, VALK, lBe,ne B, wi tta mb ell, BocockA, Warner, Walye WiTY, Williams, BWinslow, BttDaniel B. .,vainher, JOHN P.

CAMPBELL, Lewis D. Campbell, CARLIL,OCOFFER.-69. (t,‘uthe?-s, Caskie, Howell Cobb, WeViliamsi RX. TV Cobb,’ 9.x. Craige, Crawford, CULLEN, Davidson, HENRY WINTER Tie next amendment was read, as fols)vis, Deneer, Dowdell. DUNN, Edmunzdson, EDWARDS, LEn-E,iUi USTIS, EVANS, Faulkzer, Florence, FOSTERI, IENRY M. lows: F’ULLER, I’homnas J. D. Fuller, Goode, Greenwood. J. MORRISON Add to the clause for defraying the expenses Il.RIs, nerl Wck. Harris, ThomaAs L. Harentine, HARrIsto0nN;, of the Supreme Court, &c., the following: li~~gN.-, Herbert, Hickman, HoFFMAN, Valentine B. Ilorton, II,ulston George W. Jones, KSENNETT, Kidwell, King, LAKE, Provided, however, That no part of the Iltcer LINDLEY, Lumpkin, ALEXANDER K. MARSHALL, IHUM-money hereby appropriated shall be expended -,HREY.MIARSHALL, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, AMck fruUen, i,nith Miller, Milson, MOORE, M!ordecai Oliver, Orr, Peck, for prosecuting or detaining any person or :‘ennington, Phelps, PORTER, Pwell, PURYEAR, Quittman, persons charged with treason, or any other !tzF., REkn~, RICAUD, Richardson, Ritchie, RIVERS, Ruffin, pcal o ith tritory of aysohe !ust, Sand&,ye, Savage, Scott, Sward, Shorter, Simmons, political offence in the territory of Kansas. ,tmuel At. Smithl, IVillian Swsith. WILLIAM R. SMITH, SNEED, Mr. Phelps demanded the yeas and nays. ephens, Stewmaet. SWOPE, Talbott, Taylor, TRIPPE, Tyson, The yeas and nays were ordered. The yeas atnd nays were ordered. _JNDER.WOOD, Vail, ALE. Walker Warner, Watkins, W
eqls, ~‘HITNEY, IVilliams, Winslow, Daniel B. Wrig7ht, Jo77 V’ The question was taken; and it was d( Wrght, ZoLLICOFFR. 113. cided in the affirmativeyeas 82, nays 60, as follows *.On the 6th of August, 1854, the Legisl,-as-olos On the 6th of August, 1854, the Legisla-YEAS.-Messrs.

Albright, Allison, Ball, 1arbour, Barclay, ive, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Ienry Benniett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bliss, Bradshaw, 3ill being before the House, the following’ Brenton, Buffinton, James lI.

Campbell, Chaffee. Ezra otes were had relative to the judiciary ofClark.

Claiwson. Colfax, Coniiis, Covode. Ciagi.n, Cuulback, .otes were had relative to t he jud I Damryoll, Dean, Dick, Dodd DUN, Emrie, Flagler.

Giddings, van,5as. Granger, Grow, liarlan, Hickman, Ilolloway, Valentine I$. The House proceeded to consider the fol-Ilorton, ttIughston, Kelsey, K ing. Knight, KnowIton, Kun kel, Matteson, McCarty, Killian Miller Mliward, Morgan, ,owing amendment, as a proviso to the ap-. Morrill, Mott, Murray, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker,

Page 394 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. It therefore follows, that the celebratei Kansas and Nebraska Bill, as it is called, inii which Congress refused to enact any provision in relation to slavery, either to establish it or abol;ish it, and repealing so much of the Missouri Compromise as professed to legislate upon the subject by Congress, was in strict conformity to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and the treaty of cession made with France.” INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF Gov. GEARY OF KAN SAS, SEPT. 11, 1856. 5piner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thuraton, Todd, Tra c.

Waibburne, Elibu which Congress refused t<) enact any provisit)li B.

ahburne, Israel aebburne, Watson, Wood, Wood-relation to slavery, either to establish it or its uodson. Eyliah, renec iusTta, Gowtc Gicenwuod, Theos L. I!a,ria. hAVEN, conformity to the provisions of the ConstituKu mp/n iIoMPnaY MARSHALL, Samod S. Irwell Quttrnas ‘chardoon, iltvtas, Puffin. Past, Sam dite ~ward Sherte SNEES. Stewart. Thylor, yson, NOERWOOO, arner, a ins, Williams, Wins-INAUGURAL ADDREss or Goy. GEARY OF

KAN 394 So the amendment was agreed to. The bill was passed as amended, the affirmative vote, on its passage, being the same as thatt on the last amendment, with the exceptiiU of Messrs. Bennett of N. Y., and Dunn, who voted against the bill, and with the addition of Messrs. Bishop, Campbell of O., Knapp, Leiter, and Tyson. Gov. Geary, after alluding to the fact that the office was entirely unsought by him, said: With a full knowledge of all the circumiistances surrounding the executive office, I have deliberately accepted it, and, as God may give me strength and ability, I will endeavor faithfully to discharge its various requirements. When I received my commission I was solemnly sworn to support the Constittution of the United States, a nd t o discharge ml dutie a s ao Go vern or of Ka nsas wit h fidelita. By referencte to the Act for thwe organizat io n of this territory, passed by Congress on the( 30th day of March, 1854, I find my d u ties more particula rly defined. Ambon g other things, I am “to take care that the laws ie faith fully executed.” The Constitution of the Unite d States anal the organic law of this territory, w i ll be lights.

by which I will be guide d in my executive cares. A careful and dispassionate examination (,t’ our o rganic act will satis fy any reasonable, person that th e p rovisions are eminently just and beneficial. If this act has been distortep to unworthy purposes, it is no t the fault of its provisions. The great leading feature of that act i s the right therein conferred upon tli), a ctual an d bona.fide inhabitants of this teioti;tory ” in the exercise of selfgovernment, tn, determine for themselves what shall be thyie own domestic institutions, subject only to tll,, Constitution and the laws duly enacted 1,Congress under it.” The people, accinstoni( to selfgovernment in the states from when~(,; they came, and having removed to this territory witIr the bona fide intention of makili,,’ it their future residence, were supposed to 1,(: capable of creating their own municipal g,;vernment, and to be the best judges of the r own local necessities and institutions. Thlii is what is termed “
popular sovereignty.” By. this phrase we simply mean the right of tl *!

majority of the people of the several states and territories, being qualified electors, to regulate their own domestic concerns, and t(, make their own municipal laws. Thus untderstood, this doctrine underlies the whole system of republican government. It is tlh(e great right of selfgovernment to which our ancestors, in the stormy days of the revolt:tion, pledged ” their lives, their fortunes, end their sacred honor.” The following article, on the KansasNebraska 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 understood: ” The Constitution of the United States, Article 6, Sec. 2, declares that’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 tinder 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 celede territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and adilmitted 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 prowtetd 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 Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, and the territories of Kansas, Nebraska, and Minnesota. So long as any portion of this territory remained territory, and had not been erected into a state, Congress could pass no law abolishling 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 became a municipal government, and having ju risdicti on of the subject, could abolis h slavery, if they chose; but no other power had any right so to do.

Page 395 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. business, without any interference fronuL )thers, has been guarantied to us by the law which Congress has made for the organization of this territory. This right of selfgovernment-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 sul)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 al)bsolute right of making their municipal laws, and from citizens who deem themselves aggrieved 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 yoell value the peace of the territory and the maintenance 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 obedience to law. All the provisions of the Constitution of the United States must be sacredly observed, all the acts of Congress having reference to this territory must be unhesitatingly obeyed, and the decisions of our courts respected(. 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 considerations 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 .nothing but Kansas and my country. Gov.

Geary then concluded his address, with an appeal to Providence to aid him in restoring peace to Kansas. A doctrine so eminently just should receive til e wi lling homage of every American citizen. aVhen legi timat ely expressed and duly ascertaithed, igo the wi ll t of bth e majority must be the imperative rule of civil action for every lawal)idin w citizen. Th is simple, just rule of acti on, h as brought order o ut of chaos, and by a progress unpa ralleled in the history of the world, has made a few feeble infant coloies a giant confederated republic. No man, co nversant with the st ate of affairs now in Kansas, can close his eye s t o the fact tlgat much civil disturbance has for a long timhe past existed in this territory. Various reasons have been assigned for this unfortunait e condition of affairs, and n umerous renedies have been proposed. The Htouse of Rep resentatives of the United States have ignored the claims of both gentlemen claimningre the legal right t o repre sent the people of this territory in that b ody. T h e Topeka c onstitution, recognised by the House, has been repudiated by the Senate. Various measures, each, in the opinion of its respective advoc ates, suggestive of peace to Kansas, ha ve been alternately proposed and rejected. Men outside of the territory, in various se ctions of the Union, i nfluence d by reasons be st known to themselves, ha ve endeav ore d to stir up internal strife, and to array brother against brother. In t his conflic t of opinion, and for the most unworthy purposes, Kansa s 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 Southof 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 collie and reason together? Let us banish all outside influence from our deliberations, and assemble around our council 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 confidence amongst ourselves, and insure the respect of the whole country. Let us show ourselves worthy and capable of selfgovern ment. Do not the inhabitants of this territory better understand what domestic institutions are suited to their condition-what laws will be most conducive to their prosperity and ha~ppinless-than the citizens of distant, or even neighboring stas~es? This great right of regulating our own affairs and attending to our own CONVENTION ACT om KANSAS. An act to provide for taking the census and election for delegates to Convention. Be it enacted by the Governor and Legislative 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 apportionment, and an election of members of a convention, 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 inhabitants, citizens of the United States over i 1 t 39t:

Page 396 view page image

TIIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. twentyone vears of ag.e, and all other white ing the integrity or fidelity of said returns, and persons actually re;idiing within their respect-for this purpose shall have power to administer ive counties; and for this purpose shall have oaths and examinie witnesses and compel their ()ower to appoint one or more deputies to assist attendance in such manner as said judge shall in such duties, not to exceed one in each deemn necessary. municipal township, each of whom, before en-Sec. 6. That, as soon as the said list of lega:l leriig upon the duties of his office, shall take voters shall thus have been revised and cor;nd subscribe an oath or affirmation to suprected, it shall be the duty of the several s)ort the Constitution of the United States, and probate judges to make out full and fair copie~ litithfully and impartially discharge the duties thereof, and without delay furnish to the imposed on him by this act, according to the governor of the territory one copy and to the best of his skill and judgment, which oath or secretary of the territory one copy; and it affirmation shall be administered to them shall be thile duty of the governor to cause severally, and be duly certified by a judge or copies thereof, distinguishing the returns from ,‘lerk of the District Court of the United States, each county or election district, to be printel or judge or clerk of the probate court for the and distributed generally among the inhabitseveral counties, or by a justice of tile peace, ants of the territory; and one copy shall be and filed and recorded in the office of the secre-deposited with the clerk of each court of record tary of the territory. or probate iudge within the limits of said ter Sec. 2. In case of any vacancy in the office ritory, and one copy delivered to each judge of sheriff, the duties inmposed upon such sheriff of the election, and at least three copies shall by this act shall devolve upon and be per-be posted up at each place of voting. lt)rmed by the judge of prolbate court of the Sec. 7. It shall be the duty of the governor county in which such vacancy may exist, and secretary of the territory, so soon as the who may appoint deputies not to exceed one census shall be completed and returns made, in each mnunicipal township, and, in case the to proceed to make an apportionment of the (,ffice of both sheriff and probate judge in any members for a convention aniong the different county shall be or become vacant, the over-counties and election districts in said territory nor shall appoint some competent resident of in the following manner: The whole number such county to perform such duty, who shall of legal voters shall be divided by sixty, and have the same right to appoint deputies, take the product of such division, rejecting any urd subscribe the same oath, and perform fraction of a unit, shall be the ratio or rule of all the requirements of this act as applied to apportionment of members among the several sheriffs. counties or election districts; and if any county Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the sheriff, or election district shall not have a number p,robate judge, or person appointed by the of legal voters thus ascertained equal to the governor, as herein provided, in each county ratio, it shall be attached to some adjoining or election district, on or before the 10th day county or district, and thus form a represenof April next, to file in the office of the probate tative district; the number of said voters in judge of such county or election district a full each county or district shall then be divided and complete list of all the qualified voters by the ratio, and the product shall be the resident in his said county or election district number of representatives apportioned to such on the first day of April, eighteen hundred county or district: Provided, That the loss in and fifty-seven, which list shall exhibit, in a the number of members, caused by the fracfair and legible hanid, the names of all such tions remaining in the several counties in the lemgal voters.

division of the legal voters thereof, shall be Sec. 4. It shall be and it is hereby madle compensated by assigning to so many counties the duty of each probate judge, upon sucl or districts as have the largest fractions an returns being made, without delay to cause to additional member for its fraction as may be lie losted, at three of the most public places necessary to make the whole number of reprein each election precinct in his county or elec-sentatives sixty. tion district, one copy of such list of qualified Sec. S. An election shall be held for memvoters, to the end that every inhabitant may bers of a convention to form a constitution inspect the same and apply to said probate for the state of Kansas, according to the apjudge to correct any error he may find there-portionmnent to be made as aforesaid on the in, in the manner hereinafter provided. third Monday in June next, to be held at the Sect 5. Said probate judge shall remain in various election precincts established in the session each day, Sundays excepted, from the territory, in accordance with the provisions I time of receiving said returns until the first law on that sulject; and at such election no lay of May next, at sueL places as shall be person shall be permitted to vote unless his most convenient to the inhabitants of the name shall appear upon said corrected list.

county or election district, and proceed to the Sec. 9. The board of county commissioners inspection of said returns, and hear, correct, shall appoint the places of voting for their and finally determine according to the facts, respective counties or election districts. They without unreasonable delay, all questions con-shall appoint three suitable persons to be cerning the omission,if any person from said judges of the election at each place of vrotin,g. returns, or the improper insertion of aiy name They shall cause a notice of the places of on said returns; and any other question affect-holding elections in their respective counties i’)96

Page 397 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. or districts to be published and distributed in!

election, shall vote more than once, whether every election district or precinct ten days at the same or a different place, shall be before the day Of election. If any judge of adjudge(id guilty of a misdtemeanor, and he election so appointed shall fail or refuse to punishedby a fineofnotlessthan onehundred perform the duties of said office’, the legal dollars nor exceeding two hundred, or by voters assembled at the place and on the day imprisonment not less than three months nor appointed for said election shall have the exceeding six, or both. power to fill such vacancy by election amongst Sec. 15. Any person whatsoever who may themselves. be charged with holding the election herein Sec. 10. The judges of election shall each, authorized who shall wilfully and knowingly before entering on the discharge of his duties, commit any fraud or irregularity whatever, make oath or affirmation that he will faith-with the intent to hinder or prevent or defeat fully and impartially discharge the duties of a fair expression of the popular will in the judge of the election according to law, which said election, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, l)ath shall be administered by any officer au-and punished by fine not less than five hundred thorized to administer oaths. The clerks of dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, election shall be appointed by the judges, and and imprisonment not less than six months shall take the like oath or affirmation, to be nor more than twelve months, or both. administered by one of the judges or by any Sec. 16. The delegates thus elected shall of the officers aforesaid. Duplicate returns assemble in convention at the capitol of said of election shall be made and certified by the territory on the first Monday of September judges and clerks, one of which shall be de-next, and shall proceed to form a constitution posited with the board of county commission-and state government, which shall be repulers for the county or district in which the lican in its form, for admission into the Union, election is held, and the other shall be trans-on an equal footing with the original states in meitted to the secretary of the territory, and all respects whatever, by the name of the the one having the highest number of votes in State of Kansas. his county or election district shall be the re-Sec. 17. Said committee, when assembled, presentative for such county or district; and, shall elect a presiding officer, and all other in case of a tie or a contest in which it can-officers necessary for the transaction of their not be satisfactorily determined who was duly business, and the members and officers of said elected, the convention when assembled shall convention shall be entitled to receive the order a new election, as herein provided. same compensation as the members and Sec. 11. Every bona fide inhabitant of the officers of the Legislative Assembly of Kansas territory of Kansas on the third Monday of Territory, to be paid out of any money in the June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-treasury not otherwise appropriated. seven, being a citizen of the United States, Sec. 18. All sheriffs and other officers, for over the age of twentyone years, and who the discharge of the duties required of them shall have resided three months next before by this act, shall be entitled to receive four said election in the county in which he offers dollars for each day they are necessarily to vote, and no other person whatever, shall employed. be entitled to vote at said election, and any Sec. 19. Doniphan shall constitute the first person qualified as a voter may be a delegate election district, Brown and Nemaha the to said convention, and no others. second, Atchison the third, Leavenworth the See. 12. All persons hereby authorized to fourth, Jefferson the fifth, Calhoun the sixth, take the census, or to assist in the taking Marshall the seventh, Riley the eighth, Johnthereof, shall have power to administer oaths son the ninth, Douglas the tenth, Shawnee, and examine persons on oath in all cases Richardson and Davis the eleventh, Lykins where it may be necessary to the full and the twelfth, Franklin the thirteenth, WVeller, faithful performance of their duties under this Breckenridge, Wise and Madison the four-. act. teenth, Butler and Coffey the fifteenth, finn Sec. 13. If any person, by menace, threats, the sixteenth, Anderson the seventeenth, Boutor force, or by any other unlawful means, bon, McGee, Dorn and Allen the eighteenth, shall directly or indirectly attempt to infiu-Woodson, Wilson, Godfrey, Greenwood and (nce anv qualified voter in giving his vote, or IIunter the nineteenth. deter him from going to the poll, or disturb Sec. 20. All votes given at the election or hinder him in the free exercise of his right herein provided for shall be viva voce. of suffrage at said election, the person so offending shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by fine not less than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not Washington City, March 25. less than three months nor more than six, or To the Editor of the Union. by both. Sir: In your issue of the 21st instant, in Sec. 14. That every person not being a which the act of the Legislative Assembly of qualified voter according to the provisions of Kansas Territory providing for the formation this act, who shall vote at any election within of a state constitution was published, you said territory, knowing that he is not entitled copied also an article from the New York ‘o vote, and every person who, at the same Journal of Commerce, which called in question 397

Page 398 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the propriety of the -ourse of that body in not Be it enacted by the Gotvernor and Legislative Providing for a reference of the constitution to I Assembly of the Territory of Kansas, That the the people, and stated that a failure so to do twelfth section of an act, entitled “An act to was, in the judgment of that paper, “a mani-punish offences against slave property,” be, fest defect.” ai.d the same is hereby, repealed. Being somewhat acquainted with the im-TIHOMIAS JOHNSON, pressions under which the Assembly acted, I President of the Council.

trust I may be pardoned in saying a word in WM. G. MATHIAS. explanation of their view of the matter. Speaker of the Ihouse. The committees in which the bill originated I hereby certify that the within is a true were of opinion that the Assembly had no and correct copy of the enrolled bill.

power to dictate to the convention (which, THOMAS C. HUGIEns, when assembled, would represent the sover-Chief Clerk Council. eignty of the people) what course should be Lecompton, K. T., Feb. 14, 1857. t or any. o su b.e _t ADDRESS OF HON. F. P. STANTON, SECRETARY AND ACTING

GOVERNOR. To the people of the territory of Kansas: Fellow citizens:-The lion. Robert 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 recognises the authority of the territorial gov. ernment in all matters which are within the scope of the organic act of Congress and con, 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 execution 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 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 conventionl. I do not doubt, however, that, in order to avoid all pretext for resistance to the peaceful operation of this law the convention itself will, in some form, provide for submitting the great distracting question regarding their Act of T
erritorial Legislature of Kansas repeal ing what are known as the obnoxious acts. Be it enacted by th e G over nor and Legislativre 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 several acts of Congress in that section specified, lIe, and the same is hereby, repealed. Sec. 2. All officers hereafter elected or appointed 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 Constitution of the United States and the provisions of an act to organize the territories of Ne1)raska 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 subscribe 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 inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed. This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage. THOMAS JOHNSON, President of the Council. WM. 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.

398 A. J. ISACKS.

Page 399 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. social institution, which has so long agitated adopted generously, without any consideration the people of Kansas, to a fair vote of all the of the origin of the difficulty, and without ictual bonafide residents of the territory, with questi(!n as to the party which may be responevery possible security against fraud and vi, - sible for the wrong. It will involve no conlence. If the constitution be thus framed, cession or advantage to either party, but will iand the question of difference thus submitted be merely an act of economy designed to obt’) the decision of the people, I believe that literate, as far as possible, from the hearts of Kansas will be admitted by Congress, without the people, all memory of the disastrous and dlelay, as one of the sovereign states of the lamentable contest which has heretofore desoAmerican Union, and the territorial authorities lated this unhappy territory. If it shall have will be immediately withdrawn. that effect, though it may pardon some in I need scarcely say that all the power of the stances of gross wrong and outrage, it will territorial executive will be exerted, with en-tend to calm the excited passions of the peotire impartiality, to prevent fraud, to suppress ple, and to prevent similar occurrences in the violence, and to secure to every citizen a fair future. It will be a measure of conciliation opportunity for the safe and peaceful exercise and peace, and will leave the people free fromn of his elective privilege. It will be no less the apprehension in the future, so that they can dluty than the earnest desire and great pleasure safely devote themselves to those important ef the governor, or acting governor of the ter-labors which are designed to make this terriiitory, to carry out, in good faith, the policy tory a great, prosperous, and happy state. iavowed by the President of the United States FRED. P. STANTON, in his recent inaugural address, in which he Secretary and Acting Governor. (Ileclares it to be “the imperative and indis-Lecompton, 17th April, 1857. ensable duty of the government of the United tates to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expression of his Correspondence between a committee of )opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each Free State men and Acting Governor Stanton individual must be preserved,” and, “that upon the mode of election of delegates to the 1 ieing accomplished, nothing can be fairer than State Convention. to leave the people of a territory, free from all Lawrence, K. T., April 25. fi)reign interference, to decide their own des-H-on. F. P. STA.NTON, Acting Governor of tiny for themselves, subject only to the Consti-Kansas Territory. tution of the United States.” Dear Sir: In your address to the people of Nothing is wanting but to secure the confi-Lawrence last evening, we understood you to dence of the people of all parties in the sin-say in substance, that you would enforce the cerity of the declared intention of the territo-laws enacted by a legislature elected by the rial executive, to carry out these principles in people of an adjoining state until they should good faith, in order to induce the cooperation be repealed; also, if the laws are unjust or of all good men in the pending measures for distasteful our remedy is the ballot box. adopting a state constitution. The principles History has indelibly recorded the fact themselves cannot fail to be acceptable to the which Gen. Maclean admitted, in our presober judgment of the people; and I ardently sence, last evening, that the ballt-box was hope, for the sake of the paramount interests taken from the people of Kansas territory, on involved, that the necessary confidence will the 30th March, 1855, and has not to this day not be withheld. been returned. From that time until the pre The deplorable events which have marked sent the people have had no voice whatever in the history of the territory up to this time have making laws or in selecting officers to addloubtless left their natural results of enmity minister them, notwithstanding the worldand heart-burnings among the people, as also wide declaration by the administration at upon the criminal records of the territorial Washington, and its friends elsewhere, that courts. Indictments have been found against the people should be perfectly free to regumany of those who acted in a military capa-late their institutions in their own way, subiity under the authority of the territorial go-ject only to the Constitution of the United vernment, for acts and excesses alleged to be States. wholly illegal and unjustifiable. On the other We are now invited to participate in an hland, similar prosecutions have been insti-election of delegates to a constitutional contuted against those who resisted the territorial vention to meet in September next, to frame authorities, and who undertook to retaliate for a constitution and state government. We are the alleged wrongs committed against them. told that the election law is a good one; that It is my deliberate opinion that, in order to the voice of the actual settlers can be heard promote peace and harmony, and to secure the at the polls, and that justice will be meted out future repose of the people, there ought to be to all parties. We regret that the past conat general amnesty in reference to all those duct of the officers to superintend this election acts, on both sides, which grew out of the po-has not been such as to permit us to believe litical contest, and which were not corruptly that they will secure a fair vote of the people; and feloniously committed for personal gain, and the fact that many well known citizens and to gratify individual malignity. in Kansas are omitted from the registry list, This measure, if adopted at all, ought to be and that as well known citizens and residentu 399

Page 400 view page image

THiE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Missouri are registered, is conclusive proof Executive Office, to 1is that a fair election is not intended, and Lecompton, K. T., April 30, 1857. J will not be permitted by the officers who have Gentlemen: Yours of the 25th inst. reached thus far had the matter in charge. But if a me only by last night’s mail. I proceed withftir election is intended, notwithstanding the out delay to reply to the proposition you make body of men calling it was not elected by the |in reference to the election about to be held pe.)ple of Kansas; and notwithstanding the for delegates to a constitutional convention. people have already formed a constitution, of As I take a different view of the laws of which a large majority approve, we, the un-the territory from that which you express, it dersigned, are willing to overlook the past, will be impossible for me to consent to any and go into the election of delegates to a con-new proceeding in opposition to that which stitutional convention, should a convention of I as been sanctioned by the legislative authothe people of Kansas concur, if the following.rities. course will be adopted by the officers of the I did not hear from Gen. Maclean any such election, to wit:- admission as you represent him to have made. First.-Two persons shall be elected in each That gentleman spoke only of his individual township or district to correct the registry list action in the particular mentioned, and  one by the ProSlavery and one by the Free whether that action was right or wrong, or State party, who shall proceed in company to whether it occurred in that individual instance take the census, and register all legal voters; only, or in a thousand others, by men either and the probate judges shall correct the first from Missouri or Massachusetts, it could not lists, and the appointment of delegates shall invalidate the laws which now prevail in the be made according to the returns thus made. territory. If I believed-as I (do not believe Second.-Four judges of election shall be your assertion that the laws of Kansas were selected for each voting precinct, two by the “enacted by a legislature elected by the ProSlavery and two by the Free State party; people of an adjoining state,” it would still be and the names of three of said judges shall be impossible for me to set them aside-the required to a certificate of election to entitle a attempt to do so would be an act of gross person to a seat in the convention. usurpation, not less objectionable in its char We think your excellency will at once per-acter and effects than the fraudulent interceive that some such course must be pursued ference which you attribute to the people to correct the list, or no correction can be of Missouri. I must, therefore, say to you in made.

We are informed by credible reports the most explicit language, that I can do that in some districts, nonresidents to the nothing which denies the authority and vanumber of thousands have already been regis-lidity of the laws enacted within this tertered, while actual Free State settlers have ritory. Congress alone has power to abrogate been refused; and how else can the lists be them. corrected than by a retaking of the census by I have no authority over the probate judges. some person or persons who have regard for It is not my province to advise them in relaan oath? Testimony of a negative character tion to the performance of their judicial funccan avail nothing, and to obtain positive testi-tions. Yet it will not be improper for me to mony with reference to the residence of those say that it would be very judicious and beenlisted from another state would be impossi-coming in them to obtain every possible inforble in the short time remaining before the mation from respectable men of both parties, election. in order to enable them to correct the list of That you have the power to take any course voters. If such impartial men of their own you may think proper to secure a fair election, will and within the time limited by law, could we have no doubt. It is not material that the take a new census and present it to the proletter of the law calling the election should be bate judges with sufficient proof of its fairstrictly followed, indeed no law at all is requi-ness and accuracy, I think the probate judges site, so that the will of a majority of the people would be bound to adopt it and return it to can be ascertained. Congress can give legality the governor as the true list legally corrected. to a constitution formed in accordance with a I should be sorry to see any probate judge in previous territorial act or without one, and we the territory refuse to receive the sworn testitrust your excellency will restore the ballot-mony of two respectable men, differing in box to the people of Kansas in all its purity politics, as to any matter within their knowat any risk of informality in minor and non-ledge, connected with the residence of citizens, essential provisions of the election regulations.

and their qualifications as voters. I do not Very respectfully, believe such a wrong can possibly have oc Your obedient servants, curred, and I therefoire say that if you had C. Robinson, G. W. Smith, been desirous of obtaining a coriect list of Wim. Ilutchinson, Geo. F. Earle, voters for the coming election, you had it in Edward Clark, Joseph Cracl lin, your power to accomplish that object in per Ephraim Nute, Jr., G. Jenkins, bect conformity with the law. John Ilutchinson, S. S. Emnory, It is not my purpose to reply to your state G. C. Brackett, John II. Wakefield, ment of facts. I cannot do so from any per E. D. Ladd, J. A. Finley. soncl knowledge enabling me either to admit C W. Babcock, or deny them. I may say, however [ have 400

Page 401 view page image

INEBRASKA AND KANSAS. heard statements quite as authentic as your own, 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 thev have refused to give any names at all. Yout 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 thy law very wisely authorizes only three. The governor has nothing to do with the ir appo intm ent. 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 judg,es 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 ever is, or indeed can be adopted by political parties in any country. I most sincerely hope the probate judges may adopt this suggestion, or any other which may better avail to secure a perfectly fair and independent expression 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, WMl.

IIUTC11I.N’SoN, EDWARD CLARK, and others. bfy the authority of Congress, and clo t hed by it in the comprehensive language of the organic law with f ull power to p imake su ch an enactment. The territ oria l legislatunce, then, in assembling this convention, wer e fully sus tained by the a ct of Cowngress, and the autho rity of the convention is distinctly recognised in my instructions fro m the President of t he Un i ted States. Those who opp os e this curse, cannot av er the all eged irregularity of the territorial legislature, whose laws in town and city elections, in cpoporate franch ises, and o n all other s ubjects but slavery, the y ackno w l edg e by their votes an d acquiescence. If that legislature was invalid, then are we without law or order in Kansas, wit hou t town, city.

or countv organization, all legal and judicial transactions are void, all titles n ul l, and anarchy r eign s thr ot oughout our borders. It is my duty, in seeing that all constitl tihonal laws are fairly executed, to take care, as far as practicab le, that this election of dele gates to the con vention shall be free from fraud or violence, and tha t they shall be pro tected in their deliberations. The people of Kanss the n are invited by the highest autho rt y known to th e Constitu tion, to participate freely and fairly in the election of delegates to frame a constitution an d state gov ernment. The law has per for m ed its entire appropriate function, when it exte nds to the eop le 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 o f suffrage, auth ori ze those who do vote to act for them in that contingency, and the ab sentees are as much bound under the law and Constitu tion, 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, selfgov-ernment would be impracticable, and monarchy or despotism would remain as the only alternative. You should not console yourselves, my fel lo-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 whv incur the hazard of the preliminary formation of a constitution by a minority, as alleged b)y you, when a imiajority, by theil-own votes, could control the forminig 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 territorial legislature is the power ord~ainled for this purpose by the Congress of the United States, and in opposing it, you resist the am,thority of the federal govrerxment. Thle lo. N oAUGURAL ADDRESS OF THE

HoN. ROBERT J. WALKER, GOVERNOR OF KANSAS, ON THE 27Tn OF MAY, 1857.

Governor Walker, after alluding to the cirarmstances under which he accepted the posiion of Governor of Kansas, proceeded to say: Unider our practice the preliminary act of Xraining a state constitution is uniformly -erf,rmed through the instrumentality of a .nvention of delegates chosen by the people ,enaselyes. That convention is now about to elected by you under the call of the terri-rial legislature, created and so recoguised 2,5 40i

Page 402 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. gislature was called into being by the Congress no power to interfere with slavery in the states of 1854, and is recognised in the very latest where it exists, and if it can now be estabCongressional legislation. It is recognised by lished, as is clearly the doctrine of the Constithe present Chief Magistrate of the Union, just tution, that Congress has no authority to interchosen by the American people, and many of?fere with the people of a territory on this its acts are now in operation here by universal subject, in forming a state constitution, the assent. As the Governor of the Territory of question must be removed from Congressional Kansas, I must support the laws and the Con-and Presidential elections. stitution, and I have no other alternative under This is the principle affirmed by Congress my oath, but to see that all constitutional laws in the act organizing this territory, ratified are fully and fairly executed. by the people of the United States in the re I see in this act calling the convention, no cent election, and maintained by the late deimproper or unconstitutional restrictions upon cision of the Supreme Court of the United the right of suffrage. I see in it no test oath States. If this principle can be carried into or other similar provisions objected to in rela-successful operation in Kansas,-that her tion to previous laws, but clearly repealed as people shall determine what shall be her social repugnant to the provisions of this act, so far institutions,-the slavery question must be as regards the election of delegates to this con-withdrawn from the halls of Congress, and vention. It is said that a fair and full vote from our Presidential conflicts, and the safety will not be taken. Who can safely predict of the Union be placed beyond all peril: such a result? Nor is it just for a majority, whereas, if the principle should be defeated as they allege, to throw the power into the here, the slavery agitation must be renewed hands of a minority, from a mere apprehension in all elections throughout the country, with (I trust entirely unfounded) that they will not increasing bitterness, until it shall eventually be permitted to exercise the right of suffrage. overthrow the government. If, by fraud or violence,.a majority should not It is this agitation which, to European be permitted to vote, there is a remedy, it is powers, presents the only hope of subverting hoped, in the wisdom and justice of the con-our free institutions, and, as a consequence, vention itself, acting under the obligations of destroying the principle of selfgovernment an oath, and a proper responsibility to the tri-throughout the world. It is this hope that bunal of public opinion. There is a remedy, has already inflicted deep injury upon our also, if such facts can be demonstrated, in the country, exciting monarchical or despotic inrefusal of Congress to admit a state into the terference with our domestic as well as foreign Union under a constitution imposed by a mi-affairs, and inducing their interposition, not nority upon a majority by fraud or violence. only in our elections, but in diplomatic interIndeed, I cannot doubt that the convention, course to arrest our progress, to limit our inafter having framed a state constitution, will fluence and power. depriving us of great adsubmit it for ratification or rejection. by a vantages in peaceful territorial expansion, as majority of the then actual bonaf’de resident well as in trade with the nations o the world. settlers of Kansas. Indeed, when I reflect upon the hostile Gov. Walker then says, that with the above position of the European press during the views well known to the President and Cabi-recent election, and their exulting predictions net, and approved by them, he accepted the of the dissolution of our Union as a conseappointment of governor. His instructions quence of the triumph of a sectional candidate, from the President through the Secretary of I cannot doubt, that the peaceful and permaState sustain “the regular legislature of the nent establishment of these principles now territory” in “assembling a convention to being subjected to their finaul test in Kansas, form a constitution,” and they express the will terminate European opposition to all opinion of the President that “when such a those measures which must so much increase constitution shall be submitted to the people our commerce, furnish new markets for our of a territory, they must be protected in the products and fabrics, and by conservative exercise of their right of voting for or against peaceful progress, carry our flag and the emthat instrument; and the fair expression of pire of our Constitution into new and adjacent the popular will must not be interrupted by regions indispensable as a part of the Union fraud or violence.” And Gov. W. then repeats to our welfare and security, adding coffee, his clear conviction, that unless the conven-sugar, and other articles to our staple exports, tion submit the constitution to the vote of all whilst greatly reducing their price to the conthe actual resident settlers in Kansas, and the sumer. election be fairly and justly conducted, the Nor is it only in our foreign intercourse that constitution will be, and ought to be, rejected peace will be preserved, and our prosperity adby Congress. After directing attention more vanced, by the accepted fact of the permanence impressively to other questions of local im-of our government, based upon the peaceful portance, and commenting upon the future of settlement of this question in Kansas; but the territory, the governor says:- at home, the same sentiment will awaken re I cannot too earnestly impress upon you the newed confidence in the stability of our instinecessity of removing the slavery agitation tutions, give a new impulse to allour industry, from the halls of Congress, and Presidential and carry us onward in a career of progress oonfficts. It is conceded that Congress has and prosperit(,y exceeding even our most u 402

Page 403 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.’, guine expectations; a new movement of European capital will flow in upon us for permanent investment, and a new exodus of the European masses, aided by the pre-emption principle, carrywestwardtheadvancingcolumn 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 question? Has it emancipated a single slave or improved their condition? Has it made asingle state free, where slavery otherwise w,Arld have existed? Has it accelerated. the, disappearance of slavery from the more northern of the slaveholding states, or accomplished any practical good whatever? No, my fellowcitizens, nothing but unmitigated evil has already ensued, with disaster still more fearful impending for the future, as a consequence of this a_itation. - There is a law more powerful than the legislation of man, more potent than passion or prejudice, that must ultimately determ’e the location of slavery in this country; i is the isothermal line, it is the law of the thermnometer, of latitude or altitude, regulating climate, labor, and productions, and as a consequence, profit and loss. Thus even upon the mountain heights of the tropics, slavery r can no more exist than in northern latltudes, because it is unprofitable, being unsuited 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 operating for or against slavery in Kansas. If the elevated plains of Kansas, stretching to the base of our American Alps-the Rocky MIountainsand including their eastern crest crowned with perpetual snow, from which sweep over her open prairies those chilling blasts reducing the average range of the thermometer here to a temperature nearly as low as that of New England, should render slavery unprofitable here, because unsuited to the tropical constitution of the negro race, the law above referred to must ultimately determine that question here, and can no more be controlled by the legislation of man, than any other moral or physical law of the Almighty. Especially must this law operate with irre~ istible force in this country, where the number of slaves is limited and cannot be increased by importation, where many millions of acres uf sugar and cotton lands are still uncultivated, and, from the ever augmenting demand, exceedin the su Iy, the price of those great staples has nearly doubled, demanding vastlyr more slave labor for their production. If, from the operation of these causes, slavery should not exist here, I trust it by no neans follows that Kansas should become a state controlled by tile treason and fanaticism of abolition. She has, in any event, certain c~onstitutional duties to perform to her sister atates, and especially to her immediate neigh bor - the slave-holdirng state of Missouri. Through that great-state, b y rivers and railroads, must flow to a great e xte nt o ur traide and in te r course, o ur import s and exports. Our en tire eastern front is upon her border; f rom Missou ri come a great number of her citizens; even t he fa rms of the two states are. cut by the lin e o f stat e bound ary, p ar t in Kansas, pat i issouri her citizens meet us in her tens eet s daily intercourse, an d th at Kansas should become hostile to aIissouri, an asylum for her f u gitive slav e s, or a propagandist of abolition t reason, would be alikee ine xpedient and unjust, and fatal t o the contin uan ce of the American Union. In any event, then, I trust that the constitution of Kans as wil l conta in s uch clauses s wi ll for ever secure to the stat e of Missouri th e faithfu l perform ance of all constitutional guarantees, not only by federal, but by state authority, and the s upr e mac y within our limits of the authorit y of t he Supreme Court of the United States on a ll constituI qetional questions b e firmly established. Upon the s o uth Kansas is bou nded by th e greaat Southwestern Indian Territory. This is one of the m ost salubrious and fertile portions of this continent. It is a great cotton growing region, admirably adopted b y soi l 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 American union. The Indian treaties will constitute no obstacle any more than precisely similar treaties did in ansas, 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 cheerfully given This territory contains doublethe area of the state of Indiana, and if necessary, an adequate portion of the western and more elevated part could be set apart exclusively 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 promoting. all their interests. To the eastern boundary of this region on the state of Arkansas, 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 Iexico, and with the Southern Pacific Railroad, leading through Texas to San Francisco. IS is essential to the true interests, not only of Kansas, but of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas, Iowa and Missouri, anld the whole region west of the ~lississippi, that this coterminous Southwestern Indian Territory should speedily become a state, not only to supplyr us with cotton, and receive our pro. ducts in return, but:X8 occupying the area 403

Page 404 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. L tion by the people and our immediate admis sion into the Union, the rapid extinguishment of Indian title, and the occupancy of those Ilan by settlers and cultivators; the diffusion of universal education: pre-emnptions, for the. actual settlers; the stIte rapidly intersected by a net work of rhilroads; our churcheS, schools colleges, and university, carrying westw ard the progress of law and religion, liberty.nd - civilizatlon; our towns, cities, and villages,,*
prosperous and progressing, ou r farms teem-nmg with abundant pro _ucts, and greatly aup-prediated in value, and peace, happiness, and prosperity smiling throughout our borders.. With proper clauses in our constitution, an& the peaceful arbitrament of this questions m Kansas may beepme the model state of the’i American Union. She may bring down upon. us from North to South, from East to West, the.praises. and blessings of every patriotic Ameriean,.and of every friend of selfgovern-; ment throughout the world. She may record. her name on the proudest page of the history N
of our country, and of the world, and as the j youngest and last born child of the America - tynion, all will hail and regard her with re-, spect and affection..,., ~ On the other hand, if you cannot thus i peacefully decide this question, fraud, vio J lence, andinjustice will reign supreme through-. out our borders, and we will have achieved th “A undying infamy of having destroyed the lirl erty-of our country, and of the world. Ite will become a by-word of reproach and oblo:-_ quy; and all history will record the fact, that’.’ Ka-nsas was the grave of the American Unionsl -Never was so momentous a question subuitt,,, ted to the decis ion of any tpe o)le; anv d wi.11 hcannot avoid the alternatives nosw placed be’T, fore us of glory or of shame., May that overruling Providence who brou i our forefathers’in safety to Jamest-own m i Plymouth, who watched over our coloni: 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 struggle! and perils of the revolution; who assembled in 1787 that noble band of patriots and state& men from North and South who framed the] Federal Constitution; who has augmented ou0 numbers from three millions to thirty million’! has carried us from the western slope of the i Alleghenies, through the great valleys of theft Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri, and now asa lutes our standard on the shores of the Pacifiq i 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 prejudlice, and enable us to coamduct to a successful conclusion the great expt riment of selfgovernment now being md within our b)oundaries~. h Is it not infinitely better that slavery should b~e ab~olishled or establli~shed in Kansas, rather. E permitted to glovern ourselves? Is the absenoe~[ or existence of slaveryr in Kanus~as raamont.,t;,; in, 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 w e l l a.s with the Gulf, the connexion can only be secured by this S ou thwe stern Territory be ooming a state, and to this Kansas should direct her earnet s attention as essential to her prosperity. Our country and the world are regarding with pr ofound interest the struaggle now inr pendins in K an s as. Whether we are compe tent to selfgovernment, whether we can decide this controversy peacefully for ourselves by our own votes witho ut f rau d or violence, whether t he great principle s of self-aovernment and state s overeig nty c an be can rried-here into suc cessful noperatution, are t h e questions n ow t o be determi ned, and up on the plains of Kansas ma y n ow be fought the last great and decisive battle, involving the fate of th pipe Union, of state sovereig nty, of self-,overnment, and the liber ties of the world. If y ou could, even for a brief p eriod, soften or extinguish sectional passions or prejudice, and l ifi yourselves to the full realization of the mo men t ous issues intrusted to yr our decision, you will feel, that no greater responsibility was ever devolved on any people. It is not m erely shal l slavery exist in or disappear from Kans as, but shall the gre at princpl e of self-,overnment and state so vereinty be maintained or subverted. State sovereignty is ma inly a practical princi ple in so far as it is illustrate d by the gre a t sovereign right of the maj ority of the people, in formine a state government to adopt their own social i nstitutions, an d this principle is disregarded whenever such decision is subpacefl by Congress, or overthrown by extertal intrusio n, or by dom estic f raud or vio lence. All those who oppose this principle, are the enemies of state ri,,hts, of self-governmeat, of theConstitution and the Union. Do you love slavery so much, or hate it so intensely, that you would endeavor to establish or exclude it bL 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 academies, 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 become the arbiter. On the one handl, if you can and will decide )eacefullv this q uesti on you rselvaes, I see for n,ansh.s an immediate career of p:)wer, pro-l gress, andi prosperity, unsurpassed in thel his-I tory of the world. I see the pe~tceful esters-i lislxment of our state constitution, its ra;tifieas. I i 404

Page 405 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. to the great questions of state sovereignty, of self-governmient, and of the Union? Is the sable African alone entitled to your sympathy and consideration, even if he were happier as a fieemiiaii ti,,an as a slave, either here or in St. D,,mnigo, or the British West Indies, or Spaiiish America, where the emancipated slat e has receded to batrbarisml, and approaches the lowest point in the descending scale of moral, physical, and intellectual degradation? IHale OUr white b)rethren(
of the great American and European race no claiims upon our attention?

htave they no rights or interests entitled to regard andl protection?

Shall the destiny of the African in Kansas exclude all considerations connected with our own happiness aiid prosperity? And is it for the handful of that race now in Kansas, or that may be hereafter introduced, that we should subvert the Union, and the great principles of self-ri,)eriument and state sovereignty, and imbiu e our hands in the blood of our countrymei! Imnportant as this African question may be ill Ki tsa.s, iand which it is your solemn rihlit to deterinitlne, it sinks into insignificance comipaied withI the perpetuity of the Union, and tihe final successful establishtent of the principles of state sovereignty and free g(,vernnicnt. If patriotism, if devotion to the Cons.;itution and love of the ITnion, should not induce the muinolity to yield to the majority ()n this,tuestioni, let themn reflect that in no event can the minority successfully deterniinie this question permanently, and that in no c)lltingency will Congress admit Kansas as a slave or free state, unless a majority of the )people of Kansas shall first have fairly and freelv decided this question for themselves by a dii ect v ote on the adoption of the constitutioii, excludling all fraud or violence. The nini,ritv, in resisting the will of the majority, imay involve Kansas again in civil war, they maw’ bring upon her reproach and obloquy, and ldestroy her progress and prosperity; they ma.y keep her for years out of the Union, and il the whirlwind of agitation, sweep away the,)vernment itself. But Kansas never can 1(0 bro,uht’ into the Union with or without slavery, except by a previous solemn decision, fully, freely, and fairly made by a majority of lier people in voting for or against the aLdop~tioIn of her state constitution. Why, then, should this just, peaceful, and constitutioii l1 mode of settlement meet with oppositioii 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 thr(iughouiit the Union? Is she to become a mele theme for agitators in other states, the theatre on which they shall perform the bloody drama of treason and disunion? Does -.he weant 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.hrown, 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 arbitrament of this question for herself’?

Wha t benefit will the great bjdy of the people of Kansas deriv e from these agitations? They may for a brief perio d give consequence a nd power t o political lhe ad ers and agitat ors; but i t is at the expense of the happiness a nd welfare of the great body of tne people of th e is 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 socalled constitution. fi’amed at Topeka, they deemii that entire race so inferior and de(gra(led, as to exclude them all forever from Kansas, wh-lietlher 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 antislavery 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 bv the entire Republican party in Congress, thus distinctly affirming the receint decision of the Suprente 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, including 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 ifs all respects whatsoever, social and political, clearly follows from the position that Africans al-e citizens of the United States. Nor is the Supreme Court of the Union less clearly vindicated by the position now assumed here by the published creed of this party, that the people of Kansats, in forming their state constitution (and not Congress), must decide this question of slavery for themselves. IHaving thus sustained the court on both the controverted points decided by that tribunal, it is hoped they will not. approve the anarchical and r evolutionar y proceedings of other states, expungingX the Supreme Court from our system by depriving it of the great power for w hich it was created, of expounding the Constitution. If that be done, we can have, in fact., no unity of government. or fundamental law, but just as many ever varying 405

Page 406 view page image

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 alm6st 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 selfgovernment, 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 emblenm of our countrv’s glory, will be rent by son 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 selfgovernment. The architects of our country’s ruin, the assassins of her peace and prosperity, will share the same commuon 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 peopie: in their love of country, of liberty, and of the Union. Especially is miy confidence unbounded in the hardy pioneers and settlers of the West. It was such settlers of a new state devoted to the C(onstitution and the Union, whom I long represented in the Senate of the United States, atnd whose rights and interests it was my pride and pleasure there, ais well as in the Treasury Department, to l)r,)tect and a(ldvocate. It was men like these whose rifles drove back the invader from the plains of O0 cans, and planted the stars and s tripes upon the victorious fields of Mexico. These are the nien whom gold cannot corrupt, nor fo es 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 Constitution 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, e and pe e and prosperity o nce mor e reign throughout th e borders. Il 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 Ufnion 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 Uinion, points us to a future more glorious and sublime than mind can conceive or pen des r ibe. 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 tIis 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 sacrifices, shall establish the great principles of our constitutional confederacy of free and sovereign states. Whole populat,ioa. … 4120 no returns. ~..

512E … 2897 … 5529 no returns. … 885 … 415 no returns. no return&

No. of le gal voters. … 1086.. … 206.. … 140…. 804…. 1837….

555…. 291,. … 2O6…. 353…. 205.. 406 11. J. WALKER. UNITED

STATES oiF AMERICA, TERRITORY oF KANSAS. To the Legal Voters and Elective (cers ot Kansas: Whereas the following returns of the census taken under the act of the Legislative Assembly, entitled 11 An act to provide for the taking of a census and the election of delegate to Convention,” passed the 19th of Februar.T, 1857, have been made to me, to wit: Di.t. ,‘D,,Yiphan 2’B,(,Wt… 11 N,-tmal,… 3. Atchiso… 4.’.rth 5. jtr,4’.”’ -: 6.

C,,lh’u’ 7. -l h.11 S. l’ottawatowle

Page 407 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. YEAS.-Messrs. AiAcn, AKERS, Allen, Barsdaite, Ba&ll, Hendley S. Bennett. Bococ, Bowie, Boyce, Branch. Brooks, BROOM, Burnett., Cadwalader, JOHN P. CAMPBELL, CARLILE, hruthers, Caskie, Clingmnan, WViUiamson R. W. Cbb, Cox, Crawford, CULLEN, Davidson, HENRY WINTER DAVIS, Jacob C.. Davis, Denver, Dowdell, Edmumidson, Ellott, English, ETHERIDGO, E STeIS, EVANS, Faulkner, Florence, FOSTER, Thontas J. D. Fu ler. Garnett, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, J. MORRISON HARRIS, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, HARRISON, Herbert, Hickman, IIOFFMAN, Houston, Jewett, George W. Jones, J. Glancy Jones, Keitt, Kelly, KENNETT, Kidwell, LAKE, Letcher, LINDLEY, Lumpkin, ALEXANDER K. MARSHALL, HUMPHREY MARSIHALL, Samuel S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullin, Mc ueen, Smitlh Miller, MiUson, MOORE, Morrison, Mordecai Oliver, Orr, Packer, PAINE, Peck, Plelps, PORTER, Powell, PURYEAR, Quitman, READY, RICAUD, RIVERS, Ruffin, Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Shorter, Samudel A. Smith, William Smith, W ILLIAM R.

SMITH, SNEED, Stephens, SwOPE, Talbaott, Taylor, TRIPPE, Tyson, UNDERWOOD, Vail, VALK, Walker, Warner,. t’at lkis, Wells, Wheeler, WHITNEY, Williams, Winslow, John V. Wright, ZOLLICOFFER.-112. NAYS -Messrs. Albright, Allison, Ball, Barbour, Barclay, Henry Bennett, Benson, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bishop, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, Buffinton, Burlingame, James dt. Campbell, Lewis D. Campbell, Chaffee, Bayard Clarke, Ezra Clark, Clawson, Colfax. Comins, Covode, Cragin, Cumback, Damrell, Timothy Davis, Day, Dean, De Witt, Dick, Dodd, Durfee, Edie, EDWARDS, Emrie, Flagler, Galloway, Giddtings, Gilbert, Granger, Grow, Robert B. Hall, Harlan, HAVEN, Htodges, Hlolloway, Thomas R. Horton, Valentine B. Horton, Itoward, Inughston, Kelsey, King, Knapp, Knight, Knowlton, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, Mace, Matteson, McCarty, Killian Miller, Millward, Morgan, Morrill, Mott, Murray, Nichols, Norton, Andrew Oliver, Parker, Pearce, lelton, Pennington, Perry, Pettit, Pike, Pringle, Purviance, Ritchie, Robbins, Roberts, Robison, Sabin, Sapp, Scott, Sherman, Simmons, Spinner, Stanton, Stranahan, Tappan, Thorington, Thurston, Todd, Trafton, Wade, Wakeman, Walbridge, Wsldron, Cadwalader C. Washburne, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburne, Welch, Woodruff, Woodworth.-1108. Now, therefore, I, Frederick P. Stanton, Secretary and Acting Governor, do hereby proclaim that, according to the provisions of the said act, and the census returns made in pursuance thereof, and upon a proper app ortion - ment among the legal voters of the several districts aforesaid, they are respectively entitled to ele ct to the convention provided for in said law the number of delegates herein assigne d t o th them; tha t is to say: To the lt District-Doniphan county, 7 delegates. 2d ” Brown and Nemaha, 2. 3d “

Atchison co unty, 5. 4th ” Leavenworth, 12. 5th ” Jefferson, 4. 6th “

Calhoun, 2. ?th ” Marshall, 1. 8th ” Riley and Pottawatomie, 4. 9th “

Johnson, 3. 10th’ Dougla;: 8. 11th ” Shawnee, Richardson, and Danis, 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 apportionment 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. A piece of unwritten history, connected with the legislation on the KansasNebraska bill, will find an appropriate place here. It will be recollected that the motion 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 f ri en ds of the bill, who voted against that motion, 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 opposed 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 whi ch en sued, was a caucus of its friends, held a few nights subsequent, in the Committee on Foreign Relations room of thl *On the ost of Dec., 1856, John W. Whitfield having again been elected a delegate from Kansas, the following proceedings took place in the H ouse of Representatives: Mr. Phelps. I hold in my hand the credlentials of John W. Whitfield, elected as a delegate from the territor y of Kansas to this session of Congress. M r. Whitfield is presen t, find I desire that the oath of office be administered to him. I will ask the clerk, however, first to read the credentials. The credentials were read, as follows: United States of Amreica, T,erritory of Kansas: This Ls to certify that John W. Whitfield was duly elected a delegate to the second ession of the thirty-fourth Congrs of the United States from the territory of Kansas, at sn election held on the first Monday of October, 1856. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my [t~ s.] hand, and caused to be affixed the seal of the terri Done at Lecompton, this 8th day of October, 1856. JOHN W. GFARY, Governor of Kansas territory. ]By the Governor: DAB

IEL WOODSON, Secretary. On t h e 9th of Dec., the House decided that Gen.

Whitfield should be sworn in, as follows: These; but were procdings should hav e followed ov Geary’s .Massage; but were iaavertently omitted. 407 9.

Johnson… 10. Douglas… 11. Shawnee… Ri,hardron Davis 12. Lyken.

13….. 14….. 15. 16. Linn 18. Dorn, ad Allen Total 496…….. 890

1318…….. 3727 283…….. - ………. - 41-3:::::::: 135-2 no returns. no returns. no return& 413 1821 no rets. 2622 AN ITEM OF HISTORY.

Page 408 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Kansas, we are apt to refer merely to the existence of two violent political parties in that territory, (dlivided on the questio)n of slavery, just as we speak of such parties in the states.

This presents no adeqatate idea of the true state of the case. The di iding, line there is no4 between two political parties, lboth acknowledg ing the laqwful existen(e of the government, but between those who arie l)val to this gov, ernmiien t -and those who have endeavored to (edesitroy its existeni(e by f,)uce and b)y usurpa tion -li)etweeii those blho sustain aud those who have ie all in their power to overthrow the territiii.l government established Iby Congress. ‘rtlis goverlinent they would long since have subv e rted had it not lieeii protected firom their ,assaults })y the troops of the Unitedl States. Su(hIi has been the c,con(lition of affairs since lmy inauguration. E%ver since that period a large portioin of the people of Kansas have l)een ini a state (of rel)ellion afainst the goivern. dm ient, with at military le,der at their heal( of ,ta most turbulent anl dangerois charater. They have never acikno led(ed, but have con.stautly reiounnced andl defied the governmlent to which they owe alle giance, and have been all the time in a state of resistance against its .Lautllh(iity. They ha-e ill the time been endlea rvoring, to) sul)vert it alid to estal)lish a revolu tionary ()overiniment, under the socalled Topeka econstitution, in its sted(l.

Even at this very wmeit the T’opek.a legrislature tre in session.

hVlioever has read the co’respon(leice of Gov ernor Walker with the State Department, re cently coxiiiiimunic,tted( to the Senate, will be convinced that this picturie is not overdr.awn. l ie lIlwa,ys protested ag-iinst the withdrtawal of aiiny portion uf the iiiilitary force of the United States from the territory, deeming its presence absolutely necessary for the preser vation of the reg,ular governnient and the exe cution of the laws.

In his very first despatct to the Secretary of State, dated June 2, 1857, he says: “Thle most alarmiiing moviement, how ever, proceeds fro’m the.assemb)ling on the 9thl J u ne of the so-calletl Topeka legislature, with a view to the ena(ctiient of an entire code of Ktlaws. Of course it will be uiy endleavor to pre vent such a result, as it would lead to mnevi table and disastrous collision, and, in faiet, re new the civil war in K
ansas.” This was with difficulty prevented by the eff)rts of Governor Walker; but s,on thereafter, on the 14th of J-ulv, we find him requestinii General Ilarney to ftiriishi him a reiiimenit of draigoons to pro ceed to the city of Liwrence-and this for the reason thalt hie hadl r(ece(ived authentic intelli dgea(tne, rv eified lIv his (ii,wi ictul observation, tthat. d(ang,erO(is rel)ellion had occurred, “inve(lv ing 2n (upen defiance if the laws and the esttblisliniient of an insurgent governulent iin thalt city.” In the goiernor’s d (lespatch of July 15, he ilnfnTriefi t he Secdetlly off St:ite “that this movei themit a t La iwrence wits the lbeginning of a plan, origin a itin g in that city, to organize insurrecalion thriiughiiut the territory; arid especially it all towns, cities, or coulities where the repuh Iliouse of Representatives, where there were in attendance some 98 members of both IIouses, and where the subject was fully discussed. Mr. Wim. H. Witte, of Penns.iylvania, and others, opposed the britnging of the discussion on the bill to too early a close. The folly of such aL course of action upon a measure em bracing so vital a principle as that involved, destro0ying as it did a compromise, in behalf of which the prejudices of the Northern peo ple were so high,ly excite,-, became apparent to the nmeeting, and it was determine(d that the discussion should be full and atmple, and tlhat when it reached that standard, then, and not till then, should the bill be broughfit to a vote.

Thle caucus atppointed MNr. Stephens of Ga., Mr. Olds of Ohio, Mr. Witte of Penn., Mr. Bocock of Virginia, Alr. English of Indiaia,t and Mr. Kerr of North Carolina, -a committee to superintend the progress of the bill, to arrange the debate in its favor, atnd (attend tc all nmatters tending to promote its safe transit through the Ilouse. Tlhese gentlemen did jfus tice to the positions thus assigned themn, and to their efforts may be attributed to a grea,t extent the success which attended it. The wise policy of discussion triuimphed. Thlere were more speeches made by the opponents of the bill tlhan by its friends, which compl)letely precluded them fi’on complaining of atny alplicationm of the gag to their right of discussion and thus deprived themn of what would hlave been, in their hands, a potent instrument tc Qxcite opposition to the measure. O t f d the P of Fe., 185, the Presient com municated the following message to Cobngress: lb the >Senate andi House of Representtatives of the UaTiited States: I have received from J. Calhoun, Esq., pre sident of the late constitutional convention of Kansas, st copy,, dulv certified hy himiisel.f of the constitution h’alited i)y thatt b)odv, with the expression of a h,,pe that I would sul)biit t}he samnie to the consi(lera,tion of Congress, ” with the view of the admission of Kansas into the Union as atf independent state.” In c omipliance with this reqLuest, I herewith trai:siiit to Congress, for their ac(tiom, the constituti,,n of Kansas, with the ordinance res)ectin,,g the pub.Jic lands, as well.s the letter of’ Mr. Calll )un, dated at Lecon, ptoni On the 14thi ltiiniO, Ib)y which they were a,ec(,npanie,!. Iflt ingr-eceived but a sin-le cOpy of the constitution and ordinance, I send this to the Setomate. A great delusion seems to p)erva.de tlse pul)lic min’d in reltation to) the (condition of parties in Kan, sas. T’lls ariseis fi’n the difficulty of’ indu(ing the Amiierican p~e(,ple to realize thje fact that aniv l)ortiorn of themii shioul(h b)e in ai, stale of -elbelio,n ag ainst the goi-erIiiiient un(ler which they live. Whenl we speak of tlhe affairs 408

Page 409 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. lican party have a majority. Lawrence is the, hotl)ed (if all the abol)ition movements in this territory. It is the town established by the abolition societies of the east, and w hilst there are respectable people there, it is filled by ai considerable number of m ercenaries who are paid by abolition societies to perpetuate andaI ,liffuse agitation throughout Kansas, and pre vent a peaceful settlement of this question. Ilain ing fileti in inducingr their own so-calledt 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 nail, I must close by assuring you that the spirit of rebellion pervades the great nmass of the republican party elf this territory, instigated, as I entertain no doul)t they are, by eas.tern societies, having in view results most disastrous to the government ince to the Unionp; and that the continued presence of General lIarllev here is indispensable, its originally stipulated by me, with a large body of dragoons andl-several batteries.” On the 20th July, 1857, General Lane, Under the authority of the Topeka convention, undertook, as G,)vernor Walker informs us, “to organize the whole socalled 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 suboission. This is proved by recent atrocities committed on such nmen by Topekaites. The speedy location of large bodies of regular troops here, with two batteries, is necessary. The Ltawrence insurgents await the development of this new revolutionary mil itary orgcanization,” &c., &c.

In the governor’s despatch of July 27th, he says that ” General Lane and his staff everywhere deny the authority of the territorial laws, and counsel a total disregard of these en-alctmnents.” Without making further quotations of a siminilar character from other despatches of Governor Walker, it appears by a reference to Mr. Stanton’s communication to General Cass, of the 9th of Decemlber last, that the’ important step of calling,r the legislature together was taken after Ihe] had become satisfied that the election ordered by the convention on the 21st instant could not be conducted without -ollision and bloodshed.” So intense was the lisloyal feeling aimiong the enemies of the government established by Congress, that an election wxhich afforded theml an opportunity, if in the mnajority, of making Kansas a free state, ccording to their own profes~sed desire, could lot be condue-ted without collision and blood.hed! The truth is, that, up till the present moment, .he enemnies of the exs;Eting govternmnent still Adhere to their ToJpeka rev~olultionary constituion and government. The very first para g raph o f the message of Gover nor Roin son, dated on the 7tl of rDe cember, to the Topeka le,isllt ture, now assembled at Lawrence, con t”hins an open defiance of the Constitution and lawsv of the r Ujnited States. The gove rno r stays: “

The conven tion which frailed the constitu tion at Topeka originated with the people of Kan sXas Territory. They have adopted and ratified the same twice by a dihre( t vote, n an d also indi rectly through two elections of state ofl cers and dmenubers of the state legislatu re. Yet i t has pleased th e athe inistration to reiyard the whole proceedintg revolution-,ry.” This Topeka eovernme nt t a dhered to with such tre a sonablhe pertinacity, t is a government in direc t opposition to the ex isting g overnment prescribed and re(lmOeaniseid ly 1Co1 ress. It is a usurpation of the same character as it would be foir a portion of the people of anry state of the Union to unldertake to estabol i sh a s eparate ,,)vernment, witlin i ts limits, for th e purpose of redressing(, any grievance, real or imaginary, of which thev might complan in, against the legit imate state governfm ent. Such a prin ciple, if c arried into executi on, would destroy all lawful authority and prod uc e universal ,anarchy. Fromt this statement of fitets, the reason t)e comes palpable why the enemies of the govern Thelit auth o rized by Congress haave refused to vote for delegates to the Kansas constitution a l convention, and also afterwards on the ques tion of slaverv submitted by it to the people. It is because they have ever refised to sa-nc tion or recogrise any other constitution than that framed at Topeka. tII-d the whole Lecompton constitution been submitted to the people, the adhelerents 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 constitu tion. The y would have do ne this, not upon a consider,b 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 recognised the right of the people of the territory, without any enabling act from Congress, to form a state constim.t tion, is too clear for argunment. For Congress ” to league the people o~f the territory perfectly free,” in fi’aming their constitution, ” to form an’rd regulate their domestic institutions in their ow^n flay, sub~ject only to the Constitution of the Unlitedl States,” and then to say that they shall nlot be permitted to proceed and frame a constitution in their own way, withoutr’an e~press authority fronl CSongress, appears to be ~almost a contr adiction in terms. It wouldl be 409

Page 410 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BO(OK. much more plausible to contend that Congress had no power to) pass such an enabliug act, than to argue that the people of a Territory might be kept out of the Union for an indefinite periol,t and until it might please Congress to permit thoem to exercise the right of selfgovernment. This would be to adlopt not” their own way,” but the way which Congress might prescribe. It is impossible that any people could have piroceeded with more reg,,ularity in the form osalion of a constitution than the people of Kansas havre done. It was necessary, first, to ascertain whether it was the desire of the people to be relieved from their territorial de nedence and establish a state government. or this purpose, the territorial legislature, in 1855, passed a law “for taking the sense of the pe,ple of this territory upl)on the expediency of catlling, a convention to form a state constitution” at the general election to be held in October, 1856. Tile “sense of th e people” was accordingly taken, and they decided 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 framning a cornstitution of their own for the purpose of subverting the territorial government. In pursuance of this decision of the people in favor of a convention, the territorial legislature, en 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 legislative body for a similar purpose. The right of suffrage at this election is clearly and justly defined. “Every bo0a( fide inhabitant of the territory of Kansas,” on the third Monday of June, the day of the election, who was a citizen of the United States above the age of twentyone, 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 freedom and fitirness of tl-hec election, provision was made for the registry of the qualified voters; and, in purisulance thereof, nine thousand two hundred.anil fifty-onie voters were registered. Governor WValker did his whole duty in urging all the qualified citizens of Kansas to vote at this election. In his inaugural address, on the 27th May last, he informed them that “under our practice th e preliminary act of frtming a state constitution is uniformly performed through the instrumentality of a coinvention of delegates chosen by the people themselves. That convention 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 comirehensive language of the organic law, with full power to make such aii enactinent. The territorial legislature, then, in assemlbling this onvention, were fully sustained by the act of Congress, and the authority of the convention is distinctly recog,nised in my instructions from the President of the United States.” The governor also clearly and distinctly warns them what woult be the consequences if they should not participate in the election. “The people of Kansas, then, (he says), are invited by the hig,hest authority known to the Constitution, to participate, freely and fairly, in the election of delegates to frame a constitution annd s tate gpo)verenment. The l aw has performed its entire appropriate function when it extends to the people the right of suffrage, but it cannot connpel the perforlmance 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 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 voluntary, selfgovernment would be impracticable, aud monarchy or despotism would remain 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 Congress, must have been abandoned. Congress had adjourned on the 3d March previous, having recognised the legal existence of the territorial legislature in a variety of forms, which I need not enumerate. Indeed, the delegate elected to the Ilouse of Representatives, under a territorial law, had been admitted to his seat, and had just completed his term of service on the day previous to my inaugturation. This was the propitious-moment for settling all difficulties in Kansas. This was the time for abandoning the revolutionary Topeka organization, and for the enemies of the existing government to conform to the laws, and to unite with its friends in franking a state constitution. But this they refused to do, arid the consequences of their refusal to submit to lawful authority and vote at the election of delegates, may yet prove to be o)f {a most deplorable character. Would that the respect for the laws of the la.nd which so eminently distinguished the men of the past geieratioii could be revived! It is at (lisreg,ar(i and violation of the law w!hich have for years kept the territory of’ Kansas in a state of almost op, n reliellion against its government. It is the same spilrit which has prodluced actual rebellion in Utath. Our only safety consistsq in ob~edience Fard conlforllnity to law. Should a general s~pirit. aga.in.s~t its enforcement prevail, this whill prove fatal toc us as a nation. W~e acknow ledg~ae no master but th-e lass; and silold~~ me cut loose fromt its restl-aillts, and every one do wheat seemleth good in his ownri eyes, our case w ill inldeedl be hopeless. The enemies of the territorial government 410

Page 411 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. d3termined still to resist the authlority of Con gress. They refused to rote for delegates to the convelition, not because, from circumi stances which I need not d(letail, there was an omission to register the c,)n,maratively 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 revoltitiontarv or g:nization, and defeat the establishment of any other constitution than that which they had fraiiied 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 coesmplain. From this review, it is manlifes t that the Le coiilpton convention, atcording to every prin ciple of constitutional law, was letgally consti tuted and was invested with power to frame a constitution. The sacred principle of popular sovereignty has Ibeen invoked in favor of the enemies of’ law and order in Kansas. But in what manner is popular sovereignty to be exercised in this coulntry, if not thlroug,,h the instrumentality of estal)lished law? In certain small republics of ancient tines, the people did assemble in primary meeting’s, passed laws, and directed public affairs. In our country this is maniifestly impossible. Popular sovereignhty can be exercised here only through the ballot-)ox; and if the people will refuse to exercise it in this manner, as they have done in Kansats ait tile election of delegates, it is not for them to complain that their rights hlave been violated.

Th-ie Kansas convention, thus lawfully constitute(, proceeded to frane a constitution, ard, lIa Ling completed their W(ork, finally adjourned( on the ithli day of November last. Tihey (lid not think proper to submit the whole of this constitution to i popular vote, but they did submit the question whetlher Kansals should be a free or a slave state to the people.

This was the question whigh had convulsed the Union and shaken it to its very centre. This was the question awhichi had lighted up the flames of civil war in Kansas, an( h;l(ld produced dangerous sectional pLarties throughout the confederacy. It wais of a character so paramount in respect to the condition of Kaiisas as to rivet the anxious attrention of the people of the whole countiy upoii it, and it alone. No person thoughlt of iany other question. For my own part, when I instructed G,veruor Walker, inl general teris, in f a rvow of suli)nmitting the conrstitutii)t to the people, I had no ob)ject in view except the all-al)sorbing question of slav ery. Inii what manner the peuple of Kansas might regiil;ate their other coucerns w as n(Dt a suilject whlich attrlac tehd any attention. In filet, the geJueral provisions of our recent state coistiOtufitoss, after an experience of eighty yoa.lrs, are,so siiiiilar aud so excellent that it wimulil be difi’ult to go frl t wroenlgatthe present (ay in t’raLiiin,, a new Cconstitution. I then believed, and still believe, that un der the organic act, the Kansas conven tion wer e bound to submit this all important ques tioni of slavery to the people. It was never, howvever, my opinion that, independently of this act, they would have been bound to submit any portion of the co nstituti on to aopular vote, in order to give it validity. Had I entertained such an o pin ion, th is 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 sul)jecte(d to their subsequent ap probation. It would be a m-ost inconvenient limiitation of their own power, imposed by the people upon themnselves, to exclude them from exercising their soverei(nty in any lawful manner they think proper. tt 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 mandate of the constitution. Here, agrain, a fair opportunity was presented to the adherents of the Topeka constitution, if they were the ma,jority, to decide this exciting question ” in their own watty,” 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 default. I heartily rejoice that a wiser and a better spirit p’evailed amonig a larg-e majority of these people on the first MIonday of January; and that they did, on that da,,y,vote under the Lec(,m)toii constitution for a governor and other state officeris, a inetuber of Congress and for tmiembil)ers of the legislature. This election wsell warrlny contested by the parties, and a larger vote was polled than at any previous election in the territory. We may now reasonably hope that the revolutionary Topeka orgaiiz,-titnt) will be speedily alid finally abandonred, anti this will g~o far towards the final settlemlenlt of the unhappy differences in Kansals. If’ frauds have been commnitted at this electionl, either by one or both parties, the legrislature andl~ thle people of K~ans;as, under the ir conlstitutionl, still know how to redress themselves anTd punish these detestable lbut to~o commlon crimes without any outside interference. 41’L

Page 412 view page image

_-….. - - 0 ‘,,~;- -. _ = -A’ — - a =” -‘ ” ” ‘ *, — i  C ^ ~

_. C-; G,” ” 0~~~~~~ 0 e “-’” ” C,- -. C - 0’-r ” c =~~~C c~ - -

~C.. - -‘ ”  ””,-”’: ““0’” C ’ ~.. -‘ -CDC ,’” E:’. ” -”0 c C

-.=: -:.’”’ - 0 C _ .’..C - — - -‘-‘ <,-,’-C . 0, C. C~. ~ ,-

- C “. ~ 0. C — - -.’ — ~-’” -‘: fr. ~~~~~,7,~, -

0 0=.=~:-”’ -~~~~~~~~~~~C CD - ~~ 4 cCiC ID~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~C D CD~

~~~~~~~~~~~~CD C D 0 - 0 C - - C-e0-C C D CD 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~CD CD-CDC C CD

-1 ID~ CC-~~~~ C ~~~ 0 6 C C - C-C-~~~~~~~ C ~~~~~~~f0 0

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD0CC0C C - 0 C 0 00 0C - C ~ -ID CD 0

~~~ - - 0 C -. C C ~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~ C C C ~~~~~~ C 0C~C - 0 -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~~~CDC ~.

Page 413 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. from the constitution, should now reject the purpose.

Acting upon his reliable informa state because sla-lvery renm:iins iJI thle constitution, I have been obliged, in some degree, to tion, it is ianifie’u t tlht tile agtitati)ron upon this interfere with the expedition to Utah, in order dangnerous sulil. t will be rerie((ed in a more to keep down rebellion in Kansas. This has alarming fiii in tliiii it ita ever yet assumed(. involved a very heavy expense to the govern Every p,atiiot in thle eu(-)uitry had indulged ment. Kansas once admitted, it is lbelieved the hope tlhat the Klinsas aiiiiA Nebraska act there will no longer lbe any occasion there fobr woultd l1ut t fill,LI eid to t-he sl,aver-agitation, troops of the United States. at least in Coin(ress, whli(:1’,i illt for iniore than I have thus performned my duty on this irn twenty years (!,nlsuled the c,,untry and en-portant question, under a deep sense of re dangered the Union. This act involved great sponrsibility to God arnd my country. My anud lundlamen tal priiciples, and if fairly car-public life will terminate within a brief ried into effect will settle the q1uestion. Should period; and I have no other object of earthly the aritation be ageain rev ived, should the peo-ambition than to leave my country in a peace pie of thc sister states be a,tin estranged from ful and’prosperous condition, and to live in eicl-i other with iioire than their former bitter-the affections and respect of my countrymen. ness, this will arise from a cause, so far as the The dark and ominous clouds which now ap interests of Kanslt are concerned(, more trifling spear to be impending over the Union, I con andl insig,nificant than han s ever stirred the ele-scientiously believe nmaLy be dissipated with iiieiits of a gieat people into) comnmotion. To honor to everv portion of it by the admission the people of Kansas, the olily practitcal diffe-of Kansas diuring the present session of Conrence bletween admission or rejection depends gress; whereas, if she should be rejected, I simply upon tlhe fact whether they can them-greatly fear these clouds will beconie darker selves more speedily change the present con-and more ominous than any which have ever stitutioli if it does not accOrd with the will of yet threatened the Constitution and the Union. the miajorIity, ir fi-aiiie a seconil constitultilon to JA.MEs BUCIIANAN. be sublmitted to C ongress hereafter. Even if WASIIINGTON, February 2, 1858. this were a question of mere expediency, and not of right, the small iliflerence of tilie, one wav or the o11er, is of nzxtttle impor-In the Senate the Message was referred to wav or the other, is of not the least impirtauce, when contrasted with tlhe evils lwhich the Committee on Territories, tnd was the must necesairily result to the whole country sub)ject of the following reports on the 18th of from a revivtl of the slavery agitation. February, 1858. In considering this question, it should never Mr. Green made the following, report: be fi)rgotten that, in proportion to its insignificance, let the decision tbe what it mlay, so falr The Committee on Territories, to whom wa as it inav affct the tow thousand inhtabittrnts referred the message of the President, como anss,i who~t haffcvie fewm thouan iegainntingre of Kanss ho hae fioin the g r-munic.ating a constitution for Kansas as a sisted: the constitution and the laws, for this State, adopted( by the convention which met very reason the rejection of the constitution at Lecompton7,otn Monday, the 4th of Sepr will be so much the more keenly felt by the peo-tember, 1a5, having had the same under ple of fourteeni of the states (f this Union consideration, instruct me to report:where slavery is recognised under the Consti-By the treaty with France, made on the 30th tution of the United States. day of April, 1803, known as the Louisiana Aga,in: The speedy adlnission of Kansas treaty, Kansas was acquired, with a special into the Union would restore peace and quiet stinulation for the protection (,f the rights of to the whole country.

Already the affitirs of the inhabitants, and for the admiission of such this territory liave engrossed an undue pro-states as might be formed out of that territory portion of puolic attenti(n. Tilev have saidly into the Union on in equal footing with the affected( the friendly relattions of the peplCe of’ original states. This sole!nn treaty ob)ligation the states with eaclh otlie, and t lrmed the has been heretofore faithfully ol)served, and fears of 1patiiots for the stlfely of thle Union. the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas once admitted into the Union, the ex-and Iowa have beeni respectively atdmiitted into citeinmet biecomes localized, andI will soon die thle Union; and another part of the territory away t)r w ant of outside alilnent. Then acquired under that treaty, includled in the proevery difficulty will be settled att the lIbllot p,sed state o(f Minnesota, is now albout to be box. ikewise admitted. Kanas as the saiiiie riglht Besi’les-anol this is no trifling c,)nsilera-to expect the saime treatment in the fulfilmnent tion-I sht l then le enabled to withll iw the of sac. red treaty obliations, mwale tith one of troops of the Uniited States fromi K.insa,‘red the first p(,wers of the world. employ thiemll o ) branches of se’vic e whe re In view of these obliga.tions, and in strict they aire iiuoch iieeieIt. T’hiey Iave liecii kept confo)riity wtsith the uiittoirin practice of the there, OI1 taC
eOarnest imp{,rtucity Of G iver’nor goovernmelit in fullfilmetit tilheief, citizens of WValke:, to ii.iintaLii tlhe existence of thceti t ile United States I}ritve settlcd in Klainsas, unler tor’icil ^‘iventulict a1nil SCLdOi’t thle? executiii of mte jtist eCxpcdtaitii0 of havin 1 stiate organithe lawvs. lie cnsiderecl that at least two zition. And to) protect tlhe pccple, aiil eIIabIle thousand regular trocip:~, under the commanl tlhei to prepare fir such ain iirg’Lg ization, Con.)f General Ilarney, were necessary for this gress, oii the 30th day of Ma;y, 1551, passed 413

Page 414 view page image

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 fulfilulment of the treaty with France, contemplates a change of its form into that of a state, and for admission into the Union. Under the act of Congress aforesaid, a regut 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 goverinment went into operation, a party of disaffected persons formed combinations to resist the laws and tl 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 twentyfive 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 illegfal 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 disregar(l 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 authorities, and actually received Sharpe’s rifles and other arms and munitions of war, which were sent out from Massachusetts and other states by the socalled emigrant aid societies. to enable them to maintain their forcible resistance to lawful authority. The societies had previously 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 Deople (if the United States, through their replresent,atives in Congress, established the principle of strict nonintervention on the subject of slavery in the territories and states. The Supreme Court subsequently sustained, by a solemn decision, the same principle. Therefore, for states, or societies chartered b~y states, or any other combinations, to undertake to effect anl object that Congress, the Supreme 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 Territory 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 sub esit was subse quently brought befi)re Congress for consideration. The matter was fully invest igat ed, and the regular, legal territorial government was completely sustained and endorsed. Every department of the Federal gove rn ment in which thiis question has been consi dered, has pronounced the same judgment in favor of tthe ter ritor ia l authorities, a nd a gain st 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, ir. which he says: [IMere M’r.

Green quotes all that part of Judge Douglas’s report made in the last Con gress, and to be found on page 369 of this work, referring to the Emigrant Aid movement.] These extracts prove the character of the re sisting party i n Kansas, and illustrate its purposes from the beginning to the presen t 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 tinuedi to increase, until it was believed the titme had arrived for admission into the Union, in acordance with the provisions of the Louisi ana treaty, the unifoirm 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 ritorv 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, Wald to be regular, fair, and just in its provisions. Mr. Geary, then governor of Kansas, vetoed the bill calling the convention, for the reason that it’did not require the constitution, when framed, to be submittedl to a vote of the people for adoption or rejection. The bill, however, was reconsidered in each house, and passed by a twothirds vote over the veto of the governor, and thus became a binding law in the territory. The legislature, no doubt, considered it a.s~‘lemln duty to leave the people of the territory.perfectly free, through their own delegates mn convention assesnb~ledl, to fornm and adopt their own constitultion in their owoe tay; and hence did not undertake to dictate any single act to be performed by the people’s representatives, whose authority on such matters was greater than 414

Page 415 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 sixtv. 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, &e.

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 Kansas, on the third Monday of June, 1857, being a citizen of the United States, and over twentyone 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 Monday of September next. Sec. 17 provides for an election by the convention of its officers. Sec. 18 in relation to the salaries of sheriffs and other officers. Sec. 19 relative to the location of the election districts. Sec. 20 requires all votes to be viva vote.

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 anecordingly taken, in pursuance of the act of the territorial 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 inhabitants refused to be registered; some gave fictitious names, and others prevented the officers from complying with the law. Mr. Stanton, then acting governor of Kan. sas, says, on that subject: ti,at of the legislature. If the legislature could direct the convention what they should do on one subject, it might, with equal propriety, ha ve given commands on all other subjects. This would have been a fliagrant 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 n o certain decision on anything could be had, and wh ere liberty itself was ultimnately lost, the people of th e several states of o ur happy Union have chose n rather to delegate authorit y to represi entat ives, wh o should act for, and i n the name and behalf of the people, in public political matters, either in making constitutions, or in the passage of laws for the regl ations and government of society. This principle is observe d in all our institutions, state and federal, and thus far in our history has proved faithful and efficient in protecting the i o the righ ts of the people, and beneficial in avoiding the tumultuary mobs which disgraced the Grecia n re publics and some of our own larger cities. But whether the representative principle, or the personal association in assemblies, be the b ette r system, it is not for th e commit tee to deciden. It is sufficie nt if either one be adopted and pursued by the people, as in the case of Kansas; and the selection of the representative American system can be no valid objection to the action of the people in that regard. That representative 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 denied. It provided: Sec. 1. Sheriffs are requ’ired, between the 1st of March and 1st of April, 1857, to make an enumeration; have power to appoint deputies, 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 1~st of April, 1857. Sec. 4. Copies of said list to be posted in public places. Siec. 5.

Probate judge to continue court ” 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 fi)r 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 415

Page 416 view page image

named; but s)me of them were without inlhabitants, an(d iiiany of them -were attached to a d jacent counties ffr civil and military p urposes.

All of.tlhem were equally provided for by the law calling the conve,ltioli, and any onsisBions that maty have occui’redl res.ulte(i from causes not in the control of the majority of the people. ‘The largest vote ever had in the territory up to the 21st Decelmb.)er last is about 12,000.

So that it appears from the fa(,cts before the committee, notw ithstandiing the refus,tl to coinply with the law on tlhe part of those opposed to it, only tbout 3000, or less, coul(l possibly have been omnitted in the registration; antli even that omission was the result of their own acts. Onee whole month wastq afterwards allowed und(er the law, as I)eft re stattedl, for the col’rection of the lists atter (due notice to the public, I)v altlin, to or striking off l tnmes inmproperly insertedl or omittedl to be (letermniied oin legal evidence stiblnitAted Il)y any parties concerineo,I, ltefi a lega-tl tribunal. I addition to) which it appetrls tht te g,)veruor of tne teiritot y III(1e everv celirt to induce the pe,,ple t o ply witli th la\ calling i-t b n the conveltit n, aai(l to gi-ve full for e aii(i effect to tll i s p r ovisiions Tlus, ev-ervy ()p))rtuJtity wa’s aff)rded to all the people of K.tilsts, t) lreg ister tlheir n snames, as le,Il votei-s, ift they p,)tse edl t ihe requisite qualflicatiols. After the ri s trs kation was :loseCl, aCteo)ilin tI} thle law, Ir. Staniitonti, then g,ve r:)r of Kaisas, matle the.tpporl tioniiie’it of tel’eitc am,,ng st the several ]istictes. ict eletionl w-ts leg,,aLlly lhel(t, pursu-I ant to the law. Ar. tite ti:thu this a!l)irtiininent wa’s lete tl tll( -Iii’ ltir kIi ew i hs muche COlce ill tile C-ll llies ttil tpeopl e niot rewithtered, il c:)iiCe,ltueie of -

1t-s lwhich ii) law oould prevent, as since; and if the facts, as the people of’ tle ter,‘ito,-‘: *’ The government especially recog,nis,~s the territorial aet wbhi(h provides fi,r asselubi,,,, a conve,~tion to formn a constitutioI with a view to mtnking ap)plication to Congress for adlmliissioni as aI state into tbh Union. T hat act is,‘egi-ded as presenting the only test of the qalific. tion of voters for delegatoltes to the convenltion, and all pree,ling repiLr4ant restrietions are thereby repealed. In tlhis light the a’,t tI,ust be allowed to ha,-e provided f)r a full and fai-expr essism of the will yJ’ the peolle throughl th, d,?,kgates who may be (!]s,),en to tel)resent themn i,u the constituiti,,nal conventioni. 1 d1o not loulb,t. hlr,ever, tlhat in order to av’iii all pretexts for resis, nte to thel menefu-l a)peratir,s a of this law the conlvealticn itstlf will in sor e foor tI,roie le fo r t ubmitting, tll qreat distracti,,g questio n regri g their sial institutiion, wih ),as so lon.,gilatt,-,l the people of Kanss. to a fair vote of the attual bona fid,e residen ts of the territory, with e,very ,)ossible-secubit y g,ainst f’ad and viale. e If the iot, tunion, be thlu. f,‘ani,e,, an(] the question of dtifference bte thu sub,,,,tted to the dec-isioni of the pe,ple, I b elieve tiat Kansal will be admiitted by Conigress, without delay, as one t,f the soverei,n sta,tes of the Amie(ican Uli,n. anld the territorial authorities will be imlnediately withdrLwn.” This was the lega-l notification of the governor to the people of Kansas BEFORE the election for delega-,tes to the (‘onvention was had.

Governor Walker, on the 27tlh May, still before the election, anid with full knowle(dge of the registratio n (l apportionment, said “Under our practice the preliminary act of framing a state co,,stilutim)n is unifbrmly ilertbl’md tli’ough tlhe in, stru,me,ntalit.y of a conven,tion of de-le1gttes choseu by the people themselves.”hat conven tion is now alout to be electe by you on tlhe calIl of the territoral legi.lature, cr(ated:,nrd still recognis.el by Conlgres,s. aild lothedl tby it, in the o m,,pre htensive otlgue of the o,‘gauic law, wttfj’uil p~w,,’/r toj ll.ltl<,e stiuls ltll enactm,:t.t “hle ter rito~rial leg,islatture^. then, ini assemblin,g this onvenitioni, were fully sust ailed t,y the act of Congress; and the authority of the’onvezitiom is (listinc,tly reogi sed in my instruetit>ns fron the l’ ocsideltt the United States. ‘lThe p,,,p’e of Kan,sas, tihen, are iivited( ty the hi. hezst -authorily kinownl to the Conistitulion to particitate freely fndltirly iin the electio,. of delegates to.lbr a 1onsitution al stalte ~vernient. Thile lawxv h9 p,‘I)rml e,l its ec,tire nppcopr iatte ftin(.;ionils whlenl it extels to the p,eople tlhe rig,ht ofl 8ni’ag,J5 but canluot compel tlhe perlcrm ace of that d u ty.’ lIere, also, by Governor Wa -,lker, we have the distinct recognition of the le(rgality of the convention to! fi yrm the cornstit tutiolnl witb a special invitation for all qualified to participate therein. But, notwithstanding a11 thiib I I I

Page 417 view page image

NEBRASK.’ AND -ANSAS. I the samre party which had sought to stir up strife and contention previously in the terr itory, still continued their insurrectionary atid 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 [ne as open rebellion, even maniy violent men, headed by the principal delegattes of the town of Lawrence, which is the great seat of all the agitation that has disturbed the ,eace of the territory.” 1,.

Lwrence is the hot-bed of all the abolition movements tn this territory.

It is the town established by the abolition S,cieties of the east; and whilst there are respectable people there. it is fitled by a eonsiderable number of mercenaries. who are paid by abolition Pieties to perpetuate and dliffuse t agitation throughout Kansas, and prevent a peaceful settlement of this question.” * ” A fewr weeks since one of these onservative democrats, who hadl committed no other offence than permitting the use of his name as a candidate for the oon.stitutional con vention, was abused and injured in the most shocking man ner, and the most reotinuj atrocitim were committed upon HIS wiFR by same of the insurrectionary party. ‘ It will be per~;.ive,d that this military organization em braces the whole territory, being airranged into four divisions and eight brigades. *’ I am well satisfied that a large portiou of the insurrectionary party in this territory do not desire a peaceful settlement of this qwestion, but wish it to remain open. in order to agitate the country for yearT to come.” *’ August 18. The insurgent military orgse nizati(n under General Lane is still progre.swing_Arms are bning swnTi,,d and his troops drilled for actionE. We are threatened with the seizure of the polls, at various points, by th,,se insurgent forces.

When it is _remembered that the Topeka p.arty claim to outnumber their opponents at least ten to one, the prd,cxt for assembling these forces to protect the polls is etn2/tly /most fllacious” It thus appears to the committee, from OEFICr.L 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. l gany 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 prenie 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 el 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 a nd 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 opponents of the Lecompton constitution. But, without regard to this insurrectionary movement, the regular legal convention of Kansas, in pursuance of law, assembled and o adopted the constitution now before the committee, 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 opponents, the convention, accepting the suggestion of Governor Stanton, submitted the question of slavery or no slavery to a direct vote of the bona fide inhabitants of the territory. That election was ordered for the 21st Decent p ner, 1857, when it was accordingly held, and resulted as follows: Ay,lin he says, 14th July:a ” I have received authentic intelligence that a dangerous rebellion has occurred in the city of Lawrence, in this territory, involving an open defiance of the law#-, and the establishment of an insurgent government in that city.” “‘Under these circumstance, you have probed o esta blish a government for the city of Lawrence in direct d&.Jance of the territorial government, and denying its existence and authority. You bate imposed upon all those offiers the duty of taking an oath to support this socalled state con stitution. thus dist’nctly superseding. so far as in your power. the territorial government created by the Congress of the United States.” ‘ You have caused these proeedings to be printed in handbill fo)rm, and have distributed them, as I am informed, throughout the territory, with a view to incite the other cities, towns, and counties of Kansas to establisih insurrectionary governments, thereby placing the people of this territory, so far as in your power. in open conflict with the government of the United 8tate.s.” *

” Your evident purpose is thus to involve the whole territory in insurrection, and to renew the scenes of bloodhed and civil war. Upon you, then. must rest all the guilt and responsibility of this contemplated revolution.” * ” You Lhave, however. chosen to disregard the laws of Congrems and of the territorial government, and have proceeded to create a local government of your own, based upon insurrection and revolution. You are inaugurating rebellion and revolution.” *’-If the Lawrence rebetlon is not put down. similar organizations, extnding to counties as well as townns, will be carried into effect throughout the territory; the object being to,eftro the territeoril gvernment, ad inaugurate the Topeka state government even before the admissiou of Kausa,, as a state by Congress.” This party f or med a military organization without authority of Inw, or even the semblance of’law, and received their munitions from the abolition societies of the east. The military commander of this illegal organization directed the name of each person to be taken who refused to lbe enrolled on his lists. In speakin, of this, Governor Wtalker say-s, in his official letter: “The profess,d object is to protet the polls at the election in Au,ust of the new insurgent Topeka state legi.-lature. The obj ect of takin(r the names of,II wh o refuse enrolment i-, to terrify the free state conservatives into submission. This is proved by recent atrocitie.s committed on such men by irp#.eputts. - The speedy locatinn of la.rg.e boai(s s of regular :,,,p-h.- re. with two batteries. is n,ces-ary; the Lawre nce I sull. nts aw,a:it the development of this newr revolutionary ml~.itatrv or,-auiz~ttion.’ (>,, are aware that Generael Lane commanded the mili tr,x’e,ILiOio which made aln incur,ion into thii. t, rritory !’.~t y~tr. a nd that the offieers of the st:ttT are all leading u/it’t,,rs f,r the overthros’ of the territorial,-iverninent. 1 b. o’,j’ct of this last requisition is believed to be to matrk f,,r pI,rs,-ution and oppres.,ion all those pers.ons and&
espeeially frestate democrats. who refuse to unite in this miiitrr ort.,anization. The purpose is universally regard,,d to lto establish a reign of tenor.” f 27 i I I I I -.1 .14 He further says: C-n-titution with slavery,. Cou.titution without slavery… 6226 voteol .. 5m VotalL .. 6795 vote& Making an a,-,,-,regate of… - C95 vote& An opportunity has consequently, been at. forded to the people of Haniias to decide this

Page 418 view page image

THE POLTICAL TXT-BOOE. question of slavery for themselves., and that conciliated or tolerated in a country govern decision is now before us with all the sanc-I by laws. Suppose twenty additional opport. tions of law. No real or valid exception can nities should be afforded to the same people t be taken to any other part of the constitution. vote on all these questions, who can guarante On this subject President Buchanan has well that they will act better in the future that said, in his message: they have in the past? WVho can say they “In fact the general provisions of our recent stwte on-will vote at all? And if not,*would not the ‘titutious after an experience of eighty years, are.o simuilar’same objection now made be as valid then and so excellent, that it would be difficlult to go fbr wreference to their non-actin at the present day in framing a new uonitithti on-ac.“n It seems to be, however, but carrying out the The constitution conforms precisely to what known political design to prevent the peacefu Governor W’alker said would meet his most settlement of the question. cordial approval, and that he should devote The only legal rule is, to adhere to the uni is whole time in addresses every day to the form practice of all the constitutional govet people of every county in the territory to in-meats in the Union; and an opportunity havin sure its adoption. He says: been afforded to all of registering their na - - Adopt a constitution very similar to that of some of the and voting, then, to decide according to th southern states. securing the ri.-ht to the slaves now in the majority thus cast, whether some of the neo territory, numbering probably from two to three hundred l f but prohibiting the introduction of’,ny more, excluding all ple have voted, or neglected or refuse to fee negroes; enforcing by most stringent provisions the vote.

Governor Walker said to the people 0 oxecution of the fugitive slave law; securing the right of K h o aeal in all constitutional c to the Supreme Court of ans n ocal address: the United States; and requiring all offeers of the govern- “ThroughoutourwholeUnion. andwherever free gove meat, legi,slative, executive, and jt’dicial, the judlges and ment prevail., those who ahstain from the exercise of tbd inspectors of all elections.

and the attornevs of all c-ourts, rights of suffrage authorize those who do vote to act for them to take an oath to support the conustitution of the stat.e and in that contingency. and the absentees are as much boun of the United States. Such a constitution. if submitted to under the law and con.titution-when there is no fraud o a v ot e of the whole people. would in my opinion, be adopted violence-by the majority of those who do vote, as thong by a very considerable majority ” -all had participated In the election. Otherwise, as votin must be voluntary, selfgovernment would be impracticabl It will be seen that the convention at Le-and monarchy and despotism would remain as the onl compton has adopted just such a constitution, alternative.” with the single exception of the clause pro-Admitting the truth of the proposition o hibiting the introduction of any more slaves; Governor Walker, that those who abstaii and that clause has been submitted to a fair from voting authorize those who do vote t and direct vote of the people themselves, regis-vote for them, it necessarily follows that th pered and u nregistered, thus leavirrg no possible abolitionists of Kansas, if they are the majc pretence for complaint. rity of the people, as they claim to be, are d! It is well known that the only real matter rectly responsible for the establishment of controversy in Kansas was the question of slavery in that territory. And whether the slavery. Evidence to that effect could be ac-constitute the majority or minority, the deec cumulated almost without limit, establ)lishin_g sion made is equally binding upon all. the fact. But the committee deem this unne- “Popular sovereignty” has been invoked b cessary, as the fact itself will hardly be dis-some to defeat the Lecompton constitutio puted by any one. Such being the case, no It is even alleged by those objectors th reasonable ground of complaint can be found; nothing but a submission of the whole consti for that question was submitted to all the bona tution to a direct vote of the people would be fide inhabitants for decision, on the 21st De-compliance with the provisions of the Kansas’ cember. There is no pretence that any dis-Nel)braska act, which declares the people 0 ~
tricts, counties,.or persons were distrancliised that territor7 shall be perfectly free to for ‘a tat election. Every qualified voter, whe-their domestic institutions in their own way ther registered or not registered, had the unre-WVith this view of the subject the committee strained privilege of votitig for or against cannot agree. slavery. IHere, then, was the opportunity to | Surely it will not be contended that this settle the only existing difficulty, if it was de-‘ ttle e only existing diffiut if it as d provision of the Kansas organic law diminishe sired. Would it not be very extraor(lintittrv to the previous rights of the people in creating a’ permit a factious portion of the pe:,ple. in total statte government. In all time past, since the disregard of the law. to stayv wilfuill fr,m the declaration of independence, it has been uni polls, when, according to law, {nd according formly admitted, without a single exception3 to the published notlt e of Governor Walker, that the people had the right of choice either they were equally bon(dl:is if they had vote(l, to form their constitutions by their agents andthen claim the privilege of haing a eelected for that purpose, or to reserve the *ubmission? right to ratify the constitution by a subs If it were true, that thev hall,as thevassert, quent direct vote of the people. In either’

amajority opposed to sla’:erv, they couli hare case, and in lboth cases, it is the act of the voted out the clause sanctit,ning’ that institt-people, and a full exercise of “popular sove tion. Bytheirown act the clause is ret~ained-reigntv.” If, therefore, the Kansas act had and then they desire to reject the whole c)il taken away the right of the people to acej stitution because of the socalled obnoxious through their agents, it would be a limitation[J slavery clause, left in by their own wilfiul re-of their rights rather than an increase andl fusal to vote. Such wilfulness is not to be improvement, as the friends of thai measured I ‘418 4..

Page 419 view page image

-NFBRASKA AND KANSAS. nave heretofore bo.wted. The people would,’ in that case, be confined to one way only in which to make a constitution, and would not be at liberty to choose their owr way. Such a construction of the organic act is manifestly erroneous. Having thus given a, historical account of the matter referred fi)r 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, MIissouri, Arkansas, and part of Louisi ana, were found on the western bank. Also, on the extreme southern flank, Texas; and 5[inucsota on the northern. California and the settlements of Oregon were upon the Pacific coast; in the centre, New 5Iexico and Utah. The immense country lying between our scanty settlements upon the Pacific and the western boundaries of Iowa, Missocuri, and Arkansas, may be said, in general terms, and with the above exceptions, to have been un occupied. Guarded by the Indian noninter course act and by Indian treaties, and without territorial orga nization, the country was ren lered, by statutory prohibitions, an inaccessi bl e s olitude, which pio neer se ttlers might not legally disturb. Fur ther extension s 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 Yevada, 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 abandoned 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 openingo up to settlement of a country so continuous, important, and’ valuable, and which had been neglected so lone as to become a just cauise of reproach to the government, Cong,ress, in 1854, took into its serious consideration the justice and policy of organizing it into territories. But two difficulties were in the was of an organization: one was the question of Indian o,ccupancy, the other that of African slavery. The first was easily adjusted.; the second was the subject of long, hleated, and angry dliscussion. M~ore than one hundlredl speeches were delivered in Congress at that session upon the slavery question. At lengthl the wrhole country lying crest of 5Iissouri, i~‘wa, and M~innesota, eat elf Utah, Oregon, and Wa~shingrto.l territories, anal north of tile 37th and south of the 49th parallels of latitude, was organized into t tho territories, and nam ssas and - BRASKA… -, ~ t The law organizing these territories settlel the slavery controversy, bv providing th at the people of them might forl their domestic pie stitutions in the ir own wa y, subject only to the Constitution of the Unite d States and to ena ble the peopl e to do so with out hindr,tance of any kind, there was inserted in the act an clauseo rep ealin all laws establishing re gulati n g, or prohibiting slavreholdinog. This settlement grea tly p leased on e party, and greatly displeased the other. The defeated antislavery party professed to believe that Congress had power, and ought to exercise it, to exclud e slave property from territory which had been acquired by the joint efforts and at the com m on expense of saveholders oand non slaveholders. The victorious democratic party believed that Congress had n o such po wer under the Constitution, and that it would be inequitable to exercise it if it had; and, also, that in this particular case, such an ex ercis e of p ower would be a flagrant violat ion of the third arti cle of the treaty with France, by whic h the country was acquired. Immediately after the passage of the act, people living in r dMissouri, upgn the borde rs of ansas, being well acquainted wi th the country, poured into that territory in large numbers, and appropriated many of the m ost fertile, be st watered, and best timbered tr acts. Many of te e c r ie these c arriedt their aes with them On t e the other hand, prior to th e fina l passage of the Kans asNebraska bill, but after its pass sage became evident, certain members of Con gress formed a sec ret a s s ociation, which ulti-. mu,tely became public, to-incite and aid the emigration into Kantsas of persons opposed to the existence of slavery, f or the expres s pur pose of so carrying out its provisions as to cause an exclusion of t he slave property of th othen south e rn states from the territory. Thisd sere t conibinatio n of politicians to perpetrate sectional injustice, was promptly followed by public ones, aind moneys were collected in nuw nerous places for the express purpose of aidIing 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 strije, as often is the case, were worsted. Of the voters on that occasion this may be said: many ce)e bad men. The scenes wrere, if possible, as disgraceful as those which have been such a scanldalous reproach to the lawrge cities olf the Atlantic and Pacific states in violent, contested elections. Immediately after the first election, many of the voters belonging to each of the contending parties, and among them the defeated cand idale for delegat e to Congress, left the terr 419 9 - 7.- -r - I. -.

Page 420 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK’ J refrleled to vote at the election,k said convention, and then, af,: refusal, raised an outcry that was unjustly constituted, inapt ere not represented there’n ation of a constitution, ,st the constitution upon the; ,y had not been allowed b. ication, though they knew bell n of the convention, that the been clothed with full auth, constitution; they well ke~ri. rbviding for the election of-, convention had been veted upon the express ground tha onvention to make a constitS
had been made a law, after a on of such veto. They knew r and the officers of the te ways, had made great exea them to go to the polls HI cing citizens, and vote for men eet their wishes, and that they eed these solicitations. - w that the convention had DO opportunity for the good ci
egistered themselves as voter w, to decide whether slaver d not be established in Ka1 stitution, but had also allow men who had disobeyed t lad combined to prevent a ful vote with the registered voter{ question; and they also knee’ d to vote, even under such ce n this proposition I on was called by a direct;V direct pursuance of law; th suance of law,:ubsequen ntion to make a constitutioe ursuance of all, the form conventions, that convehli led and thus legally elected,-l astitution.

That constitutio#;,!l ~ated, is, if recognised by Con ‘eme law of Kansas, and ca! ed by the people of Kahn, eir legal representatives, h created it.

No legislature e te rum,ple had, in pursui s of law, called. and elect(
onvention to make a consti lly interfere with it eithertli essen its powers. The convie lirect official representativesa(,_ of the people, could no m its legitimate action by a Ili8~ ld the people themselv es be r#|; ey been assemabled, in pers9 lass meeting, to make a eoms own government. Hence’<X ;onvention eras final and cifiii t so remain, in all its part by the people that called Ad ;‘ention that made it. Thev I lause submitted on the 21st I vas a finall vote; the con reassembled, could neitheri tory, xVEER 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 fronm.issouri, 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 ntual settlers in Kansas were emigrants from the adjoining state. But as thevnss 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.

Wheni 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 up6n days, and in a manner, unauthorized by lawv, 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’nt a full and fair vote. So, likewise, when the convention had been ordered by a regular. vote of the people to be called, the a)-med mnis-chief makers threw every obstacle in the way of a full registration of the settlers legally entitled to vote for members of the convention; and then, when their violent, illegal, and bloody efforts had been partially successful, they filled the country with their com Slairts that the registration, which they had resisted with arms, had not been full and fair! And as the registration was not absohtitely 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 420

Page 421 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 private citizens, must obey each and every requirement of the constitution which they severally 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-representatives elected by the people themselves, and clothed with special, direct, and positive authority for that, and for no other purpose. Good citizens, and representatives of good citizens, cannot, consistently, do anything expressly to uphold violateis of law and known disturbers of the public peace. It is alike impolitic and unjust to grant the turbulent denmands of the disorderly, be they few or many; it is wrong to aid them to overturn a constitution 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 theinselves loudly assert, if they had listened to the earniest 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-ist, 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 tvould 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 minority, 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 ncisy 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. Ihaving been tabunlantly supplied with superior arms, such as Shlarpe’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 dangerous and f(ormidable. But their numbers have been, it is believed, greatly exagg,erated; their power consists in their superi()or organization and arms, and in their being supported in idleness. When called upon to vote fi)r or against the calling of a convention to form a constitution, these niercenaries of political priests did not venture to measure strength at the polls with the democratic ptirty of Kansas, but allowed the election to gro by (lefault. Sos, again, when the mnemblers o~f thle c(,nvention wecre electedl, the aboliiozi~sts struenk Jrom {he contest. Se, also, whlen the question camle up whe the r there shoul od or should not be a clause retained in the constitution allowing slavery to be established in Kansas, the y again shrunk from the contest, conscio us of their weakness, or from sinister political design. It is possible 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 absence of the abolitionists from the polls if they had the real strength with which to take possession of the legislature, and thus peacefully end all difficulties by having everything their ‘ own way?” At the late election of state officers they exerted their strength in union with certain favor)ing 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 authority 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 goverinment. Votes cast without lawful authority upon a question decided, and with a purpose to unfavorably affect what is lawful, orderly, and right, are entitled to no consideration at the hands of those who do not claim to favor lawlessness and anarchy. That men who habitually set all law at defiance, and who consider all restraint upon their wishes as tyranny, should report that they have cast ten thousand votes against a constitution, 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 numnbers would not conceal nor palliate. far less justify, their open disregard and contempt of law. Some consider the submission of a constitution to a vote of the people for ratification as necessary to its validitv. In this opinion the commiiittee do not concur. The people may assemble, as in ancient days, in mass meeting, and make a constitution; they may elect representatives to muake one for them; or they may elect representatives to draft one to be subs initted to then] fo~r approval or rejection. The last method is most approved of during’the past few years, though formerly the second method mwas v ery generally resorted to). The calling of the colnstitutional convention of Kansas is generally conceded to hale been strictly legal. The election of its memnbers is 421

Page 422 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ‘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 tothose 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 peacefully settled the question to their own satisfa ction, yetthey consider it would be too severe to compel such contumacious citizens, even though it is their owr. fault, to live under a constitution which, however grievous its provisions may prove to be, they cannot change, without resorting to revolulion, 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 givei. The first one is this: The clause complained of in the Lecompton constitution, in this connexion, is in these words: also admitted to have been legal. Is it not logical to infer that a convention legally cal led, legally elected, and clothed with au th or ity to make a constitution, can no more b e interfere d with by governor, judge, or le gislator, ei ther to increase o r to diminish its powers, or to alter, modify, or nullify its acts, th an the people could b e in terfered with had they assembled eel masse, instead of by repre sentatives? The legislature of a state may n ot altef or annul the constitution thereof unless thereto specially authorized by the peo ple. No election of officers under a constitution, n o vote on th e adoption of a constitution, held on a day prior, or on a day subsequent, to the day fixed by the lawfully c onstituted 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 ma n can be chos en presid ent, or governo,or, or mayor, or justice of the peace, but upon the d ays appointed by law; and, ex cept by lawless and shamelsess desperadoes in Kansas, nowhere in the U nited States has this doc trin e been prac ticall y c ontroverted.

If the mo nstro us pr ac tices of the bold, bad men of Kansas, no w an exception, are to be elected into a Xrule, how long will it be ere some auda cious sectiona l a tionion will find a pretence for holding a presidential election on a day other than that appoint ed by the law? And whe n elections are held without lai v by faactionists, and on a day subs equen t to the day appo inted by law, their candidates will always have most vot es; the leg al candidates will by them be pronounced the ” m inor ity candi dates,” and t he irr egu lar an d illetgal ones will be c alled the ” majority candidates.” Then will follow strife, bloodshed, and civ il war. Rights, 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 i n t he inidst of civil commotion. There is no real and true safetv to our liberties and institutions but in a strict adherence to the spirit and the letter of our constitutions and laws; and there is no danger to out peace and our Union that we cannot easily escape if we will conscientiously adlher e to them. Who ever heard of a legislg;artue, o ther than that of Kansas, which had the presumption to appoint a day, open polls, and request the people to vote for or against a conistitution which had been finally atlopted by the people two weeks before, atnd which n,))()(ody could change but the people, and they only by a formal action to that direct end? Thle actioii on the constitution on the 21lst Decembher, 1857, was final acrtion, and that inatrunment woas, on1 that day,.a completedl onle’ it can bMe (‘llmnged,s as all state constitutiouls call b~e’ },ut, lntil formally anti lawfully chanjzed(, it is vanlid-; and its turbulent o)pponents will findl that thle validity of that fundamentall law canno(t be affected by a town meeting harangue, or b~y an. ” See. 14. Af ter the ye ar 1864, whenever the l egislature shall think it niecessary to amend, alter, or change this co.stitutiou, they shall recommend to the electors at the next general election, tw,othirds of the imlemibers of each house eoncurrinjz to vote for or a,ainst ca,lli,g a convention, and it’ it shatl appear that a majority -,f all citizens of the state have wot ed fear t con,lvention. the legisla,ture shall at its next regtular. se,ssion, (all a convention, to consist of ns m.an,y nembers as there m.ay be in the house of represen,tative.s at the time, to be chosen in the sam,e manner, at the same places, andl by the saline electors that hoo.e the r,-p,ese,ntatives; said deterrates so elected shall Sleet within lhree months after said election, for the putrpose of revising, amendingr. or chlangin,g the constitution, but no alteration shll be in.-ade to affect the rights of property in the owuership of slaves.” That this provision is not ob.jectionable to the ab)olitionists, ini fjct, and is now urged )y themn and their friends otely foi popllar peoct, is protved u)y the over whelming facet that the abolitionists of Kansas inserted in their ” Topeka Constitution ” the following more objectionable provision, viz.: 1; AMNENDMNEN.TS TO TIIE-CO-NSTlITUTION.-ART. XYI’.-,Qec. 1. Al1 prOPOsitions for amendmets to the cotnstitutiou shall be tnad]e by the G,el Ase,n.,,bly. ‘; Siec. *2. A *onlcurr. nt e (,f two-third1q of the members elected to each house shall be necessary. after wh ihsh proposedl amendmlents sha ll be e ntered lupon the joirn,al.s with tlhe yeas fnd nay,s; and th e Secretary of State shall can.e the .ane to be pubtlished in at least one newspeiper ill each aounty i n the state whteu a nww. slpaer i. puilished, for at least six mnothsi pre, edin, the next eletion f,r senators atnd renrepsentatives. when such proposed a.mendment shall be algain referre, d to the legislature elected next succeeding saidi publication. If passedl bty the second legislature by a nmajority of twothirds of the inemblers elected to each house, such amendmnents shall be republished, as aforesaid, for at 422

Page 423 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. least six months prior to the next general election.

at which election such proposed ancdmeuts all ie submittedl to the people for their approval or rejection,. and if the m.ajority of the electors voting at sueh election shall adopt suc,-h amendments, the same shall beconm a part of the constitutioel. ‘; Sec. 3. When more than one amendment is sul-,mitted at the same time, they shall e so, submitted as to enable the electors to vote upon each amendment separately. “Sec. 4.

No convention for the formation of a new constitution shall be called, and no amendment to the constitution shall be, by the General Assetnbly. made before the year 1865, nor more than once in five years thereafter.”

constitution itself, and its various provisions, for any of them, but simply to see whether it be the legal constitution of the new state; whether it be republican in form; whether the boundaries proposed be admissible; and whee ther the numb er of inhabitants b e sufficient t(
justify independent state organization. Believing that the paper presented is the legal Constitution of Kansas, that it is republican in its form, that the boundaries proposed by it are admissible, and conceding the sufficiency of the population, the committee recommend the admission of Kansas into the Union upon the constitution presented, and report a bill accordingly. 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 Lecompton convention has provided a full, lawful, and perfect remedy for every conceivable griev %nce, and placed that remedy in the unrestricted hands of the majority of the people, by inserting in the Constitution of Kansas the following distinct and unequivocal recognition of power, viz: “All political power is inherent in the peop’e, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit, and therefore they have at all times an inalienablle 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 sought power by methods unknown to the law and by violence, atnd not through the peaceful agency of the ballotbox. Claiming to have a maj ori ty o f the voters of the territory, and therefore able to elect legislatures and conventions, they yet ask Congress to wrongfully do for them what they mav, at legal times and legal places, ri,,htfully do for themselves, that is, change or abolish their constitution. And in case Congress refuse to complv with their unconstitutional demand, they threaten to afflict the country with an attempt at bloodshed 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 conviction upon the mind that thev are conscious of beinff in a hopeless minority, and only expect to be able to compass their unwarrantable ends by extortlvg them, from the general love of peace and quiet. If your committee are not greatly mistaken, those reckless men mnis.iudle the American people, and will be required to seek peaceful methods for the redress of all their grievances, whether they be real or imagina<1ry. The committee do not approve the ordinance accompanying the constitution; and report agtaitnst its allowance:; but they do not re-ard it as any part of the constitution, nor will its approval or disapproval by Congress affect the validitv of that constitution if the state be admitted into the Union as recommended]. In conclusion, this committee is o,f opinion that when a constitution of a newly formed -ta-te, created out of our own territory, is pre-:ented to Congress for admission into the Union. it is no part of the duty or privilege )f Congress either to approve or disapyprore the - Mr. Collamer, from the Committee on Territories, 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, i 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 tv, been insisted that the people were not at liberty to arrange this matter, like all others, in their own way, in the formation or altera ationi 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, except 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 ttwere declared free. This was plenary intervention. In 18‘20 was passed the Missouri compromise, bv which Missouri was admitted as a 1 slave state, and all slavery was forever forbids I 423

Page 424 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. den north of 36~ 30’ in the country ceded to us by France. This was done by the south-o 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 ownled, and was the bond of peace on the subject for more than onethird 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, difficultv atid trouble on this subject was renewed. In 1850, this was arranged by the admission of Calif)r 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 as prfioalite of this suleject. 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 K’.nsasNebraska act was passed, the Missouri compromise line declared inoperative, and the subject of slavery was professedly turned over t(o the people who should go and inhabit that country. This was an invitation to all men to enter this field of competition for fiee or slave institutions; and it was to be expected that the friends and promnoters of these two systems would make vigorous exertions in the struggle, and that settlement, by friends of each, would be highly stimulated by all law,ttf-ul means. Ilence associations at.d 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: it is that it contains the plighte ppublic faith of this nation that the people of’ Kansas shall have the right of’ se lfgovernme nt con sistent with the Constitution. Plighted public faith and just laws, howof ever, secure no ri ghts to men. These a re found only in the just cniid fair exe c ution of such laws c and we will now b riefly inquir e how that has been done in relation to th at people. I/ave they been permitted to exercise their p romised freedom,n even in the initiation of the government pro vided for them? The governor of Ka nsas having, in pursu ance of law, divided the territory into dis tricts, and procured a census thereof, issued his proclamation for the el ection of a legisla tive assemmsly therein, to take place op the 30th days of March, 1855, and directed how the same should be conducted, and the returns made to him, agreeably t o the law es tablish ing s aid territ o ry. On the day of el ection, large bodies of armed nien from the state of Missour i appeared at the polls in most of the districts, and, by most violent and tumultuous carriage and demeanor, overawed the de fe nce - le ss inhabitants, and by their ow n votes elects ed a large majority of the members of both houses of said assembly. On the returns of said election being man ode to the governo r, pro tests and objections ws werv nie made to him in rel a tion to a part of said districts; and as to them, he set aside such, and such only, as by the returns aoppeared 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 forinal returns, the inhabitants thereof, borne down by said violence and intimi d ation, scattered atnd disc ourage d, and labor in, under appr ehensions of personal violence, refrained and desisted from presenting any protest to the governor i n rel ati on t hereto, and he, then uninformed in r elation thereto, issue d ce rtificates to the memb ers who ap peared by said formal returns to havte been elected. In r e lation to those distri cts which the governor so set aside, or de rs were by hi m i ssued for new elections. In one of these districts the samie 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 and place for holding the :neeting, as fixed by the governor, by authority of law. On assem-iibling, the houses proceeded to set -vside find reject those members so eleted on said second election, except in the district where the men fioom Missouri had, at said electionl, chosen the} samie persons they had~ electedl at the said first election, and they admtlitted all of the said fil.~telected memlber s. A leg,islative a^ssembuly, so) created by milita>ry fiorce, b~y a foresign inlvasion, in violation of the orgmanic law, was but a usurpationI No act of its ovwn, no act o)r nleglect of the governor, could lega.lize or sanctify it. Its own ” The eighth section of the act preparatory t o the ahmission of Miss)uri into the Union (which being inconsistent with the pr,inciplIe of non-interveution by Congress with slavery in the states an,d territories, as required by then legislation of 1850, cotmimonly called the comiprom,lise measuire is hereby declared inope,rative and void it being the true intent and meaning of this act loot to legislate slavery into said territory. or to exclude it thereflomi, but to leave the people thereof perbetly fee to form a re late th,ir diomestic in,stitutiols i, their o,n wav, suhiect only to the Constitution,t of the United St’tte-s: t~ovid, That nothing herein contained shall be conlstruedl to revive or put il force any law or regultlationi which imay have exiiste,d prior to the act of Mlarch 6. 1820, either protecting, estabishiug, lprohibiting, or abolishing slavery.” Without nowv inquiiing into the propriety, expediency, or moral justice of this law, clear 424

Page 425 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 “perfectfreedom” therein provided; and finding no ground to hope for rights in that organization, they proceeded, under the guard antee of the United 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 thile 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 at 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 received 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 constitution without an act of Congress, and without any act of the territorial government, but they also put the state government into full operation, and superseded the territorial governminent, 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 legisl lture for the calling a convention to formn a constitution, would be an act of usurpation. The people of Florida formed their constitution, without any act of Congress therefor, six years before they were admitted into the Union. aohen the people of Arkansas were about forming a state constitution without a previous act of Congress, in 1835, the territorial governor applied to the President on the subject, who referred the matter to the Attorney-Gea d ecision s as to its own legality are, lik e its laws, but the fruits of its own usurpation,which iio governor could legitimate. That territorial legislature passed the following law: ” Sec.

11. If any person print, write, introduce into, pubIish, 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, pamnphlet, magazine, handbill, or circular, containing any statements. arguments, opinions, sentiments. doctrines. advice, or innuendo, calculated to promote a disorderly. dangerous, or rebellious disatfection 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 imprisonment and hard labor for a term not less than five years. ” Sec. 12. If any free person, by speaking or by writing, aspert or imaintain that persons have not the right to hold slases in this territory, or shall introduce into this territory. Spriut. publish. write, circulate, or cause to be introduced into this territory, written.

printed, published, or circulated, in this territory, any book, paper, lagazine, pamphlet, or circular, containing ay 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 fur the r provided, that all officers an’d attorneys should be sworn not only to support th e Constitution of the Un ited States, but also to suppor t and sustain the organic law of the territory and the fug~itive 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, hle shall not’ie permitted to vote. Although they passed a law that none but an inhab)itant, who had paid a tax, should vote, yet they required no time of residence necessary, and provided for the immediate payment of a polltax; so providing,, in effect, that on the eve of tin 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 polltax, 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 inhabitants 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 people thereof, but created the offices and filled trem, or appointed officers to fill them for long.periods, and provided that the next annual election should be holder in October, 1856, and the Assembly to meet in January, 1857; so that none of these laws could be changed until the lower fIouse might be changed, in 1856; but the Council, which is elected for two years. could not be changed so as to allow ,a charne of the laws or officers until the session of 185S, 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 425!

Page 426 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. eral, and his opioi,n, as tlhen expressed and published, contained tile fullowing: ‘It is not in the pow,,er cf the General Assembly of Arkansas to pass any la,- Xi thie purpose of electing members t o a c(venio to fbrm a constitution and state government nor to do ally other act, direct!y or indirectly, to create s ucl overn ent.

Eivery such law, even thou,gh it were approved b~y the gove,nor of the territory, would be null and void; if passed by them. notwithstandin,g his veto, by a vote of twothirds of each branuh, it would still , equally void.” 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 emnigration thereto. Aidedl 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, anl emigrants prevented from proceeding. Thus closed the giloonmy autumn of 1856, and during the succeedirng, 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, scatteredl, 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 constitution 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, continue(d from time to time their provisional organization 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 anv manner been asserted against the existiing officers of the United States, or its laws, including that estalblishing Kansas Territory. It was, anti ever has been, preli minary and p rov i sional, subject to the action of Congress. It is indeed true that a large part, and probably a large majority, of’ that people were attached to that constitution, which they have repeatedly requested Congress to accept, but that they have ever attempted, il any act or spirit of rebellion, forcibly to put in operation a governmnent under its is entirely untrue; although individlual wishes or ultimate purposes to such an end, on some possible contiel,gentles, have, at tintes, been expressed. It is, howsever, tr’ue that the people have ever regtarded the acts of the territo)ria1l legislation, so usurped as aforesaid, as utterly w ithout legal fo~rce, andl have not held themnselves boundl~ in obedience thereto; andl the samie havYe been in effect generally IIe furtheir decided thiat it was not rebellious or insurrectionary, or even unlawful, for the people peaceably to proceed, even without an act of Conr ess, in forming a constitution, an d that the s o fo r essing a state constitution, and so f ar orgah)izin g t u nd e r the smame as to choose the office rs necessar y for its representation in Congress, wi th a view to present the same to ConoKress for admcission, wIs a power which tell clearl y wi thin the rioght of the peopl e to assemble and petition fo r e redress. The peo )le of Arkansas proeede d wit hout an act of Crngress, and were received int o the Uini on accordiingly. If any rights we re deriv ed to the p eopl e of Arka nsas f ro m the ternis of the French trieatty of c essio n, they equally extended to the people of Kansas, it being a par t of the same cession. In this view of th e subject, the people as sembled at Topeka, i n said territory, by delegates chosen in the several counties, in public meetings assembled for that purpose, in Septenmber, 185:5, who formed a constitution which was submitted to the people for their ratification or rej e c tion, and which was duly rati fied by a large randtjority of all who thought proper to vote, be in g, a s whe believ e, a majority of all the voters then in the territory. Under that constitution an election of a governor and legislature was made, and officers appointed, and an or,ganiza,tion made, for the purpose of petitioningi, Cong,,ress for admiiission to the Union; and a memoriMl was made and presented to Coin,ress, with said co)nstitution, for that purpose. That memorial or petition for the admission of Kansas as a state, under the Topeka constitution, formed as befo)re stated, and so presented to Cong,ress, through agreed to bv the House of Rtepresent;tives, was rieectedI by the Senate. The insvestigaitioni, the evidence, and the facts, as to the invasion-t and subjugation of Kansas at the Mlarch election of 1855, as presented by the committee of the IIouse of Representa.tivees, appointed for such investigationis, fully discloses its enormity and outrage, -is before stated, atn(d shows that the invasion exteiidedl to every election district but one, yet the Senate eitirely’-ref’rinLed from investigation, and -i all redress for that people failed. No provision w,tas. made to correct the wrong, and they were lef’t t,) su/tibr uttler the oppression of the tya(l Iic.al tlws iad usurped power of the. unscrup:ult,its mijinorit) which fore ean-d fraud had there inistalledl ill official position, with the power and artrnliiN
of’ the United States pledged to sustain them. Thius end ed the ses 426

Page 427 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. s at Lecompton, and adjourned until after the territorial election of a legislature in October, ] 1857. i 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 doml neered over by a snmall 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 ballotbox, 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 industrionsly 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, fr om Missouri, or by the insertion of fictitious votes, or by false returns. Unwilling, however, to be longer taunted front abroad with the charge of cowardly or factious inaction, and relying on the assurances of the governor, and their own wellknown superiority of numbers, they generally concluded to proceed to the polls, and attempt once more to exercise their rights under the laws of Congress. 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 returns, under the auspices of these judges of the elections, were well-foundled. W~e are well ini:,rmed by Governor Walker arnd Secretary Stranton, that votes to the amo(unt of 1600 in one case, and over 1000 in another, came certifiexl fro)m precincts w~here, fronm personal exami,~atio-n, they found a limitedl population of b~ut a few hundred. A large part of these votes were obviously fictitious; and those re 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 consti tution for Kansas, as a state, with a n-iew. to apply to Con,ress for a(linis sion. This was don e without any act of Con gress fi)r that purpose, Congress having re cently refused to pass such a law, though recormlndse c rded by the President; and the pro cceding j vas therefore, though not unlawful, in no way authori t ativ e, and its r esult entitled to the consideration of Congress only so far as it was sai nctioned bv the votes and expressed t h e free wi ll of the people of the pnto erritory, or a majori ty thereof, in a full election, fairly conducted. Such a result could not be ascertained but by subjecting the cooistitution to the full and unconditional vote of t he wh ol e people f o r ratcaification or rejection. This is more especially true when conflicting opinions on the subject are well known to exis t, as was the ca se w ith this territory. A large part of the people, and, from what subsequently occurred, it is appa rent a large major it y of the pe ople, did not participate in the election of these delegates; tnd a suffic ie nt reason for that course was fou nd i n these onsiderations: 1st. Th e superv is ion and r e turns of the el e c tion were in pow er of men appointed by a legisl ature in whose el ec tion a large part of the people never participated, in whom, for this cause, and fro m the mcannier in which they conduc ted elec tions, they ha d no confidence. 2d. The United States officers there, the governor manl secretary, had no control over these juidges o f 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 wals, by accident or design, very imperfectly done in any county, and in almost onehalf of the counties, some of which were among the most populous in the territory, it was entirely neglected, and therefore a large part of the people were entirely prevented from acting.

4th. The people mere often, repeatedly, and officially assured by the governor and secretary, whom they regard as the organs of-the general government, that the constitution, when formned, must be and should be submitted unconditionally to the whole actual resident people, for their ratification or rejection. Under these circumstances, relying on these official assurances, thev awaited quietly that day, and promised opportunity to exercise their acknowledged inalienable rigfht to vote on their own constitution. The result has shown that this wras an unreliable security, tb)r the constitution, as formned by the convention, was by them never so submitted to the people, but in the conditional and deceptive mlanner hereafter describedl. The conlvention, so elected, met in September, 1857, 427

Page 428 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. turns were set aside, being informally certified. hlad not this been dolce by the g)-veinor, the original usurpation would again have been renewed anrid perpetuated l)v fraud. The result of this election wras regarded by all candid men there as settling the condition of Kansas, and, accordingly, when the convention assembled at Lec(,mpton,, on its adjournment, 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 wellknown and clearly-expressed will of the people, and, by ingenious devices and cunning forms, to fasten upon them a state constitution 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 tile 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 demnolished.

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. Tilhe 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 legislature 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 t o make the apportionnment of prpresentatives, unde r the proposed state gov ernment, as to overcom e the a ctual flee state majority, now well knowni i 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, atnd to perpetuate the laws which the long-continued usurpation had adopted. To effect these purposes, the convention addressed themselves with unscrupulous ingenuity, 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. Second, allowing their unlimited inltrodluction with their owners for settlemlent. They then provided for submitting this constitution to the people, professedly for their approwtzl or rejection, on the 21st day of Decemlller, 1857; lout in this form only, that they might vote ” the constitution with slavery,” or “the constitution with no slavery.” If the former had a majority, the whole constitution wfas adopted; if the latter had a majority, it rejected o nly that clause allowing e the further importation of sgover. They w ere not allowfed to vote against the constitution; so it was to be a dop ted, however objection a ble, and to be a slaveholding state i n any e ve nt. In this manner, th e Jfrst object was to.be effected. They provided that the election was to be conducted and r eturns made by men appointed by the president of the convention (Calhoun), after the convention had c l osed, and thereby he out of office, and th e r elturns to be made to him. Thus was the gov ern or go t rid of, an ad the second o bjec t effected. This miode of making and using supervisors, or judges o f election, unknown to la w, secured the third object. T he pro vision by them that such men should be subjec t ed to pro secutiono for frauds, &c., w as an idle show of legislation, entirely inoperat ive. To secure the f our th pu rpose, the conventi on based their apportionment of representatives in the state election, to take place in January, 1858, upon the same spurious, fraudulent, and fictitious votes so returned and rejected in the late territorial election. To secure the 3fifh object they provided that all laws thene existing (not those existing when the state s hou ld be admitted) should remain in fo rce unti l r epealed 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, December 21, 1857; and the territorial legislature was assembled by the call of acting Governor Stanton. A vote was taken on the 21st December, by the men appointed by Calhoun, who returned to him that there were cast some 6000 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 declined instructing or authorizing the committee to obtain full information, or clothing them with the means for that purpose. Wie have, however, the authority of the presiding officers of the two branches of the legislare, 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 thousand of these were cast by legal voters of the territory. The territorial legislature, so assembled by acting Governor Staniton, passed an act prI( riding that the people, on the 4th of January, 1858, should cast their votes on said constitution, either for it with slavery, for it without slavery, or against the constitution. That wote was taken, and the vote against the constitution was more than ten thousande majiority. T’he convention provided for the election of state officers and a legislature under the constitution on tihe 4th daly of January, 1858, but it wa’.s to be conducted by the samse men 80 appointedl by said Calhoun, and the returns made to him. As to the svoting at this state election, 428

Page 429 view page image

NEBRAKA ANt) XANSAS. the Free State people were much divided in opinion. A large iiumiber (leclinled to vote, as they feared the so doing wo)uld be unfairly insisted on by tlitir 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 i 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 unwilling, in that event, to leave the state officers and legislature in the hands of the minority who framed and adopted that constitution, proceeded to vote at the election of those state officers, at the polls conducted by the men so appointed by said Calhoun. The retu rns of this elect ion have been made to said Calhoun, but, as the committee have received no power to institut e inq uiry into the true charac ter of that election, we are unable to say how far the well-prepare(d arrangements for successful imposition have been carried into execution with impunity. From what has been disclosed by the investigations before the territorial legislature, we feel authorized to believe that the preparations to defeat the will of that people have been extensively 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 purposes for which he has so lon-and tinserupulously labored that is, the making, of Kansas 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 sustained 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 expressed; 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 territorial election, has-e reclaimedl their rights, and that territorial government is for the first time nose moving peaceabjly on its legitimate sphere of’ promised fr eedomll. This Leeomnpton constitution and its adoption wras concocted and executedl to supersede this triumph of justice. To,~dmait it l)) Congress, is but to give success to fraud and eneouragement to iniquity; and-to turn owver Mr. Douglas, fromn the Committee on Territ o ries, submitted the following minority report: 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 satisfactory evidence that the constitution formed at Lecompton is the acet 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 sense of the people to be affected by it,” and in opposition to the overwhelming majority recorded against it at a fair and valid election held in pursuance of law on the 4th day of January, 1858, it is argued that the Lecompton convention was duly constituted with full authority to ordain a constitution and establish a government, 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 Lecomptoni constitution and impose it upon the people of Kansas, in opposition to their known wishes and recorded votes, rests s olely upon the assumption that the proceedings 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 organic act and territorial government estab lished by Congress. It is conceded that, on the 19th day of February, 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 convention to abrogate or suspend the territorial government established by Congress, and substitute a state government in its place? This committee, in their reports, have always held that a territory is not a sovereign power; that the sovereignty of a territory is in abeyance, suspended in the United States in 4 j that people, not to an election fair,,tnd legally conducted, but to such state ocers and legislators as said Calhoun shall hereafter proclaim, and on such contingency as he shall determine; and his long, mysterious, and in  le indecision and reserve, but encourages expectation in both parties, one of which is certainly doomed to disappointment. J.

COLLAMER. B. F. WADE.

Page 430 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. t rust for the people when they become a state; mittee on Territories by the Senate, and, after that the United States, as the trustee, cannot full examination and mature deliberation, this be divested of the sovereignty, nor the terri-committee, on the 12th day of March, 1856, tory be invested with the right to assume and made an elaborate report in explanation and exercise it, without the consent of Congress. vindication of the principles, provisions, and By the KansasNebraska act the people of the policy of the KansasNebraska act, and arrived territory were vested with all the rights and at the conclusion that “the recommendation privileges of selfgovernment, on all rightful of the President fprnished the appropriate and subjects of legislation, consistent with and in legitimate mode of conducting the principles, obedience to the organic act; but they were provisions, and policy of the act to a success not authorized, at their own will and pleasure, ful and final consummation, by the passage to resolve themselves into a sovereign power, of an act of Congress authorizing thepeople and to abrogate and annul the organic act of Kansas to hold a convention and form v and territorial government established by Con-constitution and state government, when the gress, and to ordain a constitution and state inhabitants of Kansas may desire it, and government upon their ruins without the con-shall be of sufficient numbers to constitute a sent of Congress. state.” It would seem, from his special message, The committee, in their report, respond to that the President is under the impression the President’s recommendation in the follow that the KansasNebraska act, from the date ing language: of its passage, on the 30th of May, 1854, when ” In compliance with the first recommendation, your com there were not five hundred white inhabitants mittee ask leave to report a bill, authorizing the legislature in the whole country -authorized the people of the territory to provide by law for the election of dele counry,. ^.

~~gates by the people, and the assembling of a convention to of those territories, respectively, or “any perform a constitution and state government, preparatory tc tion of the same, at their own sovereign will their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the aind pleasurae, “to proceed atond fovrmg w i-oriminal st ates, as soon as it shall appear, by a census to be and pleasure, ” to proceed and form a consti-taken under the direction of the governor, by the authority tution in their own way, without an express of the legislature, that the territory contains 93,420 inhabi authority fromn Congress;” and to suspend the tants, that being the number required by the present ratio autort fro.og r s;“adtossen,h of representation for a member of Conlgress.”

authority of the territorial legislature, at least of representation for a member of ongress.” to the extent of depriving it of the power to Thus it appears that the committee who s u b m i t a constitution to the people f or ratifi-wrote and reported the KansasNebraska bill, c a t i o n or rejection, before it should b e deemed and the President who approved and imparted t h e act and deed of the people of Kansas. vitality to it by his signature, did not mean by W i t h the most profound respect for the that act to authorize or recognise the right of opinions of the President, I must be pardoned the people of a territory, with a few hundred f o r expressing my firm convictions tha t neither or even a few thousand population, whenever t h e provisions of that act, nor t he history of they pleased to form a constitution and state t h e measure, nor the understanding of its government, “without an express authority a u t h o r s and supporters at the time of it s en-from Congress;” but on the contrary, it clearly actm ent, or at any period since, justifies or appears that the authors of the act under p e r m i t s the construction which t he President stood, and intended it to be construed and has placed upon it. It is certain that Presi-executed, as meaning that while the people d e n t Pierce, who signed and approved the of those territories remained in a territorial Kansa s-N ebraska act, and whose ad min istra-condition, they should exercise and enjoy all tion was a unit in support of the measure at the rights and privileges of selfgovernent, t h e time of its enactment, did not understand in coformity with the organic act, and that, t h a t it authorized the people of each or either when they should havee the requisite number of those territories “to proceed and formn a “to constitute a state,” and should desire it, constitution in their own way without an e ex-Congress would give its assent, in a subse p r e s s authority from Congress, ” from the fact quent act, to authorize them to form a constit h a t on the 24th day of January, 1856, he tution and state government, and to come into s e n t a special message to Congress, in w hich the Union on an equal footing with the origihe recommended an enabling a ct f or Kansas nal states in all respects whatever. President as the appropriate legislative remedy for the Pierce did not specify the number which he e v i l s complained of in that territory. Ihis redeemed necessary to constitute a state; notr commendation is in these words: did the Cincinnati convention, on the “cele lbrated occasion” referred to by the Presidelit ‘This, it seems to me, can be best accomplished by pro-his)rated occasilo referred to by the Plies tideit viding that, when the inhabitants of Kansas may desire it,n his annual message, designate the lreise and shall be of sufficient numbers to constitute a state, a number which would entitle “the people vf all eonvention of delegates. duly elected by the qualified voters |, shall assemble to frame a constitution, and thus prepare, through regular and lawful me’ans. for its ahlmission into the l)raska,” to ” form a Co)nstitution with or with’Union as a state. Ireepectfflly ecrnsinel eaenatmes!t {‘J out slavery, and be admitted into the Union a law to that effect. ~‘I recommend, also. that a special appropriation be made upon terms of perfect equality with the other to defray any expense which may become retluisite in the states,”’ but it is evident, friom the language executien of the laws or the mailtenance of publicord eniplo-ed, that they did not understand tie the territory of Kansas.” e m l y d t htthyddntuertxdte right oif admission to have accrued front the The message of President Pierce, containing date of the organization of each territory, Ibir this recommendation, was referred to the Coni-when there should be a few hundred or a few 430

Page 431 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. was anl enabling act. I do not insist that Congress, in the exercise of a sound disretion, may not depart from the rule to which I have referred, and make an exceptional case of a territory under peculiar circumstances, as the Senate proposed and the House of Representatives 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 Committee on Territories, that the KansasNebraska act did not author ize the people of those territories to pr oce ed and form a state constitution, whenever they chos e, with out the consent of Co n gres s; and that the passage of a n enabling act by Congress was t he appropriate a nd legit imate mode of carry in g i nto effect the principles, provisions, and policy of the KansasNebraska act, when those territories, respectively, should have the requisite population to entitle them to admission into the Union as states, according to the principles 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 report 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 wvith the original states.” I quote from Senate Journal, page 414: thousand inhabitants, nor at whatever time the people of the territory should feel disposed to claim the privilege, without reference to numbers; but when, in the language of President Pierce, they should “
be of su.1fcient nunmbers to constitute a state;” or, in the language of the Cincinnati platform, as appears in the extract copied into the annual messagffe of the President, “whenever the number of their inhabitantsjusti.es it;” or, in the languag,e of the Committee on Territories, in the report to which I have referred, so soon as it shall appear, by a census, ” that the territory contains ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty inhabitants-that being the numnber required by 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 )rmin a constitution and state government whenever it pleases without the consent of Congress, and irrespective of the numbl)er of its inhabitants, and sustains the position that a territory is not entitled to admission, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, until it contains population enough to constitute a state, and that it is the province of Cong,ress, instead of the territory, to determine what that number shall be. While the Constitution 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 Ilouse 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 justice 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 sufficient 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 indicated 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 i)ther, that it had not the requisite numbers to entitle it to admission, in substantial compliance with that rule. In view of these facts, I respectfully but firmly insist that neither the principles nor the provisions of the KansasNebraska act, nor of the Cincinnati platform, j stifies the assert ion that it woas the intention th abrogate thi s wise ate sinfcne and impestablish in lieu of it the principle that “all the territories, including Kansas and Nebraska,” hlave a right, whenever they please, and with whatever population they may happen to possess,’-to proceed and form a constitution in their own way, without an express authority from Congress,” and demand admission into the tUnion on the plea that the organic act ” 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 mo tion by Mr. Seward, “The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the senators present, ‘i Those who voted in the affirmative are ” Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Pratt. Pugh. Reid, Sebas tian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, Wright, Yulee. “Those who voted in the negative are “Messrs. Bell of New Ilati)pslhire. Collamer, Dodge, Durkee.

Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Ilale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson. “So it was “Resol,ed, That the bill pass, and that the title thereof be as aforesaid.” From this official record, it appears that no senator voted against the enab ling act for Kansas in 1856, who had either advocated or voted for the KansasNebraska act in 1854. While it is proper to remark that th(>se senators who did vote against this enaL ling act justified their opposition upon the gr,und that the provisions of the bill, and the time and circumstances under which it was l,rocosed 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 territory to ordain a constitution whenever they pleased.

Greater significance and importance 43.t

Page 432 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. are imparted to these recommendations, re-I ports and votes ill favor of an enabling act for Kansas, in view of the faict 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 convention; while the effect, as well as the de sign, of the etlabling act thus recommended by the President and passed by the Senate, would have been, if it had passed the hiouse and become a law, to arrest and put an end to this irregular and unauthorized proceeding on the part of the territorial legislature, and to substitute in place of it a regular and legal mode of proceeding under the authority of Congress. Ilad the enabling act become a law, whereby the people of Kansas would have been authorized 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 KansasNeblraska 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 ect only to the Constitution of the United States. But if the proposition be true, that sovereign power alone can institute governments, 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 consequence 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 constitution for the people of Kansas in the place of the organic law passed by Congress. The convention seem to have been conscious of this absence 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 ratlfication or rejection,” with the further provision that “thist constitution shall take effect and be in force from and after its ratifi’cationt by the people, as ereinbefose provided.” I will quote some of the provisions on this point: “Before this constitution be sent to Congress, asking admission into the Union as a tate. it shall be submitted to all the white male ilnhabitants of this territory for approval or disapprova.l, as follows,” &c. 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 rejecti on, under the s u p position that the po pular wi ll e xpressed through the ballotbox might impart vitality and validity to it. But before the time arriv ed for holding th e election on the ratification or rejection of the constitution as provided by the convention, the territorial legislat ure i nterposed its authority by the p assage of a law providing that said constitution should be submitted t o the p eople 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~hen 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 ”’

ratiefy” 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 ” ratification” or “rejection,” yet the mode of submission prescribed by the convention was such as to render it impossible for the people to reject 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 fol the constitution, and those who should offer to vote against the constitution were to be excluded 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 man proslavery men residing in the territory who were anxious to vote in favor of making Kansas 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 proslavery 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 samne time wvould record his vote in favor oyf the constitution.~ 3. That inasmuch as the convention did nlot possess any legislative power, it couldl not prescribe, vand did not attempt to provide any penalties or punish-menlts fo)r illegal andl fraudulent voting, or for false andl fi’audulent return”, except b~y a wague and Xvailn reference to the territorial laws.

And again: ‘- At which election the constitution formed by this convention shall be sol)mitlel to all thc white male inhabitants of the tcrrit()ry of Ka,sas in s’id territory upon that day, and over the ate of tweny-onle years, for ratfication or rejection, in the tollowing m anner d foram,”

&e. ” Sec. 16. Thi,r sohl.tit,ltion sh:ly take effect and be i n force from and after the ratification tby tlip peo’ple. as hereilnbefore provided.” Fronvent es provision did not openly assert and r t a he ,vavention did not openly assert and exercise 492 i i And further-:

Page 433 view page image

NEBIRAS D >KAM A,”.S’ * 4. That the schedule of the constitution had I taken the whole management of said election out of the hands of the territorial officers and placed it into the hands of commissioner, judges, and clerks, to be appointed by and uinder 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 posing its authority, as itdid on the 17th of December, in the passage of a law, which, in effect, postponed the election on the ratificat 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 slavery article, freely and unconditionally, and also made wise and effective provision to protect the ballotbox and returns P,ron fraud and violence? The result of the election of the 4th of January on the ratification or rejection of the Lecompton constitution was officially announced 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 Leompton under thie act of the Legislative As&embly of Kanas’Territry entitled’An act to provide for taking a census and election of delo.,ates to a convention,’

pa.sed February 19, A.D. 1857, the undersigned announce the following as the official vote of the people of Kansas Ternritory on the questions as therein submitted on the 4th day of January, 1858: Counties. -. -o, Leavenworth.. 1,997 10 3 Atchison… 536 4 Doniphan… 561 1 2 Brown….

187 2 Nemaha.. 238 1 Marshall…. 66 Riley.,… 287 7 Pottawatomie 207 2

Calhoun.2. 49 Jefferson… 37 1 JDhnson… 39 2 i.ykils… 358 1 1 s Lion… u 510 1l 3 Bourbon.. 2 - 55 panmglas… * 1, 647 21 2

Franklin…..w c t s t Anderson…. 17 Allen…. ]9[ 1 4 8hawnee….. 3’

23 3 Coffee…….* 4 Wood~n.. 7 Ao Richarden. 1. *jt i ot t 1

Brackenridge. 19a iladcon.. *. 40 Davis.. ….. 21 Totall…. l 1, ell>n, an sepsn each to haeben 01 _ o 0. t1 28~~~~~Io I Some precincts har e not yet sent i n their returns, but th,above is the complete vote received to th is d ate. . “J. W. DENVER, “hretary and Act ing Goavernor.

“C. W. BABCOCKl - IPresidet of th CbunciL “G. W. DEITZLI’:R, ,‘11a~ of VW

Houm of R iv. ‘January 26, 1858.” From this official proclamation, it appears that the Lecompton constitution was repudiated and rejected-by the people of Kansas at that election b),y a clear majority of ten thousand and sixty-four (10,064) votes. It is proper, however, to remark, that notwithstandin-the legislature had provided by law that the vote on the ratification or rejection 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 ~tl,hat it appears front a proclamation, signed by C. W.-Babcock, president of the council, and by G. W. Deitzler, speaker of the house of representatives in the territory, who were present by invitation of John Calhoun. president of the convention, at the counting of the votes, that six thousand one hundred and fortv-three (6,143) votes were returned for ” the constitution with slavery,” and that five hundred and eightynine (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 presented to Congress for adoption. It is also stated in the same proclamation, that “more than onehalf of this -majority was cast at those very sparsely settled pre, cincts in the territory, two of them in the Shawnee reserve, on land not opened for settlement, viz.: Oxford, Johnson county… 1,266 Shawnee, Johnson county -.. 729 KlIckapoo, Leavenworth county.. 1,017 Total…………. 3,012

“From our per.sonal knowledge of the settlements in and around the above places. we have no hesitation in saying that the grert bulk of these votes were fraudulent; and taking into view the other palpable but leass important framds, 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, notwithstanding the recent developments of the enormous frauds at the polls and in the returnsassuming, 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 arainst the constitution was.

10,064 At the election on the 21st of December, the majority in faror of the com-titution. as presented to Congress, 55as……. ~,74 -$howinC aL
lear m.,jority az.,inst the constitution. on.ompa.ison of the return.- of the two eleti,,n., and supposing eh to bave been for and le, al of.,….

28 ;433 . 4tZO

Page 434 view page image

TH POLITIC L TEX-BUO.. a sovereign state, without any express author*-., it from Congress;” and, after mature delibe-. -ration, General Jackson,delivered the decision’ of his administration upon the proposition, through Mr. Butler, his Attorney-General. 1 quote from the opinion: I If. from this calculat ion, we ded uc t the fraud. ulent votes, accordi ng to the statement of the presiding officers of th e tw o houses of the le gislature, who were present at the opening of the polls and the counting of the votes., ba the invitation of the presiden t of the convt ention, and we have a majo rity of more than e igiht thousanda, or four to one of all the leg-,al vo ters of Kansas in oppos ition to the constitu tion. The manne r in which the advoc a tes o f the Leaomp to n c onstitutio n hop e to avoid the force of this overwhelming verd ict agnai nst it by the people of Kansas, is expla ined in t he fol l ow ing p ass age fr om th e recent special me’s sage of the President of th e Untte d States, which contains all that he says on the subject: It is proper that I should briefly refer to tht sol d b e r t te election oeld under an act of the territorial legislature. on the first Moday of January last. on the Lecompton const it u tion. Trb election was held after the territory had b een prepared or admission into the Union t th o n as a sovereign state and when. n o authority existed in the territorial legislature which could possibly destroy its existence or change its charnter. T h e election, which was peaceab ly conducted under iry instructions, involved a strange inconsistency. A large majority of the persons who voted against the Lecompton eontituton were, at the very same t ime and place. recog nipig ite valid existence in the Leomt s olemn and authentic manner, by voting u nder its provisions. I have yet received no official information of the result of this election.” PIt i s t o be regre tted that, on the {d day of February, th e Pr eside nt ha d received no offcial information of the re sult of the election held on the 4th day of January, which were published in the Ui proclamation” to which I hare referred, and were republished in the newspapers of this city and of N ew York a s early s the 30th of J
anuary, from which proclamati on the Pres ident would hav e lear ned, if he had receiv ed it, that the people of Kansas had repudiated and rejected tile Lecompton constitution b y mor e tha tn ten thous and majority -at that election. It seems, however, that the President attaches no importance to this overwhelmi ng vot e of the people acgainst the con, stitution, for the reason that he supposes ” this election weas held after thea territ,orv hted be en p repared for admis sion int o th e -Union as a svereign-state, and wh en -no authority existed i ihe territ orial leg islature which coul d puosibly destrov i t s exist ence or change its cha,racter.” Bv what authority had tie territory been prepared for atdmiiis.sion into) the Union? Certainly not by the authority (,f Con,gress, for I have already showrn that Con,gress with. held its assent when a-qke(I b)y President Pierce, in a special Imiessage, to gr.ant it.

Was it by authority of the territorial legislature? It is a peculiar doctrine that at territorial legislature may assemble a convention without tile assent of Con ress. and e!-nnerwer the conrent~ion, when semblelcd, to aliroga,te or imlpcir the authority of the territo,rial governmellt established by Co)ngres., of whitch the legrislature is a constituent part. This qluestio,n do es not nowr arise for the first timle ill the historv of our country. It arose under the administration of General Jvuzkson, on the righit of the territorial legislature of Arkansas ” to prepare that territory for admission into the U~nionl ~s ITS suppose that the legislative powers granted to the General Assembly include the authority to abrogate, alter or modify the territorial government established by the acl of Congress, and of which the Assembly is a constituent part. would be manifestly absurd. The act of Congress, so lar 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,A 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 State& 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 Aiembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of tleeting memetors to a onvention to form a constitution and state government, n or to do any ot her act, directly o indise rectly, to create such new r government Every suc law, even thou;ph it were approved by th e govern or of the tertory, would be null and void; if passed by them, no; wi thstanding, hi s ve t o, by a vote of twothirds of each branc. it would still be equally void.” *  4 Thus it appears that, under the administra. tion of General Jackson, the doctrine obtain ed-and I have never heard its correctnesB questioned until the present session of Con ,r esstthat a c onven tion ass embled under the authority of a territorial legislature, ” without an express authority from Congress,” had nc right or power to prepare the territory for ad mission into the Union as a sovereign stat and thereby abrogate or impair the authorit of the territorial legislature over all rightfu subjects of legislation consistent with the organic act. If this views of the sub’ect b~ correct, it follows, necessarily, that theteomp ton convention, in forming the constitution, di~ not by that act, and could not by any act, ira pair, dimninish, or restrain the authority of the territorial legislature; and hence, that the con stitution formed at Lecompton, and presenser to Congress for acceptance, should. be cons ered and treated like any other memorial’ petition, which Congress miiay accept or reject or disregards according to the facts and cir cumst,ances of the case. This point was alsc considered and decided by General Jackson’: administration in the Arkansascase, as appea 1)y the fidlowring extract fromn the same opinio of Attorney-General Butler: -. *‘But I am not prepared to say that all proeeding ol this subject, on the pert of the citizens of Arkansas, wil bl illegl. They undo,btedly posse.ss the ordinary privilege anti immunities of citize.ns of the U-iitwl States. Amcni th,se is the ri,,ht of the people’ pea,:eably to assemble an to petition the goverinment for the redress of grievance& Ini the exercise of this right. the i..‘mb-titanLs of Arkanhe ntpeaceably meet tocether in prim,ary assemblies, or i~
convrenti)ns chosen by such assemblis; for the purpose oi petitioning Congre.os to abrogate the territorial government {anll to admit them into the Un-ion as an independent st.t The t,articul.,r form which they m,.ay give to their petitiot cannot be material, - long as they confine themselves t the mere right of petitioning. and conduct all their pro eetUngs in a peaceable manner. And as the power ofCo gress over the w hole subject is plenary and unlimited! they may accept any constitution, however framed, which in their judgnmeat t,~ noa Muens~e of tl~ par Io be agfenda lb 81 434 THE POLMICA ~,i

Page 435 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 435 by it. Tf. therefore, the riti.c’.s of Arianeas think proper, ceedings ” in strict eubordination.to the exi.viin.o to accompany thel petition by a written ronstitution,.to te estin framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by l territorial govertment,” as well as “in entire a convention of deleates chisen by such &aaeiblies, I per-subserviency to the power of Congress to al,tpt, ceive no le-,al objection to their powver to do -n, nor to any reject, or disregard them at their pleasure.” measures which may he taken-to collect the sense of the people in respect to it; provided. always. that such me.asures Such being the case, whenever the legislature be commenced and pr”.ecuted in a peac.able manner, in ascertained that the convention, whose exist strict subordinati-n to tle exizti,ig territorial goemrnmt, and in ntir,‘e subsiertincy to the pwear of Congr to a,dop rejectl, ence depended upon its will, had devised a or disregard Ame at theirpeare. scheme to force a constitution upon the people “It i., however, very obvious that all measures corm-i without their consent; and without’any author mented and prosecuted with a design to subvert the terri-I. torial government, and to establish and put in force in its. ity from Congress, and which was believed to place a new government. without the consent of Congress, be repugnant to the feelings and hostile to the will be unlawful. The laws establishing the territorialgI feelings adostile vernment must continue in force until abrogated by Con-interests of the people to be affected by it, it gress; and, in the meantime, it will be the duty of the became their imperative duty to interpose and governor, andrf all the territoril officers a we611 as of the Iresident, ttakoe care that they are fithfurlly executed. exert the authority conferred upon them by Congress in the organic act, and arrest and If we apply the principles to Kansas which prevent the consummation of the scheme be received the sanction of General Jackson and tore it had gone into operation. The legisla his administration in the Arkansas case, it be-ture deserves creditforthepromptness, wisdom, comes apparent that the Lecompton convention and justice which characterized its proceeding had the right to assemble under the protection in thisrespect. Thememberswerefamiliarwitli .f that clause of the Constitution of the United the wishes of the people, having been elected States which secures to the people the right afterthe Lecompton convention assembled, and “peaceably to assemble, and to petition gov-before it concluded its labors, and at the end emrment for the redress of grievances;” and, of an exciting canvass, in which the origin and in the exercise of this right of petition, they organization of the convention, the circum might pray “Congress to abrogate the terr-stances under which the delegates were elect torial government, and to admit them into the ed, and their pledge to submit the constitution Union as an independent state,” provided to the people for ratification or rejection, and “they confine themselves to the mere right of the various provisions which were to be incor petitioning, and the constitution enclosed in porated into the constitution, were all fully and their petition meets the sense of the people to be freely discussed by both parties before the fected by it,” and also that “such measures people. The legislature not only passed the be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable act of the 17th of December, authorizing the manner, in strict subordination to the ei.ting people to vote for or against the constitution territorial government, and in entire sitbservi-before it should be sent to Congress for accept ency to the power of Congress to adopt, reject, or ance, but, in order to prevent any action by ldsregard them at their pleasure;” but that said Congress before the people should have an convention could not establish a government, opportunity of making their wishes known in or ordain a constitution, or do any other act, an authoritative and legal form, the following under pretence of “preparing the territory-for preamble and resolutions were adopted, as pub admission into the Union as a sovereign state,” lished in the public prints, by the unanimous calculated or intended to abrogate, impair, or vote of the two houses: restrain the legislative power of the territory overall rightful subjects of legislatiQon consist-fraed a /t o,mm Ar aa,i teyr. on, the 7Ut doy of ent with the organic act - If these principles S, I8a. -.’ be sound-if’the doctrine of General Jackson’s,, Ywou a small minority of the people living in nine-administration in the Arkansas case be correct, teen of the thirty-eight counties of this territory availed Lthe Prsident is mi e *.g t th-m.Slves of a law wvhich enabled them to obstruct and the President is mistaken in stupposing that defeat a fair expression of the popular will. did. by the odious the Lecompton convention did, or could do, and oppresrive application of the provisions and partisan any act depriving the territorial legislature o mhinetv of said law, procure the return of the whole ally act depriving the teumitoral lgbe r o f the delegates of the constituion.tl convention the power and right to pass a law referring the reee,,tly assembled at Lecompton: constitution to a vote of the people on the -And wireas. by reason of the defective provisions of said law. in connexion with the neglect and misconduct of 4th of January, with the view of ascertaining the authorities charged with the execution of the same. the the essential and all-important fact whether it people living within the remaining nineteen counties of the ,,meets the sense of tile pople to be affected by ~ternitory were not permitted to return deleg,,tee to said con “meets the sense of te pople to be afected by vention. were not r,cognised in itts organization, or in any it.” The power of the territorial legislature other sense heard or felt in its deliberations: Over the-whole subject was M full and abso-l And w/or’eo it is an axiom in political ethirs that tbhe thcle sueth wasy oful December,awhnd th people cannot be deprived of their rights by the negligence lute on the 17th day of December, when the or mrisconduct of publc officrs b lute on the isonuct of pub~lic officers: law was enacted providing for the submission -And w.;reas a minority-to wit: twenty-eight only of of ~~~~~~~~~~~~~the sixty members of said conventilon h:‘ve attempted. by f the constitution to the people at the election an unw;or-hv contrivance, to impose upon the whole peopld ‘n the 4th of January, as it was on the 19th of this territory a constitution without consulting their {lay of February 1857 when the legislature ihes.ndagainsttheir will: ..’…’ -‘{ * And w:ierc’os the members of said convention have passed the aet calling the Lecompton conven-refi,ed to submit their action for the apt)roval or disaption into existence. The convention was the proval of the voters of the territory, and in thus acting creature of thee territorial legislature was hhave defied the knowis will of nine-tenths of the voters creaure f th teritoral lgislture wasthereof: called into existence by its mandate, derived -,And “e.r’as the action of a fragment of said convenwhllatever power it possessedl from its en-titn, repre.-tincn an they did a small minority of the voters whand was bowed to conuest f l ict spo the tery.*rrputiates and crushes out the distinct ive meri,andwsbut o o d c l t pro-pinJI, e of the -‘\ebrsska-Kausd’s act,’ and vioLase and q ..,..

Page 436 view page image

TI I OWTM.IAL TEXT-BOQO0 tramples under foot the rights and’ the sovereignty of the I people: Pe”.And whereas. from the foregoing statement of fats, ita clearly appears that the people have not been left free to lbrm ano regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,’ but, n the contrary, at every stage in the annumalous pro-e” ng recited, they have been preveunted from so doing: “Be ift thertfore resolved by the gor on f n and tn ioative a bly -f Karas territory, That the people of Kansas ielng opposed to said onstitution. Congres has no ri’htful -power under it to admit.said territory into the Union as a ste. and the representatives of said p,ple do bereby, in their name. and on their behalf, solemuly protest aga oinst s’c. sadmision. n Rea ed. That such action on the part of Congres would, In the judgment of the members of this legislative asem bly, be an entire abandonment of the doctrine of noninter, vention in the affairs of the territory, and a substitution in stead ofcongressional intervention in behalfofaminority engaged in a disreputable attempt to defeat the will and vio late the rights of the miajority. ~ RInecd, That the people of Kansas territory claim the rght through a legal and fair expression of the will of a Grity of her citizens, to form and adopt a constitution br themselves. - e Rled, Thlat the governor of this territory b e request ed to forwar d a copy of the foregoing preamble and rtsolutions to the Preden of te United State, the Preside n t ofr e hao the iSe na te, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to the delegate in Congress from the territory.” * In the fac e of all these evidences that the Lecompton constitution is not the act of the people of Kansas, and does not emnbody their will; that it was formed by a convention elected und er an act of the territorial legisla ture, without the consent of Congress; that the sixty delegates composing the conve ntion w ere cho sen by nineteen of the thirty-eioht 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 .epolls all persons who desired toY:ote 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 overwhelining majority, if they had been allowed an opportunity; that the mode of submitting the “.slavery article” .ras 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 anv man permitted to vote against making Kansas as slave state unless he would also vote for the constitution; that by this systein of trickery in the mode of submission, a larg~e m~ajority^, probablyl amounting to four-fifths of all the lega~l voters o~f van’sa, were disfranchised and excluded from the polls on the 21stof December;* that in order to prevent the injustice and wrong intendled to be perpetratedl b)sthe trickery resorted to in this mode of submission, and to secure in place of it Ma fair and honest election, the legislature, on the 17 th of December, passed a …: law providing fior ch an election on the 4fit |day of January, at which the whole peope should have an oppor tunity, freely and uncofi; Iditionally, to vote for or aginst the constitae tion, and for or against the slaver y article, a they pleased; that, at said election, a majoriti of more than ten th o usand of the legal voter th of Kahsas repudiated and rejected t he Lecomir ton constithruton; th at the e l e ctio n o n the 4t of January was lawful and valid, having beeio fairly and honestly conducted, under and’i-, pursuance of a valid law, which the PresidenEL. was not only bound to respect, but to see fait!h!~ fully executed, th e same os all other terro‘62 rial laws wh ich are not inconsi stent with the Cons t itution of the Unite d States and the or; ganic act of the territory; that the e lectio n fodt the 21st of December was not valid paitc bninding on the pe ople of the territory, for the reason that it was not held in pursuance of: any law of the territory or of the Uernito o ted tC s -e States, nor under the authority of any boder r of men duly authorized to make laws.” I} rmr’ peo at, that in, a p the fae of all these facts show i ingb conclusi vely that the Lecompton constitu dec tion is not th e act and deed of the people of; Kansas, and does not embody their adl, why are told by the Pre sident of the United StaLel that ” to the people of Kansas the on ly practior cal difference between admission or rejection depe nds simply upon th e fact whether the* can themse lve s more speedily chan ge the prit gent constitution, if it does not accord wit’ the will of the majority, or frame a secondbc constitution, to be submitted to Congress hem’re after.” - i There is a “practical differ ence ” far more -, important than the mere question of time, apdle there are principles in volved infinitely mor-t important than the practical difference.- ” there is a serious difference in practice’ii well as in pr inciple, wh ethe r the peo, le’d hv Kansas shall be permit ted to make andsad the c o nstitution under which they’ are tonl; and with which they are to be receive d volue p tarily into the Union, or whether Congress will force them into the Union against their will, and with a constitution which they have re pudiated by an overwhelming majority unde their votes at a fair election held in pursuance of law, and then maintain it b y f e d era l ba [e nets. ” If it be true, M represented by the P
dent, that “ever since the period of my [his]”* inauguration, a larg-e portion of the people of’ Kansas have been in a state of rebellion against the [territorial] government;” that “they have never acknowledged’, but hav” constantly renounced asnd defied the governf ment to which they owre allegiance, andi har~e been all the time in a state of resistance Against its authority,” that “sthey would long.’ since have subverted it, had it not been pro-..? tected from their,assazults by the troops of th~e United States;” that Governor Walker “coni sideredl at least two thousand troops, under the command of General Ilarnev, were necessal o hsproe;“adta tePt I V i -446 q

Page 437 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 if these statements be a fair and impartial 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 admission of Kansas into the Union” with a constitution to which they are unalterably opposed, and which they have repudiated by all overwhelming majority of their voters at a fair election held in pursuance of law, “would restore peace and quiet to the whole country;” that “domestic peace will be the happy consequence 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 territorial 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 establish 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 treasonable pertinacity;”-if these allegations, so gravely set forth by the President in his special message, be true, do they furnish satisfactory evidence to authorize the belief or even grounds for hope that “the speedy admission of Kansas into the Union,” with the Lecompton constitution, “w ould restore pe ace an d quiet to the whole country,” and that “domestic peace will b e th e happy consequence of its admission?” It is to be lamented that the President does not seem to comprehend the nature and charaeter of the controversies which have so unhappily 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, socalled, did boldly, firmly, and persistently refuse to recog,nise the territorial legislature of Kansas an a legally and duly constituted legislative body, with authority to pass laws Mwhich were valid and binding on the people of Kansas, for the reaso)n, as they alleged, that the mlembers of that legislature weere not elected by the people of IKansas, b~ut wzere elected b~y four or five thou sand citizens of the adjoining state of Missouri, Echo are said to havo invaded the territory on the day Band a few days previous to the (lay of election, and, dividing themselves into small parties, andl spreading; over a lln ad fr the in habit ed parts of the territory, to ok possession of the polls and drove aw ayr the peaceable legal voters, and thus forced a leg islature up on the pe ople of Ka nsas against their will, and in violation o f the KansasNebraska act. These are the allegations and grounds of justification ur g ed 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 all ega tions are sustained by the facts, nor what number of the election districts wer e cont rolled by the se i llegal vot es, n or the principles of law applicab le to the facts, o r the legal conclus ions properly resul ting fr om them. The se q ues tions were all fully considered and elaborately d iscussed by me in a report fro m this committee on t he 12th of March, 1856. I refer to them now, n o t for the purpose of reopening that discussion, or of chan ging the c onc lusions to which I the n arrived, but with the v iew of showing upo n what grounds the Free-State part y claimed that they were justified in with holding their allegiance t o the te r ritorial government un til 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 which the members elected in October, assembled and organized as a legislative body, all the opponents of the Lecompton constitution have recognised the territorial government as valid and legitimate, acknowledging-their allegiance to it, and their determination and duty to sustain and support 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 lit 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 majority 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 ratification or rejection, before it could be considered the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and that its ratification by the people must be a conditio)n precedent to the admission of Kansas into the U~nion by C’ongres.s. The President, in his instructions to Gov~ernor Walker, through his Secretary of State, under date of March 30, said: “When s-uh constitution shall be submitted to the people of the territory, they must be protected in the exercise of t ither right of voting FOR OR AOAINST that instrument. and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence.” 437

Page 438 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK.. for Congress, and for county officers. This elec tion dissipated the last ray of hope on the part of the proslavery 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 proslav-ery constitution, it was well known that at least onehalf 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 they should ascertain the relative strength 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 firom the polls all who proposed tovote against it. By this disreputable trick they hoped to save themselves, the President and his cabinet, and all who co-ope:itted with them, from the dis grace of violated pledges, at the salie time that they defrauded the people of Kansas of the stcred ri,,ghts of selfgovernment guaran teed bv the organic act, by f)rcing a eonstitu tion upon them without their consent and against their wishes. It is )uit just to remark that the nmoment this scheme of trickery and( fraud was promulgated, a large majoritv of the Demlocratic party, inceluding the better portion of the proslavery party, awho had acted with the Leconiptorites up to that timne, instantly withdrew their confidence aind supp)rt, anld denounced the ieoasure as 4a btase hbetraiyal of the rights o(f the peoplet. The LeciIlnptolites were loyal to the territorial g,)verni ilient s(o long as they filled the offices rand l controlled its power, itit the iomnent they Adele defeated at the election, and the power fpassed into the hands (if their opponents, they reblcled against it, defied its authority, anal devised schemes to destroy its existence. Thus they provided: ” This constitutiin shall take effect and be in force from and after its ratifiecation by the people, as hereinbefore pr.ovidI ed;” that is, from and after the election on. “EWith 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 amwembling a convention to form a constitution,’ and they express the opinion of the President, that when such conotitut ion shall be submitte d to t he people of the territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or aga,inst that instrument; and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence.” ” I repeat. then, as my clear conviction, that, un7ess the convention submit the constitution to the rote of all the actual resilent settlers of Kansas, and the electis,n be fairly and ,uietly conducted, the CONSTITUTION. WILL BE AND OUGHT TO BE

IESECTED BY CONGRESS.” These official papers, containing the most solemn and unequivocal assurances on the part of the President, the cabinet, and the g,overnor, that the constitution would be sub imiitte(d to the people for ” ratification or rejec tion.” and that in the event it should not be .submitted, it ” will and outght to be rejected by Congress,” were published and spread broad cast over the territory, prior to the election of deleg.-tes to the convention, for the purpose of satisfying the people that, although they had been unjustly afnd foully treated in the apportionment of delegates by the total (]is f1-anchisement 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 subhnit the constitution to the people for “ratification or rejection,”

and that unless it should be thus submitted at a fiair election, “the constitutionl will be aclod ought to be rejected by Conigress.” The people, relying on these solemn pledges (f the PIresidlent, the cabinet, and the,,)vernor, supported by the constant assurances of all the government ()ffiecrs in the teirriti}ry, aniid affirmnied by the Demlocratic palrtv, unaniimously, in their res(~,utions earloe’sing the ])oli,.y of Governor Walker, and niomiinating (a,)vernor Itansom f)r Con,ress, and e,,mtfirmned l,yi seniat(ors and representatives in C)ngriess, whl,o visited the territory, and gave similar l),e(d.es in their speeches to the peoIple, were ltilulhd into} a false and fa,ttil securitv, inder th’e b,elief that the great wrong.r perpetrated ill the wapp)rtionnient folr the electio)n of (delegfates xv.,ll (i be c(crrectedi and rendlered harmless I)v the submission of the constitution to a v,te o]’ the people at a fair election for ratification fir rejections. Tius the nmatter sto,od wihen the election took p!atee on the first 3I )n lav of Octtober last, anal resutltel in the total detbt ef the D)emiiocratic party, aind( the triumrnph and election ofX Free-State tuen for the legislature, 438 Governor Walker, -‘,n an official despatch to the Secretary of State, under date of June 2, said: 14 On one point the sentiment of the people is almost ” nanimous-that the constitution must be submitted f,,r ratification or rejection to a vote of the people who shall be bonafide residents of the territory next fall.” And in his inau,ural address to the people 11 of Kansas, Governor Walker said:

Page 439 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. the 21st of D)ecemniber, 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-pen, naked, undisguis ed rebellion?

Where is the difference between this and the Topeka movement, which the President denounces as “revolutionary government,” organized in defiance of the authority of the United States, which it was his duty to siupli)ress with the federal troops? I-le says: ” Ths Topeka government, adhered to with such treasonable pertinacity, is a government in direct opposition to the existing gove-l-e ment prescribed and recognized by Congress.” Might not the President have said, with as much fairness and justice, that “this Lecompton constitution, adhered to with such treasonable pertinacity, is a constitution in direct opposition to the existing government prescribed and recognised by Congress?” If it be said that the Topeka constitution was framed and declared to be in force without the consent of Congress, and, therefore, “revolutionary,” it may be answered, with equal truth, that the Lecompton constitution was framed and declared in force without the consent of Congress, and, consequently, “revoluti)n,mary,” for the same reason. But we al e told that the Lecompton convention assembled under the authority of the territorial legislature. It istrue that it commenced its proceedings under the sanction of the legislature, and terminated its action in open rebellion against the authority of the legislature. When the legislature, on the 17th of December, 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 Lecomuptonites defied the authority of the legislature established by Congress, and treated the law with contempt, refusing to yield obedience to it, or respect its mandates, or abide by th, decisions under it. Thus it will 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 governmenrt under the so called Topeka (Lecompton) constitution in its stead.” So it appears that the Lecompton constitution, as well as the Topeka constitution, was declared to ” take effect and be in force,” not only without the consent of Congress, but in defiance and c(mntempt )f the authority of the territorial legislature establfished b y Congrress. IHence, if it be true that the Topeka constitution was rev~olutionary (and I havte always held thatt it was Bo), for the reason that it Mwas declared to take effect and b~e in force withoutr the consent of Congress, and in defiafibe of the authority of the territorial legislature, it is undeniable that the Lecomnpton constitution was In revolution ary” for the same reason and that the he President of the United States w as u nder the same official obligation to maintain the supremacy ofer the territorial law over the Lecompton constitution as he was over the Topeka c onstitution, until Congress should otherwise order a nd direct. Upon what principles of fairness or justice, then, can it be u rge d th at w e should admiiit Kansas into the Union with the Lecompton constitution? Certainly no t upon the ground that it is t h e act and deed of the people of Kansas, and fairly embodies their will, for it has been conclusi vely sho wn that it has been repudiated pee by the people, by more than ten thousand majority, a t a fair ele ction held in pursuance of a valid law. Not upon the ground that it was adopted ” in strict subordination to the existing territorial government, and in entire subserviency to the power of Congress to adopt, reject, or disregard it at their pleasure,” as was held by General Jackson, in the Arkansas case, to be necessary, for it has been shown, beyond all controversy, that it was declared to ”’ take effect and be in force” in defiance of the authority of the territorial legislature, and without the consent of Congress. But the speedy admission of Kansas 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 portion of the antislavery feeling of the country, which, overlooking the great principle of selfgovernmcnt 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 antislavery feeling to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, the President presents and enforces, by argument, the following 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 manner can this be done so promptly, if a majority of the people desire it, as by admitting it into the Union under the present constitutio~n.” 3d. That ” the people wvill then be sovereign, and can regulate their owen 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 b~e effected so speedily as by prompt admission;” and that ” the legislature already, elected may, at its fiery first session, submit 439

Page 440 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tjority is supreme and irresistible when ex pressed in an orderly and lawful manner.’ But the quest ion is, when a constitution has once become the supreone law of a state, what ” lawful manner” is there of changing it, ex cept the one provided and per mi tt ed by the constitution? I agree with the Presitont, also, that th at “the peopl e can make an d unmake constitutions at ple asure.” Buthow-in what manner is this to be done? There are two imodesnthe o n e lawful, and e the other revolu tionary. When a constitution has once be come the fundamental law of a state, there is no ” lawful man ner,” 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. Ilence, if the Lecompton constitution be 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 twothirds 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 desire 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 legislature 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 haver been done, of what relief will it be to the opprassed people of Kansas, unless Mr. Calhoun shall set asidle the fraudulent returns from Delaware Crossing, or go behind the returns and reject the fraudulent votes at Kickapoo, Shaw nee, or Oxford, or at other precincts, in order to insure a majority in both bran,ches of the legislature opposed to the Lecomptonl constitution, and in favor of an immedlizto change? 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 twothirds of each house of the legislature to authorize the people to vote for a convention, and declaring the right of the legislature already elected to call a convention, by a majority votei in violation 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 constitution. after the year 1864, could forcibly be 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 Kausas) 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 and 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 principles of American freedom, and are recognised, I believe, i n some form or other, by e ver y state constitution; and if ICngress, in the act of admi&sirm. shloul,d think proper to recogniae them, I can perceire no objection to such a ciurse.”

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 initiatory 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 twothirds 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 provisions of a state constitution, and license the nmembers 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 admnitted into the Union, and that they may proceed to alter or abrogate it in a mode and at a time different from that authorized or permitted in the instrument? If the Lecompton constitution be the act and deed of the people of Kansas; and if it be accepted by Congress as such, and the state be admitted into the Unio n under it, I hold that there is no lauwfil mnode on earth to change or amend it, except the one provided and authorized in the constitution itself. I agree that’ the will of the ma 440

Page 441 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. ments have been changed by revolution, with out violence or bloodshed; but this is the ease 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 selfgovernment 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 eonstitu 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 twothirds 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 suppressi ng insurrection, and maintaining the authority of the constitution, until lawfully changed in the manner prescribed ~in the instrument? Or, if it could be converted into a judicial, instead of a political question, and brought before the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication, can any one doubt the decision? Would not the court be compelled to decide that the constitution, having once become the fundamental law of the state, must be respected and obeyed as such until changed or annulled, in pursuance of its own provisions? Would not the court be compelled to declare, as an invariable and universal rule of interpretation, 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 accomplishing 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 instrum~ent, and should proceed so far as to adopt a new constitution, 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 Unless the Pr e sident is prepared to inform us that this is to be done, it is worse than mockery to talk about the ri ght of the legisla tu re, ” at it s very first session,” to submit the question to the peop le, and to insert a void clause in the act of admiss ion declaratory of a right which can be exercised only in violation of the constitution, an d bv r evolution; 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 appears 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 permitted to know the result of his deliberations; whether the rumors of yesterday that the anti-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 Lecompton 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 antiLeconmpton ticket having been returned to Governor Denver instead of Mr. Calhoun, the Lecompton ticket for governor and state officers 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 lby the governor’s veto, it not being anticipated in any contingency that the opponents of the Lecompton constitution would have a majority 9f twothirds in each branch of the legislature? tIence, it must be apparent to all that, in the -vent that Kansas is admitted under the Le,ompton constitution, every argument or proposition founded on the idea that the people of Kansas will have the opportunity of chang,ng the constitution by peacefill means through ‘_he instrumentality of the legislature, must, in -1ll probab~ilitiy, prov e deceptive and delusive. I n the event that the deed shall be consummatnld, their only alternative will be submission or -evolution. r~evolutions are, sometimnes, peaceual and bloodless.

Constitutions and govern 441

Page 442 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. against domestic violence,” when applied to in the maniner provided in the Federal Constitution? 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 applied to for that purpose? Ilence 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 antagonism with each other-the one organized under the Lecomtpton constitution, and the other established by the people in opposition to the Lecompton constitution-whichl will the President recognise as valid and legitimnate, and which will lie 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 shiould be determined, in order that the people of Kansas mav 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 revolution 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 Lecomipton 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.” had all the matters committed to them under consideration, and now present the following report: The leading object of the resolution under which the comm i ttee was raised seems to have been the asertainment o f all the e ssential facts bearing upon the question or propriety of the admission o f 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 emb raced an in quiry into all facts relating to the legality and regularity of he ctin the pr oeedings resulting in the frmation of th at c ons titution, both antecedent and subsequent thereto, showing wehe t he r or not it be the embodiment of the legally and fairly expressed will of the bona _fide citizens of Ka nsas. With t h is un derstand ing of the f ield of l abo r befo re theo m, the committee directed their attention  1st. To a law passed by the territorial legis - lature providing for t aking the sense o f the people at the October election in 1856, upon t he expediency of calling a convention to form a st ate consti tuti on. 2d. The law of the territory passed the 19th of Febr uary, 1857, in pursuance of the popular will expressed under the previous act, providing for an election to be held on the 15th June, 1857, of delegates to such a convention. 3d. The official registry of voters, and the apportio nme nt made by the a cting 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 conventioIl 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 constitute, in the judgment of the committee, all matters having any material bearing upon the main questions embraced in the recommienda. tion of the President, and covered bjythe reso lution of the Itouse. But they permitted t’ be filed, and report to the I-louse withou deeming them relevant or material, 7th. The act of the territorial legislature of 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, all cumulative, though not mate 9th. The letter of Mr. Calhoun, president of the Lecon pton convention, to the chailrmn of the Comamittee on Territories in the Senate. All thlese palpers are appended in full to this REPORT OF THE COMMIJTTEE OF FIFTEEN. In the lIo)use of Representatives, the subiect was referred to a Select Committee of fifteen, who, on the 10th of March, 1858, through their chairman, Mr. Stephens of Georgia, made the followinig report: The select committee of fifteen appointed under the resolution of the Ilouse of the 8th of February, to whom was referred the imessagfoe of the President of the United States of the 2(1 of February, “concerning the constitution framed at Lecolimpton, in the territory of Kansas, by a cotnven tion of delegates thereof, and the papers accompanying the same,” with instructions ” to inquire into -,ll the facts connected with the formation of sai(d constitution, and the laws under which the sam e or iginated; and into all s uch facts and proceedings as h ave transpired since the formation of said constitutioih having relation to the question or propriety of the admission of said territory into the Union under said constitution: and whiether the same is acceptable and satisfactory to the majority of legal vwters of Kansas,” have 442

Page 443 view page image

NEBRASKA. AND KANSAS. 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 constitt 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 sovereignt y i s vested ex clusively in the people of each state, and that it performs its first but not highest function in forming a st ate government and state constitution, may be granted. But that this first act of sovereignty in making a constitu tion ca n o nly be perforned by the peopl e themse lve s, and that the p owe r to perform it cannot be del e gated to conventions or in termediate bod ies, is not, granted. Such a doctrin e 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 ” resides w ith the people,” and that it is “inalienable,” 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 tiling as representative 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’tself 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 formation 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 propri.is personis,” 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 /tigher act of sovereignty than the declaration of war; for this may put in jeopardy the existence of sovelreig~nty itself; andc yet in our representative system this is left, not to the peoJple themselves, but to their representatives. H~ence, 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 report, (except a part of the journal wh ich has not yet been received, but which is expected in tim e t o b e presented with th e rest,) and marked as exhibits in regular order. The c ommittee deemn it unnecessary to go into an elaborate expo sitio n of them by d etail. A gen eral reference to some of th e material parts, for the purpose of illustrating th e conclusions to b e d rawn from them, will be quite sufficient. Those which they deem material are all docu lentary, about wh ich there can be no dispute. They show a full and complete history of the roCeedings res ulting i n t he f trmation of the ucompton constitution fro f the ir beginning to their end: First, a the law i’

taking the sense of the peopl e upon th e pr opriety ot’ applying for admission. Next,re B the law authorizined the call, in pursuance of the popular will. Next, the regist ry of voters, and apportionment of delegates. Next, the assembling of the con vention, with their proceedings. Then, th e constitut ion so ior med; and, lastly, the ratifica tion of it i n the mode and ioeanner provided by the convention.

Tile legalitv and repularity of the whole are marked throghout. Every step in its progress wasp taken in strict conform nity to law.. But little appears on the fac o te of tile record even for coInment. The question for the consideration of the Itouse is ou geht Kgansas to be admitted as a state under the constitution so presented? By the Con stitution of the United States new states may be -ladmitteld ) y Congress in to o wr this Uio” n by the same instrument it is provided tihat ” th e United States s hall guaran tee to ev ery state in this Unid,on a republicaon formt o f govertnmen t.” Uender the first of these ela,uses eighteen new states have been admaitted since the Union was formeid; and two, besides Kansas, are now applyin, for admission. The usual questions ot’ inquiry upon the appl ications of new states, have beent st. In relatio n t the number of the population. 2d. The regularity of the proceedlings under which the application has Leeds made. 3d. Whether the constitution presented be republican in form. In this case the attention of tile committee has not been directed to the question of population. That point seems to be c,)ceded on all sides. Upon the point of legality atnd regularity no question can arise. No state ever before applying exhibited,rie-Lter regularitv in her proceedings. Onl this p,oint there can be no douubt. The only o-ther olle, as to the republican form of’ the co)istitution-that, too, seems to be equally clear, ainidI beyond ctvil or dispute. WVhat, thenl, are the (ohjecti~ms to the recognition of the constitution, and~
the admliXssion of the state under it? Th’ese, it is tr ue, arise mostly on matters outside (,f the rec~)rd. But the committee propose briefly to notice them in connection w^ithl S)lne seemlinlgly fbunlded on the face of the record itself. The first of tile latter clt1ss is that urged bJy 443

Page 444 view page image

THIE 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 representative, 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 anv such amendment. Such amnendmenrts are to be acted upon by the state legislatures. In all the old states, with one exception, their first constitutions were formed arid 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 emintience in wealth, power, and renown, derived all its sanction by the people through their representatives in convention. The same is true of Mississippi, his once adopted state, and the same is true of a majority of the states of this Union. If Governor Walker’s judgm en t in this particular be right, then all these constitutions are necessarily invalid, null, and void; and we have neither constitutions nor laws inl more than half of the states of the Union. This doctrine is as preposterous as it is monstrous. Its bare statement is enough to consign it to general repudiation and conideination. The uniform course in our past history has been, when a new state applies for a(dmiission, to see that the sovereignty of the people has spoken through its leatlly constituted organs. The question of submitting thleir c onstitution 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 thelfi. 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 tif providing by oadh tor the callintg of a convention to fitrut a copi stitution, and by law to define the powers or duties of the. convention. This will lie seen by the section (6) 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 conv ention was elect ed w ith unlimi ted and plenary powers. Th at such a convention coul d b e so clothe d no one can doubt who is acqu ainte d with the history of similar bodies. They, therefore, had full power, at their own discretion, t o submi t th e whol e cons titution formed by them or any part or no p art of it, just as they pleased, for ratification. This the people well understood before the election of delegates. This Governor Walker virtually told them himself. In his inaugural address he says: “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 frame a constitution and state government. The law has performed its entire appropriate function when it extends to the people the rig,ht 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 at t for them in that contingency, and the absentees are as imuch bound under the law and constitution. where there is no fraud or violence.

by the act of the nm.-jority of those who do vote, as if all had participated in the election. Otherwise, as voting must be voluntary, selfgovernment would be impracticable, and monarchy or despotism would remain a.s the only alternative. ” You should not console yourselves, my fellowcitizens, 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 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.” Thi s la nguage clearly conveys the idea that the convention might or migh nt not submit the consuttution to be formed by them to a vote of the pe ople; and so far fr om the pe ople not b eing ibale to delegat e power or to a uthorize others to make a constitution for the m beinge 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 couferred 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 reeogtnises the territorial act which provides for assembling a conventio.l to f5)‘m a ctmstitutioni with the view to making application to C,),ngr, ss for admission as a state into the Unlionl. That act is renalrdled as presen ting the only text of the qualificati,,n )f votes t f)r delegates to the convention, and all precedin, repugnant restrictions are thereby repe,led. In this light the act must be allowed to have provided t;,r a full and fair expression of the ill of the people through the delegates who nma.y be chast,n to repre.,ent them in the conjstitution,al conventi,u. I do not doubt, however, that, in order to awoid all pre!test for r~sistane to the peaceful operation of this law.

tihe convention itself will in some form provide for submitting the great distra’tin~ question regardling their s(o’ial inistitutif,nis which has so long agitated the people of Kansas to t fair vote of all the atctual bona jide residents of the territory, with ever-y p’,ssitble security against fraud and violenee. If the constitution tbe thus framed. and the question of differeneeH thus sutmitte,d 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 Americanl Unionl, and the territorial authorities will be immediately withdrawn.” Hlere Mr. Stanton clearly admits the full power of the delegates to be chosen to form a constitution, valid in itself, whether it be sub I 44,4

Page 445 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. mitted or not for ratification. It is true, he telling the people that the convention would expresses great confidence that the “distract-have full power to make a constitution without ing question,” which was the slavery question, submitting it, also told them that, in hisjudqwould be “in sos!ip form” submitted to a fair ment, the entire constitution to be framed by vote of the bona fide residents of the territory, them ought to be submitted to the decision of and the firm belief that if “the question of the people, and that if it were not, in his judg.difference” should be submitted to the decision ment Congress would not, and ought not to, of the people Kansas would be admitted with-admit the state under it. In this he differed out delay. This is exactly what was done by widely from Mr. Stanton, and in making the the convention, as the testiinonv accompanying declaration he greatly transcended his rightful this report shows. As to the powers of the power.

He undertook to prescribe for Con convention, however, the committee will cite gress the exercise of a right they do not pos-. but one other authority. That is a speech sess under the Constitution of the United made by Judge Douglas at Springfield, Illi-States. When a new state presents a constinois, on the 12thl June, 1857, just before the tution for admission, Congress has no more election of the delegates took place. power to inquire into the manner of its adop “Kansas,” said he. “is about to speak for herself, through tion than the matter of its substance. The her delegates assembled in convention to form a constitution matter cannot be inquired into further than to preparatory to her admission into the Union on an equal see footing with the original states. Peace and prosperity norm; and the mode prevail throughout her borders. The law under which her and manner of its adoption cannot be inquired delegates are about to be elected is believed to be just and into only so far as to see that it has been formed fair in all its objects and provisions. There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted in such way as the people have legally estaband impartially executed, so as to insure to every ona fide lished for themselves. The doctrine of Goverinhabitant the free and quiet exexrise of the elective fra nor Walker would be utterly subversive of all chise. If any portion of the inhabitants, acting under the advice of political leaders in distant states, shall (hoose to state rights and state sovereignty; for one of absent themselves from the polls and withhold their votes the unquestionable attributes of sovereignty is with a view of leaving the free-state democrats in a minority, anI thus securing a proslavery constitution in opposi-the absolute right to select its own mode of gitiod to the wishes of a majority of the people living under ing expression to its own will. it, let the responsibility rest upon those who, for partisan If then, pon general priniles,aswella purposes, will sacrifice the priunciples they profess to cherish and promote. Upon them, and upon the political party for from established usage, it clearly appears that whose benefit and under the direction of whose leaders they the validity of a constitution does not necesact, let the blanme be visitd of fastening upon the people of a new state institutions repugnant to their feelings and in satrily depend upon its having received a popuviolation of their wishes. The organic act secures to the lar ratification, is there anything in the Kansas people of Kansas the sole and exclusive right of forming’ and regulating their domestic institutions to suit them-ll that ares ths case from former preceselves. subject to no other limitation than that which the dents? On this point Governor Walker says, Constitution of the United States imposes. The democratic “these rights” (that is the right of having the party is determined to see the great fundamental principle of the organic act carried out in good faith.

The present constitution as a whole submitted to a popular election law in Kansas is acknowlelged to be fair and just. vote) “I have ever regarded as fully secured The rights of the voters are clearly defined, and the exer-to cise of these rights will be efficiently and scrupulously pro-the people of all the terrtores’ n adop tected. Itence, if the majority of the people of Kansas ing their state constitutions by the Kansas-Nedesire to have it a free state (and we are told by the repub-braska bill. Such is the construction of this lican party that nine-tenths of the people of that territory Kansas act its distinguished author, not are free-state men), there is no obstacle in the way of bring-by ing Kansas into the Union as a free state by the votes and only in his late most able argument, but by voice of her own people, and in conformity to the great addresses ade and published by him long anprinciples of the KansasNebraska act: provided all the free-tecede atdateb lihed thim sovestate men will go to the polls and vote their principles in tecedent to that date, showing that this soveaccordance with their professions. If such is not the result, reign power of a people in acting upon a state let the consequences be visited upon the heads of those whose policy it is to produce strife, anarchy, and bloodshed in c6nstitution is not confined to the question of Kansas, that their party may profit by slavery agitation in slavery, but includes all other subjects in such the northern states of this U~nion. “* the oithern states of this Union.” an instrument. Indeed, I believe the Kansas In this speech there is not the slightest allu-Nebraska bill would have violated the rights sion whatever to a subsequent ratification of of sovereignty reserved to the people of each the constitution to be formed before it would state by the Federal Constitution, if it had dehave validity; not the slightest reference to prived them, or Congress should now deprive any such construction of the KansasNebraska them, of the right of voting for or against their act. The language is: “Kansas is about to state constitution.” speakfor herselfthrough her delegates assembled What part or clause of the Kansas act gave ilt coneittion to form a constitution.” It was Governor Walker the idea that it secured not in the choice of these delegates that the respon-only to the people of that territory, but “all sibility was to rest uponr. those who, for parti-other territories,” the rights he mentions, this san purposes, under the control of leaders in committee are utterly at a loss to imagine. If distant state’s, should absent themselves from there is a word or sentence in it which emthe polls. That was the time their voice was bodies any such security, they have been unto be legally heard in the formation of a state able to discover it; and if the distinguished constitution; and if they chose to be silent, Senator from Illinois, who is thus styled the then they were to be silent ever afterward. author of that bill, ever gave any such conThey would bave nobody to blame but them-struction to it, antecedent to his” late”

speech, selves. this committee are not aware of it. If any It is true that Gov. Walker, while plainly such construction was put upon any part of it 44-b p

Page 446 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. had them to adopt. Hte wished them to decide that as well as other questions in his way; they preferred their own way to his. To correct 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. Th is was a mwatter entirely discretionary with themselves. In doing it they were doubtless actuated by the most patriotic motives. This was the origin of all the strife in the territory. This was the subject which Mr. Stanton 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 voting, the fault was their own. They have no 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 territory. The official vote on the ratification, when so submitted, was as follows: during its discussion in Congress in 1854, or afterward, or during the canvass of 1856, by that Se nator, or an y p erson else, this commit tee are equally unaware of it.

On the con trary, they have g o od ev idence that no such construction was the n or a fterward, or up to the 12th of June l ast, put upon it b y the Sena tor who is c alle d its au thor. I n t he speech m ade by him on that day he certainly put no such construct ion on the bill. During the last Congress the sa me Senator repor ted a bill, though he wa s not the author of it, providing for the call of at c onventio n in Kansas to form a state constitution fo r admission into the Union. That bill made no provision for the submission of the w ork of the conven tion to a decision of the people. That was known as the Toomrbs bill. It passed the Sen ate, and r eceived the vot e of the Senator fr om Illinois. In giving that vote, Gover no r Walk er may bel ieve that ea to ite the Senator “violated the rights of sovereignty 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 th e gov er nor says he had so r epeatedly given before his late speech. Indeed, the record of that Senator shows that he did not deem it necessary, under the KansasNebraska bill, to submit even the slavery question 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 be then thought that the act of sovereignty, in determining this question on the formation of a constitution, could be performed by the people, through the ” intermediate body ” of ” representatives,” as fully and completely as, if done by themselves.‘The words, finally adopted on this point in the bill, after declarino, the restriction -of 18200 null andi void, were as, follows: of the Kansas bill, as first reported by Senator Making an aggregate of 6795
voting on the Douglas, on this subject was in these words: question, and a majority of 5657 for the con “All the questions appertaining to slavery in the territory stitution as now presented. This is certainly and In the new states to be formed therefrom are to be left a very large majority of those joining in the to the decision of the people residing therein, through their eection, if not a majority of all the voters in appropriae represetatives.“election, if not a majority of all the voters in the territory, in favor of the constitution as it This shows that he then thought that the act is now before Congress; and according to the of sovereignty, in determining this question on doctrine of Governor Walker, in his inaugural the formation of a constitution, could be per-address, “those who abstain from the exercise formed by the people, through the “interme-of the right of suffrage authorized those who diate body” of “representatives,” as fully and did vote to act for them, and the absentees are completely as if done by themselves. The as much bound under the law as if all ia(l words finally adopted on this point in the bill, participated in the election.” If this view be after declaring the restriction of 1820 null and correct, then no constitution ever came up with void, were as follows: a stronger endorsement by popular vote, ln(l “,It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to every objection to its validity on the ground of legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude its wanting even this sanction, is utterly with it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free dto to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their out foundation own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United Another objection of the same class is, that s~~~tates.’ ~no enabling act was passed by Congress, or, If any inference is to be drawn from this in other words, that the legislature of Kansas change of phraseology, it is that the object did not have the legal right to call the colnaimed at by it was to leave even the slavery vention that formed the constitution. This question to be settled, as all others had been objection is equally untenable both on princibefore, by the people, in their own way, in con-ple and authority. The power to call a conformity to law and the Constitution of the vention to form a state constitution is clearly United States. If they chose to do it by repre-within the “rightful subjects” of legislationl sentatives, the power was given them so to do granted in the organic act.

But even with. it; if they chose to do it by general popular out that, the precedents are numerous where vote, the power was given them to do it in that conventions have been called without such {; way. Congress was to abstain from all inter-grant. Out of the eighteen new states hereference or intervention with or over their own tofore admitted, nearly half of them have conice way or manner of doing it, so that it was le-in under constitutions formed without any gally done under the Constitution of the United direct authority of Congress. Amongst these States. may be named Tennessee, Michigan, Iowa, The difficulty with Governor Walker seems i Texas, Ark.trisas, Kentucky, Florida, and Cato be, that they have chosen a way of their lifornia. InII addition to this. it may be addedl own different fiom the one that he would have that the most prominent of those wih,i now 446 Constitution, with slavery…. 622r, Constitution, without slavery…. 569

Page 447 view page image

NPEBRASKA AND KANSAS. urge this objection are estopped by their own declarations and admissions. GovernorWalker for instance, in his inaugural address in relation to the right of the territorial legislature to call a convention, uses this language: ” But it is said that the convention is not legally called, and that the election will not be freely and fairly conducted. The territorial legislature is the power ordainei for this purpose by the Congress of the United States. and in opposing it you resist the authority of the general government.” 7th district, Marshall county. 8th ” Riley and Pottawatomie counties. 9th ” Johnson county. 10th ” Douglas county. Ilth ” 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. 1lth ” Bourbon, McGee, Dorn, and Allen counties 19th ” Woodson, Wilson, Godfry, 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 required was made and returned for these districts as follows, as will be seen by Mr.

Stanton’s proclamation: And again he says: ” The territorial legislature, then. in assembling this ~ cention, were fully sustained by the act of Congress.” Mr. Stanton expresses similar sentiments that part of his inaugural address bet( quoted. Judge Douglas, in his Springfi speech, also quoted, does not intimate that then thought there was any necessity for enabling act. Moreover, his position on t admission of California is well known. that case a constitution had been sent formed by a convention called together wi out tile slightest pretext of legal authori either from Congress or any territorial orga zation. A proclamation of a military co mander was the sole foundation for it, and upon that occasion Judge Douglas said: Doniphan Brown Nemeha Atchison Leavenworth 1 Jefferson Calhoun Marshall Riley Pottawatomie. Johnson Douglas Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis Lykins…. Franklin Four counties Two counties. Ly n n One county (Anderson) Bourbon, McGee, Allen, and Dorn, Five counties 1086 206

140 804 18.37 555 201 206 353 205 496 1318 283 413 No return. No return.

No return. 413 No return. 645 No return. 9251 “I hold that the people of California had a right to do what they have done; yea, they had a moral, political, and legal right to do all they have done.” 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 California, is incomprehensible to this committee. They dismiss this point without further remark. 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 said that quite a number of counties, nineteen in all, making more than half of the counties in the territory, wert, disfranchised by the law of the 19th February, 1857, and were wholly unrepresented in the convention. By the statutes of Kansas, as:tll can see by reference, there are thii-ty-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 election 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 population, 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 arr-tged into election districts, as follows: 1s distict “oia Lynnty Upon this return of registration, showing 9251 voters, (which, upon all reasonable probabilities, 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 apportionment 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 reported. The apportionment was as follows: 1st district, Doniphan county… 7 delegates 2d ” Brown and Nemeha.. 2 “

3d ” Atchison… 5 ” 4th ” Leavenworth.. 12 ” 5th ” Jefferson… 4 ” 6th “

Calhoun…..2 ” 7th’ Marshall….1 ” 8th ” Riley and Pottawatomie.. 4 “

9th ” Johnson…..3 ” 10th ” Douglas.. 8 1lth ” Shawnee, Richardson, and Davis 2 12th’ Lykius.3…. ” 16th ” Lynn… 3 ” 18th ” Bourbon, McGee, Dorn, and Allen…. 4 ” 1,st district, Doniphan county. 2d’ Brown and Nemeha counties. . d ” Atchison county. 4th ” Leavenworth county. 5th “

Jefferson county. Pith ” Calhoun county. From this it will be seen that twentyone out of the thirty-four organized counties were embraced in the apportionment; and the 44T the No. of Names of counties. In district.

First SeCODd Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth. Tenth.

Eleventh Twelfth Thirteenth Fourteenth Fifteenth Sixteenth Seventeenth F,ighteenth .,Nineteenth Total…..

Page 448 view page image

THi POLITICAL -J, T-BOOK. 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 c lamor, 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 contro l of some of the counties. The y refuse d to recognize the validit y o f the law re qui rin g the regis try to be made. They oppo se d its executionl both by withholding their own names in some instances, and in others by driving the of fic ers, whos e duty it w as to make it, from the eountry, with threats to t ake the life of any who should a t tempt it.

This wa s particularly the case in Anderson and Franklin counties. If, then, these counties were unrepresented in the convention, their disf-anchisement was the work of their own people. Another significant 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, Douglas,Doniphan, andJefferson, atthat 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 constitution. And yet all these counties were registered and represented in the co nvention. They had thirtysix 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 twothirds of the convenltion, and could have made just such a constitution as whould have been most agreeable to their people. If they refused to act at the proper time, why do they complainl now? If others, con journals of the convention show that all these were 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 Franklir 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 thirt een c ounties nine had but a small population in them. Th is ( apart fro m the statement of Mr. Calhoun and other reli able information) clearly appears from the returns of the election on the 4th of January l ast, th e official announcemen t of whic h is filed w ith the pape rs of this report. From that it will be seen that not a vot e was returned as having been cast in that elec ti o n in seven of these thiriteen counties, about the disfranchise ment of which so much complaint has been made. T hese seven counties are Weller, Wise, Butler, Wilson.

Godfrey, Greenwood, and H un ter. Nor was th ere a vote at that election in ei ther othe oh e three unorganized counties of Washington, C lay, and Dickinson. I n t wo oe the thirteen counties st at ed aboveto wit: Madison and Woodson -the w re were but 90 v otes cas in the orier0 in the former and 50 in the latter; and but 1135 in the four remainingto wit: Franklin, 304; Breckenridge, 191; Coffee, 453; and Anderson, 177; so that if the e lec tion 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 mor e solid. This pre text becomes the more glaring when the cause of there being no reuistry in the se four counties of Fr ankli n, Breckenridye, And erson and Coffee, is understood.

This is fullv explained ,not only by the statement of Mr.‘Calhoun alluded to, but by the deposition of George Wilson, to be found in Senate Document No. 52, atthis session. From these and other notorious facts, the real and true cause of a failure of registry of voters in these counties and a consequent failure of representation being apportioned to them in the convention, too clearly appears to need much explanation. The parties in whose behalf the cry of disfranchisement is now raised, prevented the registry themselves. Since the organization of that territory, there has been in it a class of men whose avrowved object was to oppose and ov erthrow all legal authority. They went there faith this purpose. Their object was to set uip an iralperilur in imperie. In the language of the Presid3ent, they h1ave been in a “‘state of r ebellion” agtainset the leg’ally constituted autho(rities front the beginningr. This is fully established by nlumlerousz reports of G;overno)rs Shannon, (~cary, and Wtalker, and 00

Page 449 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 fromi the polls, or threw away their votes at the last presidential election, now come for ward 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 laches or ille gal acts, or to seek to remedy it by any such irregular proceeding as the vote taken on the 4thl 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 thejudgment of the committee, is to ascertain whether the constitution embodies the legally and fairly expressed will of those who, by their acts, acknowledge themselves to be bonafide citizens and constituent elements of the society or political community to be organized in a state within its jurisdiction. Those who, by their acts, show themselves not to be bona fide citizens, but mala fide residents, 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 }ide citizen in Kansas entitled to vote to have a free opportunity to be heard in its formation. This Mr. Stanton said; this Governor Walker said; this Judge Douglas said; this also abundantly appears from the facts and evidence now submDitted. The only correct test of the will of a majority of the bona fide vo-e ters of Kansas upon the subject of their constitution, is that of the ballotbox, and such an expression of their will as has been there given at the proper time and place, in conformity to law. By this test a miajority of thoeo is certainly in fax nr of it. The majority of those g(,ing t,o the pl11s when the election of delegates, witli full alnl plenary power c took place, was largely in favor of those wh o made the constitution-; 111(0 when the direct (elestion on the slavery clause was submitted (on the’21st I)eceinihei, the like majority was overwhel ming r’y in faz(or of it. On the 4tha January, in the election of state officers un 29 de r the con stitution, it is well known that both parties joined in a vigorous con test 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 Itouse 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 comnmittee, 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 circumI 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 regularitv and mbre strictly in conformity to law; when they remember the irregularities that were waived on the admission of California, whose constitution was formed without any legal authority; when they see the irreg,ularities in the case of Minnesota, now applying, which will doubtless be waived; when they feel and know that no valid or well founded objection can be made to the constitution of Kansas, either in its substance or manner of adoption, except that it recognises slavery so long as the sovereign state nmay 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 admnitted into the Union, and that the rejection of Kansas wsould increa~se and inflame that factious, sectional, andl unconstitutional spirit is it not natural that they should come to the concelusion that the real secret of its rejection is this b~are recognition of an institution which formns the basis of their civil society? Is it not naltulral that thlis aIct w\ouldl strongly tend to prod(uce distrust towzardls the common governmlent, lby awraken 4.

t9

Page 450 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ing a conviction that a determination is fixed by the majority never to allow another mem-t 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 destinies of the future. The committee barely allude to them; they are suggestive enough of themselves, without comment or enlargement. But the committee urge their calm and dispassionate consideration, especially as it is believed by them the peace, quiet, welfare, 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 themselves 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 belonging 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 f,ound in their organic act and the Constitution of the United States, under which they must continue so long as they remain in a territorial condition. The argument that Congress, by the admission, will be forcing any institution whatever upon an unwilling peopie, is L s gratuitous as it is groundless, even if a majority there be opposed to slavery. For bythe Constitution of the United States slavery is as mucL forced upon them as by the constitution of Kansas. This Congress cannot prevent, 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 following resolution: Mr.

Montgomery’s substitu t e t herefor on the 1st of April, 1858. That part in italics is what is called the Green Pugh amendment. [For vote, see tabul ar statement.] Whe reas, the peot ple of the territory of Kan sas did, by a conve nti on of delegates, catlled and assembled at Lecompt on, on the 4th day of September, 1857,or th fo r that purpose, for orin’

themselves a constitution and state gover nment, which said constitution is re pu blican, and said con vention having aske d 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 Hou se of Representative s of the United States of America in Cong ress assembled, That the state of Kan sas shall be, and is hereby declar ed 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 s tate shall consist of all the territory included with in the following boundaries, to wit: beginning at a point on the western boundary of the s tate of Missouri, where the thi rtyseventh parallel of latit ud e crosses the same; thence west on s aid parallel t o the eas tern boundar y of New Mexico; thence north on said boundary to lat itude thirty-eight; thence f o ll owing said boundary westward t o the eastern boundary of the territory of Utah, on the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence no rthward 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 with the western boundary o f s aid state to the place of beginning: Provided, that nothieing herein contained respecting the boundary 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 s uch Indi ans, o r to include an y t e rritor y which, by treaty with such Indian tribe, is not without the consent of swh tribe to be included within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of any state or territory; 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 respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to make if tlh:s act had not been p’ssed. Sec. 2. Andl be it further enacted, Th~at the state of Kansas is admitted into the Union upon ttle express condition that said state shall nev er interfere witle the prim a?: al of the public lands, or with any reg’’ns which Congress may find necessary fit~:securing the title in said lands to the bona fide purchasers and grantees thereof, or impose or levy ansy tax, assessment, or’ impo)sition of any descrip Re-olved. That Kansas ought to be admitted as a state into the Union under the Lecomnpton constitution on an equal footing with the other states, as recommended by the President. The result of these several reports wal%, thliat the Senate passed what is called the Senate Kansas bill, the House substituted for it the tdothtgom ery Amendment, - the Senate insisteid, the House adhered. A Committee of Conference was appointed, and a bill reported by it became a law. The several b ills, and r tabu]atr statement of the votes on them, follows hereafter. 450 The minority of the committee were Me.,,isr,,,,. Ilarris of Ill., A(irain of N. J.. Buffinton of Mass., Morrill of Vt., -,Ltid Waldrid(,e of -)Iich., who also presented,t report, disagi-etiii,, with 11 the above. Tnit SENATIE KANSAs BILL, As it passed the Senate on the 23d of,Nfarch, 1858, and which was amended in the Ilouse by

Page 451 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. ‘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, calle and assembled at Lecompton, on the 4th day of September, 1857, for that purpose, form ft;t’ themselves a constitution and state goverij, ment, which said constitution is republicati. and said convention having asked the admin 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) (franmed at Lecompton, on the seventh day oj’

November last, and now pending bejbre Cold 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 instr’i ment shall be first submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas, and assented to by thenm, 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 adnis sion of tile 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 Ie re tjected at the said election by a majority of vote s being e ast against it, thlen, and in that event, the inhlalitants of said territory are hereby authliorized and empowered to form for themselves a constitution and state govern inent bv the name of the state of Kansas, (~PRE,IN T.ATORY TO ITS ADMISSION INTO THF MeNt ON,) accoidingr to the Fed(eratl Constitux tion, and to that end may elect delegates to i con verntion as hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. And be it further enactedl, That the said state of Kansas shall have concurrent jorisdiction on the Missouri and all other riveirs and waters bordering on the said state of Kail sas, so far as the same shall form a comni,)n boundary to said state, and any other state or states now or hereafter to be formed “,l bounded by the same; and said rivers annl 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, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll thlerefor. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, for the purpose of insuring, as far as possible, 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 prop er, Congress hereby disclaiming any authority to interfere or declare the construction of the constitution of any state, except to see that it be republican in jbrm, 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 Kants, nor to deprive the said 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 admission 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 a]pportionmentof representation miade, thle state of Kansas shall be entitled to one representative in the Ifouse of Representatives of the United States. See. 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 inapplicable, 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 lI’ke power and jurisdiction as the district court of the United States or the district of Iowa, shall be established. irhe judge, attorney, and marshal of the United States for the said district of Kansas shall re;ide within the same, and shall be entitled to ‘he same compensation as the judge, attorney, and marshal of the district of Iowa. fiHE CRITTE.NDEN-ION-TG.OMIERY AMENDMIENT. Mr. Crittenden offered his amendissenit to he Senate bill, in the Senate. on the 23d of larch, 1858, and it was rejected. [See tabu-ei statement of vote.] Mr. Montgomery offered his amendment to he Senate bill, in the HIouse, on the 1st of .pril, 1858, and it was carried. See tabular ,tatement of vote.] All of the following in roman is in both the Crittenden and Mont,o,mery at-mendment. All i small caps is in the Crittenden, and not in ie Mlontgomery atnendment. All in italics in the Montgo’er, and not in the Crittenvn amendment. The following preamble and enacting clause, refixed to the Montgonmerv amendment, conitutes the Senate bill Is amended by the oiUse, which was voted for by all those mere I 451 0

Page 452 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. proposed state to be admitted into the Union at that time; and if seo, 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 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 fothe constitution so framed as aforesaid, the governor of the territory shall, within twenty days after the result is known, notify the President of the United States of the same. And, thereupon, the Pr,esident shall announce the same by proclamation, and thereafter, and without any ftorther proceeding s wh ate ver 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.] 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 branc he s of its legislature, namely, th e pr esiden t of the Counc il and speaker of the Ho use of Re presentat i ves, are hereby constituted a board of commissioners t o c arry into effect t he provisions of this act, and to use all the means necessary band proper to that end. And [ANY] thre e of them shall constitute a board; and the board shall have power and authority, in respect to each and all of the elec tions hereby authoriz ed or provided for, tou desi gnate and establish precincts for voting, or to adopt those already established; t ca use poll s to be opened at s uch places as it may deem proper in the respective counties an d election precincts of said territory; to appoint as judges of election, at each of the several places of voting, three d iscreet and respectable persons, any two of whom shall be competent to a ct; t o requi re the sheriffs of the several counties, by themselves or deputies, to attend the judges a t each osf the places of voting, for the purpose of preserving peace and good ord er; or the said board may, ins tea d of said sheriffs and their deputies, appoint at their discr etion, and in such instances as the m y may c hoos e, other fit persons for the same purpose; and w hen the purp os e of the election is to ele ct delegates to a convention to form a c onstitution, as hereinbefore provided for, the number of delegates shall be sixty, and the shall be appo rti oned by said board amonthe s everal counties of said territory according to the number of voters; and in making this apportionment, the board may j oin two or more counties together to make an e le c tion or representativ e di strict, where neither of the said counties has th e r equisite number of voters to entitle it to a d elega te, or to join a smaller to a larger county, having a surplus population, where it ma y serve to equalize the representation. T he elec tions he reby authorized shall continue one day only, and shall not be continued l ater than sundown on that day. Th e said board shall appoint the dav of ele(ction for each of t he elections hereby authorized, as the same may become necessary. The said gover nor shall announc e, b y proclamation, the day appointed for any one of said elections; and the day shall be as early a one as is consistent 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 returns shall be made to the said board, whose dut~y it shall be to announce the result b)y proclamation, and to appoint therein as carly a dlay as practicabjle fo~r the delegates elected (whiere the election has been for delegrates) to assemble ill convention rat the seat of gov~ernment of said territory. When so assembled, the convention shall first determine, b~y vote, whether it is the wish of 5TIUE PEOPLE oF] the Sec. 4. And be it furather enacted, That in the elections hereby authorized, all white male inhabitants of said territoi-y over the age f t wentyone y ears, wh o are egal votess under tihe laws of the territory of Kansas, and none others, shall be allowed to vote; and thtis shall be the only qualification required to enttitle the voter to the right of suffrage in said elections. And if any person not so qualfied shall vote or offer to vote, or if any person shall vote more than once at either of said elections, or shall make or cause to be made any false, fictitious, or fraudulent returns, or shall alter or change any returns of either of said elections, s?uch person shall, upon conviction tlereqf befan’e any court of competent jurisdiction, be kept at hard labor not less than six months, and not mnore than three years. AND BE IT

FURTHER ENACTED, THAT IN THE ELECTIONS HEREBY AUTHORIZED, ALL WHITE MALE

INHABITANTS OF S.kID TERRITORY OVER THE AGE OF TWENTYONE YEARS, WHHO HAVE

BEEN RESIDENTS FOR THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND ARE C ITIZEN S OF

THE UNITED STATES, AND NONE OTHERS, SHALL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE; AND THIS

SHALL BE THE ONLY QUALIFICATION REQUIRED TO ENTITLE THE CITIZEN TO THE

RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE IN SAID ELECTION. Sec. 5. And be it fur ther enacted, That the members of the aforesaid board of commissioners, 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 respective 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 compensation 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 Representatives 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, 452

Page 453 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 thirtysix 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 governor of said state, subject to the approval of the coimmissioner 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 purpose. Third. That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the governor of said state, in legal subdiviisions, 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 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 adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall be by this article granted to said state. Fifth. That five per centumn of the net 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 imiprovements, as the legislalture shall direct: Provided, That the foregoing propositions, hereinlbfiore 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 primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in sidd soil to ]).ns fide purchasers thereof; and that no tax shall be imnposed on lands belonhzin( to the IJiiite(l States, and that in no case shaill noii-resid(cat proprietois be taxed highei tlhani resiileits. [Sixtl. Antl that the said-statle shalll ae. e talx the laud/fs (.’ the propelrt!/ of the U,iited Stattes ill th(t..talte: Itbotcided d, hoIwvIC)r, Thtat i)othli)!) i/l ti.is at qf admil isiiono shiill be so coitsti’i2ed Os to roti/t/ y’ aceept the oidIoaoce attached to soid coijs/tittioi.L. a l a o s meed at Lecomtton; but said or’.inl,~ue i’ hei’ebjy rejected by tb e UlSited ST tates.e Whereas the people of the territory of Kansas did, by a convention of delegate s ass embled at Lecompton, on the 7th day of November, 1857, for that purpose, form for themselves a constitution a nd state gov ernment, whic h constitution is republic an; and whe reas, at the same time and place, said convention did adopt an ordinance, which said ordinance asserts that Kansas, when adlnitted as a state, will have an undoubted rig,Iht 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 territory into the Union thereon as a state, requested; and whereas said ordinance is not acceptable to Congress, and it is desirable to ascertain whether the people of Kansas concur in the changes in said ordinance, hereinafter stated, and desire admission into the Union as a state as herein proposed: Therefore Be it enacted by the Senate andl House of Representatives of the United States of Ameica 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 following proposition in lieu of the ordinance framed at Lecoiipton, 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 foll(hw-ing- propositions be, and the same are hereb)y, offered to the people of Kansas 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 thirtysix 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 sevenity-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 commiiissionier of the general lind office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the legislature of said state may prescribe tor the purpose aforesaid, but for no other purpose. Third, that ten entire sections of land 453 REPORT OF

THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONFER F,NCF,, ON THE DISAGREEING VOTES BETWEEN THE

SENATE AND IIOUSF, OF REPRESENTA TIVF,S, UPON THE BILL FOR THE ADMISSION

OF KANSAS. [For vote on same in each Ilouse, see tabular statement of vote.] I

Page 454 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to be selected by the governor of said state, in legal subdivisions, shall be gran ted to said state for th e purpos e of completing the public buildings, or f or the e rection of ot hers at the seat of governmen t, u nder the direction of the legislature thereof.

Fourth, that all salt spri ngs with in said state, not exceeding twelve in number, w ith s ix sect ion s o f la nd adjoining or a s contiguous as may b e to each, s hall be granted to said state for its use, the same to be selected bs y the governor thereof, w ithin on e 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 ift any individual or individuals, or which may hereafter be confirmed or adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall, by this article, be granted to said state. Fifth, the five per centum of the net proceeds of the salesof 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 nmade known to him, shall announce the same by proclamation; and, thereafter, and without any further proceedings on the part of Congress, the adnmission of the state of Kansas into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, inl all respects whatever, shall be complete and absolute, and said state shall be entitled to one member in the HIouse of Representatives in the Congressa of the United States, until the next census be taken by the federal government. But should v majorit of the votes cast be for proposition iejected, it shall be deemed and held that the pe(,ple of Kansas do IIot desire admissi on c into the Union with said constitution uniter the conditions 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 government, by the name of the state of Kansas, m 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 Congre ss of the United States; and whenever thereafter such delegates shall assemble in convention, they shallfirst 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 mav, 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 daly 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 governor shall announce the sane by piroclam.~3
tion; and the day shall be as early a o~ne as i~s consistent with due notice thereof to the people 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 madle to the said board, whose duty it shall 1e 454

Page 455 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. before entering upon their duties, take an oath to perform faithfully the duties of their respective 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. 5. And be it further enacted, That the officers mentioned in the preceding section shall receive for their services the same compensation as is given for like services under the territorial laws. 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 twentyone years, who possess the qualifications which were required by the laws of said territory for a legal voter at the last general election for members of the territorial legislature, and none others, shall be allowed to vote; and this shall be the only qualification required to entitle the citizens to the right of suffrage in said election; and if any person not so qualified 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, fictitious, or fraudulent returns, or shall alter or change any returns of said election, such persons 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 commissioners, and all persons appointed by them to carry into effect the provisions of this act, shall, The undersigne d, one of the managers on the part of the Senate, does not agree to the foregoing report. The undersigned, one of the managers on the part of the House, does not agree to the foregoing report.

STATEMENT OF VOTES IN THE SENATE. ‘a. S’a a@ 4a .4 . i nay yea nay yea yea nay nay yea nay yea nay yea nay yea yea nay nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea 5 yea Day yea nay yea nay yea nay yea Day nay nay nay yea yea nay .ay yea nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea nay yea yea nay yea nay nay yea SENATORS’ NAMES. Democrats in roman. Republicans in italic. Americans in SMALL CAPS. Asterisk (*) signifies Anti-Le compton. c ~~~Jae Ilrl3

IowaOO OS O Phillip Allen, R. I….. M. W. Bates, Del..H J. A. Bayard, Del….. JoH.r BELL, Tenn…. J. P. Benjamin, L a.. Asa Biggs, N. C…..

Wm. Bigler, Penn….. J. D. Bright, Ind.a *D. C. Broderick, Cal.n A. G.

Brown, Miss.. Simon Cameron, Penn….. Zachiariah Chandler, Mich.. Daniel Clark, N. H.. C.. Clay, jr., Ala…. Jacob Collamer, Vt… JNO. J.

CRITTENDEN, Ky… Jeff. Davis, Miss.. James Dixon, Conn… J. R.

Doolittle, Wis.. *S. A. Douglas, Ill…… (‘has. Durkee, Wis. J. J.

Evans, S…. IV P. Fessenden, Me… G. N. Fitch, Ind.. Benj. Fitzpatrick, Ala…. S.lomm Foot t. V….. LJ. F. S. Fbster, Conn… J. S Green, Mo….. W. M. Gwin, Cal.. J. P. Hae, N. II.. Hannibal Hamlin, Maine J. H.

Hammond, S. C.. Ja me s.lar. an, Iowa n J. P. Henderson, Texas. SAN.

HOUSTON, Texas. R. M. T. Hunter, Va. Alfred Iverson, Ga. R. W. Johnson, Ark. Andrew Johnson, Tenn. Geo. W. Jones, Iowa ANTHONY KENNEDY, Md.

Preston King, N. Y. S. R. Mallory, Fla.. J. M. Mason, Va. J. A. Pearce, Md. Trusten Polk, Mo. Geo. E. Pugh, Ohio D. S. Reid, N. C. W. K.

Sebastian, Ark. TV H. Seward, N. Y. J. F. Simmons, R. I. Jno. Slidell, La.

*C. E. Stuart, Mich. Chas. Sumner, Mass. J. B3. THOMPSON, Ky. J. R.

Thomson, N. J. Robt. Toombs, Ga… Lyman 7rumbuU, Ill. B. F. Whade, Ohio Hen?y Wilson, Mass. Wm. Wright, N. J.. D. L. Yulee, Fla. J. H. Hammond, S.c…. yea nay yea yea 31 24 33 31 ______ 23 34 26 22 I I I i I I I 45a JAMES S. GREEN, R. M. T. HUNTER, Managers on part of the Senate. Wm. 11.

ENGLISH, ALEXANDER H. STEPHIFNS, Managers on part of t House. W. H.

SFWARD. Wm. A. HOWARR,. I j - s s 1. a a 11.. 1. . 1.I c C) yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea nay nay yea Day I I z I 9 I I o:S .i !aI I-.I 2 -

6 . I .. I. :s - Z-i Ei 0. yea yea y yea yea y a nay yea nay nay yea nay -ay y,,a nay nay n,,y nay y a nay y a nay nay yea y a nay nay I yea - 4 0.

.‘i SM-ATORE NAMF.S. Democrats in roman. Republicans in italic. A-e,-i-s in SMALL CAPS. Aiiterisk (*) i;ignifies Anti-Le compton. nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea may nay nay yea yea 31 23 yea nay nay nay nay nay nay nay yea yea nay nay nay nay nay nay yea yea nay yea yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay nay 24 34 nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea nay yea nay nay yea nay nay yea yea yea nay nay nay yea yea 33 25 nay yea yea ye& yea yea yea ye& nay ye& yea yea yea yea nay nay yea nay nay nay Inay Inay yea Inay Iyea yea iny nay yea yea nay nay yea yea yea Day nay Day yea ye,% 31 22

Page 456 view page image

mu~~~~ … m….1-..0 pi In’ is .I I g, 9 ig = P., :z 9,, o 2: I , 0 R..

91 5, g. 5 P — E3 Z5. tz 0 z; - 4 0 -1 o; :z r. I 0 p WI (M t’d Po (Z) 0-3 11 0 H t4 w 0 0 pq 2 E. r.I I-q 4, :z — I E; tv I v r_:!. r. r. e.

:1

Page 457 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. STATESIENT OF VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES.-(ctinued.) Cs -a-ye a yea Day Day nay nay nay nay yea nay nay nay nay yea nay y a yea yea nay nay nay yea nay yea yea yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea nay nay yea yea nay nay yea yes nay yea nay yea nay yea nay yea ny yea nay yea nay yea nay nay yea yea nay yea yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea nay nay yea nay yea nay yea yea nay yea nay yea nay naay yea yea nay nay yea nay yea Day yea nay yea nay yea nay yea nay yea yea nay nay yea nay yea n~y yea nay yea nay yea nay yea nay yea nay] yea yeaI nay nayI yea yea Inay RC CCC 3 C55

OS~~ oO Na 010O~ SO:N~~50O aO MEMBERS’ NAMES. Democrats in ro man.

Republi cans in italic. Americans in SMALL CAPS. As teris k (*) signi fies Anti-Le compton. Ia nayn o. yea y D na 0.z in a. yea nay yea yeay yea nay yea nay yea nay yea yea yea v -1 nay yed z,, yea I,. n a yea nay 3 e yea nay yea yea yea nay ye yea nay yea nay Sherman of N.Y. Shorter of Ala.

Sickles of N.Y. Singleton of Miss. *Smith of Ill. Smith of Tenn. Smith of V a. Spinner of N. Y. Stallworth of Ala. Stanton of Ohio Stephens of Ga.

Stevenson of Ky. Stewart of Md. Stewart of Penn. Talbot of Ky. Taplpan 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. Wade of Ohio Walbridge of Mich. Waldron of Mich. Walton of Vt. Ward of N.Y. Warren of Ark.

Ryatshburn of Wis. Washburne of Ill. Washburn. jr., Me. Watkins of Tenn.

White of Penn. Whiteley of Del. IVilson of Ind. Winslow of N. C. IVood of Me. WOODSON of Mo. Wortendyke, N.J. Wright of Ga. Wright of Tenn.

ZOLLICOFFER, Tenn. Yeas Nays MIillson of Va. *Montgomery, Pa. Moore of Ala. Morgan of N. Y. 31oroill of Vt. Morris of Penn. *.orris of I11. Morse of Maine Morse of N. Y. Sheatt of Ohio Murray of N. Y. Niblack of Ind.

Nichok~ of Ohio Olin of N. Y. Orr, S. C. (Speaker) Palmer of N. Y. Parker of N. Y. *Pendleton of Ohio! Pettit of I nd. Peyton of Ky. Phelps of Mo.

Phillips of Penn. Pike of N. I1. Pagkr of Wis. PotUe of.,N. Y. Powell of Va. Purviance of Penn. Quitman of Miss. IREADY of Tenn. Reagan of Texas Reilly of Penn. RItCAD of Md. Ritchie of Penn. Robbins of N. J. Roberts of Penn. Royce of Vt. Ruffin of N. C. Russell of N. Y. Sandidge of L-a.

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 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION.

States or territories, so long as any person ARTICLE VII.Slavey of the same age or description shall be conti nued in slavery by the laws of this state: Sec. 1. The right of property is before Provided. That such person or slave be the and higher than any constitutional sanction, bona fide property of such emigrants: Andl and the right of the owner of a slave to such provided, also, That laws may be passed to slave and its increase is the same, and as in-prohibit the introduction into this state of violable as the right of the owner of any proslaves who have committed high crimes in perty whatever. other states or territories. They shall have Sec. 2. The legislature shall have no power power to pass laws to permit the owners of to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights without the consent of the owners, or without of creditors, and preventing them from’becompaying the owners previous to their emanci-ing a public charge. They shall have power to pation a full equivalent in mnoney fi)r the oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with slaves so emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to the state from t Mr. Hughes of Indiana offered the motion to refer to a bringing With them such persons as are deemed,Iselect committee. Mr. Harris moved to amend it with in 8brD>\iithb them sh pany o re ote ed istrutions. The amendment of Mr. Harris passed, and Mr. slaves by the laws of any one of the United Hughes’s motion as amended was then adopted. y y y y n n la n n n y 457 yea nay yea nay nay y,a nay yea nay yea nay. yea nay ye. nay yea Day yea nay yea ye. ye. ay yea ,ay yea nay yea nay yea Inay nay nay. yea yea nay yea nay yea nay nay yea n ay yea Day y yea nay nay yea yea nay yea nay yea nay yea nay nay yea nay, yea nay yea nay yea yea nay yea nay yea nay yea Day yea nay yea nay yea nay yea nay nay y yea nay nay yea nay nay nay yea yea yea nay ye. yea. yea yea nay yea yea yea yea .ay yea .ay nay nay yea yea yea nay yea nay nay nay nay nay yea yea y,,a yea nay nay nay nay nay nay nav nay nay nay yea y a nay y a nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay yea ynay nay nay nay y a nay yea nay yea nay nay nay nay nay nay nay yea yea ya nay nay yea nay yea nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea nay yea nay yea yea y a nay ynay yea y a nay nay nay yea y ‘ay nay nay ‘ay yea ynay nay nay yea yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea 113 114 yea nay nay nay yea nay nay yea nay yea nay nay nay y a nay yea nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea nay nay yea yea yea nay nay Day yea Day yea nay nay Day nay nay y a nay nay nay yea nay nay yea nay y a 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 ill yea nay nay nay nay nay Day yea nay yea nay nay nay ye nay y a nay nay yea yea y a Day Day y,,ea iea y a Day Day yea yea yea nay Daynay y a nay yea Day nay Day nay nay 95 137 nay yea nay yea nay nay yea Day y,,a Day nay yea yea nay yea nay Day yea nay nay nay yea nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay nay yea Day nay nay yea nay y a iiay yea. yea yea 72 160 yea nay nay nay yea nay nay y nay yea nay nay Day yea nay y a nay nay y a yea yea nay yea yea ye yea ynay nay yea yea yea nay Day nay yea nay yea nay Day nay nay nay 12l 112 nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea yea yea nay yea yea y a yea yea yea i,ay nay nay yea yea yea nay yea nay u,y Day nay yea yea yea yea yea nay n.yi Day nay nay nay nayl nay yea nay yea MMOFM’NAMES. Democrats in ro man. Republi cans in italic. Ameri,,ans in, SMALL CAps. As terisk (*) signi fies Anti-Le Compton. nay nay yea nay nay nay nay nay yea nay nay yea nay nay nay nay nay yea Y’% nay nay yea yea nay yea nay yea yea yea yea yea 109 108 nay nay yea yea yea nay yea yea yea yea yea yea 1 1.., 103

Page 458 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. humanity, tJ provide for them necessary food and clothing, to abstain from all injuries to themr extending to lif e or limb, and, in case of their neglect or refusal to comply with the di rection of such laws, to have such slave or slave s sno!(ee ted for th e benefit of the ow ner o r owners. Sec. 3. In th e pr osecution of slaves for c r imes of higher grade than petit larceny, the legislature shall have no pow er to deprive them of an imparti al tr i al by a petit jury.

Sec. 4. Any pers on who shall maliciously dismember, or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the l ik e offen ce had been committed on a free white pers on, and on the like proof, except in case of in surre ctio n of suc h slave. Flee Negroes.

Bill of Righ(ts, Sec. 23. Free negroes shall not b e p erm itt ed to liv e in this state under any circumstances. ARTICLE VIII.-Elections and Righlts of Suf fi-age. Sec. 1. Every male citizen of the United States, above the age of twentyone years, hav ing resided in this state one year, and in the c oun ty, city, or town in which h e m ay 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 resident of the state at the time that this constitution 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 countv in which he shall actually reside at the time of the election. 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 twentyone years, for ratification or rejecti o n, 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 l ots cast at said election shall be endorsed, constitution with slavery” and ” constitution with no slavery.” One of said poll books sha ll 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 boo ks, and if i t shall appear upon said examination that a majority of the legal votes cast at said election be in favor of the “constitution with slavery,” h e shall immediately have the same transmitted to the Congress of the United States, as hereinbefore provided; but if, upon such examination of said poll books, it shall appear that a majorit y o f the lega l vote s cast at said election be in favor of the “constitution with no slavery,” then the article providing for slavery shall be stricken from t h is constit ution 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, anad result ed as follows: Fo,r the c onstitu tion with slavery…… 6,226 For the constitution with no slavery…. 569 Total note for the constitution…… 6,795 The votes for the two sides of the constitution is a majority over any vote previously given at any election holden in the territory. The constittition is, therefore. by its own requirements, presented to the consideration of Congress, and Kansas asks Ibr admission inlto the Union as a sovereign state. I am,;‘ery respectfully, your obedient servant, J. CA LHOUN.

.President of the Constitutitonal Convention. H:is Excellency JA,~lr, BUCS,.,XAN. t’rln 7 ofe the U~nite,State. Amendments to the Constitution.

Bill of Rights, Sec. 2. 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 inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think proper. Schedule, See. 14. After the year o ne thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, whenever the leg islature shall think it n ecessa ry to arnend alter, or chan-e this constitution, they shall recommend to the electors at the next g eneral election, twothirds of the members of each hou se c oncu rr ing taovotef or or againstcalling a conven tion, and if it sh all appear that a majority of all ci tiz en s of the state have voted for a convention, the legisla.ture shall at its next regular session call a convention, to consist of as many meanders 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 representatives; 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 ownership of slaves. 458

Page 459 view page image

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 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 boundary of the state, leading southerly through said state in the direction of the Gulf of Mexico, 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 Kansas for the purpose of aiding in the construction of said railroad, and it shall be the duty of Congress of the United States, in conjunction with the proper authorities of this state, to adopt immediate measures for carrying the several provisions herein contained into full effect. exist in the state of Kansas, except that the right of property in slaves now in this territory ihall, in no manner, be int rerfered with, and shall have transmitted the constitution, so ratified, (to Congress the constitution, so ratified,) to the Congress of the United States, as hereinbefore provided. In case of the failure of the president of this convention to perform the duties imposed upon him in the foregoing section, by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise, the same duties shall devolve upon the president pr-o tem. 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 constitution; 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 connected with her existence as a state: Now, therefore, be it ordained by this convention, on behalf of and by the authority of the people of Kansas, that the right aforesaid to tax such lands shall be, and is hereby, forever relinquished, if the Conditions following shall be accepted and agreed to by the Congress of the United States. Sectio n 1. Th at se ctio ns numbered 8, 16, 24, an d 3 cG, i n every tow nship in the state, or in ca se e i ther of said numbered se ctions are or shall be otherwi se di spos ed of, that other lands, equal thereto in va lue and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to the state, to be appl ied exclusively t o the support of common schools. Sec.

2. Tha t all salt springs, and gold, silver, copper, lead or other valuable mines, together with the lands necessary for their full occupation and’use, shall be gr anted to said state f or the us e and bene f it 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 following, to wit: two-fifths to be disbursed under the direction of the legislature of the state for the purpose of aiding the construction of railroads 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, Slavery. Bill of Rights, Sec. 6. There shall be no slavery in this state, nor involuntary servitude, 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 twothirds of the members elected to each house shall be necessary, 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 twothirds 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 suclt 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 sc 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 constitution 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.

Schl.edule, 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 “ConstitutionI,” or ” No constitution;” which election shall be held by the same judges, and con ducted under the same regulations and restrio 451.4 Land Oidinance.* TOPEKA CONSTITUTIO,-4. . *For land ordinance, in Leave.,,,,rth C,,nstitution, see mat pge, under caption of Le4venworth Constitution.

Page 460 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tions as is hereinafter provided for the election of members of the general assembly. versing Southern Kansas westwarily.

Se. cond-Commencing at some point on the Missouri river, or Missouri state line, and traversing Central Kansas westwardly. ThirdCommencing at some point on the Missouri river, and traversing Northern Kansas westwardly.

Fourth Commencingat some point on the Missouri river, and running southerly in the direction of the Gulf of Mexico. Provided, That should the alternate sections along the lines of said railroads be disposed of, an equal number of sections shall be selected 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 hereafter be prescribed by law.

The Congress of the United States, in conjunction with the proper authorities of this state, may adopt the necessary measures for carrying the several provisions herein contained into effect. Ordinance. By the authority of th e people of Kansas be it ordained by this co nve ntion, irrevocably, tha t the state of Kansas will never, without the consent of C ongres s, i nterfere with the title of the United States to th e public domain, or unsold lands w i th i n the limits of said state, o r the primary right of the United States to dispose of the sam e, or w ith any regulation which Congress may prescribe for securing the title thereof to purch asers in goo d faith; and also, that no taxo or other assessment shall b e im po sed upon the lands bea gino to the po United States: P
rovided, tha ththe conditions following shall be accepted and agreed to by the Co ngress of the United States: First. The sections numbered sixteen and thllirty-six in every township, incelu ding Indian reserve or trust lands, in said state, (an d whe r e either of such sections, or any part th ereof, has been sold or otherwise alienated or appropriated, other lands equivalent thereto, as ne arl y cont iguous as possible), shall be granted to the said state exclusively for the use of common schools.

Second. Th at seventy-two sectio ns of land shall be set apart a nd reserve d for the u se and support of a State University, and sixty sections for the use and support of four district co l leges, to be located in the four equal divisions of the state-saidl lands to be selected by t he g overnor of the state, subject to the approval of the commissioner of the general land office. Third. That thirtysix sections of land, to be selected by the governor of said state, shall be granted to said state for the purpose of the erecti on of public buildings at the seat of government, and the erection of buildings for the v ariou s pub lic benev o lent institutions created by the state constitution. Fourth.

That the salt springs, and gold, silver, 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 cetntu of the net proceeds 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 common 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 acquired by the United States, lying for six miles in width, on each side of the following lines of railroads, shall be grantedl by Congress to the state of Kansas: First Commencing on the Missouri state line, at some po int south uf the fourth standard parallel line, and tra ARTICLE II.- Elective Fran chis e. Sec tion 1. In all elections not otherwise provided for by th is c onstitution, every male citizen of the U nited States, of the age of twentyone years or upwards, who shal l have resided in the state six months next preceding such election, and ten day s in th e precinc t in which he m ay offer to vote, and every male person of for eign birth of the age of twentyo ne ye ars or upwards, and who shall have resided in the United St a te s one yea r, in the is state six month s, and in the pre cin ct in which he may offer to vote ten days next preceding such election, and who shall have declared his intention to become a citized of the United States ten days preceding such election, shall be deemned a qualifi ed elec tor. S ec. 2. No s oldier, se aman 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 being st,,4ioned within the same, nor shall any such soldier, seaman or marine have the right to vote. Schedutle, Sec. 12. The first general assembly shall provide by lawv 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 qualificatin.s of voters at the elet tioni shall be the same as at the vote on the submission of the constitution. Amendments to the Constitution. Article XVIII. of the constitution provides for the amendment of the constitution. If three-fifths of the mnembers elected to the legislature agree to such amendments, the same to 460 LEAVENWORTI!

CONSTITUTION. Slavery. Bill of Right3, Sec. 6. There shall be no slavery in this state, and no involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted.

Page 461 view page image

NEGRO CITIZENSHIP.-NICARAGUA. of the term, as used, in the Constitution of the United States, and the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in the case of The State against Clairbone, 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 ilf wronged by a foreign government, while within its jurisdiction, for a legal and proper purpose. 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 election thereon. If more than one amendment, a separate vote to be taken on each. Three-fifths ofthelegislature to have the power to submit to a vote of the people whether a convention shall be called to revise the constitution; and, if a majority vote therefi.r, the legislature to have power to call such convention. The question whether a convention to revise the constitution shall be called, to be submitted to the people in 1863, and every tenth year thereafter, a majority voting therefor; such convention to be called and the amendments proposed by it or any convention, to be submitted to the popular ratification. I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, J. A. THOMAS, As. Sec’y. II. H. Rice, Esq., New York City. Suibmission 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 Tuesdav 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 Constitution,” and those opposed to the constitution shall write or print upon their ballots the w ords ” A gain st the Constitu tion.” Sa id election shall be conducted according to the provisions 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.” Nicaragua. PROCLAMATION

RESPECTING AN APPREHENDED INVASION OF. By the President of the United States ofAme rica: WHEREAS information has been received by me that sundry persons, citizens of the United States and others, residents therein, are preparing, 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, President 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 government. I exhort all good citizens to discountenance and prevent any such disreputable and criminal 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 enforcing 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 [L. S.] hundred and fifty-five, and of the Inde pendence of the United States the eightieth. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 1 Washington, Nov.

4,1856. SIR: Your letters of the 29th ultimo and 3d inst., requesting passports for eleven colored persons, have been received, and I am directed by the Secretary to inform you that the papers transmitted by you do not warrant the department in complying with your request. The question whether free negroes are citizens, is not now presented for the first time, but has repeatedly ari sen in the administration of both the national and state governments. In 1821, a controversy arose as to whether f ree persons of ceol or w ere citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of t he acts of C ongress regulating foreign a nd coasting trade, so as t o be qualifie t oad vto 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 Constitution. 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 Justice Daggett of Connecticut, held that free blacks are not “citizens” within the meaning W 461 Negro Citizenship. FRANKLIN PIERCE. By the President: W.

L. MARCY, See. of State.

Page 462 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Nicholson Letter. THE following letter was written by Gen. C a ss to the Hon. A. O. P. Nicholson, of Ten nessee, 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 ranted 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 ive 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 philanthropicobject, which escapes my penetration, and must be defined by those who assume this new principle of national intercommunication. All wars are to be deprecated, as well by the statesman as by the philanthropist. They are great evils; but there are greater evils than these, and submission 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 the 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 subjectin 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 southes rn 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 contemplato 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 Un’ion, whether thee concern foreign nations or the several state, themselves. Local institutions, if I may sE, 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 examination, that ill that instrument thbe only grant of power concerning themn is conveyed in the phrase, ” Congress shall have the powrel to dispose of, and make all needful rules andl regulations respecting the territory and other property belon’ging 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 petors0, atg 462

Page 463 view page image

NICHOLSON LETTER. at various times a more enlarged power has been exercised over the territories-me,ning 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 in g 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 so, 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 parent 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 regulate the authority of parents over their children 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, proclaimed 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 wvords of safety; for I am satisfied, from all I have seen and heard here, that a successful attempt to engraft the principles of the Wilmot proviso upon the legislation of this government, and to apply them to new territory, should new territory be acquired, would seriously affect our tranquillity. I do not well as things. The ex pression th e ” territory and other property” fairly construed re lates to t he publ ic l ands as such, to arsenals, dockyards, forts, ships, and all the v arious ki nds of pro pe rty which the United States may an d must possess. ]But surely the simpl e aut hority to dispose of and regulatet o n t te n o these does not extend to the unlimited p o we r of legislation; to the passage o f all laws, in the most general acceptation of t he wor d; which, by-t he-by, is carefully ex cluded from the sentence. A nd, 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 respectivel’y, over all places purchased for the ” erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &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 granto%f 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 evwdently to enable the general government, as a property-holder-which, from necessity, it must be-to manage, preserve, and ” dispose of” such property as it might possess, and which authority is essential almost to its being. But the lives and persons of our citizens, with the vast variety of objects connected with them, cannot be controlled by an authority, which is merely called into existence for the purpose of making rules and regulations for the disposition and management of property. Ouch, it appears to me, would be the construction put upon this provision of the Constitution were this question now first presented for consideration, and not controlled by imperious circumstances. The original ordinance 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 ordinante contained within itself all the necessary means of execution probably prevented any direct reference to the subject in the Constitution 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 territory, both within and without the original Union, ceded to the general government; and 468

Page 464 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. engender, the trial to which it would expose our Union, and the evils that would be the certain consequence, let that trial result as it might? As to the course which has been intimnated, rather than proposed, of engrafting such a restriction upon any treaty of acquisition, I persuade myself it would find but little favor in any portion of this country. Such an arrangement would render Mexico a party, having a right to interfere in our internal institutions 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 who 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 destinies 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 consideration 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 increase, but of the diffusion of slavery. Whether 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 se r vitude, nor will its adoption give fr eedom 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 transporting 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 condition 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 generally unfit for the production of the great staples which can alone render slave labor valuable. If we are not grossly deceived-and it is difficult to conceive how we can be the inhabitants 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 publie, he presents similar considerations with great force. ” Neither,”

says the distinlguish. suffer myself to foresee or to foretell the consequences that would ensue; for I trust and belie ve t here is good sense and good fe el ing enough in the country to avoid them, biy avoidring all occasions which might lead to them. triefly,t o then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by Con gress over this matter; and I am in favor o f leaving to the pe ople of any territory whic h may be hereafter acquired, the right to regulate it for thems elv es under the general principles of the Constitution. Becauset 1. I do not see in t he Constitution any grant of the requi.ite power to Congress; and I am n ot disposed to extend a doubtfu l p receden t beyond its necessity-the e stablishment of t erritori al governments when needed-leaving to the inhabitants all the rights compatible wi th the relations they bear to the confederation. 2. Bec a us e I be liev e this measure, if adopted, would weaken, if not impair t he union Of the s tates, and would sow the s eed s of future discord, which would grow up and ripen into an abu ndant harvest of calamity. 3. Because I believe the gene ral conv i ction that such a proposition w ould succeed would lead to an immediate withholding of the supplies, and thus to a disho norable termination ofe w a. the war. I think no dispassionate observer at th e seat of g overnm ent can doubt this result. 4. If, ho wever, in this I am under a misapprehension, I am under none i n t he practical opera thi re s t rction of this restriction, if adopted b y Clongress, upon a treaty of eace making any acquisit ion of M exican territory. S uch a treaty would be rejected just as certainly as pre sented to t he Senate. More than onethird of that body would vote against it, viewing such a principle as an exclusion of the citizens of the slaveholding states from a participation in the benefits acquired by the treasure 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 restriction 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 wellknown attributes of sovereignty, recognlised by us as belonging; to the state governments, 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 governmnents worth the price at which it would be purchased7?worth the discord it would 464

Page 465 view page image

O’tIIO.-ORDINANCE OF 1784-87. ed writer, “the soil, the climate, nor the pro-destined to asail us. The Wilmot pr,)viso ductions of California, south of 36~ 30’, nor seeks to take from its legitimate tribunal a indeed of any portion of it, north or south, is question of domestic policy, having no relation adapted to slave labor; and, besides, every to the Union, as such, and to transfer it t) facility would be there afforded for the slave another, created by the people for a special to escape from his master. Such property purpose, and foibreign to the subjectmatter in would be entirely insecure in any part of Ca-volved in this issue. By going back to our lifornia. It is morally impossible, therefore, true principles, we go back to the road of that a majority of the emigrants to that per-peace and safety. Leave to the people who tion of the territory south of 36~ 30’, which will be affected by this question, to adjust it will be chiefly composed of our citizens, will upon their own responsibility, and in their ever re-establish slavery within its limits.

own manner, and we shall render another tri “In regard to New Mexico, east of the Rio bute to the original principles of our govern Grande, the question has already been settled ment, and furnish another guarantee for its by the admission of Texas into the Union. permanence and prosperity “Should we acquire territory beyond the I am, dear sir, respectfully, Rio Grande and east of the Rocky Mountains, your obedient servant, it is still more impossible that a majority of LEWIS CASS. the people would consent to re-establish A. 0. P. Nicholson, Esq., Nashville, Tenn. slavery. They are themselves a colored population, and among them the negro does Oo. not belong socially to a degraded race.” Oho With this last remark Mr. Walker fully wsrcie n eerdYnteHueo With this last remark Mr. Walker fully ON the 27th of February, 1802, a petition coincides in his letter written in 1844, upon was received and referred in the House of the annexation of Texas, and which every-Representatives from the inhabitants of Fair where produced so favorable an impression field county, in the Northwestern Territory, upon the public mind as to have conduced praying admission into the Union as a state. very materially to the accomplishment of that On the 9th of April, 1802, a bill passed the great measure. “Beyond the Del Norte,” House to enable the people of the Eastern saysMr. Walker, “slavery will not pass; not Division of the Northwestern Territory to only ecaue itis fobdebyawbube onla~ys b i r y u form a constitution and state government, and only because it isfrbidden by law, but be-fo h, diso fschsaeit h no cause the colored race there preponderates in or the dission of such state into the Union the ratio of ten to one over the whites; and On the 27th of April, 1802, it was passed holding, as they do, the government and most by the Senate with amendments which were of the offices in their possession, they will not concurred in by the house, and it became a permit the enslavement of any portion of the law by the approval of the President on the colored race, which makes and executes the 30th of April, 1802. laws of the country.” The people of the territory formed a consti The question, it will be therefore seen on tution, named the state “Ohio,” and on the examination, does not regard the exclusion of 19th of February, 1803, an act was passed slavery from a region where it now exists, but extending the laws of the United States not a prohibition against its introduction where it locally inapplicable over said state.

does not exist, and where, from the feelings of the inhabitants and the laws of Nature, “it Ordinance of 1784-87 ismorally impossible,” as Mr.

Buchanan says, ON the first of March, 1784, a committee that it can ever re-establish itself. consisting of Mr. Jefferson of Va., Mr. Chase It augurs well for the permanence of our of Md., and Mr. Howell of R. I., submitted to confederation that, during more than half a Congress the following plan for the temporary century which has elapsed since the establish-government of the Western Territory: ment of this government, many serious ques-The committee appointed to prepare a plan tions, and some of the highest importance, for the temporary government of the Western have agitated the public mind, and more than Territory, have agreed to the following resoonce threatened the gravest consequences; lutions:but that they have all in succession passed Resolved, That the territory ceded or to be away, leaving our institutions unscathed, and ceded by individual states to the United our country advancing in numbers, power, States, whensoever the same shall have been and wealth, and in all the other elements of purchased of the Indian inhabitants and national prosperity, with a rapidity unknown offered for sale by the United States, shall be in ancient or in modern days. In times of formed into additional states, bounded in the political excitement, when difficult and deli-following manner, as nearly as such cessions cate questions present themselves for solution, will admit; that is to say, northwardly and there is one ark of safety for us-and that is, southwardly by parallels of latitude, so that :in honest appeal to the fundamental princi-each state shall comprehend, from south to ples of our Union, and a stern determination north, two degrees of latitude, beginning to i abide their dictates. This course of pro-count from the completion of thirty-one de:ceding has carried us in safety through many grees north of the equator; but any territory ~ trouble, and I trust will carry us safely northwardly of the forty-seventh degree shall hrough many more, should many more be make part of the state next below. And 30 4Cb

Page 466 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. eastwardly and westwardly they shall be assembled, shall be requisite in all those cases l)ounded, those on the Mississippi by that wherein, by the Confederation, the assent of river on one side and the meridian of the low-nine states is now required, provided the con est point of the rapids of the Ohio on the sent of nine states to such admuission may be other; and those adjoining on the east, by the obtained according to the eleventh of the Ar same meridian on their western side, and on ticles of Confederation. Until such admission their eastern by the meridian of the western )by their delegates into Congress, any of the cape of the mouth of the Great Kanawha. said states, after the establishment of their And the territory eastward of this last meri-temporary government, shall have authority dian, between the Ohio, Lake Erie, and Penn-to keep a sitting member in Congress, with a sylvania, shall be one state. right of debating, but not of voting. That the settlers within the territory so to That the territory northward of the forty be purchased and offered for sale shall, either fifth degree, that is to say, of the completion on their own petition or on the order of Conof forty-five degrees from the equator, and gress, receive authority from them, with ap-extending to the Lake of the Woods, shall be pointments of time and place, for their free called Sylvania; that of the territory under males of full age to meet together for the pur-the forty-fifth and forty. fourth degrees, that pose of establishing a temporary government which lies westward of Lake Michigan, shall to adopt the constitution and laws of any one be called Michigania; and that which is east of these states, so that such laws nevertheless ward thereof, within the peninsula formed by shall be subject to alteration by their ordinary the lakes and waters of Michigan, Huron, St. legislature, and to erect, subject to a like Clair, and Eric, shall be called Chersonesus, alteration, counties or townships for the elec-and shall include any part of the peninsula tion of members for their legislature. which maly extend above the forty-fifthl de That such temporary government shall only gree. Of the territory under the forty-third continue in force in any state until it shall and forty-second degrees, that to the westhave acquired twenty thousand free inhabi-ward, through which the Assenisipi or Rock tants, when, giving due proof thereof to Conriver runs, shall be called Assenisipia; and gress, they shall receive from them authority, that to the eastward, in which are the founwith appointments of time and place, to call a tains of the Muskingum, the two Miamies of convention of representatives to establish a Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, the Miami of permanent constitution and government for the Lake, and the Sandusky rivers, shall be themselves.

called Metropotamia. Of the territory which Provided, That both the temporary and perlies under the forty-first and fortieth degrees, ianent governments be established on these I the western, through which the river Illinois principles as their basis:- runs, shall be called Illinoia; that next adjoin 1. That they shall for ever remain a part of ing, to the eastward, Saratoga; and that bethe United States of America. tween this last and Pennsylvania, and extend 2. That in their persons, property, and ter-ing from the Ohio to Lake Erie, shall be called ritory, they shall be subject to the government Washington. Of the territory which lies unof the United States in Congress assembled, der the thirty-ninth and thirty-eighth degrees, and to the Articles of Confederation. in all to which shall be added so much of the point those cases in which the original states shall of land within the fork of the Ohio and Missisbe so subject. sippi as lies under the thirty-seventh degree, 3. That they shall be subject to pay a part that to the westward, within and adjacent to of the federal debts, contracted or to be con-which are the confluences of the rivers Watracted, to be apportioned on them by Con-bash, Sliawanrec.

Tanisee, Ohio, Illinois, Misgress according to the same common rule and sissippi, and Missouri, shall be called Polypomeasure by which apportionments thereof taming and that to the eastward, farther up shall be made on the other states. the Ohio, otherwise called the Pelisipi, shall -4. That their respective governments shall be called Pelisipia. be in republican forms, and shall admit no That all the preceding articles shall be person to be a citizen who holds any heredi-formed into a charter of compact, shall be tary title. duly executed by the President of the United 5. That after the year 1800 of the Christian States in Congress atssemibled, under his hand era there shall be neither slavery nor irivoluin-and the sea.l of the United States, shall be tary servitude in any of the said states, other-promulgated, and shall stand as fundamental wise than in punishm7nent of crimnes, whereof conditions between the thirteen original states the party shall have been duly convicted to have’

and those newly described, unalterable but by been personally guilty. the joint consent of the United States in Con That whenever any of the said states shall gress assembled, and of the particular state have, of free inhabitants, as many as shall within which such alteration is proposed to then be in any one of the least numerous of be made. the thirteen original states, such state shall be admi’ted by its delegates into the Congress of On the 19th of April, 1784, Mr. Speight of the United States on an equal footing with the N. C. moved that the proviso be stricken out. said original states, after which the assent of Under the Articles of Confederation, which twothirds of the United States, in Congress}

governed the proceedings of Congress, a ma 466

Page 467 view page image

ORDINANCE OF 1 78-87. jority of the thirteen states was necessary to United States in Congress assembled, all the an affirmative decision of any question; and right of that commonwealth to the territorv the vote of no state could be counted, unless northwestward of the river Ohio: and where;as represented by at least two delegates. the delegates of the said commonwealth hai-t The question upon Mr. Speight’s motion presented to Congress the form of a deed pro was put in this form:- posed to be executed pursuant to the said ac(t, “Shall the words moved to be struck out in the words following standc?” To all who shall see these presents, e, ”The vote stood-Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Ifardy, Arlui For the Proviso, six states, viz.: New I-lamp- Lee, and James Monroe, the underwritteii ‘ilire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecti-delegates for the commonwealth of Virginia, int (it, New York, and Pennsylvania. the Congress of tfie United States of America, Against the Proviso, three states, viz.: Vir-send greeting: ginia, Maryland, and South Carolina.

Whereas the General Assembly of the coal I)elaware and Georgia were not represent-monwealth of Virginia, at their sessions begun edt. New Jersey, by Mr. Dick, voted ay, but on the 20th day of October, 1783, passed all her vote, only one delegate being present, act, entitled, “An act to authorize the delo t.,ill not be counted. The vote of North gates of this state in Congress to convey to thc (‘~lolinta was divided-Mr. Williamson voting United States in Congress assembled, all the ay, Mlr. Speiglht, no.

The vote of Virginia right of this commonwealth to the territory t(,o(il -Mr. Jefferson, ay, MAessrs. IIardy and nortlhwestward of the river Ohio,”

in these Mlerqer, no. Of the twenty-three delegates words following, to wit: 1present and voting, sixteen voted for, and “Whereas the Congress of the United States ,e en against the proviso. Thus was the pro-did, by their act of the sixth day of September, is defeated. in the year one thousand seven hundred anal Tilie Ordinance of 1784, thus amended, be-eighty, recommiend to the several states in thl( eatine the law of the land on the 23d of April Union, having claims to waste and unappro1;)lli wing. In 1785, Mr. King of Mass. again priated la(nds in the western couiitry, a liberal niu iedl the proviso in Congress, in a slightly cession to the United States, of a portion of oiii(ified form, as follows:- their respective claims, for the common benefit ‘hat there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary ser-of the Union: and whereas this commonwealtt vitule in any of the states described in the resolves of Con-tlid, on the second day of January, in the year gre-s of the 23d of April, 1784, otherwise than in the puni.qhme,t of crimes, whereof the party shall have been per-one thousand seven hundred and eighity-oiie, s, ntlly guilty; and that this regulation shall he an article yield to the Congress of the United States, for o)f comipact, and remain a fundamental principle of the contitutiolls between the thlirteen original states, and eah of the benfit of the said state all right title thit states described in the said resolve of the 23d of April, and claim, which the said commonwealth hadt 178.“4 J-ur. Cbng. Cbnfed., 481. to the territory northwest of the river Ohio, The resolution was ordered to be committed sulbject to the conditions annexed to the sail by the votes of New Itampshire, Massachu-act of cession. And whereas the United States setts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, in Congress assembled have, by their act of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland-the thirteenth of September last, stipulated 3ight; against the votes of Virginia, North the terms on which they agree to accept the Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia-four. cession of this state, should the legislature D)elaware was not represented. The vote of approve thereof, which terms, although the.y Nlaryla:nd was determined by two ayes against do not come fully uip to the propositions of this )ne no, while that of Virginia was determined commonwealth, are conceived, on the whole )y two noes against one aye. to approach so nearly to them, as to induce NJ further action was had at this time; but this state to accept thereof, in full confidence i a little more than two years afterwar(ls, the that Congress will, in justice to this state, for ul)ject was brought for the third time before the liberal cession she hath made, earnestly _ongress, in connexion, as before, with the press upon the other states claiming large Government of the Western Territory. The tracts of waste and uncultivated territory, the )rdinance of 1784 had never been carried propriety of making cessions equally liberal, oto practical operation.

Settlements were for the common benefit and support of the bout to commence in the northwest, and the Union. Be it enacted by the General Assemettlers needed protection and government. bly, That it shall and may be lawful for the ;ongress, therefore, in 1787, resumed the coln-delegates of this state to the Congress of the ideration of the subject of the western terri-United States, or such of them as shall be ory. These deliberations resulted in the assembled in Congress, and the said delegates, elebrated Ordinance of 1787, an act which or such of them so assembled, are hereby fully eceived the unanimous votes of the states; authorized and empowered, for and on bethalf isd, with a single exception from New York, of this state, by proper deeds or instrument f all of the delegates. in writing, under their hands and seals, to The Ordinance of 1787 is as follows:- convey, transfer, assign, and make over unto Whereas the General Assembly of Virginia, the United States in Congress assembled, for t. their session commencing on the 20th day the benefit of the said states, all right, title, ? October, 1783, passed an act to authorize and claim, as well of soil as jurisdiction, which ;eir delegates in Congress to convey to the this commnonwealth hath to the territory or 467

Page 468 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tract of country within the limits of the Vir-portions as have been engaged to them b)y the ginia charter, situate, lying, and being, to the laws of Virginia. That all the lands within northwest of the river Ohio, subject to the the territory so ceded to the United States, terms and conditions contained in the before and not reserved for, or appropriated to, any recited act of Congress of the thirteenth day of the before mentioned purposes, or disposed of September last; that is to say, upon condi of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of tion that the territory so ceded shall be laid the American army, shall be considered as a out and formed into states, containing a suit-common fund for the use and benefit of such able extent of territory, not less than one of the United States as have become, or shall hundred, nor more than one hundred and fifty become, members of the confederation or fedmiles square, or as near thereto as circum-eral alliances of the said states, Virginia instances will admit: and that the states so clusive, according to their usual respective formed shall be distinctrepublican states, and proportions in the general charge and exadmitted members of the Federal Union, hav-penditure, and shall be faithfully and bona ming the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no and independence, as the other states. other use or purpose whatsoever. Provided, That the necessary and reasonable expenses that the trust hereby reposed in the delegates incurred by this state, in subduing any British of this state shall not be executed unless three posts, or in maintaining forts and garrisons of them at least are present in Congress. within, and for the defence, or in acquiring And whereas the said General Assembly, any part of, the territory so ceded or relin-by their resolution of June sixth, one thousand quished, shall be fully reimbursed by the seven hundred and eighty-three, had constiUnited States; and that one commissioner shall tuted and appointed us, the said Thomas Jefbe appointed by Congress, one by this common-ferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James wealth, and another by those two commis-Monroe, delegates to represent the said comsioners, who, or a majority of them, shall be monwealth in Congress for one year, from the authorized and empowered to adjust and first Monday in November then next followliquidate the account of the necessary and ing, which resolution remains in full force: reasonable expenses incurred by this state, Now, therefore, know ye, that we, the said which they shall judge to be comprised within Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur the intent and meaning of the act of Congress, Lee, and James Monroe, by virtue of the of the tenth of October, one thousand seven power and authority committed to us by the hundred and eighty, respecting such expenses. act of the said General Assembly of Virginia, That the French and Canadian inhabitants, before recited, and in the name, and for and and other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vin-on behalf, of the said commonwealth, do, by cents, and the neighboring villages, who have these presents, convey, transfer, assign, and professed themselves citizens of Virginia, shall make over, unto the United States, in Conhave their possessions and titles confirmed to gress assembled, for the benefit of the said them, and be protected in the enjoyment of states, Virginia inclusive, all right, title and their rights and liberties. That a quantity claim, as well of soil as of jurisdiction, which not exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand the said commonwealth hath to the territory acres of land, promised by this state, shall be or tract of country within the limits of the allowed and granted to the then Colonel, now Virginia charter, situate, lying, and being to General George Rodgers Clarke, and to the the northwest of the river Ohio, to and for the o)fficers and soldiers of his regiment, who uses and purposes and on the conditions of marched with him when the post of Kaskas-the said recited act. In testimony whereof, kies and St. Vincents were reduced, and to the we have hereunto subscribed our names and officers and soldiers that have been since in-affixed our seals, in Congress, the first day of corporated into the said regiment, to be laid March, in the year of our Lord one thousand off in one tract, the length of which not to ex-seven hundred and eighty-four, and of the Inceed double the breadth, in such place, on the dependence of the United States the eighth. northwest side of the Ohio, as a majority of Resolved, That the United States in Conthe officers shall choose, and to be afterwards gress assembled are ready to receive this divided among the said officers and soldiers in deed, whenever the delegates of the state of due proportion, according to the laws of Vir-Virginia are ready to execute the same. ginia. That in case the quantity of good land The delegates of Virginia then proceeded on the southeast side of the Ohio, upon the and signed, sealed, and delivered the said waters of Cumberland river, and between the deed: whereupon Congress came to the folGreen river and Tennessee river, which have lowing resolution: been reserved by law for the Virginia troops, The delegates of the commonwealth of Virupon continental establishment, should, from ginia having executed the deed, the North Carolina line bearing in further Resolved, That the same be recorded and upon the Cumberland lands than wasexpected, enrolled among the acts of the United States prove insufficient for their legal bounties, the in Congress assembled.

deficiency should be made up to the said troops, in good lands, to be laid off between Resolved, That it be, and it hereby is, rethe rivers Scioto and Little Miami, on the commended to the legislature of Virginia, to northwest side of the river Ohio, in such pro-take into consideration their act of cession 468

Page 469 view page image

ORDINANCE OF 1784-87. and revise the same, so far as to empower the United States in Congress assembled, to make such 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 circumstances.may require; which states shall hereafter become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom. 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 Congress 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 Congrcss, make it expedient. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, lThat the estates both of resident and nonresident 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 descendants 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 parents’ share: and there shall, in no case, be a distinction between kindred of the whole and half-bl ood; saving in all cases to the widow of the intestate’her third part of the real estate for life, and onethird part of the personal e~state; and this law relative to descents and (lower 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 ritory may be devised or bequeath ed by wills in writing, signed an d sealed by him or her in whom the estate may be (bei n g o f full age), and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be conveyed by lease and release, br ba rgain and sale, signed, seal e d, an d de - livered, by the pers on, be ing of full age, in whom the estate may be, and atte s ted by two witnesses, provide d such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be acknowlegeged, or the execution the reof d u ly pr oved, and be record - ed within one yea r after pro pe r magist rates, courts, an d registers, shall be ap point ed for that purpose; and personal property may be transferred by delivery; saving, how ever, t o the French and Canadian inhabita nt s, an d other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vincents, and the ne ighbor ing villages, who have heretofore professed the mselves citizensof Virginia, their laws and customs nowf in force among them, relative to the descent and co n v eyance of property. Be it ordained by the authorit y aforesaid, That there shall be appointed from time to time, by Congress, a governor, whose comm issi on shall continu e in force for the ter m of three years, un less sooner revoked by Conbress: h e shall reside in the distr ict, a nd ha ve a freehold estate the rein, in one th ousand acres of land, while in the exerci se 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 dis trict, and have a freehold estate ther ein, 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 district, and the proceedings of the governor in his executive department; and transmit authentic 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 tot 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 afterw~ards the legislature shall have authority to alter them as they shall thintk fit. The governor for the time being, shald be commander-in-chief of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the same, below the’rank of general officers; all general officers shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress. * “, 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 6th day of September last, shall be disposed of for the camnmon benefit of the United States. and be settled and tfrmed into distinct republican states, which shall become nmembers of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of .Y<vereiguty, freedom, and independence, as the other states; that each’tate which shall be so formed shall contain a suitahle extent of territory, not less than one hundred, nor more than one hundred and fifty miles square, or as near thereto as circumstances will admit; that the necessary-and reasonable expenses which any particular state shall have incurred, since the commencement of the present war, in 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 tuy nine or more of them.”-Journals of Cong8ess, October a-1780. 469

Page 470 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 me t, they shall nominate ten persons, residents in the district, ancd each possessed of a fieehold in five hundred acres of land, and return their n ame s t o Congress; five of whom Congress shall ap poin t a nd coim mission to serv e as af oresaid: a nd w henever a vacancy sh hall happen in the Council, by death or removal f ro m office, th e Hous e of Representatives shall nominate two pers ons, qualified as aforesaid, f or ea ch vacancy, and return t heir nam es t o Congress; one of whom Con g r e s s s hall appoint an d commis sion for the residu e of the term: A nd every five years, four month s at least before the expiration o f the time of service of the members of the Council, the said Hous e shall nominate ten persons, qualified as aforesaid, a nd retu rn their name s to Congress; f ive of whom Con gress shall appoint a nd commis sion to serve as members of the Council fiv e years, unless sooner removed. And the Governor, Legisla tive Council, and Ilouse of Representatives, shall have authority to make laws, in all ca se s, for the good government of the dis trict, nott repugnant to the principles and ar ticles in this ordinance e st ablis hed a nd declared. And all bills, having passed by a majority in the IHo us e, and by a maiority in the C ounci l, shall be refer red t o the governor for hi s a ssen t; but no bill or legislative act whatever shall be of any force witho ut 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 suclh o t he r officers as Congres s shall appoi nt in the district, shall take an oath or affirmation of fidelity, and of office; the governor before the President of Congres,, and all other officers before the governor. As soon as a legislature shall be formed in tLe district, the Council and IIouse assentbled, in one roomi, 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 libeity, which foirm the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fixs and esta blish those principles as the basis of all law,s,, constitutions, and governments, which for ever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory; to provide, also, for the establishmnent of states, and permanent go)vernmenlt therein, and fo~r their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original states, at as early periods as mlay be con1sistent with the general interest: It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact: ,betw een the original states and the people and 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 tor the preservation of the peace and good order in the same. After the General Assem lIdy shall be organized, the powers and duties ,.f 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 governiaent, be appninted 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 c:umstances 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 h them in th e General Assembly; provided that, for every ive hundred rede e male inhabitants, the re shall be one representativesand so on, progressively, with the number o f free male inhabitants, shall the right o f representation increase, until the number of representatives shall amount o to twentyfive; after which the num bJer 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, ond be a resi dent in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the d istrict three years; and in either cane, shall likewise hold in his own right, in fee simple, two hundre,- acres of land within the same; provided also, that a1 freehold in fifty acres of land in the district, hiaving been a citizen of one of the states, and beiing resident in the district, or the like freehold and two years’ residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elector 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 tffice, the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township, for which he was a menib~er to elect another in h~is stead, to serve for the residue of the term. She General Assembly, or Legislature, shall consist of the Governor, Legislative Council, Sand a Itouse of Representatives. The Legislative Council shall consist of five members, to continue in office five years, unless sooner remnovedl by Congtre~ss; any three of whom to be a quorum: and the members of the Council 470

Page 471 view page image

ORDINANCE OF 1784-87. 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 the people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. Al! 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 iIents 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 muade for the same. And, in the just preser vat’on 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 shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with, or affect, private contracts or engagements, I)ona 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 (,f education shall for ever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall alwavs be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights, tand liberty, they never shall be invaded or listurbed, 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 (lone to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them. Art. 4. The said territory and the state s which may be formed therein, shall for ever r-emain, a part of this confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles ,of Confederation, and to such alterations therein ,Ls shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. ‘I’he inhabitants and settlers in the said territary shall be subject to pay a part of the fedoral debts, contracted or to be contracted, and : pro)portional part of the expenses of governmlenlt, to be apportioned on theml by Congress, aIcc( rding to the same common rule and mea.sure by whrlich apportionments thereof #hall be mal~de on the-other states; and the taxes for paying their proportion shall be laid and lev ied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or districts, or new states, in the original states, within the rime agreed upon by the United States ill Congress assem bled. The legislatures of those districts, ore new states, shall never interfere with the pri mary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congres s as sembled, nor with any regula ti ons Congress ma find n ec e s sary, f(ir secu ring the title in such soil t o the bona fide pur chasers. No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the Unit ed States; and in no case shall n onresident proprietors be taxed higher than res idents. The na vigable waters leading into the Miisissippi and St. Lawre n ce, and the carrying places be tw e en th e same, s h all be common highways, and for ever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said terri - tory, as to the citizens of the Unite d States, and those of anly other state s t hat may be ad moitted into the co n fed era cy, witho ut an y 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 alte r her act of ces sih n, and conse nt to the s ame, shall become fixed and established as follows, to wit: the western stat stt in the said territory, shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash river s; a direct line drawn fro m the Wnabash a nd Post Vincents, due no rth to the territorial line between the United Stat es an d Canada; and by the said territorial line to the Lake of the Woods and Miisissippi. 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 shall 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 to form one or two states in that part of the said territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan. And whenever any of the 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 permanent constitution and state government: provided the constitution and government, so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admlis,sion shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the state than sixty thousand. Art. 6.

There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have bedn duly conl icted: Provrided always, that any person I 4,-l

Page 472 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claimina his or her labor or service as aforesaid. le it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the resolutions of the 23d of April, 1784,* relative to the subject of this ordinance, be, and the same are hereby repealed and declared null and void. Done, &c. e and adva ntages grante d a nd secured to’he pse ple of the teatrito)y of the plU ited States iorth uest of the Iio erme Ohio, by/ th e articles ofcompact conta i ned iCntre the ordsa con iue t e gove rnmentr of saib d terditory, on the thirteenth day of’Julty, seventeen hundred antd eighty-sevez; sad t shi all be sucject to all the cSblmoitiodfs, and respttictiove s, and prohibitions in said articles of’ compact imposed upon the people of said territory; and tthe existing law s no w in force in the territory of Ore-on, u nder the aut hority of the provi sional government establishe d aby the peo ple thereof, shall continue to be valid and opera t ive therein, so far as the same be not incom atible with the Co nstitution of the United States and the principles and pro visio ns of thi s act; subject, nevertheless, to be altered, modified, or r epealed by the Legisl ative As senmbly of the s aid ter rito ry of Oregon; but s,ll laws heretofore passed in said territory, making grants of land or otherwise affecting or encumbering the title to lands, shall be, and are hereby declared ull and ae i ecad trvoid, and the laws of the United States are hereby ex t ended over, and declared to b e in fo rce in, said territory, s o far as the same, or any pro - visio n the reof, may b e appl i cable. The Commsitt ee of the Whole having struck out that part of the s ectio n italicized, the question cam e up in the Elouse up on agreeing with the Committee of the Whole in striking out, and it was decided in the negative as follows: YeAS.-n,-eslro,. BDaninger. Kayly, Beiae. Birdsall, BoT l,-, Brtts, BowSon, BLwnin, B oyd, rodhead, eVmy. G. Brown, al bert G. Brown, Burt, Cabell. Chapman, Chase, Bevierly L. Clarke, Clingman, lComell (wbb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, (ich,e, ri.kell. Crozier, Daniel, Garnett Duncan.

Alexander Evans, Feitherston, Ficklin, Flournoy, Irench, Fulton. Gayle, Gentry, Goggin, Green. W, iCale d’ tlaU, Ha7ralson. Harman sonm, tris.

Haskell, Iill, tlilliard, I saac. lmes, George S. Houston. Ilnge, C harle s J. Ingersoll, Itersm. Jaeon, m, An drew Johnsom, Robert IV Jolnson, Geor,qe IV Jnne,s, J,hn W. Jones, Kaufian, Kenn on, eThomas lutle Kig, La Sere, Le.14n, Lu-pAnin. McClernand, McDtoell, McKa y. McLane, Miller, Outlawr Pendlet(in, pilelps, Pillsbu7y. ol esto n, Rlou tt, Richardson, Robinson, ]o man. Sawyer, Shepperd, Sinkps,o Sins, Stanton, pteophedig.

Tbliodeaiou, T h omas, Jacob TAur.p son, Robert A. Thmnpson, Tompkins, Torombs, }enable, WFaU lace, WVick, Wo,clhv(ard.-88. NAYs.-Messrs. Abbott, Adams. Ashmun Binglham, Blan chard, Brady. Butler, Canby. Cathcart, Franklin Clark, Collamer, Collins. Conger, Cranston, Clrowell, Cuimmins, Darling, Dickey, Dickinson. Dixon, Duer, Daniel Duncan, Dunn, Eckert, Edw,ards, Eml)ree. Nathan Evans, Faran, Farrelly, Fisher. Freedl,y, Fries, Gid’din,gs, Gott, Gregory, Grinnell, ltale, Nathan K. tlall, I-lammons, Jas. G. Hamp ton, Moses Hampton, Henley, Henry, Elias B. Holmes, Joln }Z.

Houston, tlubbard, fludson, Ilunt, Joseph R. Ingersoll, Jenkins, Kellogg, Daniel P. KiDg, Ilahm, William T. Iaw rence, Sidney Lawrence, Lincoln, Lord, Lynde, Maclay, McClelland, Mcllvaine, Job MannD, Horace Mans, Marsih Marvin, Morris. Mullin, Nelson, Newell, Nicoll, Palfrey, Peaslee, Peck.

Petrie. I’ettit, lPollock, Putnam, Reynolds. Richey, Rockhill, Julius Rtockwoll, John A. Rockwell, Ros, Root. Rumsey, St. John. Scbenek, Sherrill, Silvester, Slin gerland, Smart, Caleb B. Smith, Robert Smith, Truman Smith, Starkweather, Andrew Stewart, Charles E. Stuart, Strohm, Tallmadge, T’aylor. James Thompson. Richard W. Thompson, ‘illiam Thompson, Thurston, Turner, Tuck, Vall Dyke. Y’inton, Warrenl, Wentworth, White, Wiley, Williams, M-ilmot.-ill4 Northern men in romtan, Southern men in italics. So the House refused to concur with the committee in striking out. The bill passed the House on the 2d of Au. gust, 1848, by yeas and nays, as follows: - ACT OF VIRGINIA. Whereas, the Unit ed States in Congress a ssembl ed d id, on the seventh day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven h un dred and eighty-six, state certain reasons, showing that a division o f the te rri tory which hath been ceded to the s ai d United.States, by this conmmonwealth in o s, into states, in conformity to the terms of cession, should the same be adhered to, would be attended with many inconveniences, and did recommend a revision of the act of cession, so far as to empower Congress to make such a division of the said territory into distinct and republican states, not more than five nor less than three in number, as the situation of that country and future Circumstances might require: and the said United States in Congress assembled have, in an ordinance for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, passed on the thirteenth of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, declared the following as one of the articles of compact between the original states and the people and states in the said territory, viz.: [Here the 5th article of compact, of the ordinance of Con gress of 13th July, 1787, is recited verbatim.] And it is expedient that this commonwealth!i dlo assent to the proposed alteration, so as to ratify and confirm the said article of compact between the original states and the peo,ple and states in the said territory. 2. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That the aforerecited article of compact, between the original states and the people and states in the territory nor+hwest (,f Ohio river, be, and the same is hereby catiied and confirmed, anything to the contrary, In the deed of cession of the said territory by this commonwealth to the United States, notwithstanding. Oregon. AFTER the Clayton Compromise Bill was defeated in the House, the Oregon bill, which originated in that body, was looked to as the means of providing a territorial government for Oregon.

This bill as it became a law contained the following provision Sec.

14.-And be it further enacted, That the inhabitants of said teriitory shall be entitled to enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges, * This reference is to the Ordinance of 1784, preceding “ais. i 4 7.oi

Page 473 view page image

OREGON. President Polk communicated his approval of the bill in a message in which he said: The territory of Oregon lies far north of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes, the Missouri and Texas compromise line. Its southern boundary is the parallel of forty-two, leaving the intermediate distance to be three hundred and thirty geographical miles. And it is because the provisions of this bill are not inconsistent with the terms of the Missouri compromise, if extended from the Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean, that I have not felt at liberty to withhold my sanction. Had it embraced territories south of that com promise, the question presented f or my con sideration would have been of a far different character, and my a ction upo n it must have corresponded with my con victions. Ought we now to disturb the Missouri and Texas co mpro mi ses? Ought we, at this late day, in attemptin g to annul what has been so l ong establis hed and acquiesced in, to excite secti sonal divisions and jealousies; to alienate the people of di fferen t por tions of the Union from each other, and to endanger the exist ence of the Unio n itsel f? From e a dtio of the adoption of the Fede ral Constitu tion, during a period of sixty years, our pro gres s as a nati on has been without example in the ann als of h istory. Unde r the protec tion of a bountiful Providence, we have ad vanced with giant strides in the career of wealth and prosperity. We have enjoy ed the blessing s o f fre edo m to a greater extent than any other people, ancient or modern, under a government which has preserved order, and secured to every citizen life, liberty, and pro perty. We have now become an example for imitat ion to the wh ol e w orld. T he friends of freedom in every clime point w ith a dmir ation to our institutions. Shall we, then, at the moment when the people of Europe are de voting all their energies in the attempt to as similate their institutions to our own, peril all our blessings by despising the lessons of expe rience, and refusing to tread in the footsteps which our fathers have trodden? And for what cause would we endanger our glorious Union? The Missouri compromise contains a prohibition of slavery throughout all that vast region extending twelve and a half degrees along the Pacific, from the parallel of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes to that of forty-nine degrees, and east from that ocean to and beyond the summit of the Rocky Mountains. Why, then, should our institutions be endangered because it is proposed to submit to the people of the remainder of our newly acquired territory lying south of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes, embracing less than four degrees of latitude, the question whether, in the language of the Texas compromise, they ” shall be admitted (as a state) into the Union with or without slavery?” Is this a question to be pushed to such extremities by excited partisans on the one side or the other, in regard to our newly acquired distant pos Yzr -)-.essrs. Abbe tt of Mass., Green Adams of Ky., Ash ni ul of MasS., Belcher of Me., Bingham ofMich., Birdsall ofN. Y., laloncharl of Pa., Bowlin of Mo., Brady of Pa., Brodhead of !‘a., Butler of Pa., Canby of 0., Cathcart of Ind., Clapp of Mle., tlark of ie., Cocke of Tenn., Collamer of Vt., Collins o,f N. Y., Conig fieranston of R. I., Crowedl of O., Cu m inings of 0., Di Gkey of Pa., Dickins on of 0., D ixon of Co n e.. Du,r of N. Y., Dunc an of O., Dunn of d., Eckart of P..

lEdwars of 0., Embree of Ind., E vals of 0n., E ar o O wan of 0., farrelly o cf la., Ficklin of Ill., Fish er of 0., Freedley of Pa., Fri,s of 0.

Giddings of 0., Gott of N.Y., Gregory of N. J., tari nell of Mas., Ilal e of NMass., Hall o f Mo., Hall of N. Y., Ilalimmond of Me., Hampt on of N.

J., Hampton of Pa. lieaniy of Ind., Henry of Vt., Holmes of N. Y., Houst on of Del.. Hubbard of Conn., Hudson of Mass., Hunt of N. Y., Ch arle s J.

Ingersoll of Pa., Joseph R. Ingersoll of Pa., Irvin of Ila., JaRnie son of Mo., Jenkin s of N. Y., J ohnson of Tenn., Jon. k of renn., Kellogn of N.

Y., Kennon of 0., King of as., Lahm of 0., Willia m T. Lawr enc e o f N.

Y., Sidney l,awrence of N. Y., Lincoln of Il., Lord of N. Y., Lynde of Whis., Ma(clay, McClelland, McClernand, Mclvaine of Pa., Mann oft Pa., Marsh of Vt., Marvin of N. Y., Miller of O., Morris of 0., Mullin of N.

Y., N ewell of N. J., Nicoll of N. Y., Palfrey of as., Paslee of N. H..

Peck of Vt., Petrie of N. Y., l’olfBck o f P a., Richar dson of Ill., Re ynolds of N. Y., sithil of,-)., Robinson of Ind., Rockhill of Ind., Rockwell of a., RockwellR of Conn., R ose o f NY., Root of 0., Rum sey, Jr.. of N. Y., Sawyer of 0, Schenck o f O:, S herrill of N. Y. of N, iliester of N. Y., Slingerland of N.Y., Smart of Me., Sit of Ind., i Sm of of Iil.. Smith of Conll., Stari weather of on Ha ar of N. Y.. St,wart of Pa., Strohm of Pa., St uart of M ich., Talliad ge of N.Y., Taylor of., Thompson of Pa., T hompson o f l a. Thur.ston of R. I., Tuck of N. H., Turner of 11., Van l) ike of N.., tinton of 0., Warren of N. Y., Wentworth of I1I., White of N. Y.,‘Wick of Ind., Wiley of Me., Wilmot of Pa. NC

Ys.-Messrs. Barringer o f N. C., Bayley of Va., B eale of Va., Bocok of Va., Botts of aa., Bowdon of Ala., prBo yd of Ky., Boydou of N. C., Brow n of Miss., Burt of S. C., Cabell of Fla., Chapnaii of Md., Cl ark of Ky., Clingman of N. C., Cobb of (‘a.. Cobb of Ala., Crisfield of Md., Crozier of Tenn., Daniel of N. C., Duncan of Ky., Evans of eId., Featherston of Miss. F lournoy of Va., French of Ky., Fulton of Va., Gayle of Ala., Gentry of Tenn., Goggin of Va., Green of Mo., Haralson of GM., Harris o f Ala., H askell of Tenn., Hill of Tenn., Hilliard of Ala., Holmes of S. C..

Houston of Ala., Inge of Ala., Ivers ont s on of Ga., Johnson of brk., Jones of Tenn., Kaufman of Tex., Kipg of Ga., La Sere of La., Levin of Pa., Ligon of Md., Lumpkin of Ga., McDo well of V a., M cKay of N. C., McLane of Md., Meade of Va., Outlaw of N. C., Pendleton of Va., Phelps of Mo., Pillsbury of Tex., Preston of Va., Rhett of S. C., Roman of Md., Shepperd of N. C., Simpson of S. C., Simms of S. C., Stanton of Tenn., Stephens of Ga., Thibodeaux of La., Thomas of Tenn., Thompson of Miss., Thompson of Va., Tompkins of Niss., Toombs of (la., Venable of N. C., Wallace of S. C., Woodward of S. C. In the Senate, on the 10th of August, 1848, the bill coming up for consideration, on motion of Mr. Douglas an amendment extending the Missouri line to the Pacific was adopted. For amendment and vote see extension of Missouri line, p. 360. The bill was then engrossed by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Atchison of Mo., Badger of N. C., Bell of Tenn., Benton of Mo., Berrien of Ga., Borland of Ark. Breeze of Ill., Bright of Ind., Butler of S. C., Cameron of Pla., Clayton of Del., Davis of Miss., Dickinson of N. Y., Douglas of Ill., Downs of La., Fitzgerald of Mich., Hannegan of Intl(., Houston of Tex., Hunter of Va., Johnson of 51d.. Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga., King of Ala., Lewis of Ala.,.MIangum of N. C, Mason of Va., Metcalfe of Ky., l’earce of Md., Sebastian of Ark., Spruance of Del., Sturgeon of Pa., Turney of Tenn., Underwood of Ky.-33. NAYS.-Me.srs. Allen of 0., Atherton of N..H., Baldwin of Conn., Bradbury of Mie., Calhoun of S. C., Clarke of R. I., Corwin of 0., Davis of Mass., Dayton of N. J., Dix of N. Y., Dod,-e of Wis.,. Felch of Mich., Greene of R. I., Hale of Mblass., Iltmlin of Me., Miller of N. J., Niles of Conn., ],helps of Vt.. Upham of Vt., Walker of Wis., Webster of Mass., Westcott of Fla.-22. 473 The House -disagreed to the amendment of the Senate, the Senate receded, and the bill became a law. For the vote of the House disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate see extension of the Missouri line, p. 360.

Page 474 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. i shall be entitled to vote at all elections authorized by law. Sec. 3. No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privileges of an elector; anal the privilege of an elector shall be forfeited by a c onviction of any crime w hich is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. Sec. 4. Fo r the purpose of voting no person shall be deemed to have gain ed or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absencewhile employed in the service of the United States or of this state; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of lea,rnin,; nor while kept at any alnshouse or other asylum at public expense; nor while confined ini any public prison.

See. 5. 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 the state in consequence of havirg been stationed within the same, nor shall any such soldier, seaman, or marine have the right to vote. Sec. 6.

No negro, Chinaman, or mulatto shall have the right of suffrage. sessions on the Pacific, as to endanger the union of thirty glorious states which constitute our confederacy? I have an abiding, confidence that the sober reflection and sound patriotism of the people of all the states will bring them to the conclusion that the dictate of wisdom is to follow the example of those who have gone before us, and settle this dangerous question on the Missouri compromise or some other equitable compromise, which would respect the rights of all, and prove satisfactory to the different portions of the Union. tlohldin(g as a sacred trust the executive authority for the whole Union, and bound to guard the rights of all, I should be constrained, by a sense of duty, to withhold my official sanction from any measure which would conflict with these important objects. At the next session, in his annual message, lie said: ” It was upon this consideration that, at the close of your last session, I gave my sanction to the principle of the Missouri compromise, lay approving and signing the lill to establish the territorial government of Oregon. From a sincere desire to preserve the harmony of the Union, and in deference to the acts of my predecessors, I felt constrained to yield my acquiescence to the extent to which they had gone in compromising this delicate and dangerous question. But if Congress shall now reverse the decision by which the Missouri compromise was effected, and shall propose to extend the restriction over the whole territory, south as well as north of the parallel of 36~ 30’, it will cease to be a compromise, and must be regarded as an original question.” I During the Thirty-fourth Congress the subject of an act to enable the people of Oregon to form a constitution and state government, engaged the attention of Congress. An act to that effect passed the Ilouse of Representatives; but failed to pass the Senate during that Congress. The people proceeded to erect a state themselves without an enabling act. They formed a constitution, the material portions of which are as follows: general election; and if, in the legislative as amendnients to the electors of the state, and ARTICLE I.-Suffrage and Elections. a part o tIs constlitutlolln. Sec. 2. If two or more amendments shoi,-i Sec. 1. All elections shall be free and equal Sec.2 If to or more amendments sl Sec. 2. In all elections, not otherwise pr b-be sub)mitted at the same time, they shall be pr-sulbmitted in such manner that the electors vided for by this constitution, everv white male se u)mtted in such mann er that the eletr shall vote for, or against, each of such amnend.. citizen of the United States, of the age of twentne yearsand upwards, who shall have ments, separately; and while an amendment twenty~~~one years ~or amendments, which shall have been agreed resided in the state during the six months im-or ame nd elents which shall have been gre mediately precedi ng sue,p electi on, and b one legislative assenl my, shall be mneallately preceding sucht election, and every >>..I eeyawaitting the atction of a, legislative atssemibly, white male of foreign birth, if the age of twen-i the ti9n addtil amen ty-one years and upwards, who shall have re-or of t he electors, no additional aendmet sided in the United States one year, and shall r amendments sh e proposed.

have resided in this state during the six nionths immediately preceding such election, and shall ARTICLE XVIII.-,hedtle. have declared his intention to become a citi-Sec. 1. For the purpose of taking the vote zen of the United States one year preceding of the electors of the state for the acceptance such election, conformably to the laws of the or rejection of this constitution, an election United States on the subject of naturalization, shlall be held on the second Monday of Noi em, 474

Page 475 view page image

be added to the bill of rights, and shall be part of this constitution: “Sec.-. No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal Iby public officers of all such f’ree negroes and miulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbor them therein.” Sec. 6. If this constitution shall be ratified, an election shall be held on the first Monday of June, 1858, for the election of members of the legislative assembly, a representative in Congress,,and state and county officers; and the legislative assembly shall convene at the capitol the first Monday of July, 1858, and proceed to elect two senators in Congress, and nmake such further provisions as may be necessary to the complete organization of tr state go:vernment.

Se7. 7. All laws in force in the territory of Oregon when the constitution takes effect, and consistent. therewith, shall continue in force until altered or repealed. Sec. 8. All officers of the territory, or under its laws, when this constitution takes effect.. shall continue in Alqice until superseded by tht state authorities. Sec. 9. Crimes and niisdemiieanors commit ted against the terri-gry of Oiregion: sball Lb punished by the state, as theyi might have been punished by the te~‘ritory if the change of governmiient had not been mliade. her, in the year 1857, to be conducted accord ing to existing laws regulating the election of delegate in Congress, so far as applicable, ex c ep t as here n otherwise provided.

Se. 2. Bach elector who offers to vote upon this constitution shall te asked by the judges of election this question: Do you vote for the constitution-yes or no? An d al so this question: Do you vot e for slavery in Oregon-yes or no? And also this qtiest:kn: Do) you vote for tree eti6ro3s in Ore,on  yes or no? And in the poll-byokn s,all Le coluan ns headed, resp ectively, ” Const;tutiot., yes;” “Constit u tion, no;”

Slavery, alws or “Slave ry, no; “Free no Segroes, yes,” “Free ne groes, no.” And the nam es of eicito-s,Shall be entered in the poll-books, togethei with their answers to the said questi ons, sir. ler their appropriate hea.ds. CThe abstracts of tmm. votes transmit ted to the secretary of the terri tory shall be publicly open ed, and capnvassed by the governor and secretary, or by ei ther ofthe n abn them, i the absence of the other; and the governor, or, in his absence, the secretary, shall forit with issue his proclamation, and publish the same in the several newspapers printed in thi s state, declaring the result of the said election upon each of said questions. S ec. 3. If a m ajority of all the votes given for and against the constitution shall be given for the c onstitu tion, then this c onstitution sshall be deemed to be approved and accelte d by the electors of the state, and shall take ef feet accordingly; and if a majori ty o f d auch vote s shall be given against the constitution, then this constitution shall be deem ed to b e rejected by the electors of the st at e, and shall be void. See 4. If this constitution shall be accepted b1y the electors, and a majority of all the votes given for and against slaverv s ha llt b e gi ven for slavery, then the f ollow i ng se ction s hall be added t o the bill of righits, and shall be part of this constitution: “Sec. -. Persons lawfully held as slaves in any State, territory, or district of the U ni ted States, under the lawsr thereof; may be brought into this state, aIid such slaves and their s(lesc endants, may lb e held as slates withi n this state, and shall no t be emancipated wi thout t he consen t of their owners.” And if a majority of such votes shall be given against slavery, then the foregoing shall not, but the followini, section shall be added to the “bill of rights,” and shall be a part of this constitution: ” Sec. .

There sha~ll be neither sl~avery nor involuntary servitude ill this state, otherwise than as a punishmllent fb~r crimne, wh lereo)f the party shall horse been duly conlvicted.” Anld if a majority of all the vz-tes g~iven fi)r and against free negrroes shall b~e grivel} agalinst free negroes, then the tbllow’ ilng ~ection shall By th7e Goves nor of Oregon.-A 1’roclafmation Whereas, the people of the territory of Ore,don, through their delegates in convention as serobi)led, prepared a constitution for their go verniment under a state organization, and sub miittedl the saiime, with certain propositions, to be approved and determined at an election which boas held in the said territory on the 9th day of N,iveniber, A. D. 1857, in conforimiity to the provisions miiade by said convention of delegates; and Whereas, it was further provided lby said convention of delegates that the result of said elec. tion shlould be announced by executive prochlmattion: Therefore, to that end, it is hereby Adeelaired and nlade knownll, that at the said electi,)n, held on the 9th day of Noveember, A. D. 1857, there were seven thousand one hundred and niniety-fiv\e votes given for the adoption of the said constitution, ftnd three thousand one hundred and ninety-five votes against its adopti)n.

There % Ae re two thousand s ix -undr;ed and forty-five votes given in favor of slavery, and seven thousand seven hundred and twenty-soven votes aIgainist slatvlery; and there were .given one thousand and eightv-one votes ini favor of permitting the residence of free ne I OP,.EGON. 4’i’

Page 476 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. said state of Oregon shall have concurrent jurisdiction 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 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 forever free, as well as to the inhabitants of said state as to all other citizens of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor. Sec 3. And be it further enacted, That until the next census and apportionment of representatives, the state of Oregon shall be entitled 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 nunmbered sixteen and thirtysix 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 governor of said state, subject to the approval of the commissioner of the general land office, andl to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the legislature of said state niay prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but for no other purpose. Third. That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the governor of said state, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to sai(d state for the purpose of completing the pul)blic buildings, or for the erection of others at the seat of government, under the directiol of the legislature thereof. Fourth. That all salt springs within said state, not exceeding twelx e in number, with six sections of land adjoinin g, or as contiguous as may be to eaich, shall be granted to said state foi’ its use, the same to be selected by the governor thereof witiiii one year after the admission of said state, andl 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 in(lividual or individuals, or which may be hereafter confis med or a o(judger to any individual or individuals, shall by this article be grantedl to said state. Fifth. Thaat fivee per centurn of thle net proceeds of sales of all pub)lic landls lying within said state which shall be sold b~y Cong~ress after the admissio of said state into the Union, after deductingf all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said state, for the purpose of making public roads andl internal imnprovrements, as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That the foregoing propositions, hereinbuefore offer.

This constitution was referred in the Senate, on the 1st of F ebruary, 1858, t o t he Committee on Territories. AIr. Douglas, from that committee, reported on the 5th of April, 1858, a bill for the admission of Oregron into the Union. The bill, as it passed the Senate, is in the following shape: B e it ena cted by the Senat e and House of Representatives of the U nited States of America in Congress assembled.

That Oregon be, and she is hereby, rece ived in to the U nion on an equal foot ing with the o ther states in all respectO whatever, w ith the fpllowinet boundarles: In or der that the boundaries of the state mav be known and established, it is hereby ordaine d and declared that the state of Ore -oon shall be bounded as follows, to wit: Beginning one ma rine league at sea due we st frotm the point where the fcbrty-secondI parallel of nor th latitud e intersects t the samse thence no rtherly, atte d i s e fo the saine dist e r the line of the coast, lying west and opposite the state, including all islands within the jurisdiction of the United States, to aL point due west and opposite the middle of the north ship -hannel of the Columbia river; thence eiasterly, 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 fortysixth parallel of north latitude crosses said river; thence east, on said parallel, to the middle 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 parallel of latitude forty-two degerees north; thence west, along said parallel, to the place of beginning, including jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases upon the Columbia river and Snake river, concurrently with states atnjd territories of which those rivers form a boundary in common with this state. gec. 2.

And be it further enacted, That the 476 groee, and eight thousand six hundred and forty votes a,,ainst the same. ,n testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my official signature, and caused the [L. S.] seal of the territory to be affixed, at Salem, this 14th day of December” A. D. 1857.

GEORCE L. CURRY. By the Governor: B. F. HARDING, Sec7-eta?-y qf Oregon Territory. A Bill for the adnii,,ision of Oregon into the Union. Whereas the people of Oreon have framed, I ratified, and adopted a constitution of estate 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 footiii-with the other states; therefore 11

Page 477 view page image

OREGON.-OSTEND MANIFESTO. ed, are on the condition that the people of Oregon shall provide tby an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said state slyltIl never interfere with the primary 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 thereof; and that in no case shall ion-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. Sixth, And that the said state shall never tax the lands or the property of the United States in saidstate: 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 specified 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 residue 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: I have before ha d occasion to state, full con fid ence in your own intellig ence and sagacity, he conceives that it cannot be otherwise than agreeable to you and to your colleagues in Great Britain and France, to have the consultation suggested and then to bring your comImon wisdom and knowledge to bear simultaneously 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. Buclanan and Mr. Mason, who have instructions on the subject, and will await advices from you as to the time and place of the contern lated conference. In case the proposed terview shall take place, you are desired to communicate to the government here the results of opinion or means of action to which you may in common arrive, through a trustworthy confidential nmessenger, 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. YEAs-Allen, Bayard, Benjamin. Bigler, Bright, Broderick.

Brown,,tiseron, Clandler, Cliogman, Collaner, Dixon, Doolittle, *Douglas, Foot, Foster, Green, Gwin. Ha?tan, HOUSTON, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, King, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Simsnons, Slidell, Stuart. Toombs, Wright, and Yul e 35. NAYS-Messrs. BE

LL. Clay, CRITTENDEN, Davis. Du,rkee. Frssenden, Fitzpatrick, Hale, Hamlin, Hammond, Henderson, 1lunter, Iverson, KENNFI)Y, Mason, TrumbuU, and Whade-17. Democrats in roman, Republicans in italics, Americans in small caps, asterisk prefixed anti-Lecompton Democrats. MR. SOULE TO MR.

MARCY. United States Legation to Spain, } London, Oct. 20, 1854. Sir: Herewith I have the honor to transmit to you a joint communication from Mr. Buchanan, 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! 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 sentiments according strikingly with the intimations repeatedly thrown out in your despatches to me. I do not know if we shall be found sufficiently explicit in the language through which we have attempted to convey our impressions; I trust, however, that it will be found sufficiently 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 repecI: that we let escape the fairest opportunity we could ever be furnished with of bringing it to a decisive test. Ostend Manifesto. MR. MARCY TO MR. SOULE. (Extracts.-No. 19.) Department of State, } Washington, Aug. 16, 1854. Sir: I am directed by the President to suggest 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 }se done at London and Paris either to promiiote directly the great object in view, or at least to clear away impediments to its successf’ul consummation. Under these circumstances, it seems desirab,-le that there should be a full and free inter(change of views between yourself, Mr. Buchanan, and MNr. Mason, in order to secure a concurrence in reference to the general object. The simplest and oinly very apparent means of attaining this end is for the three ministers to meet, as early as may be, at some convenient central point (say.Paris), to consult together, to compare opinions as to what may be advisable, and to adopt measures for perfect concert of action in aid of your negotiations at Madrid. While the President has, as 47.

Page 478 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. vital interests of Spain are as seriously in volved in the sale, as those of the United States in the purchase, of the islanl,, 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 romote the highest and best interests of the panish people. The first, it must be clear to every reflect ing mind, that, from the peculiarity of its geo graphical position, and thle 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 Uxiio is the providential nursery. From its localitv, it commands the mouth of the Mississippi ani[ the immense and annually increasing trt(le which must seek this avenue to the ocean. On the numerous navigable streams, imea suiring 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 t o 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 dependency of a distant power, in whose possession it has proved to be a source of constant annoyance and embarrassment to their interests. Indeed, the Union can never enjoy repose, nor possess reliable security, as long as Pub.; is not embraced within its boundaries. Its immediate acquisition by our government is of paramount importance, and we cannot doubt but that it is a consummation devoutly wished for by its inhabitants. The intercourse which its proximity to our coasts begets and encourages between them and the citizens of the United States, has, in the progress of time, so united their interests anal blended their fortunes that they now look uponl each other as if they there one people and had(
but one destiny. Considerations exist which render delay in the acquisition of this island exceedingly dangerous to the United States. The system of immigration andl labor lately organized within its limits, and the tyranny and oppression Present indications would seem to encourage the l hiope that we maoy come to t hat solut ion peaceably. But if it were o th erwise-if it is to bring upon us the ca lamity of a war-let it ble nown, while the great powers of this conti nent are engdaped in tha t stupend ous strug d tle, which c anno t b ut eng age all their strength and tax all thei r energ ies as longe 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 tempoirary 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 European 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. McRae 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. Ile will impart to you what of my mind I am not able to pour out in these lines. Respectfully, yours, PIERRE SOULE. Aix la Chapelle, October 18, 1857. 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 government 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 Supreme 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. W e f irmly believe that, in the progress of human events, the time has arrived when the I 478 I Ilon. William L. 3farc Secretary of Zt,ate, &c. I” I

Page 479 view page image

OSTEND MANIFESTO. wlhich characterize its immediate rulers, threaten an insurrection at every moment, whi(h may result in direful consequences to the American people. a ha s thus become to us an unceasing 41anger, and a permanent cause of anxiety and Iut’ we need not enlarge on these topics.

It ,aii scarcely be apprehended that foreign 1)()wers, in violation of international law, w-Xull interpose their influence with Spain to lsr(,veit our acquisition of the island. Its in Il):aitants are now suffering under the worst ,{t’ all possible governments that of absolute tiespotism, delegated by a distant power to i)i esponsible agents, who are changed at short intervals, and who are tempted to improve the Iriief oplp)ortunity thus afforded to accumulate firtunes b) the basest means. As lon;, as this system shall endure, hu llia,iitv my. ill vain demand the suppression (t’ the African slave trade in the island. This is rendered impossible whilst that infamous triaffic remains an irresistible temptation and source of immense profit to needy and avari(.ions officials, who, to attain their ends, scru)le not to trample the nmost sacred principles tundler 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 appreciate 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 Utnited States. The trade of England and France with Cuba would, in that event, assume att once an important and profitable chariacter, and rapidly extend with the increasing population and prosperity of the island. 2. But if the United States and every comittercial nation would(l 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 developm-ienit of her vast natural rer-oiirees. Twothir(ds of this stim, 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 cession. France has already constructed continuous lines of railways from Ilavre, Marseilles, Valenciennes, and Strasbourg, via Paris, to the Spanish frontier, and anxiously awaits the ila-v when Spain shall find herself in a conlitiion to extend these roads through her northern provinces to Madrid, Seville, Cadiz, b oacapla, and the frontiers of Portugal. The object once accomplished, Spain would become ,~ centre of attraction for the travelling world, and secure a permanent and prcfitable market for her various productions. IIer fields, under the stimulus given to in diistrv by remunerating prices. would teem with cereal grain, and her vineyards wou(ld bring forth a vastly increased quantity of choice wines. Spain would speedily bec(ome, what a bountiful Pros idence intendedl slo should be, one of the first nations of Conti nellal Europe; rich, poowerftul, and contented. Whilit twothirds of the price of the islanil would be ample for the completion of her most important public improvemeint,s, she might, with the remaining forty millions, satisfy the demands n o w pressings so heavily upon her credit, andi create a s inking fun d wt hich would gradually relieve her from the ov erwhelming debt now paralyzing her energies. Such is her present wretched fin ancial con ditior, that her best bonds are sold u pon h er owni Bour se at about o n e-third of their pa r va lue; whilst another class, on w hich she pays no interest, have but a nominal value, and are quoted at about one-si xth of the amount for which they were issu ed. Besides, the se lat t er are held principally by Brit i sh creditors who may, fromi day to dy, ob tai n t he effective in - terposition of their own government for the purpose of coercing payment. Intimations tIo that effect have already been thrown out from hiS,h quarters, and unle s s some new s ource of revenue shall enable Spain to provide for such exigencies, it is not improbable that they may be real ized. Should Spain reject the present goldent opportunity for developing her re sources, and removing her financial embarrass ments, it may never again return. Cuba, in its pahmiest 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 thousandldollars. 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 ini minent danger of losing Cuba without remui neration.

Extreme oppression, it is nowv 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 admninistra, tion necessarily entails upton the inhabitants of Cuba, cannot fail to stimnulate andl keel) alhve that spirit of resistance andl revolution against Spain which has, of late years, beenl so often manifested. In this condition of affairs it is vain to expect that the people of the U~nited States will not be warmly enlisted xin favor of their oppressed neighbors. W ie know that the President is justly infiex i 479

Page 480 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 affirmative, 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 justify an individual in tearing down the burning ihfuse of his neighbor, if there were no other means of preventing the flames from destroying 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 justify 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 whitb race, and suffer the flames to extend to to our own neighboring shores, seriously to endanger or actually to consume the fair fabric of our Union. a We fear that the course and current of events are rapidly tending to such a catatrophe. We, however, hope for the best, though we ought certainly to be prepared for the worst. We also forbear to investigate the present conditi(o of the questions at issue between the United States and Spain. A long series of idjuries to our people has been committed in Cuba by Spanish officials, and are unredressed. But recently a most flagrant outrage on the rights of American citizens and on the flag of the United States was perpetrated 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 poicy thi othe 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 canno;, 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 IUnited States, with stipulations as beneficial to Spain as those suggested, is the only effectivee made of settling all past differences and of securing the two countries against future collision. We have already witnessed the happ~y re ible in his determination to execute the neutrality laws: but, should the Cubans themselves rise in revolt against the oppression which they suffer, no human power could pirevent citizens of the United States and liberal minded men from other countries from rushing to their assistance.

Besides, the present is an age of adventure. in whi ch restless an d d aring spirits a bound in every portion of the world. It is n ot impr obable, therefore, th at Cuba Tay b e w rest ed fr om Spain by a successful revolution; and in that ev ent sh e w ill l o s e both the island and price which we are now willing to pay for it-a price far be yo nd what was ever paid by on e pe opl e to an other for fproince. t may also be remembered that the settlement of this vexr ed question by the cession of Cuba to the United States, would for ever prevent the dangerous complications between ations, to which i t might otherwisee give birth. I t i s certain that, should the Cuban s themselves organize an insurrection against the Spanish government, and shou ld other independent na tions com e t o the a id of Spa in in the c ont est, no hum an powe r could, in our opinion, p rev en t the people and government of the United States from taking part in such a civil war in support of their neighbor and f riend.

But if Spain, dead t o the voice of her own interest, and actuated by stubborn pride and a false sense of ho nor, should refuse to sell Cuba to the United States, then the question will arise, What ought to be the course of the Am eric an go vernm ent under such circumstan ces? Self-pr eservation 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 histor’y 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 application 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 acquire the island of Cuba without the consent elf Spain, unless justified by the gfreat law of self-preserva.tion. W~e must. in any event, preserve our own conscious rectitude and our own &elf-respect. Whilst pursuing this course we can afford to disregfard the censures of the world, to which Mwe have been so often and so un1julstly exposed. After we shall have offered Spain a price for Cuba far beyond its present 480

Page 481 view page image

PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL.-PIERCB, FRANKLIN. sults for both countries which followed a simi lar arrangement in regard to Florida. Yours, very respectfully, JAMES BUCHANAN. J. Y. MAson. PIERRE SOULE. Icon. Wim. L.

Marcy, Secretary of State. Personal Liberty Bill. ‘T’nE following is a synopsis of the Personal I,ilierty Bill, as passed by the legislature of .assaichliusetts:’ By the 10th section it is provided that ‘any person who shall grant a certificate iin(ler the act of 1851 shall be deprived of any )ffice’ he may hold under the commonwealth, and shall be for ever thereafter ineligible to aly office of trust, honor, or emolument under tlic law of the commonwealth.’ “The eleventh section declares that’any person who shall act as counsel or attorney fi)r any claimant under said act shall be deprived of anvy commission he may then hold under the laws of the commonwealth, and shall 1)e thereafter incapacitated to appear as (4)unsel or attorney in the courts of the coimmoniiwealth.’ i’ 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 section shall le 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.’ 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 citizen, 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 b)ailiff, constable, or jailor, or any citizen of this state, who shall offend against the provisions of this act, b)y acting directly or indirectly 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 information or indictment, or be imprisoned in the state prison not exceeding five years.” P ierc e, Franklin. ON the 18th of December, 1837, Mr. Pierce of N. pI., in the Senate, in discussing the recepoltion of an abolition pe ti tion, said, Ie wa s in favor of the reception, and that quest ion he desi red to meet distinctly, and unembarra s se d by an y other motion. When petitions o f thi s ch aracte r 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 t ran quillize the p ubli c 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 sections 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 before the country. 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 sembl-)y of the state of Vermont, as follows: See. 1. No court of record in this state, nor any judge thereof, no justice of the peace nor othe r magistrat e, acting under the authority of this state, shall hereafter take cognisance of, or gra nt any c ertificate, warrant, or other process. in any c ase ariSing und er sec ti on three of an act of Congress, passed February tw elf th, seven teen hund red and ninety-three, entitled’an act respecting fugitives from justice. and persons escaping from the service of the ir ma sters,’

to any person claiming anv other p erson a s a fugitive slave in this state. “Sec. 2. aNo sheriff, deputy sheriff, high Lbailiff, constable, jailor, or other officer or citiren of this state s hall, h ereafter, seize, arre s t, s.r detain, or aid in the seizure, arrest or detention, or imprisonment in any jail or other building belonging to this state, or to any county, town, city, or person therein, of any p)ersoni for the reason that he is or may be claimned as a fugitive slave. ” See. 3. No sheriff, deputy sheriff, high Itailiff, 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 On the 21st of February, 1839, Mr.

Pierce presented in the Senate a memorial from certain citizens of New Ifampshire, praying for the abolition of slavery in the Distri ct of Columbiua, 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, may no longer be governed by a blind zea,l and impulse, but b~e led to examine this subject, so full of delicacy and danger, in all its bearings; and that, when calle(l upon to lend their names and influence to the cause of ‘4s.

Page 482 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. uniformly referred, as he had no doubt other gentlemen had done, to other parts of the constitution as illustrating the true and free s,pirit 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 government, more thai thirty years ago. The provisions now claiming the attention of the conmmittee 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 decisive.

The substance-if substance the] ever had-having long since passed away, he rejoiced that the proper occasion had at length arrived to dispense with the form. agitation, they may remember that we live ut nder a wr itten Constitution, which is the panoply and protection of the South as well a.~
the North; that it covers the entire Union, :and is equally a guarantee for the unmolested enjoymi-ienit 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 tar as those in whose welfare they express so much feeling are concerned, this foreign interference has been, and must inevitably continue t,) be, evil, and only evil.” SPIEECi IN TIIE

CONNVENTION OF NEW IIAMP SHIRE ON THE I~ELIGIOUS TEST IN ITS CON

STITUTION. Mr. Pierce, of Concord, said that he could concur heartily in all that the gentleman from Po)rtsmouth had uttered, except his last remark. It was quite obvious that, so far from leaving taxed the patience of the committee, liis speeches upon both the great subjects embra,ced in the resolutions under consideration had been listened to with unqualified gratifi(cation. Not be cause he th rew the weioght of his high character and the power of his arguments into the scal e o n the side of right in a case wh’ere there was hesitancv y-where the judgment of me nmbers was not definitely itrlled-wher e t here was a s had e of doubt as t o th e result; but because it was desirable that the g rounds on w hich w e p roceed in matters of such grate import should be s tated, Ads they had been, with singular force of reasoning and b eau ty of illustration. It was also a s ervice well rendered, not less in vindication of th e past than the present. The mo tiv e s of the f athers of the present constitution and of the people in 1792 had been placed in their true light.. So much was due to them. It was also du e to this convention and the people whom they represent, and dueo o the r eputation of the state abroad, that it be well understood that both of the provisions-the re lig ious test and the property qu alificationhad been a dead letter, at least as long as the chairman [tIr. Sawtyer] had participated t o av extent in the e councils of the state. They tllot b een pra ctically inoperative from ir. l.‘s earli est r ecollec tion. The c hairman would remember thm an e at m y years alo, at a time of high pa rty exc item ent, it lbas suggested that a member of the Ifou se o f Represen tatives occupied his seat without the reqc, isi te property qualification. But two o;,jections at once occ,urred to any action upon the subject; the first was that investigation and action, instead of rejecting one member, might probably vacate twenty seats; the second was, that no iiiem1)ber could probably be found to move in a matter 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 liberal spirit of our countrymen. Although he had at times felt keenly the reproach, he had EXTRACT FROM HIS SPEECII, AT TIHE TOWN MEETING, AT

CONCORD, ON TIIE SAME SUB JECT. “Can it be possible (said hlie) that the pew ple of New hIampshire 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 fjingu, t-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? hlow can nwe say that our land is the asylum of the oppressed of other countries, when we fail to e xten d ove r them the s hield of e qual 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 Lawler, 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 privile,e 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 provision of our constitution receives the deliberate 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 plainest dictates of’justice, that whoever may favor this test, should state the reasons upon which he relies. For one, I never think of it without a deep sense of regret, and, I may add, of humiliation for my native state.” 482 LETTER OF PRESIDENT Ptr..Rcr,. ON TIIF, COM

PROMISE MEASUItEq. Tremont House, Boston, Mav 27, 1852. XI intended to speak to you more fully upon

Page 483 view page image

PIERCE, FRANKLIN. his official obligations, to scan with an im partial eye the interests of the whole and t’ every part of the United States. Of the condition of the domestic interests of the Union, its agriculture, mines, manufice tures, navigation, and commerce, it is neces say ry 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 pred(-)nii 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 Vi(oe President o f t he United State s. The determination of the persons, who are of right, or contingently, to preside otver the administrat ion of the gover nment, is, utidenl our system, commit te d to the’states and the people. We appeal to them, by their voice pronounced in the forms of law, t o call whom soever they will to the higih post of Chief Magistrate. And thus it is, that ais the S enators repre sent the respecti ve states of the Union, and the members of the R-louse o f representatives the several constituenci es of each state, so the President represents the aggregate population of the Uniited States. T h eir electi on of him is the explicit anid solemn act of the sole sove reign authority of the Union. It is impossible to misapprehend the great principles wh ich, by thei r recent political a ction, t he people of th e U nite d St ates have sanctioned and announced. They have asserted the constitutional equiali 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 republic. In doing this, they have, at the same time, emphatically condemned the idea of org~anizing ill these United States mlere.zoogtraphlicalI parties; of marshalling in hostile array to,wrards each other the different parts of theA country, North or South, East or West. Schemes of this nature, fraught with incalculable mischief, and which tlse considerate sense of the people has rejected, could have had countenance in no part of the country, 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 th e S outh to prs ess resolutions unnecessarily offensive to of the sentiments of the North. But can we say ,is much o n our side? Wiol the NUorth cotme cheerfully up to the mark of constitutional right i If not, a breach in our party is inevit aible. The matter should be met at the thresholl, because it rises above party, and looks to the very existenc e of the confederacy. ‘I’the s entiment of no one stat e is to be regarded a.pon th i o in ouh this bjet; but having fought the bat le in New lampshire upon the f ugitive slave Ilial, dan r upon what we believe d to b e the ground o f constitu tional right, we should, of cou rse, desire the approval of the Denrocracy of the country. What I wish to say to y ou is this: If the otlompromise measures a re not to bae osul)stan ti,lly and firmly maintained, the plain rights secure d by th e C o nstitut i on will be trampled in the dust. What difference can it make to you or mul whether the outrag,e shall seem to thll on So uth C ar o lina, or Miaine, or New Ilampslhire? Are not the rights of each eluatlly dear to us all? I will never yield to It raven spirit that, from conside rations of i,licya, would endanger the Union.

Entert.til-i:l,g these views, the action of the convenIi.)II muls:“t, in my judgment, be vital. If we t the North who have stood by the constitutional rights of the South. ar o e to be abandoned to any time-serving policy, the hopes of democracy and of the Union must sink together. 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 beyond men and parties-transcerdeiitly important to the hopes of democratic progress and civil liberty. ~~~ - . Extract from the annual message of MIr. Pierce to 34th Congress, 3d session, on the results of the Presidential election. Fellow citizens of the Senate and of the Io te u se of Representatives: The Constitution requires that the President &all, from time to time, not only recommend o the consideration of Congress such measures s hle may judge necessary and expedient, but ]so that he shall give information to them of h-e state of the Union. To do this fully in.olves expositions of all matters in the actual Xondition of the country, domestic or foreign, X~hich essentially concern the general welfare. ;ghile performing his constitutional duty in hils respect, the President does not speak ,erely to express personal convictions, but as he executive minister of the government, iabled by his position, and called upon by 488 Your friend, FRA-,,-K. P[El,CE.

Page 484 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. had they not been disguised by suggestions plausible in appearance, acting upon an excited state of the public mind, induced byv 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 government 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 together, to attack by writing, speech, or anyw other methods short of physical force, the Constitution and the very existence of the Union. Utnder the shelter of this great liberty, and protected by the laws and usages of the government 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 themselves 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 fellowcitizens throughout the country who do not participate with them in their assaults upon the Constitution, framed and adopted by our fathers, and claiming for the privileges it has secured, and the blessings it has conferred, the steady support and grateful reverence of their children. They seek an object which they well know to be a revolutionary 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 public prosperity, to which there is no parallel in history, tnd substituting in its place hostile governments, driven at once and inevitably into mutual devastation and fratricidal carnage, transforming the now peaceful and felicitous brotheirhood into a vast permai inteynt camp of armed men, like the rival monarichies of Europe and Asia. Well knowing that s uch, and such only, a~e the means and the c,msequences of their plans and purposes, they endeavor to prepare the people of the United States fer civil war by doing everythlihg in their power to deprive the Constitutioii and the laws of moral authority, and to uudc.‘hiaem the fabric of the Union by appeal s to pass.io n and sectional prejudice, by indoctrinating its people with reciprocal hatred, and b)’

educating 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 conidemnnation of the domestic institutions of the southern states, as at leng,th to pass insensibly to almost equally passionate hostility towards their fellowcit:.zeiis of those states, and thus finally to fall into temporary fellowship with the avowed and active enemies of the Constitution.

Ardently attachel to liberty in the abstract, they do not stop to con:sider practically 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 unconstitutional action. A question which is one of the most difficult of all the problems of social institution, political economy, and statesmanship, they treat wvith unreasoning intemperance of thought and language. Extremes beget extremes. Violent attack firom the North finds its inevitable consequenece in the growth of a spirit of angry defiance at the South. Thus, in the progress of events, we had reached that consummation which the voice of the people has now so pointedly rebuked, of thi attempt of a portion of the states, by a sectional organization and movement, to usurp the control of the government of the United States. 484 Population. I,NCREA,-,E -OF Ilg YEARS. THE UNITIED

STATES FOR 50 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 - - - - - - - 5,305,925 - - -

- - - - 7,239,814 - - - - - - - 9,638,131 - - - - - - - 12,866,020 - - - -

- - - 17,069,453 - - - - - - - 23,191,876 Deceitnial increaseper 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 5,305,95, -and in the year 1850, 23,191,876, the increase has been 436 per cent-.um on the population of 1800; calculating the same ratio of increase for the next fifty years, our population in the year l)OO would I)e 101,349,498, and in the year 1,)50 it would reach, if the same increase continued, 442,907,296. Presidenti.,tl Election of 1856. I)r,BATF, O g TIIE, IN

Tnr,. IIOUSE oF RFpRx EENTATIVES, Dec. 9, 1,S56. MR. S. A.. S-MIT[I of Tenn. But suppose I am wroii, in the idea that the votes cast for 6

Page 485 view page image

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856. I he supposes, material to the opposition to the t Democratic party in the South with which to fight us in future Presidential and state canT 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 L only one national in its principles and just iln its action to all sections of the Union. L It was boldly proclaimed yesterday that Mr. Buchanan was a minority president, and that , the administration of President Pierce was 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. Hie has carried by clear majorities sixteen states-fourteen southern, and the states of Pennsylvania and Indiana.

Those states 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 Yor k, New Jerse y, Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa, were carried by pluralities. They have a population of over 6,000,000. iMr. Fillmore carried Marvland, 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. Fillmore in tie northern states were opp osed to the restoration of the Missouri compromise l ine; y et those who voted for him in the souther n st ates openly avowed that they were opposed to its restoration. It was so procleaimed mby all their speakers on the stump. Now, take the votes which Mr. Buchanan received and the v ot es given to Mr. Fillmore in the southern stat es, and there is a clear majority of more than two hundred thousand against the restoration of the Missouri c ompromise l ine. Yet the g en tleman f rom Ohio, in a very extra ordinary manner, asserted that t he policy o f Pr esi dent Pierce upon th at subject has been cond emned by a majority of three hundred thousand votes. Mir. SHERM.n’. I desire t o pro pound a questi on to t he gentleman. Mr. SMITH of Tenn. I yield for an interrogat ory, but for nothing else. Mr. SHERA AN. Does not the gentleman know that thousands of persons in the northern states wh o were opposed to t he r epeal of the Missouri compromise voted for Mr. Buchanan? Mr. See ITHe of Te nn. I do; but the y were utterly opposed to its restoration.

canv. SHERMANd. Does he not know that the candidate of the Democratic party in the Lanunster district of P en nsylvania, in which Mr. Buchanan resides, was one of those here who voted against the repeal of the Missouri comt)ronise-m who co ndemned it upon the fl oor of this Ipouse, and upon t he hustings? Mr. SMITH of Tenn. I know that Mr. fIeist er, who ran in the Lancaster district, took open and bold ground in th e late presidential calmpaign against the restoration of the Missouri coimpromise. He said that he had voted againist the repeal of that compromise; but lie unequivocally opposed its restoration. Mr. SHERMAN.

Was that gentleman, who thus opposed the restoration of the Missouri compromise, elected in the Wheatland district? Mr. SMITII of Tenn. He 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 compromiise he belonged to the Whig party, every northern member of which voted against that repeal. Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, is this discussion in order? The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the discussion 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 alnost every presidential canv~ass and in every state canvass, that the D~emocratic party of the northern states were unsound on the question of the constitutional rights of the South. W~e have denied this. We have held that the Democratic party North and the Democratic party South occupied one and the same grounld. We took the same position in the iate canvass. The gentlemann furnishes, as The total number of votes polled for, Buchanan at the recent election may be stated in round numbers at. Ta…… 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,…. 425,000 485 Bucb an an’s plurality over Fremont is I 00, 000 more than Fremont‘19 plurality over Fillmore

Page 486 view page image

ITHE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ty Mr. WASHBURNE of Ill. In my section of f0 the country it not only was not published in those papers, but they denied that such a reD-solution was passed. n Mr. SMITH of Tenn. I am afraid that my l-friend’s part of the country is a benighted lace, anyhow, and should not be surprised n ff s o good a thing would never find its way r.

into his ” beat.” Is there a Democratic paper - in the gentleman’s district? f Mr. WASHBURNE of Ill. There are two or f three which profess to be, but they have only e a very limited circulation. I Mr. SMITH of Tenn. Do they support the e regular Democratic candidates? M-Mr.

WASHBURNE of Ill. There were several e Democratic papers in my state which did not i 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 Ill. With the permission of the gentleman from Tennessee, I wish to ask my colleague a question. I understand I my colleague to assert that Democratic papers L in Illinois repudiate the resolution of the Cine 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 hin to state distinctly what Democratic papers ilii Illinois he refers to. Mr. WASHBURNE of 111. I am not certai.. I cannot state with certainty; but my ir tc:  * sion is that the Freeport Bulletin denied th’at such a resolution had been adopted at Cincin nati.

Mr. MARSIHALL of Ill. I wish to be under stood distinctly as asserting that no paper in Illinois, recognised as an organ of the lDemcecratic party, and circulating among the people of that state, ever deniedl the a(loption of such a resolution. On the contrarv, the Democracy of Illinois everywhere, without eva sion or equivocation, sustained the platformi and proceedings of the Cincinnati C(omiention, the principles of the Kansas-Nelraska bill and the administration of FIranklin Pierc(E] Any assertion to the contrary cannct~ he sfie t,‘aile(I by the facts. The position of’ the Demoeracy of Illinois cannot Ile moistalkenii }.v any one who wishes to understand it. The(, .”c in favor of withdrawing this qiesti(ion of slavery entirely from the halls f-‘ ({iigress.s and of leaving its adjustment to) thie lpeopl(1 of each state andl terr itory for tlecisel’ves without any interference whatever fr(om without. And this just principle, I (annot d(o bt, Mw ill be sustained by a large mtl.iouritv (o f tlepc people of the northern states, Mwhers it i,s fairl y and honestly presented, withlout miss eplesenltation or evasion lay our oppo)(nenlts Mr. WASnnvR:,x of Ill. WVill tile gentleIa~n state to the Itouse whether he knows<R of hit; own knowledge that the St~ate Res,.ister andy thle Chicago Times, twro leadling i1ccltradic Fremont lacks about 1,375,000 of a majorit of the whole. Buchanan lacks about 325,00 of a majority of the whole. In all the non-slaveholding states taken ts gether, Freoeoont is in a minority of more thai 200,000. Hris vote, howeve r, exc eeds Buc l ana’s in said states about 130,000. It is not true, therefore, that sectionalish has carried the da y by a popular majority The people of the co untry are opposed to sec tionalism. The people of the North and on the South a re in favor of the Un ion, and of preserving the rights o f ev er y section of the Ulnion. T he D e mocratic par t y was successfu in the recent contest, even under the advers circumstances which surrounded it, and elect ed the pwresident by a large majority of the electoral colleges.

The states we have carried contain a major ity of the p opul ation of the United States. Buchanan and Breckenridge have a large major ity of the electoral colleges. Whv, then, is it sa id t h at the verdict of the people was against tihe policy of the Demo cratic party, and that the administration of P r esident 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-Nebraskla bill, which was the great issue in the presideiti.al canvass. Mr. BARCLAY. I wish to ask the gentleman whether the resolution endorsing the admninis tration of President Pierce was published and circulated in the Democratic papers of Penn sylvania? MIr.

SMITII of Tenn. I know nothing about what was published in the Pennsylvania pa pers. It was contained in the official pro ceedinigs 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 nol)le sl’ate so ignorant as not to know what occurred in the Cineciinnati Con-.

vention, when its )ro(ceedi.-;gs were public, arid published in nearly, all the journals of the countrv. gMr. WA-s’Bu-,,E OF fll. Do I understand the gentleman to state that this resolution endorsing-the a dnlinistration of Pierce was published in all the northern I)oiiocratic papers? MR. S.flTH of Tenn. Yes, sir, all the leading ones of which I halve any kn-iiowi-ledge. Mr. WVASIIBURNE Of’ Ill. As part of the platform? Mir. S$fITII of 1Tenn. As pollrt of tlhe proceedings of the Cincinnati Coiin-enti(,n. Mr. IN’AStIIIUR-1E ofl11. I u nde rtake to say that it was not pu l)1ishoedl in ma~llny of the illinlois Dem~ocra~tic papers. Mir. SMIThI (f Tfenn. It; wa.~ pulblishedl in the northern Democ ratic palper s as p’art of the p2roceedings of theP,-,vcttl\Elion. It w\as pXublished in the Bl~st..n Post, in~ the New Yrork Daft Brook, and ill the i’cnnsy-lviani~l. TIhes;e are the leading papers of the N\or th wohich I sass. 486

Page 487 view page image

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856. papers in that state, published the resolution among the proceedings of the convention? Mr. MARSHALL of Ill.

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 Quint’.y Iherald, three of the leading Democratic papers in the northern part of the state, publishlied 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 gentlemnan from Illinois [Mr.

Washburne], if he knows one single Democratic paper in his district which did not publish it? Mr. WA.SHBURNE of Ill. I have stated that already.

hMr. SMITH of Tenn. Is it so to your own knowledge? Mr. WASHBURNE of Ill.

My impression is that the Freeport Bulletin is one paper which did not publish that resolution. Mir. 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: is called the question of ” squatter sovereignty.” I have never regarded it as of any importance. I know that a large portion of the people of the North, of all parties, believe that the people, in a territorial capacity, can exclude or admit slavery, because they believe it is an inherent right, and one not conferred by Congress. The pe ople o f the So uth belie ve that, with some exceptions. Ther e a re s ome i n the Sou th who believe that the people have an inherent right to admit or exclude slave ryin a territorial capacity, and there are many in h th e North w ho 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 o f nc practicability. I have held that i n 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 establish, 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 institution. But Southern men must be satisfied that there will be laws for their protection before they will take their property, whether negroes or horses, with them into any state or territory of the United States. Mr. It. 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. Ie has always taken ground against what the gentle man terms “
squatter sovereignty.” Mr. It. 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. II. MARSHALL. I know what he says in his letter of acceptance. As the Democratic party went into the canvass with two construetioens 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 approv ed: “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 tle territories, and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunionthe American Democracy recognise and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws estallishing the territories of Kansas and Nebraska as emlbodying the only sound and safe solution of the’

slavery questio,i’ upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union-nonintference by Cbngress with slavery in state asd territory, or in the District of Columbia.” Upon that platform Mr. Buchanan went before the country-a platform made in the state from which the gentleman comes who yesterday addressed the house, and attempted to show that the Democracy of his state were ignorant of the principles upon which they 7oted for the Demnocratic candidate. MIr. GROW. I would ask the gentleman if lie, and the party with whom he acted in the South, understand that resolution to mean that previous to the formation of a state constitution 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 “1Resolved, That we recognise the right of the people of all the territories. including Kansas and N,ebras.ka, acting throu,,,h the legally and fairly-expreos,,;ed will of a majority of actual resident.q, 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 perlect equality with the other states.” That is the ground taken by Mr. Buchanan 48.

Page 488 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. were precisely those I entertain and hav-o published to my people. The only differen,,e 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 mai ntenan ce of all the guarantees of the Con stitution for the protection o f the institution. Th is, i n mdy judgment, entitle s them to the more credit. Mr. SHRMAN.. The gentleman h a s said that he has s po ken a t the sam e meeting with Prince Joh n Va n Bur en. Now, I would ask him whether he endor ses the do ctrines pro f tulgated by that gentleman during the late campaign, and whether they would stand upon the same stump and rehearse theman together? Mr. SMITI of Tenn. I m os t certainly agree in all that Mr. Van Buren said at Trenton in referenc e 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. Ile there boldly avowed his oppo sition to any interference with slavery in thel states or territories, and stated that h e would support the admission of Ka nsas into the Union as a slave or a free state as the people should determine.

Mr. SHERMAN. My quest ion is not a n swered a at all. Do y ou concur in the opinions expressed by John Van Buren in the last cam paign in regoard to the e vents in Kansas and the policy of the repe al of the Missou ri com promise. Mr. SMITH o f Tenn. I heard nothing fromt him which I did not concur in, t hough I do n ot renernber to havre heard him speak of events in Kansa s. Mr. SfIEiMANd. One f urther question. I would ask the gentleman if he is aware tha t not only John Van Buren, but that Wendde ll Phillips, a wel l-kn o wn Abolitionist, vot ed with the Democratic party?

Mr. SMITH of Tenn. I am authorized to deny that Wendell Phillips acted with the De mocratic party. Mr. SIERlMAs. 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 seinti ments, which were the same as are ave,wed here upon this floor, and the same as those helAl by the Demnocratic candidate for the presidency. Now, sir, after alll this has occurred — after we have avowed North the samne sentiments vn’hich we did at home after wze have fought the battle and gained the victory, our opponent, come here and endeavor to make outf !that they would have carried the election if 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. H. MARSHALL. Our candidate did no,, hold that doctrine. lie was opposed to it, as every man who supported lichi North an d South was opposed to it. Mr. SMITH of Tenn.

Ilow many t ime s did thb gentlemami’s candidate v ote f o r the princi ple s of the Wilheot proviso? Mr. H. MARSHALL. Do you understand th at to lbe squ atter sovereignty? Mr. SM~ITH of Tenn. The seventh section of the pl atform upon which the gentleman fought t hie battle contains what the gentle man h imself consid ered an endors emen t of the doc trine of squatter sovereignty-the language of the Nebraska bill. Mr. It.

AI[ARSHALL. 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 Hiouse when he was a member of this body. lie denounced the repeal of the Missouri comi promise, which compromise excluded the gel 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 off in the future. It has been frequently stated that the Denocratic party north and the Democratic party south take different ground in reference to the affairs of Kansas and the future of that territory. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr.

Sherman] said that the Democratic party in the north assumed the ground that they were a better firee-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 addretssedl the people of the gentleman’s own state ~t Cincinnati, together with two others, one from Ohlio and one from Connecticut. I spoke in Trenton, N. J., with gentlemen from Pennsylvania and New York, one of them ‘iPrince John,” as he is sometimes called. The sentiments uttered by these gentlemen i 488

Page 489 view page image

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856. it hadl not been for a fraud practised by the Ilesnocratic party. I need pursue this subject iii further. The gentleni)an from Ohio also alluded to the delay in the progress of business in the liouse, at the commencement of the session, on account of the delegate from Kansas, and I must lie 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 )nali f’rom Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow] to his taking the oath of -office was one of the most extra ) rdinary of all the singular proceedings of the socalled Republican party. The action of the Democratic party was not f:ctious. All we desired was a fair vote, and that we determined to have. Ile told us that all the difficulties under which the country had labored had arisen front the opening of this agitation by the Pre sident, in the repeal of the Missouri compro mise line. lie told us further, that that act had brought about all the civil war which had existed in Kansas, and then to my astonish mnent, he thanked the President for interposing to put a stop to that civil war, which he said woull have been existing yet but for the in terposition of the general government. I was astonished at that, because the gentleman, and the par~ with which he acts, took the lead in withholding supplies from the army, with which alone the President could interfere and put a stop to that civil war. After (loins 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. lie ought to have thanked the people of the country that we have a President who, when this IIouse 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. GROIV. IHow did the Republicans attempt to stop the supplies at the last session? Mr. S,‘ITHt of Tenn. By attempting to put upon a regular appropriation bill an unconstitutional provision. Mr.

GRow.‘They voted all the supplies, but proposed to prevent the President from *arrving on those disturbances in Kansas. I relieve gentlemen upon his side of the House voted against the army appropriation bill. Mr. SMITH
of Tenn. The mode,ad(opte(d to stop the supplies w,as worse than a straight, open, direct vote against any supplies to the army of the United States. An amendment w as put upon the bill which was in direct con flict with one of the provision s o f the Repub lican platform under which Col.

Fremont was nom inat ed. That platform declares, as one of its specifications against the Preside nt o f the United States, t hat he had d eprived the people of the privilege of bearin g ar ms, while o ne part of the amendment to the army bill de prived the people o f Kansas fromf bearing arms. But I must congratulate the gentleman upon a sentiment which he uttered yesterday -not that I approve of it. Ile 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. SMITII 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 witlh the inalienable right to lif,,-, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulherior design of our federal government were to secule those rights to all per sons within its exc lusive jurisdliction; 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 in,g 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 give ltegal assists an,:e to slavery in any territory of the United States while the present Constitution shall be maintained.” Mr. SI]ER.MAN.

Does 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 Tenn. Upon this floor and in the Philadelphia Convention. He so exSpressed himself in his speech on the McLeod case. I do not state the precise language he used, but only the substance of his remarks. Mr. GIDDINCS. Stand up to it or back out. Mr.

SEMITE of Tenn. I (lo not care to get into a controversy with the senior member from Ohio. I am too young for that. I did 489

Page 490 view page image

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 testablishment o-f slavery in any territory, I w-ould 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 I.ompromise, w hich compromise deprived the p)eople of the territory of the right to regulate their domestic institutions. Then it became free. The right of the people to govern themselves is the greatelement offreedom. Whether lKansas comes in as a free or as a slave state will make no difference with me in my politial 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 nmay be, whether for slavery or agffainst it. ‘This 1 believe to be the position of the Democratic party. The late election has settled more important questions than any other that has occurred since the organization of the government. lst. It decides the capacity of the people for selfgovernment. 2d. That when the Union is in danger the Democratic party can triumph over all opposition, because the great element of their organization 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. noted on his passport as his slave. In 1854, Marcellino instituted in the royal city court at Berlin, an action against fir. 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. tIMarcellino denied the doctor’s right to claimi him as a slave, a nd reques ted that he should be made to prove it within four weeks. The court said, in their ii n, beas svA compla in t of de fa mation would h ave bee n rejected fro m the beginng, if the Prussian legislation had declared tha+ slavery-that is to say, property in man-is illegal, a s well in regard to foreigners as n atives, and that ev ery slave setting f oot on Prussia n territory is free. In such case, the com plain t 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 inadmissible and absurd, because slavery could have no legal existence. Bu t the P russian legislation h as n ot reprobated th e insti tution of slavery in such a decided mantner. On the contrary, section &on e hundred and ninetv. eight of the Prussian common law, 1, p. 5, dec lare s expressl y that foreigners, bein g ir the royal countries only for a tiste, retain their riyghts to the slave they have brought withi them; and this provision has no where been annulled bv lat e l egisla tion.” Iaving established this, the co urt then argued that, as the law which secure d to foreiglners the right to the slaves they brought with them. s eemed to reserve expressly to the person 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 plaintiff, as being his property, within a term of’ nine months, in default Whereof he shall lIo 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 defamnation, “‘Although the defendant has acknowledged that he asserts to have a right, a property in M~arcellineo as his slave, and that he has not lost it even in Prussia, by virtue of the prescripticn (S. 198, 1, 5 ) of the common lava: that fo)reignlers, being in the royal countries only for awhile, retain their rights in the slaves they have brought with thlem.”

And the reason given Berlin, Julr 28, 1856. Dear Sir: I have at length succeeded in obtaining 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. Ritter, of Rio Janeiro. They are lon, and intricate, and are perfect models of (Gerlman legal ratiocination. I have had prepared a full translation, and intend to preserve it as a specimen of legal philosophy in the ‘“F’atherland.” 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 inquiry referred. There were various other points raisel 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 490

Prussia. DECISIO I OF COLIRT IN, IN THE MATTER OF A SLAVE.

Page 491 view page image

PRUSSIA PUBLIC LANDS. why the action could not be maintained was, Jiot that the action would lie in any case, but tlat, in this case, there was probable cause for 1 aking the charge complained of. And there i(ire itwas no vain or unfounded boast to the in ury of MIarcellino. The court said further: AsThe plaintiff has arrived here from Brazil at’ companion and servant of the defendant, f’- om a country in which slavery exists, and l:e is noted in the passport of defendant as his Flav e. Ile himself declares in his complaint that he has been treated until now as a slave; and the merchant Ree, from Rio de Janeiro, whose testimony as a witness has been taken ill e-perpetuan nenor iam 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 hlie did, and it cannot be considered an arbitrary, unfbunded boast, even if it should turn out that the right of ownership could not be proved, or if it should be abolished. The complaint iust therefore be considered unfounded.

The judgment of the court of appe als was that the plaintiff in the action fo r defamation shoul d be nonsuited, and that each party pay half the cosits 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 t hat, according to Prus sian 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 das a slav wle while he remained. 2.

Both a_reed that if no slavery could exist, no action of defamation for claming a person 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 ill nine months, or lose his pretended rights and pay costs. The second court said the charge had been provedl; lbut 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 should 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 judgmient of the second court; but only on the ground of defects in form.

It was unsuccessful, and the judgment remains undisturbed. Although in this case the suit was not brought originally by the slave to r ecove r 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, vet the law and the principles laid down andl recog,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 ha taken place. It has not been my fault. Very respectfully, your ob’t servant, P. D. Vnoom. Public Lands. IT
is not deemed necessary to go into any great detail in a work of th i s kin d on the sub ject of the p ublic land s. The question of dist ribut ion which engages at this time, to a greater extent, the public attention than any other ques tio n connected with the public domain, i s f ully presented in its favorable and ad vers e light in the re port of Mr. Clay, the extract from a report of Mr. Grundy, and the valu able compilation of matt er and argument which characterizes the recent address of Mr.

Faulkner, of Virginia. The Editor feels that in pres enting th ese admir able papers to the readers of his work, he d oes exact justice to both sides of the question. To publish more, would be a task of supererogation.

The votes on each one of the land distrib utio n bills, which has b een beforo Congress, will be int eresting to those who desire to ascertain the position of public mene, when th e question at fTormer ti mes agitated Congress. The subject of railroad grants also excites some attention. A short sketch of thei r histor y is embraced unde r th is head ing. 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 axe too dry and of too little interest to demand a space herein. MR. CLAY’S REPORT ON THE

PUBLIC LANDS, APRIL 16, 1832. Mr. Clay, from the Committee on Manufactures, made to the Senate the following report: I I 491 General J.

A. Thomas.

Page 492 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. The Committee on Manufactures have been order of time, was that of New York, made on instructed by the Senate to inquire into the the 1st day of March, 1781, by its delegation expediency of reducing the price of public! in Congress, in pursuance of an act of the lands, and of ceding them to the several states leislature of the state; and the terms of the within which they are situated, on reasonable deed of cession expressly provide that the terms. Far from desiring to assume the duty ceded lands and territories were to be held, involved in this important inquiry, it is known ” to and for the only use and benefit of such to the Senate that a majority of the committee of the states as are, or shall become, parties was desirous that the subject should( have been to the Articles of Confederation.” That of Virreferred to some other committee. But, as ginia was the next in date, but by far the the Senate took a different view of the mat-most important of all the cessions made by the ter, the Committee on Manufactures have felt different states, both as respects the extent lbound to acquiesce in its decision; and, hav-and value of the country ceded. It compreinig bestowed on the whole subject the best hended the right of that conmmonwealth to the consideration in their power, now beg leave vast territory northwest of the river Ohio, enito submit to the Senate the result of their in-bracing, but not confined to the limits of, the quiries and reflections. present states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The public lands belonging to the general The deed of cession was executed by the dolegovernment are situated, 1st, within the limits gation of Virginia iii Congress, in 1784, a<>ieeof the United States as defined by the treaty ably to an act of the legislature passed in of peace which terminated the revolutionary 1783; and, among other conditions, the deed war; and, 2dly, within the boundaries of explicitly declares “that all the lands within Louisiana and Florida, as ceded by France the territory so ceded to the United States, and Spain, respectively, to the United States. and not reserved for, or appropriated to, any 1st. At the commencement of the revolu-of the beforementioned purposes, or disposed tionary war, there were in some of the states of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the large bodies of waste and unappropriated Amiericanii army, shall be considered a commonl lands, principally westof the Alleghany moun-fund for the use and benefit of such of the tains, and in the Southern and Southwestern United States, as have become, or shall bequarters of the Union, whilst in others, of more conme, members of the Confederation or federal circumscribed or better defined limits, no such alliance of the said states, Virginia inclusive, resource existed. During the progress of that according to their usual respective proporwar, the question was agitated, What should tions in the general charge and expenditure. be done with these lands in the event of its and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed successful termination?

That question was of for that purpose, and for no other use or likely to lead to paralyzing divisions and jeal-purpose whatever.” Passing by the cesousies. The states not containing any con-sions which other states, prompted by a magsiderable quantity of waste lands contended nanimous spirit of union and patriotism, sucthat, as the war was waged with united means, cessively made, we come to the last in the with equal sacrifices, and at the common series, that of the state of Georgia, in 1802. expense, the waste lands ought to be considered The articles of agreement and cession entered as a commoni property, and not be exclusively into between that state and the United States, appropriated to the benefit of the particular among various other conditions, contained the states within which they happeiewd to be unequivocal declaration “that all the lands situated. These, however, resisted the claim, ceded by this agreement to the United State.; upon the ground that each state was entitled shall, after satisfying the abl)ove-mnentione(l to the whole of the territory, whether waste or payment of one million two hundred and fifty cultivated, included within its chartered limits. thousand dollars to the state of Ge.,)rgia, arin To check the progress of discontent, and arrest the grants recognised by the preceding ciiondithe serious consequences to which the agitations, be considered as a common fund for the tion of this question might lead, Congress re-use and benefit of the United States, Georgia commended to the states to make liberal ces-included, and shall be faithfully disposed(l (of sion~ of the waste and unseated lands to the for that purpose, and for no other use or purUnited States; and, on the 10th day of Octo-pose whatever.” ber, 1780, “Resolved, That the unappropriated Thus, by the clear and positive terms of lands that may be ceded or relinquished to these acts of cession, was a great, public, the United States, by any particular state, national trust created and assumed by the pursuant to the recomnmendation of Congress general government. It bec(ie soleimnly of the 6th of September last, shall be dis-bound to hold and administer the lands ce(led, posed of for the common benefit of the United as a common fund for the use and benefit of States,” &c. all the states, and for no other use or purpose In conformity with the recommendation of whatever. To waste or misapply this fund, Congress, the several states containing waste or to divert it from the common benefit fox and uncultivated lands made cessions of them which it was conveyed, would be a violation to the United States. The declared object of the trust. The general government has no having been substantially the same in all of more power, rightfully, to cede the lands thus these cessions, it is only necessary to advert acquired to one of the new states, without a to the terms of some of them. The first, in fair equivalent, than it could retrocede them 402

Page 493 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. 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 o30th of September, 1831, is $37,272,713.31. The government, therefore, has not been reimbursed 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, comm unicated to Congress with the annual message 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 and unsurveyed, 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 ascertained. 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,‘o,inning 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 purchasers; 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 s um in 1820, from e i2 per acre, at which it had previously stood from the first establishmnent 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 ab,olish. A further reduction of the price,.if called for by the public interests, must be rew to t he s tat e or states from w hic h they we re oruginally obtained. There would indeed be much more equit y in the latte r than in the l; rmer case. Nor is the moral responsibility of thea g eneral gov ernm ent at all weakened by the consider ation th at, i f it were s o unmindful of i ts duty as to disregard the s acred character of the trust, there might be no competent power, peacefully applied, which could coerce Its faithful execution. 2d The o ther s ou rce whience the public lands of the United States hav e been acquired, aire, lst, the treaty of Louisiana, concluded in 1802; and, secondly, the treaty of Florida, signed in 1809.

By the first, all the country vest of the prh.ssissippi, an d 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 ay, and have since punctually paid, to France, besides other conditions deemed favorable 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 bernefit 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 dictates of the duty by which the general government 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 eneral views of this great national resource. Veor that purpose, a call, through the Senate, for information, has been made upon the executive branch of the government. A report lass not vet been made; but, as the committee are desirous of avoiding any delay, not altogether indispensable, they have availed themselve~s of’ the report from a secretary of the treasury to the IIouse 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 ag~gregate of all sums of money which have Queen expended by the United States in the acqulisition of the public lands, including interest on account of the purchases of Louisiana and Florida up to the 30)th day of September, 1831, I’ 498

Page 494 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. quired, either, 1st, Because the government now demands more than a fair price for the publlic lands; or, 2dly, Because the existing price retards, injuriously, the settlement and population of the new states and territories. fhese suggestions deserve separate and serious considerations. 1. The committee possess no means of de termining the exact value of all the public lantds now in market; nor is it material, at the pI)resent 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 ditfferent ra t es, 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 hi-,h. The amount of the sales in the year 1828, was $1,018,308.75; in 1829,$1,517,175.13; in 1830, $2,329,356.14: and, durirg 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, notwithstanding 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 incredible to suppose that the amount of sales would have risen to so large a slum if the price had been unreasonably high. The c~ommnittee are aware that the annual receipts may be expected to fluctuate, as fresh lands, in favorite districts, are brought into market, and according to the activity or sluggishness of emigration in different years. Against any considerable reduction of the price of the public lands, unless it be neees sary to a m o re ra pid pop ulation of the new states, which will be hereafte r examined, the r e are weighty, if not decisive con siderations. 1. The government is the pr opri etor of much the largest quantity of the unseated lands of the United States. What it has in market, bears a large proportion t o th e wh ol e of the occupied lands within their limits. If a considerable quantity of any article, land or any combno dity whatever, i s in marke t, 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 no t. The influence of a reduction of the price of th e p ublic lands would proba b l y be felt through out 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 m o st cogen t and conclusive reaso ns fo r ad op ting a mea sure which might seriously impair the value of the property of the yeoman ry of the country. Whilst it is deci dedly the most important class in th e c ommunity, most patient, patriotic, and acqui escent in whatever public p olicy is pur sued, it is unable or unwilling to resort to those means of union and concert which other inter es ts e mploy to make themselves h eard and respected. Government s houl d, therefore, feel itself constantly bound to guard, with sedulpo us care, the rights and welfare of the great body of our yeomanry. Would it be just towards those who have heretofore purchase d publiv, lands at higher prices, to say nothing as to the residue of the agricultural in terest o f the United States, to make such a reduction, and thereby impair the value o f t heir property? Ought not any such plan of reduction, if adopted, to be accompanied with compensa tion for the injury which they would inevith-m bly sust ain? 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 front 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 reduced, 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. All 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 notoriousl~y became an object of speculation, and have principally fall. en into the hand:s of speculators, retarding the settlement of the districts which include them. 3. The greatest emigration that is believed 494

Page 495 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. 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 lessening the value of their lands, but draining them both of their population and currency. And, lastly, Congress has, within a few Tears, 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 2,187,665 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 contended, from the large amount of public land remaining unsold, after having been so lon,g .xposed 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 respective 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, ha.s 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 progressive increase of population. If the quantity thrown into the market hadl been quadrupled, the probability is that there would not have been much more annually sold than actually has been. With such extensive fields for selection before them, purchasers, embarrassed as to the choice which they should make, are sometimes probably influenced by caprice or ~cidental causes. Whilst the better lands remain, those of secondary value will not he purchased. A judicious farmer or planter woul d osoo ner 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 la t a, and is a tax, and that, at a period when, in con se quence of the payment of the public debt a nd th e finan cial prosperity of the United States, the government is enabdled to dispense with revenu e, a th at tax o ugh t to be reduced, and the revenue arising from th e sale s be thereby dim inished. In the first place, it is t o be observed, that i f, as has been before stated, the reduction of the price o f th e public lands should stimulate speculation, the consequence would probably be, at least for some years, an augmentation of the revenue from that source. Sh ould 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 assuming it to be a tax, it might be proper to inquire who pays the tax, the new or the old statesthe states that send out, or the states that receive the emigrants. In the next place, regarded as a tax, those who have heretofore made purchases at the higher rate, have already paid the tax, and are as much deserving 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 reduction 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 relief, 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 motive of augmenting the public revenue, or any other motive than that of his own advantage, never enters into his consideration. The government, 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 ides that the purchase of them is tantamount to thes payment of a tax. The government may era 49.5

Page 496 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ploy those proceeds as a part of its ordinary in 1830, of 10,477,895, presenting an average revenue, or it may apply them in any other increase of only twentyfive per cent. The manner, consistent with the Constitution, thirteen states, whose increase, according to which it deems proper. Revenue and taxa-the table, was below thirty-three per caunt. tion are not always relative terms. There contained, in 1820, a population of 5,939,759 may be revenue withlout taxation. There may and, in 1830, of 6,966,600, exhibiting an avebe taxation without revenue. There may be rage increase of only seventeen per cent. The sources of established revenue which not only increase of the seven new states, upon a capido not imply, but which supersede taxation. tal which, at the commencement of the term, Is the consider.ition paid for land to a private was 1,207,165, has been greater than thiat of individual to be deemed a tax, because that the thirteen, whose capital then was 5,939,759.

individual may happen to use it as a part of In three of the eleven states (Tenlnessee his incomne? Georgia, and Maine), whose population ex 2. Is the reduction of the price of the pub-ceeded the average increase of thirty-three lie lands necessary to accelerate the settle-per cent., there were public lands belongin ment and population of the states within to those states; and in the fourth (New York) which they are situated?

Those states are the excess is probably attributable to the raOhio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, pid growth of the city of New York, to waste Mississippi, and Louisiana. If their growth lands in the western part of that state, and to has been unreasonably slow and tardy, we the great development of its vast resources by may conclude that some fresh impulse, such means of extensive internal improvements. as that under consideration, is needed. Prior These authentic views of the progress of to the treaty of Greenville, concluded in 1795, population in the seven new states d(lemonthere were but few settlements within the strate that it is most rapid and gratifying; limits of the present state of Ohio. Princi-that it needs no such additional stimulus as a pally since that period, that is, within a term further reduction in the price of the public of about forty years, that state, from a wilder-lands; and that, lby preserving and persness, the haunt of savag,es and wild beasts, vering in the established system for selling has risen into a powerful commonwealth, con-them, the day is near at hand when those taining, at this time, a population of a mil-states, now respectable, may become great lion of souls, and holding the third or fourth and powerful members of the confederacy. rank among the largest states in the Union. Complaints exist in the new states, that During the greater part of that term, the mi-large bodies of lands, in their respective terrinimum price of the public lands was two dol-tories, being owned by the general governlars per acre: and of the large quantity with ment, are exempt from taxation to meet the which the settlement of that state commnienced, ordinary expenses of the state governments, there only remain to be sold 5,586,834 acres. and other local charges; that this exemption The aggregate population of the United continues for five years after the sale of any States, exclusive of the territories, increased particular tract; and that land being the prinfrom the year 1820 to 1830 from 9,579,873 to cipal source of the revenue of those states, an 12,716,697. The rate of the increase during undue share of the burden of sustaining the the whole term of ten years, including a frac-expenses of the state governments falls upon tion, may be stated at thirty-three per cent. the resident population. To all these comThe principle of population is presumed to plaints, it may be answered that, by volunhave full scope generally in all parts of the tary compacts between the new states re United States. Any state, therefore, which spectively, and the general government, five has exceeded or fallen short of that rate, may per cent. of the nett proceeds of all the sales be fairly assumed to have gained or lost, by of the public lands included within their emigration, nearly to the extent of the excess limits are appropriated for internal improve or deficiency. From a table accompanying ments leading to or within those states; that this report, (marked B), the Senate will see a section of land in each township, or onepresented various interesting views of the pro-thirty-sixth part of the whole of the public gress of population in the several states. In lands embraced within their respective hounthat table, it will be seen that each of the daries, has been reserved for purposes of edueleven states exceeded, and each of thirteen cation; and that the policy of the general fell short of an increase at the average rate of government has been uniformly marked by thirty-three per cent. The greatest increase, great liberality towards the new states, in during the term, was in the state of Illinois, making various and some very extensive where it was one hundred and eighty-five per gralnts of the public lands for local purposes. cent., or at the rate of eighteen and a half per But, in accordance with the same spirit of cent. per annum; and the least was in Dela-liberality, the committee would recommend ware, where it was less than six per cent. an appropriation to each of the seven states The seven states embracing the pul)lic lands referred to, of a further sum of ten per cent. had a population, in 1820, of 1,207,165, and, on the nett proceeds of the sales of that part in 1830, 2,238,802, exhibiting an average in-of the public land which lies within it. for obcrease of eighty-five per cent. The seventeen jects of internal improvement in their restates containing no part of the public lands spective limits. The tendency of such an had a population, in 1820, of 8,372,707, and, appropriation will be not only to benefit those 4 4.)6

Page 497 view page image

PUBLIC taes, e but to en hance the value of the public land.s remaining to be solJ. II. The committee have now to proceed to the other bra nch of the inquiry which they w,er e requir ed to make, tha t o f t he exp e diency of cedillg the public lan:ls to the several states ipi w hich they are s it uated, on reasonable terisl. The inquiry comprehends, in its con sequences, a cession of the whole public do teimain of the Uni ted S ta tes, wh ether lying w3ithin or beyond the limits of the pres ent states and territories. For although, in the tero ivs t o f the inquiry, it is limited to the new st at es, cessions to them would certainly be followed by similar cessions to other new states, as they may, from time ito time, be ad mitted int o the Unio n. Three of th e prese n t territories have nearly attained the requisite population entitling them to be received a s members o f the co nfeder acy, and they shortly will be admitted. Congress could not con sis tently avoi d c eding to them the pu blic lands within their limits, aftr hav ing made such cessions to the oth er states. Th e com pact with the state of Ohio formed the model oef coepacts with all the other new states as they were successively admitted. Whethe r t he qu estio n of a transfer of the public lands be considered in the limited or mor e extensi ve vi ew of it which ha s been stated, it i s one of the highest importance, and deman ding th e mos t deliberate consideration.

From the statements, founded on official re peor ts, mad e in the preceding part of this re port, it has been seen that the qu antity of unsold a nd uno a appr opriate d lands lying within the limits of th e new state s and territories is 340,871,7‘53 acres, and the quantity beyond those limits i s 750,000,000, presenting an ag trerate of 1,090,871,753
acres. It is difficult to conceive a question of greater magnitude than that of relinquishing this immense -%mount of national property.

Estimating its value according to the minimum price, it presecits the enormous sum of $1,363,589,691. If it b e said that a large po rtio n of it wi ll 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. Supposfing the public lands to be worth, on the average, onehalf of the minimum price, they would still present the immense sum of $~-681,794,845. The least favorable view which can cI e taken of them is, that of conside rin g them a capital yielding, at present, an income of three m~illions of dollars annually. Assuming the ordinary rate of six per cent. interest pier annum as the standard to ascertain the aemount of that capital. it Mwould be fifty millionas of do(llars. But this income has been p~rog~ressiv ely increasing. The average inlceae~se during the six last years has been at thle rate of twenty-three per cent. per anlnum.

Suppopsing~ it to continue in the same ratio, at the enld 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 inerease.4 only three per cent. per annum, the increase of the dlemand for the public lands is at tha rate of twenty-three per cent., furnishing an other evidence that the progress of emigra tion, and the activity of sales, have not b)eeit checked by the price demanded by goverin 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, for whose 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 systemi, 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 firom 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 with 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 iina 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 abolishingr the credit which had been allowed to purchasers of the public lands prior to the year 1820, Congress wtm principally governed LANDS. 4n’,’

Page 498 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 1 y the consideration of the inexpediency and debts contracted by the states themselves iii 1ha.zard of accumulating a large amount of their sovereign character? If a mortgage upon dlebt in the new states, all bordering oiI each the lands ceded were retained, that mortgage ,)ther. Such an accumulation was deemed would prevent or retard subsequent sales by unwise and unsafe. It presented a new bond the states; and if individuals bought, subject ,,f interest, of sympathy, and of union, par-to the encumbrance, a parental governmelnt tially operating to the possible prejudice of could never resort to the painful measure of the common bond of the whole Union. But disturbing them in their possessions.

that debt was a debt due from individuals, Delinquency on the part of the debtor states ;ntl it was attended with this encouraging se-would be inevitable, and there would b)e 1no tcirity, that purchasers, as they successively effectual remedy for the delinquency.”They ,(lm(l)leted the payments for their lands, would would come again and again to Congress, solnaturally )be disposed to aid the government citing t;ine and indulgence, until, finding tlhe -Ill enforcing payment from delinquents.

The weight of the debt intolerable, (ongress, weaL,rojiect which the committee are now consider-ried bv reiterated applications for relief; would ig is, to sell to the states, in their sovereign finally resolve to spunge the debt; or, if Con,‘haracter, and, consequently, to render them gress attempted to enforce its payment, an!)iiblic debtors to the general government to other and a worse alternative would be ciiiatn immense amount. This would inevitably braced. create between the debtor states a common If the proposed cession be made for a price feeling, and a common interest, distinct froni merely nominal, it would be contrary to the the rest of the Union. Those states are all in express conditions of the original cessions from the western and southwestern quarter of the primitive states to Congress, -land contrary to Union, remotest from the centre of federal the obligatitions’which the general governmlent power.‘T’he debt would be felt as a load stands under to the w-hole people of these from which they would constantly )be desirous United States, arisig out of the fact that the toi relieve themselves; and it would operate acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida, and as a strong tenmptation, weakening, if not dan-from G(eorgia, were obtained at a great exg,eroms to the existing confederacy. The c),nl-pense, b)orne from the conmmon treasure, and initt,cee have the most animating hopes, and incurred fi)r the common benefit. Such a grathe greatest confidence in the strength and tuitous cession could not b)e made without a power a-nd durability of our happy Union; positive violation of a solemn trust, and withand the attachment and warm affection of out manifest injustice to the old states. And every member of the confederacy cannot be its inequality among the new states would be doubted; but we have authoritv hifgher than as niarked as its injustice to the old would be human, for the instruction, that it is wise indefensil)le. Thus Missouri, with a populato avoid all temptation. tionI of 140,455, would acquire 38,292,151 In the state of Illinois, with a population, at acres; *and the state of Ohio, with a populathe last census, of 157,445, there are 31,395,6b9 tion of 935,884, would obtain only ) 5,586,834 ac,res of public land, including that part acres. Supposing a division of the land ,n which the Indian title remains to be extin-among the citizens of those two states, reguished. If we suppose it to be worth only spectively, the citizen of Ohio would obtain half the minimumi price, it wouldl amount to less than six acres for his share, and the citi$l19,622,480. Ilow would that state be able zen of Missouri iupwards of two hundred and to pay such an enormous debt? IIow could it sevent-tw0o lacres -is his proportion pay even the annual interest uponl it? Up,() full and througli consideration, the Supposing the debtor states to fll to com-committee hai.ve C(Oe to the conclusion that it p)ly with th eiir egaements, in what iliode is iinexiedient eitiher to reduce the price of (oluld they be enfoirced by the general i(,vei-the ulic liondls, or to cede them to the new mllelnt?

In treaties between irdepen(lest’- sttes.‘hey lIlieve, Ol the conltrary, that ti)ns, the ultimate remedv is w-ell kl(own. i soun(l p-Ili(cy ()ini((les with the duty vwhlich ‘T’he apprehension of an appeal to that remeldy, has devolved ( o tlhe general governiient to secondinr the sense of justice and the regard the whole of thle states, and the whole of the t;)r character which prevail am(rlar Christian pe()ejl( ot’ the Unriem, and enjoins the preserain(l civilized nations, coustitutes(, reerally, -tioii oft’ thle existilig system, as having bee -tlequate security foir the performance of ht-trie ani(. aippr(lved after long and triumphant ti.)ial compacts. But this last reinedv would experience. 1B0t, it consequence of the exbe totally inadmissible in case of delinqluency ti-,-‘idiii,try fiitiea(ial prosperity which the (l the part of the debtor states. h’]‘le rela-Uiited Staltes (lji(), the question mnerits extileus between the general government and thc aiinii atioll, lihether, t lwilst the oeneral governiiembers of the confederacy are happily those ment stie((lily re ta1in1s tlie cotl trol of this great of peace, friendship, and fraternity, and exInational re source it ts own ha nds, after the cludte all idea of force and war. Could thl paliyment of the pjul)tic debt, tlie proceeds of judiciary coerce the debtor states? On what the sales (f the pul)lic l1ands, 10 longer needed could their process operate?

Could the pro-to meet the ordin~lry expenses of government, perty of innocent citizens, residing within the may not be beneficially appropriated to some limits of those states, be justly seized by the other objects for a limited time. general geovernmnent, and held responsible for Governments, no more than individuals, 498

Page 499 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. should be seduced or intoxicated by prospe rity, however flattering or great it may be. The country now happily enjoys it in a most inexamp)led degree. We have abundant rea s )n to le grateful for tho blessings of peace an(Ind plenty, and freedom from debt. But we -iist bie forgetful of all history and experi eice it’ we indulge the delusive hope that we shall always be exempt fr)om calamtity and re verses. Seasons of national adversity, of suf lering, and of war, will assuredly come. A wise,)vernment should expect and provide for them. Instead of wasting or squandering its resources in a period of general prospe rity, it should husbaind and cherish them for those times of trial and difficulty which, in the dispenations of Providence, may be cer tainly anticipated.

Entertaining these views, a1nd, as the proceeds of the sales of the public linds(l. are not wanted for ordinary revenue, w\hich will be abundantly supplied from the imposts, the committee respectfully recom 2iiieiil that an appropriation of them be made to) some other purpose, for a limited time, sbl,ect to be resumed in the contingency of war. Should such an event unfortunately ,)‘eur, the fund may be withdrawn from its 1feaceful destination, and applied, in aid of ,other means, to the vigorous prosecution of the war, and, afterwards, to the payment of alny debt which may be contracted in conse(luence of its existence. And, when peace shall be again restored, and the debt of the new war shall have been extinguished, the tfund may be again appropriated to some fit l.i.ject other than that of the ordinary expenses of government. Thus may this great resource be preserved, and rendered subservient, 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 utinder the restriction 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 appli ed to the objects of internal improvement, an d colonization of the free blacks, under the direction of the general governiment. But a iiiajority of the committee believes it better, a.s an alternative for the scheme of cession to new states, and as being most likely to give general satisfaction, that the residue be di-iGded among the twenty-four states, according to their federal representative population, to be applied to education, internal improvenment, or colonization, or to the redemption of any existing debt contracted for internal improveiiients, as each state, judging for itself, shall ilcem must conformable with its own interests and policy. Assuming the annual product of the sales of the public lands to be three millions of dollars, the table hereto annexed, markei 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 appropriation should again, at a day not very far dis EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT OF AIR.

GRUNT)Y, OF TENNESSEE, MIADE JAN.,UARY 31, 1840: “But if the proceeds of land sales, and the income of the,overnment from other sourcev, are to be considered different funds, and one can be applied to p urposes to wphich th e o ther cannot, what will be the practical result? That the UJIiited States can purchase lands with the revenue raised from duties on im ports, has never been (loubted. Out of those means has Louisiana aoand the Flhrieidas bee,, paid for, and numerous puirchases made of the Indians.

Call it be maintained that the m( ney with which these purchases mere made could not be distributed among the states fear the objects contemplated, but that the money arising from the sales of the same property may be? ~

Can the nature of the public im oney be altered lby 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 revenue which is not given them by the Constitution. 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 Flori(las be included, the public lands have not refunded the amount paid for their acquisition and preparation for sale, by a large amount; and if the principle were now introduced, that the proceed’s of land sales mav be given to the states, although the money I)aid for them could not, we should see a gross inconsistency adopted in the practice of our government, the results of which it would be impossible to foresee. In every view -we tale: of the subject, we are satisfied that there is net difference between the power which iCongre.s: possesses over the revenue wihich arises from customs and the money received from thie sales of the public lands; and to construe at difference out of the language used in the coItpact of cession, would be to defeat the verv object for Mwhich 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 proceeds a revenue to be applied to general )urposes, precisely like that der ived fi’oul all other 499 tant, be brought under the review of Congress, the committee would recoi-Drnend tli,,t,t it be limited to a period of five Sul), ye” i e(-t to the condition of war not br”.ir-11 out ill the mean time. By an appropriation so rtstrieted as to time, each state Will be enal)le(i to estimate the probable extent of its pi-oportioii, and to adapt its measures of education, improvement, or colonization, or extinction (,f e,xi,stin debt, accordingly. In conformity with the views and principles which the committee have DOW -,ul)iiiitted, they be(, leave to report the accompanying bill, entitled ” An act to appropriate, for ii limited time, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands of the Unit(-,d States.”

Page 500 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. powers. At the same time the power of taxation was conferred upon the general government, merely as the means of enabling it to execute its few delegated( powers. So jar the system has worked well; and each governmnient has provided for itself. Why shall we not permit them to travel quietly on in the paths of safety and peace? Is there any danger in the beaten track, or any certain good to be obtained by departing from it? Wlhether taxes are laid by the states or by the United States, they are still taxes on the pe(ople; 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, n or detract from its oppressiveness upof the people, except so far as it may produce the unjust result 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 embarrassments, and guard against their recurrence 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 children and our children’s children. The states did not come into the Union with the expectation to be taxed for the payment of the debts of their sister states, havng 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 anticipated, and to which they have never, by any concession, agreed to submit.” sources. To make these cessions so read as to defeat t he g re a t object they had i n view, would not be favorable to the f ai th of compacts, or the preservation of constitutional restraints. ” We, theref or e, conclude that the applicat io n of the moneys arising from the sales of public lands t o the paymen t of said debts, or their distribution among the sta tes for such purposes, is as unjust, inexpedient, and uninstitutional as a similar application of an other portion of the public re ve nue; and moreover, in direct violation of the terms and spirit of the compacts of cession. ” N or c an suc h a measure be palliated by the plea that there i s, or i s likely to b e, a surplus in the t reasury, over and above what is wanted for t he or dinary purposes of the general government. On the contrary, t he o nt t progressive reductio n of the tariff of dutie s now in op eration will e so redu ce t he re venue as to make the proceeds of the public lands necessary to meet the wants of the most economical admin istrat ion; and if they are diverted from the i r pr esen t objects, their place must be supplied by an increased tariff, or a tax directly on the p eople; and what is th e d iff erence between a tax to rai se moneyfor distribution, and a tax to enable the g overnment to distribute, or to supply the place of moneys distributed? The pra ctical effe ct is precisely the same. If three or four millions o f dollars - t he proceeds of the sal e s of the public landsb e annually distributed to the states, and thereby a ne ces sity be created, as no doubt it will be, to increase the tariff to that amount, is it not eta the same thing as though the tariff were increas ed for the purpose of distribution? And by this operation what is gained? The ge n eral g ov ernmen t h as given away to the states three or four millions of dollars annually, a nd has taxed the people to the same amount, to make up th e deficit in it s own revenue. “

Y our committee cannot refrain from noticingo some of the consequences which must follow from the measure proposed, w ith regard t o the public lands. It must retard the settlem ent of the ne w states; it m ust operate again st t he allow ance of pre-emption rights; against the gr ad uation of the price of the public la s ands, and e ver yl other indulgence which a liberal spirit towards the new states might dictate and recommend. “It is believed that a different policy ought to b e pursu ed; that t he s trength and w ealth of the na tion co ns ist, not so much in the money to be exa cted as the pric e of the p ublic lands, as in th e in crease of it s popul ation a nd the cultivation of its soil. ” Your committee cannot but look with distrust and apprehension upon every scheme calculated to disturb the balance of power, as constitutionally and practically adjusted between 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 ADDRESS OF THE HON. C:HAS. JAs. FAULKNER cOF VIRGINIA, TO

HIS CONSTITUENTS, AGAINST DISTRIBUTION. Land System of the United States, with it., general results upon the prosperity and happiness of the people.-” At an early period of our history Congress adopted a system for surveying and selling the public lands, devised with much care and great deliberation the aidvantages of which have been fully tested bar experience. According to that system, al’l 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 thirtysix equal divisions or square miles, called sections, by lines crossing each other itt right angles, and generally containing 640 acres.

These sections 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 500

Page 501 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. claims. The state, perhaps, sold in this way much more land than it was entitled to. but then it received nothing in return that was valuable; wbilst 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 emergin g from the troubles brought upon her by improvident l and legislation. W es tern Virginia has also suffered greatly, though not to the same extent.” After referring to the evi ls of the ir system of management as displayed in the history of Georgia and Kentucky, he proceeds: ” These observations in respe ct to the cou rse of the respectable states re ferre d t o, in rel atio n to their public lands, are not prompted by any unkind feeling towards the m, but to show the superiority of the land system of the United States.” “The progress of s et tlement and the impro vem ent in the fortune s and conditions of indiiduals under the operation of this beneficent system. a re as simple a; the y are manifest. Pio neer s of a ore a dventurous 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 pl ough to the prairie, deeply sinking its share in the unbroken wild grasses in which ii t abou nds. They build hous, plant orchas, nt. enclose fields, cultivate t he earth. and rear up fa milies around them. Meantime the tide of emigration flows upon them; their improved farms rise in value; a demand fortese them takes plae; theiy sell to th e new comers at a gr eat advance, and proceed furt her west with ample mean s to purch ase fr om government, at reas onable prices, sufficient land for all the members of the ir families. Another and another tide succeeds, the first ptsh ing on westwardly the previo us settlers, who ill their turn sell o ut their farms, constantly augmenting in price, until they arrive at a fixed and stationar y value. In t this way thousands and tens of thousands are daily improving their circumst ance s a nd bettering their condition. I have often wi tnessed thi s gratifyi ng progru lss. Of the sam e farm you may sometimes behqld standiong to gethe r the first rid e cabin of round and unhtwn logs and wooden chimne ys, the hewe d log-house, chinked and shingled, with stone or brick chimneys, and, lastly, the comfortable brick or stone dwelling; each denoting the iffrent occupants of the farm the dfer t cunt f h or t he several stahves of the conditio n o f t he same o ccupant. What other natio an aan b oast of such an outlet for its incr ea singo population-such bountiful means of promot i ng their prosperity and securing the ir indepe ndence? ha To t h e public lands of the U nited S
tates, a nd especially to the existing syst em by which they are distributedl with so much regularity and equity, are we indebted fbr these signal benefits in our national condition. And every con sideration of duty to ourselve s a nd to p osterity enjoins that we should abstain from the ad option of any wild project that would cast a way this v as t national property holden by the general government in sacred trus t for the whole people of the United States, and forbids that we s hould rashly touc h a system w hich has been so successfully tested by experience.”

“Such is a rapid outline of this inval uable nation al property. of th e sys tem which regulate s i ts management and distribution, and of the effects of t hat system. We might here pause and wonder that there should be a disposit ion with any to waste or throw away this great resource, or to abolish a system fraught with so many munificent advantages.

Neertheless there a re such who, impatient with the slow and na peatural operation of wise laws, have put fo rth vari ous pretensions an d projects concerning the public lands within a few years past.” Quantity of public land a nd its actual present value.-The entiare area of the public domain is es tima ted at about 1,584,000,000 acres. Of tha t amount there is wit hi n the states, exclusive of California, 471,892,439 acres. This immense quantity of unsold and unoccupied public land has led to many erroneous estimates of its true value, and has suggested many of those wild and disorganizing schemes for its disposition which have been forced upon the public attention of late years. Regarding the ent i re public domain as productive capital, available for present and imme provision was ma,le for the further division of the sections into eigh’ths, thereby allowing a purchaser to buy only eighty acres if he wnished to purchase no more.

Since that time, further to extend accommodation to the pur(thasers of the public lands, and especially to the poorer classes, the sections have again been (livided into sixteenths, admitting a purchase of only forty acres. “Thiis 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 certainty of boundary, and consequently avoids those perplexing land disputes-the worst of all species of litigation-the distressing effects of which have be en fatally experienced in some of the state s. Bu t the se are not thie only advantages, great as thev unqu estiona bl y ar e. T h e system lays the foundation of useful civil institutions, the benefit o f which is not conlined to the present g e nera tion, but will be transmitted to posterity.” Undert of the operation of the system thus briefly sketched, the pr ogress o f the settlement and population of t, he public domain of the Un ited S tates has been altogethe r unexampled. Many of our ablest statesmen have portrayed, in strains of the highest eloquence, the wonderful results of this system upon the comfort and happiness of the individual citizen, as well as upon the general growth and prosIperity of the republic. Mr. Webstel tbus speaks of it: ” Sir. I maintain Congress has acted wisely, and done its dutv on this subject. I hope it will continue to do it. ~eplarting f.‘om the origin:tl idea. so soon as it was found practicable and convenient, of selling by townships, Congress lasts disposed of the soil in smaller and still smaller portions, till at length it sell.s in parcels of no more than eighty acres, thus pu,tting it into the power of every man in the country, how evil rpc,or.

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 ;tnds 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 iwisdom to sell and settle them as farst and as happily as possible; anl, whensoever numbers would warrant it. each territory has been successively winfitted into the Union, with all the rights of an independent state.” Mr. Clay, in a strain of still snore fervent oratory, thus descants upon the system: “i And if’here be in the operations of this government one which more than any other displays consummate M’isdom and statesmanship, it is that system by which the public lan-is have teen so successfully administered. We should pause, solemn, ly pause before we subvert it. We Fhould touch it hesitatingly and with the gentlest hand.

‘The prudent management of the public lands, in the hands of the general government, will be more manifest by c,,ntrastinr it with that of several of the states which had tihe disposal of large badies of waste lands.

Virginia possessel an ale domain west of the mountains and in the present stateP of Kienltucky, over and above her mtunificenlt etes. 4on to the general grovernmlent. Pressed for pecuniary mieants by the revolutionary war. she brought her wild lands during its prog’ress. inlto market, receiving payment in proper money. There wvere no previous surreys of the wv.~te lanids, no’ townshjips, no sections, no official definition or d,,scription of tracts; each purchaser made his own location. describing the land bought as he thought proper. These locations or descriptioms wvere oftLen vague and uncertain. The consequence wa~s that the salme tract was tnot unlfrequently entered various timles by different pulrchasers, so as to be literally shlingledl over with conflicting I 501

Page 502 view page image

TIlE POLITIC.L TEXT-DOOR diate use, the most visionary and extravagant hopes have been excited as to the benefits to oe derived from its division a nd distribution. Thesce errors have bee n exposed with such marked ability in a r eport from the Committee con Public Lands, submitted to the Senate in Jantiary, 1840, that I shall take the liberty of presenting aga in b efo re the public mind, its clear and irre sistible reasoning. Tha t report, it is true, was made prior to our pur chase of that portion o f the public do main which lieswithin the state of California and the territories of Utah and New Mexico, but that froct does not, in the very slightest degree, affect the hforce of the a rgument, or even vary its calculati ons and conclusions. The average annual proceed s of the public domain do not materially vary now from what they -ere prior to those important additions to our ter ritorial possessions. * “It as o appears from a report from the Com missioner of the General Land Office (see I)oc., a 3d se ss. 25th Congress), that the whole quantity in acres of the public domain, ion te se a err g to the th eptember, 1838, to which the Indian title was not extinguished, amounted tt) 766,000,000, in round numbers. There were, at the same time, as appears by the same report, in the states and territories, ‘19,000,000 of acres to which the Indian title was extinguished, making the whole public l,),main in the aggregate, at that time, to be 1,0,5,000,000 of acres; from which about 5,()00,000 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 wvere 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 whichl are large, to which the right of the government may not be established, 3,500,000 acres, which would leave 160,000,000 sutlject to the operation of this bill, being less thiani oite-sixth of the whole public domain. ” Those who have not reflected on the sub;ct are littble to form very erroneous estimates of’

the true value of the public lands. It is very natural to conclude that, as none are soldl t;,)r less than 81.25 per acre, the 160,000,000 ,f 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 ln ” lIerfectly safe security, with interest, and with,,ut expense, the conclusion would be coriect: out 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, anid 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. t * The report from which this extract is taken, though made by Mr. Norvell, of Michiga’%, was written by M1r. C1lhoun. ” 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, an(d the land system, as it now stands, will be coil tinued. The committee are fully aware that the assumption must be. in a great measure, conject u ral. There are n ot, and cannot be, fr o m te o 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 tioll 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 aere is sold; an assumption W’hich all, the least conversant with the subject, will readily allow to be anmple. “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 oveu $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 ainnually sold 2,000,000 of acres, which wouhl (lispose, at that rate, of the wthlole 160,000,000 of acres in eighty years. It follohws, of course, that their true present v-altie, instead of lbeing, wVorith’l permanent annuity of $2,500,000, would be worth one of tlha,t amount for eighIity v’ea only, which is little more than $s34,(J)00(,000.

That sum, then, it is manifest, would b,-Ie the true present value of all the unsoldl lands in the new states, on the data a,,sUmc’, provided they could }se so(hl without exp(onse, trouble, or cost by the government; but a,‘hat cannot be, it beeoiiies necessary to determine what deduction ought to be nlad on that account to ascertain avloat, in fact, is their real present value. “In determining?his, the comnmittee hale taken experience as their guii(de. They hale caleeftilly asc erta,inie(d, unlder the actuial operatiorn of the systeim, to the present timiie, what deductions outlet to lbe mad~e, ulnder all thle various heads, als incident to the qaystem, onl the actual quantity of land soldl by the g>(~vernment, and hav e apportionled themn rateablyr on the lands to be sold, on the suppositio;I that what remains to be sold wsill be subject to as great a reduction, in proportion, as that which has been: in other words, that the adlministration of the public lands hereafter,’ if 502

Page 503 view page image

PUBLI(‘ LAN DS. the present system should be continued as it I impression of the value of the lands embraced stands, would be neither more nor less eco-ixii the bill, in order to correct the utt(.rlv nomical or prudent than it has been. In fallacious conception which even many of the making their estimates, they have included well inform(ed entertain on the subject. S,’, under expense not only what is appropriately lIin,g as the value of the lands embraced in tlhe ci,iiiprehended under it, but whatever goes to bill is estimated at hundreds of millions of (limtinishli the net income from the lands-such dollars, instead of the few millions which then as grants and donations other than the 16thI are really worth, so long it will be impossible sect’on reserved for schools, the two and three to obtain for the measure which it proposes per cent. fund reserved out of the sales for that impartial and deliberate consideration internal improvement, the expenditures on necessary to a correct decision, and hence tile internal improvement incident to the public necessity of removing such erroneous impres domain, but not charged to that fund, and the sions preliminary to the discussion of the increasel expense of legislation. general merits of the bill, to which the coni’ The result is, that the expense of the man-nittee will now proceed.” agemient of the public lands embraced in the Extraordinaryefforts have been made within bill (on the supposition that the administration the last few months, by the opposition paper:, will be neither more nor less economical than of this district and state, to excite discontent the past, and that they will yield annually the by vivid and reiterated declarations of th( sium supposed, and of course be sold in the p-gross mismanagement of the public domain. riodi assigned) would amount to a fraction over Tabular statements have been paraded before $44,000,000, which, divided by eighty, the your eyes of the enormous donations made by iiumber of years required to dispose of the Congress to the new states for school, railroad, lands, would give $550,000 as the average and other purposes. Editors and orators have annual expense. This sum, regarded as an dwelt with real or affected indignation upoll annuity for eighty years, and estimated as a the reckless squandering of the public lands, present charge, would make a fraction less the extraordinary favors shown to the new than $7,600,000, which, deducted from the states and the injustice done to the old, the sum of $34,000,000, the present value of the rapid decline of Virginia and the unparalleled lands, without estimating expenses, would growth of the northwestern states, all tilhe give for the actual present value of the lands result of a concerted movement, originating in the sutm of $26,400,000. party purposes, and all designed to prepare “But as small as this sum may appear to the pullic mind for a revival of the oftniany, the committee believe that it is over, repeated and discarded policy of distribution. rather than under, the true estimate. It That there is not some just ground for dismakes no allowance for defalcations and losses content with the legislation of Congress for incident to the management of the fiscal con-the last seven or eight years I do not denv. cerns of the land system, and assumes that One might naturally infer such to be) my every acre will be sold at $1.25 per acre, opinion at least, for my vote has been uniwhich no one can expect who will recollect formily arrayed against every bill disposing in that a large portion is sterile and worthless, any form of the public lands submitted to the consisting of pine barrens, swamps, unproduc-body of which I was a member, during the six tire prairies, and stony and mountainous years of my service. But it will be found, tracts, which are at present unsaleable at any upon examination, that much of this clanmor price, and will be so for a long time to come. grows out of a misconception of the triue Tro this may be added that more than one half character of the legislation of Congress, or is has been in market for five, ten, fifteen, and ascribable to natural and unavoidable causes, twenty years and upwards without being sold, over which Congress and human government and are the remnants left, after the repeated can have no control. selections of all that were considered as valu-1 will examine separately the three classes ible, even under the late rage for speculation, of grants, which are the theme of greatest destimulated to the greatest excess by a bloated nunciation by the opposition press, and subl currency. Against this it is admitted that mit to your consideration the reasons of just there is a considerable quantity not yet sur-policy upon which they respectively rest, and %eeved and brought into market, of which a you will thus have the means of deciding for l,,)rtion may sell for miore than $1.25 per acre yourselves whether you have been robbed or uiIt experience shows that the quantity sold plundered to the extent that you are led ti .t)love that price is so small that its effect on suppose by those vigilant sentinels, who claim the general average price does not exceed 2 4-5 now to be the only safe depositories of the Cets per acre, and is too inconsiderable to public interest. take into the estimate. The new states, created out of the territory “Taking, then, all circunistances into con-of the United States, have always had, at th’e sideration, the committee feel assured that the period of their admission, large vacant anil result to which they have been brought is too unappropriated public lands within their limhigh rather than too low; but they do not its. Coming into the confederacy, as memdeem it material whether it be, in truth, a few bers of the federal alliance, with all the rights nulions more or less. Their object is not per-of independent states, subject to the Constitufeet precision, but to give a correct general tion of the United States, they would have the 503

Page 504 view page image

THfE 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 o,f schools,”

and five per cent. of the net pro eeeds 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 lwithout the consent of the United States. that said state shall iever interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the -ame by the United States. nor with any regulations (‘ongress may find necessary for securing the title in such Foil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that no tax shall le imposed on lands the property of the United States; and that in no case shall nonresident 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 t,bjects: 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 nonresident pro Itrietors be taxed higher than residents. The importance of those stipulations to the United States may be at once seen by refere n ce to the fact, tat have have at this time (exclu sive of California) 471,892,439 acres of land lying within e urc to o the jurisdiction of the states, w,Nhich is altogether exempt from taxation. A s IMr. llsebster remarked in January, 18pt9, ‘ whilst held by the United States these lands are not subj ect to state taxation. They contribute nothing to the burdens thrown on other lands. Hiere is a great proprietor in a state, lolding large territory, exempt from cornram 1,urdens.’” It is also important in securing to those citizrens of Virginia, and other states, who iiay thiink proper to purchase, but do not find it A,(i ivenient to reside in the new states, iimuiiIiity from unjust and unequal taxation. Swamp Lands.-In almost every state or territory of the United States, where the government holds public lands, and more part icularly in the southern states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Florida, are found large parcels of it overflowed by water. These lan~ds are entirely unfit for cultivation, indeed lnot susceptible of being surveyed, and serve liut to infect the states ill which they are situ,tied waith disease, not confined to the lands themlselv-es, but spreading far and wvide in the ,:~d jacent country, and depreciating the domain ‘,elonging to the government within the reach oJf he mlisama arising from them. The existnce of such a nuisance in the states was for many rvears a subject of loud complaint.

Congress at length yielded to these just comn plaints, and by actsh of the 2th of Se pt., 1850, granted to the states in which the y were lt cated, “
the whole of those swamp and over flowed lands made unfi t ther eby for c ultiva tion,” * “provided, that the pro needst of said lands, whe ther fr om sale or by di rect appropriation in kind, shall be a pplied exclusively, as far as necessary, t o the pur p o se o f reclaimin g s aid lands.” The stailtes would, doubtless, have much preferred that the general g over nment had retain ed the lands and undertaken its elf the work o f drainage. But in the abse nce of any such improban blen s action by the federal government, it was not t o be endured that these lands should remain ill the ir then condition-u nfit fo r sale  de structive oft the value of the adjacent public domain; and a sourc e of disease and death to the inhabitants of the states. So manifest seemed the propri ety of this m easure, grant ing the ” swa mp lands” to the states for that purpose, that the bill passed the Senate wit h - out a dissenting voice, whilst in the House it passed by a vote of’ 120 yeas to 53 nays; but eight southern men, and am ongst th em but o ne member, fromT Virginia, voting ag ainst it. Railtoadf Graujts.-tThe policy an d res ults, ,of these grants by Congress have been so c learly exhibited in the annu al report of the Se cre tary of t he Int erior of Decem nber 5, 1853, that it will only be necessary to take from it the following extract:’-rIn tte territories and new states, where many of the public lands remain for a long period un s o ld. liberal ag r ant s should be made ftr those greit h ighways, which to a ci rtaili extent may lee consi~dered local in their bharacter, tlhough genera] in their infiuenle, and not cohicictinog a ith the interests of thee old state.. In this way, without any expenditure of money. the general government can greatly in trease the value of the pulfli doma in. It has never made suih a donation withou t bei ng fully repaid. The principle of gra”nting alternate.ections and selling those reserved at do)uble 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 thant had lontg in aste have been brought into market and fou nd a readly Isale; the sllrroun ding c ount ry ha s bee n popled; the revenuet has benra abyugente oy the iain reased con sumption of foreiagn merchandise; and the state in which the imlrove ments have been thus made, fnd not unfrequently the adjacent stateis, have been ilnrgely benefied.

Wi0 theou. these donations and consequent improvements, some of thna finest portions of the newv states would hare continued a wilderness; lands that had been for fifteen or twenty years in. the ma ket mi ght have rem,ined as much longer uDesol, an d thus the prosp edrity and advanceme nt of the whole country grea tly retarded. Tbhe loss to the gov,ernment w(ale l have been serious. without any corresponiding 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 befe induced to settle in the new states and territories and the interest of the government aqike emand it. Tlhe strongest political and econonmical conlsiderations, therefore, dictate this course. “On the 20th of Septemuber, 1850, a grant of land( was mad(le to the states of Illinois, Mississip pi, and Alabama).. to aid in the construction of the great central railroad from Chicagr o to Mobile. To ffordl these states an opportunity of maltkingr their selections, the( lands atoner the supposedl routes of the roatd wvere f,r a short periodl withdrawn1 fro,m market, mIost of them?U being of little’value to the states ill which they wer~e, or to the gem~rai government, unltil the granlts were mal~de aced it wvas ascertained the renal would the i, mzstruct,,d; lilt the~n they were b)oughlt up with avidity, and ale now c*onsidersed.as mosOt chloice anld valuable. A”The Illinois Ce ntral Railroad Complany wag inlcorporated, andf the route of the road aInd its branches within that state desigrnated tby an act of the leg{islalture in F’ebruary, 1851. During~ the baitf-year ending December 81, 1850, the quadtity of land sold a~nd located with bounty land warrants in Ithe district traversed by the road was 842:487.88
acres. The I I bU4

Page 505 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. ject in their true light. After reciting tlhe conditions and trusts upon which the federal government held this public property, and for the fulfilment of which the national faith was and is pledged, he says:’ One of these conditions or trusts, as I have already said, wa.s that the lands should be sold and settled at such time and manler as Congres s hall direct. The government has always felt itself bound in 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 dipose of the soil, therefore, in large masses to individuals, thus leaving to them the time and m ner of settlement. It had stipulated to use its own judgment.” a’ern.te sections reserved io the United States were re e sed from reservation and brought into market in July, Apoeust, and September, 15, and during that and the inext suee,ding quarter t he sal es and locations amounted I,.274 522.2S acre s; show ing an increase over the corres pIndinr half-year nexat preced ing th e location of the road ,It’

9:32.034.40 acres. Tiile unselected l ands in the Augluspta and Columbus dis t riits of the stat e of Mississippi were restored to market in heI, inall th of September last, and notwithstanding the sales ill those districts had been for many yea rs very limited, the ‘inds thus restor ed met with ready sales a t en hance d prices. the quantity sold at Augusta in the mon th of September, Isl19,,as only 424 acres, an d in the same month in the vicars in.185, 1851. and 1852, much less; and yet, in five days iu Septmber last, after the rout e of t he road had been estab lished nd the alternate sections designated by the state, 9].530 acres w er e sol d for $34,056; being $9643 more than t heir agg r eg ate value at the minimum price. In the Co pau district, in the short space of t wel ve day s, in the lmonth of Se ptembe r last, 22,504 acres were disposed of; whereas, in all th e m onth of Septe mber, 1849, the quantity s-,ll was onl y 2358 acr es. The lands withdrawn from market in June, 1852, to anldle the state of Missouri to locate the routes and select thoe l ands gr ante d to h er bv the act approved the ct od he10th of thait month for the construction of ce rtain railroads, were ri,estored to market on the 5th of July last, and between thfa.t da y an d the 30th of September fol lowing 318,839 acres were sold. being nearly 150,000 acres more than were sold in the corresponding quar ters in 1850, 1851, and 1852 coim lined. A like effect has been pro duce d upon the sales of the alternate sections reserv ed to the United States, wherever imailar grants have been made.

There can be as littl e doubt of th e constitutionality of such gra nts as of their propriety. T he right to donate a part for the enhancement of the hevalue of the residue can ItO leonger be questioned. The principe has been adopted and acted upoI n for nearly thirty years; a nd since experi enee hast shown it to be productive of so much good, no )und reason is perceived why it should now be abandoned. it las een of incalculable importanc he to the great West, an d e ic dircly in t al ther directly or indirectly to all the states. ‘ Someth ing is manifestly due to t he har d y pioneer, with ut whose labor, industry, and enterprise, the West would l~w be of little moment. No one who has not been an eye itnetss can appreciate the hardships and privations endurl ed lay him, f,old government should certainly not hesitate to aid him. especially wh en it can be done without detriment to t he other states, or to any other interests.” I will now proc ee d to ex amine smome of the lo st p romin en t of the schemes or plans which, as M r. Clay has well remar ked, “res tl ess men, imp atient of the slow operation of wise laws, are constantly throwing before the popular ilind in reference to the public lands.” The first I shall notice is the scheme for a Divis i on of the Public Lands among the States.-Several plan s having this object in view have been laid before C on g ress during the last few years; and although at times )ressed with some seeming earnestness, they lave attracted but little favyr, 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 execution of all such plans-have made them rather the subject of just ridicule than of grave discussion, being regarded rather ax bids for local popularity at home thanl designed lay their projectors as serious efforts of legislative policy. Mr. Webster, in his celebrated speech delivered in the Senate in 1829 upon Foote’s resolution, has placed the duties and obligations of the national government on this sub-] Again, in the same speec h, he said: ” I look u pon th e public lands as a publi c fun d. and that we are no more a uthorized to give them away gratuito usl y. th an to give away gratuitously the mo ney in th e treasury.” Again, in 1837, he repeats, with still greater emph asis, th e s am e id eas: ” Now, I ask, where is the power to make this grant? If we look upon i t as a cession for the benefit of t he states i n 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? a gell, the ans wer t o this question might be, that the proposition is not to make a gift o f i t, as certain returns were to be made to Congress sby th e new states. Now, by the Constitution of the country, t he trust, o the disposition of t he publ ic l ands was conferred on Congress; and I ask, is it possible that any man can maintain the p,‘oposition 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 in 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 inl Boston, or elsewhere. I see. therefore, objections inisur 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, anti other improvements of this sort. I have felt no difficulty, therefore, in supporting grants to accom plishi these object.;, 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 assignment of the remote lands. And if the 505

Page 506 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. favor, it has alone been deemed worthy (of resurrection. To whom are we indebted for its revival To any spontaneous movement of the popula. r mind? No! To the action of any or,anize,l political body? No. But to the wil( an,[t erratic editorials of the Richmond Whi”g. Month after month flas it occupied in dirnl ming, urging, and pressing this question upott the public mind before the slightest response was heard to its rabid and fieriy appeals. But at length the admirable bearing which it, n iight have in dividing and distracting tht overgrown Democratic party of this state was seen-and instantly it was seized upon 1I)v every opposition press in the state, and mad(le 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, wouldl re nde r the people not very scrupulous as to) the means by which their burdens might be lessened, and their impirovements finislhe(l. They flattered thewselves that the occasiont twas particularly opportune to break down the Denmocratic )rganization 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 priin 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 postpoIin;g their own aspirations to those of sonice Deiii,‘t who would side with their policy, was only confirmatory of the motives in which the agi tation had its recent origin. For w itlhout tlu aid of the Deniocrats-withou-t detaching As segment of the party from the main body how could they accomplish their cherished tl ject, -Vhe destruction and disorganization of tite party i tself? Does any man who advocates the distriau tion policy, for one moment ],elieve that ext shall ever hear of it again after the approacli ing spring election is over, unless it be reforre(l to simply as the springe in which many an ini cautious Democrat has been caught? Does io believe there is the slightest chance of carrryiiig, such a measure through the national le,isl, ture. From whence is it to derive its support? Not from a Democratic President, a Democratit. Senate, or a Democratic tlouse of Representa tives. For they all stand pledgede-by thle Democratic platform to regard it both as un wise and unconstitutional. Not from the re, presentdrives of’ the landl states, who have bee,n 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 prospeel; share of Virginia were assigned to her in some distant territory, in what manner would she maike it avawilable? It now costs the feleral g overnmenlt n ea r one million of dollars aonnual ly to keep up it s Land Office. What woul(l be the cost of thirty-one land offices kept up by the several states? It now costs tlh(, fc(e,‘ai g-,)vernment some eleven millions ,f d(ollars to maintain one armv to defend her lao di a ind prot ect her settlers. What would it c,ist to m aintain thirtys-one arm i es for the same scuhFasem?, r. Clawv, in his c elebra ted re port, ‘e.ients other pernicious consequences which wouold result fiom this scheme of dividing the I.,ds is am,ngst the states:‘The,la nds are no,w sold under one uniform plan, reguh~ttd an~
en:,‘olhv~d by a single legisla]tiv. authority, aid tI y, l-‘aticl wic, c),,rdti is perfectly understood. If the y w ere favo wlen re rto the states, th e subsequent disposition would age~ accordinl to lws emanating from various legislative ~,c,ss. I’Cdrnpetition would probably arise between the trte n ill the torans whic h thwv woul d offer to pur chasers.

i:’;,h state would be desirous of inviting the greatest numter of emigrants not only for the laudable purpose of popuuln tit rapimX its own territor ies, but w ith t i the view to the a-isiti(rugl of funds to enable i t to f ulfil its encgaghements to to,~ gener lal r_ow,rnment.

Collisions between the states eulh[ prol)iably arise, and t ha,ir injurious consequences may betv ill r cdie. A:pi.-it of hazardoul speculation would pate *.ldrcltll. Various sthemes in the new states would l.e lout afloat to sell or divide the public lands. Companies a41,, com,binations would be for me d in this country, if not i, trign countries. pr esenting gigantic and tempting but delsitve,pr,ect. and the h istory of legislatuln in some of tin states,t the Union admon ishes us that a too ready ear i.> sometimes givetn by a majority, in a legislative assembly, to.such projects.” liut I will not pu r sue this reckless a nd rev(lsutionatry sc heme f urther. Polit icians may find such hobbies useful in riding successffully over at Cong,ressional d ist rict. 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 nany of the objections which apply to a partition of the public lands. I mean the Distribittio,j of the proceeds of the Piublic Lai(ds.-This measure, as a practical question et-public policy, was first brought before the country in 1832. There were peculiar circumistances in the then condition of the countrv, which caused it to be looked upon with fivor when first proposed. But the able and searching, scrutiny to which it was subjected 1-i 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 passing newspaper paragraph. It has recently been revived by the opposition press, as a political issue peculiarly adapted to the condition and circumstances of Virgfinial. Wie 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 #lightest countenance and 506’

Page 507 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. of support from any quarter except the manu facturiiin states of New England, and they counstitute too small a force to justify the belief thit they can succeed in the establishment of thiatt policy.

i,,,o)king,, therefore, to the time and source of’ tsits inoveement-to the impracticability of its succ~elss-to the insignificant amount that would I,e received from distribution if it could be ac i,,iplished-and its utter inadequacy to useay (,i’ the objects contemplated by it, I do not feel tt[st I amt uncharitable in saying, that the ,,sle purpose, real, sought or anticipated by its (i,riginators, is to distract and divide the ateri octratic party of this state. Butt whilst these are my own firm convic tioins, I will proceed to examine it, not as  I party question, but as a question of national p,,licy and constitutional law, and address myself to the reason and judgment of all men in this district, totally irrespective of party. lsi distribution coiistittutional.-The first inquiry of every Southern man, in the discussion of a question of federal policy, is whether the measure is in accordance with the Constitiltion (,f the United States, an instrument to which lie looks with peculiar reverence, and whticih all who take part in the government are sworn to support. Th-e c(,nstitutional view of this subject has ‘bseen treated by iMr. Calhoun with such con,,tiniiuate al)ilitv, and with suchti brevity and lirecision, that I cannot afford a richer treat t,, my readers than by incorporating it into this adairess. pf Spieech of M3r. Calhoun~, January 23, 1841.

“‘Whether the goverument can constitutionally distribute oiltnue from the public lands among the states must dIe.pend on, the fact whether they belong to them in their I’llitl cedera arater, or individually and s eparate ly. if in the former, it is matife st th at the goier sn m dt, as th~eir cot,mmo ant or trustee, can have no rig,ht to distrii batel among thd, for their individualy a i eparate us,e, a fund derivrd from property held in their united and fsdoral ha,,ithout a special power f s nr t hat purpo s e whi oh is l,o~retended. A position so clear of itself and res,tinz,! on teestablished principles of law, when applied to indiv iduals. holding property in like maanner, needs no illustration. If. on the contrary, they belong to the states in their in,dividua,I and separate character, then the governmenit wouhi1 not duly h~ave th~e right but would be bounid to apply the r~vneto the separate use of the state-s. So filr is, incon toetll,which presents the questioni: In which of the two characters are the lands held by the state.,! f-o give a satisfactory answer to this question. it will be ne……ary to distinguish between the lands that have been ce,ded by the states, and those that have, been purchased by the g~enetout of the common funds of the Union. T’The principal cessions were made by Virg,-inia and erit.The former of all the tract of country between thI, Ohio. the Msisppi. and the lake,,, inicludiing the states of Ol(), Indiana, Illinois. and M.Vichig,,an, and the territory o,f W~isconsin; and the latter, of the tractt included in Alabama,an Miss,issippi. I sha~ll begin with the cesioni, of Vigna,,a it is~ on that the advocates fo,r distribution manyrely, to establish the right. I holId in my band an extract of all that portion of the V ignadeed of cession which has any bearing on the point their united] and aggregat, cha,raciter. in eontradts,tineti-T. to their individual an~d separate character. and, by n~ecessary cosqec,tht-t the lanids so ceded belonged to them,r in the~ir former and not in their latter ch.arac!ter. that I am a~k a loss for words to make it clearer. To deny it, would be to deny that there is a,ny truth in language. “But strong as this is. it is, not all.

The deed proceeds.t and says, that all the lands so cedued I s ha ll be tonsiderid a tommon fund for the Usianifi t ountt o Crinite,. States a., have become, or shall become, memnbers~ of tl.,,, confeder,ationi or li, egral alliance of said states. Nirgir,,i:, inclusive, and conc,ludes-by.ayinig, I and shall be faithfully and tons fide disposed of fur thlat purpose, and for no otth,er use or purpose whtvr’If it were possible to raise-a do)ubt 1)etfre, those full, clear. and explicit terms would disI,.-i it. It is; impossible for language to be clearer. To, b. I con, sidereal a commdn f~iund’ is an expression directly in. contra.

distinction to separate or individual, and is. by nec-es.,.ry im plication. a-, clear a negative f the latter as, if ith,i btd etse positively expressed. This coiimoni fund to’be fu,r thI us, and btntfit of such af the Uh i ted States as ll arov become,, or shall become. membe-rs of the confiederation,~e fedel,ral alliance,.’ That is as clear as language can iics it, for their commoni use in their unitei(d fe,th!ra1
ch~arac,t,.,’, Virg,inia being included as the grantor, out of abundantt caution.” “The concluding words of the grant are,‘sh,Iall be f,idth full y and b~ona fide disposed of for that use, an,d no othe,r use or purpose wbatsoever.’ For that use-ithat i s the eon mon use of the states in their capacity of members if thie con,fe!deratio,n or fe~deral alae-adno othe,r; as p~i tiee~ly forbIid, ling to us,e t~he fun~d to be derived] fromc the, lands for the separ’ate ue of the states,.or to be d is tribut, arei,ng them. for their separate or in.dividual us,as proposed by this amendment, asit is possible for w,ords to do.” “The residlue of the public lad.inc]

uding Floridla, and~ all the region b~eyon,d the, MNiss,issippi, e tnigto the Pa, cific Ocean., and constituting by ftitr the greater part. standsI a different fi,oting. They were pucihased out of t((i ‘c omowon funds of the U ni on cll cted by taxes, and belong, bleyond all que!stion,, to the peop~le of the United States i,, their federal and aggregate capacit~y.

T’his, has not be and cannot be desilut a:Jd yet it is proposed to distribute the comimon fund derived from the sales of these, a, we,1 as from tihe cede~d landIs. in direct voainof the admittedl principle, that the agent or trus,tee of a comaiton concernI’l has no right without express authority’ to apply the j[ilit funds to the separate use and benefit of its individual members.” “The Senator from Kentulcky (Mr.

Clay), and, as I nowy understandu the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.

Webster), agr e e. that the revenue from taxes can be applied only tis tehae objects specifitealy enumerated in the Constitution. Tth us repudiating the general wilfari’ principle, as applied to the money power, so far as the reve’nue may be deriv,si hroa e that sourpe. To this extent they profess to be good,,[ State Rtights Jeffersonian Republican s. Now, sir, I wonit be Ihaippy to be infsiriiied by either of t h e able senators, t,y whatp politiy l alchemy the revenue froni taxes, by bei,’

vested in land, or other property, can.,when again turned ie to cr e veneby sales, be entirely fre ed from all the constiutstionuMy raestrictig ons to whlsich they were liable b efore tht, int,estmeist, according to their own confe s sions. A satisfa,trory explanation f so curious and apparently incomps’sehens,il,lel~ a process, would be a treat. ,- geahen I look. Mt q tr. IPresident, to wh at induced the states, an d, especially Virginia, to make this magi ficent c lssioi to tehe Uteion, and the high and patrioti c motives urged by t(le neu out ofss to icodue them to do it.

andis now prioposed. I am,truck with the contrast and the great mutatiu,n to which human affairs are subject. The greist and teatrietic men of former tiies regarded it at essentiu1 to the Iloisummictii)n of the terUnioyt and the preservation si’ the public tsith that the lands shoult be ede d ts a comimio fund; but now. men distinguished for t her ability awl influence are strivig with allt their holy work. Yes, sir; distribution and cvssion are the very reverse, in chetracter and effect; the tendency of one is to un ion, and the lits nr to di gunion. The wipst of uodern stotesmen, and who had the keenest und de,epest glanceii h kinto futurity (Edmund Buirke), truly sal is that the revensies ther state; to which I add. that to distribute the revenue, in a congfeerates omuni,mnt its,eIs, is to disr olre the community-that iss with us, the Uniion-iss time! will prove, if ever thi s thtal measure should be adopted.” IIaving disposed of the constitutional question, the next inquiry is, What are the objections to it on the score of expediency and sound policy? 5 ) 1.

Page 508 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXr-LOOK. these proJected improvements so anxi(us for the triumph of the policy? Is it not because they believe and avow that the fund, if received, 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 andI 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 in.en. t,r their agents, who vote it away in appropriatiol(s. Ilice, when there are extravagan t and wasteful lppropriati,lis. the re l nust be a corrl()eionding irerase in taxes; and the people becoming awaketed. will eessarily srtiize the haracter of measures whic(h thus increase th(eir urdeus. BIy the watchful e)y} of sell:iiitrest the agents of the,tpeople in the state governments a re repressed and kept withini the limits of a just c ononhy. Ilut if the necessity of levyinug the tax(es be taken from those who make the appiopriati(oii and thrown upon a more distant and less re.ponsib)le set of public arents, who have power to approach the people bv an indirect and stealtlhy taxation, there is reason to fiar that prodigality will soon supersede those characteristics whi,lh have thus far made us look with so much pride aid confidencet to the state governments as the Um in stay ef our Unlio,n and liberty,’- The state legislatures, instead of stu,dying to restricu tnt:’ state expenditures to the smallest possible sum, will claim credit for their profu,sion, and harass the general government for increased supplies. l’ actiall:y there would s()oo be but one taxing power, and that vested in a body of men far removed from the people. in which the farning and niechanic interests would scarcely be represented.

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 oshoul lose their supplies; all would be merged in t practic..l co n solnidation. cemented bY widespread corruption, which would only be eradicated by one of those bloody revolutions which occasionally overthrow the despotic systnis of the old world.” p A system liable to such objections can never be supposed to have been sanctioned by the framers of the Constitution when they conferred on Congress the taxing power: ay’d I feel persuaded that a mature examination of the sul-jeet will satisfv every one that there ire insurmou..t,,ble dlifficulties in the operation of an y plan which can h e deai,d of collecting revenue for the purpose of distrit,uting it. Congrs.ree is only authorized to levy taxes i to p lay tile dei,ts a nd provide f or thei common defense and gt gweltfare pf the United State s.’ There is 11o su(e0
provisioin fs woulds authorize oCongress to olleyt together the proper ty of tlhe country, under the aie of revenue. fbr the purpos e of dividing it. equally or unequally, among the states or the people.” 3. Distwibtioi le ads to consolidatio k ald the codnces t) ratio n of’all owe r i the ite gnatioteimmbent.-Upon t his point, also, I tak e great pleasure in fortifying my views by an extract from Genera l Jacksoy n’s nse,s a,e dis appr oving the land distribution bill of 1833. lie says: “But this bill assumes a new pri ncipl e. It s obje ct is not to return to the p,opl e an unavoidable surplus of revenue paid in by them, but to createt a surplus for distribtlion among the states. It seizes the entire proceeds of ooe source of revenue and sets themD aleart as a surp)lus. nmakin,g it necessary to raise the monleys for supporting the government and meeting the general e’Lrones from other sources. It even throws the entire lansd system upon the customs for its support, and makes the public latnds a perpetual charge upon thee treasury. It does not return to the people moneys accidentally or unavoidably paid by them to the government, by which t’hey are not wanted, but compel~s the people to pay moneys into the treasury fo r the mere purpose of creating a surplus for distribution to their state governments. If this principle be once admitted, it is not difficult to perceive to what consequences it may lead.” ” It appears t~o me that a more direct road to consolidation ,annot be devised. Alone) is power, and in that government which pays a11 the loublic c/Iicerss of the states will all They are numerous. 1. Distribution? is deceptive.-It is an imposture upon the public mind. It seeks to pro(luce 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 increase s them.

We have two gover nments to supporta federal government and a stat e gover nment. They are both suppor ted by t axation. The first by indirect, the latter by direct taxation. If you withdraw t h p oes o e pro celaeds of the pulic lands from the national treasury, to distribute them among the states, you must supply the deficiency by tax:ttion in the form of duties upon consumption. The result o f such a n opera tion, therefore, is to put money iin the hands of the legislature for state expenditures, whilst the faniner and imechanic must, with superadded costs, repay the amount by increased price upon every article of foreign growth and production which lie buys from the stores. General Jackson clearly perceived and exposed this imposture in his message of December, 1833, in which he assigns his reasons for disapproving the bill. Ile said: “‘It is difficult to perc,eive what advantages would accrue to the old states or the new from the syste!im of distribution which this bill proposes, if it were otherwise unobjection,able. 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 m,eans. The old states will receive annually a sum of noney from the treasury, but they will pay il a larger sim, together with the expenses of collection and distribution.,’ Mr. Buchanan, our present distinguished Chief Magistrate, with equal clearness, exposed its trickery in 1841: “But the absurdlity of the measure at this time did not ~top here. This bill was made the pretext or the reson why we should pass the tax or revenue bill. The deficiencV
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 thle people o of Pennsylvania had rendered necessaries of life, and which entered largely into the consumption of every family, p(oor or rich. While that bill thus taxed coffee and tea, it left railroad iron imported for the use of corporation,s free of duty; and yet. strange as it might seem, a iennsylvtnia Senator was asked to violate the express language of his instructions. and vote for the land bill which it ws tvowel would render this odious tax absolutely necess.ary. TIhe a,nnuasl distribution under the land bill would be equal to lhut a little more than an eleven-penny-bit to each individual in Pennsylvania, whilst the tax to which each of thm would be subjected, in consequence of its passage, on the articles of coffee tnd tea alone, must considerably exceed that amount. This, tiuly, was wise legis la tionl!” 2. Dist)ibuttiont impairs the simplicity and economy of the state governments.-It stimiiulates extravagant expenditures-increased indebtedness-and will result!n additional burdens upon the people, in the form of higher .tud more oppressive taxation. Does any man for a moment believe that the annual distribution 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 migiht be, it would only be used as a stimulant to nevs and larger appropriations? Why are all the unfinished railroads now so clamorous for distribution? Why are the people on the line of 508

Page 509 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. political power be substantially eoncentrated. The state 5.

Distribution is a rti,ual recoetition of the governments, if governments they might then be called, w,uld lose all their i.dependenceanddignity.

The economy power and dzty of Congress to assTme the which now distingiuibhes them would te converted into a debts of the states. Does not every distribu I-rofusion limited o~,ly by the extent of the supply.

Being tio the dependants of tl,e general government, and lookin to nist, who argues with you on the subject, its treasury as thle source of all their emoluments. the state place orominently before you, as one of the officers, under lwatever names they might pass, and by very objects of his olicy the application of whatever f.J’rns their duties might be prescribed, would, in objects policy, femit, be the mere stipendiaries and instruments of the the funds to the payment of the existing debt central power.” of the states? When some years ago a reso e * lution was introduced into the Senate of the It is too obvious that such a course would subvert our United States, declaring that the federal well-balaiied system of government, and ultimately deprive government had no power to assume the debt us of all the blessings now derived from our happy Union.”

of the states, Mr. Clay, in an impassioned of the states, Mr. Clay, in an impassioned 4. Di.stribiution is a virtual recognitdon of the manner, exclaimed, “When, where, and by powecr of Congress to appropriate money from whom was the extravagant idea ever enter the national treasury for objects of local intertained of an assumption of tile state debts by itlt imnprovement.-This power, which for a the general government?” There was not a utarter of a century has been repudiated and solitary voice raised in favor of such a measure disavowed by all political parties in this in the Senate. Little did Mr. Clay imagine co)untry, bids fair to be again reco,nised if the that in so short a time many who now profess distribution policy becomes triumphant. Of to be devotedly attached to his memory, what avail is it to assert that Congress cannot should be found maintaining the policy of lnake a direct appropriation from the treasury distribution upon the express and exclusive for such objects, if you concede the power of ground that the federal government will there Congress to do the same act indirectly by by be assuming and paying so much of the pl)acing its funds into the state treasuries to debt of the states. be applied for such purposes? What now 6. Distribution in its operation injurious to gives energy and power to this general move-the interests oj’the poor mnan.- In that admirament in favor of distribution?

Is it not in a ble system which has heretofore distinguished great measure the local internal improvement the disposition and management of our public enterprises of the state? Do they not expect lands, two important results have constantly and are they not struggling to construct and been kept in view-settlement and revenue. complete their roads by federal money, first By certainty of title and cheapness of price, to be distributed by Congress to the states, proper inducements have been offered to the and by the states to be transferred to them? poor man to abandon the crowded niarts of Upon this point, too, I take pleasure in the East, and to find in the West a home fortifying, my position by the opinion of Presi-where, by his hardy toil and honest labor, he dent Jackson. In the veto message, before may rear his family in comfort and affluence. referred to, he said:- To enable the government successfully to pro mote settlemnent the paramount leading ob “But there are other principles asserted in the bill which mote settlement-te paramount leading obwould have impelled me to withhold my signature, had I ject of the national trust-it was essential not seen in it a violation of the compacts by which the that the price of the public lands should be United States acquired title to a large portion of the public fixed at a stim so reasonable as to bring the lands. It reasserts the principle, contained in the bill authorizing a subscription to the stock of the Maysville, Washing-purchase within the means of every poor man ton, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road (Company, from in the country. Whilst the government has which I was compelled to withhold my consent, for reasons contained in my message of the 27th of May, 1830, to the not been indifferent to revenue, it has neverItouse of Representatives. The leading principle then theless made that consideration subordinate asserted was, that Congress possesses no constitutional power to appropriate anv part of the moneys of the United to the other higher and nobler purpose of the States for objects of a local characterwithinthe states. That trust. But if the system of distribution be principle, I cannot be mistaken in supposing, has received adopted, you will immediately reverse the the unequivocal sanction of the American people, and all y subsequeut reflection has but satisfied me more thoroughly former wise and liberal policy of the governthat the interests of our people and the purity of our govern. ment. Then revenue-not settlementwill iplnt, if not its existence, depend on its observance. The become the primary, paramount, and leading public lands are the common property of the United States, becof the m a nd relying as the states .n, the moneys arising from their sale are a part of the oject of the system; and relying as the states publit revenue. This bill professes to raise fromand appro-will upon their annual stipends from the priate a po,rtion of this public revenue to certain states, proeiing expressly that itshall be applied toobjects ofinternal national treasury, the government will be reitmprovemen t or education within those states,’ and then quired to adjust prices with the scales of a retedes to app)ropriate the balance to all the states, with Shlock, and fix the price of the land at that i aie tltihat it shall be applied to such purposes as ylock, and fi x the prce of the land at that th, legiature of the said respective states shall deeni pro-slim which will bring the most money into the i’p, T h be,r narparpoppropiation is expresslIasury for internal treaur for the purpose of distribution. Setki,,du d imp,-ove..nts:md thertoreinexpress violationof tlement, as the pric ary policy of the governthe princiule maintained in my objections to the turnpike-ment, will then be abandoned; the interests r,,a,1 ll abwioverefe rredto. The lattfr appropiati o is t me in the West hr,:ad. an ^,ives the money to be applitd to any loeial pt h oor man seeking ho pose wvh’ts,,eer. It will not he d enied, theft n e rC the pro-will lbe lisregardedl anmidst the clamor for large biof tte}l a poition f the moies miht bae teen d (idends, and the management and disposal appliled to nain itil: te very rodtm itxh e lilo SY litid reference. alla must, of course, coine within the sctop,I of the piulblic lands will be regulated by all the of ti.he sase priticiple. If th. uteitey of the Unite’d StateSs p|a ltry andi selfisli considerations which govern catnniot ibe appiled to loeal purposes thiolugh its osr, as.euls. l c as little canl it be p’rinitted to be thus expended thbroug1h’ alse corporation in making its annual re the agency of the stats’ governments.” port of priofits to a body of hungry stockholders 5-‘% Political power be substantially concentrated. The state g-,,er.nie.t.s, if g.,,,,ments they might then be called, would lo,,, all their i.d,p,nd,nce and dignity. The economy which’now disti.-,7,,ib,s them would t. onverted into a I-rofuion limited,.ly by the extent of the supply. B,Ing the depe.d.nt. f ti, g,n,,ral governments and looking to it-treasury s tl,e s,,u”,e ofall their emoluments, the,,tat-3 under water names th,y miglt pass, and by whatever f-,.-ns their duties night be prescribed, o.1d, in lf,,t, be the mere stipendiaries and instruments of the ,central power.” It i, too ob,iouq that such a course would subvert our w,ll-bal.,,md system of government, ad ultimately deprive ui of all the bl,,s4,,ings now derived fom our happy Union.”

Page 510 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of the government? Then why parade such statements before the popular nmind, if neit de signed purposely to produce filse hopes n hich they know are utterly absurd and unatta,inable?

The editors of the National Intelligencer, in giving to the public the gross aggregate receipts of the public lands, do ]lot favor us with the sums with which that fund is chargeable for costs of original purchase, extinguishment of Indian titles, expenses of surveys, &c. Ieild they condescended to do so, w e should have the remarkable idea boldly presented of distributing a fund which is already many miillions 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 constitutional 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: From the Democratic National Platforms fair the last twenty years. ‘That the federal government is one of limited power, derivd solel from the Constitution; and the grants of j-wer made therein ought to be strictly construed by all ie departments and agents of the government; and that it is i,expedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful consti lution,al powers. “”hat the Constitution does not confer authority upon the federal overnment, directly or indirectly, to assume .Ie,1.bts of the several states, contracted for local and in t rmd improvements or other state purposes, nor would sucih assunption be just or expedient. Tha,t the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution, and that we are opposedl to any law for the distribution of such proceeds among the states as alike inexpedient in policy. and repugnant to the Constitution.” ]That should be thte amount for annual dis tsibutit.on?-Amongst the artifices resorted to bv the opposition press to dignify the present issue, and to attract the attentioin and cupidity of the people, are the false and fallacious state iments 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 slpicuous a part. They have prepared tabular stat.emeats designed for general circulation, and which have been eagerly seized upon by osr 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 liscovery, that if this amount, instead of hav ing been applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution, such, for example, as fighting the battles of our country against fi)reign 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 treasury ready for distribution, what an amazing pIile 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 (to they look back with any regret to the exienditures of the last seventy years, when they feel that the money has been nobly applied 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 before 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 nowa in the treasury, and which during a period of seventy years has been expended in support Extinguishing Tndian titles……. Purchase of Louisiana, principal and interest Purchase of Florida, principal and interest. Paid to Georgia……….. Paid to Mexico (Mesilla purchase included). Released claims……….. Paid Texas………… Land Office expenses, surveys and explorations But what wdould be the act ual amount antu allv for distribution, if any such unwise hiS sure should beco:.e a law? Mr. King, of Aiabamca, in his:‘eport, estimated the ever-acre annual proceeds at.$1,75O,000. Mlr. Calhoun estimates them, in his report, in a previous part of this address, at’,,2,500,000. iSIr. Clay estimated them at $3,(100,000. By referring to the tabular statements contained in that curious exposition of the National Intelligent cer, before referred to, it will be seen that, ifor the last sixteen years, to wit, since 1840, there.

are but four years in which the amo(.unt of the proceeds of the public lands exceeded three millions of dollars; towelsve years in whllie lt they fell below three nmillions*; 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: Maid yet we are informed by the Secretary of the’T’reasury, in his last annual report, that the receipts for the first quarter, of the present fiscal year, have fallen below the corresponding quarter of the last year $1,463,345.48, rendering it probable that the receipts fear the present year will not much exceed three nillions of dollars. think it maythen be fairly assumed that the annual averag,e proceeds of the public lands are a,lout $3,000,000, of which sum, upon the principle of all the bills wlhich have heretofore been presented and passed, Virginia wouln receiv e $141,666-a sum not sufficient to construct five miles of railroad a year, and not suffician-t, if so applied, to diminish, in any perceptible deg,ree, the burden of oulr existing taxe,r 610 $106.179,0()O 23.600.OW

6.500.000 3,082.0(X) 25,000,000 fi,000.000 . 10.000.00t) 15,000,I)OO

$Igb,361,.O(K)

Page 511 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. I cannot withhold the following character-the importations of the present year and com i-tic specimen of Mr. Benton’s style of oratory, ing year be the samie, will be diminished some -hvich exhibits; in a striking manner, the $17,000,000, making our revenue from customs :iall gaime which the distributionists are pul-for the next fiscal year some $47,000,000-one sLingm. Speaking in the Senate in 1841 onl the million less than the ordinary cexpenses of the I;,iil distribution bill, he said: government. We looked to the public lands I1 s orn the bill. I scout its vaunted popularity. I de-as supplying at least $3,000,000 more, which it. ca I conceive of an object more pitiable and would give al federal revenue of $50,000,000, ,.,mt+ mptlble than that of the demagogue haranguing r f r ,)t,;,. andl exhibiting his tables of dollars and acres in against an expenditure of $48,000,000, leaving exhibiiing his tables of dollars and ce,i,1 zle t, show each voter or each state, how much money }out,2,000,000 to cover those cointingencies to) tby w ill be able to obtain from the treasury if the lial’itdraw I ill passe~g. Such haranguing, and such exhibition is thegovernment is liable. Withdraw al.s f im,pudence and knavery to supposed ignorance. froni the national treasury the proceeds of the id folly. It is treating the people as if they lands, and it is manifest, from this statement, ,,r-peniny wioe and pound foolish, a nd s t ill more mean fl-a;,,lih. Why, the land revenue, after deducting the the revenue will fall below the average ex,.x,:tss.

it’ fairly divided among the people, would not penses of the government.

Congress wouldi exednnpence a head pe r anmiffirly divided t am4, na t he stater and applied to their d ebts it would no then be compelled to recede from the advances sii,,r….e above nine-pence per annum of taxation uponii which it made last winter in the direc’i An of thl units.,f the porulation. The day for land sales has free trade, and to revive the burdens which it ,:i,,, 1-. Tlhe sales of this tear do not exceed a million a’alf of dollars, whish would not leave more than a has heretofore imposed upon the commercial ,,f,Ji o l,,;r dstrbto, whic-h wmoudnot sixeen milorthns a diribution, wich, mong sixteen millions of industry of the nation. This would be espe !….pl,. w,,,.,‘Ii be eactlv four-pence half-penny, Virginia ,),ev [el heid: a fip in New York, and and a picaillon cially unfortunate, in view of the fact, that, il l,;,isi. At two mili~, it would be nine-pence a by the tariff which goes into operation on the ].:..d in irinia. equivalent to a levy in New York, and a 1st of July, 1857, many articles which enter 1,l 11 l,,.;iE:lall; p>recisely the amount which, in specie lie., teeman wgives to a negio boy for holding his into the mechanical labor of the country, and ie a ite at the lo,,r. And for this miserable doit-add to the profit of the mechanic, without ltis in.si-rnificant suld;.vision of a shilling-a York shilling to the consumer, re upon  n the de maoue suppose that the people are base injury to te consumer, are placed upon the ,,n,ugth to violate th-eir C-stitutioln-mean enough to sur-free list, or pay a mere nominal duty.

Look lt t e of their ountry, and tupid enough to ing, then, to the necessary operation of the ice tax,.d in their cofiie, tea, salt. sug!,ar.

coats, hats, blankets, h)es, shirts. a..( every arv tice0 omfo)rt, deceny, or nees-tariff of 1857 upon the interests of the me.ity, which they eat, drink, or wear,or on which they stand, clianic, and regarding distribution as incon sit.. sleep, or lie?” sistent with the provisions and policy of that -iid yet, w,vith no professed object in view act, I can but regard every movement to pro)lit to plunder the national treasury of this mote distributioni at this time but as a blow (o)ntemptible pittance, and then to supply that deliberately aimed at the mechanical interests deficienvcy thus created by a new tax upon of the country. (ot)nsump)tion, has a bold and defiant issue AMr. Clay.-His bill in 1832.-No politician been joined this spring, with the Democratic was in principle more opposed to distribution party; the opposition press of this state every-than Mr.

Clay. To that extent, at least, he where glittering in steel and calling to arms; retained the benefits of his early republican conventions summoned to bring forth candi-training, and coincided with the policy of the (lates f)r Congress and for the General Assem-Democratic party. Many passages might be tily; and even some well meaning and most extracted from his speeches in proof of this excellent Demnocrats seduced from their allegi-fact; but I will content myself with two. In ance to coinfederate with the bitter and uncom-his speech of January 28, 1841, he said:r-romisiig enemies of their party and prin-, si miing enemisaoftheiepartsn “The Republican party of 1798, in whose school I wam ciples. brought up, and to whose rule of interpreting the Consti Tctri:f ef 1857.-The time selected for the tution I have ever adhered, maintained that this was a rvival o.f tle distribution policy is not less limited government; that it had no powers but granted revival of t distribution policy is not less powers, or powers necessary and proper to carry into effect remarkable than the policy itself. When it the granted powers; and that, in any giveni instance of the s urged upon the cosierati of Congress exercise of power, it was necessary to show the specific was,t uirg,ed upon the consi;dera,tion of Congress -.,r a cesr ~ grant of it, or that the proposed meaisure was neccessary andi ietween 1:x.3 and 1841, there was then this proper to carry into effect a specifically granted power or l)alliattion for it, to wit, that the tariff was powers.” “There is, then, I repeat, no power or authority in the then regulated by a formal compact for a general government to lay and collect taxes, in orner to period of nine years, and under which com-distribute the proceeds among the states.

Such a fiiancial pact there would necessarily be a surplus in project, if any administration were mniad enough to adopt it, the treasury resulting from duties on imports. Blut now it is sought to be revived upon the Again: Mr. Clay, upon another occasion, l}eel of the legislation of the last Congress re-said:ducing the receipts from customs below the “For one, however, I will again repeat the de(claratio,,n revenu standrd of he govrnment The withich I made early in the session, that I unite cordlially revenue standard of the government.. Th e with those who condemn the appliication of any priucipie of average expenditure of the federal govern-distribution among the several statrs to surplus revenge Ilient is now ascertained to be, with our im-derived from taxation.” mensely extended territory, about $48,000,000 It is true, Mr. Clay modified his opinions a year. The rate of taxation during the last upon this subject so far as he yielded his session of Congress has been so reduced, in assent to the bill for the distribution of the connexion with the extended list of free arti-proceeds of the public lands; and yet it is cles, that by the tariff which goes into opera-difficult to see any distinction, either in prin:ion on the 1st of July, 1857, the revenue, if ciple or practical results, between a distribu 511

Page 512 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL -TEXT-BOOK. tion from the national treasury of moneys collecte(i from customs, or m oneys derived from the sale of the public lands. They both do ntow, and have from the foundation of the goveliunseit, constituted the revenue of the Union; and the same objections must apply to the withdlawv.al of either for the purposes of gift or dosiation to the states. Mr. Clay wa.s a bold and dashing politician. lie did noit permit himself inii the latter period of his liie to be tratmmelled by nice constitutional limitations. His construction of the pow er of the national government became broad, liberal, and Itameilton ian; and when the pol itical ne xessit y was sufficiently urgent, he neve r fbgiled to see in the Constitution ample authority to do anything wh ich he be lieved to be essential to the interests of the country. Orig i nally oppos ed to a national bank as a measure in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, he promptly sacrificed his constitutional o,bjiections when he believed the necessiti e s of the government required such an inst rument of finance. Clear in his opinions as to the rights of the people of the South to al unrestricted enjoyment of t he b e nefits of the publeic domain, he nevertheless did no t hesitate, when the hurricane of 1820 was passing over the country, with the hope of staying it s d estructive ravages, to give his approval to that unconstitutional prohibition by which the people of the South were excluded from anv fair participation in the occupation and settlement of twothirds of the national te rr itory. So in 1832, as deeply impressed as he was wit h t he inexpediency and unconstitutionality of distributional ro, h e, nevertheless, with a view, as he believed, of saving the p ublic lan ds from being ceded to the st ates in which they lay, recommended a plan for the distributio n of the ir proceeds am ongst the states. Tim e does not permi t me to go int o any extended history of the events of that day. It may be sufficient to say that powerful influences were at work to force from Congress a cession of the publi c lands to the land states. A proposition to cede prospectively, 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 lands to the land states was, in 1832, against his own solemn protestations, referred by the Senate to Mir.

Clay,, as chairman of the Commiiittee on Manufactures, for a report. lIe lbelieved the condition of the land question at that time to be such that either the government must surrender its interests in the lands to the states ill which they lay, or adopt some other measure less objectionable.

From this emlergencyv re~sultedl his bill for the distribution of the proceeds of their sale a measure whlich, I believe, he would not at that (lay have sanctioned if he had not believed it was the only alternative for cession. Accordingly, in his celebrated report, he says:  “A mayjority of the committee believes it better a s an alternative for the scheme of cession to the new states, and as being most likely to give general satisfaction, that the residue be divided among the twventy-four states, according to their federal representative population,” &c. “Under these circumstances, my colleague presents a conservative measure, and proposes. in lieu of one of these wa st e ful projects, by way of amendment, an equitable distribution among all the states of the avails of the publio lands. With what propriety, then, can it be,aid that we, who are acting solely on the defensive, have forced the measure upon our opponents? Let them withdraw their bill, sand 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 object 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 IIouse of Congress the advocate of ceding the public lands to the states. We hear of no such class of politicians now ill the country; and it is well known that Mr. Clay himself, although a long time in Congress subsequent to 1844, was never known after that day to revive any such proposition again in that body. Webster, Rives, 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 separate 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. Although 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, destined scarcely to survive the Congress which passed them, I felt curious to know what a Senator from Virginia, raised at the feet of J-ames 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 Ior the bill Mr. Rives made a speech in the Senate in support 512 And again, at a subsequent period, when the same measure was before the Senate, brought forward by Mr. Crittenden, lie antl his party were reproached with attem’pts to force it upon the country. Mr. Clay, referring to certain projects before the Senate to squander the public domain, and amon others sessions to the land states of the whole within their limits, said:

Page 513 view page image

iP,BLIC LANDS. of the bill-Mr. Rives procured his notes of the untameable wild beast. From every part the reporter for revisiona vacant space ap-of that then wild and uncultivated wilderness pears in the index of the Congressional Globe is now heard the voice of Christian and civil ilvitirtg, its insertion. Mr. Rives yet lives, ized man, doing homniage to his great Creator, lbut no speech of Mr. Rives has yet appeared and rejoicing in the blessings of the freest and to vind;icate his position on that occasion. Did noblest system of popular government which lie fiIld, when he came to review his position, the world has ever seen. Is it no source of uId in the still and quiet repose of his chum-pride to Virginia? Does it inspire her with lher to ponder over the principles involved in no lofty reminiscences to reflect that she has that meatsure, that they were such as he could had some agency in this mighty work of niot exa;ctly reconcile to his judgment and pa-Christianity, civilization, and liberty? But triutism? Did a more careful scrutiny satisfy what is meant by those who say the people of him) that his arguments were fallacious and Virginia derive no benefit from these public his positions irreconcileable with the true lands? Who, in their opinion, are the people the)ry and with the honest practice of the go-of Virginia?

Are they those alone who hap vernuient? Did he shrink from a submission pen to be presidents, stockholders, or persons of the grounds of his opinion to the stern and interested in railroad corporations? Is it imnpartial judgment of his state? And was even alone the rich, the high born, the pros lie content to let it pass as the vote of the perous, the wealthy, who feel that they are in miere partisan, to be defended upon such con-the enjoymnent of a goodly heritage of broad siderations as might justify and excuse an acres, and who are content to spend their lives exact compliance with the behests of party? under the shades of their patrimonial oaks? Does Virginia derive no benefit.orem the Are there no other persons born upon our soil public laeds.?-Notwithstanding the clear who are entitled to be called the people of and unanswerable exposition of facts con-Virginia? Are there no poor, no destitute, tained in this address, we shall still, as in the no unfortunate, and no heartbroken amongst days of our revolutionary struggle, have our our people, who, unblessed by the advantages Johnny Ihooks running through the country, of birth and fortune, have, for the last fifty exclaimiing beef!

beef! money! money! land! years, are now, and will for centuries yet to land! and declaring that Virginia derives no come, look to our great possessions in the West benefit from the public domain, but that all as a refuge where they can find a cheap home, its advantages are monopolized by the south-and protect themselves and their children ern and northwestern land states. Is this from penury and want? Every poor man in true? Does not Virginia derive every bene-Virginia feels at this moment that hlie has, fit from the public lands, and in a higher and under cur present system, a valuable appreci greater degree than she herself anticipated able interest in the public domain, of which when she united with her sister states in a he can avail himself at any moment, and surrender of them to the federal government? which he would be very reluctant to surren Were they not granted for the “common de-der. Again, has not Virginia, in common fence and support of the Union,” and have with her sister states, derived a large benefit their proceeds not been so applied? Hlave from these public lands, in the vast increase they not gone into your national treasury, and of consumers which it has added to the country, been applied to pay off the debts of your revo-and who, by contributing their proportion to lutionary war? of your second war of indethe general expenditures of the federal governpendence? and of the Mexican war? to the ment, lessen the burden which would otherwise maintenance of your army, your navy, and fall upon her people? The celebrated Edmund your judiciary-to defend you in war, and Burke, in his speech recommending that the give wings to your commerce in peace? Did forest lands of the British crown shoulil be she not make large reservations of land be-brought into market and converted into pritween the Scioto and Miami rivers for the vate property, at a moderate price, laid down benefit of her officers and soldiers of the revo-the following just and profound maxims of lutionary war? and have not these reserva-political economy:tions been most liberally and bountifully ap- “The revenue to be derived from the sale of the forest Ilied to their relief, and in amount far beyond lands will not be so considerable as many have imagined; and I conceive it would be unwise to screw it up to the their extent? Did she not impose it as a con-utmost, or even to suffer bidders to enhance according to (lition of the grant, ” that the territory so their eag,erness. wherein the expense of tlhat purhase nimay eel shall be laid out and formed into states, weaken the capital to be employed in their cultivation. * shall be laid out and formed into sta The principal revenue which I propose to draw from ctiiltatining a suitable extent of territory, and these uncultiated wastes is to spring from the improvement tlinat the states so formed shall be distinct re-and population of the kingdom, events infinitely more admitted m s of the revenues of the crown, than the rents piublican states, and admitted members of the of th etlne sae hc tcn hold. a Iti Federal Union, having the same rights of so-th ispose of the unprofitble landed estates vereiguty, freedom, and independence astrown th ro w them into the niass of private property, ocreighty, freedom, and inde p e n d e nce’s’ e.by which thev will coane. throun,n the source of circulatinu ither states?” And has not this condition been and throngh the political secretions of the state, into wellaithfullv fulfilled? Five free, prosperous, old sovereign states-co-equal members of The history of the landed system of our ‘ur federal alliance-now occupy that terr-country furnishes the most convincing proof O-ry, which at the period of the grant was the of the value of cultivation. At the time that beerless abode of the untutored savage and public lands were first acquired by the United 33

614

Page 514 view page image

i-ived from’in’ported g,ods; thle goozls are pooI’ and oppressed by debt; that her pop)ulareceived in exchiange f)r exports; il(i thle tion is rapidly flying beyond her limits: tllat texports, with a snmall reldu(tioli for tlie profits her lainds are depreciatiing in value, and(
tlhlat of the se are the pro(lli,‘e of the farm -and we shall soon return to our primevalc()nmiition Jbrest. his is but half the picture. The of a wilderness, unless we can get fron t,l other haltf must l)e slhow-n, anr will display national treasury our dividend of the lan(l the cultivation of the s, il in its innmmellse fund a fund averaging a little more than ten exports, as giving birth to) camiierce and cents per head to each white inhabitant iof navigation, and sultplyillg l nlh l)lyneiot to all the state. Our condition is feelingly coinmparel the trades connected witi these tw,r (raIn(d with that of Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, &c., liranches of naitioin’l-industry, hlile lt usi-1 ana their rapid growth contrasted with oiur iiess of selling the land is a nie “i.e andi le.iiier rapid and hopeless decline. It is true that ,,peratilIn. While suicii hais i cii the:lifferei(ce Virginia, taken altogether as a state, dloes not l)etween sale ad culti atii,i. no -,we)l’s of exhibit at this time the rapid growth which we cal(ulation can (:ntrr Oint tlie litferen(ce anl(
seein the young republics of the northwest. It show what it will 1i,-; tir whliiist the sale,f would be strange, indeed, if it were so-qquite the land is a single (l-eratiii, ai( ca l})e per-as strange as if a man of mature years should firmed but onlice, th e x’ (.tra(ti~!l {,’ re-v’en ue (row as rapidly in height as a boy of fourteei. f’rom its cultivti(,l iX,ti;liiiiii:tl t t p)er-Iut to assert that Virginia is declining in fr,etual piro)cess, i:.‘Sit i i’){lqi’ti (‘ieqs weltl, poi)pulation, improvemnent, or anything throuilih all timie w ithli tle iti,‘i(”,i’

IIl)ul-else tha.t contributes to fo)rni tlhemnaterial power tion, the amelioi-itii t soil, 41 1 ii Il11 e- |’ o great coniinon wealth. is utterly false and inient (of the col!:trii.’.’: tli(‘ a1fl’li’ ittii (1f IufitotLnded, andexhibits atotal unacquaintance s( ietce to the ini us)iail pi.i:-‘ ” xit li ter actual condition. In the extent. \YWhat possiblle b ill t,it i tt’ vry ntluoe I lie,.nd variety of our Imlineral resurees, ,f thiiigs, i 1(1 c l ir;ri“‘i;t Ii,.r I 4 i t. it’l(‘e ulrs, 1)beyond all question the richest state in I)ub)lic lands that sl’e 1 ihsi I,,t 1i,w 1’i?! i tle Union, and the time, is near at hand “l hen i;like Alabamai. F.’-;~i:, 1,,nklan;i I5 Iii,-is-‘ e wi i’ill bee in the full progress of develop~ii)pi, A rkal~sa s. il..lh t’:’ l,>, ii’ I,,i’ t l i: l’lit. Our population is surely andl steadlilv on put,lie dil:tl rst}ili ]e’ l:liS-ei:iali Ist te incrcesec our ali(ls tiare l)ecoming ev ery therefore shl e;ti.n’ l]‘l:tri.it)-tt i I ti’ i v, i-,1ay more productive; large wastes are heiii., dlential l)ei,!iiit.~ d’eliwi,t I t”ii ]i:ti. I tl;(iil l1i’iitit into suceessfiul cultivationI i)umblic w-itllill lier }(,i’ s, so l1,w., is I i. 11 lirt}rnlents are penetraltilig every )(porti,,11 cxpi,)(sIe(l tti ti11, };:‘tri i i1,;’ il(:.ir,’:iii,l fi iite stlte, itil iiiiinigratiti is sekigll the -itiiio~ an(-.s intcil(t lt-,, iai in, s? is oi’ ouilt:li’t’s uf our geili,tl climnite:111(1 addingg 4t’

1 lanil w’Nithoiit culti vti,n 4i. iliii’t’,vitl”i, (‘\i’v t!v to OIur resouri’es Iiitl (I: ptltito ) ill.,I etat( lti,1) revelnute ai’ I I,, 1)(}-,r‘1txal:ior. N-la- x. \e ithl the sti~,‘l’ cxctri tSn, tlC,!,01t‘1’l’ }t I’l,ificial st.:tisticsofour sstiate, wlof hlare F:such’(l1 a’ntaets “mi;.ltt:l”:”’ toe 1”,l jiust (i,nie to lhand, enable ius (ver-etorcl’isi vilv hav’ing the publi( lmid- )ittlti l. er liliits,,f’ to ov rl:hrow the theories of the le) n i:,‘ll - what otlcer is she d epi v e? l I ltr,ee,ls liti(o writer s and the southlern itlinstliti,) la(idof their sale go iLito the e(}liun iii tisi ll)’ of-icates founded upon the sul)l)osed decline of the Union,‘rd to thalt extent dimirisih) tti xes oiririnia. The returns of the recent retsset

Page 515 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. mcntofthe real estate ofthis commonwealth exiii-,s an e xtent of progress and improvement ()f the highest and most giratifying,, character. fly referiring-to the reassessment of lands made in 1856)O, aind comparing it with the assessment miiakde in 1850, less than six years ag,o, it will be seen that within that short time there has been {n ini crase in the value of real estate of upwadti-ds of one hundred millions of dollars. ‘rta,l assessment of 1850.. $274,680,226 Trota.tl atssessnient of 1856. 76,2 97,227 Assessilent of 1856 over that - of 1850……

$101,617,001 As the result in each of the counties in this Ciongressional district cannot fail to be a subject of interest to the public, I herewith insert t hielmi. to their own labor as the means of living teach them to rely upon the energies aii,i resources that they find within theniselves.

and you will have taught them a less,,. of far greater value than all the lands atini. slaves which you can bequeath to thenm. A child differently reared will, in nine cases out of ten, prove a burden to himself and a curaf to his )parents. So it is withl nations and( states. Virginia can alone prosper lby the labor, the enterprise, the means of Virginia. Let the distributionist succeed in instilling his fatal poison into the public iiiind-let himiiii succeed in persuading the people of Virginia that their proper policy is to depend not upon thenimselves, 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 treasuriy-and you will Inot only arrest the now onward march of material improvements in this state, but you will s,i enervate and emasculate your people as tfi make them unfit depositaries of that high ai(nd holy trust of popular goverinment under which they at this irmloernt live in such prosperity and happiness. 05ren9e,f’c b)etweeni de)osite aitsilJi tio,.‘Thie dlifference is vital both in the py,(,wer iiesse9rted ad i the. priac(tical operation of the pr inciples in, olved. C()on,ress may deposite; it c(aniilliot eoiistitution.lly distribute. Again, distriblution, as proposeil,‘is to be an act of annual recurrence, a fixed and established opoli( c, causing an lial)itual dependence of the states upon tlhe fellerail government fir their annuities, stiniulattingi them to extravagance )g a in abs entco of all responsibility for its retuin, andl croating a surplus for the mere purpose of distribution. Whilst a deposite, so fiar as it hais ever been countenanced by any respectable statesman in this country, can only be of riu’e occurrence, growing out of an unforeseen and unexpected condition of the treasury, designed as a temporary expedient to relieve its plethora, and always aecompa nied )by efficient legislation to arrest the recur reiie 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 andl alarmingr 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 sunis depositned 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 migllt be swept froii the ocean and the fe(leral 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 l)y the Constitution, and which it exercised in 1813-‘14 during our late war with Great Britain.

Asse ssment of, A 9ssess m aent or ,3,).! 1~56. $4.40S,018 $.5.097,188

:3.381,165 3.8:32,.537 3, 26,112 5I, 742.75l 2,963,77 8 3.863,845

6.13.5,047 6.70-S8.899 9.5,8,5 t 46! 11.600.097 687,259 727,1;52

1,701,.563 2,100,422 1,594,217} 2.201),0]99 33.284,005 41,872,93J0

Increase per cent. 15 13 7 6 30 9 26~ 23 _,Is (Counties. Assessmentof Assessmentof i Incre1se 1850. 1l,56..pecet raxton….. $.95.647 t1,12 t.2

93 125 Cnartel….. 440,812 4,292.45l 871 F loyd….. 658.951 1.il15.06i 145 Preston….,l f,68,799 2,9 15.64 i15 Rtaleigh….. 240.504 51().2f ]

112 Wyoming…. 127,39,19 198 3,-.321 1o;! 1 3,1.3_11)!8(.X8784 lncrea~qe of value in gross… $7,,56,.768 Is there anything in the progress of Illinois, ncdiana, or Iowa, or any of the new and growig communities of the northwest, that can ex;iit an advancement in w ea l th mo re strikinii ii(I wonderful than these? And yet in ataining these results, Yirginia has not had to ep)entl upon the charities of the national goernment. She has not had to feed upon the rumbs that fall from the table of the federal }ives-to invoke the aid of that annual gratuity lore fatal to her than the cup of Circe which ic distributionists are so loudly clamoring )r; nor has she been compelled so far to sell vr birthright for a mess of pottage.

Self-reliance is the great element of success this world with states and with individuals. each your sons to work-teach them to look I Ii bib 9

C… ti,,. I list. ire “14 NI r,-,-n of vlue in gross… $8,;588.9F,.5 I,, r-  e n t.ge of i r, c rei,se….’-15 per cei,t. I’here is another su’l)jeet developed I)y the reeerit assessment of strikin, interest to every 17’ii-,,,-iiiia statesman, and that is the rapid in(Illel.tse of population and rapid appreciation of I)ri)pertv observable in manv portions of tl-ie i%,esterii part of this state. To enal)lc you to some jud,iiieiit of this  ratifyin, f-,ict, I hereunto append the results fr’oiii several of tll(.““o counties.

Page 516 view page image

THE P()LrT-ICAL TEXT-BOOK. of public lands to the several states for the benefit of indigent insane persons,” which was presented to me on the 27th ultimno, lias been Inaturely consi(leredl, 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 anpproval. In the performance of this duty, prescribed by the Constitution, I have been compelled t4) resist the deep sympathies of my own heart in favor of the humane purpose sought to be accomplished, and to overcome the reluctance with which I dissent from the conclusions of the two houses of Congress, and present my own opinions in opposition to the action of a co-ordinate branch of the government whichl possesses so fully my confidence and respect. 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 imy official oblig,ation, let it be attributed to a sincere 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 conmpact offers the best, if not the only security for the preservation of our blessed inheritance of representative 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 geographical area and representation of said states in the Ilouse of Representatives. Second.

That wherever there are 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, respectively, said scrip not to be entered by said states, but to be sold by them, and subject to entry by their assignees: Potaided, 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 sale, 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 ora l states. Fifth.

That annual returns of lands or serif The co nditi on of our treasury during the session of the la te C ongress, was not unlike wh a a t a it was i n 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 rat e of duties, a surplus in the treasury on the 30th of June, [857, of $25,000,000, and on the 30th of June, 1858, of $50,000,000, all of which being 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,nity 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 beginning of the new fiscal year, the 1st of July, 1857. It could not, therefore, affect the surplus 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 demiianding 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 conclusive 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 expenditure. With this state of facts before me-and the Committee of Ways and Means having reported a bill framed upon the principles of the act of 1836, to deposit that surplus with the states, I cast my vote without hesitation fbr 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. The following is the message of the President of the United States, returning to the Senate the bill entitled’ An act making a grant of public lands to bhe several states for the benefit of indigent insane persons,” with a statement of the objections wlhicli hlae refuired him to withhold fro)im it his silr,,-l. To the Senate of the (nailed(

Stetl, s: The bill, entitled “An (act milking il grant 516 VIZTO MFSSAGE

OF PRE-,,IDE.-,-T PIERCE.

Page 517 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. sold shall be made by the states to the Secretary of the Interior, and the whole grant be subject to certain conditions and limitations prescribed in the bill, to be assented to byv legislative 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 cleemosynary object within the several states, to be administered by the political authority of the same; and ib presents at the threshold the question whether any such act on the part of the federal government is warranted and sanctioned by the Constitution, the provisions and principles of which are to be protected and sustained as a first and paramount 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 establishmnents 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 institutions, or private endowments, existing under the legislation of the states. The whole field ()f 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 fundamental law. For, however worthv may be the resent object in itself, it is only one of a class. t is not ezxclusively worthy of benevolent regard. Whatever considerations dictate svm)athy for this particular object, apply in like mianner, 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 provide for them all. And if it be done in this case, what answer shall be given when Congress 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 application has taken a wrong direction. The power will have been deliberately assumed, the general obligation will, bv this act, have been ackrnowledg,ed, 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 federal governmenelt assumingr to enter into a norvel and vast field of legrisl’~tion, namely that of providling for the care and support of all those, among the people of the United States, who by any tform of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy. I readily, and, I trust, feelingly acknowledged the duty incumbent on us all, as men and citizens, tand as among the highest and holiest of our duties, t o p ro vide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject t o want, and to disease of body or mind; but I cannot find any authority in the Con stitutio n for ma king the federal government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To d o se would, in my judgment, be con trary t o th e letter and spirit of the Constitu tion, an d sulb versive of the wh olethoyuollo theory upon which th union of these states is founded. And i if it were admissible to contemplate the e xer cis e o f this power for any o bject whatever, I cannoa avo i d the belief that it would in the end be prejudicial, rather than be ne ficial, in the noble offices o f charity to have the charge of there transferred fro m the states to the federal gov vernment. Are we not too prone to forget thatthhe federal Union is the creature of the states, not they o f the fede ra l Unio n? We were the inhabitants of colonies, distinct ith local government one from the other, before the revolution. By that revolution, the ceolonie s each became an indepen dent state. Theye achieved that independence, and secured its re c ognition by the atency of a co ns ultin g bodv, which, from being an assembly of the ministers of distinct sovere ignt ies, instructed to agree to no form of governme nt which did not leave the domest ic concern s of each state to itself, was a ppropriately denominated a Co ngress. When, havin g t ried the experiment of the confe d eration, they re solve d to change tha t for the present federal Union, and thus to confer on the federa l go vern ment more ample authority, the y scrupulously measu red such of the functions of the ir che rished s overe ignty as they chose to delegate to the ge neral governme nt. With this aim, and to tlis end, the fathers of the re public f rame d the Constitution, in and by which the i nde pen dent an d sovereign states united themselves for certain specified ol)jects and purposes, and for those only, leaving all powers not therein set forth as conferred on one or another of the three great departnients-the legislative, the execuitive, 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 Conistitution, 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 Constitutio~n, nor prohibited 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 business o,f government, that involeved in the social relations the internal arrangements of the 517

Page 518 view page image

TtIIE 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 :,f them are, by any express language of the Constitution, transferred to the [Jnited States? Can it Ie claimed that any of these functions ,,f 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 mniote analogy to it. The powers conferred upon the United States have reference to fede ral relations, or to the means of accomplishing o-)r executing things of federal relation. So, also, of the same character ire 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 b)etweeni the states, or for the purpose of protecting their common interests, atnd defending their common sovereignty against aggression from abroad or insurrection at home. I shall not discuss at lengtlh the question of powe(r somietimes claimedl fisr the general governnient under the clause (,f the eighth section of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, iunposts, and excises, to pay d(ellts and provi(de for the common defence and general welfaiI re of the United States,” because if it has not already been settled upon sound reason anull i agithority it never will be. I take the received an(] just construction of th’at atrticle,.s if written to lay an(d collect taxes, duties, iminposts, and excises, in oIl/e’ to pay the (lelts, and in older to provide for the commlnon (defence and general welfare. It is not a still)starnti-e getieral power to providle for the welfare of the Uniite(d States, liut is a liimitati,,n ,n the grant of power to ratise m,,ney },y ta-xes, dluties, and imposts. If it were otlieri ise, all the rest of tlhe C,onstitution, onsisti,g of c arefully-enunierate(l andl eaiutioislv-dtuaidelt ,,rants of specific powers, w~oulht!ave been ulsele’ss, if n()t (]elusive. It wouldl })e iiipo{,siti)le, in that view, to es(-ape fronl the coliclusion thlt these were inserted onlv to inhislead I tor the pieseut in-,, instead(l of eiiligl,tening all,] dlefining the pathway (of tlhe futu,‘e, to involve itsq aciston inl tlle lnazes o,f d,,ul~tf’l constructili. Souh a c, mClusioll the. character of the men w0ii fi’inied that sacrell instruient t will nev eC perm it us to forni. Ildeed, to suppose it suseeptii~le of any o,ther conlstruction, wouldl be to consign all tlie rights of thle states, and of the people of the states, to the mere discretion of Congress, nnd thus to clothe t he federal government wi th authority to control the sovereign states, by w hich they wouldl have been dwarfed into provinces or depart ments, and all sovereignty vested in an abso lute consolidated central power, against which the spirit of libert y has so often, and in so many countries, struggled in vain. In my judgment, you cannot, by tributesto humanity, make any adequate compensation for the wr ong you would inflict, by removin g the so(urces of power and political action from those who are to be therebuy affected.

If the t i me shal l ever arrive when, for an object appeal ing how ever strongly to our sympathies, the dignity of the dinit o the states shall bow to the dictat io n of Congress, by conforming their legislation thereto, whent 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 erninent, in its present form, emerged from the conflict of opposing influences, which have continued t() divide statesmen from that day to this, yet the rule of clearly defined powers anid 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 fewt2 and defined. Tho,se which are to remain in the state gov eirnlnents are numerous ilnd indefinite.” “Its [the general governnmenit’s].iuris(diction ex ten(-Is to c ertain enunierate,I (

)Ibjects only,‘tnd leaves to tihe several st.ates a residu.ry an,l inviolable soverei(rnty ()er all other ())bjects.” In the sam.ie sp)iit, P’residernt Jefferson inlvokes “the s,tu)port o,f thle state governmiients in ill tlieir rigidts, as the i)i,st conn)etent adYllnistra,titois fo-o~ur (l(?,estic ce(neins, an(d thie surest!ml aks against aniti-re(publicanr tendlen(ies.” Alnd P’eside(] t J’tckson saidI that otur true srytan ws,ae tn-ot p)roi{oteil bv invasi,,,. (,f the ril,,,ts and(i p()ower., ot” the s t;tera.,l stit ttat, ) it t lhe c~)ntrary, they eraisi, “n,,t in })iD~lill,g thie sta tes tnl,‘o clhseiv to tle enltre.

Ibt in leav i io e ac h miroe u nl )) str u,:bte d i n it s p,’,,l w r {.(‘ ll it.” The framers of tle (,(nstitution, in lefilsing to .(‘lfer OI the gt)deal,rInimef’nt any.il’i,.diction (,veer thlese pu
el)t!,e],,I-i(,ts. in )iV ; ud(lrment malritbsted a; w’ se fi;t e( ast andl; bro,ad cornlarehenlsio,, ,t tlhe trule initere:,ts (,t’ these ol).jeets themselv es;. I t is earl tic:i t pubulic chlarities +within tile staltes canlrl1e efficiently administered only by their autthon’itv.

Thle bill bjefore me concedes3 this, fibr it dloe~s n],t 518

Page 519 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. commit the funds it provides to the administration of any other authority. I cannot but repeat what I have before expressed, that if the several states-many of which have already laid the foundation of munificent estal)lishments of local beneficence, and nearly all of which are proceeding to estiblish them  shall be led to suppose, as should this bill become a law they will be, that C Jngress is to make provision for suche 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 owvn people, may themselves, through the strong temptation which appeals to states as to individuals, b)ecome hunlitle 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 proper to call attention to the third section of the fourth article, and to the provisions of the sixth article, bearing directly upon the question under 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 Constitution is in the following ternis: “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 Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.” The sixth article is as follows, to wit, that “all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States, under this Constitution, as utinder the Confederation.” For a correct understanding of the terms used in the third section of the fourth article, above quoted, reference should be had to the history of the tinmes in which the Constitution was formed and adopted. It was decided upon, in convention, on the 17th of September, 1787, and by it Congress was empowered “to dispose of,” &c. ‘the territory or other property b)el(-)n,ig to the United States.” The onlv territory then bIeloniging( to the United States was that then recently ceded by the several states, to wit, by New York in 1781, by Virginia in 1784, ylyo ,NMassachusetts in 1785, and b)v S5(th Ctarolinalt I in August, 1787, only the month before the t)rmation of the (Coistitutioii. The cessioni from Virginia contained the following provision: ” That all the lImnds within the territory so c..ded to the U nited States, anal not reservell for or appropriated to any of the l)efore-inentioned purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the American army, shall be considered at commnon fund for the use and benefit of sueh of the United States as have become or shall become mem bers of the confederation or f eder al alliance of the said states, Virginia excluded, according to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and boitaade disposed offor thatt purpose, and for no other purpose or use whatsoever.” Ilere 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 Constitution 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 otrlv no implication in fatvor of the contemplated grant, but the strongest authority alainst it. Fulrthermioire, 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 received into the treasury for the sales of the pulflic 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 paying the interest aforesaid, in the purchase of said stocks at their market value,” &c. The debts thern contracted have not been liquidated, 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 distinction 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 fair 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 suipport of the indigent insane ill the several states, that the constitutional question involved in the act would have attracted forcibly the attention of Congress. I respectfully submit that, in a constitutional point of view, it is wholly immaterial whether the appropriation be in money or int land. ‘rite public domain is the common property of the Union, just as much as the surplus proceeds of that, and of duties on imports, rema-iningrunexpended in the treasury. As such it has b~een pledg~ed, is nlow pledgledi, and~ may need to Lee so pledgredl again for public indebtednless. As property it is distinguished fi’om actual money chiefly in this respect, that its profitatble managemnent sometimes requires that por I I I i I i i 519’

Page 520 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tions of it be appropriated to local ob)jects in the 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 obl)jects, whether of pu l) lic structures, police, charity, or expenses (,f state administration, would be to disregard,, to the amount of the value of the public lands, all the limitations of the C)nstitutioen, 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 linmitations of the ColIsti 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 nmy mind irresistible, and closes the question both of right and of ex p)ediency, so far as regaLrds 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 imiportant provisions of the Constitution? If the systematic reservation of as 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 conclusions, the answer, as it appears to me, is obvious and satisfactory. Such reservations and grants, besides being a part of the conditions 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 taxation 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 augment 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 i sustaining the principles of this bill, is the re- | linquishment of swamp lands to the states in c which they are situated;- but this a lso, like other grarnts already referred to, was based expressly upon grounds clearly distinguislh able in principle from any which can be am suned for the bill he rlewith returne o, vizs, upon the inter est a nd dut y of the proprietor. ITrhey wer e charned, iand n ot without reason, to bge a nuisance to t he i nhabitants of the sur rouunding, country. The measure was predi catedl, not only upon the ground of’ the disetas( inflicted upon the peo)ple of’ the states, which the United States could lnotjustify as.

just find honest proprietor, but also upon an express limnitation of the application of the proceeds, in the first instance, to purposes of levees and drains, thus protectirng, the health of the inha bitants, arid, at the same time, enhancing the value of the remiainingi lands belonging to the general goverinment. It is not to be denied that Congress, while administering the public lands as a proprietor within the principle distinctly announced in my annuail 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 w hich 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 dumiib; the second that of April 5,1826, making a similar grant of land to the Kentucky asy lunr f,;)r 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 ag,o. These acts were unimportant as to tile amount appropriated, andl, so ftar -as I can ascertain, were passed on two grounds: first, that the oh.leet wats a cha ritabl)le one; and, secondly, that it was nation al. To say that it was a charitable object, is only to say that it noes an ol,.ject of expendi ture proper for the competent atuthority; but it no more tended to sh,)w that it was a proper object of expenditure })y the United States, than is any other purely local ob-ject appeal ing to the best sympathies of the lhunran heart in any of the states. Ai-d the suggestion that ,a school for the merntal culture of the deaf and dumiib in Connecticut, or Kentucky, is a na tiona-l object, only hshows how loosely this ex pression has been used, when the purpose wMas to procure appro priations Iy Congress. It is not perceived how a school of this charts ter is otherwise national than is ainy estabxlishment of relig~ioss or moral instrucetionl. All the pursuits of industry, everything which promo~tes the mnatt, rial or intellec;tual well-be|ing of the race, every ealr of churn or boll of Icotton whlich grows, is nlatio)nal in the same 520

Page 521 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. sense, for each one of these thiings goes to swell the aggregate of national prosperity and happiness of the United States; but it con tounds all mneaning of language to say that these things are “i national” as equivalent to “federal,” so as to cormie within any of the classes of appropriation for which Congress is authorized by the Constitution to legisla,te. 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 inteind ed for the future seat of government of the United States, and that even that proposed clause was omitted in consideration of the exclusive powers conferred on Congress to legislate f or that district. Could a more decisive indication of the true construction and the spirit of the Constitution, in regard to all matters of this nature, have been given? It proves that such objects were considered by the convention as appertaining to local legislation 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 states. 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 longi entertained, and often expressed, and in reference to which my convictions do but increase in force with time and experience. I have thus discharged the unwelcome duty of respectfully stating my objections to this ))ill, with which 1 cheerfully submit the whole subject to the wisdom of Congress. FRANKLIN PIERCE.

Washington, May 3, 1854. 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 ear ried: YEAS. Mlessrs. Alexander of Va., Anderson of Me., Archer of Va., Ashley of Mo., J. S. Barbour of Va., lBarnwell of S. C..

Jas. Bates of a pe., Beardsley of N. Y., J. Bell of Tenn., Bergen of N.

Y., Bethune of N. C., Ja.s. Blair of S. C., lBoot of Ind., Bouck of N. Y., Bouldin of V’a., Branch of N. C., Jno. C. Br odhead of N. Y., Cambreleng of N. Y., Ca.r of lnd., Chandler of N. I., Chinn of Va., Claiborne of Va., Clay of Ala.. Clayton of Ga., Coke of %‘a., Lewis Condict of N. J., Conner of N. C., Co ulter of la., Warren R. Davis. of S.C., Dayall of N.Y., Doubleday of N. Y., D)rayton of S. C., Fider of S. C., Fitzgerald of Tenn., Ford of la., oster of (a., (aither o f Ky., Gilmor e of la., Gordon o f Va., Griffin of S. C.,’[hos. nI. t all of N. C., Win. I-lall of Tenn., Ila-per of N. II.. IIawes of N. Y., Ilawkins of N. C., lloffwma of N.Y., Itlland of Me., wHorn of Pa., ioward of Id.. ubbard of N. II., lsacks of penn., Jarvis of He., Jenuier of Mld., Cav eJolnsonof Tenn., Kavanaugh of Me., Juno. King of N.Y., L,amar of Ga. Lau si ng of N. Y., Leconipte of Ky. Lewis of Ala., Lyon of Ky., Mann of Ila., Martdis of Ala., Malson of a., McCarty of Ind., Mc(Duffie of S. C., McIntire of Me., McKay of N. C., Mitchell of S. C., Muhleuberg of Pla., Newman o f ta.. Nuckolls of S. C., Patton of Va., Pierson of N. C., alumner of Misas., Polk of Tenn., Reed of jlass., wloane of Va., Soule of N. Y., Speight of N. C., Standifelr of Tenn., Stephens of Ga., Francis Th omas of Md, Wiley Thompson of Ga., Verplanck of N. Y., Ward of N.Y., Wayne of Ga., Weeks of N. II., Campbell P. White of N. Y., U%ickiiffe of Ky., Wilde of Ga 91. NAYS.- ssrs. J. Q.

Adams of lMaes., C. Allen of Ky., II. Allen of Vt., Al lison of PIa., Appileton of Mass., Armstrong of Va., Ar nold o t an ks Ten., Babcock of N.Y., Banks of la., Bar ber of Conn., Barringer of N. C., Barstow of N.Y., Isa ac C. Bates ofl Mas.s., Jno. Bair of Teni., Biggs of Mas., Bucherof Pa., Bullard of La., Burd of la., Burges of R. I., Choate of eas.s., Collier of N. C., ConditofN.J., leutheros Cooke of 0., Bates Cookeof N.

Y.,Cooperof N. J.,Corwin of 0., Crane of O., Crawiford of Penn., Creighton of 0., Daniel of Ky., Davis of ass. Dearborn of M ass., Denny of Pa., Dewart f Pa., Dodci ridge of Va., Ellsworth of Conti., G. Evans of Ale..

J. E’vans of I’a., It. Evere tt of Vt., Findlay of O., Grennell of Mass., alodges of Mass., leister of pa., lughes ofN. J., Iiuntington of Conn., Ihrie of Pa., Ingersoll of Conn., Irvin of O., Ken. dall of iNass.. Kennon of O., A. IKiig of Pa., H. King of Pa., Leavitt of O., Letchir of Ky., Marshall of Ky.. Maxwell of Va.. tle( oy of Va., MlcKenuan of la., Mercer of Va., Milligan of 1)el.. lPear(-e of It. I., Pi tcher of N. Y., lotts of Pa., Randolph of N.J., Reed of N. Y., Root of N. Y., Russel, W.. Shepard of N.C., A. II. Shepperd of N. C., Slade of Vt., S. A. Smith orf 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.. Wheelor of N.Y., E. Whittlesey of 0., WVilkin 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., Dickerson of N.J., Dudley of N.Y.. Ewing of 0., Foot of Conn., Frelinghuysen of N.J., Hlendricks of Ind., Holmes of Me., Johnston of La.. Knight of] R. I., Poindexter of Miss., Prentisce of Vt., Robbins of it. I., Ruggles of 0., Seymour of Vt., Silsbee of Mass., Spri-gue of Me., Tomiinson of Conn., Waggaman of La., Wilkins of Pa. -24. NACs.-BMessrs. Benton of Mo., Black of Miss.. Brown of N. C. Buckner of Mo., Calhoun of S.C., Forsyth of Ga., Grundy of Tenn., Ifill of N. II., Kane of Ill., King of Ala., Mangum of N.

C., Miller of S.C., Moore of Ala., Rives of Va., Robinson of Ill., Smith of Md., Tipton of Ind., Tyler of Va., White of Tenn., Wright of N. Y.-20.

It passed the Ilouse, on the 2d of March 1833, by yeas and nays as follows: YEAs. -Mvessrs. Adams of Mass., Chilton Allen of Ky., Heman Allen of Vt., Arnold of Tenn., Babcock, Banks of Pa., Noyes Barber of Conn..

Juo. S. Barbour of Va., Bar. ringer of N. C., Barstow of N.Y., Beardsley of N.Y., Briggs of Mass., Bucher of l’a., Bullard of La., Burd of Pa., Eleutheros Cooke of 0., Bates Cooke of N.Y., Cooper of N.J., Cor win of 0., Coulter of lea., Crane of 0., Crawford of Pa, CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF

DISTRIBUTION, AND OTES T HIEREON. On the 16th of April, 1832, in the Senate of the United States, Mr. Clay, from the Comiiiittee on Manufactures, reported a bill from that committee for a distribution of the prodleeds of the public lands. It was brought to ;} vote, in the Senate, on the 3d of July, 1832, aiid passed bv yeas and nays as follows: YEAs.-i-‘;efssirs;. Bell of N. H., Chambers of Md., Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Dallas of Pa., Dickerson of N.J., Dud1ly of N.., Ewing of 0., Foot of Conn., Frelinghuysen of N. .I.. IIendricks of Ind., Holmes of Me., Johnston of La., Knight t,f It. I., Naudlain of Del., Poindexter of Miss., Prentiss of Vt., lC)bbins of R. I.. -Rugg,les of O., Seymour of Vt., Silsbee of fasr.. Sprague of Me., Tomlinson of Conn., Waggaman of J,,t., Webster of Mass., Wilkins of Pa.-26. N.‘s. Messrs. Benton of Mo., Brown of N. C., Ellis of Mis.., Forsyth of Ga., Grundy of Tenn., Hayne of S. C., Ilill :f N. H., Kane of Ill., King of Ala.. Mangum of N. C., Marcy ,f N.

Y., Miller of S. C., Robinson of Ill.. Smith of Md., Taze~ell of Va., Troup of Ga., Tyler of Va., White of Tenn.-18. 521

Page 522 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. (‘rei4(ht,o of O., Daniel of Ky., John Davis of Mass., Dearfo,rii of Mass., De,Jiy ol l’a., DIew irt of Pt,., Dickson of N.Y., Fllsworth (,~’ Con-n.. e,,, vn of Me,,., Joshu~a Eva,ns of P.., Edward Eiverett of Ma….. lorace Everett of Vt., Gilmore iof i l, MNas., Ililani flail of Vt., Iliester of I a.. log,, or’N. Y., Hughes o f N.J., Cluntligton o! Conn., I hr ie of is., lrsiie of O., JeDiifir of Md..

.loseph f,h1ehnsIN Ke rndal lh of Kenil, Knnnon(0 (of.(, d, im King of Pa., flenry r ind of Pa., Krerr ,,f M1d.i.avt of O., Lchfof Ky., MNars,hall of Ky.. Ma1~xwel l of lc: o, t NcatCoy of Ia,., M1Kennoan of Id., Merlce f.il(0 loigan of D I’d… \ e l aron of R.I., NNewgton of Va., Pfarce of It.., Pen diti,f N.~V., Piro f N. Y.. Plitc-her of N. Y..

Plotts, of 1’a…’,fiolph,f N. J., John lR,eed of Mass., Root of N. Y., ) f ~)., Au-,,zuitine II. Shepperd of N. C., Slade of Vt., i th,f Pa.. S
nutbard of N.J., Starobirry of O., Stewr-art of ‘.uthechmd of Pa.. Teylor of N.oY., hillmon Thomas f.. Jy’hom..,Rei hof N,iobeinsi of lN y., Tompkin,k ,;t’ N Y.r Vinon (,f O., WN ard wet pll of N. Y., Washington of M~i. Wat~:,uh -f Paz., I%ilki. of N. Y.. E~lisha, Wh~ittlesey -. r,li k-Witee of N. Y.. Edward Wh’ite of I.-.. Wh’V,klIi,Te of Ky., WilliamI o f N. C. 9 6. N ~Ls Mesrs.Alexnderof VA’., Ar-che-r of Va.. Ashley of ‘I,!.. Iarw, llof S. C.. Bethiflni-of N. C.. Job. ilaia of S. C., I;~’:, I’ t., am~remgof N. Y., Carr of Ind.. Ch~innT of Va.. (‘l~di,,rne f V’..

Clay of Al., Coke of Va., Duncan of !f11., Fcld,.r of V0., G -rdon teSdof Ju.. 1 1,GMr CW. Ilall ,,f N.C.. tlawkins of N. C.. dorn of la., Isacks of Te nn.. 1aris f M a h.Rihrdl l. Johns,on of Ky., Lec,,mpte of Ky..

l~wsof Ala.. l,yon, of Ky., Ma%,-rdis of Aid., M’snof ‘c. Wn 3I(,Lof Va…

McNlnltire of Me., McKay of N. C., t’,m,rof Mis. Ioan,e of V.., Sewall of Md., Standlifer ,, Ien. %‘iley Thomgo,;n of Ga., Wa~rd of N. Y., Campbell I’. ~Yit f N. 1’., W%orthington of Md. 39. N’AYso. M(sCsrs. Jooan Q.

AdJa ams of Pa., C. All,n of Ky., II. Allen erVt., Anthnof. a of Il. d..

oBriggs of MyIf. Boucha nnf Pin of Ten,.l, of Ky(., t. B. Calh,oi, of ITen..f nhi hll of N. c y., N.HI. Clibreof Va., J. F’. It. Clair-borne. (f Miss~., Clark ma Keonanof O., Corair of O.n. Chif,Drin g ton of [l a..

Deerry of N. C., A ny 1 f Ia.. Dipkso n of \is,., cher of Vt., Fyofestfer o f I Frai nch of K RwIt. G., Ia-nd of I,.., Gra ng.rtr o iN.Y.. Grave of Ky., of Mas,Ilar-d of N. Y., Irinof Ky., llra f Ky., liar  per of Ila., Ilazeltiue of N. Y., Ilenmlerso,,i of 1Pa., liter (~f Ila.. Hoar of Ms.

lo,well of O., Ilubley of ti’d.. 11lunt or’ N. Y.. Ingersoll of Ila., James of Vt.,,lntrof Md., II. .Johniso,n of l~a.. IKinnard of Ind., Lane of lInd.. l,por-te o.f Ila., Law.ren.ce of Mas. a f N.Y., I,. Le~ of Tenn.,. lIl’ coin of Mas.Love uf N. Y., J. M,anni of ila., S,.,-so of O., Mau,-y of Tenn~i., McICatry (If Ind(., Mc(!Ka,y of N. C., Mel Keninan of Pla., Mlercer of %‘a., Milfa ofDe.Morso’ Ila., P~arker of N. J.. J. A.

Pe,arce of. Md., 1’ettig,r,w of N. (‘., i’e,yton of Tenn,.. Plhillips of Mas. otts of Ila.. Re(,] of MaRs,,Rnoher of N. C., ltobert~s,on of Va., Rtussell of N. Y.. IV. 1B. Sh,,pard,f N. C., A. II. Sh~(lq,perd of N. C..

Siaade of Vt.. SpanDgler of O., Stan,dife-r of Tn.,Storer o,f O., Tali,, ferro of Y… Un~derwood of Ky., l’in,ton of O., W%hite-of F’a., E,.‘A’hittl,-se(y,~f O., L. Ni’illiamis of N. C., S. Williamsuof Ky..

Wlise of Va. S5. On the 22d of June, 1841, MIr. W. C. Johntooson of Mld., from the Committee on Public Lands, reported a bill to appropriate, for a limited tiiiie, the proceeds of the public lands. On the 6th of July, 1841, the bill was brought to a vote in the Ilouse, and passed by yea.s4
and nays as follows:  s t e n Ds b i. -Mes. Adams of Mass., Allen of Maine, L. W. Andreis of Ky., S. J. Andrews of O., Arnold of Tenn., Aycrigg of N. J., Babcock of N. Y.. Baker of Mass, Barnard of N. Y., Birdseye of N. Y., B~lack of Ila.. Bla,ir of N. Y., Banrdman oDf Conn., Borden of Ia ss.. Botts ofva., Briggs of Mass.. Brockway of Conn., Bronoii of Me., J.

Brown of Ia., Burneil f Mass.,s, (alhoun of M a ss,os. J. Campl)ell of Tenn.. Car,uther~s of Tenni., ChittenDlen of N. Y., Jno. C. Clark of N.

Mn. Stinley N. Clark of N. Y., Cooper of I a., Cowen of O.. Cranston of R’. I., Cravens of Ind., Cushting of Mas-s., ,D,-berr,y of N. C., J.

Edwards of Pa,-Everett of Vt.. Fess;ende,, of MFillmore of N.CY., A.

Lawrence Foster of N. Y., Gates o f N.CY., GeCb try of Tenn., Giddings of 0., Goggin of Is Patrick G. Goo-e of O., Green of Ky., Grei,d’of N. Y..

Ilall of t.. I~laltead of N. J., mabi. S. o stings of Mtss., Ilenry of Ila.,udso lope of MN.Y., Jam I rvii f P.., Win. V. Irhin of Ia., James of I la., WBnc. C-,sdat JofhVt nisbof i f Md.. Isaac D. Jones of Md., J.CP.

Kenedy of Md., Lane of l, LawJreof0, nci” of S Y.a, of.Va F. ofAla, Clifford of N..,Ma Cfin Iamson iason of O., L1ont0Al, o V Mahot o f.ot., Moynard of N. Y.. Skoores of L.Y., SMorit of N. Y., Kin” of O.. L A t Id rrof, of O., Os,bo,rne of Conn.. O,,sle~y of Ky., Plearce o,f Md..‘n dlttorl of O.. Pope of Ky., I-o well of Me., A. Mcft o f l. nd., Ben~j.

]{andlall of’M. Ale-x. ]‘nil f.,Iadlhf N. J., TonyfWrd of N. a., Mcidgay of O.. ModKe y of N el., lr uo,,~ll v oN s of 0., STlttae of Mar o., Alfredah of Id., Jim ot.. ,Slade of Vt., Smiith of Conn., Solr Mtf5d., SI)rigg of’ lKy, S,tan,iy ofN. C.. Sto)keley o-fO., St,,att(,,,,fN..J..

ttnart of N.. Summet.rs of Va., TalIiarerro of Va…,/no. B. I’rhon,,pson of Ky., li h.W. Thonipo.o of Ind., Tilling’hast of lR. I.. Toldrid.f Pla., Tomilinsoin of N. Y., lrihttof Ky., Triunmtull of Cn. Un’,derwoo,d of Ky.. Von Riensselaer o,fN. Y.. Wa~llace otf Ind., Wash,Iin,gton of N.

C.. Edwa~rd D. IV~hite of 1La.,.[(-s. L,. N,I hito of I..Th~os. W.

WNilliams~ of Conn., LeisWilliams, of N. (‘., Jos. L. Willirams of Tenn..

N%,~itlhrop) f M as,Yo,ke of N. J., Agustus Young of Vt., Jno,. Young of N. Y. l16. NAY,s.-.lMessrs. Alftbrd of G.., Ar,!ington of N. C..

Athe,rt-,,n of N. 1I., I’~an,ks o,f Yd.., Beeson of Pa.Bidlack of Pa..

Bo.t,-. of N. Y.. Boy d of K y., Brew s ter of N. Y.. A.~V. Brow n of Ten) i., Milton Brown of Tenn.. B3urke of N. II., Slampson H. Biuth,-r of S.

C.. Wii. Butler of S. C.. NV. O. Butler of Ky., Green ~,’. Caldwell of N.

C., 11. C. Caldwell of S.C. Jio. Camipbe~ll oft S. C., Cary of Va..

Chapmant of Ala., Clifford of Me., Clinton, of N. Y.. ColIes of Va..

DanieIl of N. C., Rt. D. Dav,is of N. Y., J. B. Daws~on of La., Dean of O.. Diniock of Pa… Doan of O., I)oi,, of N. Y., Eastman of N. II.. J. C.

E~dwar-ds ofnMo., tFglbert of N. Y., Ferris of N. Y.. Jn,o. G. Fhu,d of N.Y.. Fornanc(e of Ila.. T. F. Foste-r of (,a., Ganmt,lofG.. Gilumer of Va.,. Wmi. (. Goode of Va., Gordon of N. Y., G,rahi:,n of N. C.. Gus,tin o,f ]‘a., Ilabersh~.,i of Ga,.. Ilarris of Yda.. JohnIlsb ng of (O..

It,ays of Va.. ldieof S. C., lholphin~s of Va.. Ilouck of N.~1., llonston of Al.,, Ilubtard( of Va.. Introf Y.., Jac.k of Ila., C..Joh~ns4on of Tenn.,. J. W. Jones of I-a., Kei’. of Pa,A. K~.i, ne-dy of In(]., King-of Ga.. Lewis of Ala.. Litthefi,.Id of. L~ow,ell of Me., A. McClellan of Ten.

Bbt. M,-ClelIland,,f N. Y., McKay, of N. C., M,cK,on of N. Y., Mallory of Tn., Marchand of Pa., Alfred Marshall of Me., J no. Thompr, a On thle 2)th of December, 1835, Mr. Clay a,gai~n iintro~ducedI his Land Distribuition Bill. it pas,Ised the Senate on the 4th of May, 1836, by yeas tad ntays as follows:oo Yf..-s.Bk of Miss.. Bucdanan of Pa., Clay of Ky., Cl’,yt-n of D,Cittenden of Ky.. DNhos of M.”., Eofo w CCii of(.. Goolsbornugo of Ind., Kent f ofir., Kiight of It. I., 1 e i od of Va., McKrn of Ka Gangum, of N.

C., Nanda],in of DelI., Nicholas of La., Plorte~r of a.H. Pre,,tis of ot., Nreston of S.C., Roblins of I t. I., ob”thl-rd of N.J.. S wift of oa., Tomlimaueon of Conn., Webof MaN ss. b. hite of Tenb o. 25. NAYS.

M,ss,rs. Benton of.5Io.. Calhoun of S. C.. Cuthbert ofGa,,EinL, of Ill., Grund(y of Tenun., Hill of N. II., ttubIard of’N. II., Kin,, of Ala., Iiing oft Ga.. Linn of Mo., M(.,re of Al,.~., Mlorris- of O., Nil”s of Conn. Rives of Ya., R-obin,son of Ill., Ilu.,ile-s of Me.. Shepley, of Me, Tallmiadge ofN. Y., Walker e,f MIiss.,. Wright of N. Y.-.O.. In the IIouse on the 22d of June, 1836, Mr. Ilaws of Ky. moved to lay the bill on the table, which motion was carried by the following vote:-N A. osr. h of P
a, Bel of Va., Bockee of N. Y., I’.o of I… B orden of M. ouldiii of Va., Boyd of Ky., fBn. Y,. of N.If., Bur n of N.. B C.Cabre of N. Y.. Cart,of In. Cisey of Ill.. Chaney of O.. (‘,hapainn of Al,., Chapin of N. Y., Clevelandl of Ga.. Coles of VN. C,:durwoo of. iVa., Cramer f N.Y., C,‘s Bh,Ia di’of N. IV.. Dickersod of N.J.. Doubliday of N. Y., ,)roingoole of %a.. Dunlap of eonn., Fairfield f Me., Fariin of N. Y.. Fowleof N.J., Fry of Pa.. W. K. Fullr of N.hY.. J. t of N V, diranfland of G-i I )g,t V f Nt, Jn Voosik’ of N,a.. ravson of S. C.. Ilaley of Conn.. J. Iall of Me., A. G. IlarrAi on ,.f M-.we s of Ky., 1lltakins of N. C., Haynes of O..

tlot,Iokinof N V Boy of lowarN. Y., tluntsman of Tenn.. Ingham of Conn..

W. JaIsy(on of Ia,., N. Jar k io f Me… Jon.o ofn Va., I. M. .,honof Ky..

C. Jobnson of Tenn., J. W. Jones of Va., B. Jof Pa loyall of VC, J uas on sir of, iaean of V.. M. Mtaer of Ala.. G. N,ec of N. Y., J. Leeo of N. Y..

F. I.,, -f N.MJ., L-nard f N. Y., L o gan of Pa.. I,syall of Va., !,u(-as of Yd.. L~yon of Ala.,.NMartin of Ala., J. Y. Mas,on of Va., W%. Maso,,n of N. Y.,’,. Mlason of Me., May of IIl1., lcKe,,, of N. Y.. 31c1im of Ind.. MNcLene of O., Miller of Ila., Motoeyof N. C.. M-%oore of N. Y., Mo~rgan of Va., MnlhIonbierg of Pa.,‘age 0f N.Y.. Ptt erson of O., Patton of Va,., F. 1 i1.r,‘e of N. It.. D. J. Pea of It. I., aPhelpis of Conn., Pinckney of S. C.. Jno. Reynolds of Ill., Jo,. ileynods’ of N. Y.. Roane of Va., Seyniour of N. Y., SlhieldC 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. Thom.1son of O.. Tou,,ey,of Conn… Town. of G,a.. Ward of N. Y., W’-,rdwoll of N. Y., Webster of O., T. T. Whittlesey of Conna. 104. 522

Page 523 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS. of Fla., Sebfsfian of Ark.,,ward of N. Y., Sbieils of Ill..

Smith of Coin.. Sturgeon of Pa., Uidicwood of Ky., au. ~Val1ker of,i.-.

brf CYS. , iMes rs. Bradbury of Me., Bifler of S. C., CRAsR oe Of S C f 0
e of It. I., Dswson of Da., Pytso of N. J., loun ter o~f Va., Mfiller of N. J, Norris of N. II., Phbelps of Vt.. P-ratt ofo\ C, f Turney of Tenn., Waules of Del., Yulee of Fla  14. ooIECAIPITUI,ATION-. - 1, Democrats and 8 Whigs in the affirmative; 6 Democrats, 1 Free Soiler, and 7 Whigs in the negative. It passed the Ihouse September 17, 1850, without amendment, by yeas and nays tti follows: YE Aa. M,etsrs. Albertson of Mn,d.. At.t of AyE, of.sr.. Alste,n of Al i., G f,nderson o T Andews f N.Y.,,4sbmu f.h., ,‘f Ill., Mighan ofi Midh.. BiMsil of lle., BMr iee, f N.Y., bowead of Al.. o, of t, Porit off Mo.. Biigtqs of N.Y., Briok s of N.Y., Brtai f Mo irown of M.. ul f NJic~h., Burro,ws of N. Y.. Bittlrr of Con,… (?t/,ell of Fla., (a]‘in of Pa., Cusey of Pa.ndle r,of I a., Cleveiland of Conn., Cli,,giman of N. C., Cobb of Ala., Cole of (brw vn 0.. Doty ofWi-..

Duncan,oflMass., Du anha if If. DURKEE of Wis., SEli,t of Coon., S eonthn of i.. Tapptan of y of Ya., seint;7/of Tenn., Gilbert of te.x.Gormnfn, (rCtt of N.Y., GoNuTS of B LS S. A]i of N Y of Mo., Grol nrl o fif t r l of lMo., FIIelOowa P Pf N.EY..Mof Ilarrlao of Al d.,.. larris,f I1..Hoay of N. I..tra1iral of Ka.(,11a,ad ofO., llewarr ofTex., tlublard ofe Aa., Ing, o of Ala.,.iacko ol N Ga.. Johnson of i JULIAN of n oftex., King of N.Y., g. A. nKtof in. Yo a ofr g La.. of ld Na., MA.N (f Mnst tn, w itr edo of N. Y.. McClernad of Il l., Mlei,aneof &d., Mc 1) ao in the S t f t i iliey of NiC., MOrr h iii of Ky, M os S.C., Otis of M0e.. lihelps o f Mo., iof N. Y., Pitnan of ta., utn,,h., of N.uY., of Il l.of N Y., Robinson of Ind., Rose oDf N. Y., & merCn of NrtY. clcy of N. Y., pauldi ng o f N.Y., S DiAnue o f Mich.: SHt,o?pey f C of Tenn.. of Ky., Stephns of Ga., 7byl, rr of O., Thlompsoni of Mliss.. Thurm,an of N. Y., Uncle,-Iill of N. Y., Waldent of N. Y.. W (do f Conn., Wentot orth of Ill., ilahitd of N.Y.. WhitNllsey of O.. Wioians of Tenn., Wog.i of O…i t of C y Yel g of IyI1. 10. NAd p,Ii esrt.hAttso?coer o f N, Y., As,he of N.C.. A Yveret of Va~.. Beale, of Va.. BOOTHT of Conni.. Be~rt of S. C..

Catble) f O., (,tdelof N. C., Otmpbell of O., Carter of O.. Cl’arkAe ofN.

Y., Colcocni’k of S.pC., Dicto aid ino eef P,‘Disney of C, MnO., Dixz on of I t. I., Deer of N. Y., Edmondson f Va., Evas of Mn.. -E,,a?is of O., in’wlet of acs., Fsllper of Me., Gerry Pof Sed Giore o f la., Spardilto of Nd.. HamptC of on ofIlaritmson a grant of al n s ioTenn.s Ilibictard 9 if N. II., tlolladay of Vta. I,’ (I> w ofI’. IIUNTER ofO.. J,.cl,,,srn of N.

Y., Johnson of Tenn., Jones-. of Tentn., Kerr-of Md., Ah’,tg,of It. I..

P. KIiG( of N.Y., Littlefield of Me.. M1ason (,f Ky.. Mfarshall of Ky., Mowlof Va., JlcGaighey of ]ind.. MlcAq’sso,ck of N. Y’., Mc..,,anaha of Ila., M’,cMulleni of V.., 31(Quee.n of S. C., M~I ]e~r of’ O., Mlillson of Va., M41(re of I’d.. Mlorris o,f O.,./d,~o9 of N. Y., Outlb,w of N. C., ]‘ark7er-of Ind.. Pe,e f N. II., Potter of O., R~eecd f Pa., Riobins-of Ila.. R~oss -f Ila.. R,untsey o,f N. Y., Savage~ of Tenn., Sawtelle of Me,Schenck of O., Soddedn of Va., Sleppard of N. C., Stephens of Pa..

Stetson of Me’.,Toma~s of Tenun., Thompson, o,f Pa., Venabl? of N. C,, Vinto,n of O.. Wal(eof S. C.. )Vcttl,,ins of Tenn., Wildrick of N. J., Wloodward of S. C. 75. RF.CAPITUYLATION. 48 Democrats, 48 Whigs,, and 5

Freesoilers in the affirmative; 43, Democrats, 29 Whigs, and 3 Free Sellers in the negative. .Democr’ats in roman, Whigs in italics, Free-.

sellers in SMALL CAPITALS. 4a,n. (If Mld.. Mathews of O., Medi11 of O., Mteriw,ether of Ga., Hi iler of Mo., Newhar,d of Pa., Nisbet of G4a..

Oliver of N.Y.. li.~rnietiter f s eoPartridge fN. Y., Payne ofAla., Pirk a rs ,If S. C.. Ilqu-.er of Ila., Rediug of N. II., Rncbher of N. C., httof S. C., Rli,ggs of N. Y., Rogers~ f S. C.. Rtoosevelt of N. Y., Satf-rd of S.Y.. Saunders of N. C., Sf Nai of N. II., Sh~‘pl,erdi f N. C., Si~ of of Ila., St, uer, rod of N’a, Sum ter of S. C.. Swe,ney of(O., Turne~y of Tenn..i Van B~urtin, of N. 17.. Wa,rd of N. Y.. Wa~rren. of Ga~., Wa~ttorson 1,,f Ten., Welrof O., We’stbroo,k of Pa., J. W. Williams of MNd.. Wieof AVa., Wood of N. Y. 108. On the. 2C?th of Au-list, 1841, the bill paessed .,eSnaeb yeas and nays as follows: .esAr. Arrher of Va., Barrow of La., Bates of Mass., Baadof D,I.Berrien,q’ Ga., Choate of 3a,.,Clay of Ky., Cla,yton. f Del.. Dixon of It. I.. Evans of Me., Gr,Iaham,f N. (.. tandeson of Miss, Iluntington of Conn., Kerr of ‘.%Id., 3 gnum of N. C.. Merrick of Md.. Miller of N.J., MIore,oead rf Ky., Ph,-ps of MVt., P ortr of Milh., Prenti M-s of Vta. RiofLes cNi’lion of Rea..

Sieron of N. I. rmith of Ini., S,, tharl oof N.iJ., oT’allfadge of N. Y., White of Ind., Woodbridge of MIich. 28. N~.-Msr.Allen of O., Benton of’;Mo., Buchanani of Pa.,iu. Cahu,f S. C.. Clay of Ala.. Cuthbert of G.., Fulton of Ark.. Kin!,,of Ali.,’ Li,.n of Mo., Alelobe,rts of Ill., Menlton of La., NichIolson of Tenn,., Pierce of N. 11., Pres ton of S. C., Sevi,;r of Ark.. Simith of Conn., Stuirgeon of Pai.,‘Tappan of 0)., Wilker of Mis.

Williams of Me., Woodbury of N. II., Wright of N. Y., Young of lli.-23.

GRA.N-TS OF PUBL~IC LANDS TO STATES FOR I[AIL.11,OAD PURPOSES. The first I-ill which ever passed Cong,ress granting hind to,t sovereign-state, to aid in the construction of’ railroads, was introduced by Nil D~ougl,as, in the Senate of the United States4, on the 3dl of January, 1850. It was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, and repo)rtedi back biv Mr.

Shields, from that comlnittee, on the 13th of February, 1850, ‘ritli amendments. As reported, it was entitled “A bill granting the right of way and makingi a donation of land to the state of Illinjois,, in aid of th,e construction of the Central Railroad.” The bill having been amended, on motion of Mr. King of Ala., so as to give the same rig,hts and privileges to the states of Alabama and Mississippi, to, aid in exteniding(, the same to Mobile, Ala., its title was amended in the Senate, in which shape it passed the liousee so that, as it became a law, it was entitled An act granting the right of way and making a grant of land to the states of Illiiois, Mississippi, and Alabama, in aid of the construction of a railroad from Chicago to Mobile.” It made a -,rant of alternate sections for six sections in width, on each side of said road, and increased the price of the remaining sections to not less than double the minimum price of the public lands when sold, and provided f(ir carrying the mails on the road for such price as Congress may by law direct. Nuiiil)er of acres contoi ndd in grant:-h 2,5950~-,0o. The I~ill was approved September 20, 1850, and may be found in vol. 9, Statutes at Large, p. 466. It p. assed the Se nated the buildi2d of t ray, 1850, by yeas and nays as follows: YEAs. Messrs. Atchison of Mo.. Badger of N. C., Bell of Tenis.. Benton of Mo.. Borland of Ark.. Brig,ht of Ind., Cuoacs ~of Mirh., (“eseii of O., Davis of Miss.. Dodge of Wis.. Dodge I of Is., Douglas of Ill., Downs of La., Foote of Mis.s.. Io”stosn of Tex., Joacu of la., King of Ala., Manigum of N. C., Morto Iw Duiring the 32d Congress, the following acts, uf a similar cha,-racter, passed: “An act granting the right of way to the -state of Missouri, and at portion of the publie lands, to aid in the construction of certain railroads in ad sidtate.” This bill aided the building of two roads, with at 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 2d1 I s -S 5.-)f

Page 524 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ( iy of Decenmber, 1851, by Mr. Atchison, Democrat, of Mio.; and in the House on the 10th of the same monuth, 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 e,f 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 lhouse 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(-rats against it. “An act granting the right of wav and aiiiking a grant of land to the states of Arkansas and Missouri, to aid in the construction of a railroad from a point on the Mississippi, 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,” (approved 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 IHouse, by Mr. Johnson of Ark., on the 7th of January, 1852. It passed that body on the 27th of August, 1852, and in thl Senate, without a division, on the 5th cof ebll lary, 1853. The yeas and nays were had upon it in the I touse. During the 33d Congress bu t one ra ilroad land bill was passed, and that was t. bill to aid the territory of Minnesota in the construction of a railroad therein.

The grant of land in this was identical with that contained in the other railroad land bills. This bill was passed in the IHouse on the 20th of June, 1854; in the Senate, 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 repealed, 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 Ilouse, 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 i Free Soiler against it. Grants of Land by Tlhiify-Fourth Cmgress for Railroad Purposes. FIRST SESSION. 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 Ilouse. were reported by the IIouse Committee on Public Lands, 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 h rpte d. Date of passage Date of passage Iate of No. of acres grants were made. emoraced. Jr wom reported. iu the louse.

in the Senate. approval of act. in earh grant. ….~~~~~ __._.. _

Iowa……4 Mr. Bennett, of New York, May 8, 1856. May 9, 1856. May 15, 1856. 3.45(i,000 Florida and Alabama. 4 ” ” 14, ” ” 15, ” ” 17,’

]1,814.400 Alabama………. 2 Mr. Cobb, of Alabama, ” 21, ” ” 29, ” June 3, “,(;32.9185 L,ouisiana,… 3 Mr. Bennett, of New York. ” 28, ” ” ” ” “

” ” 1.602.560 Wisconsin,… 2 ” ” ” 21, ” ” ” ” ” ” ” 1.62,800 Michigan..

3 Mr.Walbridge, of Michigan.’ 27, ” ” ” ” ” ” 3 096,09(-‘ Mississippi,…

3 Mr. Bennett, of New York, Aug. 6, ” Aug. 8, ” Aug.11, ” 1,687.530

Georgia to Mobile, with a branch from Euft,la to Moitgomery. The bill, as amended, D oasse(a the Ilouse on the 2d of March, 1857, by yeas and nay as as folloTws: YEAs. Messrs. Allen, B,ll. B.,rbour, Barclay, It?nry B,7,.Tntt. liellery S. Ben Lett. l eso n, Biligh,ur.t, lisl,op, Sa13ie.

Brasmihaw, Brentm Son i, Boom,. St noSnt,en, Bu-lingame, Le,. D.

(Ctnp,eUll, Caruthers. (,Chaffe,, Ezra Cl(ark, Omi1s, Uo,,de, Cragin, Tim,othy Davis. Dean, Denver, Dicl,-so),, Edie, Ev,N’ANs. [IIENRY Al.

FUILLER, Gra.rger, Gr(,enwood. Au-ustus!!all, Trhomilas L. IIarris, T’h.omnas R. IIortol, Hu,,- ton, Kelley, Kelsey, KEN-.ETT. K’ing, Knapp, A~ni,ght, Knowlt(,, V,LAKE;. Leiter, )face, AI,EX.INDFR K.

MNl.RSI.AI.I,,:amuel S. Mlarshall, AMc(,arty, Killan Miller, Millward.

VN7,hols, t”tel, Peck, Peltbm, Plenning,ton. Pettit, Pile, Iringlee.

Qu?itn an. R,,bbi,,s, Roberts, lRust, ~bin, l,ge, lpp, Seward, Shorter.

Williamii It. Smith, Thoriingt,,n. Th’ursto7, Tr,fton, U,‘DP,IWI)Oo.

VAI,K, lVal,eman, U1lbridae, IValdron. Wa. lker. (.~,dwudlaider C.

JVashburz, Elihu B. Ifashblur,. l0ttson, -lelch Wells. WiHllians, 1{clm 1.ff, lldtwoi-th.-87. NAYs.-.Mele3Srs..Abri~ht, Biwigham, Bocock, Branch.

13urinett, Cadwalader, James H. C(mpbell. CARLILE, Caskie, ~~‘illiamson It. W’. Co,blb, O,Ifux, Cralig,e. Crawford, CULLE,i, Cunr bach, Dowdle1ll, DUNN, Elliot, Faulkner, lh’Iigler, Florene, Gallo,w,y. Fliutrlan, J.

MORRISON HARRIS, HAVEN, oll,o)way, Valentine B. Hortbn, Hlouston, Jewett, G. W. Jones, Letcher, L,umpkin. IwUMPIIR:Y M.ARSHALL. McMulIlii.NI.Qu~een.

Smith Miller, Millson, M,organ, Mlott, Murray, Andrew Oliver, Orr, P’AIN.

ter-y. Powell, PURYEAR, IIICAUD, Ruffin, Scott, Samuel A. Snit,h, William Smith, Spinnzer. Stanton, Stewart, Stranahan, Tappan, Israel W~ashburne, Winslow, Wood, ZOLLICOio F. 60. 60 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and 9 Sill 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 l)y Mr. Toombs of Ga., entitled ” a bill granting 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, CRSTTENDEN, Dodge, Douglas. Durkee, Fish, Filt h, F (ote. Fster, Geyer, Green, Iver.son, James, Johnson. Jones, M1all ry. Ao-ris, Pearce.

Rusk. Sehbasti,in, Seward, Stewart, Toombs, Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wtilson, Yulee.-32. NAYs.-IMessrs. lBiggs, Bigler, Brodhead, Clay, iEvans, IIunter, Mason, Pugh, Reed. Slidell.-o10. 21 Democrats, 9 Republicans and 2 Filnlmore 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 a inake a like grant to the state of Alabama to aid in the extension of the Savannah and Al:bany Railroad Company, from the line of I 524

Page 525 view page image

PUBLIC LANDS.. of this act, may be expended for the purchase of lands for sites or experimental farms, whenever authorized by thue respective legislatures of said states. Sicnfd. No portion of said fund, nor the interest thereon, shall be applied. directly or indirectly, under any pretence, whatewv,r. to the purchase, erection, preservation, or repair of nty building or buildings. Thrid. Any state which may take and claim the benefit of the provisions of this act shall provide, within five years, at least not less than one college, as described in the fourt, 1section of this act, or the grant to such state shall ease; and sa id state shall be bound to pay the United States the amounit reeivtcl of any lands previously sold, and that the title to purchasers under the state shall be valid. lbitrth. An annual report shall be made regarding the progress o f each college, recording any improvements andl experiments made, with their cost and results, and such other matters as may be supposed useful-one copy of which shall be transmitted by mail free. by each, to all the other colleges which may be endowed undler the provisions of this act, and to the Smithsonian Institution, and the agricultural department of the Patent Office at Washington. FPflh. When lands shall be selected fioni those which have been raised to double the minimum price, in conseqAence of railroad grants, they shall be computed to the state so selecting at double the quantity. nr. Cobb of Alabama, in a speech against the bill, furnishes the fnilowing tabular statement of land to be appropriated by this bill: more Americans in the affirmative; 22 Republicans, 28

Democrats, and 10 Fillmore Americans in the nega tive. Democrats ilk ronman, Republicans in italic, and Fillmnore Americans in SMALL CAPS. The amendment of the House was agreed to 1)v the Senate, and the bill approved March, ., 1857. In all of these classifications of N-n)tes, the senators, meml)ers, &c., are classified(l according to the political position they occupied at the time of each vote. The old li n e Wchig s in the last Congress who supported Mr. Buchanan are classified as Democrats. The following bill was reported from the Committee on P’ubli( Lan,ds il the HIouse of Representatives. It was brought to a vote on the 22d of April, 1858. A bill donating public lands to the several states which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the me chanic arts. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represen,tatives of the United States of America in C,ngress assemibled,‘I’hat there be granted to the several states. for the purpose ht reinafter mentioned. five millions nine hundred and twenty thousand acres of land, to be apportioned to each state a quantity equal to twenty thousand acres for each senator and representative in Congress, to which the states are now t respectively entitled. Sec. 2. And be itfurther enacted, That the land aforesaid, after being surveyed, shall be apportioned to the several states. in sections or subdivisions of sections, not less than one quarter of a section; and whenever there are public lands in a state worth $1.25 per acre, (the value of said lands to be determined by the governor of said state), the quantity to which sai d state s hall be entitled shall be selected from such lands; and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby directed to issue to those states in which there are no public lands of the value of $1.25
per acre, land scrip to the amount of their distributive shares in acres under the provisions of this act, said scrip to be sold by said states, and the proceeds thereof to be applied to the uses and purposes prescribed in this act, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever: Prnided, That in no case shall any state to which land scrip may thus be issued, be allowed to locate the same within the limits of any other state, but their assignees may thus locate said land scrip upon any of the unappropriated lands of the United States, subject to private entry. Sec. 3. And be it farther enactd. That all the expenses of management and superintendence of said lands, previous to their sales, and all expenses icurred in the management and disbursement of the moneys which may be received therefrom, shall be paid by the states to which they may belong out of the treasury of said states, so that the entire proceeds of the sale of said lands shall be applied without any diminution whatever to the purposes hereiunafter mentioned. Sec. 4. And be itfurther enacted. That all moneys dlerived M from the sale of the lands aforesaid by the states to which l the lands are apportioned. and from the sales of land scrip heieinbefore provided for, sh all be invested in stocks of the United States, or of the states. or some other safe stocks, yielding not less than five per centum upon the par value of said stocks; and that the moneys so invested shall1
constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which shall re - main for ever unliminished (except so far as may be provided in section fifth of this act), aid the interest of whi(ch shall be i tviolably appropriated. by each state which may tatke and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support. and maintenance of at least one college where the leai t otj,t shall be, without exclu(ing other scientific or classical studies, to teach such brallyhes of learning as are related to agriculture and the waeshansic arts, in sueh maner the legislatures of the states may respet-tively prescribe. in order to promote the liberal and prtial education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits anld professions in life. Sect. 5. t,r(l be it.f,ther eacted. Tha t the g,rat of land and land (-arip herety authorized s hall be mad, on tihe ttllow,insg conditi,~s. to wviich. as,ell as to the previaim.s hereinbefe o nained, o t he pre vioud asseni t of the several states shrll be signifie,d by le,islative acts: Fir.t. If ally portion of the fund invested, as provided bv th e fareg aing section, or any portion of the intere st there on shall, by any act ions or Woniniten.y. be diminished or lo’st, it shall he rep,laced by the state to which it belongs. so that the ca,pital of the fund shall remain t,ir ever undiminished: and the annual interest shall be regularly applied, without diminution, to the purposes mentioned in the fourth sectionl of this act, except that a sum, not exce eding ten per lcentum upon the amount received by any state under the provisions 3 -.000 8.030 8,000 7.2-50 1.200 4.750 46,000 6,857 47,000

2.220 11,600 61.352 45,500 28.000 58.000 50.320 47.147 40,431 39.964

37.680 44,000 33,809 55,405 67.380 52,198 56,243 59.268 325,520 56,914

53.9;24 448.691 141.839 220,196 126,547 196,295 126. 283 342,438 a sa ._

22,400,000 5,139,200 5,120.000 4.640.000 768.000 3,040 000 29 4400.0O

4.384.640 30,080,000 1,356;,800 7,040.000 39,265,280 29.120.000 17.920.000

37,120.000 32,462 080 31.232,000 29.715.840 25.57 6,9C0 24,115.200

28,160,000 21.637,760 35,459.200 43,123.200 33.4916,320 35,995,520

37,131.520 208.332.800 32,584,960 34,511,360 287.1662.240 90.77 6.960

140.925.440 80,990.080 125,ti28,800 80,82 1,120 219,1t; 0.320 M laine..

New Itampshire Vermon t Mlassahusetts Rho)de Island. Connecticut New York New Jersey IPennsylvania. D)elaware Maryland Virginia… North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Alabama …issiippi.. Louisiana.. Ohio…. Kentucky Tennessee Indiana… Illinois Missouri Arkansas Mi,.higan Florida Texas Iowa…. Wiscousin California MNlinn,esota Utah…. W.,ashington. Oregon..

Kansas… Nebraska.. The bill was passed by yeas and nays as follows: 

YEa,S-Me,ssrs. Abbott, Adrain. Ahl, An,,rews, Bennett, Bililha,m,, Bishop.

Blair. Bliss. B3owie, Br-,,yt,,n. B,ffinton, Burlingame. Burroughs.

Catmpbell. Case. Chaflee. Fza Clarl, Claw.on. Clrork B. Cochrane, (}<*/~ux, (; ils, Cor n ing, Coeode, C(ragin. Curtis, Datrerll, D]V[is of Maty]ad. Davis of Mlass, [Davis of love, Daw,es. De(ta. V/c’. d, Durfee, Edie. Farnsw,,rthl, Fenton. FWiny, Gio.,ter. 6’,‘dd/vgs, l,,an, prei,cu, (asoo fn. G0 mnG er. R,,bt. 1.itil 1’ l. J. MORRISONe IIARRIS, -Ilski, lnatdh. b. gt, a. 1yler. Kelvlgi, A,lsey, Ail/)~)e, Ait)pp. Leacl.

Lo’j,,y, ih’Kil,,in, latya )PIREY Crtig ~. ISXLL. AN.-Y - RI,n.

M1,r1’.ill,, E. Joy F,ris, 1 I. Ios. r s e. O. br. M se. y. Olin. I’,rl,er l’.:ttit. Pi e.Z. Ule. At rcia n ee. RI ( Y. It, lily. Ritchie, Ro,bbins, Ro,berts. Rh’oyce. JlnSsell. Weward..J. S;~erma1, J. ]. Sh erm,an,,Si(‘kles. Stant,m, YIT(p,,,n, 7’hlty(,r-. Theamps,m, !bmip’-i~s, U.I)NDERWOOD. W,,,ee, t17zlIdrt,n, W1,,to,n, E. B. 11,shlburn, J.

}[tslhburn..r., Whites, I’hitely, Wilson, Wood, Wortendyke, A. IL Wright, and ZOLLICOFFFR-106. I i .52t, ‘A I ,.Z .5 I 1.I 4 6 3 3 11 2 4 33 5 25 1

6 13 8 6 8 7 5 4 21 10 10 11 9 7 2 4 1 2 2 3 2 160,000 100.000 100,000

2(jO.000 80,000 120.000 700.000 140,000 540.000 60.000 160,000 300,000

200,000 160,000 200.000 180,000 140.000 120,000 460,000 240,000 240,000

260,000 220.000 180.000 80.000 120.000 f0.000 80,000 80.000 100,000 80,000

I I 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 st.t“‘pd t..”.. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2

Page 526 view page image

TIHE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. NATYs-Metsrs. AN Atkins, Avery,‘srkeslale, Bi-!

Again, on the same day, this bill being still linghurst. Bocock, Blonham.

Branch. Bryan, Burnett, C’skie, -, I’hapman, John B. Clark, Clay.

Clingman, Cobb, Joln C,,ch-under consideration, Sir. Cl.iy, a’luding to rane, Cockerill, Cox, James Craig, Burton Craire, Crawf~l. the Spanish minister, sai(d: Curry, Davi(dson, Davis of In,diana. Dewart, Dowdlell.d n i (r C upect n the. irundson. Elliott, English, EUIs, Fulkner, F.a tnudso.

Eliot, nflis. ESTI, Fulker i’orel~e Ga*” lie (M~r. C’.) would not treat wfith disrespect even the ~~trel e Gens~ool trelg,,Groe C.dminister of Ferdlinand, whose cause lis bill was intended tall., s (4 r, G,wree IL,Hutnwood. ,;ls()lto benefit; he is a faithful niste i f. not stisfied with Jenin.Jeet. eos. I,. Jones. J.LL Claoitn cy Jones, t Ow Jenkins, Jewett. Geo. W o. Jones. J. Glani-y Jones, O0.,n n!aking representations to the foreign department, he allo Sel,es, fieitt, Kelly, Lavwrence, Leidy, Leiter, ehe a attends the proceedings of the Supreme Court to watch its Mc~uee. Maso. Mile. M i llr, Milo,Monigoi ey. More. .%[cQueeii. Mason.

31iles. -Iille, lls, ot(oey ooe leesins; he affn rnts but so many proofs of the filelity foi J. N. Morris,. Aott. Nit)i,k. lVich-ls. Pendiletoni, llevto, ywhich the represent.itives of Spain haive walwavs be i> Ihelps, Phillips, Potter, Quitman,‘leaa, tiuffinh. Santgh1ditire ‘iguiashed. Aind how mortif],ing is it, sir, to’hear of the Il’,ae, ScPalesi,; Scotte, Quai t mbarn i hawg, Ifi. M.n thaw honorary rewardls and titles, and so forth, granted ir these Shorter, Singleton, Wm. Smith, piner, Stallworth,odc Stephens, Stev, ono,James A. Stewart. Tal bot. Leo. Ttyl, r the besltowal of some honor (il this faithful representative TRIPPF, lvard. W \a rren. W
atkins, \inUSlow, ICOODSON, and of his majesty; and itf this bill passes which is now bfore, o u, I have no doubt he will receive some new honor for his John V. Wrigh-1. further success.. further success.?’ The bill has not yet been brought to a vote in the Sen ate. Mr. Clay concluded his speech thus: Quitman, John A., of Mississippi. ” Let us put all these statutes out of our way except that quitman,= ~~~~~~ of 179. lVhen was that passed? At a moment when the SPEECH ON THE BILL TO REPEAL THE NEU-enthusiasm of liberty ran through the country with elec tric rapidity; wheni the whole country en masse was ready TRALITY LAW ~S. to lend a hand and aid the French nation in their struggle, THzE leading features of the eight sections General Washington, revered namie! the father of hiscouni ofthe act of April 20, 1818ltry, could hardly arrest tl]is ilclination.

Yet, under such of the act of April 20, 1818, which my bill c.ircumsta,nces, the act of 1794 was found abundantly sumt p)roposes to repeal, are, in my opinion, not cient. There was. then, no gratuitous assumption of neu only unnecessary and impolitic, but are e tral ets. For twenty years thatact h been fun si cient.‘But some keen-sighted. sagacious foreign iinistr pugnant to the intention of the Constitution, f,,ds out that it is not sufficient, and the act of 1817 is and must be regarded( as infringements of the pnsied That act we fid eonlenied by tle universal 111~~~~. O,…timent of the country; and I hope it will receive further personal rights of the citizen. This act, as condemnation by the vote of the llouse this day.” may be shown by the debates at the time o In the course of h same debate Mr In the course of.tre, same debate, M~r. Re its passage, is supposed to have been suggest bertson so itimate the c e that fr bertson atlso intimated the chiarge that foreiT,-t ed by the representatives of European courts, ifluence more than oestic poly pr influence,, more than domestic policy, pro for the purpose of crippling the practical sv-uced the pass e of tht lw le argues’., ^ l > -

(l~~~ucedl thlepassagre of that law. IIe argues:  pathy manifested by the people of the Unitted “This migtht be a sufflcienit ground for the ministers,f, States in favor of some of the Spanish colonies Portugl,. of England. and of France to proceed upont: l,t in America then struggling for their freedom. shall we sympathlize in their feelings on the sub,jet, nd }e iduced by them to pass acts to shacnkle our eiies h!,m Mr. Clay, then Speaker of the hiouse, and at induced y then to ptas nts to shikl our it,t i, so eas to tra,(-tl their toamnstr(es to a(nl warni advocate of the cause of the young re-lity to the cause of any peoil)le who art, engrag,ed in a t publics, descended from the Speaker’s chair, le to ameliorate tirolitio by changing thir rn of ‘ government? It does not appeaoir now that that act was and strenuously opposed some of the pros vi-passel so muh wn ith a vie w to I, w hat is jtst to olv, sions of the act, denouncing them as placing as to accomoe the views of fSireigu nations.” our government in the attitude of an ally of But, alas! European ideas were too much European despotism, and an enemy to the ex-venerated; European influence prevailed,:tud tension of liberal political institutions on this this unfortunate system was engrafted upon us.

continent. That bold and sagacious statesThe o)bjections to this act, as interpreted in nman saw the deep schemes of European sove-our day, are: reigns whose colonial possessions in America Its creation of constructive crilme were jeopardized, and dared to assail the sui-Its denial of the right of expatriation, and, cidal policy attempted to be foisted upon us, under certain circumstances, of emigration under the specious pretence of non-interfe- even; rence and national morality. In the Ilistorv Its proli)ition of the right of the citizen, in of Congress, published by Gales & Seaton, some caises, to avail himself of the rewards of ). 1403, in reference to the discussion of this his skill, his ingenuity, or his labor )ill, I find the following:- Its loading with oinerous burdens, and pin “MNr. Clay offered some general remarks on the offensive ishing with severe enalties, fair comm)ercial nature of the bill, which he said, instead of an act to en-fi rnnr1 f)rce neutrality, ought to he entitled an act for the benefit enterprises and specultions of his majesty the King of Spain.” Its conferring upon the P’resident and the Again on the 18th of March, it is reported collectors of ports pow-ers inconsistent with o f Mr. Clay :- the principles and dangerous to Ehe institti of Mr. Clay:-

~~~~~tic)ns of our country; ‘In the threshold of this discussion, he confessed he d id ) mia tu cout. not like much the origin of that act.

There had been some Its branding as criminal, acts noule, ge,ldisclosures-not in an official form, but in such shape as to rols and patriotic in themselves; entitle them to credence-that shoved that act to have been a f* the result of a te.sing on the part tI foreign agents in this 1 Its 1ssumin to treat the citizens of a fre, cosuntry, which he regretted to have seen. But from what-country as the subjects or property of the g,~ ever source it sprung, if it was an act necessary to preserve vemment the neutral relations of the country, it oughth to be retained-; beut this he lenied.“D If tll these obnoxious features do not appear “In its provisions it went beyond the otligations of the distinctly in the act, the constrtuction which United Statcs to other powers, and that part of it was u n-, 1 1 precedented in any nation which compelled citizens of them United States to give bonds not to commit acts without the the judges of the Supreme Court, has marked jurisdiction of the United States, which it is the business them ilt) old atid unmistakable outlines. of foreign muions, and not of this government, to guard against?”’ There is, however, at the start, a still more 526

Page 527 view page image

QUITMAN, JOHIN A serious oibjection to the whole of this legisla- }iot even an offence. Now, the law of na. tion. It is not only not warranted by the tions, even as known and acted upon iii Constitution-it is an attempt to take awayv Euroipe where the government, generally, ha from a free people rights which they half’ enitire control over the citizen, or rather the never surrendered. It is, to say the least, sil,ject-there, I repeat, the law of nations founded on an entire misconception of the re-does not regard it as tin offence for the citizeL latioiis which exist between the government to take service uinder a foreign government at atud the people under our peculiar system. war with a friendly power. The usage is the This federal government is a limited one. reverse. Vattel, 1). 3, ch. 7, sec. 110, gives the Constituted by the states in their s overe ign rul ll: example: capacity, it possesses no powers but those “Ti quarrelsof anotiher cannot deprive nie of the fro, clearly delegated to it in the compact of union di sp i,,ition of nmy rights in the pursuit of measures which I tjudge adv,antag,eou,s to my country. Thrfr,when it i.’[‘his character of our government is not left ac ge sdv.ta n ea i to uny cou.itrv e r it is C:, a Custom In a 11.1ti()1. ini ordier for employing snd txercising to inference: it is stamped in express words its subjects, to peirnit levies of troops in faoor of a power upon the instrument that created it There in,hiom it i plas to ofid. th enemy of this power blt i.

out icannot call these permis.ion s hostilities lielcnnot even it rests, and casuistry cannot blot it ot. he (ltmT with any rirht, that the like should be giarted hitns. powers not delegated are reserved.” ” The &c. , The Switzers grant levies of troops to wlhon they uertion of certain rights shall not be con please, and. iobody has thought proper to quarrel with theixn ,mumiieration of certain righlts shall not be con- -o, this ea. strrued to deny or disp.ara,e others retained by trued to denv;or I If, then it be not an offence against the law the pe))le.” liWhen, therefore, it is proposet l nin ce coint t iea of nations, even according to tile Europea.n t,) legislate upon any subject, the first inquiry ntl stte o must le, Whcther that subject is within the ecotde, for the citizen of any neutral state to must tbe, whether that subiect is with~in th~e juridictio of Conres. The roadet ke service under a belligerenit nation, what .jurisdiction of Cong,ress. The broadest con- structini d(-1otpeen htonstitutional power has Congress to prohibit s,tructioniiit does not pretend that crimes and oistlem oss e ally, are within the uis the right of a free Anierican citizen to lend )Yiisdlemiianors, generally, are within the 1uis .ui-his intellect, his wealth, or his sword, to any diction of the federal government. Whence itellet, his wealth, or his sr to any ed the powers ained nder cause which hlie believes to be just? And yet then. are derived the powers claimed under the first and second sections of the act of 181$ the act in q-uestion?‘To what clause cl h thfis llSeodbetn of the tato 1X (othe ac-t iii tjution? To what clausoue of the declare the exercise of this right to be a high (‘onstitution do you trace them? Tl nie aid worthy of fine and iniprisonnient. semiblance of a warrant for them to be found le td th in and I let The third, fifth,’

eighith, nini-th, and eleventlh ill the Co~nstitution, unless they be includedthr,ffh ihhnit,adee-tt iini the Constitution n un less they be included sections of the act are obnoxious to objections in the power to define and puinish “off)ices in th ile p ertleofine and. Ifh g of a similar character. They, in substance, ,gainst the law of nationsq.” If the grant of agains the,wo n acotioted If tha e iat of forbid, under severe penalties, the selling, fitpower be not contained in that clause, it is t tiDg out, armiing, furnishing, or adding to the not to be found in any place. The act, to be siot to be l~~~~~ fot to brce of any ship or vessel intended to be emdefinedd and punishe’d, must be an ofncfoeofaysp rvse nendeolc em defintbed and puotisled must be ane offfeace ]ployed in the service of any foreign state, or acgainst the law of satioss. To offences of that t to cruise or commit hostilities against the citi(class is this pows,er limited; to them alone can itbeapplied. Willitbepretended, that uiider zens, sujects, or property of any freign thi s power to define and punish, C ongress has state; and, furthermore, they invest the Pres,i denit and the collectors of ports with extraor power to go out of the law of nations, and din.-try powers, to seize and detain suspected mitake offences or crimes of those acts which, dnary powers to seize and detain suspected l)y the oflaw cf nations, are not condeonied vessels. Now, many of these acts if not all by the law of nations, are not condemniied? o hm hsmd ri-ia tdsvrl If so, the whole field of criminal jurisprudence of theml, thus matle criminal ad severely is thrown open to federal legislation, and the pia, are n strt conformity ith the rights specification of a limitation becomes absur f sicutratls, acknowledtged by the law of na specfictio of Iinittio becmesabsrd.tions. The property thus risked may, if seized For instance, the sale of breadstuffs, or of tbyns Tellpgoperty tIus riskedm eii clothing, by one of our citizens, to a nation at by t belligeret, be cofisct; ut the newar with a friendly power, is not forbiddet trality of the country whose citizens are iily tile law of nations. Will it be assuniedl gaged in such trade hlas never been’considered as violated thereby. V.attel, in tlic samie c()ithen, that Congress, under the power abov olated thery. att, in t a c I ii~~~~~~exioin, proceeds thus:(luoted, can make such a sale a penal offenceeds thus? Why can this not be done? Because the act “Further, it may be affirmed, on the same principhXs. th.at is; not an offence agains the law of nations. if a nation trades in arms. timber, ships, military s.

1is not an offence against the law of nations &c., 1 catnnot take iit amiss that it sells such things to iy That law is referred to in the Constitution IS enemy. proviled it does not refuse to sell them to mle also. -t positive existence. No authority is given It carries on its trade without any desi,gn of injuriling nme: itw~~~~~. ~~~~~and in continuing it thw ae as if I wa not eng.,ged il to) (congress to alter or chlange it, or to create war, that nation gives me no just cause of complaint. ** )Iew offences. Judging the act of 1818 byi, It is certain that. as they have no part in my quarrel, tbh,, are under no obligations to abandon their trade.

that thl,these rules, its leading provisions are clearly aoi frn ihin t n th te tt; without the pale of the authority of Congress. war. * They only exercise a X’ght which they mre urdea r ‘I’he very title of the act, as if in contempt of no obligations of sacrificing to me” the limitations of the Constitution, proclaims The question, then, recurs, has Congress a it an usurpation. Instead of an act to define right to brand as criminal, acts clearly perand punish offences against the law of nations, mitted by the law of nations? it purports to be “An act for the punishment The sixth section of the act proposed to be of certain crimes against the Iiuted States.” repealed, although in its phraseology, and Like the alien and sedition laws, it attempts still more in the interpretation which judicial to make a crime of that which was before advocates of constructive powers have placed ti2T

Page 528 view page image

TIlE POLI TICAL TE_,T-BOOK. watch and guard them from secret as well as open foes. Even if the penal laws which I have arraigned were strictly constitutional, I wol(l still oppose them as unwise, impolitic, andt against the genius of our free institutions. They are founded upon the false assumption that the government should direct the morals and control the sentiment of the people. It is sheer political hypocrisy, or, at least, selfstultification, to crown with honor the memory tof the good man Lafayette, whose portrait is deemed worthy to decorate this republican hall, in company with that of our own Washington, in our gratitude for the aid which, in despite of his country’s laws, he rendered us in the dark hour of our revolutionary struggle, if we are by legislation to stigmatize as criminal the efforts of our own citizens, to bear assistance to a neighboring people, groaning under the yoke of an iron despotism-a despotism to which the condition of our ancestors was almost a state of freedom. ;pon it, it is more o(li,)us to the unaffected impulses of the American heart than any of th e others, is still no t so palpablv at variance acith the rights of neutrals, conceded by the laws of nations. T
his section forbids, under severe penalties, any person within our terri..

tory to begin, set on fo)ot, provide, or prepare the means for any military expedit ion or ent erprise to be carried from this countrv against the territories of adny foreign prince or people with wthom wr e ar e at peace. Th is clause, if strictly c onstrued, according to t he rules which should gov ern the interpretation of penal statutes, means only to forbid military association s in the UIn ited States, intended to proceed from thence in full military organization; but it has been c onstrued bt gov ernment offici als, s exec uti ve and judicial, to embrace in its penal denunci ations those who separately, as private individual s, and without military organization, may choose to leave our c ountry, with or without i armts, i to mie tovrether elsewhere, t or th e purpose of aidhg Dtnn oppressed people to achieve their political independence. Stich acts, on the part of citizens, d o not involve the neutrality of wrour country; therefore, penal laws to punish them alre not only beyond the scope of Conyressioal powers, bu t are also infringerment s on t he unques ti onable right of the citizen as wuell to expatriate himself, and unite his fort unes with thos e of another p oli - tical community, a s t era to emigrate to foreign lands, and ther e follow pursuits which may not b e i nconsistent with his allegiance to his country. I have thus, Mr. Ch airman, i n this brief a rgument, considered the constitutionality of this law, wi th reference to the European views of the law of nations. I have shown that the act of 1818 restrains individual rights, private enterprise, and personal liberty, beyond the requirements of the international code; and, consequently, is without the pale of Congressional powers. The power “to define and punish offences against the law of nations” was confided by the Constitution to Congress, not to the executive or judiciary, for the sole purpose of preventing individuals from compromising, the neutrality of the United States. It was never intended to control the private enterprises or speculations of the people.

So far, then, as these enterprises do not, accordin,, to the established international code, inval(ve the neutrality of the government, it is powerless to restrain them, because the right to do so has never been delegated. The government is responsible to the citizen, but not for him.

Ile inay commit, without responsibility to any earthly powter, many deeds Mwhich the governmlenlt cannot s~o commit. The latter is always resopn sibule. The American citizen sits enthroned within tihe charmled circle of Iris reserved rig hts, the monarch of his own actions. The rese rvation of these individual rights is the noblest feature of our system; and he is its worst enemy w~ho, by legislative usurpation or j udicial construction, would ~eek to impair them. The true patriot should Railroad to the Pacific. ON the 19th of February, 1855, a bill was brought to a vote, in the Senate, for the construction of a Northern, a Southern, and a Central Pacific Railroad. Its origin was this. It was introduced by Senator Douglas, and referred to the Select Committee on the Pacific Railroad. Mr.

Gwin reported back a substitute for it, which was the same bill which he had reported the session before. The bill was passed by the following vote: YEAS.-Messrs. Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Dodge of Wia., Dodge of lo., Douglas, Foot, GILLETTE, Gwin, Hamlin, James, Jo,hnson, J,mes of lo., Jones of Tenn.. Morton, Rusk,,&bastian, Seward. Shelds. Slidell. Stuart, Toucey, Wade, Weller. NAYS.-Messrs. Adams, Allen, Bayard, Brainard, Brodhead. Browon, Butler, CIASE, Clay, Clayton, Dawson, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter-, Mason, Pearce, Pratt, SUMNER, Thompson of Ky., Wells. Democrats in italics; Free Soilers in SMALL CAPS; Whigs in roman. The classification politically in both houses of the vote on the Pacific Railroad is according to the position of members as they were elected. Some of them who are marked Democrats and Whigs had, about that time, undergone a political change, and united themselves with the American party. This bill was never acted upon by the Ilouse. During the second session of the 33d Congress a bill for the establishment of telegraphic and railroad communication, from the Atlantic States to the:Pacific Ocean, came near passing the House. It had been reported from a select committee on the sulbject, by Mr. McDougall of California. The bill proposed to grant, for the purpose of aiding in construction of three roads to the Pacific, alternate sections of land, for twelve miles in width, on each side of said roads; and the following vote, on the 22d of January, 1855, was one of the many test votes upon the bill. It was on a motion to recommit the bill to the 628

Page 529 view page image

RAILROAD TO THE PACIFIC. ritory and other public property of the United States,’ your committee cannot doubt. In making this assertion, they hold to the rule of strict construction, and that this power, like all the other powers of the government, is a trus t p ower, and, as such, is strictly limited by the nature and object of the trust. In this case, the rule requires that the lands and other public property of the United States should be disposed of to the best advantage; and where that can be done by contributing a portion to works which would make the residue equally or more valuable than the whole would be without it, as is supposed, they hold it would be strictly within the rule. Your committee go further. They are of the opinion, not only that Congress has the right to contribute to the extent stated, in such cases, but that it is in duty bound to do so, as the representative of a part of the proprietors of the land to be benefited. It would be neither just nor fair for it to stand by and realize the a dvantage the would derive from this work, without contributing a due proportion towards its construction. It would be still lesg justifiable to refuse to contribute, if its effect would be to defeat a work, the construction of which, while it would enhance the value of the land belonging to the public, and thati of individual proprietors, would promote the prosperity of the country generally.” select committee. The opponents of the bill, with a few exceptions, voting “ay,” the friends of it, with a few exceptions, no.” YEAS.-essrs.Abercrmbe, Aaiken, David J.

Bailey, Tho 11s [. Brayl,y Bll, B;orksdale. Barry, Belcher, Bennett, lio??on. ldMck Bovc e. Bridges drookn, Cmpbell, Carpeiter, (Caskie, C.ase, Chagsta ir, Cl ingman, Cobb. Col quitt, Craige, itC Dihoheroc’t. Eler, Co Curtis Dic, Dunbar. Eastman Faulkner Feltton. Fl,,gl,r FranAlin.. Fuil r.

GIDDINGs, Goode, Good :‘ice. G,dhin, Brow, llamBilt)n. Aa ron Harltn, Sampson W. lDarels, iey’. IIrris, rastives. Ho aen, I libbard, t pillyer, Htouston,. H.Pt.! ngers.,li, D. T. Jones. G. W. Jones. J. Giancy .Jon es.

o land.ones. Kerr, Kidwell.Kittredge. Kurtz, Letcher, Lew is, Lyol.

Macdonald, NhQueen, Maurice, Ma y, iddles,,artlb. Nl ill son.i,dl Mc,rgoan, Morrson, Murray, Andrew Oliv er, Oerr M Mhn, k. Peckham ei, JohnG, ip Perkin s John ller Jh ckin. lPowell, tingle. Psi yeard,Rs R
aers, uffin, RusseU, ,lpp, Shaw, Shower, S/imines, SingTleton, William Smith, Wailliam It. Suith. George W. Smythl, Strtton, Jo hn J. Taylor, T o Wt,sVausant. e, Wid e ls alsh, John dventworth, Wheeler, Witt,, Daniel B.

Wright. Hendrick B. cright.-103. NAus. Messrs James C. Allen. Willis Allen, Appleti, Banks, Bell, Benton, Bliss. Breckenridge, Bristow. Bugg, Caruithers. Chanmberlain, Chrisman, Churchwell, Clark, Cook, (‘,rann.

(,bx, Cumming. Cutting, John G. Davis, Thomas Davis, Dawson, De IVitt, Duic,inson. Disney, Drum, Dunham. Eddy. Edgerton. Edmands, John M.

Elliott, Ellison, English, Etle,ride, Etverhart, Furley, Florence, Gamble.

Green, Greenwood, Grey, Ardrew J. Harlan, Ilarrison, Hendricks, Henn, IHughes. Johnson, Keitt, Knox, Lamb, lTa!le, Latham, Lindley, Li.,dsley, Mc loh, McDougall. Mae. MNa~iy. Mflfttteson, Maxwell, John G. Miller, Smith Miller, Nichols. Noble. HVorton. Olds, Mordecai Oliver, Parker, IPhelps, Pratt. P’-estrm. Ready, Ric>hardson, David Ritchie, Thomas Mitehey, Robbins, Rowe. Sabin, Seward, Shannon, Samuel A. Smith. Soilers.

Frederick P. Stanton, Richard II. Stanton, Ile,,tor L. Stevens. Andrew Stewart, David Stewart, John L. T’aylor, Nathaniel G. Taylor, Thurston.

Tweed, Upham, Walbridge. Walker, f~aley, Warren, Elihu B. tvashtltrne, Israel W,,shburne, Wells, Tuppan Wentworth, Westbrook, 1’ates, Zotlicoffer.-103. Democrats in roman; Whigs in italics; Free Soilers in SMALL CAPS. This vote was finally reconsidered, and the bill recommitted: in effect killed. GENERAL PIERCE’S VIEWS UPO-THE SAME I’, HIS FIRST

ANNUAL MESSACE. There is one subject of a domestic nature, which, from its intrinsic importance, and the many interesting questions of future policy which it involves, cannot fail to receive your early attention. I allude to the means of communication by which different parts of the wide expanse of our country are to be placed in closer connexion for purposes both of defence and commercial intercourse, and more especially such as appertain to the communication of those great divisions of the Union which lie on the opposite sides of the Rocky Mountains. That the government has not been unmindful of this heretofore, is apparent from the aid it has afforded, through appropriations for mail facilities and other purposes.

But the general subject will now present itself under aspects more imposing and more purely national, by reason of the surveys ordered by Congress, and now in the process of completion, for communication by railway across the continent, and wholly within the limits of the United States. The power to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to call forth the militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, was conferred upon Congress, as means to provide for the common defence, and to protect a territory and a population now widespread and vastly multiplied. As incidental to and indispensable for the exercise of this AIR. CALHOUN’S VIEWS THEREON. At the session of 1845-‘6, Mr. Calhoun, as chairman of a select committe e, to whom was referred a memorial from the Memphis Convention, made an elaborate report to the Senate, from which this is an extract: ” Your committee will next proceed to consider’that portion of the memorial which relates to the communication by railroad between the valley of the Mississippi and the southern Atlantic States. They regard works of the kind as belonging to internal improvements (that is, improvements within the body of the states), and as such, are, in their opinion, not embraced in the power to regulate commerce. But they are, nevertheless, of opinion that where such roads or other works of internal improvement may pass through public lands, the United States may contribute to their construction in their character of proprietors, to the extent that they may be enhanced in price thereby. This has usually been done by ceding alternate sectiois on the prqjected line of such works; ati(t it is believed that no mode of contributing, more fair or better calculated to guard against abuses, can be devised. That Congress has a right to make such contributions, where there is reasonable ground to believe that the public lands will be enhanced in proportion, under its right to dispose of’ the ter 34 529 i

Page 530 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. power, it must sometimes be necessary to construct mi litary road s a n d protect harbors of refuge. To appropriations by Congress for such objects, no sound object ion ca n be ra ised. Hiappily for our country, its peace ful policy and rapidly inereasing population impose upon us no urgent necessity fo r pr eparatio n, and leave but few trackless deserts between assailatble points and a p atrio tic pe ople ev e r ready and gen erally abl e to p rotect them.

These necessary links, the enterprise and energy of our people are steadily and boldly struggling to supply. All exp er ience aff irms that, wherever private ent erp ri se wo ail avail, it is most w is e for the general government to leave to that and individual watchfulness the location and execllution of all me ans of communication. The sarveys before alluded to were designed to ascertain the mostpracticable and economical route for a railroad from the river Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean. Parties are now in the field making explorations, where previous t xaminations had not supplied sufficient data, aind where there was the best reason to hope the object sought might be found. The means and time being both limit e d, it is n ot to be efxpected tha t all the accurate knowledge desired will be obtained, but it is hoped that cnuch and important information will be added to the stock previously possessed, and that partial, if not full reports of the surveys ordered will be received, in time for transmiss;ion to the. two Houses of Congress, on or before the first Monday in February next, as required by law. The heavy expense, the great delay, and at times, fatality attending travel by either of the Isthmus routes, have demonstrated the advantage, which would result from interritorial communication by such safe and rapid neans as a railroad would supply. These difficulties, which have been encountered in a period of peace, would be magnified and still further increased in time of war.

But whilst the embarrassments already enc-,untered, and others under new contingencies to be anticipated, may serve strikingly to texhiibit the importance of such a work, neither These, nor all considerations combined, can leave an appreciable value, when weighed ag,ainst the obligation strictly to adhere to the Constitution, and faithfully to execute the 1)owers it confers. Within this limit, and to the extent of the interest of the government involved, it would seem both expedient and 1,roper, if an economical and practicable route shall be found, to aid, by all constitutional means, in the construction of a road which wsill unite, by speedy transit, the populations ,f the Pacific and Atlantic states.‘to guard against misconception, it should be remarkedl that, although the power to construct, or aid in the construction of, a road within the limits’ o)f a territory is not embarrassed by that question of jurisdiction which would arise within the limits of a state, it is nevertheless held to be of doubtful power, and more thans 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 character should be incidental rather than primary. I will only add, at present, that, fully appreciating the magnitude of the subject, and solicitous that the Atlantic and Pacific shores of the republic mg,y be bound together by inseparable 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 thosewhose 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 inducement 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 progress. Wve 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 bythe ears? [Many voices: “no, no.”] Then let us beat James Buchanan for the Presidency. [“

We will-we will,” and great applause.] Hle is the representative of slavery avgitation; he is the representative of discord between sections; he is the man whom Northe rn 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 cutting off another slice from Mexico for the purpose of embroiling the North against the South; and then, if I shall resist that agitation, I shall be called an Abolitionist, again. - *‘A N lMy 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 divisions exist among you, while I feel also confidenrt that the sanie purpose animates all your hearts. D)o not suppose for one moment that I am the representative of any clique or fac’ tion. Unfiortunatelv, I find that our friends here are in the samie condition in which the Jews were, when besieged by the Roman general, Titus. Whilst the l)atteriiig-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 sonme advocating the claims of one, and some I 630

Page 531 view page image

. RAYNOR; KENNETH. 5 of another, to the high-priesthood of that nation; and instead of the Romans devouring them, they devoured each other. God forbid that my brother Americans should devoureach other, at a time when every heart and every hand should be enlisted in the samel caLue, of overthrowing the common enemy of us ill. [Long continued applause.] l Who is that common enemy? oVoices, The I)emocratic party.”] Yes, that party have reviled us, abused us, persecuted us, and all only because we are determined to adhere to the Constitution of our country. Give Bucha,l’ia a lease of power for four years, and wve must toil through persecution, submit to degradation, or cause the streets of our cities to run blood.

But we will submit to degradtation, provided we can see the end of our troubl)les-. We are willing to go through a pil,riniLge, not only of four years, but of ten, or twelity, or forty years, provided we can have an assurance that at last we shall reach the t,)p ) of Pisg.ali, and see the promised land wiich our children are to inherit. God has not g”iven to us poor frail mortals the power, at all times, of controlling events. When we cannot control events, should we not, where no 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 Lapplause] -not where principle is involved-not where a surrender of our devotion to our country is at stake.

No; never, never! v I know nothing of your straightout 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 installed a the policy of this nation, for all the Fillinores, or Fremonts, or Buchanans, that ev er lived on th e f ace of the earth. - S t. P a ul sa s, “if it offends mv brother, I will eat no meat;”’ and if it offends my brothers here, I will not open my mouth, Nobody can suspect me. Voices: “certainly not*”] Then I sy, 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 bv no means numerous, and were mingled with hisses. Such was the universal excitement, that for some minutes the speaker was obliged to pause. He finally raised his voice above the subsiding btorm. and said:-] Come, my friends, we are all brothers; we are all seeking the same end. Our object is the same. MWe are all struggling to reach the samle has-en of safety. The only difference of opinion is as to the p~roper means by which to accomplish our common end.

Will not:kinericans learn prudence from the past? MIisfortunle should have taught us charity for ech other. We have passed through the ordeal of persecution together, wre have been lubjeeted to the game difficulties, and the same oppression; we have been baptized (I may say) in th se same stream of calumny. Thet in th e na me of God-i n the name of our ctm mon country-in the name of Americanis.u-in the name of Amer ican nationality -in the name of religious free domr -in the nane of the Union, I beseech you learn charity for the difference of opinion which prevails among y aou. n[Ap)lause.] Let br ethren forbear with brethren. Let us recoll ect that it is not by vitupera tiony, by th e ensure o f our br ethren, tha t we can ever accomp lis h thi s great end o f conquering a common enem y.

My friends, how long are we to suff er? dyow lon g will it be before we shall le ar n th at it is only by a union of counsels, a concentration of energy, -a ombination of purpose, that we can destroy the common enem of every conservative ma n. ‘ [Great applause-] I shall not attempt to advise you, for I am not competent to do it. You have information w hich I do not possess. You know all the under-currents of opinion which prevail here in vour community, w ith which I am unacquainte d; but w i ll ynu a llow a n humble man ti,t express his opinion to brethren whom h e loves?’ Ma y I do it? I am a Fillmore man-nothing but a Fillmore man, and if I iesided here I would vote no ticket which had not the name of oillard Fillmore at its head, an d I would advise Do 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. Nowv 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 inL 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 ln every man who says that he does not intenl 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 camnp while you are asleep, and may pour water upon your cartridges, so that when the day of battle shall come, you may shoot, but vou will kill nobody. I want the vote of everv American, on Tuesday next, to tell. Would to God that you could give the tweinty-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), theu the question is, had you better give Buchanan the twenty-sevenl votes, or tive Fillmore eight, ten, tweetve, or twenty, as t~e case Itay be. I go for beating Buchanan.

Gentlemen, you do not know what we Americans suffer at the South. I am abused and reviled for standing up in defence of you. Vhen I hear the whole North denounced as a set of Abolitionists, whose purpose it is to in I I I II 531

Page 532 view page image

TElE POLITICAL TEXT.BOO. 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 oi this question; that they are opposed to slavery, as hl I should be if I were a Northern man; but that r do not believe that the great mass of the Northern people have any idea of interfer ing with the cowitutional rights of the people .f the South//I know that such mnen as /Garrison and orney have. I know that Garrison believes the Constitution to be a ” league with hell,” and would therefore destroy it if he (ould; 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 l gland, and Forney does not represent you. l As much as I have been reviled for tanding 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 byv the numerical proportion of the votes at the ballotbox.

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 tine, candor compels me to say, that I 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, Unionloving 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 r e 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 proslavery 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 mor e 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 bloTd Mod 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 upn the state of Pennlsyl stat Pennsylvania mfy t |city o/f Philadelphia. On htl y of’

Philadelphia may depemi’ zn rights, but the rights f’ our nr children’s children. I ap.e ther Americans, for I have n to anybody else; I cannot a$4 ont party, fir I have no affil’ a;I cannot address the B” for-my object is to destroy e.,[Applause.] To my.Amp then, I appeal, for God’s sakes un rim uponi that wrath, which u. Your object is the sam common country. - se you who know nothing, f -who belong neither to one ther. I say with the deepl think all parties ought to habi por the Fillmore ticket.‘ME ~orthern man. Your southe, willing to support him. -] ‘ship of state safely throbi it was but reasonable toi ae of difficulty he Would Lynx me good pilot. But if we ers to unite on Mir. Fillm,; ;inquire, “

Wh,at is my dut i n will not come to Maho: )met go to the mountain; o to the mountain, in heaviig not. go half way? [Applause. ; for the victory which we miff ‘ontest. And what an issu4~ We read-in the Iliad how,- b i great people of antiquity we/ s siegee of Troy. What was th! h they contended? It W/i8 han a beautiful woman, l ed by a sprig of the royal Iti t is the stake for which we;v nstitutional liberty-the ff~,t an people to govern their ox fght of every citizen to worsta;._. to the’dictates Cihis dohgci  is, whether the American ff-i ; in glorv when we shall hail :aves, or whether it shall nor-whether the ” blackn’ Ihiih would follow the dissdd& on, shall cover the land. wh I you how to combine: buff sort to that mode (if there’i sssible), by which you can.l hich your votes can be polls by which Millard. etbre the H~ouse of Represe’ti strong moral power whichf vote will give hlm. [Great:ii ray in which we must W’ewtie actical men. Yet so diffr5 ,ns of our nature, so aiffei which actuate Us, tht ‘ _ ,f such presumption, as< to 1 ; particular course he shoitla .ow my opinions, if they”~ ; receive them into your hea,Si I I 532

Page 533 view page image

REPUBLICAN PLATFORM.-REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON. 511’ officers have been set over them, by whose liberty of conscience and equality of rights usurped authority, sustained by the mititary among citizens, we oppose all legislation im power of the government, tyrannical and un-pairing their security. constitutional laws have been enacted and enforced-the rights of the people to keep and Republican Association of Washington. bear arms have been infringed-test oaths of an extraordinary and entangling nature have ADDRESS OF THETO THE REPUBLIANS OF THE UNITED

STATES. been imposed as a condition of exercising the I right of suffrage and holding office-the right Washington, Nov. 27, 1856. of an accused person to a speedy and public THE Presidential contest is over, and at trial by an impartial jury has been denied-last we have some materials to enable us to the right of the people to be secure in their form a judgment of the results. persons, houses, papers, and effects, against Seldom have two parties emerged from a unreasonable searches and seizures has been conflict with less of joy in the victors, more of v iolated-they have been deprived of life, hope in the vanquished. The proslavery liberty, and property, without due process of party has elected its Presidential candidate, law-that the freedom of speech and of the only, however, by the votes of a minority, and press has been abridged-the right to choose that of such a character as to stamp the victheir representatives has been made of no tory as the offspring of sectionalism and temeffect-murders, robberies, and arsons have I porary causes. The Republicans, wherever been instigated and encouraged, and the of-able to present clearly to the public the real fenders have been allowed to go unpunished-issue of the canvass-slavery restriction or that all these things have been done with the slavery extension-bhave carried the people knowledge, sanction, and procurement of the with them by unprecedented majorities; alpresent administration, and that for this high most breaking up in some states the organiza(rime against the Constitution, the Union, and tion of their adversaries. A sudden gatherhumanity, we arraign the administration, the ing together of the people, alarmed at the President, his advisers, agents, supporters, inroads of the slave power, rather than a well apologists, and accessories, either before or organized party, with but a few months to after the facts, before the country, and before attend to the complicated details of party warthe world; and that it is our fixed purpose to fare; obstruc(ted by a secret Order, which had bring the actnal perpetrators of these atrocious preoccupied the field, and obtained a strong outrages and their accomplices to a sure and hold of the national and religious prejudices condign punishment hereafter. of the masses; opposed to an old party, com Resolved, That Kansas should be immedi-mencing the canvass with the united support ately admitted as a state of the Union, with of a powerful section, hardened by long party her present free constitution, as at once the drill, accustomed to victory, wielding the most effectual way of securing to her citizens whole power of the federal administration-is the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to party which only four years ago carried all, which they are entitled, and of ending the but four of the states, and a majority of the civil strife now raging in her territory. popular vote-still, under all these adverse Resolved, That the highwayman’s plea, that circumstances, they have triumphed in eleven, “might makes right,” embodied in the Ostend if not twelve of the free states, preeminent circular, was in every respect unworthy of for enterprise and general intelligence, and American diplomacy, and would bring shame containing onehalf of the whole population and dishonor upon any government or people of the country; given to their Presidential that gave it their sanction. candidate nearly three times as many electso Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific ral votes as were cast by the Whig party in Ocean, by the most central and practical route, 1852; and this day control the governments is imperatively demanded by the interests of of fourteen of the most powerful states of the the whole country, and that the federal govern-Union. inent ought to render immediate and efficient Well may our adversaries tremble in the aid in its construction; and as an auxiliary hour of their victory.

” The Democratic and thereto, the immediate construction of an emi-Black Republican parties,” they say, “are grant route on the line of the railroad. nearly balanced in regard to power. The Resolved, That appropriations by Congress former was victorious in the recent struggle, for the improvement of rivers and harbors, of but success was hardly won, with the aid of a national character, required for the accom-important accidental advantages. The latter riodation and security of our existing com-has abated nothing of its zeal, and has suffermerce, are authorized bv the Constitution, and ed no pause in its preparations for another justified by the obligation of government to battle.” protect the lives and properties of its citizens. With such numerical force, such zeal, intel Resolved, That we invite the affiliation and ligence, and harmony in counsel; with so cooperation of the men of all parties, however many great states, and more than a million different from us in other respects, in support voters rallied to their standard by the efforts of the principles herein declared; and believ-of a few months, why may not the Republicans ing that the spirit of our institutions, as well confidently expect a victory in the next conas the Constitution of our country, guaranties test?

Page 534 view page image

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 religious tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world.

OLIVER WOLCOTT of Conn. For myself I should be conten t e ithe r wi th or without that clause in the Constitution which excludes test laws.

Knowledge a nd liberty a re so prevalent in this c ountry, that i do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to esta blish one religious sect and lay all o th ers uinder legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test wo uld be destructive of the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it superfluous to have added a clause w hich secu res u s fr om the possibility of such oppression. Mr. MADISONsi of Va. I c onfess to you, sir, tha t w ere uniformity of religion to be intro duced by this system, it would, in my opinion, be ineligible but I have no reason t o conclude that uniformity of government w ill produc e tha t of religion. This subject i s, for the honor o f Atherica, lef t perfectly free and unshackled. Th e government has no jurisdiction over it the l ea st reflection will convince us there is no danger on this g round. Happily f or the states, they enjoy the utmost fireedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects w hich pervad es Ame rica, and which is the best and only security fo r religious liberty in any society. For, where there is such a variety of sects, there c ann ot be a majority of any oine sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Mr. IREDELL of N. C. used this comprehensive 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 ihave 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 ?pposition 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 persecutions 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 nman may be of religious sentimen ts differing from our own, without being a bad member of g< fiety. The principles of toleration, to the hone r of this age, are doing away those errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed even in the most intolerant countries. In linman Catholic landls, principles of mloderat.ion fire adopted, which would has-e been spurned a century or taco alga. It will be fatal, indeed, to find, at the time when examples of toleration are set even lay arbitrary governments, 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 Coinm promise; to the policy of the present admin istration: To the extension of slavery into free territory; In favor of the adnmission 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 our 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 e xclusive jurisdiction; that, as our republican faher s e the rs, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ord ained that no person shall be deprived o f life, libert y, or propeerty, without due prces s of law, i t becomes o u r duty to mainta in th is pro vision of their Constitution, against all attempts to violate it for the pur pose of establ ishing s lavery in the territories of th e Un ited S tates, by positive legislation prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deniy th.e authority of Conigress, of a territorial legislature, of a 1y individual, or association of iAndiviad. sis, to give legal existence to slaver!/ila aiy territory/ of’ the Uniited States, while the present Corn.titution shall be maititaite(l. Resolved, That the Constitution confer s upon Congress so-vereiqn power over the territories of the United States for their governmenit, and that ill the exercise of this power it is both the right an(] the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism polygamy and slavery. Resolved, That while the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established by the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, esta.blisl justice, insure domestic tranyquillity, provide for the commrlon defence, and secure the blessings of libjerty, and contains ample provisions for the protection of the life, liberty, and propelrty of evtery 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 534

Page 535 view page image

RAYNOR, KENNETH.-RELIGIOUS TEST. tion for office, but that he who obtains it must abjure a certain particular faith? Sir, who constituted us judges of the hearts and consciences of men? What right have we to impugn the motives of our fellow men? It is asserting one of the attributes of the D)eity himself, for it is the Lord alone that pondereth 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 cannot fetter the mind-fetters cannot bind it  tyrants cannot enchain it-dungeons cannot confine it-it will rise superior to the powers of fate, and aspire to IIim who gave it.” cimply as the sentiments of a brother American; 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 lane 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 custolian 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. “But 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 ai is and penalties, is a right which can now Fe enjoyed in any country in Christendom. An exclusion from the honors, the profits, and the emolumnents of the state, is the highest ,ersecution 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 )f 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 incorporate into our fundamental law the doctrine, that’honesty, capability, and faithfulness to the Constitution,’ is not a sufficient qualifica Religious Freedom. VIRGINIA ACT OF, PENNED BY

JEFFERSON. No man shall be compelled to frequent ol support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever; nor shall any man be enforced, 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 flee to profess, and by argument to maintain their opinions in hrisnmatter s o f 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 commonwealth, 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 contract as he shall please. Religious Test. DEBATE IN THE CONVENTION ON

THAT ARTICLi; IN THE CONSTITUTION IN REGARD TO. MR. PINKNEY 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 few 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 ltkly Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and, that, therefore, no man or set of men can impose any religious test without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ministers first assumed this power under the Christian name, and then Constantine approved -,f the practice when he adopted the profession of Christianity as an engine of state 538

Page 536 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the Philadelphia platform, and, avoiding coa litions with other parties, appeal directly to the massesd of a ll parties to ignore all organi zations and issues whi ch woul d diver t t he public mind from the one danger that now threatens the honor and interests of the couii try, and the stability of the Union-,slavery propaganidisnm allied with disunionis. Let us not forget that it is not the want of generous sentiment, but of sufficient inft rma 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 nitted to record their votes in response, with out embarrassment, without constraint of any kind, nineteen-twenitieths 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 nearLs 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 Gadsdeni 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 formiation of a great slaveholding confederacy, with foreign alliances with Brazil and Russia. It nay assume at first a moderate tone, to prevent the sudden alienation of its Northern allies; it may delay the development of its plot, as it did under the Pierce administration; kut the repeal of the Missouri compromise came at last, and so will come upon the country inevitably the final acts of the dark conspiracy. 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 all oligarchy of slaveholder~s and slavery propagandists, governed by Wise, Atchison, Soulb and Walker, founded in fraud andl violence, and seeking aggrandizement by the spoliation of nations, will bid God speed to the labors of the Republican party to pre The necessity for their organization still exists in all its force. Mr. Buchanan has always proved true to the demands of his party.

Hie fully accepted the Cincinnati plat form, and pledged himself to its policy. -a policy of filibustering abroad, propagandism t 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 hlie, as we have every reason to believe, continue the proslavery 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 b)eing, not an accident-is settled niot fluctuating. Covert or open, moderate or ex trenie, 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 satety of the country and of ft’-ee institutions must rest in the organization of the Republican party. What, then, is the dutv before us? Organ ization, vigilance, action; action on the ros trum, through the press, ait the ballotbox; in state, county, city, and town elections; every where, at all times; in every election, making Rlepul)licanism, or loyalty to the policy and principles it advocates, the sole political test. No prinmary 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 Republicans devote themselves to the work of disseminiiating 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. Maniy thousand honest, but not well-informed voters, who 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 Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, in postponing their independent action, and temporizingd with a party got up for purposes not harmonizing wvith their own, and the conduct of Mr. Fillmore’s friends in either voting for Mr.

Buchanan, or dividing the opposition by a a separate ticket, can hardly be repeated again. i The true course of the Republicans is to organize promptly, boldly, and honestly upon their own principles, so clearly set forth in I I i I ,)36

Page 537 view page image

REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON.-RICHARDSON, WM. A. 537 serve liberty and the Union, one and inseparable, perpetual and all powerful.

Washington, D. C., Nov. 27, 1856. 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 lut a re publican form of government therein? and do you hold that to be a republican governmnent 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 Ilouse. 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 arc propounded may understand their, 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, dockyards, &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. l refer that gentleman, therefore, to the remarks submitted 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 Statex 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 th! Constitution?” A.NSW’ER OF

TO CERTAIN INTERROGATORIES ID; IIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 12, 1856. MNIR. 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 lessee [MNr. Zollicoffer], I desire to put some questions to the honorable gentleman from Illinois [Mr.

Richardson], and to which I hope t?) receiv e explicit answ er s fr om that gentle mast, as also from the other c andi date s now b,efore the Ilouse. In presenting these inter ho, at4ries, I desire to raise no captious objec I o t l etimons to the sentiments of the h onorabl e g en t leman f rom Illinois, but to ascertain dis tinctly and clearly what sense tha t g entleman atttakchest htis pa r to the terms used in his platform, to wit: “the principles of the KansasNebraska tact?” also, the sens e he attaches t o 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 eople; 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 person 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 protect and maintain slavery therein, by making .t a penal offence for any person within said territory to speak or write against such system, 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 Constitutation, a person held to service or labor within I Richardson, Wm.

A.

Page 538 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. will the gentleman respond to those questions?

Mr. RICHARDSON. In reply to the gentleman from Ohio, I have to say that I substantially responded to his interrogatory this morning. Mr. BINCHAM. In what way has the gentleman answered the second, third, fourth, and sixth questions which I had the honor to submit 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 gentlemain’s question. Mr. BINGCIIAM. Does the gentleman mean to be understood as saying that the people of the territory of Kansas can, by territorial enactment, 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 theni to the issues presented to me, and I shall endeavor to answer their questions 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 fir st of the m may be read. The Clerk read the first question, as follows: In reply to this I have to say that, by the ?xpress terms of the bill organizing the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and other territories 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 propounded by the gentleman from Mississippi LtMr. Barksdale], I have to say that I belong to no Know Nothing or American organization. I belong to no secret political organi~ati,n. I am opposed to the abolition of slavery in the D
istrict of Columbia. I am op posed to ititerfeerence with it in the dockyards, or any ilac e el se, by the Congress of the United States. I believe that the Almi ght y made the negro intferior to the white man. I do not believe You can place them upon an equality, unless vou bring do wn th e white man t o h is level; end I am oppos e d to that. In reply to the facetious inquiries of my flr iend firom M issouri [Mr. Kennett], I have to .wtmy I am s ometimes afraidin that, in that future state in whi ch I believe, he, myself, and s ome of our associ ates h ere, w ill not be free. [Lauighter.] Mr. KEN.-XETT. I am very glad, Mr. Clerk, that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Richards on] is getting a little anxi ous about his condition, as well as that of other members of the lriuse. I think he has great caus e. [Lau,hter.] Mr. RICn ARDSON. I a mn very anxious, no t onlv in ref erence to myself, t in in relation to my friend fr om Missouri. B ut, si, I am informed that I omitted one of the questions propounded bv the gentleman from Mississippi [ Mr. B arks dale], in rel ation to C atholics and adopted citizensn. Sir, I do not know, nor care, what a man’s religious opinions may be. I would as soon support a Catho l ic for office as a man professingr any other religion, provided he was qualified, and his political sentiments cor responded 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 a~s often as they are presented, provided they are qualified. M~r. BlOCHAM. The honorable gentleman ‘from Illinois [Mr.

Richardson] has stated to the ttouse 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 interrogatevies; and Question procpounded by Mr.

ZOLLICOFFER to Mr. RICHARDSON. [ Am I right in supposing that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Riehardson] regarids the Ksnsas-Nebratka bill as promotive of the formation of free states in the territories of Kansas and Netbraska?” Mr. RICHARDShON. In reply to th e fir.st question of the gentleman from Tennessee rMr. Zollicoffer], I have to say I voted for the bills organizing the territories of Nebraskan and Kansas because I thought them just to all, and I defended that vote before my constituents 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 themnselv es, 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 gentlemen, I have said that, in my opinion, slavery 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 because it was just, right, and proper,- and wanted nothing more to defend myself. I repeat here an argument I have 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. thif 538

Page 539 view page image

RIChARDSON, WILLIAM A. is the practical result of every theory advoca-Iweight? The public voice everywhere indicates its certain ted by the friends of the Nebraska and uinevitable overthrow. ted b’y the friends of the Nebraska and Kansas —’ I times past our policy sooner or later has prevailed, bill. I gave my sanction to this principle in and we slould stand firm. however dark the hour, encour agd by former success. We shoald not be driven froln o,,r supporting the territorial bills of 1850 and aedby former success. We should o’r .’ apositions, because our opponents have to come to them f(or have uniformly supported the same principles safety. I migtht ask them if they are to be driven fr~,an since, whenever presented for my action, and thir firm and stern opposition to a United States bank. !becaus~e tho,se, who once thought that certain ruin woulb!

shall contine to do so in all future cases that lay waste the land unless ucih an istitutio n wa incoulit imay arise. It is a principle vlying at the ratel, have changed their opinions, and stand ith ns i,l )undation of all popular governments that the opposition? Are they willing to be driven in opposition to foundation of all popular governments, that th te idp,~,.

rauy eas oewoo.- p~, the independent treasury, because those who once opposed l)et,ple of each separate or distinct community now support it?

Are you to be driven from i all the past, .tshall decide for themselves the nature and nowv triumphantly vindicated. because opposition l,as (eased? t>…,.,r,.act*. We should stand firm in the support of right, truth, the character of the institutions under which they constitution of our country, no matter who shall co,e to shall live, and by this principle I am prepared their support, or idesert; stand by them to the last. and ir ti) live and die. yI therefore voted for the Ne-they fall let us perish with them. We should never survive . livedi…o t he hexist,ne of t his government. I)raska and Kansas bill neither as a proslavery,, Tlee is one thing that I wi.h. in this connexion, Mr. nor antislavery measure, but as a measure of Chairman, to say to the gentlemen from tlhe south, and the *
northern Whigs: if the bill for territorial governnments, equal rig,ht and justice to the people of all silent upon the subjec t of sl.avery, shltil be doera.ted, then I sections of our common country. am for bills with the W’ilnot proviso, in order to give goverli Will the Clerk now readl the next ques-ment s to t he people i a the territories; and I speak for four of my colleagues. assured that they will feel constrained to tion? pursue a like course. And if General Taylor shbll approve The Clerk read the second question as fol-the proviso, then it will have passed; alnd it is for them to’ detertline what shall or shall not be done, and let the re lOWs:- spolnsibility rest with them.” ‘ Am I right in supposing that he advocates the contitu-I take this occasion to say, that the eti tionslity of the Wilmot proviso? that in 1850, he opposed its application to the territories acquired from Mlexico oliv ment last quoted, uttered in a moment of upon the ground that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as the excitement, I, upon reflection, repudiate a.* Mexican local laws in those territories already aboli.,shed gentleian slaoery. which ou ht to be sufficient for all free-soil mn? unjust and improper. tank the gentle an and that he comnmitted himself to the position that if terri-that he has afforded me the opportunity to torial lills (silent upon the sultject of slavery give this expression of y disapproval the Mlexicain laws to operate) were defeated. he would vote public fir bills with the Wilmot proviso in them?” of that statement. I uniformly voted against r. RcARDSO.

The next question replacing the Wilmot proviso in anv territorial r.

ICARDSO. The next question re-bill. I voted against it, because believed it quires a more extended reply. In the year to be unjust to the people of a portion of this lS03 we acquired Louisiana; it was slave terUnion.

ritory. In 1820 we divided, bv line of 36~ The Clerk then read the third interrogatory, :,0’, that territory; north of the line was to be as follows:free. In 18S45 we annexed Texas; that wvas free. In 1845 we annexed Texas; that was “Am I right in supposing that his theory is, that the Con sl’.tve territory; we divided that by extending stituicn of the United States does not ctrry slavery to, and the line of 360 30’ through that-north, to be protect it in, the territories of the United States?

That in frec. Inl 1846 we acquired territory from the territory acqnired from Mlexico and Franie (including Kansas and Nebraska) the Missouri restriction was hecesMexico. That was free. I voted repeatedly sary to make the territory free, because slavery existed to extend the same line westtocthere under France at the time of the aclquisition; but that to extendthe sae li e w o the Kansas and Nelras ka bill. which r,ipeals that restrioOcean. I voted for that line with a few rep-tion, but neither legislates slavery into those territories nor resentatives from the North, and the whole excludesit ther(from, in his opinion. leaves those territobody of Southern representatives. When I i thuethr loal or onst itutional lav protecting slavery; and that therefor, the Kansas and Nebruska bill gave those votes, I did not believe then, nor promotes the formation of slave states in Kansas and Ne do I believe now, that I violated the Constitu-brask tion of the United States. If you have power, Mr. RICHARDSON. The Constitution does uinder the Constitution, to exclude slavery from not, in my opinion, carry the institutions of half of a territory, I think you have power to any of the states into the territories; but it excludle from all, though such an exercise affords the same protection there to the instiwould be unjust and wrong. I have never, tttions of one state as of another. The citizen therefore, voted to exercise that power, except of Virginia is as much entitled, in the common upon the principle of compromise. In this territory, to the protection of his property, cosnaexion I desire to read from a speech of under the Constitution, as the citizen of Iimine, delivered in this hall April 3, 1850, and nois; but both are dependent upon the legismake a word or two of comment upon it:- lation of the territorial government for laws ‘There is, I regret to say, a willingness upon the part of to protect their property, of whatever kind it the iemnocrats of the north to see this proviso passes. that may be. Thus, it will be seen, that though ( Tl 1Tiylnr may be conipeiled to show to tile worlir. and there may be upon this point a difference the* the rest of mnankind.’ who was cheated in the last presideutial electiooi-whether it was his friends north or south.

oretically-involving questions for judicial They know that a fraud was practised upon the one or the decisionF-yet there is none, practically, among other. They know that in the south, General Taylor was reiirisentsl as all that aly one in favor of slavery extensi,)n the fr i ends of nonintervention by Congress, couzld deoiie-that he was boehnd to southern institutions ltS the practical result is to place the decision by two hundred bonds. At the north it was said that he of the in the hands of those who are was for confining slavery to its present limits. Oue or the us*on othler was cheated. But I submit to mv northern friends, most deeply interested in its solution, namely, if the peace and harmony of twenty iiillions of peoptle. and the people of the territory, who have made it the perpetnity of our free institution is not of niore i their home, and whose interests are the most portanee than th e exposure of thi s bawn fdth upon the paracter of the most of an admininistration that, if let alone, will fall by its own. deeply involved in the character of the iasti 539

Page 540 view page image

.w,ng, Ftrley. Fentimn. Flaler, Flhre,ce. GIiDDiINGS, Gre ( reel) wod, sA trnn Harlan. Harris~m, Ititve, l en u. Itiester. l[iil. Ibtte. llughe.s, Jolilison. Kerr, AKn,,, Lathant Lindley, Lindsliy, Mai(e a May Mattteson.

i Jidldlle-.eauth, Jthhn G. ,filler. Mfoan. Ni cls r, Noble, IortOm, hiordeti Olmesger, .ir,‘er, enniniton. Plest,m. Pringle, I7’eady. Davicd Ritchie, Rogers. BRussell, &tbin, Sage, Sapp, Seaid. Seymoiir, SiosnIhon.

Sho(wer. GFRRIT SM[‘rn, Samuel A. S.mith. Sellers. Frederick P. Stan.ton.

Ilestor LI. Steven,s. Jbhn L. T!/yler, Thurstol, Tront. Uplam. Vansa t, Wade. W,lliey. hEli B. IVashrtne. Is,ael ashLburnne. Wells.yJthn Wentworth, Tappon lVenlw s y-th. o rheelier. lte ZolUicoffer.-96. N
xgs.-.-M~es.rs. Abercrom1bie, Aiken,.:tm, s C. Allen, WilAlis lle, BOvrk,sdale. Bia,rhy. B et i lher, Boc,(k, ofyoe, Brekieriplee. Phriles.

Paoskie Cr isyan, Cleein gman. I Colpe, Colquitth C hrii. G(n. Datis o.

tew l,dro n. Joht. G. tis Dhu u e b m, I. E<,llio tt, Geode, G(rovw.

Samripson W. lhu-ris, Wiley 1’. Harris lIr.tiVgai. alibh,rs bIlillyer, lIoustot, Daniel T. Je. nesJ. lJa.,y Joes, a ola.,d Jon,as. Keitt, Kfllowl, Kitt.-d i,e. IKurtz, Ltamb, LJt one, oc Lilly, MeN N: ir.

tmQueei. hauribe, Maxwell, tay, Payall, RIillson, Morrisonk. Mu,-ray, O(as, JAndrew Oliver, Orr. P1.(ker. Bishop, hierkinsy. Jo,hn Pterkils, 1helnps. PDillips. IPowell. Praitt. P oryet r, lreente. h eowe. iuffit i ,keltrn. William Smiith, Wiliiax R N it. Soiob. GeoWrgi e Ns. ,pmiyth oi harwlh. Strte cl. Strattton, Strauc s, John,.l. Tyls,r, Vail s, a th, Westbrook. W itte, oDaiel B. Wright, Ilec cdlriek B. W-rigfht. 76. The bill was ame nded in the S e nate, and iass ed that b ody on the lst of August, 1854, liy yea s a nd noaes as fol l ows: Yzts. Messrs. Allen, Iell., BenjUmin, Ca ss. C H s, moer, D,~lge of Wi~.. D,)dg,- of la, Fessenden. Fis.h, Foot. Geyer, (4ILIoFTTE, J;amnes. Johnson, Jones of Ia., Jores of Tennl., J’e~ace, I’ettit, Pratt, Roc,well, usk. SebCtstion, Sewrd, (liell. Stuart.. SUM.XeR, Tilomp,son of Ky., Thompsoe of N.

J.,‘ale, Waiker.-31. NAYs. Messrs. AdIams, Atchison, Bright, Brown, Clay.

Dawson, Doulglas. FE.vans, Fitzp,atrick, llouston, Ilunter. Ilallory, lasarn, Mo,,rton, Norris, Toombs. WVilliamis-17. The House disag,reed to the amendments of the Senate. A committee of conference was appointed by each Hiouse who reconciled the dtisa,reeing votes, and the bill was passed. ”he Piresidernt vetoed the bill. On the question, taken December 6, 1854, Slhall the bill pass notwithstanding the veto o-f the President?

it was lost, two-ttfirds, the number required by the Constitution, not voting therefor. The ayes and noes were as f(idlows: YEA8. Messrs.

Appleton. BIll. Banks, Bennett, Bliss, Bris&,v. OimpbeeU, Ca,-pe,tter, Caruthers, Ch.andler, Cha.se, Clark, tbrwin, Cox, Crocker, Cullato, Dawson, D/ck DicA&inson, bearing date Dcc. 30, 1854, treated the sul)ject more fully than he was enabled to do in his veto message:To the Senate and House of Representatives: In returning to the Ihouse of Representatives, in which it originated, a, bill entitled “An act making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and comipletion of certain public wo rks, heretofore commenced under authority of law,” it became necessary for me, owing to the late (lay att which the bill was passed, t) st ate my olijections to it very briefly, ainnouncin, at tbhe same timSe, a purpose to resume thile sul)jeet for m ore deliberate discussion, it the present session of Cobenress; fior, while bv no means insensible of the arduousness of the task thus undertaken by me, I concei ved that the two Itouse s were entitled to gn exil)(ositi( of the considerations which had induced (issent, on my part, from their conclusions in this instance. The great constitutional question), of thle power ()f the general government in i’elaitislni to internal improvements, has been the sulbjet-t of earnest difference of opinion, at every period of the history of the United States. Annual and special messag(es of successive Presidents have been o(ccupi)e(l with it, sometimes in remarks on the general topic, and frequently in objection to particular bills. The conflicting sentiments.,f eminent statesnict), expressed in Congress, or in conventions calle,t expressly to devise, if possible, some plan calculatedi t(, r’elieve the subject of the emblarraissments with which it is eitvironedl, while they have directed public attentimn strongly to thlt magnitude of the interests inv,olve(l, have y(t left unsettled the limits, not nmer-elv of expediency, but of constitutional power, in relati(onl to works of this class by the general government. What is intended by the plhrase ” internal

Page 541 view page image

RIVERS AND HARBOLRS. 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, hut 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 wh ich ” the whole Utnion would have been chec kered over with railroads and canals,” affording ” high wages a nd c onstan t employment to hundr eds of thou sands of laborers;” a nd he places it in express c on t rast 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 CoI 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? Presiden; 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 railwaYs. ‘The admission of the power in either of its senses implies its existence in the other; aind since, if it exists at all, it involves dangerous augmentation of the political functions trnd of the patronage of the federal government, we ought to see clearly by what clause or clauses of the Constitution it is conferred. I have had occasion more than once to express, and deem it proper now to repeat, that it is.

in my jud~,ment, to be taken for granted, as a fundamental proposition not requiring elucidlation, that the federal government is the creature of the individual states, and of the people of the states severally; that the sow ereign power was in them alone; that ainll the powers of the federal govern ment ar e deriva tive ones, the e numeration and limitations of which are contained in th e instrument whice organized it; and by express terms, “Tho powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor p ro hibite d by it to the state s, are reserved to the states respectively o r to the peo ple.” Starting from this foundation of our consti- tutional foith, and proce eding to inquire in what part of th e Constitution the power of makintg appropriations for inter na l inlmprove ments is found, it is necessary to reject all idea of there be ing any grant of power in the preamble. When that instrumen t sa ys: ” We, the peop le of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insu r e domestic tranquillity, provi de for thy common defence, promote the gener al w e lfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselv es and our posterity,” -it only declares the in ducements and the anti c i pat ed results of the things ordained and’

established by it. To assume that anything more can be designed by the language of the prea mble, woul d be to convert all t he b ody of the Constitution, with its c are fully weighed enumerations and limi tations, into mere surplusage. The sa me may be said of the phrase in the grant of the power to Conress, “to pay the debts and provi de 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 gen eral government, Cong ress must exercise any such definite and undo ubte d power in s tric t subordination to the purpose of the common defence and gen e ral welfare of a ll t he states. There being no specific grant in the Cons titution of a power to sancti on appropriations for internal improvements, and. no general provision br oad enough to cover any such indefinite object, it become s necessary to look for particular powers, to whi ch on e 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 postoffices and postroa-ds-to declare war; to provide and maintain a navy; to raise and support armies; to regulate commerce; and to dispose of th~e 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 ho conceded, that it authorizes Congress, in the management of the public property, to’ 54i

Page 542 view page image

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 othel 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 bv 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 superintending, 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, representing 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 improvements being undertaken by the general govea-*
ernment. State legislation upon this subject would have been suspended, and private enterprise paralyzed, while applications for ap propriations would have perver t ed the legis Tah otion of Cong re ss, exhausted the national treasury, and left the people burdened with a heavy public debt, beyond the capa city of gene rations to d ischarge. 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. When, therefore, any one of the powers actuallv 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 tan build upon them a great system of internal imi 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 improvement has been conferred on Congress, 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, becomne the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all plates purchased byv the consent of the legislature of the state ill which the same shall-te, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” But any such supposition will be seen to be groundless, when this provision is carefully examined, I 642

Page 543 view page image

RIVERS AND HARBORS. 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 provemnents; and in this conviction the system has b)een 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 ar e his method s 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 appro riations in aid of navigation there is less of positive conviction than in re gard to the gene ral sub ject; and it, ther efore, seems proper, in this respect, to revert to the history of the practice of the government. Amiong the very earliest acts of the first session of Congress, was that for the establish ment and support of lighthouses, 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 eightynine, in the necessary support, maintenance, and re pairs of all lighthouses, beacons, buoys, an4 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 expiration of one year from the day aforesaid, unless such lighthouses, 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 worthyr of special consideration. 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 lights houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, and the stakeage of channels; to render nlaviga 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 appli ed t o the D is t rict of C olumbi a; an d there is, in the district, no di vision of power s as betw ee n the general and t he state governments. In those places which the United States has purchased or retains within any of the states -sites for dockyards or forts, for example legal pro cess of the given state is still permit t ed to run for som e purposes, and therefore t he jurisdiction of t he Uni ted Stat es is not ab solutely perfect. But let us a ssum e, f or the argument’s sake, that the jurisdiction of the United States in a tract of land ceded to it for the p urpo se of a d ok-yard or fort, by Virginia or Maryland, is as co mplete as i n t hat cd eded by them fr t hthe se at of gover nment, and then proce ed t o analyze t his clause of the Constitu tion. I t provides that Congress shall have certain leg islative auth ority 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 lbe from some other clause of the Constitution, for it is not conferred by this one. Now, as it is a fundamental principle that the Constitution is one of limited powers, the authority to purchas mus e must be conferred in one of th e enumerations of legislative power. So that the power to p urchase is itself not an unlimited one, but is limited by the objects in regard to which legislative auth or i t y is directly conferred. The other expressions of the claus e in question coni h s confirm this conclusion, since the jurisdiction is give n as to places purchased for certain enumerated objects or purposes. Of these, the first great division, forts, magazines, arsenals, and dockyards, are obviously referable to recognized heads of specific constitutional 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 society 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 exercise of admitted powers, not only forts, magazines, arsenals, and dockyards, but also courthonses, prisons, custom-houses, and postoffices, within the respective states. Places for the erection of such buildings the general government 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 lighthouse 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 purchase for the purpose of erecting a light-houset 548

Page 544 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tion “safe and easy,” it is true, but only by appropriations being for “lighthouses, beaindicating to the navigator obstacles in his cons, buoys, and public piers” erected or way, not by removing those obstacles, nor in placed “within any bay, inlet, harbor, or port any other respect changing artificially the of the United States for rendering the navigapre-existing natural condition of the earth and tion thereof easy and safe.” sea. It is obvious, however, that works of If it be contended that this review of the art for the removal of natural impediments to history of appropriations of this class leads to navigation, or to prevent their formation, or the inference, that, beyond the purposes of for supplying harbors where these do not national defence and maintenance of a navy, exist, are also means of rendering navigation there is authority in the Constitution to consafe and easy; and may, in supposable cases, struct certain works in aid of navigation, it is be the most efficient, as well as the most eco-at the same time to be remembered that the nomical, of such means. Nevertheless, it is conclusions thus deduced from cotemporaneous not until the year 1824 that, in an act to im-construction and long-continued acquiescence prove the navigation of the rivers Ohio and are themselves directly suggestive of limitaMIississippi, and in another act making appro-tionsof constitutionality, as well as expediency, priations for deepening the channel leading regarding the nature and the description of into the harbor of Presque Isle, on Lake Erie, those aids to navigation which Congress may and for repairing Plymouth beach, in Massa-provide as incident to the revenue power.

chusetts Bay, we have any example of an ap-For, at this point controversy begins, not so propriation for the improvement of harbors, much as to the principle as to its applicain the nature of those provided for in the bill tion. returned by me to the Ilouse of Representa-In accordance with long-established legislatives. tive usage, Congress may construct light It appears not probable that the abstinence houses and beacons, and provide, as it does, of Congress in this respect is attributable other means to prevent shipwrecks on the altogether to considerations of economy, or to coasts of the United States. But the general any failure to perceive that the removal of an government cannot go beyond this, and make obstacle to navigation might be not less use-improvements of rivers and harbors of the fill than the indication of it for avoidance; nature, and to the degree, of all the provisions and it may be well assumed that the course of the bill of the last session of Congress. of legislation, so long pursued, was induced, To justify such extended power, it has been in whole or in part, by solicitous considera-urged that, if it be constitutional to approprition in regard to the constitutional power over ate money for the purpose of pointing out, by such matters vested in Congress. the construction of lighthouses or beacons, One other peculiarity in this course of legis-where an obstacle to navigation exists, it is lation is not less remarkable. It is, that when equally so to remove such obstacle, or to avoid the general government first took charge of it by the creation of an artificial channel; that lighthouses and beacons, it required the if the object be lawful, then the means adopted works themselves, and the lands on which solely with reference to the end must be lawthey were situated, to be ceded to the United ful, and that therefore it is not material, conStates. And although for a time this precau-stitutionally speaking, whether a given obtion was neglected in the case of new works, struction to navigation be indicated for in the sequel it was provided by general laws avoidance, or be actually avoided by excavathat no lighthouse should be constructed on ting a new channel; that if it be a legitimate any site previous to the jurisdiction over the object of expenditure to preserve a ship from same being ceded to the United States.

wreck, by means of a beacon, or of revenue Constitutional authority for the construction cutters, it must be not less so to provide and support of many of the public works of laces of safety by the improvement of harthis nature, it is certain, may be found in the tors, or, where none exist, by their artificial p,)wer of Congress to maintain a navy and construction; and thence the argument natuprovide for the general defence; but their rally passes to the propriety of improving number, and, in many instances, their location, rivers for the benefit of internal navigation: preclude the idca of their being fully justified because all these objects are of more or less as necessarv and proper incidents of that importance to the commercial, as well as the pu wer. And they do not seem susceptible of naval, interests of the United States. being refeirred to any other of the specific The answer to all this is, that the question powers vested( in Congress by the Constitution, of opening speedy and easy conmmunication unless it be that to raise revenue, in so far as to and through all parts of the country is subthis relates to navigation. The practice under stantially the same, whether done by land or all my predecessors in office, the express ad-water; that the uses of roads and canals, in missioins of some of them, and absence of de-facilitating commercial intercourse, and unit nial by any, sufficiently manifest their belief ing by comiunity of interests the most remote that the power to erect lighthouses, beacons, quarters of the country by land cornmunicaand piers, is possessed by the general govern-tion, are the same in their nature as the uses ment. In the acts of Congress, as we have of navigable waters; and that, therefore, the already seen, the inducement and object of the question of the facilities and aids to be proappropriations are expressly declared: those ivided to navigation, by whatsoever means, is 544

Page 545 view page image

RIVERS ANb HARBORI’. but a subdivisl/n 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 ot appropria tion of this class, that of the year 1833, under the administration of President Jackson, by iincluding together and providing for, in one bill, as well river and harbor works, as road works, impliedly recognises the fact that thev are alike branches of the same great subject of ijiternal 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 expe rienced at t he date of the forma t eion of th e Constitution, and mor e and mo re embarrassed those who were most anxious to abstain, scrupulously, from any exercise of doubtful power. IIence the recognition, in the messages of Presidents Jefferson, Madi son, and Monroe, of the eminent desirable hiess of such works, with admission that some {of them could lawfully and should be con,Inicted by the general government, but with (bvious uncertainty of opinion as to the line b)etween 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 la.ter 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 tments, are within the scope of the power delegated by the Constitution; and the question still remains unsettled. President Jackson 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 ort, by appropriations from the treasury, of li,hthouses, beacons, buoys, and other improvemrtents, within the bays, inlets, and harbors of the ocean and lake coasts immediately connected with foreigfn commerce. Belt, if the distinction thus made rests upon the differences between foreign and domestic comnmerce, it cannot be restricted thereby to the bays, inlets, and harbors of the oceans and lakes, becauso 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 pro gress of settlement, until it reaches the litmi of navigabil ity. At the time of the adoption of the Co nst it u tion, the vast valley of th e Miss issippi, now teeming with population, and supplyi ng almost boundless resources, was literally an une x plored wilderness. Our advance ment has out - st r ippe d eea the most san guine a ntic ipations of the fathers of the r epublic; an d i it illus tra tes the fact, tha t no rul e is admissible which undertakes to dis c riminate, so far as regarids river a nd har bor improvement s, be duthwetlentio P cic o n the Atl an tic or Pacific coasts, and the great lakes and rivers of the interior regions of North Amer i ca. Indeed, it is quite errone or,is to suppose that anv such discrimination has e ver existed in the practice of the govern ment. To the contra ry of which, is the signifi cant fact before stated, t hat when, after ab staining from all such appropriations for more than thirty years, Congress entered upon the policy of improving th e n avi gation of rivers and harbors, it comnenced w ith the rivers Mi s si ssi ppi an d O h io. The Con gress o f the Union, adopting, in this respect, one of the ideas of that of the Confede ration, has taken heed te io declare, from time to time, as occas ion required, either in a cts for disposing of the publi c l and s in the territories or in acts forn admitting new states, that all n avigable rivers within the same “shall be deemed to be and remain public highwa ys.d Out of this condition of things ar ose a ques tion which, at successive periods of o ur public annals, has occupie d the attention of the best minds in the Union. This question is, what waters are public navigable waters so a s not to be of state character and jurisdiction, but of federal jurisdiction and c haracter, in the intent of the Constitution a nd of Con g re ss? A proximate, but imperfect, answer to this impor tan t question is furnished by the acts of Congress and the d ecisions of the Supre me Court of the United States, defining the constitutional limits of the mariti me jurisdiction of the genea oer al govern men t. Th at jurisdiction is entirelv in dependent of the reve nue p o wer. It is not derived fr om that, nor is it measur ed thereby. In that act of Congress which, in the first y e ar of the governmen t, or ga nized our judicia l 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 statesme n wh o fra med the Constitution have placed on record their construction of it in this matter. It enacts that the District Courts of the United States ” shall havte exclusive cognisance of all civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, inceluding all seizures under the law of impost, navig~ation, or trade of the United Startes, when the seizures are made on waters which are navi gable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burden, within their respective districts, as Mwell as upon the high seas.” In this cotriem 545 I

Page 546 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tories upon the lakes, and navigable waters connectitng 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 applies 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 navigable 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 determine whether any waters are public navigable 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 obstructed, at will, by the state within which it may happen to be. The onstitutionality of these provisions o f statute has been called in question. Their constitutionality has been maintained, however, by repeated decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and they are, therefore, the law of the land by the concurrent act of the legislative, the executive, and the judicial departments of the government. Reg,arded 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 restrict 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 Constitution was adopted, nor any subsequent Congress, 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 Jackson. 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 appropriations to “places below the ports of poraneous expositio n o f t he Constitution, there i. no trace of suggestion, that nationality of jurisdiction is lim ited to the sea, or eve n to tidewat ers. T he l aw is m arked b y a sagacious apprehension of the fact that the great lakes and the Mississippi were navigable waters of the United States even then, before the acquisition of Lou isiana had mad e w holly our own the territorial greatness of the west. It repudiates, unequivocally, the rule of the comion law, according to which the question of wh ether a water is public navigable water or not, depend s on whe ther it is salt o r not, and therefore, in a riv er, c onfines that quality to tide wa ter: a rule resulting from the geographical condition of England, and a rpplicable to an island with small and ntha arrow streams, the only navigable po rtion of w hich, for ships, is in immediate contact with the ocean, but wholly inapplicable to the gr eat i nland freshwater seas of Anmerica, and its mighty rivers, with secondary branches exceeding in magnitrude the largest r iv ers of Great Britain. At a later period, i t i s true, that, in disreg ar d of the more comprehensive definition of navigability afforded by that act of Congress, it was for a ti me h eld b y many, that the rule established for England was to be received in the U
nited S tates; the e ff ect of w h ich was to exclude from the jurisdiction of the general go vernm ent, not onley the waters of the Miss i ssippi, but also those of the great lakes. To this c onst ruction it was with truth objected, that, in so far a s c onc er ns the lakes, they are in fact seas, al though of fresh water; that they are the natural marine communications between a series of populous states, and between them and the possessions of a foreign nation; th at they ar e actuall y navigated by s hips of commerce of the largest capacity; that they had once b een, an d m igh t again be, the scene of for eig n wa r; 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 MNtississippi, 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,ardless of the real fact of navigability. We may conceive that some such consider~tions led to the enactment, in the year 1845, )f an act, in addition to that of 1789, declar~.ng that ” the District Courts of the United States shall have,.

possess, and exercise the ssame jurisdiction mn matters of contract and tort, arising in, upon, or concerning steamboats, 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 ports and places in different states and terri 546

Page 547 view page image

piers, jettees, se-walls, and other like work,q are to be constructed and nmaintained. lI would powerfilly tend to counteract endeavors ‘ to o btai n appropriations of a local character. and chieflv calculated to pro mote indtivi(o ua, interests. The wan t of such a provisi,)e is the occasion of abuses in regard to exis:oind works, exposing them to private encenrachment without sufficient means of redress hy law. Indeed the a bsence, i n such cases, of ce ssion of jurisdiction, h as co nstitute d on e of the constitutional ob jections to appropriations of this class. It is not easy to perceive anr 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 constructed and maintainedl by Cong ress in the exercise of a constitutional power of appropriation, they should be broaught within the jurisdiction of the United States. There is another measure of precaution, in re gardm to such appropriations, which seems te me to be worthy of the consideration of Congress. 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 circumi,stances of legislative scrutiny, entitling it to be re,gr(leli as of general interest, and at 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 Congreiss fi)o appropriations of this nature, several of the states, whose productions or geographical po sition invited foreign commerce, had eutereqi upon plans for the improvement of their bar bors b)y themselves,‘a,nd through means (if 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 beingi dlefrayed 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 bv none. On the other hand, so long as these improveuients arc carried on by appris 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 a double inj ury to places equall v requiring improvement, but not equally favored by appropriations. These consider,ations, added te the embarrassments of the whole question, amply suffice to suggest the policy of confining, appropria. ticns by the general government to sworks necessary to the execution of its undoubted powers, and of leaving all others to irndivi.: dual enterprise, or to the separate states, to be providled fi r out of their own resources, or’ by recurrence to the provision of the Constitution, which authorizes the states to lay duties of tonnage with the consent of Congress’ FRAiN LIN PzEr.cR Washington, Dec. 30, 1854.

entry or delivery-est,ablished by law.”, -He saw clearly. as tie a:uthors of the above-mentioned acts of 1789 and 1845 did, that there is no inflexible natural line o discrimination between what is national and what local, by mieans of which to determine absolutely and unerringly at what point on a river the jurisdiction oLt the United States shall end. He perceived, and of course admitted, that the Constitution, while conferring on the general _-,vel,nment some power of action to render navigation safe and easy, had of necessity left to Congress much of discretion in this matter. lie coifided in the patriotism of Congress to ,:xercise that discretion wisely, not permitting hiniself to suppose it possible that a port of entry or delivery would ever be established byv law for the express and only purpose of evading the Constitution. It remains, therefore, to consider the question of the measure of discretion in the exerceise by C ongress of the power to provide for th e imp rov em ent of rivers and harbors, and aluso that of the legitimate responsibility of the e.ne utive in the s ame relation. In matters of legislat io n of the most unque stionable constitutionality, it is always material to consi de r what amount of public monev shall be appropriated f or a ny particular tuject. The sama e cons idera tion 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 exertise of incideental powers, hav e i ntrin sic tendency to overstep the bounds of constitutionality. If an appropriation for improving the navijgbilitn of a r iv er, or deepen ing or protecting a harbor, h,tve r e ference to milit ary or naval purposes, the n its rightfulness, whe ther in amount o r i n the objects to which it is aSplied, depends, ma nifestly, on the military or naval exigency and the subjectmatter affords its own measure of legislative disc ret ion.

-But if the appropriation for such an object have no distinct, relation to the military or naval wants of thie country, and is wholly, or even mainly, intended to promote the revenue from commerce, then the verv vagueness of the proposed purpose of the expenditure constitutes ai perpetual admonition of reserve and caution. Throu’gh disregard Of this, it is undeniable than. in many cases, appropriations of this n’ture have been made unwisely, without ac nplishing, beneficial results commensurate writh the cost, and sometimes for evil, rather than gxod, independently of their dubious relation to the Constitution. Among the radical changes of the course of legislation in these matters, which, in my judgtnent, the public interest demands, one is a return to the primitive idea of Congress, which required in this class of public works, asl 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 hn/x,ovement of a permanent nature, as where — RIVERS;ND

HARBORS. .,547

Page 548 view page image

TIlE POLTtICAL TEXT-BTOO. Road Bill. GENERAL JACKSON’S VETO OF THTE

MIAYSVILLE -;,;.ROAD BILL. < OWECTIO,S of the President of the-United States on returning to the IIouse of Represen tatives the enrolled bill entitled “An act iuthorizing 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:- i “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 perod, f 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 imnprovement, 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 iwr’ar; 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 coqncils;” and adverting to the constitutional power of Congress to make what I consider a oroper disposition of the surplus revenue, I subjtoin the follow ing remarks: ” To avoid, these evils, it appears to me that the most safe, just, and federal disposition which coul(l 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 wrarranted by the Constitution, that it would be expedlient to propose to the states an amendment aulthorizingt it.” The constitutional powter of the federal gvernment to construct or promote works of inernal imnprovement, presents itself ill two points of viewr: the first, as be~arin~ upon the sovereignty of the states within vh~ose limits their execution is contemplated, ifjurisdiction of the territory which they may occupy, be claimed as necessary to their preserv.ttien an use: the second, as asserting the simple right to appropriate money from the national tre sury in aid of such works when undertaken’ by state authority, surrendering the claim-of jurisdiction. In -the first view, the questio{k of power is an open one, and can be decided without the embarrassment attending lye – other, arising from the practice of the govern ment.;; -

Although frequently and strenuously a’s tempted, the-power, to this extent, has never - been exercised by the government in a singte instance.

It does not,lin my opinion, posse8 / it, and no bill, therefore, which admits it, can Ad receive my official sanction.::..,i’ a But, in the other view of the power;tder question is differently situated. The groundt taken at an early period of the government,: was, ” that whenever money has been raised ( by the general authority, and is to beapplied to a particular measure, a question ariseS, whether the particular measure be within theI enumerated authorities rested in Congress. X If it be, the money requisite for it may -be applied to it; -if not, no such applicationcan A be made.”

The document in which this principle was first advanced is of deservedlyvlbih gl authority, and should be held in grateful remembrance for its immediate agency in reslcu ing the country from much existing abuse,: and for its conservative effect upon someof the most valuable principles of th e Cons tio - Ahe tion. The symmetry and purity of the go-a nX; vernment-woul d, doubtless, have b een better preserved, if th is restriction of the powerqof e.I appropriation could have been maintainM.

withost weakenin its abilit y to f hlflr.:thgeneral o bjects of Lts institution: an eorteci o ” - likely to attend its admission, notwithst anding its apparent fitness, that e very subsequent administratio n of the government, embracing a period of thirty out of the forty-two ytrs.” of its existence, t as a dopted a more enlare construction of the p ower. s *
ii-a e In the administration of Mr. Jefferson -* have two ecamples of the exerci se of th e rfght of app n r opria tion, which, in the onsiderat that led to their adoption and in their effects upon th e pul)lic mind, have hlad a greater agency in marking the character of t he pp aer, than any subsequent events. I.allude todtbe payment of fifteen millions of dollars for.;Di purchase of Louisiana, and to the originall’ priation for the construction of the Uumberland Road; the latter act deriving mtch weight from the acquiescence and approbe tion of three cf the most powerful of the - ginal members o)f the confederacy, e-x~~ thro~ugh theirrespective le~,islatures. Althoa~the circumstanecs of the-~latter case may oe such as to deprive so much of it as relates bo the actuatl construction of the road, ofJtl force o)f an obligatory exposition of the Eons stitution, it must, nevertheless, be admited that, 80 far as the mere appropriatic~f I.4is -0. I W.

Page 549 view page image

ROAD BILL money is concerned, they present the principle in its most imposing aspect. No less than twenty-thlree different laws have been passed through all the forms of the Constitution, a a propria,ting 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 appropriations for the Cumberland and other roads and objects, under this power, the administration of Mr.-Madison was characterized by an act which furnishes the strongest evidence 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 navigation 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.”

Regarding the bill as asserting a power in the federal governnient to construct roads and canals within the limits of the states in which they were made, hle objected to its passage, on the ground of its unconstitutionality, declaring that the assent of the respective states, in the mode provided bv 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 Constitution; and superadding to these avowals, his opinion, that “a restriction of the power’to provide f)r 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 government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.” 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 administration a bill was passed through both Hlouses of Congress, conferring the jurisdiction and prescribing the mode by which the federal government should exercise it in the case of the Cumberland Road. Ile returned it with objections to its passage, and in assignin,, them, took occasion to say, that in the early stagues of the government, he had inclined 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; b~ut that, on further reflection and observation, his mind had undergone a change; that his opinion then was, “that Congress have unlimited powrer to raise money, and that, in its appropriation, th ey have a disret i on ary power, restricted on ly by the duty to appropriate it to purpose s of commo n defence, and of general, not local, national, nor state benefit;”

and this was avowed to be the g overn ing prin ciple t hrough the r esi due of his administration. The views of the last administration are of such recent dat e as to r ender a particular refe rence to them un ne cessary. It is well known that the appropri ating power, to the utmost extent which had been claimed for it, in relation to internal improvem ent s, was fully reeognised and exercised by it. This brief reference to known fa cts, will be sufficient to show the difficulty, if not impracticability, of b ringing back the operation s of the gover nment to the construction of the Constitution set up in 1798, assuming that to be its true reading, in relati o n to the power under consideration: thus giving an admonit ory proof of the force of implication, and the necessity of guarding the Co nstitution 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 instrument, instead of the statute book, to repudiate at all times, encroachments upon its spirit, which are too apt to be effected by the conjecture of peculiar and facilitating circumstances; it is not less true, that the public good and the nature of our political institutions 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 mor6 definite opinion upon the particular eircunstances 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 government, yet such grants have always been professedly under the control of the general principle, that the works which might be thus aided, should be “of a general, not local-national, 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 experience. It is, however, sufficiently definiteo and imperative to my mind, to forbid mly approbation of any bill having the character of the one under consideration. I have given its provisions all the reflection demanded byr a julst regard for the interests of those of our fellowcitizens who haste desired its passage, and by the respect which is due to a co-0rdinate branch of the governmenlt, but I am nost 549

Page 550 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. able to view it in any other light than as a measure of purely local character; or if it can be considere d national, o that no further d ist in ction between the appropriate duties of the general an d stat e government, ne ed be attempted; for there ca n be no local interest that may not with equal propriety b e denomi nated national. It has no connexion with atv established syste m of improvements; is exclusively within the limits of a state, start ing at a point on the Ohio river, and running out sixty mile s to a n interior town; and even as far as the state is interested, conferring partial instead of general advantages. * In th e other view of the subject, and the only remaniing one which it is my intention to present at this time, is involved the exo)e diency of embarking in a system of internal improveruent, w i thout a previo us ame ndment of the Constitution, explaining and defining the precise powers of the federal government over i t: assum ing the right to appropriate m oney, to aid in the constructi on of national works, to be warranted by the cotemporane ous and continued exposition of the Constitu tion, its insufficiency f or t he s uccessful pro s e cution of them, mu st be adm itted by all c andi d mi nds. I f w e look t o u sage to define the extent of the right, tha t will be found so variant, a nd embracing so much that has been o verruled, as to involve the whole sub ject in g rea t u ncertaint y, a nd to r e nder the execution of our respective duties in relation to it, r eplete with diffi culty and embarrass a t eent. I t is in regard to suc h work s, and the a cquisition of add itional territory, that the practice obtained its fi r st footing. In most, if not all othe r dispute d qu estion s of appropriation, the cons truction o f the Cnon the st itution may be regarded a s u nsettled, if t he right to apply money, in th e enum erated case s, i s placed on the ground of usage. If it be e e re o the desire otf the people that the agency of the fe dera l gov ernment should be confined t o the app rop riation of money, in aid of su ch u ndertakings, in virtue of th e s tate a uthor ities, th en th e occasion, the manner, a nd th e extent of the appropriations, should be made th e subject of constitutional regulat ion. Th is is th e mor e nec essary, in order that they may be eq uitab le among the several states; promote harmony between different sec tions of thenne Union and their representatives; p reserve oth er p art s 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 w-h(.l subject against the deleterious influence of combinations to carry, by concert measures which, considered by themselves, mlight meet but little countenance. That a constitutional adjustment of this p.ower, upon equitable principles, is, in the highest degree, desirable, call scarcely be doubted; nor can it fail to be promoted by every sincere friend to the success of our political institutions. In no government are appeals to the source of power, in cases o)f 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 difficulty and supposed impracticability of obtaining 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 under consideration for your further deliberation and judgment.

May 27, 1830. ANDREW JACKSON. Washington, November 10, 1841. Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge vour letter of the 8th inst., written, a s you a re pleased to acdd, i n be half of s everal 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, however, wholly neglect your communication. Should any considerable number of my fellow-countrynmen 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. These views have their origin in the stormy elections of the spring of 1835, and were confirmed in the week that the IHarrison 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 IHouse (November, 1840), to draw up an a,ddress, designed to rally an American party. The day after the election I set out for the South, and have never known precisely ahy our appeal was not published. Probably thie election of General Ilarrison rendered the publication at that time unnecessary in the opinion of my two friends. I now hesitate between extending the period of residence before naturalization, aind a total repeal of all acts of Congress on the sul)ject my mind inclines to the latter. Concurrirng fully in the principles of the Philadelphia movement, I should prefer assuming the name of American Republican, as 550 Scott, Winfield. O,-i NATIVE AMERICANISM.

Page 551 view page image

SCOTT. WINFIELD. in New York, or Democratic Americans, as I should respectfully suggest. Brought up in the principles of the Revolution-of Jefferson, Madison, &c.-under whom in youth I commenced life, I have always beenealled, I have ever professed myself, a Republican, or Whig, which with me was the same thing. Democratic Americans would include all good native citizens devoted to our country and institutians; would not drive from us natur alized 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 re ligion is to be excluded as a party element. Staunch Protestant as I am, both by birth and conviction, I shall never consent to a party or state religion. Religion is too sacred to be mingled with either. It should always be kept between each individual and his God, except in the way of reason and gentle persuasion-as in fanmily churches and other occasions of voluntary attendance (after years of discretion), 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 fellowcitizen, WINFIELD SCOTT. To George Washington Reed, Esq., and others, Philadelphia. ~ LETTER OF

ACCEPTANCE OF. Washington, June 24, 1852. Sir: I have had the honorto 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 nomination, 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 also to recommend or approve of a single alteration in our naturalization laws, suggested by my militar 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 volunteer, on their receiving an honorable discharge from the service. In regard to the general policy of the administration, 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 fraternal 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 defiecient in capacity or integrity, or in devotion to liberty, to the Constitution an l the Union. Convinced that harmony and good-will be. Washington, May 29, 1848. Dear Sir: I n reply to your kind lett er of the 8th instant, I take pleasure in saying that, grateful for the too partial estimate you place on m y pub lic ser vices, y ou do me no more than justice in assuming that I entertain “kind and liberal views towards our naturalized citizens.” Certainly, it would be impossible 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 permtianently arrayed against each other in hostile tiactions, I was inclined to concur in the (pinion, then avowed by many leading statesmnen, that some modification of the naturalization laws might be necessary in order to prevent abuses, allay strife, and restore harmony between the different classes of our people. Btit later experience and reflection have entirely removed this impression, and dissipated my apprehensions. In my recent campaign in Mexico a very large proportion of the men under mv command were your countrymen (Irish), Germans, lie., I witnessed with admiration their zeal, fidelity, and valor in maintaining our flag in the face of every danger. Vying with each ether, and our nativeborn soldiers in the same lsanks, in patriotism, constancy, and heroic daring, I was happy to call them brothers in 55” the field, as I shall always be to salute them as countrymen at home. I remain, dear 8ir, with great esteem, yourf. truly, WINFIELD SCOTT. Wm. E. Robinson, Esq.

Page 552 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Now, the question is, by what 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 chara ters. Such a right of approach seems indispensable for the fair and discreet exercise of their authority; and the use of it cannot be justly deemed indicative of any design to insult or injure those they approach or to impede 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 he r own way, an d to use all necessary p recautions to avoid any suspected sinister enterprise or hostile attack. ier right to the free use of the oceani is as perfect as that of any other ship. An entire equality is presumed to exist. She h,ms a right to cons ult her ow n safety, but at the same time she must take care not to violate thrigo o hes he r ights of others. She ma use any precautions dictated by t he p rud ence or fears of hter officer s, either as to delay, or the progress or course of her voya ge; but s he is not a t licierty to inflict injuries upon other inn o cent parties simply because of conjectur a l dangers. But if the ves se l t hus approached attempts to avo id the vessel approaching or does nc t comply with her commander’s order to se n d him hie r papers for his inspection, nor consent to be visited or detained, what is next to t)e done? Is force to be used? And if force be used, may th at force be l awfully 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 conseqzteslce? In all cases in which’ the belligerent right of visit exists, resistance to the exercise of’ that right is regarded as just eause of condentnation, 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 committed? It would be said in behalf of the commander of the cruiser, that he mistook the vessel for a vessel of England, Brazil, or Portugal; but does this mistake of his take away fi’om the American vessel the right of self-defence? The Mwriters of authority declare it to be a principle of natura~l lawy, th~at the privilege of self-defence exists against an assailant who msistatkes the object of. his attack for another, wahom he had the right to assail. Lord Ab~erdeen cannlot fail to see, therefore, what serious consequences mnight ensue if it were to be admitted that t/~is claim to visit, in tween the different quarters of our broad country is essential to the present and future interests of the republic, and w ith a devoti on to tho se i nt erest s that can know no South and no North, I should neither countenance nor tolerate any sedition, disorder, faction, or re s is tance to the law or the Union, on any pretexot, in any part of the land; and I should car ry into the civil administration this one principle of mi litary codnuct-obe(liene to the legislative a nd judi cial de partments of government, each in its constitutional sphere-saying only, in respect to the l egislature, the poss ible resort to the veto power always to be most ca utiously exercised, an d under the strictest restraints and necessities. Finally, for my strict adhierenc e to t he principles of the Whig party as expressed in the resolu tions of the convention, and herein sugges ted, with a sincere and earnest purpose to advance the greatn ess and happiness of the republiec, and thus to cherish and encourace 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 treaties, and discountenancing all political a,itation injurious to the interests of society and dangerous to the UnionmI 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 associate 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 Ilon. J.

G. Chapm-ian, President of the Whi, National Convention. S earch, Right of. VIEWS OF DANIEL WEBSTER THEREON. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 1 Wtishiglton, March 28, 1843. I proceed to draw your attention 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 Mi nister of the Crown: ” The cla im of this country i s for the right of our cruisers to ascertain whether a merchant vessel is justly entitled to the protection of the flag which she mav happen to have hoisted, such vessel Seine in circumstances which rendered her liable to the suspicion, first, that she-was not entitled to the protection of the flag; and, secondly, if not entitled to it, she was, either under the law of n ations or the provisions of treaties, subject to the supervision and control of our cruisers.” Mr. Wood, now Sir Ce d harles Wood Chancellor of the fixehequer. b52

Page 553 view page image

SEARCH, RIGHT OF. 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 Ament of the United States, does the public law of the world lay down beforehand any rule for the government of cases (Oif involun tary trespasses, detentions, and injuries at sea; except that in both classes of cases law and reason make a distinction betwee n inju ries committed t h rough mistak e a nd 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 Decem 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 rules and definitions from the right of search. It does not admit that the visit of American merchant vessels by British cruisers is founded on any right, notwithstanding the-cruisers may suppose such vessels to be British, Brazilian, or Portuguese. We cannot but see that the detention and examination of American vessels by British cruisers has already 7 led to consequences-and fear that, if conti. nued, it would still lead to further conse quences highly injurious to the lawful comnerce of the Unitedi States. At the same time, the government of the United States fully admits that its flag can gfive no immunity to pirates, nor to any other than to regularly documented Amnerican vessels. It wras upon this view of the whole case, and with a firm conviction of the truth tim e of peace, h owever limited or defined, should be permitted to exist as a strict matter of right; fo r i f i t exist as a right, it must be fol l owed by correspondinig duties and obligations, and the failur e t o fulfil tho se duties would n at urall y d raw penal consequences after it, till, ere long, it w ould become, in truth, little less, or little oth er th an the belligerent right of search. If vis it or visitation be not accompanied by search, it will be, in most cases, nearly idle. A sight of papers ma y b e d emand ed, and pa pers mn ay be produced. But it is known that slave-traders carry false papers, and different sets of papers. A search for other papers, t hen, must be made whe n suspicion justifies it, or else th e whol e p roceedi ng woul d be nu gatory. In suspicious cases, the language and g eneral appearance of the crew a re among the means of ascertainiingm the natio nal char seter of the vessel. The ca rg o on board, also, of t en indica tes the country from which she comes. Her log-book, showing the previous cou rs e and events of her voyage, her internal f itne s s and equipment, are all evidence for her, or against her, on he r allegation of char acter. These matters, it is obvio u s, can only be ascertained by rigorous search. It m a y be asked, if a ves sel may not be cal led on to show her papers, why does she c a rry pap ers? No doubt she may be called on to show her papers; but the question is, w here, when, and bv whom? Not in time of peace, on th e hivsh seas, where her rights are equal to the right s of any other vessel, and where none ha s a right to molest her. The use of her papers is, in time of war, to prove h e r neutrality when visited by belligerent cruisers; and in both peace and war, to show her nat ion al character and the lawfulness of her voyage, in those p orts of other countries to which she may proceed f or p urposes of trade. It appears to the gove rnment of the United States tha t the view of t his whole subject which is the most naturally taken, is, also, the most l egal, and mo st in analogy with o ther cases. Briti sh cru iser s ha ve n m right to detain British merchantmen for certain purposes; and they have a right acquired by tr eaty, to d etai n merchan t vessels of several other nati ons for the same purposes. But they have no right at all to detain an American 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 nation which had conceded the right of such detention to the British cruisers, and the trespass therefore an involuntary trespass. If a ship-of-war, in thick wreather, or mn the darkness of the night, fire upon and sink a neutral vessel under the belief that she is an enemy‘8 vessel, this is a trespass a mere wrong; and cannot be said to lee an act done under any right, accompanied by responsibility for dam-563

Page 554 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. YEAS.-IIis Excellency John II. Means President; Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Alston. Appleby, Arthur, Atkisoun. IBarnwell, J.

[Bellinger, E. Beliieiger, Jr., E. St. P. Bellinger, B,ethea, Bobo, Bonham, Bookter, Bouknight. Bradwell, Brown, Buchanan, Burt, Butler, Cantey, Caughm,n, Cheves, Coit, Cook, Craig, Cuingham. Dantzler, Davant, David. DeSaussure, Doby, DuBose, B. F. Dunkin, DuPre, Elfe Ellerbe, Elliott, English, J. J. Evans, W. ansns. Farrow, Finley, Frampton, Frost, Furman, (Gadberry, Gladiden, S. E. Graham, Gregg, Gramling, Grimball, Ilaigler, Hianna, Ilarllee, Ilarrison, IHaynle, Ilaynsworth, Henderson, Iliggins, Ilope, Ihuger, IIuguenin, l’On, Irby, Jamison, Johnson, A. C.

Jones, James Jones, I. Jones, King, Kirk, Landrum, Lang, Law, Lehre, Livingston, Mackay, lagrath. ],’ Martin, J. Martin, J. C. Martin, Mason.

R. A. Maxwell, J. Maxwell, Memminger, Mobley, Moon, McAliley, Macbeth, McBride, Mcllwaiu, Nance, O’Bryan,l Patterson, Peay, Perris, Pickens, Poole, Poreher, Pressly, Read. Rhett, Rice, Ricl,ardson, Rivers, Rosborough. Russel, Ruth, Scaife. Schnierle, Scott, Seabrook, Sims, Spain, Sumter, Symmes, Trspier Vaught, Wallace, Walker, D. L. Wardlaw, F. H.

Wardlaw. Waring, Whaley, B. H. Wilson, Hugh Wilson, Jr., Whyte, Whitner, J. W’iliams, J. D. Williams, J. H. Williams, Winsmith iWih, cright, Young.-136. NAYs.-Messrs. Adams. Brockman, Center, Charles, P. E. Duncan, Fripp, Gourdiu, W. Graham, Hamilton, Latta, J. V. Martin. McBee, McCalla, McCrady, Owens, Palmer, Perry, Toomer, Trotti.-19. of these sentiments, that it cheerfully assumed the duties contained in the Treaty of Washington; in the hope that thereby causes of difficulty and of difference might be altogether 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 civilization 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 conviction s which it entertains and in the measures whichl 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 niations. Both IIouses of Congress, with a remarkable degree of unanimity, have made express provisions for carrying into effect the eighlth article of the treaty. An American squat(lroni will immediately proceed to the coast of Africa. Instructions for its commander are in the course of preparation, and copies will be furnished 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 Aberdeen, 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 THEI 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 sovereign 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, withtout 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. Utpon the motion to adopt the report, the veas and nays were called for, ordered, and iaken as follows:-i MR. CALHOUN’S VIEWS RELATIVE TO SECES SION. “That a state, as a party to the constitutional compact, has the right to secede -actin i n the same capacityin in which it ratified the onstitution-cannot. with any show of reason, be denied by any one who regar ds the Constitu - tion as a compact-if a power should be inserted by the amending power, wh ich would radically chang he the ch aracte r of the Constitution, or the nature of the system; o r 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 relation of a foreign state to the others, is equally clear. Nor is it less so, that it would make her (not her citizens individually) responsible to them in that character. All this results, necessarily, from the nature of a compact 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 declaimers. The public ear is familiarized and the public mind will soon be accustomed t,a the detestable suggestions of disunion. Calculations and conjectures-what may the East do without the South, and what may the South do without the East?-sneers, menaces, reproaches, and recriminations, all tend to the same fatal end. What can the East do without the South! What can the South do without the East! They may do much; thie nay 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 furnish to the philosophic historian another melancholy and striking instance of political axiom, that all republican confederacies have an inherent and unavoidable tendency to dis I 554

Page 555 view page image

SLADE, WILLIAAI.-SLAVERY. solution. They will present fields and occasions for border wars, for leagues and counter leiagues, for the intrigues of petty statesmen, the struggles of military chiefs, for confiscatitn, insurrections, and deeds of darkest hue. ‘T’ilev will gladden the hearts of those who have proclaimed that men are not fit to govern thesiiselves, and shed a disastrous eclipse on t ie hopes of rational freedom throughout the w(orl]l. Solo n in his code proposed no puFnishiuent for parricide, treating it as an iiml),.ssible crime Such, with us, ought to be thie c(ime of political parricide-the dismemberment of our’” fatherland.” Upon the motion to suspend the rule to re ceive the resolution the vote was as follows: YFAs. Messrs. Adams of Mass, Sherlock, J. Andrews of O., Aycrigg of N. J., Babcock of N. Y., Baker of ia.ss., Bar nard of N. Y.. Birdseye of N. Y.. Blair of N. Y., Boardman of Conn., Borden of Mass., Briggs of Mass.. Bronson of Me., Jeremiah Brown of Pa., Burnel of Mass., Calhoun of Masts., Childs of N. Y., Chit.tenden of N. Y., John C. Clark of N. Y., Stanley N. Clarke of N. Y., James Cooper of Pa., Cowen of 0., Cranston of It. I.. Cravens of Ind., Richa rd D. Davis of N. Y.. Everett of Vt., Ferris of N.Y., esend of e., MFillmore of., JdGof N. Y., John G. Floyd of N. Y., Gates N. Giddings of 0., Patrick G. Goode of 0., Granger of N.Y., JIalsted of N. J. Penry of Pa., Iludson of Mass., Hunt of N. Y., Joseph Rt. Ingersoll of Pa., James of Pa., Linn of N. Y., MNcKennan of Pa., McKeon of N. Y., lathl ot of O., M attocks of Vt., Max well of N.J., aynard of N. Y., Morgan of N. Y., Morris of 0., Morrow of O., Olive r of N. Y., Os borne of Conn., Paro menr of Mass., Patridge of N.Y., e Pendleto of O., lIamwy of Pa., lbynj. Randall of Me., BRandolph o f N. J., Ridgway B.fO.. Roosevelt of N.Y. Wm. Rtussell of O.. James M. w us. sell ot Ii a., S altonstallor of s., Sanford of N.Y., Slade of A t.. Truman Smith of Con,., Stokely of O., Strattnc of N. J., Tillinghast of R. I., Tolacd of Pa., Tomlinson of N. Y.. Trumbul l of Conn., J oseph L. White of Ind., Winthrop of Mass.-73. NAYs.-Messr s. Landaf f W. Andre ws of Ky., Arnold of Tenn., Arrington of N. C., Beeson of Pa., Bidia.k of Pa., Black of GSeo., Bowne of N. Y., Boyd of Ky., Brewster of N. Y ar., Aaron V. rown of Tenn., lilton Brown of Tenn.. Chas. Brown of Pa., nurke of N. C., 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., Ca,ry of Va.. Casey of lll., Chapman of Ala., Clifford of Me., Clinton of N. Y., Coles of Va., Mark A. Cooper of Geo., Cross of Ark.. Daniel of N. C., Garrett Davis of Ky., Dawson of La., Deanl of Ohio., Deberry of N. C., Eastman of N. 11., Jolhn C. Edwards of Mo., Chas. A. Floyd of N. Y., Fornane, of Pa.. Gentry of Tenn., Gerry of lPa., Gog,,,in of Va., Gordon of N. Y., Green of Ky., Gwin of Miss., Ila,rris of Va.. Ilays of Va., Hopkins of Va., Houck of N.

Y., IIouston of Ala., Huibard of Va., IIunter of Va., Chas. J. Ingersoll of Pa., Irwin of Pa., Jack of Pa., Wm. Cost Johnson of Md.. Cave Johnson of Tenn., Isaac D. Jones of Md.. Keini of lPa., King of Geo.. Lewis of Ala., Littlefield of Mle., Lowell of Me., Abrahaum McClellan of Ten.., McKay of N. C., AMarchand ef Pa., Alfred Marshall of le. Thos. F. Marshall of Ky.. Mathews of O., Medill of O.. Mteriwether of Geo., Miller of Mo., Moore of La., Newhard of Ila., Owsley of Ky., Payne of Ala., Pi(kens of S.

C., Plumer of Pa., Powell of Va., Rayner of N. C.. Reding of N. l-., Rencher of N. C., Reynolds of Ill. Ithett of S. C., Rings of N. Y., Rodney of Del., Rogers of S. C., Saul, ders of N. C., Shaw of N. l1., Shields of Ala., Spri,g of Ky., Stanly of N. C., Stee,nrod of Va., Alex. It. II.

Stuart of Va., John T. Stuart of Ill.. Summers of Va., S,weney of 0., Taliaferro of Va., Joeh B. Thompson of Ky.. lRiclhard W. Thomp. son of Ind., Ja,cob Thompson of Miss., Triplett of Ky., Turney of Tenn., Van Buren of N. Y., Ward of N. Y., Wasl,ington of N. C., Waterson of Tenn..

Weller of 0., Westbrooke of lPa., Ed. D. White of L,a., Christopher H.

Williams of Tenn., Wise of Va., Wood of N. Y.-1109. So the rules were not suspended. Slade, Wvilliam, of Vermont. P,ESOI,UTIONOF. In’ the Ilouse 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 Chlief 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 catrried on in the heart of a nation whose in stitutions are based upon the principle that sill men are created equal, and whose laws have in effect proclaimed its great and superlative iniquity; aggravated, moreover, by its outrage on the sensibilities of a Christian community, by sundering the ties of christian brotherhood, and by the anguish of its remorseless violation of all the domestic relations, rendered the more deep and enduring( by the hallowing influence of the Christian religion upon those relations and by the increase of strength which it gives to the domestic Sffections; and whereas this trade in hunman beings is carried on under the authority 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 consideration that those laws are a virtual usurpation of power, the Constitution of the United States liaving 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 authorizing or sanctioning the slave trade in the District ought to be repealed and the trade prohibited, and that the Committee for the District of Columbia be instructed to report a bill accordingly. IN

THE SENATE. ON the 5th of June, 1850, a vote was taken on aln amendment of Mr. Chase of Ohio, to the Compro mise Bill, “th at nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing or permitting the i ntro duction of slavery or the h oldi ng of p ersons as property within said territory.” The vote was as follows: YEAs. -M’essrs. Baldwin of Conn., Bradbury of Me., Brignt of In(1., Cha,,se of O., Clarke of It. I., Cooper of Pa., Corwin of O.. Davis of Ma,ss.. Dayton of N. J., Do,dge of Wis., Douglas of Ill., Felch of Mich., Green of R1. I., Ilale of N. I1., IlamiD
of Me., Miller of N. J.. Norris of N. II., Seward of N. Y, Shields of 111.. Smith of Conn., Spruane. of Del., Upham of Vt.. Walker of Wis., Webster of Mass.. Whitcotnb of Ind.-25. NAYs.-MMe.srs. Atchison of Mo., Badger of N. C., Bell of Tenn., Benton of Mo., Berrien of Ga., Butler of S. C., Qa 555 Slavery. VOTES DURING THE FIRST SESSION OF THE 31ST CONGRESS

ON SUNDRY PROPOSITIONS TOUCH ING THE QUESTION OF.

Page 556 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Mich.. Clay of Ky., Clemens of Ala., Davis of Miass., Dawson o Gta.. Dickinson of N. Y., Dodge of la., Downs of La..

Foote of Miss.. Houston of Tex., Hunter of Va., Jones of la., King of Ala., Mangum of N. C., Mason of Va., lMortoii of Fa., Pearce of MId., Pratt of Md., Rusk of Tex., Sebastian of Ark., Soule of La., Sturgeon of Pa., Turney of Tenn., Underwoo of Ky.-30. Mr. Seward moved the following amendminent: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude otherwi se than upon conviction for crimes, shall ever be allowed in either of said territories of Utah and New Mexico.” The vote on this amendment was the same as on that of Mr. Chase, with the exception that Messrs. Spruance of Del., and Webster of Mass., who voted for the amendment of Mr. Chase, voted against that of Mr. Seward. Mr. Yulee of Fla., who did not vote on the amendment of Mr. Chase, voted against that of Mr. Seward. Otherwise the vote was identical. Davis of Miss., Dawson, Foote, Houston, ITunter, King, Ms son, Morton, P,earce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soul., Yu]ee.-18.

NAYs.-Messrs. lBadger, Baldwin, lenitonr, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of Mass., Daytog, Dodlge of iis., Dodge of la., Fehih. Gree ne. Iamlin, Jones, Miller. Norris, Phelps, Pratt, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturg eon, Underwood, Upham, Walker, Whitcomb.

30. June 17, 1850, Mr. Soule offered the following amendment: ” And when the said territory or any portion of the same shall be adnmitted as a stale, it shall be received into the Union withl or without slavery, as their constitution may piescribe at the time of their admission.” The amendment was adopted by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS. Tessrs.

Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Bright, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clemens, Cooper, Davis of Miss., Dawson, Dodge of I., Douglas. Downs, Foote. Ihouston. lluter. Jones, Kin,,, Iason, Morton. Norris, Pearc e, l’ratt, Rusk, fMrSebasti. Sieldis, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, W\ ales, Webster, Whitcomb, Yulee.-38. NAYS. Messrs. Baldwin, Chase, Clark, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dodge of Wis., Greene, IIale, Miller, Smith, Upham, Walker.-12. Mr. Baldwin of Conn. endeavored to amnend Mr. Soule’s amendment by striking out all after the word “state,”

and inserting, ” At the proper time, to be judged of by Congress, the people of said territory shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution.” MIMr. Baldwin’s amendment to the amendment was rejected by a vote of yeas 12, nays 38. The negative vote on Mr. Soule’s amendment being identical with the affirmative vote on Mr. Baldwin’s amendment, as was the affirmative vote on the former identical with the negative vote on the latter. On the 31st of July, 1850, the question was taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. Norris of N. II., to strike out of the 10th section of the bill the words ” nor establishing or prohibiting slavery,”

the effect of which would be to remove the restriction imposed upon the territorial legislature not to pass any law establishing or prohibiting African slaverv. The amendment was carried by yeas and nays as follows: YEDAS.-oIessrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Bralbury, right, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Coolper, Dayton, Dickinc,,(n, D)odg(e of Iowa, Douglas.

Felch, Greene, ilaslin, Jones. Mangiu, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Pratt, Seward. Shields. Sumith Sp,iuance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Uphamn. W’ales.

Wintliop.-a. NAYS.-.Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Belnton, Berien. lutler, Clemens. Davis of Miss., Dawson, Downse, Ewi.g,‘llun. ter, Kiug, Matson, Morton, Pearce, Rusk, Soule, Turiiey, Whitcomb, Yulee.-19. Mr. Douglas of Ill., at the suggestion of Mr. Davis of Miss., proposed the Missouri Compromise line as the southern boundary of Utah. The proposition was rejected by yeas and nays as follows: YF, AS. Messrs. Atchison. Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clenmens. Davis ef Miss., Dawson, Dickinson, Douglas of Ill., IDowns of La., IIouston, Ilunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Underwood, Yulee.

26. NaYs.-Moessrs. Baldwin. Bradbnry, Bright, Chase, Clark, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dayton. Dodge of Wis., Dodge of is., Ewing, Felch, Greene, Ilale, IIanin. Jones. Miller, Norris, ySeward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Upham, Wales, Walker, Winthrop, B’ hitcomb.-27. Mr. Walker moved that peon slavery be and is hereby for ever ab olished in the said territories. On this amendment the yeas and nays were as follows: YEAs. Nessrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Butler, Clay, Clemens, Davis of -Miss., Dawson, Dickinson, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, .Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk. Sebastian, Soule, Sprusnce, Sturgeon, Turney, Webster, Yulee.-30. NAYs. es1srs. Baldwin, Benton, B,-adbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Cooper, Corwin. Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dodge of Wis.. Dodge of la., Douglas. Felch, Greene, Hale. liamlin, Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Underwood, Upham, Walker, Whitcomb.-27, On the 6th of June, 1850, Mr. Baldwin of Conn. moved the following amendment: “It being hereby intended and declared that the Mexican laws, prohibiting slavery sh all b e and remain in force in said territory until they shall be altered or repealed by Congress.” The amendment was rejected by yeas and nays as follows: YEAs. Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Bright. Chase, Cooper. “orwin, Davis of Mlass., Dayton, Dodge of Wis., Douglas, Feich, Greene, lHale, ]Iamlin, Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Upham, Walker, Whitconb. 23. NAYS.-Messrs. Atchison, Badger. Bell, Benton. Berrien, Borland. Butler. Cass, Clay, Clemens, Davis of Miss., Dawrone, Dickin son, Dodge of la., Downs, Foote., touston, Dtunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce. Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Yulee.-32. June 10, 1850. Mr. Davis of Miss.

moved to amend the bill by inserting at the end of the 21st section the words ” And that all laws or parts of laws, usages or customs pre-existing in the territories acquired by the United States from Mexico, and which in said territories restrict, abridge, or obstruct the full enjoyment of any right of person or property of a citizen of the United States, as recognised or guarantied by the C6nstitution or laws of the United States, are hereby declared and shall be held as repealed.” T h e amenendmen t was rejected by yeas and nays, as follows: YAs. Messrs. Atchison, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, 553

Page 557 view page image

Miller of 0., and Robbins of Pa., being the only Northern men who voted in the affirmative, 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 Tapart by the rules for the reception of resolutions 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 Itouse at 12 o’clock.” The House then, at 12 minutes past midnight, adjourned after the most arduous parliainmentary struggle that marked the history of the 31st Congress. On the 27th of May, 1850, Mr. Crewell moved to suspend the rules to enable him to introduce a ])ill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia. On the motion to suspend, the yeas we~, 99, nays 64. This was a sectional vote.

But one Northern man-Mr. John K. Miller of Ohio, voted in the negative. No Southern man voted in the affirmative. Twothirds not voting in favor thereof, the rules were not suspended. IN THlE IlOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

On the 31st of December, 1849, Mr. Root of Ohio offeredl a resolution instructing the Committee on; Territories to bring in territorial bills for that part of the Mexican territory ceded to thfe United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, lying eastward of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and prohibiting slavery therein. Sil. Stephens of Geo. moved to lay the res’,lution on the table, and it was decided in the inegative by a vote of yeas 83, nays 101. The affirmative vote was a Southern one with the addition of Messrs. Bissell of Ill., Broo,ks, Clark, and Duer of N.

Y., Gilmore and MAann of Pa., McClernand of Ill., Miller of O., Richardson and Young of Ill. The negative vote was purel y a Northe rn vote. On the 4th of February, 1850, the resoluti on came up again. Mir. lIaralson of Geo. moved to lay it on thle talble, 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 Ill., Brown of Ind., Bri,rgs and Brooks ofN. Y., Blutler of Pa., Clark ofN. Y.. Dimlick of la., Dixon of R. I., Dunham of Ind., Fuller of MNe., Gilmore. of;a., Gorman of Ind., IHarris of Ill., James G. Kindg ,f N..l.. John A. King of N.Y.. Leffler of Ia., Mann of l’a., McCler,,atid of Ill., MNIclKissock of N.Y., McLanahan of Ila., 1iller1 of a., Nelsor of P.Y., Uitman of Pa., Robbins of P a., Rloss of lPa., Taylor of Ohio, Underhill of N. Y., Young of Ill. 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 th ereof, of whatever complexion, the enjoyment of t he rights aforesaid. Mr. Inte of Al a. moved to lay the resolutitions on the table, which was carried by a vote of yeas 104, nays 92. The affirmative vote was a Southern vote, with tie, addition of-N

MIessrs. Albertson of Ind., Bissell of Ill., Brig,gs of N. Y., Brown of Ind.. Buel of Mich., Butler of Pa., Dunham of Intl.. Fitch of Ind., Fuller of Me., Gorman of Ind., Ilarris of Ill., Leffler of Ia., Mann of Pa., McClernaind of Ill., McL,anlahan of Pa., MNiller of O., Richardson of Ill., Itobbins of lPa., R’oss of Pa., Taylor of 0., Young of Ill. On the 18th of February, 1850, Mr. Doty olf 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 constitution. Mr. Inge moved to lay the resolution on the table, which was decided in the negativeyeas 70, nays 121. The vote was nearly a sectional one, Messrs. 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 boundary 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 subject 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., ttall of Mo., Hammond of Md., Houston of Del., Johnson and Jones of Tenn., and McMullen of Va., voting no. The bala nce of h othe 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: YI:As.-Messrs. Alexander of N. Y., Andrewsi of N. YBinlgham of Mich., Booth of Conn., Burrows of N. Y., Cable gtaygky 6&.

Page 558 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of 0., Calvin and 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 Mas., Freedley, Goodenow of Me., Gott of N.Y., Gould. Grinnell of Mass., Italloway of N.Y., Ilarlan of Ind., liebard of Vt., Henry of Vt., Ilowe of Pa.. Ilunter of 0., King of N.J., J. A. King of N. Y.. P. King of N.Y., Mann of Mass., Matteson of N.Y., 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 O., Ruimsey, Sackett of N.Y., Schoolcraft of N.Y., Silvester and Spaulding of N.Y., Sprague of Mich., Stevens of Pa., Van,lyke of N. J., Vinton of O., Waldo of Conn., White of N.Y. inaugurating ally legislation in diminution or d iscouragement of the institution-navy, sir, more, if at the dat e of our revolution I can show that African slavery existed in England as it died on this continent, it’ I can show that slaves were sold upon the slave mart, in the Exchange and other public places of resort ir. the city of Lond on as they were on this conti nent, then I sh all not hazard too much in the assertion that slaver y was the common law o f the thirteen states of th e c on federacy, at the time they burst th e bond s that unite d them to the mothe r coun tr y. T he first permanent colonial settlement mad ton this continent by the Engl ish was made under a charter g rant ed in 1606, in the fourth year of James I.. to Sir Thomas Gates and his associates. I leave out of vie w, as a matter of course, the few abort ive attempts that were made towards the close of the six teenth century by SirGilbert lumphreys in the north, and by Sir Walter Raleiirh in t he state which is repre se nted by my frie nd fro m Vir ginia. Those attempts were all aborti ve. It is familiar to us al l how disastrously they ter minated. I say the first permean e tl eent settlement made under th e authority of the British Crown on th is continent, was unde r the char ter of 1606. That charter was subsequently super seded upon quo uarranto, is sued at tcale instance of thie British Crown, and in 16220 another charter took its pla ce, granted to the Duke of Lenox a nd his associates, who were incorporated unde r th e name of the Plvncouth Company. To that company the ourpist was granted from the fortieth to the forty-eit,lth degree of north latitude. This charter was followed by successive grants to different no blemen and companies, until the en t i re coast w as disposed of. In 1664, to the Duke of York was granted all the territory as far southl as Delaware Bay; and in 1663 and 1666, to Lord Clarendon and his associates the entire co a st of the continent, frome the t wen tyninth detree of north latitude to that celebrated l ine of 36~ 30’ nor t h, si nce so fa mous in the history of our intestine disputes. Thus was conveyed the whole coast compr ise d within our present limits. Prior to this very first se t tlement, the slaue trade had been inaugurated and estal)lislhedi p in Great Britain. The fi rst notice which his tory gives us of it is the grant of a charter by Quee n Elizabet h, to a cob i pany formedm fos r the purpose of supplying slaves to the Spanish American colonies. The Virgin Queen her self was a shareholder Subsequently, ill 1662, under Charles 1., a, monol)(ly wvs cle ated in favor of at company authorized t(, export to the colonies three th~ol,usand slaves per annum; and so valuable was this privilege considered, so great ws-:. the influence required for the purpose of obtaining a share in it, that fiit was placed under the auspices of the Queen Dowager and the Duke of York.

The King himself issued his prnclamation, inviting his subjects to establish themselves on this side of the Atlantic; and as an encouragement to tinr. 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 Constitution of the United States, nor bv international 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 independence, were British colonies, governed by British laws. Our ancestors, in their emig,ration to this country, brought with them the common law of England as their birthright. They adopted its principles for their governmeDt 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, possessed undoubted power to regulate their institutions, 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 support and foster that trade, that it forbade the colonies permission either to emancipate or export their slaves, that it prohibited them from 558 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 subject of slavery. The first is that of the Hon. Mr. B.ENJAMIN, senator from Louisiana.

Page 559 view page image

SLAVERY. dIe migration, tendered a grant of one hun-I he called the house of Assembly before him, dred acres of land for each four slaves that communicated his instructions, and forbade 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 England, in Committee of the Whole, resolved, ” That for the better supply of the plantations, 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 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 co lony, that “thes e measures had created oialarm 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.” Finallv, in 1775-mark the date-1775after the revolutionary struggle had commenced, 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: ‘ 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 1” eWe cannot allowf 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 man much private property as any other merchandise or any other chattel. A short time prior to the year 1713, a contract had been formed between Spain and a certain company, called the Royal Guinea Company, 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 followed, in the month of May, 1713, by a new’ contract in form, by which thie British government 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 a.rose in the English 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: And in 1711 they again resolved that ” this trade ought to be free in a regulated compa-c ny; the plantations ought to be supplied with negroes at reasonable rates; a considerable stock was necessary for carrying on the trade to th e be st advantae, 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 resolutions of the Commons, and petitions of the merchants of London, accomplished the de-: sired result. They gained their object by theI passage of the act of 23d George II., throwing open the trade, and declaring ” the slave trade to be very advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary for supplying the plantations 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 country, fixed the institution upon the colonies. They could not resist it. All their right was limited to petition, to remonstrance, and to attempts at legislation at home to diminish the evil. Every such attempt was sternly repressed by the British Crown. In 1760, South Carolina passed an act prohibiting the further importation of African slaves. The Lct was rejected by the crown; the governor was reprimanded; and a circular ras sent to all the governors of all the colonies, warning them against presuming to countenance such legislation. In 1765, a similar bill was twice read in the assembly of Jamaica. The news reached Great Britain before its final passage. Instructions were sent out to the royal governor; b59

Page 560 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK 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 compromise this matter.” But the parties said no. they would stand on the law; and then, after holding the case up three terms, Lord Mansfield 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 o n board of a vesse l in irons, being unsupported b y a ut hority der ived from English law, and the dolonial law not being in force in England, he would discharge the sl ave from custody on habeas corp1ts, and leave the master to hi e s r emedy as best h e could find one. Mr. FESSENDEN. Decided so unwillingly. Mr. BENJAMIN. The gentleman is rightvery unwillingly. He was driven to the decision by the paramo unt power of that fanati - cism which is now perverting the principles and obsc uring 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 relation to that judiiment, because in them I am supported by a n intellect greater than Mansfield’s-by a judge of resplendent genius and consummate learning-one who, in all questions of international law, on all subjects not dependent upon the peculiar municipal common law of England, has won for himself the proudest name in the annals of her jurisprudence-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 argument 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 historical records, he did not find anything touching the peculiar fitness of the English atmosphere for respiration during the ten centuries that slaves had lived In England. I desire to call the attention of the Senate to slime passages in that celebrated decision, in answer to another p.roposition which the Senato)rs who are opposing this bill assume in’

nearly all their argruments, and that is that slavery is the creature of positive legislation, and cannot be established b~y customary lams or usagfe. That point v-as raised in this case, and Lord Sto)well thus disposed of it: ” In pursuance of his Majesty’s order in council, hereunto annexed, we do humhbly certify our opinion to-be that n”groes are mnerchu1.2dse.” Sig,ned by Lord Chief Justice Ifolt, Judge Pollexfen, and eight other judges of England. Mr. MASON. What is the date of that? Mr.

BENJA.MIN. It was immediately after the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713. Very soon afterwards the nascent spirit of fanaticism began to obtain a foothold in England; and although large numbers of neg,ro slaves were owned in Great Britain, and, as I said before, were dailyv sold on the public Exchange in London, (s io,, 2 Ha,ggard’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 Hardwicke, 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 c legal functionaries. They certified that ” a slave comrning 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 leg,ally compel him to return to the plantations.” And, in 1749, the same question again came up before Sir Philip Yorke, then Lord Chancellor of England, under the title of’Lord Ihardwicke, 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. Thing,s thus stood in England until the year 1771, when the spirit of Ianaticism, to which I have adverted, acquiring strength, finally operated upon Lord Mansfield, who, by a judgment rendered in the case known as the celebrated Sommiiersett case, subverted the common 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 presumptuous. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] need not smile at my statement; I will give him higher authority than anything I can dare assert. I say, that in 1771 Lord Mansfield subverted the common law of England in the Sommersett case, and decided, not that a slave carried to England from the West Indies lby 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 authority in Eng,land, and that England bv her laws had provided no substitute for thatauthority. That was what Lord Mansfield decided. I say this was judicial legislation. I say it subverted the entire previous jurisprudence of Great Britain. I have just adverted to the authorities for that position. Lord Mansfield ~elt it. The case was argued before him over and over again, and he begged the parties to 566

Page 561 view page image

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C ~ -. . CD ~~~~~~~~~~~CDC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD ~~~~~~~~~~~~CD oD C D - -C -~- 0-~~~~~~~~~~~ 0
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 00~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~,-.- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,; C.. -. n -,-. ~~~~~ ~~~~ CD CD M ,-.~C -‘ 0 ID I C D -,C’= 0 CD C D CC

-CDC CD I=~~~~~~~ ‘.0 - C’ ’.- -o ~~~~~~~~~~~-,-~- C -‘0’” C-”’.,-*-.

0 “ ~ _ 0 C, - ~ ’ ID o C 0 (D 0, D -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C ID - IDC~ CD

CD C, 0C~ C C ~~~~ C E C -. C _ 0~~~~~0 C - C  0.- -DC CD C CD C.~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD~ C D CD~~ Cu.- - _-C — - C o-”’”’-.  ”” ”’ A -,-“C

Page 562 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. la.nd to which he was annexed, but might be severtdI at the ,lneasure of his lord. If lIe was a vi lain in gross. hie ta b a l,,-rditament or i hattel real. accordi,ti to his 10Xd’s il1.-rest being descendible to the heir where the lo,-l wass hSolut owner. and transmiss.itble to the exeeutor where the lord had only a term of years inl him. Lastlv, the slavery extended to the issue, if both parents were villeins. or if the father was a villein; our law deriv ing the coadition of the child from that of the father, contrary to the Roman law, in which the rule was’paious squitur ventrei.’ The ,‘rigin of villenage is principally to be derived from the wars l,tween our British, Saxon, Danish. and Norman ancestors. whilst they were contending for the possession of this country. Judge Fitzherbert, in hi. ro,ading on the fourth of Edward I.. stat. 1, entitled’eynta munerii.’ supposes y villenage to have commenced at the Conquest, by the distributioen made of t he frfited lands, nd of the van,lis~hed inhabitants resident upon them.

But there ere ,,any bondmen in England before the Conquest. as app ears tby the Anglo-Saxon laws regulating them: and tlierefore it would be nearer the truth to attribute the origin of villins as well to the preceding wars and revolutions in this countrvy as to the effects of the Conquest.” 20 Isowll’s,State T. iala. 1t,p. 36-7. Ilere, then, was slavery in its widest and broa-tdest acceptation, in Great Britain, in the time of Elizaheth, and it never finally disappeared firom the kingdom until the reign of James II. Ilow was it in France? In France they had a system of white slaves of the same kind. There they called them gens de maitn mortemortmain people, because thev belonged to the estates; and they, in 1779, were enfranchised by royal edict, commencing in these words: tbWe have been greatly affected by the consideration that a large number of or-9’bjects, still attached as slaves to the glebe, are regarded as forming part of it as it were; that deprived -f 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 bequeathin, their goods, and that, except in a few cases rig,,rously circumscribed, they cannot even transmit to their own children the fruits of their own labor.” I say, then, sir, that white slavery was prot~ected by the common law of Eng,iand down to James II.; and if any man is peculiarly curious to learn the process by which it gradu.tlly disappeared, and has any taste for antiqluarian lore, if he will look to the appnenflix to the twentieth volume of Howell’s State Trials, he will find a commission issued:s Queen Elizabeth to Cecil Lord Btirlei,,b, alld Sir Wfilliam M~ildmay, giving theiii authority to , O into her counties of Gloucestei-, C(.rnwall, D~evon, and Somerset. and there to mianumit her slaves, byr getting, from them a reasonable price fo~r their-liberty.

Tha,t is the way slavery wras abolished in England. It +-vas abolished lay the gradual emancipation of the slaves, resulting from the sale by the lord, to the slave himself, of his riffht over lhim. I wtill read a passage of this commission: eteb he I n l o E n Thus fell the last remnant of white slavery to James II.; an,d if any man is peculiarly in France in 1779, after our independence. curious to learn the process by which it graduAs regards Spain, let any one who is in the an.a an tt fo Ans-heabitdo Spain, let any one who is in the ally disappeared, and has any taste for an-bit of reading the literature of that country luarian lore, if he wi l l look to the appendix to for the eighteenth century tell me if he remem t,he twenie m of a tcomsi isu jalues,. hers a solitary tale or romance of her authors he will find a commission sued )v Queen in which some Moorish or negro slave is not Elizabeth to Cecil Lord Burleigh, and Sir introduced as the familiar inmDate of the houseWilliam Mildmay, giving the, authority to hold. The remainder of the European conti”rO into her counties of Gloucesitei-, C(rnwa:lil , go into her countie s of Gloucete Crnwall, nent is still governed with beneficent sway by I)evon, and Somerset. and thlere to mianumit vv )evon, and Somerset, and theie to manumit the civil law; and all know that that law proher slaves, by getting from them a reasonable 1 ^ 7* a o., tects, in everv aspect, the relation between price for their liberty. That is the way slavery master and slave. was abolished in England. It w-as abolished Thus, Mr.

President, I say, that even if we lby the gradual emancipation of the slaves, adnmit for the moment that by the common resulting from the sale by the lord, to the law of the nations which colonized this contislave himself, of his right over him. I will nent, the institution of slavery t the time of ,.,… * neiit, the institution of slavery at the time of read a passage of this comission our independence, was dying away by tnanu ELIZAET by the grae of God To our rmissi ons, either gratuitous or for a price grantand well-beloved counsellor, sir I’. Ceill of the Ga ter ed by those who held the people gs slaves Knighte, lord Burghley and Iighe Treasorer of Endnhn, yet so far as the continent of America was and to our trustie and riht wel-beloved counsellor, sir andtoou tuste ndri,-bt ~l-Ilo,d ous,Ilr.concerned, North and South, there did not Walter Mildmay, Knight, chiauncellor, and tinder treae.,orere dd not of our exchequer, greetinge. breathe a being who did not know that a ne whereas, divers and sundrie of our poore fitful and gro under the common law of the continent, loyal subjectes. being borne honde il hlo,le an(1 reg.rdanlnt to divers and sundrie our manors and possessions within Was merchandise, was property, was a slave; our realm of England, have usade humble suyte ill,,to s to and that he could only extricate himself fronm be manumysed, enfraunchi.-el. and made frisee wim by the common ch ildren and sequells.

b) X eason whereofthey. the,ir-i (-hilre tt.ats, t amped upon m by the common and sequells. may become more apte andl fitte uierlhers to law of the country, by positive proof of manuthe service of us and of our -ommonwealthe. i o man s o oo We therefore, lhaving tende-r consideration of thbi r i’ssion. to show title to sIte. and well considerinig the s:me to bie acecpta’ble to sis negro slave. The iegro was bound to Almightie God” show nianumiission under whlich lie had ac quired his freedom, by the common law of Now, we all suppose she is going to give them every colony.

Why, sir, can any man doubt, theirfreedom. Notatall. She is willingto sell is there a gentleman here. even the Senator them to themselves at a fair I)rice and so shle from Maine, who doulbts that if, after the Revogoes on: lution, the different states of this Union had not And we do comnmytt and give unto you full power aid passed laws upon the subject to abolish sla ver-, ituthoritie by these presents, to accepte, admittt and receive to subvert this common law of the continent, to be manumysed, enfraunchised, and made fiee, suche and ev erv one of these states would be slave states so many of our bondmen and boudwomen in blood, with all and every theire children and seqiuells. theire good,,e. Iandes, yet? ]Iow camse they free states? Did not they tenementes, and hereditaments, as are now apperteynyvge have this institution of slavery imnprinited upon ,,r recardaunte to all or any of our m an de t te tie poer of the mother cuntr? muentee. possessions. or hereditaments withib thoweai ctseunry counties of Cornwall, Devon. Somersett, and Gloucester as Ilow did they get rid of it? All, all niust admit to you by your discretions shall seme mete and convint. that they had to pass positive acts of le(iscompbuandinyge with them for suche reasonable fines or somenoest f money to be taken and rece.ved te our use tr the manumvs-lation to accomplish this purpose. Without sion and enfraunchisement, and for the possessions, and that legislation they would still be slave states.

enjoying of all and singular theire landes, tenementes. hereditaments, goodes and chattells whatsoever, as you and th What, then, ecoe o the pretext that ya~n agreeforthesameafteryourwisfiomesanddiscretjins.;, ery only exists in those states where it was I 662

Page 563 view page image

established by positive legislation, that it has confined themselves to calm and legitimate ino inherent vitality out of those states, and argument. Tc them I am about to reply. Tr, that slaves are not considered as property by the others I shall have something to say ts the Constitution of the United States? little later. What says the Senator from When the delegates of the several colonies, Maine? [Mr. Fessenden.]

which had tlhus asserted their independence ie says: of the British Crown, met in convention, the l iof the Britis Crown, met in tconvention, the “Ilad the result of that election been otherwise, and hald decision of Lord Mansfield in the Sonimersett not the (Democratic) party triumphed on the doioam which cxase was i event-kn,)wn to all. At the same they had thus introduced, we should never have heard of a tiniiie, a number of the northern colonies had doctrine so utterly at variance with all truth; so utterly *ilne a number ofhe northern codestitute of all legal logic; so founded oit error, and unsup taken incipient steps for the emancipation of ported by anything like argument, as is the opinion of the their slaves.

Ilere permit me to sav, sir, that, Supreme Court.” with a prudent regard to what tile Senator I f h Irons Maine [Mr. IIamlin] yesterday called e says uter the ” sensitive pocket-nerv-e,” they all made’I should like, if I had time, to attempt to demonstrate these provsisions prospetive Slavery w to th fallay of that opinion. I have examined the view of these prov isions prospective. Slavery was to the Supreme Court of the United States on the question of le abolished after a certain future time-just the p owe r of th e Co nstituti on t o carry slavery into free ter etnoug,h time to give their citizens convenient ritozy belonging to the United States, and I tell you that I believe any tolerably respectable lawyer In the United oppo)rtunity for selling the slaves to southern Sta,ts can show. beyond all qtesetion, to any fair and unpre planters, putting the money in their pockets, judiced mind, that the decision has nothing to stand upon except assumnption, andl bad logic from the assumptions and then sending to us here, on this floor, rep-mae. The ain proposintion l ali fromn hih the ast dumpiions resenta.tives who flaunt in robes of sanctilno-founded, the corner-,stone ofit, without which it is iotinig, niosis holiness; who make parade of a cheap without which it fails entirely to satisfy the mind of any man, is this: that the Constitution of the Unite,l States lhilianthropy, exercised at our expense; tnd recognises property in slaves, and protects it si such. t who say to all men, “Look ye now, how holy deny it. It neitl r 1aves as property, nor does how pure we are; you are polluted by the it protect slavesasproperty” t,uchl of slavery; we are free from it.” The Senator here, you see, says that the I say that was the position of the delegates whole decision is ba1sed on that assuliption, when they met in convention, and it was ne-which he pronounces false. Ile says that the (tessary to make provision in relation to slaves. Constitution does not recognise slaves as pro In the northern states slavery was about to be perty, nor protect them as property, and his atbolished. If Lord Mlansfield’s decision in reasoning, a little further on, is soisiewbat the Sommersett case was to be followed as curious. Ile says: the rule, it was obvious that southern slaves were exposed to being plundered, robbed, car- “On what do they found the assertion lhat the Constitu rned away from their masters. On the other tion ree,,nises slaves as property? On the provision of the rd away,romheirastes Onthe t (ons.titutiou. by whichl Conigress is prohibited fron passing a hand, by a compromise between the north and law to prevent the Atfriean shtve trade lor twenty years; and the south, slaves had entered into the repre-therefiore they say the Constitution recognises slaves as pro sentative basis of the country. What was to i be done?’ Two clauses were put in the Consti-I should thinik that was a pretty fair recog tution, one to guaranty to the south its pronition of it. Otn this point the gentleinali de perty-it provided for the return to the south-elares: ern owner of the slave that was recognised as his property; another clause fi)r the north, to if” Will not anybody see that this constitutional provision, it works one way, must work the other? If by allowing prevent a disturbance oif the rel)resentative the slave trade for twenty years, we recognise slaves as basis by importation of slasves.‘The lnorth 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 said to the south, “you shall not increase your (cnving them to be property after that’penod elapsesE” laboring population deny~Ining the,m to be property after that, period elapses?” laboring population by imniportation after twenty years, because we of the north have That is the argument. Nothing but my rean interest in that question; we have agreed spect for the logical intellect of the Senator they shall be counted in the representitive from Maine could make me treat this argulbasis, and we want protection as well as you.” mnent as serious, and nothing but having heard That is all the Constitution says on this sub-it myself would make me believe that he ever ject. It guaranties to the south the sanctity uttered it. What, sir! The Constitution of of its peculiar property; it protects the north our country says to the south, “you shall against any abnormal augmentation of the count as the basis of your representation five number of slaves in the south which inight slaves as being three white men; you shall be give them an undue preponderance in the rep-protected in the natural increase of your resentation of the different states of the Union slaves; nay, more, as a matter of compromise Now, sir, because the Supreme Court of the you may increase their number if you choose, United States says-what is patent to ev ery for twenty years, by importation; when these man who reads the Constitution of the United twenty years are out, you shall stop.’ The States that it does guaranty property in sla’ es, Supreme Court of the United States says it has been attacked with vituperation here, “well; is not this a recognition of slavery, of on this floor, by Senators on all sides. Some property in slaves?” “Oh, no,” says the have abstained from any indecent, insulting gentleman, “the rule must work both ways; remarks in relation to thie court. Some have there is a converse to the proposition.” Now, SLAVERY. 5 6 C

Page 564 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. sir, to an ordinary, uninstructed intellect, it would seem that the converse of the proposition was simply that at the end of twenty years you should not any longer increase you r numbers by importation; but the gentlemdan 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 adding by importation to the previous number of your slaves, then all those you hadl before, *and all those tl-lat, under that Constitution, you have imported, cease to be rec(tgniised as property by the Constitution, and on this proposition 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. BENJAMI.N. 1 should be very glad to enter into this question with the Seniator 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 consequence. Mr. BE.NJAMIN. What says the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Collamer,] who also went into this examination somewhat extensively? I read from his printed speech: to say. it does re,ognis~ and proteet them as property fiurthe’ than state limits, and i,,re than thie state laws do, then, iee. it becomes like o the r pro perty.‘le Supre e Court rest this clai hy up,, this caltve o the Cp,si tutio n: a No i )trson held to service or labor in one states under thee lws thereot, shall, in conseque nce of an,y law or regulati(on, therein, be dischalged from such service or lab~or, but shall be delivered up on clainm of the party to whom suc-h sorvi,e or labor may be due.’ Now the question is, does that guaranty it? Does that make it the samue as other prolper-ty?

The very fact that this clause makes provision on the s,utje,‘t 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 mlan’s horse stray from Delaware into Pennsylvania, he can go and get it. Is there any provision in the Constitution for it? No. Ilow 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 property 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 Engla nd, or go es to Mass achusetts, from a slave state, is still a slave I 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 copyright 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 abandon the grosser regions of earth, and to rise to purer and serener regions above. God has created that man a poet. Ilis inspiration is his; his songs are his by right divine; they are his property, so recognised by human lam. 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 inventive genies of our brethren of the north is a source of vast wealth to them an(d 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 nowv before us in this Capitol for renewal was $40,000,000. I cannot believe that the entire capital invested “I do not say that slaves are never property. I do not say that they are, or are not. Within the linits 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 lanslage of the United States Constitution. If this he property il t he s tates, what is the stature and extent of it? I insist that the Supreme Court have often decided and everybody has understood, that slavery is a local in stitution, 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 beitter expressed in the opinion of Judge Nelson. in this s;tme Dgaed Scott decision. I prefer to read his language. li declres: “‘I Every state or nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within her own 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 an d the modes of administering justice. And it is equally tru e 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, i f it attempts to do so, may be lawfully rfised obedience. Such laws can have no authority extra-territoriallvy. This is the necessary result of the independence of distinct and sepatate sovereignties.’ ” Here is the law; and under it exists the law of slavery in the different states. By 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 lik e law; and if you do, you hold it by virtue of that law; but the moment you pass beyond the limits of the slaveholding sttates, all title to the property called property in slaves th ere ends. yUndesr such a law staves cannot be carried as property into the territories, or anywhere else beyond the states authoeeri.,no it. It is not property anywhere else.

If th e Constitution of the United States gives any other and fur the r character than this to siave property, let us acknowledge it tirly, andl end all strife about it. If it does not, I ask, in all c,ndor, that men on the other side shall say so. and let this point be settled.‘What is the point we are to inquire ito? It is this: does the Constitution of the United States make sl.aves property beyond the jurisdiction of the states authorizing slavery? If it only acknowledges them as pr)operty within that jurisdiction. it h as not extended the property one inch beyond the state line; but if, as the Supreme Court seems I 564

Page 565 view page image

SLAVERY. in inventions of this character in the United States can fall short of one hundred and fiftyr 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 outsidle 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 pIroperty, “render me up my property, or pay me value for its use.”

The Seitator firom 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 tound; 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 everv man see at once that the right of the inventor to his discovery, that the right of the poet to his inspiration, dlepends upon those principles of eternal justice 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? Sir, follow out the illustration which the Semator from Vermont himself has given; take hlls verv case of the Delaware owner, of a horse riiding him across the line into Pennsylvania. The Senator says: “Now, you see that slaves are not property like other property; if slav e s were property like other property, why have you this special clause in vour Constitution to protect a slave? You have no clause to profltect the horse, because horses are recognised as property everywhere.” Mr. President the same fallacy lurks at the bottom of this airgutuent, as of all the rest. Let Pennsylvania exercise her undoubted jurisdiction over pers,)ns and things within her own boundary; let ler do as she has a perfect right to dodeclare that hereafter, withini the state of Pennsylvania, there shall be no property in horses, and that no nman shall maintain a suit in her courts fol the recovery of property in a horse; and where wvill vour 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 sul)jectmatters, had not provided the remedy in relation to such property as might easily be plundered. Sla ves, 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 hiss to overthrow the whole history of the woo}ld, he has to overthrow every treatise on jurisprudence, he has to ignore the common sentiment of nmankind, he has to repudiate the authority of all that is considered sacred with man, ere he can reach th e conclusion that the pers on wh o owns a slave, in a country where’ slavery has been established for ages, has no other pro.pert.y in that slave than the mere title which is given by the statute law of the la nd w here it is found. I never heard this question disputed before; I never he ard a suggestion that s laves were not pro tected as property by the Constitution of the United States till I heard it from the Senator from iMaine 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 versits The State of’Peniisylvania. 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 thev did not precisely agree with the general language of the court. Amiiongst 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 Constitution. I shall read a short passage, a paragraph or two only. I take this out of his statement of his opinion at page 661, of 16th Peters.

IIe quotes the clause of the Constitution that protects us in our rights to fugitive slaves, and he says: “It was desigred to protect the rights of the master, andl against whom,,? N,ot 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 bin found.

Under the confederation, the master has no le,gal eanss of enforcingi his RIGHTS in a state opposed to slavery. A (isreg,ard of rights thus asserted was deeply felt in the South. It pr(odIuced great excitement, and would have led to results destructive of the Union. To avoid this, the constitutional guarantee was essentia.” Now what is this guarantee? Ie tells us at page 671 of the samie volume: “I cannot perceive how anv one ean doubt that the remedy given in the Constit ution, if, indeed it give any remedy without legislation. wats designed to be a peaceful one; a remedy sa,.ctione^d by judicial authority; a remedy guarded by the firms of law. But the inquiry is reiterated, is not the master entitlel to his property! I answer that he is. ttis right is.qutarantied by thee Constittution; aind the most sumnmary means for its en forement is found in the act of Congreoss. A,, neit her the state nor its citizens can obstruct the prosecution of this right.” 566 ThatwasJud,eMeLean’slanguage.

When I find langua,e like this even from the Iminority of the court in the Dred Scott case, when I find the entire court, man for man, concurring that the constitutional ri,,hts of the el

Page 566 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. South are guarantied in slaves as property by this clause in the Constitution, I must express umy intense surprise at hearing the Senator from Maine. declare that the Dred Scott decision was n-ot t-be supported, because it rested for a corner-stone on the assumption that slaves were recognised byv the Constitution as property, which assumption he denied.. -Hon J. P. Benjamini, ill the Senate, Alarch 11 th, 1858. evil, a great and appalling evil, he dared believe 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 udon this land, is clearly demonstrated by this very discussion itself. ” Notwithstanding Eastern gentlemen hadl waxed so warmni, there are many, very many in Eastern Virginia who had rather resign their slaves gratuitously than submit to the ills of slavery.; manv who had rather turn them loose and leave them behind, while thev should seek a happier clime-a land alike as stranger to slaves and slavery.”-Mr.

Bollingy of Va. in the Legislature ill 1832. “Sir: I believe that no cancer on the physical 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 lbe blamed for its existence now, but wve shall deserve the severest censure if we do not take measures, as soon as possible, to remove it.” ‘. Berry, in the Virginia 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 blessinga blessing to the slave, a blessing to his inaster.” Hoel. Albert G. Brown of Miss. “It is now asserted that slavery is’a moral ev il,’ in other words a sin, and conseqtuently 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 language as this:‘Both thv bondmen and thy boudmaids 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 admonition,‘Servants, be obedient to your masters;’ but I do not see the direction,‘Masters, manumit your slaves.’ I see it said,’ Ye shall not bear false witness against your n eighbo r;’

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 excite 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 f)r us.”  Ml.

Bocock of Va., H. of R., June 30, 1848. ” 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.” M-. Calhoun.

” But i f, unhappily, we should be inv ol ved in war -in a civil war between the two partof this confe deracy, in w hich the e ffort s upon the o n e side s hould be to re stra in the icstroduction of slavery into new territories, an([ upon th e other side to force its introductioon there, what a spectacle should we present to the astonishment o f m ankind, in an effort, not to propagate rights, but I must say, though I t rus t it will be unde rst ood to be said wi th c no design to excit e feelingua war to propagate wrongs in the territories thus acquired firom 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 a!,ains,it us; for from the commencement of the Revolution down to the present time, we have coinstantly reproached our British ancestors for the introduction of slavery into this countrv. And allow me to say that, in my opinion,‘it is one of the best defences which can be madle to preserve the institution of slavery in this country, that it was forced upon us against the wishes of our ancestors, of our ownii AImierican ” This is a grave and important subject-one that ought to be and will be considered. Its import.ance demands that it should be considered and debated here; and is not, as some gentleumen 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 )pen, bold, and manly. Sir, that it is an 566 ” I took occasion to observe that I believed the people of Norfolk county would re’

could they, even in the vista of time, see some. scheme for the gradual removalof this curs(from our land. I was desirous to see a report from the committee declaring the slave popitlation an evil, and recommending to the people of this commonwealth the adoption of soiiio plan for its riddance.”-Mi,. Cliaitdler oj’ Va., in tlt,, Leqislature, in 1832.

Page 567 view page image

SLAVERY. coloniial ancestors, and by the cupidity of our British commercial ancestors.” [‘). Clay, in 1850. reply to the puling sophistry upon this sub)ject, so often heard in this House. Were I disposed to argue the question of slavery, without reference to the Constitution, in all its relations, religious, moral, social, and political, no fear of its successful vindication would restrain 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.”-Hoi. S.

W. Inge of Ala. 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, ieinge now assembl ed in Cong ress, by th e authiorit and free choice of the inhabitants of said district, now freed f rom their fetters, do I s,-so!ve.” Th en follow s eve ral resoluti ons, se tting forth the grounds o f compla in t agai nst the (oppressions of Great Britain, closing with: “lTo show to the world that we are not influenced by any contracted or interested motives, but by a general philanthropy for all ima,nkind, of whatever climate, language, or c(uiplexion, we hereby declare our disapprobaf,tion and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of slavery in America, (however the uncultivated state of our country or other specious arguments may plead for it)-a practice foundedi in injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to our liberties as M”ell as lives, debasing p.art of our fellow-creatures below men, and co,rrupting the virtue and the morals of the rest, and laying the basis of that liberty we contenid for, and which we pray the Almighty to continue to the latest posterity, upon a very wrong foundation. We, therefore, resolve at atll timies to use our utmost endeavors for the manumission of our slaves in this colony, upon the most safe and equitable footing for the mL’sters and themselves.” “When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous mind, and every friend of human nature.”-Mr-. Iredell of N. C., lit the convention of that state to ratify the Federal Constt~ution. 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 Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will approve it in theory, and it will find a respectable minority ready to adopt it in practice; a minority which, for weight and worth of character, pr& 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 Chesapeake, you may find here and there an opponent 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 easilv disencumber themselves of them: and emancipation 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 suchl a disposition to begin the redress of the en(,rmity 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 intl) office of young lien, grown and growing up.” In Mr. Jeflerson’s notes on Virginia, he thus alludes to the prospects of emancipation: ” 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 tIeaven, for a total emancipation.” In another place, declaring his own sentiments, 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 ‘“That slavery is te nu r the natural, the proper c,(ttdition of the African-one that is advantageous to his mater, and a great blessing to h iml.”-.1r. Featherston of Miss. ” To exte nd the institution indefinitely, it (t he Cons titution) prohibited the passage of atev law t o stop the importatio n of slaves from Africa and els ewhere, prior to the year 1808. Another clause, with a view to its perpetuati,en, f or ever provi des for the recapture of efuitives w ho escape to non-slaveholding states. Notwithstanding these plai n stipulatiO,ns between the slaveholding and non-slaveholdinT, states, constitutin g the ess ential, vital byl oe isions of the C on stitution, w ithout which ail admit the confedera tion coul d not have ueon form ed, we are rcantingly told that * slavery is a sin, and the North is opposed to it.s extension. We the philanthropists of this clay. are better than the sages and heroes, lpailied by the trials of the Revolution and coN ered with its glories, who assembled in the old halls of the Confederation in 1787.’ I hane no reply to make to these pharisaical Pretensions-they are beneath contempt. I amll 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 us. I shall certainly not condescend to I 567

Page 568 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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, amiong whoni labor would be honorable, and whiere “thile busy hum of nmen” would tell that all were happy and all were free.”-HJr. Marshall of Ia. in House of Delegates int 1832. “I attached myself in early life to that party which was always and ever opposed to the extension of slavery, and I say here tonight that the Whig party of the north has always had that creed, and thes e Republicans can’t take out a patent for it, for many a long year. And I sav that Millard Fillmore has I)een true to that party, and has never bad any other principle but that which would prevent the further extension of slavery.”-Hon. H-iram Ketchum of N. Y. “But friom the earliest times war hiad existed, and war conferred rights in which all had acquiesced.

Amtiong 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 v.,:s 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 legitimate result of force, the state of things which was thus produced by general consent could not be pronounced unlawful. “Throu(,licout Christendom this harsh rule had been exploded, and war was no longer considered ats giving a right to enslave cap tives. But this triumph had not been universal.‘The parties to the modern law of nations do not propagate their principles by force; and Africa had not yet adopted them. Throughout thie whole extent of that immense continen t, 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 part icipate in its effects by purchasing the human lbcings who are its victims? ” Whatever might be the answer of a mlioralist 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 supported was illegal, and that those engaged in it miglit be punished either personally or by deprivation of property.”-Chtief Justice Marshall. “I thought, till very lately, that it was known to everybody that, during the Revolution, and for many years after, the abolition of sl avery was a fav orite topic with many of our ablest statesmen, who entertained with respect all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity could suggest for its accomplishment.”.Mr. Leigh of Va. in Convention. ” Every add itio n t he st ates receive to their n umber of slaves tends to weaken and render them less capable of self-defence. In’ case of hostilities with for ei gn nations, they will be the means of inviting attack, instead of repelling, invasion. It is a necessary duty of the general governmen t to protect every part of their confines against dangers, as well interiial as external. Everything, therefore, which tends to increase danger, though it be a local :-.ffair, yet, if it involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general aidministration of this government.“A-Mr.

Mali.on. “Slavery is ruinous to the whites-retards i snprovementsroots out industrious population-ba nishes th e y e omanry of the countrydleprives he inn, the spinner, the weaver, the smith, thene shoe maker, the carpenter, of emplo yment haed support. This evil admits of no renm edy -
it is increasing, and will continue to increase, until the whole cou ntry will be inun4lated with one black wave covering its whole a xtent, 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 incentives to enterprise. Labor of everv species is disreputable, because performed mostly by slaves. Our towns are stationary, our villages 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 “Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The slaves produce the most pernicious effects on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of IHeaven 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 ).a. 568
will be more willing to encounter any sacrifice lbr that object.”

Page 569 view page image

SLAVERY. 4 Ie know-that the picture is the’counter fit p~e.,enltmenft’ f the true one. We know t”J,t inl(ffiien(y and larnguor characterize our la..,v;: illts that enterprise is scarcely known t,) it. ibut fromt ob)srvation of its influence oi ,tier,,llnmullitiCs. We know that the blessi,,,il (,ur pi)sitioii, and soil, and climate, are ,t.lli(“,:‘vailed b)v the apathy of our public i,-,,ul.llst, and by our exclusive reliance upon X I],I-tlutalv- labor. Our interests and senses 1:’,,l iI t.he p”og;ess of general decline; con.,-i.iiece andii( experience attest that slavery is is j)inicipal cause. Is it not so? When we I,ik at iVrii, as a whole, without pausiing :l,,, the bjrighItand. thel)eauittifulthatstill show f,rth -,s intrinsic qualities of her character, il,ta ln,k h-it heli in referenceh to her every day lc;lie’l habil)it acid a ppeatrance, is she not anylting but prosl)erous? DIo we not in this e(sp(e.ct conteiipl)la,te her justly, when we re1ad lee as meaer, hag,,ard, and enfeebled; witifrth dcl r sei tue stealingt, upon her l imbs; as iover ti o le niiess ande inpotency; and as wasting away uiilner the improvidence and the i:,.activitv which eteriiallv accompany the t;tl instituti;oi that she cherishes; and cheri.hes, too, as It ne,ther, wh,,i) will hazard her (,,vwi life rather tlhlll part even with a iiion.tr,us ofl’p:‘ink that afflicts her? Sir, it is tlrLIe of \i lrgin (, n)t 111rely that she has not adv-anceil, lu)tt that inll nan respects she has grleatly- (1o’

litned’; aiii(l whlait haNe we got as a CIlnllnsailon fat’thsr tl(?elin e v-as a c()iiipensationi fo)r this disp;).tirity b)e(tweeni whlazt failgiiinia is alln( whliat shl miirht hale been? Aothing but tie rigihlt of’ property in the vcry beings who }have brogh,,t this disparity upon us.

This is ,t,ur pay; this is what we have gotten to reluiieiate us for our delinquent prosperity; t:n repay us for our desolated fields, our torpid enterprise: and in this dark day of our hum1ed imiiportance, to sustain our [lopes, and to s,J,thle our pride as a people.”- Gov. McDonnell.

ag,ngry ln.struletions. 1. et al manev senrvants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of.all honor, that the nane of G(S, and hi., doctrine be 1( i laspl}emed. 2. And they that hase beiiexi masters, let them not despise themi, beeaus ththey are l)retiren; but rather do thema s ervice, because( they ar f aithful and b)eloved, partakers ol the benefit. These things tea(h aml exhort. 3. lfaniy mall teach otherwise, atnd consent not to whole soue words, even tihe wrds of our Lord Jesus Chri,t, and to the da(trinhe whicht is ac’ordiiig to godliness; 4. lie is proud, knowing notling,, but doting about qued tion s and stritnsi of words, whereol coneth einvy, strife, rail inIgS, eIi! - urlllisings, 5.

t’e paerse disputings of nien o)f corrupt minds(l, and de, titte of the t ruth, suu p,uposslrrging tht gai is godliness: froui such withdraw thyself. By ordering Timothy to teach slaves to con tinue with and obey their imasters, the apostle hath showed that tle Clhristian religion neither alters men’s r-ank in life nor -abolishes aiiv rig,ht to which they are entitled by the law otf nature, or by the law of the country where they live. Instead of encouraging( slaves to disobedience, the Gospel nmakes them more faithful and conscientious. And by sweeten ing the temper of masters, and inspiring theat with benevolence, it renders thie condition of the slave niore tolerable than foirmerly; for in proportion as iiiaste.-s iiimbibe the true spirit of the Gospel, they will treat their slaves with humanl ity, and even give them their free don), vwhen their services mierit such a favor. 5. S(ervanats, be obedient to them that are your masters a(ooridin,, to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in single ness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6. Not with eyeservice, as nimeplttsers: but as the ser vants of Chris,t. doing the will of G,odl froni the heart; 7. With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to me,,: 8. Kwt nowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the salme shall he receive of the Lord, whether lie be boad 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 of 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 cxamine 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 yourselves as servants to men only. And that ve may be supported under the hardship o(f 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, lie shall receive at the judgment a relBehwh oard firom 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 iiienpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearingf Godl: 23. And 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 se rve the L ord C hrist. 25. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. OI’IN-IONS OF THE

REV. DR. McKNIGHT. B(ecause the law of Moses (Exod. xxi. 22) all,iwed no Israelite to be made a slave for life asith,:lt his own consent, the Judaizing iezaclelrs, to allure slaves to their party, taught tgeant under the Gospel, likewise, involuntary slavery is unlawful. This doctrine the apostle -ondtlemniied here, as in his other epistles (1 e2,or. vii. 23, 21, 23; Col. iii. 22), enjoining (ristien rslaves to obey and honor their ir,.,;terns, whether they were believers or un)eli’evers (verses 1-12), and by assuring ‘I’iimi,)tlhy that if any person taught otherwise lie opposed the wholesome precepts of Jesus (‘h,‘ist, and the doctrine of the Gospel which is in all points conformable to godliness or u,,lud miorality (verse 3), and was puffed up -vith pride, without possessing any true knowl,,dge either of the Jewish or Christian revelation (verse 1). The,t passage in the epistle referred to by fir. MIcKnig,ht, is in these words: 569

Page 570 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. lharmony and peace, they could not do it. There is a great, overruliung, i)ractical ne(cessity, which woutl( prevent it.’[‘hey ought n,t to sul)niit to it upoll principle if thev cotl(l, and could not if thlev woull.”-~.!(irneir of’ Ga.* a the (creeks and Ronians had scarce any serv;Lnts l)tit slaves, and because the duties of a Never will your cimatry le productive. liirel servant, iltiring the time of his service, never will its agriculture, its colilnierce, ir it. are the nie as thuse of the slave, so that manufactures flourish, so hug as they tieperul wlirt the apostle said to the slave, was, in upon reluctant l)ondinen flir their pr(igress.” effi’ct saul to the hired servant. Upon those - Piockney (j AId. ii a tette, to the Je p Never will tour ((LntlItinv of,t proSr,utire. never will its agriculture, its coiminierce, O)r its manufactures flourish, so hm)tg,, as they deperi(n upon reluctant b)on(lden for their p~rogress.” -Wm. Pitickney of Md. in a letter tgo the 1egislatur e, in 1789. (leilos may, with truth, he translated a ser-

“Slavery has the effect of less,ening the vlllt. In this an(l the parallel passage (Ephe-free population of a co.untry. The wealtliv si;vnsi. 5), the apostle is verv particular in are not dependent upon the poor for those aids liis precepts to slaves and lords: because in and those services, cmnipensation for whict all the c)untries whereslaiverywvasestallislied,(l enables the poor man to give bread to his iilany of the sla-ves were exceedinoly addicted familv. The ordinary mechanic arts are all to firaud, lying, and stealing, and mani of the practised by slaves. iiiasters were tyrannical and cruel to their ” In the servitude of Europe in the middle sl-es. I)erhla)s also he was thus particular ages, in y-ears of famine, the poor had to bariii his precepts to slaves, because the Jews ter thei: liberty for brelad; they had to surliell perpetual slavery to be unlawful, and ir(nlier their liberty to some wealthy man to ,e(-ause the Judaiziing teachers propagated savie their fiinilies from the horrors of famine. tha t doctrine in the church.

B ut, frofi the The slawes were sustained in sickness and in apostle s precepts, it may be inferred that if faminie Upoln the wealth of their master, who sl ave s are justvly acquired, they may b e law-1-)esc, v-ed themn as he would any other species, ftl lyl retained, as the Gospel does not make of lpr(,lierty. All the sources of the poor man’s fo rt;id any of the political rights of mankind. supp(ort were absorbed by him. In this coun try lie caimnit become a slave, but he flies to There is not a slavehliolder, in this IIo(use s(iiine otiher c(,untry more congenial to his con)r out of it, but who knows perfectly well I (ilitioi, anl where he who supports himself bv that, whenever slavery is confined within oc-honest laI)or is not degraded in his caste. tzLin special limits, its future existence is Those who lietilaind, relying upon the support doomed; it is only a question of time as to its of casual eimployment, often become more final destruction. You may take any single l degradedl in their condition than the slaves slaveholding county in the Southern stites, in themselves.”-Mr. T. J. tllaldo)ih o(f J.. iii which the great staples of cotton and sugar thle Legislatue, it 1832. are cultivated to any extent, and confine the present slave population within the lirits of “It has been said that sl,aery is a’doonie(il that countv. Such is the raplid natural in-institution* and so I beliei-e’-doomed to exist crease of fLe slaves, and the rapid exliaIs-1 for ever. It is one of tlhe oldest instituti(,ns tiori oif the soil in the cultivation (of those tiinong men.

In every aOe. it, every clinie-it crops, (which add so much t(o the coiii-has been practised and saincitii,iied I,aiercial wealth of the county,) that in a few kind, whether acting upon thli( liht of iiatrii(
vears it would be impossible to support them or of revelation. Indeed.

aiii,,ni nDei, (lhliswithin the limits of each county. Both ni,aster tianity itself has not so imany (evi(den c es i n its anil slave would be starved out; and what favor. A small part of min.iiikiiiil hIae 1ieeii w,,uld be the practical effect in any one couintv, Christians, while the practie of sla-e, i his tiie same result would happen to all the been universal. Solon aniid IJ,-s i 11ae slalveholilin states. Slaverv cannot be con-known to us by the fanie of theii ltgi.l:atiin~ firetdi within certain 1,ecified limits without they made no laws agaiinst slivery.

(1reece producing the destruction of both master and and Rome, the most (listintigislhe(l aud cilslave. It requires fresh lands, plenty of wood ilized of ancient nations, we, slavelh( lders. and water, not only for the comfort and happi-Our Constitution, the v(,i’k (f our feathers, ness of the slave, but for the benefit of the recognised it. Our Saviour stood up(,n tlle (,wner. We understand perfectly well the world amid slaves, w here the master had practical effect of the proposed restriction power over the life of the servant; Ile did not upon our rights, and to what extent it inter-rebuke it, or denounce it as a crime. And I feres with slavery in the states; and we also trust I will be pardoned for resting my conundlerstand the object and purpose of that in-science upon these high authorities, and for terference. If the slaveholding states should declining to commit it to the keepingr of these ever be so re,gardless of their rights, and their modern Free Soil saints, who have so muclh hi)lior, as co-equal states, to be willing to sub-trouble in keeping their own.”-J. I.L S’av,ye m;t to this Froposed restriction, for the sake of of Tent., inii H. of R., May 13, 1850. 570

Page 571 view page image

SLAVERPY. the universal law which ought to govern all people in all countrie s. This sovereignty of right is jrustice, commonly called natural j us tice, not the vague, uncertain imiaginiings of’ men, but natura l justice as interpreted by the written o ra cles, and read by the light of the reve lations of nature’s God. In th is s e nse I recoginise a ” higher law,” and the duty of all men, by legal and proper means, to bringl, every society in conformity with it. I pr oceed to the conside rati on of the first point. The old t hirteen states, before the cievolu tion, wer e dependent colonies of G reat Bri tain; ea ch wasm a separate and distinct political community, Titui different laws, and each t)(, came an independent and sovereign state 1byv the Declaration of Independence. At the tices( of this declaration, slaver y was a fact, and a fact recognised by laws in e ach of them, at nd the slave trade was lawful commerce by the laws of nations a nd th e pract ice of mankind. This declaration was drafted bty a slave holder, adopte d by the representative s of slaveholders, and did not emancipate a single African slave; but, on the contrary, on e of the charges which it submitte d t o the civilizec world apnainst King Geo rge, was, tha t he had attempted to excite ” domestic insurrection among us.” At the time of this declaration,s as we had no common government; the Articles of Confederation were submitted to the repre sentati-es of the states eight days afterwards. and wiere not adopted by all of the states until 1781. These lo ose and i mpe rfect art icle s of union s u fficed to brinp us successfully through the Revolutioon. Common dange r was.c stroter bond of union than these artic les of conf(, teration; afte r that ceased, the y w ere inadeqt,ate to the purpo se s of peace. They did not emlanc ip ate a singl e slave. The Constitution wa s framed by delegates elected i)y the s t at e legislatures. It was an emanation from the sovereign states as inde pendent, sepa rate commun ities. It was rati fied by conventions of th ese separat e states, each acting for itself. The members of these conventions represented the sovereignty of each state, but they were not elected by the aehyole tpeopile of either of the state s. Minors,, women, slaves, Indians, Africans, bond and free, waeioe excluded f rom pa rticipating in theis act of sovereignty. Neither were all the whi te ourle irnhabitants over twentey-one years )old, illhowed to participate in it. Soiue were vexcluded because the y had no land; others for the ovant of good characters; ot hers againi because they were non-freemen; and a large number were excluded for a great variety of still more unimportant reasons. None exercised this high privilege except those upon whom each state, for itself, had adjudged it wise, safe, and prudent to ccnfer it.

By this Constitution, these states granted to the federal government certain well-definedl and clearly-specified powers, in order ” to make a more perfect union, estald)ish justice, , insure domestic tranquillily, proride’for tho ” I believe that the institution of slavery is it nobl)le 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 presence of this assembly, and under all the im1),,,iiig circumstances surrounding me, that I I,ltlieve 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 (&,iiduct of IIis chosen people; if there is aiiything in the conduct of Christ himself, wlio came upon this earth, and yielded up his life as a sacrifice, that all through his death iii,igit live; if there is anything in the conduct of his apostles, who inculcated obedience uill)oli the part of slaves towards their masters as aI Christian dutit, then we must believe that the institution is from God.”-Hon. William Stl ilh (of Va., ini a speech in the IH. of Reps. The following lecture on “Slavery-its con stitutional status-its influence on the African race and Society,” was delivered in the Tre mtiont Temple, Boston, Mlass., on the 24th of January, 1856, by Hon. R. Toombs of Ga.: I propose to submit to you this evening sonie considerations and reflections upon two points. 1.st. rho constitutional powers and duties of the federal government, in relation to dolnestic slaverv. 2,1. 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, restrain, or in any manner to impair slavervy I)ut, 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 paramuount. On the second point, I maintain that so long as the African and Caucasian races coexist in the same society, that the subordination of the Afri(an is its normal, necessary, and proper 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 society; 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 ‘he truth that the white is the superior rae, and the black the inferior; and that subordination, with or without law, will be the status of the African in this mixed society; and, therefore, it is the interest of both, and especially of the black race, and of the whole society, that this status should be fixed, conitrolled, and protected by law. The perfect equality of the superior race, and the legal .su’bordination of the inferior, are the foundations on which we have erected our republican systems. Their soundness miust be tested by their conformity to the sovereignty of right, 5 j I

Page 572 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. i(,mmon defence and general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to (themiselves snd their) posterity.”

And, with great wisdom and forecast, this Constitution lays down It 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 enuiiinerated powers, and of such others onlyv which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution” these enumerated powers. ‘The declaration of the purposes for which these powers were granted, cart neither increase nor diminish them. If any one or all of them were to fail by reason of the insufficiency of the granted powers to secure them br, that would be a good reason for a new grant, lbut could never enlarge the graited powers. That declaration was itself a limitation instead of an enlargement of the granted powers. If a power expressly granted be used for any ither purpose than those declared, such use would be a violation of the grant and a fraud Den the Constitution; and, therefore, it follows that if antislavery action by Congress is not warranted by any express power, nor within any of the declared purposes for which any such 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 considered by them, and “perplexed them in the extreme;” and those provisions of the Constitution which related to it, were earnestly considered by the state conventions which adopted it. Incipient legislation, providing for emancipation, had already been adopted by some of the states. Massachusetts had de(clared 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, ~icluding Virginia, and Maryland, and North Carolina. The public mind was unquestionably tending towards emancipation. this feeling 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. Mason., of Virginia, was not far behind him in his emancipation principles. Mr. Madison sympathized to a great extent, to a much treater extent than some of the represento &tives from Massachusetts, in this antislavery feeling; hence we find that antislavery feelings were extensively indulged in by many members of the convention, both from slav te holding and non-slaveholding states. This fact has led to many and grave errors; artful m indb unscrupulous men have used it much to de1ceive the northern public. Mere opinion.s (of individual men have been relied upion a,s all thoritative expositions of the Constitutiio,. Our reply to them is simple, direct: tli,,v were not the opinions of the collective l,,,,v of the people, who made, and wl-ho hlia t,i right to make, this government; and, therefore, they found no place in the organic la\, and by that alone are mwe bound; an(l, theifore, it concerns us rather to know Mwhat wMax the collective will of the whole, as affirmed lay the sovereign states, than what -,%ere the cli:ions of individual men in the conventi(oni. We wish to know what was dorne 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 govelrnment anywhere, either to abolish, limit, restrain, or in any other manner to imiipa,ir the system of slavery in the United States; but, on the contrary, every clause which was inscrted 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 sul)sequent authoritative interpretations of it.

The Constitution provides for the increase of sla,very by prohibiting the suppression of tile slave trade for twenty years after its adopstion. It declares in the lst clause of the 9th section of the first article, that “
the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to atdmiiit, shall not be prohibited by the Congr,ess prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding tell dollars for each person.” After that tiime it was left to the discretion of’ (ongress to prohibit, or not to prohibit, the Aflicean slave trade. The extension of this traffic in Al’icans from 1800 to 1808, was voted for by the whole of the New England states, inclu(lii g Massachusetts, and opposed by. Virginia aIid Delaware; and the clause was inserted in the Constitution by votes of’ the New Englanid states. It fostered an active and profitable trade for New England capital an(I enterprise for twenty years, by which a large addition was made to the original stock of Africans in the UInited States, and thereby it increased slavery. This clause of the Constitution wBax speci’tlly favored; it was one of those clauses which was protected against anmendmeiit /,y article fifth. Slavery is strengthened by the 3d clause, 2d section of first article, which fixes the basics of representation according to numnbers, Icy providing that the “nsumbers shall he deter’ mined bty adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding In~dians nlot toxed, three-fifths of all other persons.” TM’: 572

Page 573 view page image

8LAVERY. approve them, until a new and less obvious question sprung out of the acquisition of ter, ritory. When the Constitution was adopted, t the question of slavery had been settled in tie(, Northwest Territory by the articles of cessioiL t of that territory by the state of Virginia; an(, at that time the United States had not an acre of land over which it claimed unfettered juri - 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 tile whole country, without echallenge or question, for nearly seventeen years. Equity and good faith shielded it front criticism. But in 1819, thirty years after the Constitution was adopted, upon applicationi of Missouri for admission into the Union, the extraordinary pretension was for the first time asserted by a majority of the non-slavehlolding states, that Congress not only had the power to prohibit the extension of slavery into new territories of the republic, but that it hal[ power to compel new states, seeking’ admission into the Union, to prohibit it in their own constitutions, and mould their domestic policy in all respects to suit the opinions, whimis, or caprices of the federal government. This novel and extraordinary pretension subjected the whlole power of Congress over the territories to the severest criticisnm. Abundant authority w’s found in the Constitution to rmanage this common domain merely as pr(operty; the 2(1 clause, 3d section of the 4th article declares, “that Congress shall have p ow er 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 jurisdiction to their management as property, and even without that adjudication, it would not be difficult to prove the utter disregard of all sound principles of construction of this attempt to expand this simple duty “to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the territory and other property of the Uniiited States” into this gigantic assumption 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 Congress power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over them.” This is explicit, it is apt language to express a particular purpose, and no ingenuity can construe the clause concerning the territories into the samle meaning. provision strengt hen s s lavery, by giving the existl aq s ding slav ehwloing states many mor e rep resentatives inl Cong,ress than they would have, if slaves were considered only as property; it was much deteated, but finally adopted, with the full understanding of its import, by a great .naority. The Constitution protects it impliedly, bhy withlloldin, all power to injure it, or limit its duration, but it protects it expressly by the 3di 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 convened) against domestic violence.” The 15th clause of the 8th section of the 1st article, makes it the duty of Cong,ress ” 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 escapinig slaves into non-slaveholdin, states and returning him to bondage; the other clauses place the whole military power of the republic in the hands of the federal governi.iaent to repress ” domestic violence”

and ” in,suirrections.” 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 protection; it must exist as long as any of the states tolerate domestic slavery, and the Constitution, unaltered, endures. None of these clauses admit of misconception or doubtful construction. They were not incorporated into the clharter of our liberties by surprise or inattention; they were each and all of them introduced into that body, debated, referred to committees, reported upon, and adopted. Our construction of them is supported by one unbroken and harmiioniouis current of decisions and adjudications by the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the government, state and federal, from President Washington to President IPierce. Twenty representatives in the Congress of the United States hold their seats to-day, by the virtue of one of these clauses. The African slave trade was carried on its whole appointed period under another of themn. ‘Thousands of slaves have been delivered up under another; and it is a just cause of congratulation to the whole country that no occa~sion has occurred to call into action the remaining’clauses which have been quoted. These constitutional provisions were generally acquiesced in even by those who did not 5,13

Page 574 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. conquest, even in despotic governments, en re to the benefit of all of the subje,,ts 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 enjoynment of the coini 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 Dmotes the general welfare, nor secures tlih blessings of liberty to ourselves or our po,s.terity;”

but on the contrary, puts in jeopari-dy all these inestimable blessiiins.

It loosens the bonds of union, seeks to establish injustice, disturbs domestic tranquillity, weakens tle common defence, and endangers the geiieril 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 equalitv with the African, or to raise the African to aii equality with tlhein. Providence hais ordered it otherwise, and vain will be the efforts of man to resi t tist this decr e e. Trhi s effort is as wick6d as it is foolish and unautlhorize(l. It does not benefit, but injures the black rae. Penning them up in the old states will neces sarily make them more wretched and miseria 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 thte blacks. Expansion is as necessary to the increased comforts of the slave as to the p rosperity 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 construic 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 governiment until its authority is superseded by a state constitution, and then we propose th-i,at the character of the domestic institutions of the new state be determined by the freemen thereof. This is justice-this is constitutional equality. Bult tho,~e who claim the power, in behalf of Congress, to exclude slavery froml the comlmxon territories, rely rather on precedent tand authority, than upon principle, to support the pretension. In utter disregard of the facts, they boldly proclaim that Congress lhas, fi’onm the beginning of the government, uniforml y asserted, and repeatedly exercised1, this power.

This assertion, I wfil proceedl to show, i~ This con.struction was so clear that Congress was then dr-iven 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 territo ry, und er t he treaty-mak ing p ow er, was i tself a tetetman implication and an implication whose rightfulness was denied by M r. J effer 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 the power to ex clude slav ery therefrom was still another remove from the f ountain of all power-e express grant. But whether this power to prohibit slavery in th e common territories claimed from the one source or the other, it c annot be sustained upon any sound rul e of constitutional con struction. The power is n ot expressly granted. Th en, unl ess it c an e sh t be shown to be both “ne cessary an d proper ” in order to the j u st exe cution of a gra nted power, the constitutional argument against it is complete. This re fmains to be shown by the advocates of this p ower.

Admit the power in Congress to govern the territories until they shall be ad mitted as states into the Union-derive it either from ea the cl ause of the C onstitution last efrreferre d to, or from the treaty-making power, this power to pr ohibit slavery is not an inci dent to it in ei ther case, beca use it is n eit her l necessary nor proper” to its execution that it is n ot necessary to execute the treaty-making power, is s how n fr om the fac t t hat 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 incre ase and protect slavery. The acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida are examples of its use, without the exercise of this pretended “
necessary and proper” incident. Numerous treaties and conventions, with both savage and civilized nations, from the foundation of the government, demanding and receiving 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 implied 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 prorides for strengthening and protecting it. It is not proper, because it violates the fundamental condition of the Union the equality of the states. The states of the Union are aill political equals. Each state has the same rights as every other state no more, no less. Thle exercise of this prohibition violates this equality and violates justice. By the laws of nations, acquisitions, either by purchase or 574

Page 575 view page image

SLAVERY. not sulpported by a singlie precedent up to ordinance, which prohibited slavery. The 1S20(). 3Before that time the general duty to!

division of that territory was provided for in l,rotect this great interest equally with everv’ the ordinance; at each division, the whole of (t(her, both in thle territories and elsewhere, the ordinance was assigned to each of its was tniiiversally admitted and fairly performed parts. This is the whole sum and substance lIy ever-y dlepartment of the government.

The of the Free Soil claim to legislative precedents, act (if 1793 was passed to secire the delivery Congress did not assert or exercise the right i)p of fugitives fromn labor escaping to the non-to alter a compact entered into with the formner slavehoI(liiiig states. Our navigation laws au-gZ,ver1nent, (the old Coilfed(eration). but gave tlllirize(l their transportation on the high its as cut to the governinent alrelady estal.eS. tli overiinent demanded, and fre-lished and provided for in thle eoinpact. If luelitly i(eceived, compensation for owners of the original compact was voili ffr want of slaves, f;,r injuries sustained, in these lawful power in the old goverllinelit to mDake it, as v,)yages, 1)y the interference of foreign gov-Mr. Mladison sul)p(se(l (,4iigrcss, may not havec Irlllle.llts. It not only protected this property been bound to accept it, it certaiinlv had no ,ii tlie liuli seas, but followed it to foreign power to alter it. lriom these facts, it is clear lai~ls, willice it had been driven by the dan-that this legislation for the N)rithwest Terri,4(‘I’s,t’ tl,c sea, nnd protected it when cast tory does not o(Inflict with the principle I eCVItl zwi:iii the jurisdiction of hostile laws. It assert, and does not filriishli a preedent for wal.II:‘tec(ted against the invasion of Indians hostile legislation by (Con nre,s; against slavery Ilv V,,tr inilitiAi-y power and public treaties. in the territories. Th.at such wIas neither tlhe Ill;tr sIt tatute 1)ook are to be found numerous principle nor the policy ul)p)ili which this act of ;:’(‘tic,I frilllm the i)eginning of the government Con(ress in 1789 was based, is further shown to, tiis tille, cominpelling the Indian tribes to by the subs)equent action (of the s mlle Conress ‘a! t()r slave pro)perty captured or destroyed uponI the sanme subject. On the’(1 (-)f Ap’il, i,-
tliei(i in peace or war; and your laws, reg-1790, Congiress b)y i forimal act ace (lpted~l the ttl intercourse with the Indian tribes on cession by North Carolilna (of liei western (,t ir, sl lts, nmade permanent provision for its lands (now the state of Tennessee), with this -li-ttcctioi.‘The treaty of Glient provides for clause in the deed of cession “LtlLt no reg i,,x:peatifon, by the 3Britisih government, for ulatiolns made, or to lie ma(le by Co(ngress, shalll tit(, i)ss (t’ slaves, precisely upon the same tend to emancipate slaves” in the ceded terriIf,(,tiiiig as for all other property; and a New tory; and on the 26th May, 1790, passed a [l’li(lll lnman (Mr. John Q. Adams) ably, territorial bill for the government (of all the ttitifuill-, and successfutilly maintained the territory claimed by the United States south i-l 1;(1l110rs1’ riglhts under it at the court of of the Ohio( river.‘he description of this ter,qt. J ltmll(s. Until the year 1820, our territo-ritoiry included all the l1nds ceded by North riatl legislation was markedl by the same gen-Carolina, and it included a great deal more. orll spirit of fairness and equity. Up to that Its boundaries were left indefinite, because I)ei io(i, no act was passed by Congress assert-there were conflicting( claims to all the rest of ill”

the primary constitutional power to pre-the territory. But this act put the wh)le -e it any citizen of the United States, owning, country south of the Ohio, claimed by the fe(lslai-es, frtm re moving, with them into our tereral g,)viernment, under the proslavery clause ritories, inl there rieceiving legal protection of the North C iroliia deed. i;n-his property; andll until that time such The whole action of the first Congress. in 1clso,ns did0 so remove into all the territories rel:ition to slavery in the territories, was fi,.‘vi(l )r, a(quiredl by the United States (ex-simply this: it acquiesced in a governmlent ,e)t the N,rthlwest Territory), and were there for the Northwest Territorv, based upl)n a pre;tiiliatt,ly pri()teote. Thi s fact alone is a existing antislavery ordinance, established a (-oiil!tete ifut ti,)nm of the claim of early pre-government for the country ceded by Nli’tl Io~(lelts. liThe atctin oof Congress, in reference Carolina in conformity w-ith the pro-isla,iery t,) the )ir’linlnle of 1757, does not contravene clause in her deed of cession, and exten(ed i,,iv position That ordinance was adopted on this proslavery clause to -1ll the rest of the ili( 13tlh dlv of July, 1787, before the adop-territory claimed by the United States.

T’his i’,,l (if’ the (oInstituti4i. It purported on its legislation vindicates the first Coii(riess from I1’l(‘ t,, Ie a pcerpetual compact between the all imputation of having establishel the prepalte )f Virginia, the people of that territory, cedent claimed l)y the advocates of legisiative ,1,t the then governnient of the United States. exclusion. On the 7th of April, 1 98 (duriing It -was unalteratle, except by the consent of the administration of President John Adlamn ), :ill tle pa)trties. When Congress met, for the the next territorial a(t was passeld; it was the jirst timle undier the new government, on the first act of territorial legislation resting.solely 41ii llal o f Marx I, 1789, it found the govern-upon primary, original, unfettered constitl (rl,lt estalblished by virtue of this.ordinance tional power over the subiject. It established n; actual operitioli andon the7th of August. a governient over the tcrriiory in(ludlled 17 89, it paissed an act making the offices of within the boundaries of’a line draiwn due tcv Irl )r and secretary of the territory con-east from the mouth of the Yaz.7o river to the f;tril tol the Federal Constitution. It did noth-Chatahoochee river, theuce down that river to iiig more. It made no reference to, it took no the thirty-first degree of north latitude, thence otiton upon, the 6th and last section of the west on that line to the Mississippi, then up 5 io,

Page 576 view page image

TIIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. that river to the beginning. This territory was within the boundary of the United States, as defined bv e the tr eaty of Paris, and wa s held not to be withi n the bo u ndary of any of the states. The controversy arose out of this state of facts. The charter of Georgia limited her boundary in the south by the Altamaha river. In 1763

(after the surrender of her charter), her limits were extended on the south lay the crown of Great Britain to the St. Mary’s river, and thence on the thirty-first arallel of latitude to the Mississippi river. n 1764, it was claimed that, on the ree(,,amendation of the Board of Trade, the b)ounndary was again altered, and that portion of territory lying within the boundaries I have described, was annexed to West Florida, and that thus it stood at the Revolution and the treaty of peace. Therefore the United States claimed it as common property, and in 1798, passed the act now under review for its government. In that act, Congress neither claimed nor exercised any power to prohibit slavery. The question came directly before it. The ordinance of 1787, in terms, excluding the antislavery clause, was applied to this territory: this is a precedent directly in point, and is directly against the exercise of the power now claimed. In 1802, Georgia ceded her western lands, protecting slavery in her grant, and the federal government observed the stipulation. In 1803 we acquired Louisiana from France by purchase. There is no special reference to slavery in the treaty; it was protected only under general name of property. This acquisition was, soon after the treaty, divided into two territories, the Orleans and Louisiana territories, over both of which governments were established. Slavery was protected by law in the whole territory when weacquired it. Congress prohibited the foreign and domestic slave trade in these territories, but gave the express protection of its laws to slave owners emigrating thither with their slaves. Upon the admission of Louisiana into the Union, a new government was established over the rest of the country under the name of the Missouri territory.

This act attempted no exclusion; slaveholders emigrated to the country with their slaves, and were protected by their government. In 1819, Florida was acquired bv purchase; its laws recognised and protected slavery at the time of the acquisition.’]‘he United States extended the same recognition and protection to it. In all this legislation, embracing every act upon the subject up to 1820, we find no warrant, authority, or precedent, for the prohibition of slavery by Congress in the territories.

Cohen Missouri applied for admission into the Union, an attempt was then made, for the first time, to impose restrictions upon a sovereign state, and admit her into the Union upon an unequal footing with her sister states, and to compel her to mould her constitution, not according to the will of her own people, but according to the fancy of a majority in Congress. The attempt was sternly resisted, and resulted in an act providing for her admission, but containing a clause prohibiting slavery for ever in all the territory acquired fronm France, outside of Missouri, and north of 36~ 30’ north latitude. The principle of this law was a division of the common territory. The authority to prohibit, even to this extent, was denied by Mr. Madison, Mr. Jefferson, anal other leading men of that day. It was carried by most of the Southern representatives com bined, with a small number of Northern votes. It was a departure from principle, but it savored of justice. Subsequently, upon tlhe settlement of our claim to Oregon, it lying north of that line, the prohibition was applie(l. Upon the acquisition of Texas, the same line of division was adopted. But when we a(, quired California and New Mexico, the South, still willing to abide by the principle of divi sion, again attempted to divide by the sanme line. It was almost unanimously resisted by the Northern states; their representatives, by a great majority, insisted upon absolute prep hibition, and the total exclusion of the people of the Southern states, from the whole of the common territories, unless they divested theni selves of their slave property. The result of a long and unhappy conflict was the legislation of 1850. By it a large body of the repre sentatives of the non-slaveholding states, sustained by the approbation of their constituents, acting upon sound principles of constitutional construction, duty, and patriotism, aided in voting down this new and dangerous usurpation, declared for the equality of the states, and protected the people of the territories from this unwarrantable interference with their rights. here we wisely abandoned “the shifting grounds of compromise,” and put the rights of the people again “upon the rock o f the Constitution.” The law of 1854 (commonly known as the KansasNebraska act,) was made to conform to this policy and but carried out the principles established in 1850 It righted an ancient wrong, and will restore harmony, because it restores justice to the country. This legislation I have endeavored to show is just, fair, and equal; that it is su, tained by principle, by authority, and by the practice of our fathers. I trust, I believe, that when the transient passions of the day shall have subsided, and reason shall have resumed her dominion, it will be approved, even applauded, by the collective body of the people, in every portion of our widely extended republic. In inviting your calm consideration of the second point of my lecture, I am fully persuaded that even if I should succeed in convincing your reason and judgment of its truth, I shall have no aid from your sympathies in this work t yet, if the principles upon which our social system is founded are sound, the system itself is humane and just, as well as necessary. Its permanence is based upon the idea of the superiority by nature of the white race over the African; that this superiority is not transient and artificial, but permanent 576

Page 577 view page image

..SLAVERY. and natural; that the same power which made this subordination of individual rights to the his skin unchangeably black, made him infe-interest and safety of the state. rior, intellectually, to the white race, and in-The slaveholding states, acting upon these capable of an equal struggle with him in the principles, finding the African race among ofa equlsrccewihh career of progress and civilization; that it is them in slavery, unfit to be trusted with poli necessary for his preservation in this struggle, tical power, incapable as freemen of securing cid for his own interest, as well as that of the their own happiness, or promoting the public society of which he is a member, that he prosperity, recognised their condition as slaves, should be a servant and not a freeman in the and subjected it to legal control. There are :,mmonwealth. -abundant means of obtaining evidence of the I have already stated that African slavery effects of this policy on the slave and society, existed in all of the colonies at the commence-accessible to all who seek the truth. We say ment of the American Revolution. The par&- its wisdom is vindicated by its results, and mount authority of the crown, with or with-that under it the African in the slaveholding out the consent of the colonies, had introduced states is found in a better position than he hus it; and it was inextricably interwoven with ever attained in any other age or country, the frame-work of society, especially in the whether in bondage or freedom. In support southern states. The question was not pre-of this point, I propose to trace him rapidly sented for our decision whether it was just or from his earliest history to the present time beneficial to the African to tear him away, by The monuments of the ancient Egyptians force or fraud, from bondage in his own coun-carry him back to the morning of time-older try, and place him in a like condition in ours. than the pyramids; they furnish the evidence England and the ChiStian world had long both of his national identity and his social befotbre settled that question for us. At the degradation before history began. We first final overthrow of British authority in these behold him a slave in foreign lands; we then states, our ancestors found seven hundred find the great body of his race slaves in their thousand Africans among them, already in native land; and after thirty centuries, illub)ondage, and concentrated, from our climate minated by both ancient and modern civilizaarid productions, chiefly in the present slave-tion, have passed over him, we still find him holdling states. It became their duty to esta-a slave of savage masters, as incapable as blish governments for themselves and these himself of even attempting a single step in people, and they brought wisdom, experience, civilization; we find him there still, without learning, and patriotism to the great work. government, or laws, or protection; without ‘They sought that system of government which letters, or arts, or industry; without religion, wo,uld secure the greatest and most enduring( or even the aspirations which would raise him happiness to the whole soicety. They incor-to the rank of an idolater, and in his lowest porated no utopian theories into their system. type, his almost only mark of humanity is, rhey did not so much concern themselves that he walks erect in the inage of the Creaabout what rights man might possibly have in tor. Annihilate his race to-day, and you will a state of nature, as what rights he ought i find no trace of his existence within half a have in a state of society: they dealt with po-score of years, and he would not leave belitical rights as things of compact, not of hind him a single discovery, invention, or birthright; in the concrete, and not in the thought worthy of remembrance by the human abstract. They held and maintained, and in-family. corporated into their system, as fundamental In the eastern hemisphere he has been found truths, that it was the right and duty of the in all ages scattered among the nations of state to define and fix, as well as to protect every degree of civilization, yet inferior to and( defend, the individual rights of each mem-them all, always in a servile condition. Verv ber of the social compact, and to treat all in-soon after the discovery and settlement of dividual rights as subordinate to the great America, the policy of the Christian world interests of the whole society. Therefore they bought large numbers of these people of their denied “natural equality,” repudiated mere g-savage masters and countrymen, and imported vernmnents of men necessarily resulting there-them into the Western world. Here we are from, and established governments of laws-enabled to view them under different and far thirteen free, sovereign, andindedendentrepub-more favorable conditions. In HIayti, by the licq. A very slight examination of our state con-encouragementof the French government, after tituti)ns vwill show how little they regarded a long probation of slavery, they became free, vaue notions of abstract liberty, or natural and, led on by the conduct and valor of the iaLlity in fixing the rights of the white race mixed races, and by the aid of overwhelming 1 swell as the black. The elective franchise, the numbers, they massacred the small number of ar(linal feature of our system. I have already whites who inhabited the island, and succeeded :hown, was granted, withheld, or limited, ac-to the undisputed sway of the fairest and best :’~dlingr to their ideas of public policy and the of all the West India islands, under the highest nterest of the state. Numerous restraints state of cultivation. Their condition in Hayti -P()n the supposed abstract right of a mere left nothing to be desired for the most favora-Uraerical majority to govern society in all ble experiment of the race in selfgovernment -es, are to be found planted in all of our and civilization. This experiment has non :titutions, state and federal, thus affirming been tested for sixty years, and its results are 37 5 i-7

Page 578 view page image

IL TEXT-BOOK. ., i slaveholding states. By them he is adjudged unfit to enjoy the rights and perform the dutie of citizenshlp-denied social equality by a n irreversible law of nature, and political rightis by municipal law, incapable of maintaining the unequal struggle with the superior race the melancholy history of his career of freedomi ‘is here most usually found in the records-of criminal courts, jails, poorhouses, and penu. tentiaries. These facts have had themseles’ recognised in the most decisive manner throughout the northern states. No town, or city, or state encourages their immigration; maneio ~ them discourages it by legislation; some.:f the non-slaveholding states have prohibited” their entry into thelr borders under any cir. cumstances whatever. Thus, it seems, ithis great fact of “inferiority” of the race is equlj i admitted everywhere in our country.-..T? northern states admit it, and to rid themseIves of the burden, inflict the most cruel injuries upon an unhappy race; they expel them firo, their borders, and drive them out of their.

boundaries,,s wanderers and outcasts., result of this policy is everywhereapparent; ] statistics of population supply the evidence of 5
their condition. In the non-slaveholding states their annual increase, during the ten years prt ceding the last census, was but a little ore one per cent. per annum, even with the add ] tions of the emancipated slaves and fugitives from labor from the South, clearly proving tiat in this, their most favored condition, when A left to themselves, they are scarcely capatlfo of maintaining their existence, and wit;h’e prospect of a denser population and a greater i competition for employment consequent there-I on, they are in dang-er of extinction.,W The. southern states. acting u~n the? - admitted facts, treat them di~Yerentli.”,?-sa keep them in the subordinate condition gi which they found them; *protect them agai’st themselves, and compel them to contribute’ -! their own and the public interests and we[ fare; and under this system, we appeal’te: facts, open to all men, to prove that the A. - can race has attained a higher degree of coinfort and happiness than his race has ever befotc attained in any other age or country.:i:: political system gives the slave great and va l’

able rights. tIis life is equally protectedowi.t that of his master: his person is secure fom assaults a-ainst all oth ers except his master; and h i s master’s’ power, in this respl?’ placed under salutary legal restraints. Hee entitled, by law, to a home, to ample food ian clothing, and exempted from “excessive” labor; and when no longer capable of lab/ i in old acre and disease, he is a legal ch.’ upon his master. His family, old and .n[‘ -: whether capable of labor <or not, from-me cradle to the grave, have the same legal rights, and in these legal provisions, they enjoy/” large 3 proportion of the products of the.t labor as any class of unskilled hired lad - in the world. Wve knows that these fights a!~ in the mailn, faithfully secured to them; butlX rely not on our knowledge, but submit 0ur.~, *.$~~~~~ b efo re t he world. Fanaticism may palliat e but cannot con ceal the utter prostration of the race. A war of races began the very, moment the fear of fo reign subjugati on ceased, and resulted in th e exterminatio n of the g reater ;umber of the mul attoes, who had rescued the African from the d om inion of - the white race. Revol utions, tumul ts, a nd disorders, have been th e ordinary pastime of the emancipated blak; indus t ry has almos t ceased, an d their stock of civilization acquired in s lav e ry has been aready nearlyv exhausted, and they are now wcarceley distinguished fromthe tribes from which they were torn in their na tive la nd. ,,Mo re recent ly the same experiment has been tried in Jama ica, under the auspices of England. This was one of the most beautiful, productive, and prosperous of the British colonial possessions. In 1838, Engla nd, fo llowing the false theories of h er own abo litionists, proclaimed total emancipation of the black race in Jamaica. Her arms and her power have watched over and protected them; n ot on ly the interest, but the absolute necessities of the white proprietors of the, land compelled them to offer every inducement and stimulant to indstryl; yet the experi ment stands before the world a c onfesse d f ailure. Ru in has overwhelmed the proprietors; and the neg-ro, true to the instincts of his nature, buries himself in filth, and sloth, and crime.

Here we -an compare the African with himself in both conditions, in freedom and in bondage; and we can compare him with his race in the same elimate, and following the same pursuits. Compare him with himself under the two different conditions in Hayti and Jamaica, or with his race in bondage in Cuba, and every 9omparison demonstrates the folly of his emancipation. 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-slaveholding 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 antislavery men, the most favorable condition in which you can view the African ou_,ht to be in the non-slaveholding states of this Union. There we ought to expect to find him displaying all the capabilities of his race for improvement and progress in a temperate climate, with the road of progress open before him, among an active, industrious, ingenious, and educated people, surrounded by sympathizing friends, and mild, just, and equal institutions; 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 slavry;v yet rhat is his condition here to-day? Hte 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 themselves, his inferiority stands as fully a confessed fact m the non-slaveholdinlg as in the ii I ‘N 578

Page 579 view page image

r I slaves who gave his slave no more of the necee i saries of life for his labor than the wages paid y to their agricultural laborers by the noblemen I and gentlemen of England would buy. Under their system man has become less valuable and less cared for than doniestic animals; and e 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 confliqt between labor and cari 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 tenmporary 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 annumn, and even at that rate, population, until recently, was consideredl a curse; in short, capital has become the maaster 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. Ihere 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, onehalf 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 prodwtion, often including additional supplies of food beyond the produce of the land, which usually equals onethird of the residue, leaving but onethird for net rent. The average rent of land in the older non-slaveholding states is equal to onethird of the gross product, and it not unfrequently amounts to onehalf 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 laborers of the South receive always as much, and frequently a greater portion of the produce of the land, than thelaborer in the New or Old England. Besides, here the portion due the slave is a charge upon the whole product of capital and the capital itself; it is neither dependent upon seasons nor subject to accidents, and surwves 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 religious instruction and privileges are not en ltitutions to the sam e tests by whic h we try tuse o f other countries. These are supplied by our public s tatistics. T hey show that our slav es are larger c o nsumers of animal f ood than any population in Europ e, and larger than ayiv othe r l ab oring population in the United States; and that their natural increase is equal to that of anv oth er people. These are true and undisputable tests that th e i r phvsiclt comforts are amply secured. In 1 790thhere were less than seven hundred thous and 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 eent., or nearly three per cent. per annum, an increase equal, allowing fi)r the element of foreign immigration, to the white race, and nearly three times that of the free blacks of the North. But these legal right s of the slave emljrace but a small portion of t he privileges actually enjoyed by him. lie 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 c hase over many additional necessaries of life, but over many of its luxuries, and in numer )us 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 fbrmance), which exist in no other relation of ,apital and labor. Interest and humanity co,perate 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 wagres, 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 (Ire usually paid in monev, 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 nlary.”” What matters it (said he) whether a landlord, employing ten laborers on his rtsin, 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,~ure of the wages of labor, it is safer for the laborer to take his wages in products than in tfeir fluctuating pecuniary value.

Therefore, if we pay in the necessaries and comforts of life more than any given amount of pecuniary usages wrill buy, then our laborer is paid nigher than the laborer who receives that amount of wages, The most authentic agricultural statistics of England show that the wages of agricultural and unskilled labor in that kingdom, not only fails to furnish the laborer writh the comforts of our slave, but even with the necessaries of life; and no slaveholder could escape 2 conviction for cruelty to his SLAVERY. 679

Page 580 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. joined by law in all of the states, the number riage, and we are reproached with not having of slaves who are in connexion with the differ-as yet secured to it that, with all other blessent churches abundantly proves the univer-ings of civilization. To protect that and sality of their enjoyment of those privileges. other domestic tics by laws forbidding, under knd a much larger number of the race in proper regulations, the separation of families, slavery enjoy the consolations of religion than would be wise, proper, and humane; and some the efforts of the combined Christian world of the slaveholding states have already adopted have been abl)le to convert to Christianity out partial legislation for the removal of these of all the millions of their countrymen who evils. But the objection is far more formidaremained in their native land. ble in theory than in practice. The accidents The immoralities of the slaves, and of those and necessities of life, the desire to better eonnected with slavery, are constant themes one’s condition, produce infinitely a greater of abolition denunciation. They are lament-amount of separation in families of the white ably great; but it remains to be shown that than ever happens to the colored race. This they are greater than with the laboring poor is true even in the United States, where the of England, or any other country. And it is general condition of the people is prosperous. shown that our slaves are without the addi-But it is still more marked in Europe. The tional stimulant of want to drive them to injustice and despotism of England towards crime-we have at least removed from them Ireland has produced more separation of Irish the temptation and excuse of hunger. Poor families, and sundered more domestic ties human nature is here at least spared the within the last ten years, than African slavery wretched fate of the utter prostration of its has effected since its introduction into the moral nature at the feet of its physical wants. United States. The twenty millions of freeLord Ashley’s report to the British Parliament men in the United States are witnesses of the shows that in the capital of that empire, per-dispersive injustice of the Old World. The haps within the hearing of Stafford House and general happiness, cheerfulness, and contentExeter IIall, hunger alone daily drives its meat of slaves attest both the mildness and thousands of men and women into the abyss humanity of the system and their natural of crime. adaptation to their condition.

They require It is also objected that our slaves are de-no standing armies to enforce their obedience; barred the benefits of education. This objec-while the evidence of discontent, and the ape tion is also well taken, and is not without pliances of force to repress it, are everywhere force. And for this evil the slaves are greatly visible among the toiling millions of the earth; indebted to the abolitionists. Formerly in even in the northern states of this Union, none of the slaveholding states was it forbidden strikes and mobs, unions and combinations to teach slaves to read and write; but the against employers, attest at once the misery character of the literature sought to be fur-and discontent of labor among them. England nished them by the abolitionists caused these keeps one hundred thousand soldiers in time states to take counsel rather of their passions of peace, a large navy, and an innumerable than their reason, and to lay the axe at the police, to secure obedience to her social instiroot of the evil; better counsels will in time tutions; and physical force is the sole guaprevail, and this will be remedied. It is true rantee of her social order, the only cement of that the slave, from his protected position, has her gigantic empire. less need of education than the free laborer, I have briefly traced the condition of the who has to struggle for himself in the warfare African race through all ages and all countries, of society; yet it is both useful to him, his and described it fairly and truly under Amemaster, and society. rican slavery, and I submit that the proposi The want of legal protection to the marriage tion is fully proven, that his position in slarelation is also a fruitful source of agitation very among us is superior. to any which ho among the opponents of slavery. The comn-has ever attained in any age or country.

The plaint is not without foundation. This is an picture is not without shade as well as light evil not yet removed by law; but marriage is evils and imperfections cling to man and all not inconsistent with the institution of slavery of his works, and this is not exempt from as it exists among us, and the objection, there-them. The condition of the slave offers great fore, lies rather to an incident than to the opportunities for abuse, and these opportuniessence of the system. But in the truth and ties are frequently used to violate humanity fact marriage does exist to a very great extent and justice. But the laws restrain these among slaves, and is encouraged and protected abuses and punish these crimes in this as well by their owners; and it will be found, upon as other relations of life, and thev who assume careful investigation, that fewer children are it as a fundamental principle in the constituborn out of wedlock among slaves than in the tion of man, that abuse is the unvarying cork capitals of two of the most civilized countries comitant of power and crime of opportunity, of Europe-Austria and France: in the former, subvert the foundations of all private morals onehalf of the children are thus born; in the and of every social system. Nowhere do these latter, more than one-fourth. But even in this assumptions find a nobler refutation than ill we have deprived the slave of no pre-existing the general treatment of the African race by right. We fbund the race without any know-Southern slaveholders; and we’may, with ledge of or regard for the institution of mar-hope and confidence, safely leave to them the 580

Page 581 view page image

SLAVERY. rosperous 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 heretofore 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 united 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 laborer is the victim, not only of his own folly and extravagance, but of his ignorance, misfortunes, and necessities. Ihis isolation enlarges 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, directed 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 comforts to the laborer and additional profits to capital. This is the explanation of the seeming paradox. The opponents of slavery, passing by the question of material interests, insist that its effects on the society where it exists is to demoralize and enervate it, and render it incapable 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 Itigh; slaveholding priests administered at his altar, and slaveholding prophets and patriarchs received his revelations 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 slaveholding 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 and 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 removal of existing abuses, and the adoption o f suc h fu rt her am eliorations as may be demnanded by justice and humanity. The condition 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 monient wages descend to a point barely sufficient to support the laborer and his family, capital (‘anntiot 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 examtiine this question is, its effects upon the material interests of the slaveholding states. Thirty years ag,o slavery was assailed, mainly o,n the ground that it was a dear, wasteful, unprofitable labor, and we were urged to e imiancipate the blacks, in order to make them imiore useful and productive members of society. The result of the experiment in the Wlest India islands, to which I have before referred, not only disproved, but utterly annillila,te( this theory. The theory was true as to tile white race, and was not true as to the black; andl 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 employed, at least in agriculture, and leaves the question in great doubt, whether it cannot be thus employed in the South more advantage()usly than any other description of labor. rthe same truth will be made manifest by a (ctmlparison of the production of Cuba and Brazil, not only with ltayti and Jamaica, but with the free races, in similar latitudes, engagteed in the same or similar productions in any part of the world. The slaveholding states, with onehalf of the white population and between three and four millions of slaves, furnish above three-fifths of the annual ex-orts 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 slaveholding state. But this is not a fair comparison; on the contrary, it is exceedingly unfair to thle slavreholding states. The question of material advantage would be settled on the side of slavery, whenev er it Mwas shown that oulr mixed society bras more productive and prosperous than any other mixed society with the inferior race fr’ee instead of slave. The question ix not whether w e could slot he more 581

Page 582 view page image

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 min-L England ever produced. In his speech ,ml conciliation with America, he uses the fol lowing strong language: “Where this is the vase, 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 oomnmonwealths, 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 surveying 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, thani 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 happy; each with republican governments adequate 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 penetrating almost every neighborhood, stimulating and rewarding the industry of our people; with moral and intellectual surpassing physical improvements; with churches, schoolhouses, and colleges daily multiplying throughout 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 th i s grea t impr oves. ment and progress have b een 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 ly the unaided individual efforts of an enlightened, moral, energetic, and religious people. Such is our social system, and such our condition under it. Its 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 circumstance~
would have exhibited the individual man, bond or free, in a higher development, or sc 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 necessarily be viewed by this government with very deep concern, but where it is made upon a nation whose territories form the slaveholl. 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 tG every part of the country. * -X “But there is another view of this subject still more important to us, and scarcely less important to Texas herself. The estalblishment, in the very midst of our slaveholding states, of an independent government, forbiddin( 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 iii that condition, her territory would afford a ready refuge for the fugitive slaves of Louisiana and Arkansas, and would hold out to them an encouragement to run away, which no municipal regulations of those states coul(I possibly counteract.”-Mr.

Upshur of Va., ice regard to the movement iit Texas. 582 Slaverv, gentlemen, older in other countries ,Llso, than t,l-ie records of human society, existed in Aii)erica,tt. the date of its discovery. The first 91,,ives of the European,‘Were natives of the soil:,tnd,t Puritan governor of ,;ett,,R, founder of the family of Winthropoequeathed his soul to God, and his Indian slaves to the lawful heirs of his body. Negro slavery was intr(.)duce,(l into Ilispaniol.-,t iii 1501: more than a Century before the coloniz,,ttioii of Ainerit-,a bv the En(,Iish. Massachusetts, by express enactment in 1641 punishing n-ianstealin,,’ with (leath:-and it is so putiistied to this (-],-ty under the laws of the United States-le,-.,tlized yet the eii,,,,Iavin(, of c,-tl)tives taken in war,,irid of such’sti-,-tn,ers,‘foi-eiy7ters, sh,uld be -tcquire(i by purchase-while confederate New f,n!,Iand two years later, providiD.(‘ for the equitable division of’lz-tuds, goodi , 0

Page 583 view page image

SLAVERY. I modestly wrote herself down in history, as both generous and just. ” In the South, gentlemen, all this was precisely reversed. The earliest and most resolute 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 veerv 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 thtirteen 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 attacked 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 vet 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 revolutionary 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 tranlquillity and national indepen lenee, ought to he 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 and’persomg,’ as equally a part of the’ spoils’ of war, enacted also the first fugitive slave law in Americ a. Whit e slaves-convicts and paupers some of them; others at a later day, pr isoner s t ake n at the battles of Dunbar and Wo rc ester, and of Sedgemoor-were at the first, employed in Vir gini a and the British Wce s t Indies. Bought in Engl and by English d ealers, among whom was the queen of James aI., with many of hi s nobles and courtiers, some of them pe r haps of th e house of Sutherl and; they were imported and sold at auction to the highest bid der. I n 1620, a Dutch manof-war f irst landed a cargo of slaves upon the banks of Ja mes River. But the earliest slave ship belonging to English colonists, was fitted out in 1645, b y a m emb er of the Pu ritan church of Bost on.

Fostered still by English princes an d noble s: confirmed and ceherished bv British legi sla tion and ju dicial decisions, ev e n agai nst the wishes and in spite of’ the remonstrances of the Colonies, the traffic increased; slaves multiplied, and on the Fourth of July, 1776, every colonv was now, become a slave state-and the sun went down th at day upon four h undred and fifty thousand of th ose who in the caint of eighty years later, are styled’ human chattels,’ but who were not b y t he act of t hat day emancipated. “Eleve n y ears afterwards, delegates assembling at Philadelphia, from every state except Rhode Is land, ignoring the question of the sinfulness a nd 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 constitution, 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 absolutely 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 state in the Union hould hale been a sla,eholding state to this day. It cons not profitable there; and it died out lingering indeed in New York till July 1827. It died out: but not so much by tile mlanlumission of slattes, as b)y their transportation and sale in the South: and thus New England, sir, turned an honest penny with her left hand, and w ith her right, 583

Page 584 view page image

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 nioan 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 tIouse. 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 conmmittee, and a report made thereon, which laid the matter at rest.

Other petitions afterwards were quietly rejected, and, in one instance, returned to the etitioner. Louisiana and Florida, both slavelolding countries, had without agitation been added to our territory. Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, slave states each one of them, had been admiitted into the Union, withoiut a iiurniur. No Missouri Restriction, no Wilmot Proviso hsad as yet reared its discordant front to terrify and confournd. NONINTERVENTION was then both the practice and the doctrine of the statesmen and pIeople of that period: though, as yet, ho hollow platform enunciated it as an article of faith, fromr which, nevertheless, obetlience 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 denounce all this as a defence of slavery itself. Be it 0so: be it so. But I have not discussed the institution in any respect; moral, religious, or political. IIear me. I express no opinion in regard to it: and as 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 coritiiiued and persistent discussion anrd denunciation in the North, which has brought upon us this present most perilous crisis: since to teach nien 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 consti tution and Union regarded it. It is no concern of mine; none, none: nor of yoeurs, Abolitionist. Ne ither o f us will attain he eaven, by denunciation s o f 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 an(l impiou s ly aspir e to the attribu tes of Godhead; and seek to bear upo n my poor body, the iniqui ties of the world. ” I know well indeed, Mr. President, that in the evil day whichi has befallen us, -ll this and he who utters it, shall be denounced as’ pro slavvery;’ and already from ribald throats, tlhere comes up tile slavering, drivelling, idiot epithet of’douighl-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 theft the truth should be known, and heard; in this the age of trimming and subterfuge. I speak this day not as a northern marl, nor a southern man; but, God be thanked, still as a United States man, with United States princiIles; and though the worst happen which can happen-tthough all be lost, ii that shall be ouir falte; and 1 walk through the valley of the siha(low of political death, I will live lby them and die by them. If’ to love my country; to cherish the Union; to revere the Constitution: 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 mtultiplied millions who have inhabited Africa from the creation to this day:-if this it is to be proslavery, 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 amn all over and altogether a PROSLAVERY 31AN.”-Hon. C. L. Yallandigham, 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 slo wly and grad ually, by’ diffusion,’ as it has already nearly receeded from several of the more northern of the slavehold ing states; and as it will continue thus molc rapidly to recede by the annexation of Texaa, and finally, in the distant future, without a shock, without ab)olition, without a convulsion, disappear into and through Texas into Mexico, and Central and Southern America,.” R. J.

Walker, Govejrnor oJfKansas. b84 11 I can only say, there is not f. man living who’vi,isties niore sincerely than I do t(, sce a plan adopted for the abolition of it, (,slavery;)

Page 585 view page image

LAVERY.LAVE TRADE, AFRICAN. SLAVERY.-8LAVE TRADE, AFRICAN. 8 blut there is only one proper and effectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and that is bIy legislati ve authority; and this, so far as nty suci’acre will go, shall never be wanting.“Genercal W~ashington. tion of the ruling race.

To us have been committed the fortunes of this peculiar form of society resulting from the union of unequal races. It has vindicated its claim to the approbation of an enlightened humanity; it has civilized and christianized the African; it has 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.” 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 stri,:ted immigration has not diminished the value of labor in the n orthweste rn confeder htel.

Th e cr y there i s the w ant of labor, not - withstanding, capital has the pauperism of the old world to p res s into the gridig service. If we cannot supply the demand for slave labor, then we must expect to be supp lied wi th a species of labor wre do n ot want, and which is, fr om the very n ature of things, antagonistic ta r our institutions. It is much better that our drays should be drive n by slaves, that ou r :.tcories should be worked by slaves, that our hotels should be served by slaves, that our locomotives sh ould b e manned by slaves, than that we should be expos ed to the int roduction fr(oum any quarter of a popul a tion alien to us btv birth, training, and education, and which in the process oftime must lead to that conflict between capital and labor’ which makes it so difficult to maintain fre e institutions in all wealthy and highly civilized nations where such institutions as ours do not exist.’ In all slaveholding states true policv 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 stated, that more slaves are necessary to a continuance of our monopoly in plantation products. 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 In the hIouse 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 IHouse of Representatives regard all ssuggestions 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 (Denmocrat), 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 into 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 gentleman. 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 discuss it. I shall move the previous question if I shall succeed in getting the floor. Mr. JONEs of Tenn. I would ask my colleague 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 ai [loud cries of “Order!” “Order!”] as much opposed to opening the African slave trade as he is or any other man. [Cries of “Order!” “Order!”] The SPrEAKER. Debate is not in order. Mr. JoNES of Tenn. I do not intend to debate 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 offer the following resolution as a substitute for that proposed by the gent le man f ro m T enness ee: “Resolved, That it is inexpedient to repeal the laws pro hibiting the African slave trade.” Mr. PURYEAR. 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 585

Page 586 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tion is introduced out of place, and that this voted “no;” among other reasons [ loutl is not the time for it. I shall therefore vote cries of “Order!”]-because I consider the against it. If the time shall ever arrive when resolution as improper and irrelevant.

What my vote can affect the question, I shall vote my views are upon the whole subject, I will against the revival of the slave trade. express, when I can do so fully. Mr. SMITH of Va. In explanation of the Mr. GARNETT
stated that had he been within vote which I shall give, I will say that I deem the Hall, when his name was called, he should the revival of the slave trade as inexpedient; have voted ”’ no.” but I think I understand the object in intro-Mr. KELLY stated that he should have voted ducing this resolution, and not concurring in “no,” had he been in the House when his that object, I shall vote “no.” name was called. Mr. ZOLLIcOFFER. I desire to say that I am Mr. GREENWOOD (Dem.) of Ark. So far as decidedly opposed to the reopening of the slave I am advised, there is no gentleman on this trade; but as I do not perceive that any good side of the Ihouse who is in favor of reopening can grow out of introducing that question the African slave trade; but I shall vote here, I shall vote “no.” against the suspension of the rules. Mr. PHELPS. I am opposed to re-establish- Mr.

ORR. I ask the gentleman from Tening the slave trade, and should vote against a nessee to let my resolution be introduced as bill which proposes to repeal the laws now an amendment to the one he has offered so prohibiting it. But I am against abstractions; that the House may have the choice between and as the message of Governor Adams of them. South Carolina is not before us, I record my Now, Mr. Speaker, I think with the gentlevote in the negative. man himself, that it is inexpedient to open the Mr. BURNETT. I am as much opposed to slave trade; and, if he will consent to let my reopening the slave trade as any man upon amendment be offered, I am confident there this floor; but believing I fully understand will be an almost unanimous vote of the House the object of the gentleman who introduced against the reopening of that trade. the resolution, and that I can understand the Mr. ETIIERIDGE. If it were impossible for inducements which have led him to present it the gentleman to get in his resolution as I got at this time, I shall vote “no.” mine, I would withdraw the call for the pre Mr. WASHBURNE of Me. I shall object to vious question, and let his resolution come in; any explanations hereafter. but it is just as easy for him as it was for me MIr. JEWETT. I would inquire of the Chair to present his resolution, and, if objected to, whether, if the rules are suspended, the first to move a suspension of the rules for its intro question will be upon the amendment of the duction. [Cries of”

Order!”] gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Orr], and Mr. JONES of Tenn. I wish to ask my col then upon the resolution offered by the gentle-league a question. Will he answer me? man from Tennessee? Mr. ETIIERIDGE. I will.

The SPEAKER. The amendment of the gen-Mr. JONES. Does my colleague desire to tleman from South Carolina has not been re-have a fair expression of this House against ceived. If the rules are suspended, the question the reopening of the slave trade; or does lihe will be first upon the resolution offered by the wish such an expression as will be offensive gentleman from Tennessee. to his own friends and his own section of the Mr. JEWETT. I vote “no.” country? Mr. BARKSDALE. I am not in favor of re-Mr. BARCLAY (Rep.) of Pa. I object to opening the African slave trade.

debate. Mr. WASHBURNE of Me. I object to debate. Mr. MCMULLEN (Democrat) of Va. stated Mr. BARKSDALE. I do not believe that any that he was opposed to reopening the slave gentleman upon this side of the House is. trade; but could not vote for the resolu[“Order!” “Order!”] But I regard the reso-tion because of the terms in which it was lution of the gentleman from Tennessee as ill-couched. timed [renewed cries of “Order!”], out of Mr. MILLSON. I ask to be excused from place, thrown into the House as a firebrand voting on the adoption of the resolution. If [loud cries of “Order!” ” Order!” and great this were a measure of legislation, I would confusion], and for the accomplishment of a vote on the one side or the other. I am ready party purpose. I therefore vote “no.” to vote for a resolution condenmnatory of the Mr. KEITT. I wish to say that if I had slave trade on grounds of expediency, humabeen in the Iouse-[cries of “

Order!” ” Or-nity, and mniorality. [Cries of “Order!”] I der!”] will not be half a minute. I wish to state The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South the reasons for my request. The rule says Carolina desires to state the manner in which “Every member who shall be in the House when the lhe should have voted, had he been within the question is put shall give his vote, unless the louse, for Hall when his name was called. That cour-special reason, shall excuse him.” tesy has never been refused to any member, The SPEAKER. The previous question is orand if the gentleman confines himself to that dered, and the gentleman cannot debate the point, the Chair thinks he is in order. question. Mr. KEITT. I wish to say that had I been Mr. MILLSON. I do not ask to debate it; I here when my name was called, I should have merely wish to give “the special reason” fot 586

Page 587 view page image

SLAVE TRADE, AFRICAN my request to be excused from voting on the give my opinions hereafter in the shape of a a[lopti,n of the resolution. A vote for or resolution. I vote “no.” agtainst the resolution will place me in a false Mr. SAVAGE. Mr. Speaker, I am very much position. There are parts and bearings of the opposed to voting on such a resolution as this, resolution to which I have objection, and I and before doing so address an inquiry to the cannot consistently vote forit; while I am in Chair. I inquire of the Chair whether all favorb of the general objects of the resolution, declarations, resolutions, innuendoes, suges andl am therefore unwilling to vote against it. tions, and propositions, by whomsoever made, For these reasons, like some of my colleagues, suggesting or intending that the present Con I desire to be excused from voting at all, as gress will connive at or legalize the slave neither an affirmative nor a regative vote will trade, are not dishonest, fraudulent, and false, Iepresent me correctly. and made for political effect? MIr. EUSTIS.

Inasmuch as my friend from The SPEAKER. The gentleman is not int Teinnessee [Mr. Etheridge] has seen fit to im-order. pose the gag-rule upon us, and as I desire to Mr. SAVAGEC. I vote “no.” vote understandingly, I want to know from Mr. SMITII of Tenn. I am opposed to the the chair whether I can have my reasons for renewal of the slave trade, but upon this re giving the vote which I intend to give spread solution I vote “no,” because I believe the upon the record? I vote against the resolu-purpose of it is wrong. tion, not that I am in favor of the revival of Mr. SMITH of Va. stated that he was the slave trade, for I believe there is but one against the revival of the slave trade, an(Il opinion upon this subject. I vote against it, against the resolution, and therefore voted because I look upon the resolution as uncalled “no. ” for, as unwarranted, and “full of sound and Mr. SNEED. On this stumip speech I vote fury, signifying nothing.” [Cries of” Order!” ” no.” [Latigliter.]

“Order!”] Mr. WRIGHT of Tenn. I am opposed to the Mlr. GROW. I object.

policy of reopening the slave trade. The The SPEAKER. Debate is out of order. people whoiii I represent, and I believe I can MAi-. FLORENCE. Mr.

Speaker, there is not say that nearly the whole of the people of quite enough cheese on this “figure 4” to Tennessee, are opposed to that policy.

But (-.atch me. Thle attractive trap is not quite whilst I am utterly opposed to that policy, I well enough baited, as beautifully gilded as am also opposed to the resolution offered bv it is, to be deceived by it. The real purpose my colleague, because, sir, I believe it has to my mind is too apparent. I am quite as effected preciselythe object which he intende(l decidedly and as strongly opposed to reopen-it to have; that was, sir, to open afresh and ing the African slave trade as any one in this again a question which I hope will soon be broad land, believing it to be contrary to the banished from this hall; and to divide and spirit of the age, and repulsive to the most distract a party to which he is bitterly opposed acute and sensitive feelings of philanthropy was another object of the resolution. This and enlarged humanity; but as I cannot see latter object he cannot effect, however much that any practical good is to result from an he may have desired it. Sir, I vote “no.” introduction of the subject here, or why the [Cries of “Order!” frequently interrupted the valuable time of this short session of Con-remarks.] gress should be taken up either with the dis-Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I would have preferred to cussion or agitation of it, in the form and have an opportunity to change the phraseology niannier in which the resolution offered by the of the resolution; but as no alternative is gentleman from Tennessee presents it, I vote given to me but to vote for it or against it, to in the negative.

avoid misconstruction of my sentiments I Mlr. II.ARRIS of Ill. Is it in order to ex-1 will vote “ay.” plain the vote I give? Mr. CADWALADER. I ask the unanimous The SPEAKER. It is not. consent of the Ihouse to enter my protest AI’. IIARRIS of Ill. I will vote, then, and against that part of the resolution which I vote for all that part of the resolution which might, if unexplained, imply an assumption denounces the slave trade.

[Cries of “Or-on the part of this Ilouse of a right to cender!” “

Order!”] sure a recent public act of the chief magis Mr. McMULLEN. I ask to be excused from trate of one of the states of the Union. I vote votling upon this unnecessary and nonsensical for the resolution. res()lution. Mr.

C. took his seat amid loud calls to order Mr. SAGE. I move the gentleman be ex-by the Speaker and by the Ioutse. cused. Mr. McMnULLEN. Some of my fiiends thought The motion was agreed to. I desired to dodge this question by asking to be Mr. OLIvER of Mo. I am decidedly opposed excused from voting. to the revival of the African slave trade-The SPEAKER. For what purpose does the The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order. gentleman rise? Mri.

OLIVER of Mo. But upon this resolu-Mr. MIcMULLEN. I rise for the purpose of tion I vote “no.” voting, and I vote “no,” against this dema Mr. ORR.

If I can get the floor, I shall gogical resolution. 587

Page 588 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 gentleman 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 tl,he resolution as it is. I therefore respectfiilly decline to withdraw the call for the previous question. The resolution was then adopted, yeas 183, nays 8. The yeas and n,ays will be found in the tabular statement oil the following page. as also those on Mr. Etheridg,e’s resolution. Mr.

BARKSDALE stated tlhat he could iisot vote for the resolution, regarding it too broad in its terms. lIe would have voted for that proposed by the gentlemian’s colleague [Mr. Boyce]. Mr. SIIORTER. Mr. Speaker, the South has not applied to Congress to repeal the law prohibiting the foreign slave trade, and until she does so, I am opposed to any agitation of the question here. It may be unwise and inexpedient 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 again st th e 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 w ith wioy views of the nationality of the subject. [Laughter.]

Mr. PURYEAR stated that if lie h,ad been present when his name was called, he would have voted in the affirmative. rMr. PAINE stated that if he hadl been within the bar when his name was called, hlie would have voted in the affirmative. The resolution was then adopted, yeas 152, nays 57. The aves and noes on this resolution will he found in a tabular statement with that on Mir. Orr’s resolution. M r. ORR. I a sk the unanimous consent of the Ilouse to offer the following resolution: t” Resolved, That it is in expedient, unwise, and contrary to the settled policy of the Unite(d States, to repeal the laws prohibiting the Afirican Flave trade. Mr.

Barclay (Republican) of Penn. objected. The rules weref suspendeadya,, yeas 181, nay s 10. The negative vote was as follows: NAYs.-Megsrs.

Barclay, Barksdale, 1ierndley 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 suspended I shall call for the previous question on the passage of the resolution. Mr. QUITMAN.Br I vote no, then, as the gentlemnan from South Carolina is determined to call for the previous question. Mr. KEITT. I vote ay, on the suspension o)f the rules, out of’ compliment to my colleague: but on the passage of the resolution 1 shall vote no. Mr. FLORENCE. Inasmuch as this matter has been lugged in, not by this but by the other side of the Ihouse, I vote to suspend the rules, with a view to the introduction of the resolution of the gentleman fromn South Carolina. Mr. CARETHERS 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. BOYCE. I have a substitute for my colletgue’s resolution, which I ask may be read for the information of the House. The resolution was read, as follows: RECAPITULATION OF THE VOTES. 1()9

RPol)])licans, 24 Fillmore Americans, and 1IS Destiocrats, voted for Mr.

Etheridg(e’s rcso(5litiin, and 50 Democrats and 7 Fillr.hore Aierieanis against it. “Resolved, That the TIouse of Representatives. expressing 102

Republicans, 23 Fillnore Ameriicani, as they believe, public opinion both North and South, are and 58 Democrats, voted for MAr. Orr’s res(fliutterly opposed to the reopening of the slave trade.” tion, and 8 Democrats against it. ricH, aIAnd I Democatsk mygriendt f uth Mr. QUITMAN. I ask my friend from South Carolina to withdraw his call for the previo u s 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. Mtr. ORR. I think the resolution is in the best shape as it is. If it does not meet with gentlemen’s approbation, they can frame other The following Table pr e se nts at a glance the vote of the members of the tiouse on the propositions respectively of Messrs. Etheridg,e and Orr. The members to whose names no vote is appended, did not vote on either resolution. I 588 Republicans in Roman, Fillmore Anic-ricans in SMALL CAPS, Democrats in itali,,-3.

Page 589 view page image

- 0 o 0 0  0 0 0’ 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 O ~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~ 0

~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~ Vote on

Ftheridgo’s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

Re~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~Inn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_o

…………………………..D……………,.,F. ~~- F

.,,,,….,,,…………………………………………………………………………….

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ gD CD’ CD CD, C D p D CD p CD SCD p D w CD,; CD - CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ^e CD CD CDO CD CD PCDs P 0; w P lution D. ___ noon noo~on~ oo nnno 00 on0 00~~0O ~~~~~~~. D00

C ~~~~~oo,………… R… 0’. -. R. 0 —. 0 0 0. _D 0 CD 000R RR0….

-.- -… -….. w=~~~~ 0 | 00 40 0|0 | 00, 0fi ff *0 ff0| 0$&~’& &| 0 & ~

0~ 000* 8 0~0 ” 000 ”~’=~’,c,~|8~~~|^e@||4-0’ F “~~-~ |’ |r -=-‘

. =i 7 0 i i gi T = wg g o r -9 |V~O’. C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o .C 0

~~~~~~~~~Do P. 0 :00. 00 0 0Iv~Ehrd O 0 0 0 00 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0

0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O 0 0 o0 1Roolut~o.

~DDDDDODCCOCODCC 000000 0000 D0C DC n-on 0 o0I ~~~ - oD -… L.

‘F”;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0C ~~~~~-.~~~~~~~” .**.,.., - noonoonoo~n~nono~n~no noonoo~
nonoonoonono onoonoono o nnonno onoo on noononon Co0 00000_.Vten.r,,e.

I~~~~Io~~nooo noonino oC~~~~~~~oCD~~~oCD~~no03~~~~~;eooCD 3 3330033 3 p333

333no03 333 33 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~333333~~~~ no 00o‘00o0’~~~~~~ -lotion,., p “o o ,t I 0 IIV P. t4 Qb

Page 590 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Christianity? There are probably some on this floor ready to present such a proposition, and, from the complexion of this lIHouse, 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 uii christian” practice of immuring in the un healthy and fetid prison rooms of a factor 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 tIhouse establishing any code of mnorals 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 mny 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 simnilar privilege to me. After the passage of the obnoxious 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 resolution differing from that he had originally proposed 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 appealed 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 uponi his resolution; but the gentleman refused to( do for a political friend, that which he comlplained 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 opport unity so t o do. e Mr. QUIT31AN [addressing Nil. Orr]. Whell, The Ilon. 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 both 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 memb er from Tennessee are its sinister expressions, and the intensely vir tu ous ind ignation 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 s uch 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 country. It is a vain and pharisaical arrogance of superior virtue in us to assume such censorship. I intend no personal disrespect when I say that this House, constituted as it is, is one of the last tribunals to which questions of public morals or of private honor should be referred; and yet, sir, the resolution 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 unchristian certain opinions known to be entertained by some of our fellowcitizens, and to invoke, in advance of any proposed action, horrid imprecations 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 sav that that alone was his object. It went obviously 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 IHouse 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, w-hat is to present the introduction of a resolution declaring the holding of slaves to be immnoral, inhuman, and contrary to the spirit 690

Page 591 view page image

SLAVE TRADE, AFRICAN. 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 domin;on 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 slavetrade; 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, mv voice would have been heard strongIlyin 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 resolutioins, 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 t he settled policy of the country io to be against a repeal of the present aws. Now, in the first place, in a progr essive country like ours, w h ere public sentiment sways t he public policy, there is an impropriety in any Congress resolvi ng, what shall be the future or settled policy of the country. Every Congress will have enoutgh o 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 trea-.ties are laws, this language of the resoluiion goes to the extent of approving and perpetuating all our treaty stipulations in re]ation to the African slave trade; and of some of these I do not approve, but, on the contrarv, believe them to be unwise and impolitiC. Such, for instance, is the stipulation to Lid Great Britain in watching, with a naval ibrce, the coast of Africa. Neither am I prepar~,PI to 8say, though opposed to the slave to;Raflo that it o~ughth to be treated as piracy. I do3ubt motch w hether the horrors of the middle p~assage (lo not arise, mainly, from the false The Iion. John Y. Wright of Tenn., in alludin g to the reasons which induced his vote against Mr.

Etherid ge’s resolution, thus spoke in the touse, on the rv e 4th of Feb.

1857: “v Mr. Chairman, one word more, and I w ill close. When my colleague from the Trenton district [Mr. Etheridge], a few days ago, offered a resolution with re gard to the reopening the Africa n slave trade, I voted against it, be ca use, sir, as I the n stated, I thoughit it was offered for the purpose of dividing and distracting, if possible, the Democratic p ar ty. Kn owing my colleague’s deeprooted hatred to th at p arty to which I am attached, and believing that it is the only party to which the dest in ie s of the country can sayfely be intrusted, I was unwilling to give mey co untenance to a scheme which I the n thought was set on foot to embarrass i ts action. I als o th ink, with the dist inguished gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Quitman], whom I am proud to call my friend, that Congress is a very unsafe tribunal to decide for the people of the Unite d State s what shall or shall not be their standard of morality. But, sir, while I voted against that resolution, as p then stated, I am opposed to the policy of reopening the African slave trade. I voted very cheerfully for the resolution of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Orr,] w hi ch 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 Tennessee, with scarcely an exception, are opposed to the policy alluded to. I dc not believe there is a single member here froin 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 of my colleague may have been, it is passed; and if he intended what I have said, I anm very happy that he was disappointed in hii. hopes.:” Hlon. Emerson Etheridge of‘1 enn., 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 591 philanthropy of exaggerated’nishmeiits. Restin,, in ihis uncertainty, I,old not, by MY vote, declare the laws and treaties on this subject to be our 11 settled policy.” For these reasons, now given, because explanation was refused when the resolutions were off’ered, and because I regarded both resolutions as useless and unnecessary, I opposed them.

Page 592 view page image

‘riTE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. t full of meaning in this respect. For years it had been roving about the country to find some l 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 i behind mud-banks and sand-bars, nad proved s 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 . b conceivable complaint, must be administered in larger doses. Hence the proposition to reopen the African slave trade-a measure which was favored by about onethird 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. Ile 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 piracoy.” Yet, while I, for what I have done, have been held up as untrue to the South, good, Democratic Governor Johnson is merely chidedl 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 traffio would not be “shocking to the moral senti ments of the enlightened portion of mankind.” So plain and obvious has this movement 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 sti gmatized it as an ” o d io us traffic,” and was permitted to go without a p ublic reprimand for his temerity. It is true, he is soon to withdraw from the editorial chair of the court journal, and one Mr. Appleto n 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 Unioin 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 do mands of party require them to subscribe to this ” new Southern policy.” In speaking of the Savannah Convention, he says:  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 rmil lions of the North. It would furnish theist a.X pretext to stigmatize their southern brethren as a race of cannibals. Worcester would again be filled with an assemblage of dimunionists seeking the overthrow of the Union, to destroy slavery in the states, while Nashville might be the rendezvous of a counter convocation, 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 impossible 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*,nridge, and is the organ of a powerful division 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 infant 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 assume gigantic proportions. I would strangle it i in t s in fancv. 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 long7er be stigmatized as piracy to maintain slavery by thle 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, andl let rationalism and true philanthropy be respected.” “There were introduced into the convention two leading measures, viz., the la.ying of a state tariff on northern goods, and the reopenin,g of the slavetrade; the one to advance our commercial intcr,,st, the other our agricultursal interest, and which, when taken together, as they wvere doubtless intended to be.

tnd although they have earh been attacked by presses of doubtful service to the South, are characterized in the private judgment of politicians as one of tbhe completest southern remedies ever submitted to popula action.”

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 C onvention, which assembled at Savannah, were i t t s t I r b 0 a y a 992

Page 593 view page image

SLAVE TRADE, AFRICAN. These laws indicate the strong opposition felt at that time to the African slave trade. Tile subsequent Act of March 2d, 1807, (2426,) 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 person of color, with intent to hold, sell or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of color, as a sl~ave, or to be held to service or labor.“X This lstw seeks not only to prevent the introduction into the United States of slaves from Now, sir, between this author and myself there is, in the language of a good Baptist brother on a memorable occasion, ”’ a slight v ariation.” [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 agricult ural ruin of the South. T he writer then add ress es hims elf to t hose who a re a little squ(amish upon the subject, who, like some of our newspaper correspondents, h ave troublesome ” moral convictions.“I 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 unddefin,ed sort of repugnance, a sort of squeamishness, which is incident tlo 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: ” tice is a m onster 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.” *{ TREASURY D.EPART.MENT, May 22, 1858. Sir:-It appears from your letter of 20th April, 1858, that application inas been made to you by Mes.srs. E. Latfitte & Co., merchants of C harles ton, 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 pul’!),se of taking on board Africean emigrants, in aiccordance with the United States passen ger laws, and returning with the same to a port in the United States.” You a.sk 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 presented involves the question in some embarrassmnent. The object of the applicants must be either to import Africans, to be disposed of as slaves, or to be bound to labor or serviceor else to bring them into the country like other emigrants, to be entitled, on their arrival, 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 governieit 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 imiiporation-the Acts of 2d March, 1794, (1347,) -,nd lOthi May, 1800, (270,) were passed. 38 593 LETTF,P. OF HON. HOWELL COBB, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ON THE AFRICAN EMIGRANT SCHEVE.

Page 594 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. , another view. It will be observed that its object is to prevent the importation into the Uni ted States of “any negro, mulatto, or other person of color, not being a native, a citizen, or registered seaman of the United States, or seamen natives of countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope.” It is not confined to slaves or negroes bound to labor, but contemplates the exclusion, in the broadest terms, of all such persons, without regard to the character in which they may be brought. It excludes free persons, as well as slaves and persons bound to labor or service. The only limita tion in the act is, that it is confined to such persons as are prevented by the laws of any of the states from being imported into such states. At that time there existed laws of some of the states not only prohibiting the introduc tion of negro slaves, but also free negroes Indeed the policy of the slaveholding states has always been opposed to the increase of its free negro population; anLd it is proper here to remark that at the present time that policy is more earnestly sustained in those states than at any pr evious period of their history. After this reference to the laws on the subject, it is hardly necessary to repeat, that if the appli cation of Messrs. Lafitte & Co.

contenmplates the introduction of negroes into the United States from Africa, either in the character of slaves or as apprentices bound to service or labor, it is clearly in violation of both the letter and spirit of the law, and cannot be granted. The form of the application made bv Messrs. Lafitte & Co. would seem to contemplate the introduction into the United States of neglroes from Africa, entitled on their arrival to all the rights and privileges of freemen. The propo sition upon its face is so absurd, that it is hardly worthy of serious refutation. Messrs. Lafitte &

Co. ask us to believe that their ves sel, fitted out in the port of Charleston, S. C., is goin, upon a voyage to Africa to bring to some port in the United S tates a cargo of free negroes. The port to which the vessel expects to return is not indicated. It cannot be the one from which it sails-nor any other port in the state of South Carolina-as the in troduction of free negroes into that state is wisely prohibited by stringent laws and heavy penalties. It cannot be the port of any other slaveholding state, as similar laws in each of those states alike forbid it. The reason for such laws is so manifest, that I do not feel call ed upon either to produce the evidence of their existence, or to justify the policy which led to their adoption. It is sufficient to know that the public mlind of that section of the Union is not more cordially agreed upon any one sub ject than upon the propriety a.nd necessity of prohibiting, as far as poss;ible, an increase of the fr’ee negro population, anld hence the laws to which I refer, prohibiting their importation from any place. Can it be that Messrs. Lafitte & Co. pr: pose to return with their cargo of free negroes to ~, port in some of the non-slaveholding 8tt et Afiica, but any negro, mulatto, or person of .ielor, whe th er introduced as slaves, or to be held to service or labor.

Whe ther or not the w isd om of ou r f athers fore saw at that early day that eff ort s would be made unde r a pre tended appr en tice s ystem, to renew the slave trade under another name, I cannot undertake to say,s but the languag e of the law which they have left to us in the statute-book, leaves no d oub t of th e fact that they inte nded to provide in the mo st unequivocal nianner abainst the increase of that class of popul ation by immigrati o n from Africa. No one could then have contemplated an object for which Afr ican emigrants would be brought to thi s cou ntry, which is not clearly guarded against and forbidden b)y the law to which I am now referring. It is only neces sary to add, that sub sequent acts on the subject con tain t he same language. This view of the subject is strengthened by reference to r othe provisions of the act of 28th F ebrua ry 1803, (2205d.) The firs t section of that act is as follows: “That from and after the first day of April next, no mas ter o r captain o f any ship or vessel, or any o ther person, shall import, bring, or cause to be imported or brought, any negro, mulatto, or other person of color, not being a native, a ci tizen, or re-istered seaman of the United States, or seamen natives of c ountries beyond the Cape of Good Hope, in to a ny por t or place of the United States, which port or place shall be situated in any st ate w hich by law has prohibited, or shall prohibit, the admission or importation of such nnegro, mulatto, or other person of c olor; and if any captain or master aforesaid, or anys other person, shall impo rt, o r cause t o lee imported o r brought into an y of the ports or places aforesaid, any of the persons whose adm iss ion o r importation is prohibited as aforesaid, he shall forfeit a nd pay the sum of on e thousand dollars for each and every negro, mulatto, r or o ther person of color, afornesaid, brought or imported as atores sid, to L)e sued fhr and recovered bo ac tion of dea)t, in any courtes of t he United Statet, one-alf thereof to the use o f the United States, the other half to any person or persons prosecuting for the penalty; and in any action instituted for the rec,-very of the penal ty aforesaid, the person or persons sued may be held to special bail: Provided always, that nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit the admission of Indians.” It will be seen that Congress, by this act, undertook to cooperate with those states which, b)vy state legislation, had interposed to prevent ‘the importation of negroes into this countrv. At that time the constitutional prohibition to which I have before referred, restrainedl C’ongrress from the exercise of the absolute pourer olf prohibiting such importation. The states, however, being under no such restraint, had, in several instances, adopted measures of’ their own; and the act of 1803 shows the prompt. hess of the general government in exercising whatever power it possessed in furtherance ofl ~lhe object. The language of this act is important in 594

Page 595 view page image

SLAVE TRAi)E, AFRICAN.- SOUTHERN CONVENTIONS IN 18509. ] am not aware of a single state where toeso new comers would receive a tolerant, much less a corlial welcome-whlilst, by stringent laws and constitutional provisions, some of them have provided for their unconditional ex clusion. Looking beyond the legislation which has been had on the sublject by the general gov ernment and both the slaveholding and the non slaveholding-states, I may be permitted to re fer, in this connection, to the various repeated and earnest efforts which have been nmade in every section of the Union, to provide for the remova)l from our nii(1st of this most unfortu nate class. Ilowever variant the motives which have induced these efforts with different per sons in different sections of the country, they all exhibit an earnest desire to diminish rather than increase the free ner(o) population. This public opinion, thus manifested in every form, is familiar to every one, and it would be doing great injustice to the intelligence of Messrs. Lafitte & Co., to suppose that they alone were ignorant of it. Where, then, do they propose to land their cargo of fiee negroes? W’rhat is the motive which induces the enterprise? It cannot be the profits of the voytage. There are n o Af r ica an emigrants seeking a passage to this country; and if there w ere, the y have no means of remunerating Me ssrs. Lafitte & Co. for br ing ing them. Th te motive cannot e mere philanthropy, for it would conferano benefit up on these ne mroes to brin c them to our sh ores, where, if permitted to land at all, it would onlv be to occupy our pest houses, hospitals, and prisons. To believe, under the circumstances, that there is a bona fide purpose on the part of Messrs. La,fitte & Co. to brille African enmi grants to this country to enjoy the rights and privilege.sof freemen, would require,n amount of credulity that would justly sul)ject the per son so believing to the clhrge of mental imblecility. The conviction is irresistihlle, that the object of the proposed enterprise is to l,riii, these “African emigrants” into the country with a view either of miiaking, slaves of thlem, or of holding them to service or lab)or-. If so, it is an attempt to evade the ltws of the country on the subl)ject of African il.)rtation, to which I have called your attention. Ordinarily, it would be an unsafe rule for a public officer to act upon the suspicion of a purpose on the part of another to violate the laws of the country, but in this case it is put so clearly beyond the reach of doubt that I think that you not only can, but that you are in duty bound to act upon the presumption, that it is the intention of Messrs. Lafitte & Co. to evade the laws of the United States, and~ -:ou should according^ly refuse their vessel the blearance asked for. I am, very respectfully, H:OWaLL, COBB, Secretary of the Tre:[sury. WVM. F. COLCOCK, Esq., Collector of the Customs, Charleston, S.

C. RESOLVES OF. TIE Nashville Convention, which met Jun e 10, 1850, adopted the following resolutions: 1. Resolved, That the territories of the United States b elong to the people of the several states of this Union as their c ommon property; that the cit izen s of the several states have equal rights to neigr at e with their pro erty to these territories, and are equally entitled to the p rotection of the federal go vernment.in the e n joyment of th at property so long as t he territories r emain under the charge of tha t govern ment. 2. Resolved, That Con ros a s has no power to exclude from the ter tor y o f the United States any property lawfully held in the st a tes of the Union, and jany act s which may be passed by Congress to effect this res ult is tp plain v iolation of the Constit ution of the Urnited States. 3. Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress to provide gotertinmeits f or the ter ritories, since the spirit of American institutions fo bi ds t he m aintenance of military governments in time of pea ce; ande as a ll law s heretofore existing in territor ies once belo ngin g t o fore ig n powers which interfere with the full enjoy ment the re of religin, th e pre ss, of the ra g trial by jury, and oall other rights, of persons and property a s securet or recognised in the Constitution of the United States, a re necets sarily void sor so on a s su ch territories becaome lererican territories, it is the dutv of the fede ral governnrent t o riake earl y prov:is ion for the en actment of th ose lawsn which may be expe dient and necessary to secure to the inhalc it ants of and emigr ants to such territories thcn full benefit of the cons t itut ion al rights we assert. 4. Resolved, That to protect property exist ing in the several states of’ the Uinion, the pe(
ple of these states invested the federal govern rment with the powers of war and negotiation, and of sustaining armie,s and navies, and pro hiibite(I to state authorities the exercise of the samie powers. They made no discrimination in the protection to be afforded or the descrip tion of the property to be defended, nor was it allowed to the federal government to deter mine what should be held as property. What ever the states deal with as property the fede ral government is bound to recognise and defend as such. Therefore it is the sense of this convention that all acts of the federal go vernment which tend to denationalize property of any description recognised in the Constitution and laws of the states, or that discrimiDate in the degree and efficiency of the proteetion to be afforded to it, or which weaken or destroy the title of any citizen upon American territories, are plain and palpable violations of the fundamental law under which it exists. 5. Resolved, That the slaveholding states cannot and will not submit to the enactment by Congress of any law imposing onerous con1ditions or restraints upon the rights of masters 595 Soutnern Conventions in 1850.

Page 596 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. and passions, upon considerations of magnanirnity and justice. 10. Resolved, That a recognition of this principle would infuse a spirit of conciliation in the discussion and adiustment of all the subjects of sectional dispute, which would afford a guarantee of an early and satisfactory determination. 11. Resolved, That in the event a dominant majority shall refuse to recognise the great constitutional rights we assert, and shall continue to deny the obligations of the federal government to maintain them, it is the sense of this convention that the territories should be treated as property, and divided between the sections of the Union, so that the rights of both sections be adequately secured in their respective shares. That we are aware this course is open to grave objections, but we are ready to acquiesce in the adoption of the line of 36~ 30’ north latitude, extending to the Pacific ocean, as an extreme concession, upon considerations of what is due to the stability of our institutions. 12. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Convention that this controversy should be ended, either by a recognition of the constitutional rights of the Southern people, or by an equitable partition of the territories. That the spectacle of a confederacy of states, ins volved in quarrels over the fruits of a war in wh i c h the American arms were cr owned with glory, is humiliating. That the incorporation of the Wilmot proviso, in t he offer o f s ettlement.-a proposition which fourteen states regard as disparaging and dishonorable-is degrading to the country. A termination to this controversy by the disruption of the confederacy or by the abandonment of the territories to prevent such a result, would be a climax to the shame which attaches to the controversy which it is the paramount duty of Congress to avoid. 13. Resolved, That this Convention will not conclude that Congress will adjourn without making an adjustment of this controversy; and in the condition in which the Convention finds the questions before Congress, it does not feel at liberty to discuss the methods suitable for a resistance to measures not yet adopted, which might involve a dishonor to the Southern states. to remove with their property into the terri tories of the United States, or to any law making discriminations in favor of the proprietors of other property against them. 6. Resolved, Tha t it is t he dut y of the fed eral government plainly to recognise and firmly to maintain the equal rights of the citizens of t he several states in the territories of the U n ited States, and to repudiate the power to nlake a discrimination between the proprietors of different specie s of prop erty in the federal legisl ation. T he fulfilm ent of th is d uty by the federal government would greatly tend to restore the peace of the country, and to allay the exasperation and excitement which now exists between the differ ent sections of the Union. For it is t he d elibera te opinion of this Conve ntion th at the tole rance Congress has given t o t h e no tion that federal authority might be employed cien t al incidentally and indirectly to subvert or weak en th e institution exi st - ing in the states confessedliy beyond federal jurisdict ion and control, is a main cause of this ih enes the disord which me naces the existence of the U nion, and which has well nigh destroyed the efficient action of the federal g overnme nt i tself. 7. Resolved, That the p erforma nce of this duty is required by the fundamental law of the Union. The equality of the people of the sev eral s tat es c omposing the Union canno t be disturb ed w ithout disturbing the frame of the American institutions. This principle is violated in the denial to the citizens of the slaveholding state s of power t o enter into the territories with the property lawfully acquired in the states. The warfare against this right is a war upon th e Constitution. The defenders of this right are de fender s of the Constitution. Those who deny or impair its exercise, are unfaithful to the Con stitu tion, and if disunion follows the destruction of the right, they are the disunionists. 8. Resolv ed, T hat th e performance of its duties, uion the principle we declare, would enable:ongress to remove the embarrassments in which the country is now involved. The vacan t territor ies o f the United States, no longer regarded as prizes for sectional r apacity and ambition, would b e g radually occup ied by inhabitants drawn t o them by their interests and feelings. The institutions fitted to them would be naturally applied by governments formed on American ideas, and approved by the deliberate choice of their constituents. The community would be educated and disciplined under a republican administration in habits of selfgovernment, and fitted for an association as a state, and to the enjoyment of a place in the confederacy. A community so formed and organized might well claim admission to the Union, and none would dispute the *validity of the claim. 9. Resolved, That a recognition of this principle would deprive the questions between Texas and the United States of their sectional character, and would leave them for adjustment without disturbance from sectional prejudices Th e Nashville Convention reas sembled in November, 1850, and adopted the following preamble and resolutions: We, the delegates assembled from a portion of the states of this confederacy, make this exposition of the causes which have brought us together, and of the rights which the states we represent are entitled to under the compact of Union. We have amongst us two races, marked by suc4h distinctions of color and physical and moral qualities as for ever forbid their living together on terms of social and political equality. The black race have been slaves from the 596

Page 597 view page image

SOUTHERN CONVENTIONS IN 1850. knows little of history who cannot read our destiny in the future if we fail to do our duty now as free people. We have been harassed and insulted by those who ought to have been our brethren, in their constant agitation of a subject vital to us and the peace of our families. We I have bcen outraged by their gross misrepresentation. of our moral and social habits, and by the manner in which they have denounced us before tile world. We have had our property enticed off, and the means of recovery denied us by our co-states in the territories of the Union, which we were entitled to as political equals under the Constitution. Our peace has been endangered by incendiary appeals. The Union, instead of being considered a fraternal bond, has been used as the means of striking at our vital interests. The admission of California, under the circumstances of the case, confirms an unauthorized and revolutionary seizure of public domain, and the exclusion of near half the states of the confederacy from equal rights therein-destroys the line of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes, which was originally acquiiesced in as a matter of compromise and peace, and appropriates to the northern states one hundred and twenty thousand square miles below that line, and is so gross and palpable a violation of the principles of justice and equality as to shake our confidence in any security to be given by that majority who are now clothed with power to govern the future destiny of the confederacy. The recent purchase of territory by Congress from Texas, as low down as thirty-two degrees on the Rio Grande, also indicates that the boundaries of the slaveholding states are fixed and our doom prescribed so far as it depends upon the will of a dominant majority, and nothing now can save us from a degraded destiny but the spirit of freemen who know their rights and are resolved to maintain them, be the conrequences what they may. We have no powers that are binding upon the states we represent. But, in order to produce system and concerted action, we recommend the following resolutions, viz.: Resolved, That we have ever cherished, and do now cherish, a cordial attachment to the constitutional union of the states, and that to preserve and perpetuate that Union unimpaired, this Convention originated and has now reassembled. Resolved, That the union of the states is a union of equal and independent sovereignties, and that the powers delegated to the federal government can be resumed by the several states, whenever it may seem to them proper and nlecessary. Resolved, Trhat all the evils anticipated by the South, and which occasioned this Convention to assemble, have been realized by the failure to extend the Missouri line of compromise to the Pacific Ocean-by the admission of California as a state; by the organization of territorial governments, for Utah and New earliest settlement of our country, and our ret.ations of master and slave have grown up from that time. A change in those relations must esaed in convuls ion, and the entire ruin of on e or of both races. When the Constitution was adopteq t htis re - lation of master and slave, as it exists, was expresrsly rec ognised a nd guarded in that instruaeltn. it was a g reat and vital interest, involving our very ex istence as a sbpa rate people then as well as now. The states of t his confederacy acceded to that compact, each one for itself, and ratified it as states. If the non-slaveholding states, wh o ar e parties to th a t compact, disregOard its provisions and endanger our peace and existence by united and deliberate action, w he have a right, as states, ther e being no common arbiter, to secede. The object of those who are urging on the federal government in its aggressive policy upon our domestic institutions is, beyond all doubt, finally to overthrow them, and abolish the existing relation between the master and slave. We feel authorized to assert this from their own declarations, and from the history of events in this country for the last few years. To abolish slaverv or the slave trade in the District of Columbia-to regulate the sale and transfer of slaves between the states-to exclude slaveholders with their property from the territories-to admit California under the circumstances of the case, we hold to be all parts of the same system of measures, and subordinate the end they have in view, which is openly avowed to be, the total overthrow of the institution. We make no aggressive move. We stand upon the defensive. We invoke the spirit of the Constitution, and claim its guarantees. Our rights-our independence-the peace and existence of our families, depend upon the issue. The federal government has within a few years acquired, by treaty and by triumphant war, vast territories. This has been done by the counsels and the arms of all, and the benefits and rights belong alike and equally to all the states. The federal government is but the common agent of the states united, and represents their conjoined sovereignty over subjectmatter granted and defined in the compact. The authority it exercises over all acquired territory must in good faith be exercised for the equal benefit of all the parties. To prohibit our citizens from settling there with the most valuable part of our property is not only degrading to us as equals, but violates our .highest constitutional rights. Restrictions and prohibitions against the slaveholding states, it would appear, are to be the fixed and settled policy of the government; and those states that are hereafter to be admitted into the Federal Union from their extensiv e territories will but confirm and increase the power of the majority; and he .59,,

Page 598 view page image

THIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. to abide by them with that fidelity which has distinguished the South on all former occa sions. 2. Resolved, That this determination to abide by the late legislation of Congress afore said, is predicated on the express condition that the North shall faithfully carry it out onl her part, according to the spirit and true meaning of the same.

3. Resolved, That this convention does dis tinctly understand that according to the spirit and true meaning of said legislation, it em braces all the action which the North pro poses to take in relation to slavery, and that in addition to the subjects expressly provided for in said bills, no attempt will hereafter be made by the northern people to deprive the South of the representation secured to her in the Constitution, or to abolish, directly or in directly, slavery in the District of Columbia or in th i e states, nor to prevent the transporta tion of slaves from one slaveholding state to another by their lawful owners, nor to prevent the admission of any new state on account of the toleration of slavery in its constitution. 4. Resolved, That in view of the sacrifices to which the southern states have heretofore submitted, and to which they are further sub jected by agreeing to abide by the bills lately passed by Congress, they have a eight to de mand, and do demand, that all agitations and aggressions on the part of the North, upon the subject of slavery, shall instantly cease; and that the repeal of the fiigitive slave bill, or an alteration of it which may render it less effectual in its objects, must of necessity render all further association as friends and brethren utterly impossible. 5. Resolved, That if the people of the north ern states, by voluntary associations or other wise, shall continue to obstruct and prevent the execution of the fugitive slave law, thereby depriving southern citizens of their property, and giving encouragement to other slaves to escape from service; or if they shall commence a system of agitation, with the view and ob vious purpose of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, or in the states; or of depriving the South of the representation of three-fifths of her slaves, to which she is now entitled under the Constitution; or of prohibiting the transportation of slaves froi-i one slave state to another; or of excluding from the Union any new state onI account (;f the toleration of slavery in its constitution; then this convention earnestly recommends to the people of the South to resort to the most rigid system of commercial non-intercourse with all such states, comminunities, and cities, as shall be found so offending against their constitutional rights. For this purpose, we earnestly invite the legislature of every southern state to unite with us in this recommendation, andl that in every state, and county, and town, and neighborhood, resolutions may be adopted not to purchase or use, as far as practicable, any article whatever known to have been pr(,dlle’d or manufactured in any such stats, c,mmu Mexico, without giving adequate protection to the property of the South; by the dismem I)erment of Texas; by the abolition of the slav e trad e and the emancip ation of slaves carried into the District of Columbia for sale. Resolved, That we earnestly recommend to all p,artdes in the slaveholding states to refuse to go into or countenance any n ational con vention, whose object may be to nominate ,andidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presi(lency of the United States, under any party denomination whatever, until our constitutional rights are secured. Reso lved, That in vi ew of thes e aggressions, and of those threatened and impending, we earnestly recommend to the slaveholding states to meet in a congress or convention, to be held at such time and place as the states desiring to be represented may designate, to be composed of double the number of their senators and representatives in the Congress of the United States, intrusted with full power and authority to deliberate and act with the view and intention of arresting further aggression, and, if possible, of restorin-the constitutional rights of the South, and, if not, to provide for their future safety and independence. Resolved, That the president of this Con*-ention be requested to forward copies of the foreg,oing preamble and resolutions to the governors of each of the slaveholding states of the Union, to be laid before their respective legislatures at their earliest assembling.* The following are the Tennessee Resolutions, prepared by Ex-Gov. A. V. Brown of Tenn., and submitted by Gen. Pillow as a substitute for those adopted by the Nashville Convention, at the November session, and reported by it: Whereas, Since the adjournment of this convention, in June last, bill* have been passed into laws by the Congress of the United States for the admission of California into the Union as a state, for the settlement and adjustment of the boundaries of Texas, and for organizing territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico; also bills abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and for the recovery of fugitives from labor; with the view of making known our opinions on these bills, and the steps to be taken by the South upon them; therefore 1. Resolved, That although said bills fall short of that measure of justice to which the Soxuth, in our opinion, is fairly entitled, yet as the same have become the laws of the land, andl for the purpose of giving the highest proof of our attachment and devotion to the Union, this convention hereby declares its willingness * The delegates from six states, viz., Alabama, Florida.

‘Ieorg,ia, Mis.sissippi. South Carolina, and Virginia, voted in the affirmative. atnd those from Tennes:ee in the negative. The nmirber of delegates were front Vir,,i,,ia 1; Georgia 11; Alabamia: Florida 4; Mississippi 8; South Caroliuna 16; Tennessee 14. 598

Page 599 view page image

SOUTHERN CONVENTIONS IN 1850. nity, or city, or to have been imported into the the General Assembly were qualified. in none same for sale. In further aid of this object, it is believed, were they enlarged.‘These we earnestly recommend to the southern movements belong to the history of the con states, and their people, to encourage, by all troversy, and were intended to exert an influ the means in their power, their own mechanics ence at the capitol. Whether attributable in and manufacturers of every description; to any degree to that influence or not, the result push forward all their railroads and other in-has been strict conformity to the line of policy ternal improvements connecting them with thus indicated, save in one instance. That. their best exporting and importing cities on one is the admission of California into the the Gulf and on the Atlantic. Wemake these Union. Upon the expediency of this inmea recommendations in no spirit of revenge, but sure, separately considered, the people of as a just and necessary means of self-defence, Georgia are in some measure divided in to be persisted in only until the rights secured opinion; upon the graver question of its con to us by the Constitution shall be respected. stitutionality, still more so. Surely, then, 6. Resolved, That if, contrary to our under-respect for the opinions of the other party to standing of the several bills aforesaid, the the controversy, who have so largely con Congress of the United States shall at any formed to our views, and a proper allowance time repeal or so alter or amend the fugitive for disagreement among ourselves on the latter Hlave law as to render it less efficacious than branch of this question, will enable even those it now is, or if it shall pass any bill abolishing who hold the act inexpedient and unconstitu slavery in the District of Columbia, or abolish tional to abide by it honorably and gracefully. it directly or indirectly in the states, or if the The proposition that, weighed in the scale present basis of slave representation, as se-of interest, the preponderance is vastly on the cured in the Constitution, be obliterated, or side of non-resistance, is too plain for arguif the transportation of slaves from one slavement. This act being in its nature unsus holding state to another be prohibited, or if ceptible of repeal, the only competent measure slavery in our present territories shall be pro-of resistance is secession. This would not hibited-in either of these events, this conven-repair the loss sustained, viz., deprivation of tion earnestly recommends that the legislature the right to introduce slavery into Californian of each southern state be forthwith convened, But it would subject Georgia, first, to the adfor the purpose of calling a convention in each ditional loss of all she has gained by the state, and that delegates, to be appointed in scheme of adjustment, e. g. the provision such manner as shall be determined on by made for the reclamation of fugitive slaves; said conventions, may meet at such time and and secondly, it would annihilate for ever all place as may be agreed on, with full power the advantages, foreign and domestic, derivaand authority to do anything and everything ble from her adherence to the confederacy. which the peace, safety, and honor of the It may not be overlooked that, aside from the South may demand. new issues presented by the late territorial _-~~ acquisitions, the position of the South upoii the. Congressional record is better this day TE GEORGIA STATE CONVENTION.

than ever before. This body met in pursuance of a call from Georgia, then, will abide by the recent the governor. We insert extracts from the action of Congress, hereinbefore referred to, report of the committee, with the resolutions in hopeful reliance that the people of the noiithat were adopted by a vote of 237 to 19. slaveholding states will yield acquiescence it and faithful adherence to that entire action. REPORT. To this course she is impelled by an earniest ~~~ ~desire to perpetuate the American Union, anld The practical questions presented for con-to restore that peace and harmony upon whicli sideration are these: May Georgia, consist-its value to herself, to her confederates, and to ently with her honor, abide by the general mankind essentially depends.

scheme of pacification? If she may, then does her interest lie in adherence to it, or in One other subject challenges our special resistance? A brief reference to a few facts notice. It is the threatened repeal of the of recent occurrence will furnish an affirma-recent act for the reclamation of fugitive tive answer to the first and most interesting slaves. That statute was demanded as an uininquiry. The people of Georgia were fully questionable constitutional right, and as a apprised that these great issues were pending remedy for a grievous and growing evil, anil blefore the national legislature. Their Gene-therefore cannot be surrendered. Ihistory ral Assembly being in session, and assuming bears testimony to the importance of this suhto represent their opinions, took them into ject. It mingled in the earliest discussions consideration, and gave a distinct expression upon the formation of the American Union of their own views, and virtually required of It commanded the profound deliberation of the Congress of the United States conformity the framers of the Constitution, who assigned to those views. Numerous primary assemblies it a prominent place in that instrument. of the people passed upon the same questions, They ordained that “no person held to serstill in advance of the action of Congress, and vice or labor in one state, under the laws whilst in many of these the requisitions of thereof, escaping into another, shall, in con 599

Page 600 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Georgia has maturely considered the action of Congress, embracing a series of measures ; for the admission of California into the Union, the organization of territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, the establishment of a boundary between the latter and the state of Texas, the suppression of the slave trade in nthe District of Columbia, and the extradition of fugitive slaves, and (connected with them) the rejection of propositions to exclude slavery from the Mexican territories, and to abolish it in the District of Columbia; and, whilst she does not wholly approve, will abide by it as a permanent adjustment of this sectional (,on troversy Fourthly. That the state of Georgia, in the judgment of this convention, will and ought to resist, even (as a last resort) to a disruption of every tie which binds her to the Union, any future act of Congress abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, without the consent and petition of the slaveholders thereof, or any act abolishing slavery in places within the slaveholding states, purchased by the United States for the erection of forts, maga zines, arsenals, dockyards, navy-yards, and other like purposes; or in any act suppress ing the slave trade between slaveholding states; or in any refusal to admit as a state any territory hereafter applying, because of the existence of slavery therein; or in any , act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the territories of Utah and New Mexico; or in any act repealing or materially modifying the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves. Fifthly. That it is the deliberate opinion of this Convention that upon the faithful execution of the fugitive slave bill by the proper authorities depends the preservation of our much loved Union.

RESOLUTIONS. To the end that the position of this state may be clearly apprehended by her confederates of the South and of the North, and that she may be blameless of all future consequences Be it resolved by the people of Georgia in connexion assembled, First. That we hold the Amnerican Union secondary in importance only to the rights and principles it was desig,ned to perpetuate. That past associations, pre.sent fruition, and future prospects, will b,ind us to it so long as it continues to be the tsaletfuard of those rights and principles Secondly. That if the thirteen original l’arities to the contract, bordering the Atlantic iai a narrow belt, while their separate interests vee in embryo, their peculiar tenden cies ..reely developed, their revolutionary trials :,l1d( triumnphs still green in memory, found lUn-ion impossible without conpromise, the tIlirty-osne of this day may well yield somewhat, in the conflict of opinion and policy, to p,eserve that Union which has extended the sway of republican government over a vast Nwilderness to another ocean, and proportionally advanced their civilization and national greatness.

Thirdly. That in this spirit the state of South. POSITION OF, AS SHOWN BY

EXTRACTS FROM SPEECHES OF SOUTHERN MEMBERS OF CON GRESS. o IN the IlIouse, Dec. 13, [App. to Congress. Globe, page 47], Mr. WALKER of Alabama, said: “After all, it is not the Unionthe Union alone, upon which the reflecting man of this country bases his hopes and rests his affections. With him the Union is secondary in importance to the principles it was designed to perpetuate and establish.” ep In the House, Dec. 22, [App. to Congress.

Globe, page 48], Mr. BENNETT of Mississippi. said: “Sir, it was in 1851
that this aggressive spirit on the part of the North caused the pe  ple of my state to mneet in convention; and in that convention the Union party of the state declared that there were aggressions by the North that would amount to intolerable oppression, and would eventually sever the ties that bind us together, and dissolve the Union; and that, contemplating the possible repeal of 600

Page 601 view page image

SOUTH. the fugitive bil, a modification of the same, or refusal to execute its provisions, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or the re fusal to admit a new state into the Union be cause of its having a proslavery constitution in the efforts to meet these evils the Union of the states must be considered the secondary politi cal good. Upon this platform, which I thought, ill 1851, yielded up everything that could be fairly demanded, I hope now to be permitted to stand; and I warn the Republican party in this Hlouse, that they come here elected to do now the very things which the Union party, in 1851, said could not be done except at the price of the severance of the Union. I am prepared to say, the South will never sub mit to the consummation of those acts which in your election you are bound to carry out. * If that conflict must come, I for one say, let it commence in this hall; and I hope, sir, that if it be necessary to maintain our con stitutional rights, it may commence on this floor, and the first drop of human gore shed in defence of the violated rights and insulted honor, may crimson the walls of this capitol.” In the IIouse, December 20 [App. to Cong. Globe, page 30], Mr.Cox of Ky. said: “

I make bold to say that the position assumed by them (the Democrats) and that accupied by us (the Southern Americans) upon this great question, is the only position that we as national men, can occupy consistently with the peace, the safety, the harmony, the welfare and prosperity of the whole Union. If they don’t like to be called Abolitionists, I will call them Black Republicans, Republicans, whichever they prefer. I will call them the Anti-Nebraska party-the party which intends to agitate the question of slavery in Congress and out of it, at the hazard of everything that is held sacred in this Union * A gentleman near me says, that they have not said a word yet about the restoration of the Missouri compromise. Well, they have given one hundred and six votes in this House, and the restoration of the Missouri compromise is the basis of the union of those one hundred and six members. When you tell me that you intend to put a restriction on the territories, I say to you that upon that subject the South is a unit, and will not submit to any such thing. You do not understand that, or you would not press it so pertinaciously.” On the 19th of December, in the House [Cong. Globe, page 56], Mr. CAMPBELL of Ky., said: ” We are led to believe that they (the Republican party) are ready to push matters to a length which must ultimately lead to a dissolution of this Union.” Mr Campbell read the following, which he stated to be a resolution adopted by a Convention at Cincinnati:-v ” That the repeal of the Missouri coslpromise was an infraction of the plighted faith of the nation, and that it should be restored;* and if effort~g *
that end should fail, Congress should refuse to admit into the Union any st ate toleat ting slavery, which shall be formed out of any portion of the territo ry fro m which that institution was excluded by that compromise.J’ Having read this resolution. Mr. Cambpell proceeded to speak as follows: ” My remarks were based on that resolution. It is an interference with our institutions when our citizens are denied the same rights in the new territories with the citizens from the North; for that territory belongs to us as much as it does to you. We regard this confederacy as secondary in importance, and when a government falters in carrying out its guarantees for the protection of life, liberty, and property, it is no longer entitled to the fealty of its citizens. And in addition to that, I will avow this sentiment, believing that it will be endorsed by my constituency, that whenever this government makes a distinction between a Southern and a Northern constituency or citizenship, then we shall no longer consider ourselves bound to support the confederacy, but will resort to the right of revolution, which is recognised by all.” On the 20th of December, in the House [Cong. Globe, page 61], Mr. McMULLIN of Va., said: ” Let me tell that member [Mr.

Giddings] and this House and the country, that should this country ever arrive at that unfortunate state of affairs that the government should pass into the hands of the North’-of such a Northern fanatical character over the way, and that that government should restore the Missouri compro mise, or repeal the fugitive slave law, then in such a case I would have to endorse the declaration of the h onorable gentleman from Kentuc ky [Mr.

Campbell], that is to say, that this Union must and will be dissolved.

One of the greatest misfortunes of the country, Mr. Clerk, is the fact that our Northern brethren mistake the character of the South. They suppose that the Southern disunionists are confined to the Calhoun wing of the Democratic party. This, sir, is the greatest error that the people of the North have ever fallen into. And I tell you, sir, and I want the country to know it-I want the gentlemen from the free states, our Republicans, our Seward Republicans, our Abolitionists, or whatever else they may be called, to know it-that if you restore the Missouri Compromise, or repeal the fugitive slave law, this Union will be dissolved.” Mr. BROOKS of S. C., on the 24th of December, 1855, said: “The gentleman from Massachusetts has announced to the world, that in certain contingencies, he is willing to’let the Union slide.’ Now, sir, let his contingencies be reversed, and I am also willing to’let the Union slide’-ay, sir, to aid in making it slide. * I hesitate not to say, that if his construction of the constitutional power of Congress over the territories shall prevail in 601

Page 602 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. ‘Cincinnati, nine states being represented, and they, too, adopted a platform threatening the institutions of the South, though it might cost this glorious Union to carry out their prin 4ples.”

3In the IIouse, January 11, Mr. DOWDELI, of Ala. [Coing. Globe, page 217], said: ” I make free to declare my opinion, not by way of threatening, but, I trust, as a patriot, who desires the best interests of his country, that if the gentlemen who are in a majority in this House fairly represent the section of tihe Union from which they come-if they are the types of Northern nmajorities, and the principle which I understand them to profess shall be come the settled opinions of controlling ma jorities in the Northern states, and shall be attempted to be made law in this country, through the forims of federal legislation, then the continued Union of the states will be an impossibility, or, if possible, the greatest curse which could be inflicted upon any people.” In reference to the Republican party, Mr. Dowdell said: ” Sectional and fana.tic, it is bent upon the destruction of the rights of a whole section. It threatens to do that which cannot be done without being followed by a speedy dissolu tion of these states.” In the House, January 11 Mr. STEWART of Md. [Cong. Globe, page 220,] said:  “It had to be disposed of, and now again must be met.

The question of the admission of a new state from the territory in dispute will soon be presented. * Minor questions, however important otherwise, must be subordinate to this great national exigency which involves in its settlement possibly the destinies of this glorious Union.”

In the House, January 30, Mr. BOYCE of S. C., [Cong. Globe, page 3201, said:’ I look upon the election of Mr. Banks as one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen to this country. I look upon his principles, if carried, as death to the Constitution and to the Union. The result of his principles, if carried out, would be inevitably revolution.

For my own part, whenever that question is put to me to-day, to-morrow, next week, or next year, if it be anarchy, or the extreme antislavery opinions of Mr. Banks, I shall say, anarchy tor ever.” In the House, January 19, Mr. BococK of Va., addressing himself to the Republicans [Cong. Globe, page 264,] said: “You cheat yourselves with the delusion that your platform makes you national. You declare war on the institution of slavery wherever the strong arm of this government can reach it, and call that a national platform. To justify so absurd a position, you love to employ the specious phrase that’ freedom is national, and slavery sectional.’ I tell gentlemen that it is a cheat and delusion. ‘k When in your platform you come forward and In the IHouse, on the 23d of December, Mr. SEWARD of Ga., said: “If the question is to be settled by Congress, and decided against the South by a majority firom the North, the government will be en(]angered a nd th e Union cannot be perpetulated.” Ine in the ouse, on the 4th of January, Mr. BoYcE of S C., [Cong. Globe, page 143], F’aid:- - ‘ I leave thought, and I st ill think, and I have expressed the opinion, and I still ex)ress the opinion, that the re a re circumstan ce s which are hurrying us almost irresistibly to a disruption. * i I have seen at the North the formation of a great party, based upon the single idea of hostility to the institutions of the South. The only question with me, then, as to the continuance of the Union is, whether that party will take possession of the North? If they do, in my opinion the Union is at an end. What is that party pledged to? The great boasting idea of that party is, that freedom is national and slavery is sectional. That party, then, are obliged, if they come into power, as is recommended in the resolutions of the state of Maine presented to the Senate yesterday, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and to prohibit it in all the territories, arsenals, and dockyards in the United States. Well, then, it seems to me that if that party comes into power pledged to those measures, we shall be in the midst of chaos and anarchy and revolution.” “This great sectional party at the North goes upon the idea that, by uniting together at the North they can obtain the control of this government and dispense its vast patronage among themselves, and reduce the people of the South to a secondary and subordinate condition. * That party which places itself upon the position of giving power to the North, will eventually succeed; and when that party does succeed, in my opinion the Union will be at an end.” In the House, January 9, Mr. TALBOT of Ky. [Cong. Globe, page 176], said: “

What was the aspect of political parties when we first met at this capitol? The Republican party had met at the North and organized themselves into a sectional Free Soil Abolition party, determined, many of them, upon a repeal of the fugitive slave law, and all upon of them up on th e repeal of the KansasNebraska bill; the restoration of the Missouri restrictive line; the restriction of slavery in the territories; the non-admission of any more slave states into this Union. This party, Mr.

Clerk, promised no good to the country, but, by its system of political warfare, threatened a disruption of the Union. What else, sir? The great American party, * a few days before we met here, held a meeting at 602
this country, I for one heartily endorse the, t;ertii-nent.”

Page 603 view page image

SOUTH. .ay that your institutions alone are entitled to the protection of the government, and that ours are to) be discountenanced and restricted l)y its action, then you lay down a sectional )plitf()rrnII and array yourselves into a sectional party. You put us beyond the pale of the (,‘onstitutioii, and you force us to fight you by every fair and honorable means; and we shall (I’) it.” dir. (GDDINGs and others. Agreed! Sir.

BococK. “‘Rest assured that we will do it.” Cong. Globe, page 95], Mr.

Jors - of Tennc said: “We have a question before us and tl,e country which I think of far more isnpot ance th wl an ono a to our interst an d h onor, and to the perpetuity of our institutions, than the ques - t ion whethle r o r not Mr. Cramipton shall be withdrawn. The beginning of the difficulti e s may be fou nd in an earnest, arden t, and-pardo n me f or saying-a reck less de ter minati on t o repeal that clause of the KansasNebraska bill which abrogates the Missouri restriction. * 0-, We ask nothing but what the Constitution guaranties to us. That much we do ask. That much wve will have. I do not wish to be excited alm(,st this matter. We do not mean to be drinei from our propriety; but there is a fixed, in mutable, universal determination on the part of the South never to be driven a single icl, further. * If we are not to enjoy our rights under the Constitution, tell us so; and if we may, let us separate peaceably and de cently. I tell you in eveary hand there will be a knife, and there will be war to he knife and the knife to the hilt.” In the Ifouse, March 13 [App. to Cong,. Globe, page 157], Mr. TAYLOR of La., said: ” If the counsels of these mien [the Repub licans] find favor with us, a few short weeks or months may be sufficient to fill a land where it has been all sunshine, with’ clouds and darkness;’ and amid the surrounding gloom such contentions and conflicts may arise, in which section may be arrayed against section, state against state, and perhaps man against man, in deadly strife, as would make all men * shudder with fear.” In the Ilouse, March 13 [App. to Song. Globe, page 230], Mr.

LETCIIER of Va. said: “So far as the South are concerned, sir, I will tell you now what I have no doubt will be the fact-what I believe firmly and conscientiously, that if you [the Republicans] should have power here, and undertake to pass measures to carry out the principles which you profess, you would find that wM had spirit enough to separate from you, and make the effort, at least, to take care of ourselves. A VOICE. What measures?

Mr. LETCIIER. If yOU undertake to repeal the fugitive slave law, and deprive us of the means of recov:ering our property when it is stolen from us. * If you undertake to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibit it in the territories of the United States by Congressional legislation. * You will find that the South, if it has a particle of self-respect.-and I know that it has  will be prepared to resist any, and all such measures.” In the tIouse, April 1 lapp. to bong. Gl,)be, page 297], Mir. WVARNER of Ga. said:’  ” We have been told by those who advocate this line of policy, that they do not desire to~ interfere with slaverv in the states where it exists; and yet it is their intention to pro In the Senate, March 5 [Cong. Globe, page 584], Judge BUTLER of S. C.

said: + *:* ” I have such confidence in the good sense of the people of this country, that I believe republican institutions might surviv e the present Union. Really, it is broken already. * I would rather that it should be dissolved to-morrow-I wish my words measured-in preference to living in a Union without the protection of a Constitution which gives me an equality. I should tell my people so to-morrow.” In the Senate, on the 27th of March [Cong. (g’lobe, page 758], the foregoing remarks of Judge BUTLIER being made a subject of comjent, he said: ” I say now, calmly, that when a Northern ,najority shall acquire such a control over the legislation of this country as to disfranchise thie sla hliolding states in any respect in which they hlave an equality under the Constitution of the country, I will not agree to live under this government, when the Union can survive the Constitution. * All that I have ci)nten(led(
for, is, that the common domain of this go)vernnient, acquired by the common l)lood and treasure of all parts of the United Sta.tes, shall be just ias free to one class of citizeus as another. * But, sir, if ani insulting interference were to be made by a miaj(ority of Congress, or such an interference as would( exclude a slaveholder on the broad ground that he was unworthy of equality with at non-slaveholding population, do you suppose I would stay in the Union if I could get out of it?” In the hIouse, January 17 [App. to Con,g. Globe, page 60], Mr. STEPHIENS of Ga.

said:’ I was willing, to divide as an alternative only, but a majority of the North would not consent to it; and now we have got the g(reat principle, established in 1850, carried out in the KansasNebra-ska bill, that Congress, after remiovin,, all obstructions, is not to intervene against us. This is the old Southern Republican principle, attained after a hard and protracted struggle in 1850, and I say, if Congress ever again exercises the power to exclude the South fiom an equal participation in the conmimon territories, I, as a Southern man, am for resisting it. The gentleman from Tennessee does not say what he would do in that contingency.” In the Senate, February 25 [App. to 603

Page 604 view page image

rHE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. vent the (xtension of slavery, by excluding it from the common territory. It matters but little with me, whether a man takes my property outright, or restricts mIe in the en joymenit of it, so as to render it of but little or no value to me. * Slavery cannot be confined within certain specified limits without producing the destruction of both master and slave; it requires fresh lands. If the slavehlolding states should ever be so regardless of their rights, and their power, as co-equal states, to be willing to submit to this proposed restriction, * they could not do it. * They ought not to submit to it upon principle, if they could, and could not if they would. “It is in view of these things’ sir, that the people of Georgia have assembled in convention, and solemnly resolved that, if Congress shall pass a law excluding them from the common property, with their slave property, they will disrupt the ties that bind them t o the Union. This position has not been taken y)v way of threat or menace. Georgia never threatens, but Georgia always acts.” In the House, April 4 lApp. to Cong. Globe, p. 351], Mr. SMITH of Tenn. said: “In my humble judgment, we should first look to the preservation of the Constitution of the United States; secondly, to the protection of the rights of the states; and, thirdly, to the preservation of the Federal Union. So far as I am concerned, after the preservation of the rights of the states, which I, as an individual, or as a Representative, will never agree to see infringed, the next most important object which ought to actuate every patriot of this land, is the preservation of the Union. I believe that it [the Wilmot Proviso]

is unconstitutional, unjust, and wrong. Unless the South can unite and defend these men of the North, who stand by the guarantees of the Const itution, for the rights of the states, the Union is gone. * In the struggle which is soon to come off-a struggle on the issue of which are suspended the mighty doctrines of this nation-yes, sir, in my humble opinion, the very existence of this Union, the truehearted, conservative, and patriotic men of the whole country * will stand bravely together around the broad banner of the Democratic party.” In the House, Jan. 9

[App. to Cong. Globe, page 54], Mr. BowiE of Md. said:- w ” They [the Republicans] say they are not Abolitionists, because, forsooth, they are not for interfering with slavery in the states. Why, sir, did you ever see or hear of a fanatic who was fanatical enough to go to that extent? They are called Abolitionists, and iustly so, because they advocate the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the territories of thie Union, and in the District of Columbia. There is a majority here in favor of the principles of nonintervention of Congress on the subject of domestic slavery in the territories. That majority ought to be brought together in sonme mnode of conciliation: for it must be admitted that no other question is half so vital to the preservation of the Union. * These are interesting questions [relating to the naturalization laws], to be sure, but they strike no chord in our hearts which vibrates with sounds of rational disunion. They bring no tears to the eyes of the patriot, when brooding over the broken fragments of a ruined country. * But let this Congress attempt to strike down the constitutional rights of the S,)utl, then you, and I, and all of us will strike, though bloody treason flourish over us.” In the Ihouse, April 7, Mr. KEITT of S. C. said: ” Sir, the next contest will be a momentous one. It will turn u p the question of slavery, and the constitutional rights of the o sttt l rit o f te South. The South should establish in the platform the principle that the right of a southern man to his slave is equal, in its length and breadth, to the right of a northern man to his horse. She should make the recogniti on of the r ight full, complete, and indisputable. Let the North refuse admission to a state because of slavery in her constitution, and the history of th is Union is closed. * If it [the government]

becomes the puppet of abolitionism, if it becomes, in our very midst, to us a foreign government, the South will tear it down, from turret to foundation-stone. Abolish the inter-state slave trade, and we will trample your usurpations under foot. Repeal the fugitive slave law, and the South will meet you with gauntlets on. In the next presidential election the North will decide the probable fate of the Union. If the banner of Black Republicanism is lifted to victory, the South will raise aloft her symbol of sovereignty, and interpose her own shield for the safety of her citizens. tthe conservatives of the North beware!” ~L-I the House, April 9, Hon. E. S. SIORTEn of Ala. said: “Do you believe that the South, less patriotic now than in the days of the Revolutior, will quietly submit to the sacrifice of her rights, and still cling to the Union? If suclh is public opinion at the North, let it be at onie undeceived. We understand, gentlemen, what our rights are under the Constitution, and with the blessing of God we mean to maintain them. We ask for nothing more-will be content with nothing less. “I hope and pray God that my section of the Union may never agtain, in an evil hour, be inclined to’compromise’ with the North on the subject of slavery. “I believe in the right of a sovereign state to secede from the Union whenever she determines that the Federal Constitution has been violated by Congress; and that this govern

Page 605 view page image

SOUTH.-SOUTTHERN SENATORS. ment has no constitutional power to coerce such seceding state. “I think South Carolina mistook her remedy -secession, and not nullification, ought to have been her watchword. *sJ 3 “The extraordinary exertions made by Massacehtusetts and the Black Republican party of the North, to rob the South of her equal rights in the territories, has had one effect. You have thoroughly arouse d the southern states to a sense of their danger. You have caused them coolly to estimate the value of the Union; and we are determined to maintain our equality in it, or independence out ()f it. “The South has planted itself where it intends to stand or fall, Union or no Union, and t!hat is, upon the platform laid down by the G(eorgia Convention. O ~~ *& “We tell you plainly that we take issue with you; aorld whenever you repeal the fugitive slave law, or refuse to admit a state on account of slavery in her constitution, or our equality in the territories is sacrificed by an act of (ongress, then the star of this Union will go down to rise no more.

” Shiouild we be forced to dissolve the Union in order to preserve southern institutions and southern civilization, we will do it in peace, if we can; in war, if we must; and let the God of Battles decide between us. ” The shadows, sir, of the coming storm already darken our pathway. It will soon be upon us with all its fury.” foot. I hold up before you the Constitutions as it came from the hands of its immortal authors, northern and southern men-itself a compromise; we claim our rights under that, and we inten d to have them.” Ho nt. Wm. Barksdale of Miss., in House of Ilepresentatires, July 23, 1856. “Sir, I am no alarmist; nor am I a disunionist. I represent a people here who love the Union-a people who have always been distinguished for their conservatism, who have always been represented in the councils of the nation by men noted for their Unionloving patriotism-a people that honored Clay, who combined in his person much of the genius of our institutionsa people who have ever thrown themselves into the breach to save the Union when the conflicts of contending factions threatened to destroy it; but, sir, if John C. Fremont should be elected, pledged as he is to war upon the institutions of the South, composed as his administration would be of men from but one section of the Union, filled as the federal offices would be by sectioniial men, all pledged to make common cause against the South, with a Congress backing up his administration, such as the present House, who conceive no measure too unconstitutional, too revolutionary, too disgraceful, to meet their sanction, so as it makes war upon the South, the frightful mien of disunion forces itself on them as far the preferable alternative between it and oppression and disgrace in the Union. They would then, still remindful of its past glories, the memories of its giant statesmen, the heroic deeds of valor of its noted warriors, prefer rather to cut short its existence than to blacken those brilliant recollections with the record of its future disgrace.”-Hon. H. C. Burnett of Ky., in the House of Representatives, July 28, 1856. “Nowv, sir, as to the measures of this party, in thie event of its success. ” First. Kansas will be hurried into the Union under the Topeka constitution, in violation of law and every principle of right and justice; next the Wilmot proviso will be adopted, and thus slavery put under the ban of the government; it will be abolished in the District of Columbia; the slave trade between the states interdicted; slavery excluded from the dockyards and arsenals, and everywhere else where the government has jurisdiction. These, sir, are the measures of the Black Republicanii party. They are not all included in the platform, I know; but should it succeed and the Union survives, they will be fastened upon the country. Sir, I make no threats; l)ut I tell the gentlemen on the other side of this Ilouse, p lainly, as it is my solemn duty to do, as the representative of a hundred thousand freemen upon this floor, that we submit to n(i further aggressions upon us,’ there is a point beyond which forbearance ceases to be a virtue,’ and that for the future’we tread no steps backwards.’ We are done, gentlemen, with compromises. All that have been made you forced upon us; and while we have observed them in good faith, you have shamele.gslv disregarded and trampled them under IMMrEDIATELY after the passage of the bill admitting California, a Protest, of which the following is the material portion, was made: ” We, the undersig ned senators, deeply im pressed with the importance of the occasion and with a solemn sense of the responsibility under which we are acting, respectfully sub mit the followi ng protest a g ains t the bill ad pittingo Califorhia as a state i nto this Union and request that it may be entered upo n theb Journal of the Senate. We feel that it is not enough to have resisted in debate alone a bill so fraught with mischief to the Union and the states which we represent, with all the resources of argument which we possessed; but that it is also due to ourselves, the people whose interests have been intrusted to our care, and to posterity, which even in its most distant generations may feel its consequences, to leave in whatever form may be most solemni 605 Southern Senators. PROTEST AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF CALI FORNIA.

Page 606 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. and enduring, a memorial of the opposition which we have made to this measure, and of the reasons by which we have been governed, upon the pages of a journal which the Co.nsti tution requires to be kept so long as the Senate may have an existence. We desire to place the reasons upon which we are willing to be judged by generations living and yet to come, for our opposition to a bill whose consequences may be so durable and portentous as to make it an object of deep interest to all who may come after us. ” We have dissented from this bill because it gives the sanction of law, and thus imparts validity to the unauthorized action of a portion of the inhabitants of California, by which an odious discrimination is made against the property of the fifteen slaveholding states of the Union, who are thus deprived of that posi tion of equality which the Constitution so manifestly designs, and which constitutes the only sure and stable foundation on which this Union can repose. “Because the right of the slaveholding states to a common and equal enjoyment of the ter ritory of the Union has been defeated by a system of measures which, without the au thority of precedent, of law, or of the Con stitution, were manifestly contrived for that purpose, and which Congress must sanction and adopt, should this bill become a law. “Because to vote for a bill passed under such circumstances would be to agree to a principle, which may exclude for ever here after, as it does now, the states which we represent from all enjoyment of the common territory of the Union; a principle which de stroys the equal rights of their constituents, the equality of their states in the confederacy, the equal dignity of those whom they repre sent as men and as citizens in the eye of the law, and their equal title to the protection of the government and the Constitution. “Because all the propositions have been rejected which have been made to obtain either a recognition of the rights of the slaveholding states to a common enjoyment of all the territory of the United States, or to a fair division of that territory between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states of the Union-every effort having failed which has been made to obtain a fair division of the territory proposed to be brought in as the state of California. “But, lastly, we dissent from this bill, and solemnly protest against its passage, because, in sanctioning measures so contrary to former precedent, to obvious policy, to the spirit and intent of the Constitution of the United States, for the purpose of excluding the slaveholding states from the territory thus to be erected into a state, this government in effect declares, that the exclusion of slavery from the territory of the United States is an object so high and important as to justify a disregard not only of all the principles of sound policy, but also of the Constitution itself. Against this conclubion we must now and for ever protest, as it is destructive of thie safety and libe rties of those whose rights have been committed to our care, fatal to the peace aniid equality of the states which we represent, and must lead, if persisted in, to the dissolution of that con. federacy, in which the slaveholding states have never sought more than equality, and in which they will not be content to remain with less.” This protest was signed by Messrs. Mason and HIulter, Senators from Virginia; Messrs. Butler and Barnwell, Senators from South Carolina; Mr. Turney, Senator from Tennessee; Mr. Pierre Soul6, Senator from Louisiana; Mr. Jefferson Davis, Senator from Mississippi; Mr. D. R. Atchison, Senator from Missouri; and Messrs. J. Morton and D. L. Yulee, Senators from Florida. Southern States.

ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OoF THE. AT a large meeting of southern members of both IHouses of Congress, held at the Capitol on the evening of the?th instant, the Ilon. Hopkins L. Turney of Tenn. having been appointed chairman at a previous meeting, took the chair; and, on motion of the lion. David Hubbard of Ala. the lion. Wm. J. Alston of Ala. was appointed secretary. Whereupon, the Ilon. A. P. Butler of S. C., from the committee appointed at a prelimlinary meeting, ote a Arepo rted an Addres s to the Southern People, recommending the establishment, at Washington City, of a newspaper, to be devoted to the support and defence of southerl interests, which was read, and with some slight modifications adopted. The following resolution eras offered by the Hon. Thomas L. Clingman of N. C., and unanimously adopted by the meeting:  Resolved, unanimously, That the committee, in publishing the address, be instructed to give with it the nanies of the senators and representatives in Congress who concur in the proposition to establish the southern organ, as manifested by their subscription to the several copies of the plan in circulation, or who may hereafter authorize said committee to include their names. 3far~jland.

Senator-Thos. G. Pratt. Virginia. Senators-R. M. T. Hunter, J. M. Mason.

Representatives J. A. Seddon, Alex. R. tIolladay, Thos. H. Averett, Thos.

S. Bocock, Paulus Powell, I. A. Edmundson, R. K. Me ade, Jeremia h Morto n. North Carolina. Senator-Willie P. Mangum. Rtepresentatives  T. L.

Clingman, A. W. Venable, W. S. Ashe. South Carolina. Senators A. P.

Butler, F. If. Elmore. Representati ves John McQueen, Wm. F. Colcock, Jos.

A. Woodward, James L. Orr, Daniel Wallace, Armistead Burt, Isaac E.

IIolmes. Georgia. Senators Jno. McP. Berrien, Wm. C. Dawson.

Representatives  Joseph W. Jackson, Robert Toombs, Alex. H. Stephens, 1.

A. Ilaralson, Allen F. Owen. 606

Page 607 view page image

SOUTHERN STATES, ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF TIEE. are threatened with overthrow. Whether the negro is to occupy the same social rank with D the white man, and enjoy equally with him the rights. privileges, and immunities of citi zenship, in short, all the honors and dignities of society, is a question of greater moment than any mere question of property can be. Such is the contest now going on-a contest in Wlii(h public opinion, if not the prevailing, is destined to be a most prominent firce, all(l yet no organ of the united interests of tlihose assailed has as yet been established; nor does there exist any paper which can be the com mon medium for an interchange of opinions amongst the Southern states.

Public opinion, as it has been formed and directed by the combined influence of interest and prejudice, is the force which has been most potent against us in the war now going on against the insti tution of negro slavery; and yet we have taken no effectual means to make and maintain that issue with it, upon which our safety and per haps our social existence depends. Whoever will look to the history of this question, and to the circumstances under which we are now placed, must see that our position is one of imminent danger, and one to be defended by all the means, nioral and political, of which we can avail ourselves in the present emer gency. The warfare against African slavery commenced, as it is known, with Great Britain, who, after having contributed mainly to its establishment in the new world, devoted her most earnest efforts, for purposes not yet fully explained, to its abolition in America. How wisely this was done so far as her own colonies were concerned, time has determined, and all comment upon this subject on our part would now be entirely superfluous. If, however, her purpose was to reach and embarass us on this suject, her efforts have not been without suc cess. A common origin, a common language, have made the English literature ours to a great extent, and the efforts of the British govern ment and people to niould the public opinion of all who speak the English language, have not been vain or fruitless. On the contrary, they have been deeply felt wherever the English language is spoken, and the more efficient and dangerous, because, as yet, the South has taken no steps to appear and plead at the bar i of the world, before which she has been sum moned. and by which she has been tried al ready without a hearing. Secured by con stitutional guarantees, and independent of all the world, so far as its domestic institutions were concerned, the South has reposed under the consciousness of right and independence, and forborne to plead at a bar which she knew t had no jurisdiction over this particular sub, ject. In this we have been theoretically right, * but practically we have made a great mistake. All means, political, diplomatic, and literL ary, have been used to concentrate the public I opinion, not only of the world at large, but of ! our own country, against us; and resting upon . the undoubted truth that our domestic insti, tutions were the subjects of no government Representatives David Hubbard, S. W. Inge, F. W. Bowde n, W.J. Alston, S.

W. Harri s. Miss-issppi. Senator-Jefferson Davis. Repre sentative.s W. S.

F,eatlherston, A. G. Brown, Jacob Thompson, W. McWille. Lou/sa~na.

Senators-S. U. Downs, Pierre Soule. r’,epresentatives J. II. Harmanson, Emil, La Sere, Isaac E. Morse. A4rkansas. Senators-Solon Borland, W. K.

Sebastian. RepresentativeR. W. Johnson. Texas. Representatives Volney E.

Howard, D. S. Kaufman. Mfissourt. Senator-D. R. Atchison.

Representative-James S. Green. Kentucky. )tepresentative R. H. Stanton, James L. Johnson. Tennessee. Senator-Hopkins L. Turney. Represcntatives James U. Thomas, C. H. Williams, Fred’k P. Stanton, John II. Savage, J. G.

Harris. Foida. Senators-Jackson Morton, D. L. Yulee. Representative.

Carrington Cabell. And upon motion, the meeting adjourned. HoPKINs L.

TURNEY, Chairman. Attest:-Wm. J. Alston, Secretary. 607 ,41abama.

S,nator-Jeremiah Clemens. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTIRERN STATES.

?he committee to which was referred the duty of preparin  an address to the people of the slaveholding states, upon the subject of a Southern organ, to be established in the city of Washin ton, put forth the follow ing: Fr,,LLO’WCITizE ,-s-A number of Senators and Representatives in Congress, from the Southern states of the confederacy, deeply impressed with a sense of the dangers which bevet those states, have considered carefully our means of self-defence within the Union and the Constitution, and have come to the concitision that it is hizblv important to establish in this city a papewlich, without reference to political party, sliall be devoted to the rights and interests of the South, so far as they are i nvolve(I in the questions growing out of African slavery. To establish and maintain such a paper your support is necessary, and accordingly we address you on the subject. In the contest now going on, the constitutioual equality of fiften states is put in question. Some sixteen hundred millions worth of ne,-ro property is involved, directly; and, indirectly, though not less sure], an incalcu y lableamountofpropertyinotherforins. But, to say this, is to state less than half the doom that hangs ove Your social forms and institutions, wti ate the European and the African rc distinct classes, and sssign to each a different sphere in society,

Page 608 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXTBOOX. dwhich we are engaged. We must maintain the equality of our political position in the Union. We must maintain the dignity and respectability of our social position before the world; and we must maintain and secure our liberty and rights, so far as our united efforts can protect them; and, if possible, we must effect all this within the pale of the Union, and by means known to the Constitution. The Union of the South upon these vital in terests is necessary, not only for the sake of the South, but perhaps for the sake of the Union. We have great interests exposed to the assaults, not only of the world at large, but of those who, constituting the majority, wield the power of our own confederated states. We must defend those interests by all legitimate means, or else perish either in, or without, the effort. To make a successful defence, we must unite with each other upon the one vital question, and make the most of our political strength. We must do more we must go beyond our entrenchments, and meet even the more distant and indirect, but by no means harmless assaults, which are directed against us. We, too, can appeal to public opinion. Our assailants act upon theory-to their theory we can oppose expe rience. They reason upon an imaginary state of things-to this we may oppose truth and actual knowledge. To do this, however, we too must open up avenues to the public mind; we, too, must have an organ through which we can appeal to the world, and commune with each other. The want of such an organ heretofore, has been, perhaps, one of the lead ing causes of our present condition.

There is no paper at the seat of government through which we can hear or be hear d fairly and truly by tie country. There is a paper here which makes the abolition of slavery its mai n and paramount end. The re are o ther p apers here which make the mainte na nce of political parties their supreme and controlling object, but none which consider the preservation of sixteen hundred millions of property, the equality and liberty of fourteen or fifteen states, the protection of the white man against African equality, as paramount over or even equal to the maintenance of some political organization which is to secure a President; and who is an object of interest, not because he will certainly rule or perhaps ruin the South, but chiefly for the reason that he will possess and bestow office and spoils. The South has a peculiar position, and her important rights and interests are objects of continual assault from the majority; and the arty press, dependent as it is upon that majority for its means of living, will always be found laboring to excuse the assailants? and to paralyze all efforts at resistance. Ilow is it now? The abolition party can always be heard through its press at the seat of government, but through what organ or press at Washington can ~outhern men commulnicate with the world, or with each other, upon their own peculiar interests? So far from })at our own local governments, and concerned no one but ourselves, we have been passive under these assaults, until danger menaces us from every quarter. A great party has grown up, and is increasing in the United States, which seems to think it a duty they owe to earth and heaven, to make war on a domestic institution, upon which are staked our property, our social organization, and our peace and safety. Sectional feeling s have been in vok ed, an d thos e wh o wield the power of this government have been tempted almost, if not quit e beyo nd their power of resistant cn, to Mage a war aga uinst our property, our rights, eand our soc ial system, which, if successfully rosecuted, must end in ou r des tru ction.

avery induc emen t, the love of power, the de si re to accomplish wha t are, with less truth tha n plausibility, called ” ref orms,” all are offered to temp t thems to press upon those who are represented, a nd in fact seem, to be an easy prey to t he spoiler. O ur equal ity under the Constitution is in effect denied, our social in stitutions are derided and contemned, and our selves treated with contumely and scorn through all the avenues which have as yet been opened to the public opinion of the world.

Tha t thes e assaults should have had their effect is not surprising, when we remember tha t as yet w e ha ve offer ed n o organi zed re sistance to th em, and oppos ed bu t lit t le, except the i solated ef fort s of memb of iof Congress who have occasionally raised their voices against what they believed to be wrongs and injustice. It is tim e that we sh ould meet and maintain a n issue in which we find ourselves involved by t ho s o e who make war upon us in regard to every interest that is peculiar to us, and which is not enjoyed in common with them, however guarantied by solemn compact, and no matter how vitally involving our prosperity, happi ness, and safety. It is time that we should take measures to defend ourselves against assaults, which can end in nothing short of our destruction if we oppose no resistance to them. Owing to accidental circumstances, and a want of knowledge of the true condition of things in the southern states, the larger portion of the press and of the political literature of the world has been directed against us. The moral power of public opinion carries political strength along with it, and, if against us, we must wrestle with it or fall. If, as we firmly believe, truth is with us, there is nothing to discourage us in such an effort. The eventual strength of an opinion is to be measured not by the number who may chance to entertain it, but by the truth which sustains it; we believe, nay, we know, that the truth is with us, and therefore we should not shrink from the contest. WVe have too much staked upon it to shrink or to tremble a property interest, in all its forms, of incalculable amount and value; the social organization, the equality, the liberty, nay, the existence of fourteen or fifteen states of the confederacy — all rest upon the result of the struggle in Om; *I

Page 609 view page image

SOUTHERN STATES.-SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. can change and reverse this state of things. It is not to be borne that public sentimenii at the Southl should be stifled or controlled by the party press. Let us have a press of our own, as the North has, both here and at home-a press which shall be devoted to Southern rights, and animated by Southern feelings; which shall look not to the North, but the South, for the tone which is to pervade it.

Claiming our share of power in federal legislation, let us also claim our share of influence in the press of the country. Let us organize in every Southern town and county, so as to send this paper into every house in the land. Let us take, too, all the means necessary to maintain the paper by subscription, so as to increase its circulation, and promote the spread of knowledge and truth. Let every portion of the South furnish its full quota of talent and money to sustain a paper which ought to be supported by all, because it will be devoted to the intere s t of every Southern man. It will be the earnest effort of the committee who are charged with these arrangements, to procure editors of hitgh talent and standing; and they will also see that the paper is conducted without opposition and withotit reference to the political parties of the day. With these assurances, we feel justified in calling upon you, the people of the Southern states, to make the necessary efforts to establish and maintain the proposed paper.

A. P. BUTL.R, JACKSON MORTON, R. TooMrB,s, J. TitoMrSoN. writing or permitting tany thin to be w ritten, Thicel is cal cula ted to defend the right s of the South, or s tate truly its case, the papers here ar e en osaoeds in lulling the South into a false security, and in manufacturing there an arti ficill public sen ti ment, suitable for some Pre si(lenutial pl atform, though at the expense of ti oiy an d every in terest you may possess, no imatter how de ar or how v it a l and momentous. Tle is stat e of thinogs results from party obli gthNtions, and a reg ard to party success. And they bu t subserve the ends of their establish Leentit, in consulting t hei r own interests and the a(n-anceime n t of the party to which they h are pledged. You cannot look too hem as sentinels over the interests that ae re repugnant to the feelings of th e maj ority of a self-sus taining party. In the federal legislature, the South has some wvoice a nd s o me votes, but in the public press, as it now stand s a t the seat of gove rn ient, t he N or th has a controlling influence. The press of this city take is tone from that of’ the N orth. Even our Souther n press is subjected more or less to the same influence. Our public men, yes, our South ern men, owe thei r public st anding and reputation too often to the commendation and praise of the North (,rn press. Southern newspapers republish from their respective party organs in this city, and in so doing repro duc e, unconscious, doubt less, in mo st instances, of the wrong they do the Nor the r n opinion in relation to pul)lic men aind measures. How dangerous such a state o f thi ins must be to the fidelity of your rep vlCseintatives, i t is needless to say! They are beut men, and it would be unwise to suppose tha t they are be yo nd the reach of temptations which influence the rest of mankind. Fellowcitizens: It rests with oursel ves to n alter thi s state of things, so far as the South is co ncerned. We h av e vast interest s which the are bound by many considerations to defend w ith all the moral and political means in our pa ower. One of he it st t the first steps to this great e nd, is to establish a So uthern organ here, a paper through which we may commune withone another, and the world at large. We do not propose to meddle with political parties as they now exist: we wish to e nlis t every Southern mtan in a Southern cause, and in defence (,f South ern rights, be he Whig or be he Democrat. We do not propose to disturb them, or to shake him in his party relations. All that we ask is, that he shall consider the constitutional rights of the South, which are involred in the great abolition movement, as paramount to all party and all other political considerations. And surely the time has come wshen all Southern mnen should unite for purposes of self-defence. Our relative powrer in the legislature of the Union is diminishing with esvery census, the dangers which menace us are daily becoming greater, and the chief instrument in the assaults upon us is the public press, over which, owing to our supineness, the North exercises a controlling influenee. So far as the South is concerned, fie 39 Squat ter Sovereis,nty. POWER OF CONGRESS OVER

SLAVERY IN THE TERRI1TORIES. IHo.. GREEN ADAM.S of Ky., in the IIouse of Representatives, July 28, 1848, held the following doctrine: Because I maintain that the power to legislate upon the subject of slavery is expressly ,ranted in the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, giving to Congress the ” power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to tht, 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 establish a territorial government, unless it be from the clause here given? And if Congress derives its powers to make territorial governments, and to legislate for the territories, front this clause in the Constitution, has it not the power to legislate upon every subject that does not conflict with the Federal Constitution? And wvhere in the Constitution is the restriction in regard to slavery? Suppose, as is argued, that the term ” dispcse of,” can have no reference or application to government, do they restrict the power ” to 609 May 6, 1850.

Page 610 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. greater aversion than I to the interference by gos elrnment with private, vested, legal rights; t)ut 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 interference with the right of property.

I am now temporarily residing in the District of Columbia; 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, ca. B lake that slave to Kentucky, the land of my birth and the home of my fathers, and enjoy my right to his service there? No, sir, mny colleague knows that the laws of Kentucky prohibit it, and would inflict an onerous penalty by way of fine, as well as imprisonn ment, for a violation of that law; an(l that the co(urts of Kentucky have enforced the law, and m’aintained its constitutionality. But. Mr. Chairmani, 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 prohi bit citizens fromn 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 propertv in 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 doctrine of a man’s carrying the civil institutions of his own country into whatever state, territory, 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 eniigrates from one country to another, oI even takes up a temporary residence, that, of justice 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? make all needful rules and regul ations?” (‘..n,ngress, as I understand from the language if th e Cocnstitution, has not on l y the power i to d ispose of” the territories, bu t also ” to niak e all needful rules and regulations” respecting them. But Mr. C alhoun argu e s that thie terms “to make all needful r ules and lregtulautions” a re never applied in the Constitutioll to government, which implies persons to be governe d, and he assume s that in every case w er there s in they are used in the C onsti tution, thev refer to prop erty, to things, or some prooh Ken s uch as the rules of court, or the Iouse tf Con,gress, for the government of its pro,,~edings. No w, I take it tt ru e that rules for the d,-ernment of the itouse of Congress ar e Cngthri.n more nor less than law s to gover n sbectons lin their conduct, and not to go vern lo)operty or things. But I need only refer, verltlemen, to the eighth section of t he first article of the C onstitution, which gives to Congre,ss t he power “
to make rules for the governhient and regulation of th e mland and naval f orces,” to show that this position is ingo r rect and that the terms “rules a nd r egulations” a re a ppli ed in the Con sti t ution to the governnerit of persons. And now, Mr. Chairman, I stndi ntain that the term “ru les a nd regulatioris,“a when used in the Con stitution, mean nothing else than law s, an d th e convention whic fr amed the Con stitution, using them w.-ith reference to civil government, could have intended to give them no other meaning, it being not only their common law, but universal si,,gnfication. Congress, then, according -to tile Constitution, can make all needful laws respectin the territories, and C ongress i s t o b)e the judge of what are needful. But, sir, MNr. Calhoun and other gentlemen have aditted the constitutional power, b y recomtheniding a nd adv ocati ng the p assag e of the b)ill this morning laid upon the table in this tlouse, 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 ;ff 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 ri,ht 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 territories are the property of all the states, the s3la;:e as well as the free states, he adduces the corollary, that Congress has no constitutional light 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 610 11 I have thus, Mr. Chairman, briefly started m ojectioins to my friend and colleague’s [IvTr. Wilmot]

celebrated amendment. I will now ,,?nake some observations of a -,eneral cha. 0

Page 611 view page image

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. rameter 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 l)e misconstrued. First, however, permit me t) premise, that if we had acquired either New Mexico or California, and a bill was before the [louse providing territorial governiiients therein, or a bill was before the Ihouse providing for the admission of either of those provinces as states (the territory being first atcquiredl by treaty), I would vote for a provision excluding slavery. I favor the principle contained in the amendment of my colleague, iand will go for engrafting, it upon the legislation of the country, but in the proper form, and at the proper time and place, when the owc er to do so can be rightfully exercised.“s tInoi.

Richard BI-odhead, in the House of IRepres.letatives, Feb. 9, 1847. be placed beyond the r e ach of legislative in terdiction, whatever might be the wants or the wishes of the country upon the cut uo rsubject. 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 Unite d States, cannot be controlled, if i t exist by thl local legislature; for that might lead, and in many eases would lead, to the restriction of its value. * ” And we are thus brought to this strange, practical result: that in all controversies relatil_e 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, lbring their laws with them, and hold on to them.”-AMr. Cass, 1st sess. 33d 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 bv 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 irreconcilal)le with any comprehension, or any reason which I possess, that I hardly know how to meet it.” Mr. Clay ill 1850. ” 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 -)roperty 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 it leaving and of disposing of them may put the owners to inconvenience-to l oss, 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 evervwhere to be found. The remedy in all these cases is the same, and is equally applicable to all classes of proprietors, whether living in Mlassachusetts, or New York, or South Carolina, and that is to convert all these various kinds of property into the universal representative 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(lent and necessary legislation, at many police laws, at sanitary laws, and at laws for the protection of public and private morals. Ardent 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 ” aIow strange, th erefore, 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 remembered 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 antislavery national; and that, therefore,. legislation should keep it from the territories. If these men mean that slavery exists only in a certain section of the Union, then they are right; but if they mean to say that it is made sectional by the Constitution, then they are wrong; and 611 11 In claiming the right for the inhabitants, instead of Con,,ress, to legislate for the territories, the executive proviso assumes that the sovereignty over the territories is vested in the former; or, to express it in languaze used in a resolution offered 1.)y one of thW Senators from Texas (General Iloiiston), have’the same inherent right of selfgovernment as the people in the states.’ The assumption is utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, without example, and contrary to the entire practice of the government, from its comniencement to the present time.” ,Ifi-.

Calhoun, March 1850.

Page 612 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. perty, whether broiught from the North or the South, or fi)nim foreign countries.”-MNi. Douiglas, ini thte Senate in 1850. 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 Constitutioii; and so well was this provided for, that all the guarantees which slavery needs will elwure at once to the slaveholders upon t he ad option of that i nstitu tion by any of the states. New York nighlt determine to-morrow to establish slavery, and if she did, all the ri ghts w hic h t he slaveholders of G eorg ia possess woul d b e at once secu red to those of that state, and she would be entitled also t to the thr ee-fif ths r epresen tat ion on this floor. All can see at once, th erefore,, the utter absurdity contained in o the doctrine that slavery is sectional.

Under our Constitution it may exist throughout the country or nowhere in it; but should it exist, no matter where, the Constitution 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 territorial legislature, which is but the creature of our will. And, sir, when I speak of sovereign power, I mean such as that Virginia exercised m the ordinance of 1787, and which she possesses to-day over this subject in the territories, to the extent of the interest which she, as a state, holds therein.” Hom. M. J. Crawvford oj’ Geo., Dec. 16, 1856. Mir. Madison said: ” On one si(le it naturally occurs, that the right being given from the necessity of the case, and in suspension of the great principle of selfgovernment, 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 I have always leaned to the belief the restriction was not within the true scope of the Constitution.”-Letter to iMr. Mon roe, in 1820. ” Iearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family-can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness-can no longer be fellowcitizens 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 horror 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.”-Fedei-alist, page 86. “Should a state of parties arise, founded on geographical boundaries and other physical 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 lVov. 27, 1819. ” But you say that w e p o o propose to prohibit by la w your emigrat ing to th e territories with (ou,r property. We propose no su ch thing. pe recognise your righ t in common with our own, to em igrate to the territories with your property, an d there h old and enjo y it, in subordination to the laws you may find in force i n th e country. Those laws, in some respects, differ from our own, as the laws of the various states of this Utnion va ry, on so mte points, from th e laws of each other. Some species of pro. perty a re excluded by law in most of the states, as well as territories, as being unwise, imm oral, or contrary to the principles of sound public pol icy.

For instance, the banke r is prohibited from emigrating t o Minnesota, Oregon, o r California, with his b ank. The bank may be proprty by the law s of New York, but ceases to e so wh en taken into a state or territor y where banking is prohibited by the local law. So, ardent spir its, w hiskey, brandy, all the intoxicating drinks, are recognised and protected a s property in most of the states, if not all of them; b ut n o 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 reason. These laws, and many others involving similar principles, are directed against no section, and impair the rights of no state in the Union. They are laws against the introducduction, sale, and use of specific kinds of pro ” I am, and have been fo r many years, 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 territory 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 fellowcitizens of the others, is to plot 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 I 612

Page 613 view page image

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. ject as in Ohio.”- General Harrison in a Letterm to Pi-esidei!t Moaroe in 1821. sponse to the question for myself and that portion of the Democratic party South that thinks with me, but I decline to answer categorically and on the terms proposed. Ilowever, 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. H.

MARSHALL. If so humble an individual as myself could have attracted the gentleman’s notice, he would have had a categorical answer to that question in a speech made by me during the last session. In that speech I distinctly stated that I do not beli eve Congress has power to prohibit slavery from going into the territories of the United States. Mr. QUITMAN.

I will, then, ask the gentlemanr Mr. ti. DIARSIIALL. The gentleman seems to have reversed our relations. When I amn trying to ascertain the position o f the Democratic party, he proposes to occupy my time in aser -
taining y position. Mlr. QUITMA N. It is not my intention to embarrass the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky. Iey only olject is to learn wh ere he stands on the constitutional power of Con - grss e et hl hatness. If he does not hold that Congress has power to inhibit sla-ery in the t erritories, then w here does that powri ner r est, under our systemn of government? All Mr. II. IARSAIILT,. 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 tha t the gentleman, with all his astuten ess and experience, and with my example befor e him o f re t urning a categorical answer o to the question put me, declines to answer categorically the question I put to him. s Mr. QUITT.hN. W hat is your que stion? Mr. I. MARSI:ILL. Does Mr. Mason announce Democratic doctrine when he construes the principle of the KansasNebras ka bill, as defined in your platform at Cinci n n at i. to be t hat the people of a territory, wlten organized under the org anic law, but while they remain i n th e territorial condition, have the righ t to dete rmine for thems elves, through at territo ri al legislature, and before they are about to adopt a state constitut ion, whether or not the institution of slavery sh ould 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 Congress to admit states into the Union. Mr. tt. M\ARSUAKLJ.

If the Democratic party North hold the doctrine of squatter sov erm mlty as proclaimed by General Cass, and the DemoJcratic party South hold the doctrine as stated by the genltlemlan from Mississippi, I would DEBATE I.-

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DEC. 11, 1856, ON 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 sovereignty, and the other do not. One portion of the party understands that neither the Congress 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 territorial legislature. Now, sir, tihe extent of tile constitutional powers of the territorial legislature, 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 territorial legislature, then the northern portion of the Democratic party do not claim the power, but are satisfied with the decision. The Democratic party makes this a judicial question. I shall, at a proper time, discuss this question myself. fr. II. M aRSIIALL. I will read a portion of testira,ny, which co mes from the South; and I wa nt South ern Ielocrats to on respond here i n the face of the nation, whether they endorse the sentiment. I read a statement of the p rincipl e of the Kans,ts bi l l made by a Senlttor from Vir,inia [Mr. Mason], during this session, in t he othe r br anch of Co ngress: Now. what was the issue presented in the last canvass in thep stat e s o ably represented by the honorable Senator o n this floor, or anywhere else, I know not; but I do know what,a, the issue on this subject which was presented in the po!itieal platform adopted at Cincinnati by the Democratic lpa,rty. That issue was the doctrine of the KanstasNebr-askta bill. What was that? The territorial government was so or,.manizedl there Ens to admit citizens of all the states, whetcher free or slave. to take their property into the territ(,its: and when they organized themselves, or were organi] t unde r the law. into a legislative body, then to determine fi-r themselves whether this institution should exist amon~zst them. or not. The specific difference is, that under the K;nsas law citizens from the slave states might go into the te,-rXitory with their property; citizens from free states might (,o there holding, no such property, and, when they got there and met in common council asq a legislative body, they shoull determine whether the institution should prevail; whereas the party which the honorable Senator is now re,prese,,tinDg here deelares that, in the organic law creating tlhe government in the territory. there shall be a prohihiioin inc, 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 lby the intelligence and reposing on the virtue of the people, should be to explain their cont;truction of constitutional power so that all may understand them.

Sair. QUITMA~N. WXill the gentleman yield to me? Mr. tI. MARSHALL. For a response, without a speeceh, I will. Mr. QUITM[AN. I am ready to make a re 613

Page 614 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. like to know on which of them Mr. Buchanan was elected to the Presidency? Mr. QUITMAeN. I have no time to enter into details, or to refer to t he s entim ents held by various i ndividuals in this coun tr y. I stand o n principle, and go wi th those who hold the same principles that I do. I have confide nce that the Democratic party throughout the l eng th and breadth of the land hold the senti mIents on thi s subject which I have just ex piressed. Mr. MCMULLIN. I will tell the gentleman f rom K entucky that the speech of Senator Milson, asn t re p orted and read by the gentle man, doe s not expre ss his views on this sub ject. Ile and every member from Virginia upon this floor repudiate the do ct rine of squat ter sovere ig nty as promulga ted by General Cass. A senator from Illinois [Mr. Trum bull] came here th is morning and reported that Mir. M ason had made such a speech as the gentleman refers to. I called on Mr. Mason in reference to the matter, and he told me g i ete ther that e repudiated the doctrine of that speech, atld would correct it.

Mr. II. MARSHALL. Ah! correct it! Mr. MICAIULLIN. It is a misprint. Mlr.

II. MARSHALL. No, it is not a misp rint. I bheayrd it with my own ears.

Mir. McMULLIN. Does the gentleman say that the Senator from Virginia [M r.

Masona s ustains the doctrine of that speech? Mtr. 11. MARSHALL. I do not say what sentiter ei nts r. Miason entertains; nor do I quote fiom him except to a s cert ain th e tru e Democrtatic doctrine, and to a ssist in establish ing the pri nciples decide d by the last el ection.

[Laug,,hter.] I cannot say, except from the speech, where the dis tinguis hed Senator from Virminia st ands. But I do mean to say that I happened to be present and h eard the sp e ech of the Sen ato r from Virginia. It was spoken substantially as rep orted, and wi th a preci sion that left upon my mind no doubt that he was expressing hi s s entiments. I am happy to hear that he will correct it; and I am glad to know from the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Mc3lullin] that the sentiment is not responded to by ally gentleman representing the state of Virginia upon this floor. Mr.

MICMULLIN. 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 doctrine of squatter sovereignty. Mr. II. MARSHALL.

This doctrine of squatter sovereignty is variously defined. I heard it defined by a distinguished Democrat in my oit section of the country last su mmer, to be, thatt while the people of a territory have the righlt to decide on the question of the establishmlelt~ or exclusion of slavery at the time of formlingr a constitution and state government, the first squatters, before the passage of an organic law for the government of the territo>ry, had no such power. IIe 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 territory, 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. MARSHAL. Very well, th at is what I denounce as squatter sovereignty. There I take my position, and there I t ook my position during thfe late canvass. And it was because the position taken by the Democratic party upon this point was construed to mean just wha a te the speech of the S enator from Virginia says it did mean, that I announced everywhere upon the stump in my own state, tha t there was not a whit difference be tween the principles put forth by the northern branch of the Buchanan Democracy and those held by the moderate portion of the Fremont Republican party. I said that, so far as I o was concerned, I would not toss a copper betw een th e m, since the active restriction advocated by the o n e 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.

QUITMAS. I would inquire if the gentleman voted for the admission of California as the measure was presented by General Taylor? Mr. H1.

MARSHALL. I did vote for the admission of California, and whenever the gentleman desires it I shall be happy to show him the reason why I so voted. Mr. QUITMAN rose. Mr. I1. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, whenever I attempt to enlighten the people as to what are the principles and doctrines of the Democratic party, gentlemen do not allow me to get throufh 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 contain 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 declaring themselves in favor of the doctrine of “popular sovereignty,” or as opposed to the extension of slav ery to the territories. Mr. Jr,WETT. Mr. Speaker, the reference of my colleague to his course and line of discussion in the late canvass, renders it proper that I should propound to him a single question. Did you not, in your speech at the Big 61-t

Page 615 view page image

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. Spring, declare that the Constitution did not carry slavery into the territories? MIr. tI. MARSHALL. I said nothing in any speech which I made in Kentucky, inconsistient wi th the exact state ment I hav e mad e todav. I will state now for the gentleman, for his party, and for the country, that I do hold that the Constitution d oes not carry slavery into the territories of t he United States. Let the gentleman mak te the most of that. I never hav e h el d tha t the Co nst itution carries slavery into a territory. iMr. KEITT. Does it carry any kind of property?

Mr. II. MiARSHALL. No, sir, it does not carry any kind of property there.

Now, let my colleavue answ er. Will my colleague go before the people of Big Spring, and tell them that thle Constitution does carry slavery into the territories? MNr. JEWETT. I will. Mir. H. MAIRSHALL. Then mny colleague and I make the issue fairly. My position is this: thiat the Constitution neither establishes any domestic institution in a territory, nor prohibits it, but that the Constitution of the United States protects whatever of right exists there. That is my doctrine. I take the position 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 sovereignty be in the bill or not.

But the great point upon which the Democratic party at Cincinnati 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 KansasNebraska 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 antislavery 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 posse.sses itself. I know there are other gentlemen belonging to the D~emlocratic party ~‘hol think that the territorial legislatures ale invested with authority to prohllbit or introduce slavery within the territories. But the gentleman fronm Tennessee [3Ir. Smith] the other day struck the true point in this controversy, and it takes all1 the wiind out of’ the sails of my friend from Kventucky, and leaves him high and dry upon land; aced i invite his attention to the statements and arguments in reference to it. I say, although I deny that squatter sovereignty exists in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska by virtue of this bill, it is a matter practically 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 slavehliolding 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 inot enforce his rights when invaded by others; and if you had no local legislation for the purpose of giving protection, the institution would be of no value. I can appeal to every gentleman upon this floor who represents 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 desie it engrafted upon their territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the territorial legislature for its protection, and then it is as well excluded as if the power was invested in the territorial legislature, and exercised 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. Il.

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 territory, he believes that his right becomes of no practical consequence unless he has a territo rial legislature which will protect him in holding that property? Mr. OR-. 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 p ec uliar species of property. Suppose a party in a territory inveigles awav 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 agrainst him? W~hat remedy have you to enforce the rights of the owner against trespassers and intermeddlers unless you has-e; local legislature to pass laws to enfo~rce those rights? I undertake to say that in the stale of Kentucky, if there were no local legislation to protect the institution, the institution would be an unmitigated curse to the country. Mr. H. MARSHALL. The Constitution pro 615

Page 616 view page image

TIHE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. If both views take away firom me my constitu tional rights, it iiiakes no difference whether the deprivation be sudd(en, or slow but ce: tra-in. Mr. ORR. Did the gentlerman feel no inter est in the presidential contest just closed(l, -is between the Democratic anid the Irepublican party? Mr. II.‘IARSIIILL. I believed that the Re publican party oInly presented the distinctive feature of the Wilmot proviso onl the slativery question, and that it did not present aiiy ad rainistra,tii-e questio,n. IIMr. STANTON. It presented the quest,on of the Pacific Railroad. Mr. 1I. MARSIIALI.. The fact is that I did not examline the platfoirm of the Republican party vely cI(,iely all fully. I stopped at the tlireslilold. Lcarlingi, thlei doctrine of Con ifgre~sioi.‘l pIower to prohilbit slavery in the territories, I kuew th’tt I lhad nothing to do Fiith Itoe)rml; anld in regtrd to the Cincinnati i)lcttforiii I fI()id ro sel; as in d(ayis gone by, with all my antagonismi to the Deniocratic party. WNith reference to one thing, I never did k-iiow -l,etI-ier tlhee was lniy platform on it (or not. I iuide to the foreign policy of tlhe country. Soinetiimes it mwaqs said that the reso lutions oni thit subject were at part (f the plat form, and at others that it inadoe little difler ence how men felt atbout themii. Mr. OIR. The geiitlein’ii rep1lies to my question wvitl1i a good deal (of quoalification. I have no) doubt tihat it is lliy obtuseness whichl t1)1revet:i cell froIn clearly seeing what is his answer. Let me a,sk hiiii another question. -What would have been his positionl if’ Mr. F milliumore had been out of the way? Or, if it w as evident that Mr. Fillmnore could not be elected, )y which party, the Deniocraltic orI Rltepubl)ican, does hlie thinuk the best inrterests ‘of the country would lie subserved? 311’. II. MARSIIALL. I Inev-er contemplated that propositioIi, as I always knew hlie would be in the way; aud what there is of us, we always will keep in the way. tee ts the slave as property. It does not estab lislh 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 thi.s co()untry protects him in his pro p erty, wvhate-er tlhat property is of right, and the comnon law of England furnishes him the remedies to ass.ert his right. If my slave is b~eateni, I can maitnain trespas3s-if he is con verte(d or (letainie(-d, I can maintain detinue or trove,. The remedies I draw from the com mni,,i law, the ri}ilt to my slave from the rela tion legallv est-Il)lished in a state, and which d(es not change 1), iml-passage to a territory of my own country, wh ieile no law prohibits it. 3Ir. O}:n. -I suuspect that tle only coiimm-on It-w whsluic i d the Neotrleiioath c(ionld al)eal to wouhl }l the c,)i;ii,~<,nlawi (of the tevritr>ry. It certai~Jly w,;(iilM i)t bJe thle commiiiion ltaw of EngmolanlM. Tihe C(.Lrstitivtio of the United States gives to mie, or reeognises, all the miiere righot ofr properts I care to have i tn D wy slavles in a teriito he. It recoulrises c and ep if)rces it. It is cot the right of l),.pet!/ i, slates I speak of as renuirin g ptaote( ttion; bwut it is the local legislation ofg rtoy o ree n the teitory to rent that po 1)e ity being trespassed u pon, tampere d or in terf ered with ly othees. But I pag s one. The g entlema n said hie told hIis conistituCIets., as I understood hin, that he Iould not give th e toss of a copper between the Buchtmiain I)eD ertey of t he Nort h and the Fremtiont party.* 3)Ir. 1[. 1 I.~asn.LL. I want to be unide.~t,ootl oln this sub.iect. Alr. Or.t. Antr d I wrish to understand the genitleman; for the comparwison he mw ade was to nie smoitew-lat singular*. Mr. 1I.

1M.X,SnALL. I said that I would not give the toss of aL cp)pller for a choice between the W11ilmo,-pr(,:visoismi of Mlr. Fremiiont and the squatte  s ov erei gntty doctrine of the Northitern Democraec. .Mr.

OPR.‘Am I to undilerstand that tile gentleman, in the last presidential contest, did not care the t-)ss of a copper whether the Democri atic or th e vte)ublican party was suees-ful? )dr. 1-I. 5I.‘qRSIALL. If the gentleman is not astute enioug,l to draw a distinction between ni rermiark in r-egard to rnv general policy and. (ciie in reference to a particular position, then I ca:.nnot expect hiii to understand me. I reier tlhe g-eutleimian to the conniexion in which I mnd lcthe remark on N~hich he com.ments. I w-ats’; peakfing of the practical consequences (,f tie c(nstruction referred to, and said that trley w,,.-ere the sami.e to us whether we had the Wi nllio)t p)roviso or squatter sovereignty. If I w as to 1e hung, I wzould not care wrhether it wa{s w ith a rope or a1 grape v-ine. [Laughter.] SPEECtI OF IIoN. W. 1I. ENGLISIs, OF INDIANA, DELIVERED

IN TIlE 1lOUSEo OF REPRESENTA TIVES, DECEMBER 17, 185. ‘riTE IIouse haing(, under consideration the question (of’etheing the f)resident’s message to the Co!nmllittee otf’ the Whole on the state of the Union, and the printing of ten thousand copies thereof, 3lir. ENGCLISH said: Mr.

Speaker: I have not sought the floor upon any previous occ,‘mion during this session, not only becautse of a general disinclination to speak, but also because I deem the discussion whichl is going, on in reference to the President’s Ilessag,e as somewhat uninteresting a nd unprofitable to this Icouse and the country. I always regret to hear the question of African slavery discussed in these hitlls. In my huiil)le judgment, it would be wiser and better for (Congress to consume less time Tie Loudcut (Va.) Democratic Mirror. speaking of a sxeeh nmade,by Ilon. IuIumphrey Mlarshall, at Leesburg, reeentlv. says: “lie,as also very severe upon Mr.

Buchanan, charged hinm with being thle sq,uatter sovereignty candidate of the Noirth. and deciared that he would as leave see John C. Fremnont, or the Devil himself, made President, as James Buchanan., 616

Page 617 view page image

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. in talking about this delicate and dangerous sublject, and more in attending to the legiti.alte business of legislation. As a general thing. sir, the speeches of gentlemen upon the Repul)lican side have been mere rehashes of those uttered by them upon the stump during the late canivass, and I do not think their ora-h torical efforts are of a character likely to do much good, or to change the political sentiinents of anybody. Perhaps there has been 1o more striking instance of this than in the case of my colleague, [Mr. Cumback,] who atddressed the House this mniorning. Sir, the points made by my colleague are the same, if I mistake not, made by him upon many a stumIp during the late canvass; and, if I am correctly informed, he hadl the field all to himself, his com pet itor being one of the best and purest men in the coun t ry, sound upon all polin qs i f alan, nspitical questions, but a plain, unsophisticated f arm er, who rema ined at home, and did not make a speech during the whole canvass. Nowe, Mr. Speake r, i f my colleague, after having occupied some two months of time in making this speech before the people, where lie 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? Ile and his doctrines were repudiated at home by a mnajority of some fifteen hundred, notwithstanding he had been elected at the preceding election by a majority of six or seven hundred. tie twits the President with having been condemiied 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 positioIIs with.the prosecutor, placing himself in that character and the prosecutor in the box of the prisoner.

Ile should rather speak of the Democracy of Indiana in the spirit of that language applied by one of old to his enemy: “I tell gentlemen they are mistaken if they suppose the people of the Northi-of Ohio, llennsylvania, ]indiana. al d Illinoi.-will agree to the ext’n-ion of slavery into Kuansas. They expect that territory to c,ame into tile Union as a free state, under all circumistances. I am sure that even those who are opposed to me in politics. and coming fromn the free stat es, will a d mit ue eh t o be the expectation of their people. They were ledl to believe it will be a free state, an.( voted under that impressioni. l1adi net such been the case, Buch,nan and l,reckenridge never would have received any of their votes.” And again: “Tle Democratic party of the North, instead of taking the broa’d ground that the alle,ged law,s were valid, and that if the people who would vote under tlihose laws should so mdeterine, then Kaasas might Jome i n as a sla ve state, evaded the issue, an(l 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 sentiments 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 themi I have stood in many a hard-fought contest, have rejoiced over their many victories, and mourned over their defeats, which, thank heaven, have been very few in numli))er. Notwithstanding the advent of new political organizations, and the mutation of things generally, I have never found it necessary to ask: “Where shall I go?” or to look out for new party associations. If I have not approved everything done by the Democratic patrty, I have at least considered it, when compared with any other party, as infinitely preterlable and better for the safety and prosperity of the country. It is a ” healthy organization,”

and under it the people breathe freer and deeper, because it respects the rights of all, and, in spite of every fanatical combination, stands firmly by the Constitution and the Union. Sir, I am proud oftheold-fashioned Democratic party, and feel like clinging to it with the affection which Ruthl 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 ba.nner Democratic state of the North-giving a larger majority over the combined enemy than any other-anid may I not, as one of her representatives, claim the attention of the Ilouse and the country in repelling the charges broug,ht by the Black Republicans against the consistency 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 association with them, and, of course, must have received his inlfornmation fromn othc.rs-perhaps through a colore d w nedium. I at nder-ake to say there was no attempt at evawion Dn the Sir, I do not rise with the intention of following the example which has been set by my colleague and others in making any extended remarks. I only sought the floor for the purpose 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 occupied in the late canvass. It was charged by my colleague, that the Democratic party of Indiana evaded the great issues before the country, and pander ed to t he spirit of free-soilism. The same charge has been made by other gentlemen, ill even stronger langutage, and particularly by thie gentlemen from Ohio, [Mr. Shiermia,n,] )f Kansas-iiivestigating-committeehumbug notoriety, who said: .From what I heatrd and have read, T am sati. ried that, in Ohio and ludi-tia. the Dem,cratic party evaded mneetingt the question of the repeal of the Miosouri rompromise.” * 4: 8 617 ” Great let me call him, for he conquered me.”

Page 618 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. They were hail fellows well met-brethren in one cause. tMr. CUMBACK. IIe may lhave made speeches, but I never saw the man.

Hle made no speeches in my district. Mr. ENGLISH. This man, and (I believe) other colored men, made speeches in the northern part of the state. It is known to the country, that on several occasions these Republicans-I mean the black ones-were sent to meet Governor Willard when he was canvassing 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 county, in the northern part of the state, and the Republican Central Committee utterly repu.diated him. It was charged that the Democratic party had sent him there to make speeches.

[Laughter.] Mr. ENGLISII. I have never heard that charge, and have no reason to believe that it is true. On the contrary, I have every reason to believe that it is not true. Hle was a Black Republican in principle. Ile 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 embarrass my colleague. lie says that these colored spe akers were sent to meet Gov. Willard 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 mian to meet him, he always pr,ved himself equal to the occasion, and he certainly did not shrink fromn any contest with his political enemies which a gentleman might hono rably engage in. If he backed out froni an association on the stump with a negro, as I presume he (lid, it was more than maitny of my colleague’s associates would have done. Now, with a view of shitwitig 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 Republican and the Know-Nothinig parties occupied in the same canvass in my state, I will read the resolution of the Indiana Fusion convention, adopted May 1, 1856, ieitig the same convention wahich nominated IMr. Morton, the fusion cantjdidate for governor, at the late election: “Resolved, That we are uncompromisingly opposed to the extenWsi on of slavery; and that we utterly reputiate the pl’,tfori,, of ptiic’iples adopted by the self-styled Demiocratic cotnventittii of this state, endorsing and approving the Kansas and Nebraska iniquity. Resolved, That we will resist, by all proper means, the as hission of any slave state into this Utnion, formed out ofn the territories st-ctircd to freedom by the Missouri compromise, or othzerwis&” 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 wvas no attempt to dodge the issues. They made the fight fairly and squ arely, upo n broad na tional principles; and my colleag,ue 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 not only to be found FreeSoilers but Abolitionists. Yes, sir, the lowest and most God-forsaken, nigger-stealing Abolitionists were to be found in that state doing battle against the national Democracy, side by side with my colleague and the leaders of the Blatck Republican partv; and, I am sorry to add, of the KnowNothing party also. I find in the Louisville Courier the following: ” A CONDUCTOR ON THE U. G. R. R.

CAPTURED-STARTLINaG DxVE LoPME.Nrs.-On Sunday morning the Rev. William Anter.son, a tal! yellow nea,rs). armed with a carpet bag full of ince.diary documents, was captured on th e m-ail boat Telegraph No 3, by orfcers Bligh a.,d Powell. They took him yesterday, on the steamer Superior, to Carrolltonl, where his presence was in great demand, a reward of $600 having been offered for his apprehension by the citizens of that place. This ebony reverend ha~d been engaged for some time il the employ of his white Abolition brethren at the North, in runnling off slave property from this state to the hypothetical free soil of the,North. l[e has been particularly attentive to the negro ow ners 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 Chuirch North, and chief of the Abolitionists in Mtadison. He carries with him the records of the social fraternity instituted by our up-river neighbors and is the grand emissary of that sotciety to promote human liberty.

believing, with the Journial of this city, that all men are entitled to liberty, no matter of what color. “In the possession of Anderson were found several documents 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 muen regularly paid by religious societies at the North, to steal our slaves and breed insurrectionary feelings among them. It is gratifying to know that he has been arrestd i n his infmous career.” Now, Mr. Speaker, this “

Rev. W illiam Anderson ” was an ally of my colleague in the late canvass.

[LaughIiter.] Like my colleatue he stumped a portion of lndiiana, denouncing the Democratic party, dsay ing that they were proslavery in belief and sentiment, and in favor of the extension of that institution.

This same man m ade a bo litio n speeches in my own district. Ile is, I am tot,, as black as the ace of spades-a regulkr full-hoode(ld negro, not o nl y in sen timen t bu t in c,to)r. [Laught er.] A nd y e t the men wtho K
woteh winth such sable disciple s as “the p tev. Williacni Anderson,” come here and denounce the Demliocrratic party of the North with halving, Abolition proclivities! While negrroes were goin, to the polls in Ohio, and voting, to send Black Republicans to this House, lnegro()es in Indiana were travelling about making Republican stump speeches! Mr. CU31B.ACK. Do I ullde,‘stand my colleague to S.IV that the individual to whom he refers canvassed my district with me? Mr. ENGLISH. I say that this negro made Black Republican speehelse at the same time my colleag,,ue was mlakin, similar speeches. Nov, these resolution s were a dopted at a estate convention of Black Republicans and KnowNothings, and thev show conclusively not only the position which the Democratic 618

Page 619 view page image

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. heart, they should, wit’i their whole hearts, support Mr Morton against Ar. villard far tht office of governtoi.” Such hints as thes,e met with a cordial re sponse on the part of the KnowNothing bre thren in Indiana. Listen to the following peremptory order is,sued 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 the Louisville Journal: “Let there be no clashing between the,iensOs of FIllnewre ioand Fremmt, because their cu,u i4 one cau.se. IJet the ener gies of the friends of each be uvot’l against Bachbinan, and we will lhave no more slave sace go curse our Gover~z~nent.” I think the gentlemann from Kentucky will not nmake an issue wldn me touching this point, that the Know-Nr Blig rsins of Indiana, in acord ance with the s-,ggestions of the great organ of thatt party in hds own state, generally voted with the BlaeK Republican party and with the Abolitionists for this man Morton and the rest of the fulisiot, state ticket. And I undertake to say, thab not only did the KnowNothings of Indiana pursue that course, but that many of the KnowNothings of the state of Ken tuckv, in that particular region, sympathized with the Black Republicans and with the Abo litionists in their contest with the national Democracy. Mr. I. MARSHAII.LL. I desire to know of the gentleman whether, when he speaks of the KnowNothings of Indiana, he means the Fillmore men of that state, and whether he means to represent here that the Fillmore dmen 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. II. MARSHALL. I ask the gentleman whether he does not know that the Hlon. Richard W.

Thompson-whose character is knoktwn to everybody there, and who stood at the head of the Fillmore ticket in the state of liIdianna-wtas on the stump, as active an advoecate of Willard’s election as the gentleman himself’? Mr. ENGLISH. I do not mean to say that the entire KnowNothing party of Indiana vote(l fir Morton, but generally they did. There were a few honorable exceptions. I believe Mr. Thoimpson did not support Willard-at least upon the stunip, or with his v)te-bbut, I)eing, a national man, it is likely his sympathies were with the Democratic party as against the Black Republican. There were only 5224 m)re votes cast at the presidlential election than at the governor’s eelection, Mr. Buchanan receiving but 691 more eo tes than Willard; the furisier receiving 118,679
vwstes:rid the latter 117,9(81. Morton received 112,139votes,Frem(ont94,:,376,andFillpeore 22,38,6.‘Ihese figures sih,w conclusively, that the F illmore party of Ildiana, with as very few exceptions, Xw)ted folr Morton and the uRepulblicin state ticket, ani that, toi, with the full kuowletlcre that the result of that contest wouldt have a great influence, and would perhaps decide-as I think it did decide-thq party occupied, but the position, also, of this fusion party.

The Democratic party avowed i t self in favor of the principles and doctrine s of the KansasNebr aska bill, w hile the Republican party repudiated th ose doc trines, and a nnounced to th e world that they were opposed to the extension of slavery under any afnd all circumstances, and should not vote to admit a state i f s he presented herself with a constit uti on tolerating slaerry, 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 P it t sburgh convention, over which Mr. Blair presided, and wNas a member of the committee on resolutions. And yet, sir, in a contest between this man, cover ed all over with FreeSoilism, and standing upon the sectional platform which I have read, and Governor Willard, who stood upon ))road national grounds, I regret to say that not only the Black liepublican party supported 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 between sectionalism upon oneside, and nationalism upon the other, involving the most vital interests of the South, in a neig,hboring state, and in the district adjoining the one I represent, in the district represented by the able and distinguished gentlemiian who addressed the Itiouse the other day, [Mr. tt. Marshall, the Louisville Journal, the organ of the KnowNothing party in that region of country, encourag,ed his Know-Notthicg brethren of Indiana to rush to the rescue in aid If this abolitionist, Morton, in order to defeat Willard, and prostrate the Democratic party. Mr. II. MARSHIILL. I merely wish to correct a misapprehension of the gentleman in representingX the Louisville Journal as my organ. lie is mistaken in point of fiet; and when he speaks of the paragraph in that paper to which he has alluded which I never saw, but have heard commented upon-I merely desire to say, that the sug,estion imputed to that journal and correctly, I presume-)f a desire upon the part of that journal that the KnowNothings of Indiana should take part in the election of Morton as against WVillar(d, does not find a response in the KnowNothing party in my section of the country. Mr. ENGLISII. I have no desire to misrepresent the gentleman, and certainly shall not lo so intentionally; but the fact is notorious, that in several articles prece(din, the election, the KnowNothings of Indiana “ere encouraged anal solicited to cast their votes fer Morton a~s agalinst Governor Willard.

lIoee is one article fi’oml the Journal, w^hich trill dlo for a sample: “STAkTE ELFCTION iv T-.Tq 1.\DXNA -Otir opinion is, frequently asked by our A.m,rican f,‘ie, t i n, l,t-ial, l as to that otlrse they oiught to take in thir h)ta,,er el(,ti,). Thev have better m aaa. Ottn are, no doutt lbett.vr ie.ha to f prn a just opinlionl stubi c t that we are.\dvettheless, we do Dt,t hesitate to asst, o 1l very str, mp liaf.

that. to prolote e great natioial cause which they and we have alike at 619

Page 620 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. fate of the presidential election itself. Of the 22,386 men in tha:t state who voted for Fillmnore, I have lno idea that over one thousand voted for WVillard. I suppose I need not ask the gentleman whether the Louisville Journal be the orga eii of the KnowNothing party in Kentucky. I will venture to ask himi whether it is not generally recognised as such? Mr. II. MkxgsRqIIL. It is. Mr. ENCLISi.

Then I repeat my position, that the gentleman’s brethren in Indiana nlot onlly acted, in the malin, wit th te Abolition, against the Democratic party-not only fraterniiized with sectional meni agairist niational mnen, but that his bretbhren in the state of Keutucky sympathized with their b)iethreii of Indiana, and encouraged them to stLul fi iii in support of the Black Republican state ticket. Mr. 1I. MARSIAIALL. In ordler that this matter may go) to the country right, I would ask the gentleman whethler tlhat appead of the Louisville Journal to the Know-Nothlings of Indiana to stpport Mlorton iiistead of Willard, wvas not put upon the grouid that Willard was the biggest Abolitionist of the two, and whether that is not true? Mr. ENGLISII. I can answer the la,tter portion of the gentlemanrs question decidedlv and emphatically, andl that is, that it is not true; and I am surprised that the gentleman should ask such a question. Mr. ORR.

I presumne no well-informed gentlemnan in the country I-elieves it to le)c true. Mr. ENGLISH. Sir, I have already read an official resolution, which shows a maLrked differonce between the positi(on occupied )by Governor Willard and the l)ein )cratic par,ty and that occupied l)y Mr. M)rtoii iiid the fusion party of that state. I have sh) own that the difference is as great as could possibll)v l) between two parties; the one [)lantiiir itself upon the doctrilnes of the Nel)aska bill, and the other repudiating it one readly to carry out the will of the people, and uananouandcini themselves ready, w henev ei that will was fairly ascertained and expressed, to a,liiiit Kansas as a state, whether w’ith a constitution recognising or not recognisin,r tile institution of slavery. Upon the other hand, the other party proclaiming that they w,)uld(l not adiiiit Kansas as a state with a constitution tolerating slavery, whether so expressed bv thle people of the territory or not. Their ibattle-cry was “No more slave states,” ” lResistance to the extension of African slavery under any and all circumstances.” Now, under this sta t e of facts, can the gentleman from Kentuc~ky siee no diffeiellce between these twu pq’tieq; and is he p,eplared to come hlefire this II )use, and declare that he would not toss a co(ppel fi)r choice },etweern thcem? Dries lie consider one as sounnl upon the rights of the Siuth as the otlier, whlen l on e party decl.ares itself iipp:ised to tlhe ext e n si na, of slavery uoder any aud all circuinstaucesthat they will unuder [1 state of the case consent to the admission of any more slave states; while the other plants itself upon the doetrine of non-initerventioni, of the equality of the states, and the right of the people of a territory 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 rtLed i nstitutions of e it a i mport a ne to thepn, but of comparatively little to us-yea, eveil reMu(gnant to the tastesr and i de as of our people-that when ” the Kan sa s aid fund” was c,)ntril)utin(h its th ousavid s whene pwiorist passions of the gworst men (even iiegroes) were rou.sed against us; when tle stormi of fan-,ticisll was hlowling 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-Nothingi,s of the south; but there did come a voice fi’om their leading organ, cheerin,, on the enemy,‘rnd encouraging the KnowNothings of my state to join the eneniy’s standard. I want the people of the south to know, that whilst these thirn,,s were going on in the KnowNothing catmp, thousanids of foreigners by birth and Catholics (whomi the KnowNothings would have you persecute) were standing with us in d(efence ofvour constitutional rights, and in beating back the cohorts of Black Republicanism. Mr. 11. MA RSHALL. Will thie gentleman -, from Indiana enlighten me upon his opinion of the doctrine of squatter sovereignty? Mr. ENGLISH. OI, that is at matter of minor importance.

[Laughter.] Mr. It. MARSHUAL.L. I ask the gentleman from Indiana, will lie permit me to remark, that it may be published with his speech, and go wherever his speech goes, atnd wherever Democratic speeches generally go, that in the remaizrk I have made in~idicating that I would not toss a copper between Buchanan and Frenont, that I confined it, and mean that it shall be confined, to the declaration that the southern people could rely as little upon one as the other. In other words, that the doctrine of exclusion and squatter sovereignty are, to the sla,vehol(ler, the same doctrine pr-e(-,isely. There I stand; and I challeng,e the gentleman or his party to meet me here or elsewhere upon that proposition. MIr ENGLISII. Mr. Speaker, I have no disposition to evade the issue tendered i)y the gentleman from Kentucky. I am willing. to concede to him and his party, that there is some difference between the positions oceul,ied by the Demnocr~atic p~arty at the North, and1 thalt occ upied hy a1 portionl of the Demnocratic parllty a~t the South, up on this parlticular question ot l)(pular or squatlterI sovereignty; b~ut I do not regarld that diffrence to anv considerable exstent as mlaterial, as somse other gentlemlen seeml to do; bjecaluse we all agtree, that whenlever the peo~ple of a territory come to 5,rml a state goverffnment, the will of the people, clearly expressed, shall be the paramuolun 620

Page 621 view page image

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. law, and that that shall be an end of the whole matter. That I conceive is the essential point, and upon it there is no material difference betiteen th e position which I occupy, anda which the Democratic party of Indial sa occupy, and th at occ upied by the Democratic party at the S outh, as I unders tand it. But c an the gentleman see no difference betfreen the posi tion which we occupy and that occupied by the Black Repulol iz an party? W hy, sir, to what do fore of te Democratic party of the North hola? We say that, although we have no pa rticular love for the institution of slav eryi hotw ithstanding we may in some respects regard it as a social evil, as many of us do, yet w e go further and declare tha t it i s not for us to intermeddle with the affairs of another people, that we will leave it with them to decid.e as to the character of their own institutions, and that, whenever we know decidedly and fairly wha t th at vill is, we intend to r esp ect it, and to do our part towyrds calrt-ryi n it faithfu lly in to execution. I go still further, and come direct to the most essential point, for I have no disposition, nor have mv constituents, to evade the question, 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 cha-rge 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 makings Kansas a slave state? I apprehend, sir, not one; certainly not one from my own state; and yet the gentleman can see no material difference betweeen the Republican and Democratic party, and “would not toss up a copper for choice between them!” Alr. CUMn.BCK. I ask my colleague if lie did not last summer, in an address to his constituients, state that there was not, so far as he knew, a Democrat in all Indiana who was in favor of nmaking Kansas a slave state? And did he not repel the charge made by the Repuiblicans that such was the object of that party? MIr. ENGLISI. I do not remember the precise languag e I used in the address to which the gentlemnan alludes; but I whill say to the gentlemnll notes that I do not belies-e there is any consider able numbler of Democrats in the state of Indiana I do) not knows a man of any party there-echo is in favor of extending the institution of slaveryr. Bult we of the Democratic palrty are wTillinog to allots other people to do as they please spill this subject, and hold their own opinions in respect to it. Mr. CUMB.AcICK. Does my colleague state that he did not make such a statement to his constituents? Mr. ENGLISH. I think it altogether possible that I did, because I have substantially epeated 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 resident of Kansas, I should no doubt do what I honorably arld 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 onebut 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 published no sentiment upon this subject which I desire to recall. I do rememnber 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; tnmaking it their proud l)oast, that in duty and respect to the (lifferent sections of our common country, they know no North, no South, no East, no West-nothing but the Constitution and the Union. As a community they have no sickly sentimentality upon the subject of slavery; they do not foi(rget 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 bLt 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 majority, excluded the whole black race from coming into their borders by constitutional provisions, 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 pronmptly to his master; not because it affords us pleasure to do so, but because 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, but we consider that it is a matter which eae) organized community ought to be allowed i decide for itself. We have free institution, and are happy and prosperous, and it is n~ tural that our sympathies should be in fav(, of freedom. Whilst we intend to act in pew feet good faith towards our brethren of th,, south, wve do not conceal that wre ardently hope that slavery mnay not be extended-and this I believe is a sentiment common to ail th~ free states. Mir. CUMBACK. Do I understand the gentleman, then, to) state he is opposed to the extension of slavery? Mr. ENGLISH. I did so state, and, as I 621

Page 622 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. thought, so distinctly as not to be misunder stood. Air. 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 fi’om Ohio [Mr. Nichols] yesterday spread before the Ihouse, as a matter of great importance, a handbill calling a Democratic nieeting 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 alreadv 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 interference 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, “
lands off of this peop)le; give them, as fair as possible, freedom to govern themselves, and to work out their own destiny.” We are in favor of “.free Kanisas” 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 favor of free white men, in contradistinction to black men; that we wanted the people who went to a territory to be free to determine the character of their owsn institutions. Mir. 1f. MAfRSIALL. I wish hs friend froms Indiana would state hi s opinMior. on a single question. Mar. EXTGLISlt. I knows the g,entlemlan is an experienced debeater, and may possib~ly get, sonhe advantage over me if I give himn the floo~r; but I wtill yield to himn. Mr. CoBB, of Geo)rgia. He has not done so yet,, that is certain. M~r. H. MAIRSII.ALL. Whlen the gentleman from Indiana speaks of the freedom of the people of a territory, do)es he imean 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. rhe 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 the re is no t at southern man within the sound of my voice who will not vote for the adm iss ion 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 fiee 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 fatirly and liberally towards me and the institutions I prefer, why shall not I meet them in a sinii 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 friaming 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 aet is pass ed and put into operation. Mr. tI. MARSH ALL. They are very few who believe that. MIr. ENGI.SH. 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 KansasNebraska bill. There was a clause in the Missouri compromise restricting slavery forever. It was generally conceded that the term forever was not to be taken in its literal sense-that it only meant during the existence of the tearXritorial governmen t. 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 IIoward, pages 212 and 589; also, 10th IIowaid, page 82.) Then none would doubt that a state had the right to settle this question for itself. M~r. SnIR. ANar. Prior to the prohibition of slavery in a territory lby a territorial govrernment, have the citizens oJf the south the right to take their slaves there, and hold them as such? M~r. ENGLISH. I will continue the line of argument I was pursuing before I was inter I 622

Page 623 view page image

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. decide that the constitution does carry slavery into the territories, will he acquiesce in that decision? Sir. SHERMAN. I answer, yes. Mr. SCOTT. As my colleague is speaking for the Dernocratic 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 proper 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 Indianaand it certainly is my own and that is, that they do not consider that the Constitution carries the institution of slavery into a territory; they think that there must first be some law establishing or recognising the institution before it can have any legal existence. Gentlemen 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 examined in reference to that question, or read the laws of Kansas upon that subject with sufficient care to give a very definite or positive reply; but I have this to say, that if slavery 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 Constitution of the United States; otherwise this subjectis always and entirely under their control. Mr.

SCOTT. I would most respectfully ask my colleague what is the opinion of the Democratic 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 slaverv in the states or in the territories; that there ought to( be an equality between the states; and tlhat ththe people of the territories should have the right to reg,ulate and determline those matters just as they please, subject only t o the C on stitution of the United States.

That was the broad position the party occupied in the late canv~ass; and I can tell gentlemen upon the other side that the canvass was conducted falirly and squarely upon the great national doctrines laid down by the Cincinnati convention; and that there was no attempt at evasion, or trick rupted; but before I takle mv seat I will reply to the gentleman’s interrogatory. I was going on to say that, in nmyjudgment, unless the people of a territory had the right, under their territorial government, to decide th is quest ion for themselves, I cou ld not con cei ve the necessity for the repeal of the Misso ur i restriction. The people, under that law, could esta blis h or pr ohib it slavery, when they came to be admitted as a state, jus t a s well as under this construction of the K
ansa s b ill. Then what was gained?t I h ol d my position to be the correct one, t hat the people have the right to determine the question fo r the t ime beieng, when theyare organized into a territorial government.

I will now hear the que stion of the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. SHERMIIAN.

Mv 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. ENGLISI. 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 individual 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.

SIIERMAN. In that opinion does not the gentleman differ froum the southern wing of his party? Mr. EN GLISH. I apprehend that I do with a portion of it; but the difference is not material. The question is a constitutional one; and the Democratic party, North and South, will acquiesce in whatevrer may be the decision of the court. I ask the gentleman from Ohio, if the Constitution carries the institution of slavery into the territories by its operation, whether the constitutions would not just as much carry the institution there if the KansasNebraska bill had never been passed, and the Missouri restriction had not been repealed? Mr.

SIERMA.N. That question presents a double rea(ling. My answer is this: the Constitution of the United States carries slavery oowhere; that it is a local institution, confine(d wvithin state limits, and goes nowhere except wvlhere express law carries it. 5Ir. EN-GLISU. In the main I think so too; hut then,-if it b)e true that the Constitution crarries slavery into the territories, I say it is a constitutional right wshich Congress cannot leg,islate asway. Of what use, then, are the M1isso(~uri restriction and the Wihuot proviso, if the Constitution carries slavery into the territorie~s? It is a poorer which wfe cannot take awvay bly legislationsthe Constitution being the paramount lass. I will ask the gentleman further: if the Supreme Court of the United States should 623

Page 624 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. cry, and no concessions made to Al)olitionism, Free-Soilist, Secto na is nclism, Kno -Notl hingism, or any othe r i sm.

It wa s a square, straightout, aonsullied Democratic victorv. Mr. SCOTT. I want t o kn ow one way or the other-a nd I care notain whic-whethe er the Democratic part y of Indiana holdse to-day that slavery lawfiilly exists in Kansas? Mr. ENGLISt. I have a lre ad y expla ine d that I have not examined that particular subject myself with suffi cient care to give a positi ve answer; buet I say again, that if it b e t rue that slavery has been recovnised by the act.:t l citizens of the territoiiy-if it has been adop ted by the proper laew-nltaki ng p owe r of the count ry I shall niot inter fere with carrying out the will so exp ress ed. That is a matt er to be determined within t he territory, and by the people immediately interested; t iot bv Congress, and thos e who live within the states.

eNow, the only evidence brought forwiard to show tha t the Demcracy of In dian:S have been tainted with Free-Sa)ilis ih w as a resolution of a Democratic co nvention in that state. rea d to the Flouse a few dacys since by the gentle m an fromz Ohio upon my left [Alr. Nicwhols]a resolution which, if I am correctly informed, wlas adopteas peas f ri back acls 1849. T hat was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker; an d p erhaps I might be justified in pleag odin a the statute of limcit a tions. But I shall not do that. I concede that upon a certain occasion, when there wits a conventi on of the Democratic party of’ Indiana, a resolution wa s ado pted somewhat FreeSoilish in i ts tendency. It would, no doubt, be a sufficient answer to all this, to say that it occurr ed b efore th e passage of the gre at comp romise act of 1850, which inaugurated a new era, wh ich a sse rted the same great principles of popular sovereignty and eon’,ressional nonintervention afterwards incorporated into the Kans: tea a nd N ieb raskta b ill, and which, in 1852, was s, ~emnlv received an(] adopted in the National Conventions of’ the Whio and Democratic parties as a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the dangi,erous and exciting question of slavery. I corin tell gentlemt;n, however, that it iili,ht be accounted {or in still another w,,ay. At the time this resolution was adopted thei’e were a, grieat many in the ranks of the Democratic paitv who were not Demiiocrats in good faith, but had Flee-Soil proclivities, and the gentlemian from Ohio [Mr. Nichols] 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 c(olleagues fi’om Indiana were afflicted with the same uglly complaint.

When this FreeSoil element-sw hen such gentlemen as these w ere hanging upon the skirts of the Democratic paltry, this resolution was smug-. gled through a Democratic conlvention in my state. But. I can tell erentlcmen thlat oulr party has been purifiedl since thten, that this corrupt FreeSoil porltim~l has sloughed off, and a part of it has, b~y sontoe stralngre combination in the chapter of accidlents, drit’ted inito this hall-| on the samle 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 fatr better, the national portion of the old Whig party. We have just achieved a great victory over the Black Republicans of the North, and their KnowNothing allies of the South. We have, for the time being, at least, and I trust forever, checked the onward march of sectionalism 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 government, 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. lThe country demands peace. We want a firm, conservative, national administration, which I have confidence we shiall have-one looking to the happiness of the whole people and the perpetuation of the Union under the Constitution, as paramount ob ects-conciliatory in it s char - acter respecting the rights of all and just to all, but firm and decided in rebuking sectionalism 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 intention, as it certainly is mine, to stand by the rights of the people of an organized territory to determine, under the Constitution, this question of slavery for themselves, without interference on the part of any outsiders whatever. We intend to stand by the equality of the states, Any the Constitution and the Union, to the last, and to war upon Abolitionism and its kindred heresies to the bitter end. “I differ with manv of my Southern friends, not as t oe w btis t the right, ut as to the source from which that ripght is der ived. I d o not think it comes from the Constitution of the United States. Before the Union wsas formed, before the Constitution was framed, and adopted, slavery-man’s right of property in manwas 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 common consent, protected and sanctioned, it is true by local legislation, but not derived from it. Slatvery, then, existing before the Constitution was framed-slaves being reeognised 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 righb i 624

Page 625 view page image

SQUATTERt SOVEREIGNTY. 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 l am understood.”-Mr. A. K. Marshall of Ky. iln H. of R., Feb. 4, 1857.

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 eon 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 ment. The power of legislation, and that of making organic 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 having no political powers except those derived from Congress, this right.

A glarnce at the condition of the inhabitants of any portion of our common territory, before the establishment of any territorial government, may still further tend to illustrate my views. What is the condition of the residents now upon the Gadsden purchase’the inhabitants 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 comm o n territory, from the instant of its acquisition; and that law is the Constitution of the United States. RPX.‘aRKS OF HoN. JOHN A. QUITMAN OF MISS. IN IIoUSE, OF

REPRESENTATIVES, DEC. 18, 1S56. I com e n ow to appl y this principle of sovereignty to the territor ies. At the time of the formation of the Federal Constitution th ere wer re not in existence any such muni cipal communities as those we now ter m terri tor-ies. Consequently the language of that in strumen t, w hich confer s upo n Congress the authority ” to dispose of and make all need ful rules and regulations for the territory and o ther property of the United States,” was not in tended to convey to Congress the right of legislation over the territories as subsequently constituted. This is clear. The context itself shows that the wor d “
territory” wa s palpably used iu the sense of property, for the disposal of which Congress, the common a,ent 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 Conlgress t o legislate for a territory, as we now understand the term? Before I proceed to answer this question of the power of municipal legislation, I should state, what necessarily follows from the views which I have already presented, that the people of a territory 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 sovereignty. 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 territories?

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 4() 625

Page 626 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. the government-and that department, both from it~
mode of appointment and its tenure of office, the least responsible to the people. I approve, Mr. Speaker, the principles of the KansasNebraska act.

I claim, under it, and under the Constitution, the right to carry mv 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 surrender 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 and Kentucky resolutions of 1798-‘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 mass 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 has, at various periods of our political history, occupied the attention of the best statesmen of the country. The radical principles involved 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 practical 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. IPr. OaR. In spc eking of the common law, I ha;Ld reference to the common law of Englii(d. I stated expressly, that, in my belief, t.ie Constitution extended over the territories. Mr. QUIT.MAN. I then understood the gentleimian to take the ground that no law for the protection of property existed in any of the territories, until made by the territorial legislature. 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 Constitution.

Furthermore, every citizen of any e,f 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 proprietors 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 common law of the territory. There may be no judicial organization to enforce that law, but it has vitality, and exists; and, upon the establishment of judicial tribunals, would be recognised and acted upon without positive legislation on the subject of these rights. Prominent among these rights, is that property recognised by any of the states. When that right, as in the case of slaves, is recognised by the organic law of nearly onehalf 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 establishment 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 the right, it is absurd to say that one of its departments 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 themselves 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 i 626 11 It is objected to the bill, that it establishes squatter sovereignty,’ by which is meant the right of the people, in their territorial cbaracter, by their Legislative Council, to establish or prohibit slavery. Now, a word more on this subject. if it were true that the I sq iatter sovereignty’ feature existed in the bill, what would the South lose by it? As long as the Missouri restriction stands, slavery cannot ge. into this territory. If you repeal the restriction,,tnd esta )Iish I squatter sovereignty,’ slaves may be admitted there. It would then depend on the will of the settlers of the territory. They might admit it or not. The decision 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 Tenn. in House of Representative,?, Ist sessio 33d Co?tgrem.

Page 627 view page image

SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. of Mr. Mason, in the convention that formed the Constitution, to that effect. He savy that the objection to slave labor is, that it puts free white la bo r in disre pute; that it makes labor to be re garded as dero gato ry to the character of the free w hite man, and that he despises to work-to use his e xpr ession -where slaves a re employed. Th is is a matter of great in terest to the free states, if it be true, as t o a great exten t 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 late,r totally. There is free wh ite labor in Virginia. Tennessee, and other states; but it n ecessarily l o ses something of its respectability bv the side of, and -wh en associated with, slave labor. Wherever labor is mainly performed by slaves, it is regarded as degrading t o f ree 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 onehalf the people who, settled in Illinois are people, or descendants of people, who came from the Southern states. And I suppose that onethird of the people of Ohio are those or descendants of those, wlsi emigrated from the South; and I venture toi say, that in respect to those two states, thev 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 nulnbers 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, ln those states, as there are from the North, in proportion to thee 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 an) inequality. “The question now is, whether it is not competent to Congress, in the exercise of at 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 exrtension’of the area of slavery upon this continent, nor any increase of slave representation in the other House of Congress.” i In Mr. Webster’s speech of the 7th of 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 mnenmber from South Carolina, and we should wander, in’endless mazes lost,’ until after the time for the adjournment of Congress. The Southern states have peculiar laws, and byv 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 dens 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 presumed 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 ute the force and validity of the local lawv, as have already said, but I say it is a matter to be proved; and, theref ore, if individuals go into any part of the earth, it is to be phoved that they are not freemen, or else the presumption 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 ownership 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 counc’;ls that formed and established this Constitution, and I suppose in all men’s judgment 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 627

Page 628 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. March, 1850, 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 hack from becoming slave territory 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.” Story, Judge. ON A SILAVE CASE IN ENCJ,A’D.

Salem, near Boston, Sept. 22, 1828. To Rt. I-Ion. Wm. Lord Stowell: My Lord: I h ave the honor to a cknowledge 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 judoment in the slave case from the Vice-Admiralty Court in Antigua. Upon the fullest considerations 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 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 convincing 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 approbation of it expressed among the profession of the law. I cannot but think that, upon questions of this sort, as well as general maritime 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 o wn municipal jurisprudence. I remain with the highest respect, Your most ob’t serv’t, JOSE,PHu STORY. States. RESERVATIONS OF, IN THEIR

INSTRUCTIONS TO THEIR DELEGATES IN THE CONTINENTAL CO.‘iGRESS. THE

Pennsylvania instructions contai n th e following reservation: “Reservi ng to th e peop le of this colony the sol e and exclu sive right of regulating the internal government and police of the same.” And, in a subsequent instruction, in reference to suppressi ng the British authority in the colonies, Pennsylvania u se s th is 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, attached to it the following condition: ” Saving that the administration of government, 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 Assembly.” Supreme Court. POLITICAL POWER OF. IN the House of Representatives, Jan. 1831, Mr. Davis of South Carolina, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the Judiciary Act had been referred, made the following report: Titt the committee, profoundly impressed withthe importance of matter referred to their consideration, have bestowed upon it that deliberation it so eminently required; and the investigation has resulted in a solemn conviction 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 sect. is in the following words: ” Sec. 25.

And be it further enacted, That afinal judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a state in which a decision in the suit could be had., where is drawn in question thc validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the New Jersey imposed the following condition: “Always observ ing tha wat, whatev er plan of confederacy you enter into, the regulating the internal police of this province is to be reserved to the colonial legislature.” Maryland gave her consent to the Declaration of Independence upon the condition contained 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 reserved 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 government for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of the colony, be left to respective colonial legislatures.” 629

Page 629 view page image

SUPREME COURT. 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 controversy between the departments of the federal government, and between the federal governinent and the states. The Republican, or State Rights party of that day, on the contrary, denied that the judicial department of the federal government, or all the departments of that government conjointly, were empowered to decide finally and authoritatively, in questions of sovereignty, controversies between a state and the federal government, and asserted 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 sovereign and corporate capacities and characters of separate and independent societies or states. and not as one entire people forming one nation. That these were the opinions and principles of the Uepul)lican party of that day, is proven by Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and many othe r abl e constitutional l awy ers. 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 Kentuckv Resolutions, and that Mr. Madison wrote the Virginia Report, thie 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, are 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, lay 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 Urnit ed S tates, and the decision is against their v alidity: ol where is drawn in question the valid ity oj’ a statute of, op an authority exercised unider, a ny sta te, on the ggr ound of their being repuana’ nt to the Constitution, t reatio es, ie or law s, lof the Unit ed States, and the decision is in favt or of siuch t heir v alidity, or nnhere is drawn in qtaestowt the construction of any clause of the rCon.sititttioon, or of a treaty, or statute of, or colii.clu.sion h eld unde r, t he United States, and t he decision is ag ainst th e title, right, prieilege, or exemption, specially set up or claimed by ein e sate as o ther party, under such clause of the said C,onstittion, treaty, st atu te, or com missi on, ma y lre-examwined and creversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the U nited S tates, u pon a swrit ot’ err or, the citation being signed by the chief justitce, or judge, or chancellori, of t he court, re)ideritng or passing the judgment or d ecre e compla ine d of, o0 by a justic e of the Sfplrelne Co g rnt of the Udnlyted States, in the same ima nn er and under the same regulations, ond the wntit s h all hav e the same effect, as if the judgmen tt or decre e complained of had been rendered or passed in a Circuit Court, and the 2)‘oceediltg upon the reversal shall also be the sallie, except that the Supoereme Court, instead od’iesiat td inq the cause tbr a final decision, as befoe 1wirovided, m ay, a t vl i their discretio, if th cause shall hare beest ofnce remanded befbre, proceed to a final deixsion of the same, and a wa r d execution. But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal, ii any such case as aforesaid, than such as appearis ()it the face of the record, any immediately respects th4 bejbre-meutioned questions of validity or cotnstructior n of the said Constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities, i)n disputte.” 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 arnd judgments, and civil laws and judgmiients, in most of the governments of the world, but confidently believe that it was foreseen and provided for by the framers of the Federal Constitution, by the division and limitations 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 governmnent anid the states, by the grant of specific powers to the former, and the reservation of all unv granted 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 b~etwreen the several departments of our federativ e 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, asserted, that the federal court (which had just then l 629

Page 630 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 contenm-‘ 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 in 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. What 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 appel lat e juris di ction? Le t the Constitution answer: in ” such infer ior court s as C ong ress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish.” Is a state court an inferior court? The Constitu tion does not say so. If the f ramers 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. ‘]‘he 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 appointments fi’om the President, with the consent of the Senate; they are to hold their offices during good behavior; their compensation cannot be diminished, during their continuance 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 invested with the jurisdiction of all “other casers 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 characterizes state courts or judges. The state courts are not established by Congress; the mient. On the contrary, it d eclares that the judicial power of the Un ite d S tates shall be vested in one Sup rem e C our t, and in such in ferior courts as Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish; thus giving power to organize a judicial syst em capable of exer -ising every function t o which the judicial power of the Unit ed States extended, “and intending oer to create a newjudiciary, to exercise the judicial powers of a new government,” unconnected with, and indepe ndent of, the st ate jud iciaries.* It is no more necessary to the harmonious action of the federal and s tate governments, that the federal courts s hould have power t o control the deci sions of st ate courts by appeal, than th at the f ede ra l legislature should have power to control the legislatio n o f the states, ,)r the federal executive a stat e executi ve, by a negative. It canno t be, that when a di rect negative on the laws of a s tate was proposed in conventi on, as part of the Federal Constitu tion, and rejected, that it was intended to con ier on the federal courts, by implication, a power subjectingt their whole legislation, and thei r juddnnents and decre es on it, to this n ega ti ve of the federal courts.

It cannot be, thiat this prostration of the indep endency of the st ate judicatories, this overthrow of the state governments as co-ordinate powers, could lbe l ef t t o any implication of authority. The committee are, the refore, f of opinion, that the po wer to enac t the 25th section above recited, i s no t expressed in the Constitution of the United States, nor properly an incident to mnys exp ress p ow er, a nd necessary to it s exe cution. That, if continued and acquiesced in as c onstrued by the Supreme Court, it raises the decision of the judiciary above the authority of the sov ereig n par ties to the Co nst itu 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 decisions 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 submitted 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 pou-ers might subvert for ever, and beyond tile 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 Constitultion to be 690 * Mr. -Madison.

Page 631 view page image

SUPREME COURT. state judges do not receive their appointments from the President, by and with the advice and cons ent of the Senate; they hold their offices not necessarily during good behavior, but by such tenure as the state shall choose; thei r compens ation may be diminished at the pleasure of the s tates; and they are not responsible to, or liable to be impeached before the Sen ate of the U nited States. The committee believe that it is the imperative duty of Cono gress t o repeal, without delay, any of - ts acts in contravention of a th e Constitution, be the co nsequences what they may. If Congre ss had no power to pass such laws, they a re null andvodnd vcd, and ought not to rewmain on the statute book; if such be really necessary, the power that created the Constitution can and will amend it. N ecessity and expedienc e ar e th e pleas of the tyrant; amendmen t the dictat e of th e Constitution. By pursuing the former course, we trample upon the Constitution; by following the latter, we go back t o the people, the original source of all pow er.

It has also b ee n urge d as a branch of this argument, that the 25th section is indispen - sable to that su premacy of th e fe dera l court which is required to p re serve the peace of the country with foreign powers, and to r ender uniform all judgme nts in treaty cases. IThe answ er to these objec tions (to the repeal of the 25th section) the commi ttee believe to be full and perfec t in the c ase of Hunter v. Martin, a nd pref er pr esenting it in the language o f the able judge who delivered it. “I have said that this controlling power was not essential to pres erve the peace of the nation; ( aunter v. F airfax, 4 Mumford.) Without going to other c on siderations or authorities on the subject, it is sufficient to remark that the American people have decided that it is no caus e of offence to foreign nations to hav e t heir cause b decided, and exclusively and finally de cided, by the state tribunals. In t hat amendment to the Constitution by wahich th e j urisdiction of the federal courts is prohibited in suits brought against the states by foreign ci tize ns or subjects, this construction i s m ost undoubted, and ha s never been complained of. S in c e the adoption of that amendmient, the election of jurisdiction has been entirely taken away from foreigners in all suits against the states; and those suits can now be brought in the states’ co ur ts 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 urffged that the judges of the state courts were not free from bias. I consider that this declaration by the American people, and which has never excited a murmur lon 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 foundationl 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 waniting. ” 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 exists, and yet the appeal is allowed. If, on the other hand, the former court decides against a treaty, and the latte r in favor o f it, this uniformity is wanting, ye t the appe al is denied.”

Thebfollowing is the unanlmouls 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 Supreme Court were coram non judicem, in relation to this court; and that obedience to its mandate be declined by this court.” The committee will present one more judicial opinion of a state court against the powers contended for by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylhania, in the case of the Commonwealth v. Cobbett, (3 Dallas, 473,) solemnly and unanimously refused to permit the defendant, who was an alien, to remove a cause in which he was sued by the state in its Supremne Court, into a Circuit Court of the United States, notwithstanding the comprehensiveness 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, remained with the several states; that the federal 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 betwfeen 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 Stit the people, by an amendment of the Constitution; went on to declare its own opinion on the subject, and overruled the motion, 631

Page 632 view page image

THE POLITIC.t, TEXT-BOOK. local prejudices. To that tribunal our citizen.

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 laws of the United States, have been violated by a state court. Besidets, 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 tie district in which he resides; and this, although he might have a conclusive defene 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, ill the last resort, of deciding upon the Constitution and laws of the United 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 Constitution 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 judiciary 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 theiauthority.” 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 of the VIEWS OF THE, MINORITY. The minority of the committee will proceeds 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,ite tae. in tte the first place it ought to be the chief object of all governments to protect indi vidual rights. In a lmost 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 decid es that act to be unconstitutional and void, and render s 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, lie 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 prejadices. 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, individuals whose rights happen to clash with the prevailing feeling of the state, would have 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 samiie 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 ODnstruction 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 eau never be liable to local exceitements or 632 on the ground that the sovereign,itate of Pennsylvania could not, on account of its dignity, 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.

Page 633 view page image

SUPREME COURT. (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 )le, 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 ttution was intended to enable the government of the United States to act immediately upon tile 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 preine 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 officers of the United States within their territory, if they should collect the duties on the importation of foreign merchandise. The collector proceeds to discharge 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 9pinion, that the land belonging to the United States within her territory is now the property of the state, by virtue of her sovereign 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 of 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, th. 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 th e several states, would be defeated or great ly i mpai red.

Anothor 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 25th 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 Tears 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. Ilunter’s lessee, (lst 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 Constitution 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 establish a limitation at war with the letter, and, in our opinion, equally at war with the spirit of the instrument. Had such been the intention of the framers of the Constitution, they well knew in what language to express’Ial intention.

Had it been their purpose to restrict 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 ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction,” proceeds to declare ” that, in all the other eases 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 th0 633

Page 634 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of future suits, but to arrest the prosecution of those which might be conmmenced when this article should form a part of the Constitution. It, therefore, embraces b)oth 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 commenced, 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 continuation of the same suit, then this suit is not commenced nor prosecuted against a state. It is clearly, ill its commencement, the suit of a sta te areainst an i ndividual, which suit is transferred to this court, no t for the purpose of asserting a ny claim against the state, but for the purpose of asserting a constitutional defence ag ains a clai m 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 judiig ment of the inferior tribunal to re-examination. It does not, in an y manner, act upon the parties; it acts only on the record. It re mov es the record into the supervising tribunal. Where, then, a state obtains a ju(ig mi e nt against an individual, and the court ren dering such judgment overrules a defence set up under the Const itution or laws of the United Stat es, the transfer of this record illto the Supreme Court, for the s ole purpose of inquiring wh eth er t he judgment violates the Constitution o r laws o f the United States, can, with no propriety, we think, be denominated a suit comienced 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.-Essentiallv, 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 judgmnent. 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 sul) stance. Whether it be by writ of error or appeal, no claim is asserted, no demand is made, by the original detendant; he only asserts the constitutional right to have l (i ( lcfence examined by that tr’ibunal wl,o.eX pI;vince it is to construe the Constitution a nal laws of the Union.” ‘ ‘* The point of view in which this wrlit,:i’ error, with its citation, has been c(,nsidle~,,d uniformly in the courts of the Unions, leats i X X.ll well illustrated by a reference to tl~te c,u~ e of this court in suits instituted by th~e UJ~i (sol States. TRhe universally received opinion is, The eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States interferes in no respect with the principles for which we have contended. It is in these words: “The judicial 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. X irginia, has given so clear, and, in our opinion, so correct an exposition of the true construction of the amendment, that we shall, in conclusion, present to the Ilouse a few extracts fronm that opinion, instead of any argument of our own. ie says that “the first impression 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 eonsulting its convenience in the adjustment of its debts, or of other claims upon it; but no interest coul d b e f el t in s o c hanging the r elation between the whole and its parts, as to strip the government of the means of protecting, by the instru mentality of i ts courts, the Constitution and laws from a ct ive violation. The wor ds of t he am endment appear to the court to justify and require this construction.” ” To commence a suit is to demand something by the institution of process in a court of justice; and to prosecute the suit is, according 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 individual agtainst the state, for the purpose of establishing some claim against it by the judgment 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 should be adopted by the state legislatures, and might be depending at the time of its adoption. The object of the amendment was not unly to prevent the commencement 634

Page 635 view page image

SUPREME COURT.-TARIFFS. that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted ;tgains.t the United States; that the judiciary :Bct does not authorize such suits: yet writs ,,f error, aLccompanied with citations, have tinifi)rlmly issued for the removal of judgments iI favor of the United States into a superior court, whiere they have, like those in favor of an individual, been re-examined, and affirmed ,)r reversed. It has never been suggested that such writ of error was a suit against the United States, and therefore not within the jurisdliction of the appellate court. It is, then, the opinion of the court, that the defendant who removes a judgment rendered .tgainst him by a state court into this court,. Ir)’ the purpose of re-examining the question whether that judgment be in violation of the Constitution or l’Lws of the United States, does not commence,r 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 B UCHwANAN, s WILLIAMf W. ELLSWORTII, E. D. WHITE. A bill was accordingly reported (4 against 3 in co mmit te e), and on an obj ection to its, secon d read ing by Mir. Doddridge, it was rejected by the following vote:o YEAS.- Me ssrs. Anderso n, Armstrong, Arnold, Bailey, Noyes Barber, Joh n S rr. Barbour. Barringer, B art ey, Bates, Ba ylor.

Beekman, John Blair. BokeeB, oon Bors t. Brodhend, Blown Bucha naD, Bulges, Butman Caho onui, Chon hilton, Clark, CniiCoprConoiut, Cooper, Coaulter, Cowles, Craig, Crane, Crawford, Crockett Chn, Creighton.

Crocheron, Crowninshied. John Davis. Deberry, Denny, De Witt, Dickinson, Doddridge, Dorms-, Drayton, Dwight, Eager,. arll. Ellwo.’.vans, Johua Evans, Edward Everett, Findlay, Finch, Forward, Frv, Gilmore, Gorham, Green, Grentnell. Gtirly. Halsey, Ilemphill, }h(,dgess, Htolland, Hoffman, lIubbard, Hughes, Itunt. Ilu.til,gto., Ihrie, Ingersoll. Thomas Irwin, Wm.

W. Irv,in, Jt,hns, C. JobRhston, Kendall, Ken non, Kincaid, Perkin s King,, Adam King, Leavitt, Leiper. Lent, Letcher. Mlagee, Nallary, Miartindale, Lewis Maxwell, McCreery, McDuffie, Mclntire, Mercer, Miller, Mitchell, M(ouell, Muhlenberg, Norton, Pearce, Pierson, Powers. lleed, Richardson, Rose, Russell, Sanford, Scott, Win. B. Shepard, A. II.

Shepperd, Shields. Sill, Speight, A. Spencer, R. Spencer, Sprigg, Standeft’r, Sterig,ere IHenry R. Storrs, Wm. L. Storrs, Strong, Sutherland, Swauti, Swift, Taylor, Test, J. Thomson. Vancie, Varnurn.

Verplanck, V’inton, Washington, Weeks, Whittlesey, C. 1’. White, E. D.

White, Winll iams,, Wilson, Wingate, Young.-13, 7. NAYs. .essrs.

Alexander. Allen, Alston, Angel. Blrnwell, Bell. J/ames Blair. Bouldin, Cambreleng. Camplbell, Clhan,dler, Claibsorne. Clay, Colenman,, Conner, Dal.iel, Davenport, W. R. Davis. Desha. Draper, Foster, Gaither, Gordon.

Hall, Ilarvey, Haynes, Ilinds, Jarvis, R. M. Johnson, Lamar, Lecompte, l,ewis, Loyall, Lumipkin, Lyon, Martin, Thomas Maxwell, McCoy, Nuckolls, Overton, Patton. Pettis, Polk, Plotter, Joane, Wiley Thompson, Trezvaiit, Tucker, Wiickliffe, Wild, Yancey.-51. Tariffs. THE SEVERAL, ENACTED BY

CONGRESS FROM 1789 TO 1857. Character of the Bill and other remarks. o..

I. Specific and ad valorem rates, latter from 5 to 15 per cent.. 2.

Specific and ad valorem rates, latter from 3 to 152… 3. This act only affected “spirits” paying specific duties…. 4. Specific and ad valorem rates, latter from 7~ to 15 per cent.,.. 5. Specific and ad valorem rates, latter from 10 to 20 per cent.,.. 6. This act affected but few articles paying specific and ad valorem rates…….. This act affected but few articles paying specific and ad valorem rates………………. 8. This act only affected “salt” paying a specific duty. 9. This act affected but few articles paying specific and ad valorem rates,……………… 10.

This act, commonly called’” Mediterranlean fund,” iminposing an additional duty of 21 per cent. in addition to the duties now imposed by law……………. 11. This act affected but few articles paying specific rates,….. 12. This act imposed double duties, known as war duties…..

13. This act only affected “salt” payiting a specific dutyy, 14. This act continued the double duties, No. 12, to 30th June, 1817, 15. Specific, minimum, and ad valorem rates, latter from 71 to 30 per cent………………….. 16. This act affected but few articles paying specific rates, 11 17. This act affected but few articles paying specific and ad valorem rates,………………. 18. This act only affected “wines” paying spccific rates, 19. Specific, minimum, compound, and ad valorem, latter from 12 to 50 per cent……………. 20. Specific, minimum, compound, and ad valorem, latter from 20 to . 50 per cent……………….. 1. This act only affected “wines” paying specific rates,..1 22. This act only affected “coffee, tea, and cocoa,” paying specific rates, and reducing the rate,……….. I I II I I 93. This act only affected “molasses” paying specific rates,.. 24. This act only affected “salt” paying specific rates.,.. 25. This act only affected wines of France” payving specific rates,. I i I I 635 Date of eikeh Act. 4 4

July, 1789. 10 August, 1790. 3 March, 179 1. 2 May, 1792. 7 June, 1794. 29

January, 1795. 3 March, 1791’. 8 July, 1797. 13 May, 1800. i 26 March, 1804. 27 March, 1804. I July, 1812. 29 July, 1813. 5 February, 181C). 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, 1831

Page 636 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. Character of the bill and other remarks. 26.

Specific, minimum, compound, and ad valorem, the latter from 5 to 50 per cent……………. 27. This act affected but few articles paying ad valorem rates,.. . Compromise Act-looking to a reduction of duties to 20
per cent., 29. Specific and ad valorem, latter from 121 to 20 per cent….

30. Specific, minimum, compound, and ad valorem, the latter from 1 to 50
per cent…………………… 1. The rates of duty imposed by this act are exclusively ad valorem, and arranged by schedules, and from 5 to 100
per cent… 32. The rates of duty imposed by this act are exclusively ad valorem, arranged by schedules, and from 4 to 30 per cent….. on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the U ni ted States.” This act consists of specific and ad valorem duties, the latter ranging from ten to twenty per centurn. 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. 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. 6. Entitled “An act supplementary to the several acts inmposing duties on goods, wares, and m erchand adise.” 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 Ilouse of Congress. 2. Entitled ” An act making further provision 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. 7.

Entitled ” An act for raising a further In the Senate the yeas and nays not taken. atils oebyadtoaduisoceti 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 fifteen per centum. It was approved on the 3d March, 1797. The vote in the IIouse of Represenatives on its passage stood as follows:-Yeas 66; nays 21. In the Senate the yeas and nays not taken. ,. Entitled ” An act reapealing, after the last day of June next. the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits importel from abroad, and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and fir 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 tIouse of Representatives on its passage stood as follows:-Yeas 35; nays 21. The vote in the Senate was, yeas 20; nays 5. 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 IIouse of Representatives on its passage stood as follows: Yeas 45; nays 40. in Senate, yeas and nays not taken. 4.

Entitled ” An act for raising a further sum of money for the protection of the frontiers, and for other purposes therein mentioned.” This act consists of specific and ad valorem duties, the latter ranging 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 oil its passage stood as follows:-Yeas 37: nays 20. In the 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 centum. It was approved on the 13th May, 1800. The yeas and nays, on the passage of the bill, not taken in either Ilouse of Congress. 5

Entitled “An act laying additional duties 636 Date of each Act. 14 July, 1832. 2 March, 1833 2 March,.1833, 11 Sept’r, 1841. 30 August, 1842. 30

July, 1846. 3 Mareli, 1857.

Page 637 view page image

TARIFFS. In the IIouse of Representatives, yeas and nays not taken. The vote in the Senate wvas yeas 25, nays 5. 10. Entitled ” An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary powers.” This act is commonly called the “Mediterranean fund,” and i mposed 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 IHouse of Representatives on its passag,e, stood as follows:-Yeas 98; nays . The vote in the Senate was yeas 20, nays 5. 15. Entitled “An act to regulate the duties on imports and tonnage.” By this act the whole tariff system was remodelled. It consists of specific and ad valor 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 description, and on cotton, twist, yarn, and thread. It was approved on the 27th April, 1816. The vote in the Ihouse of Representatives on its passage stood as follows:-Yeas 88; nays 54. t he vote in the Senate was yeas 25, nays 7, on the engrossment and third reading. On its passage yeas and nays not taken. 11. Entitled “An act imposing more specific duties on the importation of certain articles, and also for levying and collecting light money on foreign ships or vessels, and for other purposes.” This act consists altogether of articles paying specific duties, and the free list extended t o six articles. It was approved on the 27th MAarch, 1804. The vote in the Ilouse of Representatives on its passage stood as follows:-Yeas 65.ays 41. In the Senate, yeas and nays not taken. 16. Entitled “An act to increase the duty on iron in bars and bolts, iron in pigs, castin”f, nails and alunmi.” 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 hIouse of Representatives on its passage stood as follows:-Yeas 88; Nays 47. In the Senate, yeas and nays not taken. 12. Entitled ” An act for imposing (double) duties upon all goods, wares, and merchandise 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. 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. T he yeas and nays on the passage of the bill, not taken in either hIouse of Congress. 13. Entitled “An act laying a duty on imported 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 er bushel, computing the same at 56 pounds. It 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. 18. Entitled “An act to regulate the duties on wines.” This act, as its title indicates, only affected the duty on wines rot 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 tIouse 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 ana minimums, in addition to cotton cloths, twist, yarn and thread, the mninimnum system is extended to Leghorn hats and bonnets, hats or bonnets of straw, chip or grass, the ad valorems range from twelve to fifty per cent. It was approved on the 22d May, 1824. The vote in the Ilouse of 1{epresenrtativ.es on its passage stood as follows:-Yeas 105; nays 94. The vote in the Senate, was:-Yeas 26. nays 21. 14. E ntitl ed “A n act to continue in force thi e act entitled’ An act imp os ing additional dutie s up on all goods, war es, and merchandise imported from any foreign port or place, -ind for other purposes.’ Doulde 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. 637

Page 638 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOI N. Y., Seymour of Vt.. Thomss of Ill., Von Buren of N.Y., \W,hster of Mass., Willey of Conn.-26. NAYS. Messrs. Berrien of Ga., Brai)(h cf N. C.. Chambesrs of Md., Chandler of Me., Cobb of (;a., Ellis of Mis.s.. tlayne of S.C.. Johnston of La., King of Ala., McKinley of Ala., Macon of N. C., Parris of Me.. Robbins of R. I., Sil. bee of Mass., Smith of Md., Smith of S. C., Tazewell of Va.. Tyler of Va., white of TenL., Williams of Miss., Woodbury of N. H.-20. 20. Ent itled ” An act in alteration of the several acts imposing du tie s on imports.” This act changes the rates of duty u pon the arti cl e s named therein-which p ay specifics, ad valorems, compound and minimums, the latter is n ow extended to manufacture s of weool and form four cl assest,st, shall not ex ceed 50
ce nts, sh all be deeme d t o cost 50 cents; ‘-d, shall exceed 50 cents and not exceed $1, sh a ll be deemed t o 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 c ost $4, and thereon to pay a duty of forty-five per centum. JWool is subject to a compound duty of 4
cents per pound and ad valorem of 40 per cent. for “Ile year, 45 per cent.

two years and there.after 50 per centum in addition. The ad va lorenis range f rom twenty to fifty per centum. It was approved on the 19th May, 1828. The vot e on its p assage in the House of Representatives stood as follows:-Yeas 105; nays 94. Y’ELs. essrs. An derson of Pa., Armstro ng of Va., Bald wie of Conn., Barber of Conn., Barlow, Barn ard o f N. Y., Bee,ier of 0., Be lden of N.Y., Blake of Ind., Brown ,f T. H.. Bucha nan of Pa., Buckner of Ky., Buc k of Vt., hinner of N. Y., Burges of R. I., Chase of N. Y., Chilton of Va., Clarke of N.Y., Clarke of Ky., Condict of Ky., Coul ter, o f Pa., Creighton of 0., Crowninshield of Mass., Daniel of Ky., Davenport of., De Graff of N. Y., Dickinson of Y… Duncan of Ill., Dwight of Mass., Earll of N. Y., Find lay of 0., Forward of Pa., Fry of Pa., Ga rnsey of N. Y., oiarrow of N. Y., G ree n of P a., Ha rvey of N.

CI., Ilealy of N. II., I Cobbie of N.Y., Hoffman of N. Y., Hunt of Vt., Jennings of Ind., J ohns e of Del.. Keese k of N. Y., King of Pa., Lawrence of Pa., Lecompte of Ky., Lefflier of Va., Letcher of Ky., Little of Md., Lyon of Ky., Magee of N. Y., Mallary of lrt., Markell of N. Y., Martindale of N. Y., Marvin of N. Y., Mtxwell of Y, MGHatto n of KyM., McKean of Pa., McLean of O., Merwin of Conn., Metcal fe o f Ky., Miller of Pa., Miner of Pa., Mitchell of Pa., Moore of Ky., Orr of Pa., P helps of C
onn., Pier son of N. J., Ramse y of Pa., R ussell of O., Sergeant of I,., Sloane of O., Smith of Ind., Stanberry of O., Stevenson lof Pa., Sterigere of Pa., Stewart of Pa., Storrs of N. Y., Stower of N. Y., Strong of N. Y., Sw arnn of N. J., Swift of Vt., Suther land of PA., T ayl or of N. Y., Thompson of N. J., Tracy of N. Y., Tucker of N. J., Vance of O., Van Horn of Pa., Van Rensselaer of N. Y., Vinton of O., Wales of Vt., Wbipple of N.

I., Whittlesey of O., WicTrkliffe of Ky., Wilson of Pa., J. J. Wood of N.Y., Silas Wood of N. Y., W ood s of O., Woodcock of N. Y., Wolff of Pa., Wright of N. Y., Wright O O., Yaney o f e Ala.-105. NAYs.-Messrs.

Alexander of Va., Allen of Mass., Allen of Va.. Alston of N. C., Andersoo of Me., Archer of Va., Bailey of Mass., P. P. Barb our of V a., B ark er of N. H., Barringer of N. C., B artlett of N. H., Ba tes of Mass.. Bates of Mo., Bell of Tenn., Blair of Tenn., Brent of La., Bryan of N. C., But m au 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., Gilmer of Ga., Gorham of Mass., Gurley of La., Hail e o f Miss., Hilalock of N. Y., Ilall of N. C., Hamilton of S. C., Haynes of Ga, Ilodges of Mass., Itolmes of N. C., Ingersoll of Conn., lacks of Tenn., Johnson of N. Y., McCoy of Va., McDuffie of S. C., McIntire of Me., McKee of Ala., Mercer of Va., Mitchell 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., I’oane of Va., Sawyer of N. C., Shepperd of N. C., Smyth of Va., Sprague of Mie., Taliaferro of Va., Thompson of Ga. Trrezvant of Va., Tucker of S3.C., Turner of N. C., Varnum of M~ass., Verplanelk of N. Y., Ward of N. Y., Washington of Mde., Weems of Md., Wilde of Ga., Williams of N. a., Wingate of Me.-94. The vote in the Senate wvas yreas 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 Conln., Ilarrison of O., tlendricks of Ind., Johnson of Ky., IKane of Ill., Knigrht of R.I., Mel~me of Del., Mbarks of Pa., Noble of Ind., Ridgeley of Del.~ Rowran of Ky., Rugglee of O.~ Sanford of 21. Entitled “An act altering the duties (,n 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 Hlouse 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 reduced 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 Htouse 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 Ilouse of Representatives stood as follows:-Yeas 118; nays 60. 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 approved 29th May, 1830. The vote in the Hlouse of Representatives on its passage stood as follows:-Yeas 105; navs 83. The vote in the Senate was:-Yeas 24; nays 15.

26. Entitled “An act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports.” This act repealed all previous ones in relation to fixing the rates of duties, and imposed new ones, being free, specifics, compound, ad 638 25. Entitled 11 An act to carry into effect the convention between the Unitea States and his mrjesty the King of the French, conclude(.[ at Paris on the 4th July, 1831.” This act affected the duties on the wines of -Prance, the 10th section -fixing the rates of duty which are specific. It was approved on the 13th July, 1832. The yeas and nay,,; on the passage of the bill, not taken in either Ifouse of Congress.

Page 639 view page image

TARIFFS. of S.C., Patton of Ta., Plummer of Miss.. Polk of Te,nn., a bencher of N. C., Roane of Va., Root of N. Y., Semules rcf Md., Sewall, Wm. B. Shepard of N. C., Augustus I. Shepperd (,f N. C., Smith of Pa., Speight of N. C., Spence of Md., atanberry of 0., Standifer of Tenii., Francis Thomas of Md., IPhilemon Thomas of La., Wiley Thompson of Geo., John Thompson of 0., Tompkins of Ky., Verplanck of N. Y., Ward of N. Y., Washington of Md., Wayne of Geo., Weeks of N. H., Elisha Whittlesey of 0., Campbell P. White of N. Y., Edward D. White of La., Wickliffe of Ky., Willians of N. C., Worthington of Md. 119. NAYs. Nle,ssrs. Adams of Mass., IIeman Allen of Vt., Al’isou t’ rPa., Appleton of Mass., Arnold of Tenn., Ashley of Mvo.. Babcock of N.Y., Banks of Pa., Noyes Barber of Conn.. Bar,tow of N.Y., Isaac C. Bates of Mass., Beardsley of N. Y., Briggs of Mass., John C. Brodhead, Bucher of Pa., Burd of Pa., Burges of R. I., Cahoon of Vt., Chandler of N. II., Choate of Mass., Collier of N.Y.. Lewis Condict of N. J., Silas Condit of N.J., Cooke of O., Cooke of N.Y., Cooper, Crane, Crawford of Pa.. John Davis of Mass., Dayan of N. Y., Dearborn of Mars., Denny of Pa., Dewart of Pa., Dickson of N.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., Ililand ilall of Vt., Heis ter of Pa., Hodges of Mass., IIogan of N.Y., hughes of N.J., Huntingdon of Conn., Ihrie of Pa.. Ingersoll of Conn., Kendall of Mass., IKennon of 0., King of Pa., King of N.Y., Henry King of Pla., Leavitt of O., Mann of Pa., McCarty of Ind., McCoy of Pa., McKennan of Pa., Mercer of Va., Milligan of Del., Muhlenberg of Pa., Nelson of Mass., Pearce of R.

I., Pendleton of N.Y., Pierson of N. Y., Pit(-her of N.Y., Potts of Pa., Randolph of N.J., John Reed of Mass, Edward C. Reed of N. Y., Russell of 0, Slade of Vt., Southard of N. J., Stephens of Pa., Storrs of Conn., Sutherland of Pa., Taylor of N.Y., Vinton of 0., W’ardwell of N.Y..

Watmough of Pa., Wilkin of N.Y.. Wheeler of N. Y., Frederick Whittlesey of N. Y., Young of Conn.-85. The vote in the Senate was yeas 29, nays 16.

YEAs.-Messrs. Bell of N. II., Bibb of Ky., Black of Miss., Calhoun of S.

C., Chambers of Md.. Clay of Ky.. Clayton of Del., Ewing of O., Foot ofConn., Forsyth of Ga., Frelinghuysen of N. J., Grundy of Tenn., Hill of N. I., Ilolmes of Me., J ohnston of La.. King of Ala., Manguni of N. C., Miller of S. C., Moore of Ala., Naudain of Del., Poiudexter of Miss., Rives of Va., Robinson of Ill., Sprague of Me., Tomlinson of Conn., Tyler of Va., Waggamau of La., White of Tenn., Wright of N. Y.-29. NAYs.-Messrs.

Benton of Mo., Buckner of Mo., Dallas of Pa., Dickerson of N.J., Dudley of N.Y., Hendricks of Ind., Knight of R. I., Prentiss of Vt., Robbins of R.

I., Ruggles of O0., Seymour of Vt., Silsbee of Mass., Smith of Md., Tipton of Ind., Webster of Mass., Wilkins of ~a.-16. 28. Entitled ” An act to modify the act of the 14th July, 1832, and all other acts imposing duties on imports.” This is generally known as the Compromise Act, its object being to effect a gradual reduction of duties, as follows: From and after 31st December, 1833, on all articles where the duties shall exceed twenty per centur ad valorem, a deduction of one tenth of such excess. From and af ter 31st December, 1 835, another tenth part to be deducted; from and after 31st December, 1 837, another tenth part to be deducted; from and after 91st December, 1839, another tenth part to be deducted; from and after 31st December, 1841, one half of the resilue to be deducted; from and after 31st December, 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., An(lerson of Me., Angel of N.Y., Archer of Va.. Armstrong of Va., John S. Barbour of Va., Barnwell of S.C., Barringer of N. C., James Bates of Me., Bell of Tenn., Bergen of N. Y., Bethune of N. C., BIlair of Tenn., Blair of S.C., Boon of Ind., Bouck of N.Y., Bouldin of Va., Branch of N. C, John Brodhead of N.H., Bullard of La., Camnbreleng of N.Y., Carr of Ind, Carson of N. C., Chinn of Va., Claiborne of Va.. Clay of Ala., Clayton of Ga., Coke of Va., Conner of N. C., Corwvin of O., Coulter of Pa.. Craig of Va., Crei,hton of O., Daniel of Ky., Davenport of Va., Warren R. Davis of S. C., Doubleday of N. Dryton of S., Dr Draper, Duncan of Ill., Felder of S. C., Findlay of O.. Fitzgerald of Tenn., Foster of Ga., Gaither of Ky.. Gilmor! of Pa.. Go rdon f Va., Griffinrof S. C., Thomas H. H1al l of N. C., Wm. Hall of Tenn., Harn fer of N. II., Hawes of Ky., Hawkinsfan of N.. Y., holland of Te.. Ilorn of Pa. Ioward of Md..

Hubbard of N. H., Irvin of O., Isacks of Tenn., Jarvi.s of Me., Jenifer of 31d., Richard 1. Johnson of Ky., Cave Johnson of Tenn., Jisseph Johnson of Va., Kavanagh of )ie., Kerr of Md., LIamar of Ga.. Lansing of N.Y..

Lecompte of Ky., Letcher of Ky., Lewis of Ala., Lyon of Ky.. Mlardilis of Al.,., Mason of Va., Marshall of Ky., Maxwell of Va., WVilliam McCoy of Va., MeDuffie of S. C., McInTtire of Me.. McKay of N. C., Mltchell of S.C., Newnan of Ga., Newvton of Va., Nuckolls 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 ratethe lowest being twelve and a half per centum, while there were only twelve articles which pai d 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 +eas.,9,, navs 639 30. Entitled 11 An act tt pi-t)i-ide from imports and to change aii(i i)io(lify exi,,t ing laws imposing duties on imports. and for other purposes.” This act changed the entire rates of duties and fixed the same at specifi(-, minimum, coni-oound and ad valorem rates, the latter ranging tromonetofiftypereentilm. on the 3.0th August, 1842. The vote in the House of II-epresentatives

Page 640 view page image

TFTIE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. on its passage, stood as follows:-Yeas 114; nays 95. Y sAs. Mewsrs. Stephen Adams of Miss., Anderson of Me., Atkinson of Va., Bayly of Va., Bedinger of Va., Benton of N. Y., Biggs, o f N. C., Black of S. C., Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Brinkerhoff of O..

Brockenbrough of Fla., Brown of Va., Burt of S.C., CathBart of Ind., Chapman of Va., Chapman of Ala.. Chase of Ten.., Chipman of Mich., Clarke of W. C., Cobb of Ga., C ollin of N.MY., Cullom of Tenn., Cunningham of 0., Daniel of N. C., Dargan of Ala., Davis of Miss., De Mott o f N. Y., Dobbin of N. C., Douglas of I1l., Dromgoole of Va., Dunlap of Me., Ellsworth of N. Y., Faran of 0., Ficklin of Ill., Fries of O., Gil e s of Md.- Goodyear of N. Y., Gordon of N.Y., GroNer of N. Y.. Ilamli of M ef., Ilaralson of Ga., Ilarmanson of La.. ttnly of Ind., Ililliard of Ala..

Hoge of Ill., liolines of S.C.,Ikopkins of Va.. lough ofN.Y., Houston of Ala., Hubard of a. a, IHunt of Mich., Hunter of Va., Johnson of N. 1I., Johnson of Va., Andrew Johnson of Tenn., Jones of Tenn., Jones of Ga., Kaufian of Texas, Kennedy of Ind., Preston King of N. Y., Lawrence of N.

Y., Leake of Va., La S&re of La., Lumpkin of Ga., Maclay of N.Y., McClelland of Mich., McClernand of Ind., McConnell of Ala., McCrate of Me., McDowell of O., McDowell of Va., McKay of N. C., Martin of Ky., Martin of Tenn., Morris of O., Morse of La., Moulton of N H., Niven of N.

Y., Norris of N. It., Parish of O., Payne of Ala., Plerrill of O., Phelps of Mo., Pillsbury of Texas, Rathbun of N. II.. Reid of Pa., Relfe of Mo..

Rhett of S. C., Robeits ofTMiss., SawtelloT of Me. SSawyer of 0., Simpson of S.C., S,,ammen of Me., Seddon of Va., Alexander D. Simms of S.,C., Sims of Mo., Thomas Smith of Ind., Smith of I., Stanton of Tenn., Strarkweather of O., St. John of O., Strong of N. Y., Thompson of Miss., Thurman of O., TiBatts of Ky. Towns of Ga., Tredway of Va., Wibak of Ind., Wil li a ms of The.,‘v’ihot of Pa., W d of N. Y., NWoodward of S.C.. Yancey of Ala.-I114.

NTYSe nat,wsrs. Abbl tt of Mass. Adams of Mass., Ar nold of Tenn., Ashmun of Mass., Ba rring er of N. C., Be ll of Ky., James Black of Pa., Blanchard of Ila., Brodhead of Ila., MiltoY e Brown of Tenn., Buffitgton of Pa., Campbell of N.Y., Campbell of Pa., Clrroll of N. Y., Coke of Tenn., Collamer of Vt., Cranston of R. I., Crozier of Tenn., Culver o f N.Y., Darragh of Pa., Davis of Ky., Delano of O., Dixon of Conn., Dockery of N. C., Eds,all of N. J., Erdman of Pa., Ewing of Pa., Ewing of Tenn., Foot of Vt., Foster of Pa., Garvin of Pa., Gentry o f Tenn., Gi ddings of O., Gra ham of N. C., trider of Ky., Grinnell of Mass., Hampton of N. J., Ilarper of O., Ilolmaes of N. Y., Ilouston of Del., IHubbard of Conn., tludson of Mass., Ilungerford of N. Y., Itunt of N. Y., Cha.%. J.

Ingersoll of Pa., Joseph R. Ingersoll. of Ila., J,-nkins of N. Y., King of Mass., Leib of Pa., Lewis of N. Y., I,evin of Pa., Long of Md., McClean of Ila., McGaughey of Ind., MoIHenry of Ky., Mcllvaiue of Pa., Marsh of Vt., Miller of N. Y., M,Iosely of N. Y., Pendleton of Va., Perry of Md., Pollock of Pa., Ramsey of Pa., Ritter of Pa., Rockwell of Mass.. Rockwell of Conn., Root of O., Runk of N. J., Russell of N.Y., Schenck of O., Seaman of N. Y., Severance oflMe., Smith of Conn., Smith of N. Y., Caleb B. Smith of Ind., Stephens of Ga., Stewart of Pa., Strohm of Pa., Sykes of N. J., Thibodeaux of La., Thomasson of Ky., Thompson of Mass., Thompson of Pa., Tilden of O., Toomobs of Ga., Trumbo of Ky.,. Vance of O., Vinton of O., Wheaton of N. Y., White ofN. Y., Winthrop of Mass., Woodruff of N. Y., Wright of N. J., Young of Ky., Yost of Pa. 95. The vote in the Senate was yeas 28, nays 28. YEAs. Me~ssrs,. Allen of O., Ashley of Ark., Atchison of Mo., Atherton of N. II., Bagby of Ala., Benton of Mo., Breese of Ill., Bright of Ind., Calhoun of S. C., Cass of Mich., Clbak mners of Miss., Colquirt of G’a., Dickinson of N. Y., Dix of N. Y., Fairf,ied of Me., Ilannegan of Ind., Ilouston of Texas, Jarnagin of Tenn., Lewis of Ala., MeDuffle of S. C., Pennybacker of Va., Rtusk of Texas, Semuple of Ill., Sevier of Ark.. Speight of Miss., Turney of Tenn., Westcott of Fla., Yulee of Fla. 28. NAYs. Messrs. Archer of Va., Berrien ofGa., Barrow of La., Cameron of Pa., Cilley of N.H1., J. M. Clayton of Del., T. Clayton of Del., Corwin of O., Crittenden of Ky., Davis of Mass., Dayton of N. J., Evans of Ale.. Greene of R. I., Iluntington of Conn., Johnson of La., Johnson of Md., Mangum of N. C., Miller of N. J., Morehead of N. C., Niles of Conn., Pearce of Md.. Phelps of Vt., Simmons of R. I., Sturgeon of Ila., Up. on its passage stood as follows: Yeas 105; nays 103.

dYAS.-l-Ms,rs. Allen of Me., Lan daft W. Andr ews of Ky., Sherlock J.

Andrews of O., Appleton of Mass., Aycrigg of N. J., Babcock of N.Y., Baker of Misss., Barard of f N. Y., BSrtoh of Va., Beeson of Ila., BiJlack of Pa.. Birdseye of N. Y.. Blair of N.Y., Boa rdman of Conn., Borden of Mass., Brigubs of M ass., Brockwan of Conn., CVnarles Brown of MI a., J.

Brown of Pa., Brunell of Mass., Calhoun of Mass., Childs of N Y..

Chittendeu of N. Y., John C. Clark of N.Y., James Cooper o f Pa., Co Bten of O., Cranston of R. I.. Cusiing of C wass. f, Da Jni s of Ky., Davis of N.Y., Edwards of Mo., Ever T,tt of Vt., Ferris of N.Y., Fessenden of Me., Fillmore of N.CY., Gerry of Pa., G iddings of O., Patrick o. Goode of O., Gordos of N.Y., Granger of N. Y., Gu.tinc of Pa., Elall of wrt.s of N. J., Floyad of N.Y., 1IouPkwn of MN.., Fooftrdter ofP.,G lted. Gon of Toass.

HuGt of N. Y., C. J. I ngersoll of Pa.., rogephi R. Igersoll of Pa., James I rwin of Pa., Wi lliam o Jr. Irwiii if Pa., Kabe of Pa., John P. KeHmedy of Md., Huobert McClellan of N. Y:, HcK nnan of Pa., Thomas F. Marshall of Ky.. Mason of O., Matteks of Vt., Maxwe ll of N. J., Maynard of N.Y., Moore of L a., Morgan of N. Y., Morris of O., Lorrow of O.. Newhard of Pa.. Osborne of Conn., Parmenter o)f Mass., Plelae of Md., Plumer of Pa., Pope of Ky., Powell Nf Va., Profrit of Ind., Ramnay of Pa., Randall of Me., Randall of 0d., Miandolph of N. J., Re ad of Pa., Ridgway of O., Bricf,gs of N. Y., Rodney of De]., Russell of O., Russell of Pa., Saltonstall of 0., S anford of N. Y Slade of Vt., Sm ith of Conn., Sollepr of Md., Stratton of N.J., John T. Stuart of Ill., TaliSfer ro of Va., Ric h ard W. Thompson of Ind., Tilling hast of R. I., Toland of Pa., Tomlinion of N. Y., Trumbull of Co nn., Van Buren of N.Y., Van Rensselaer of N. Y., Wallac e of Ind., Ward of N.Y., Edward D. WNitu of L.., Williams of Conn., Joseph L. Williams of Tenn., Y orke of N.J., Young f At.-105.

NA~rs.-‘.Me,ssrs. Adams,,ff Mass., Arnold of Tenn., Arrington 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 N. C., Caldwell of S. C., John Campbell of S. C., W. B.

Campbell of Tenn., Thomas J. Campbell of Ton.., Caruthers of Ten.., Cary of Va., Casey of Ill., Clifford of Me., Clinton of N. Y., Coles of Va., Colquitt of Ga., Doan of O., Doig of N. Y., Edwards of Mo., Egbert, Floyd of N. Y., Foster of N. Y., Foster of Ga., Gamble of Ga., Gentry of Tenn., G-ilmer of Va., Goggin of Va., Goode of Va., Graham of N. C., Green of Ky., Gwiui of Miss., Habersham of Ga.. Harris of Va., Itastings of O., tla-ys, of Va., tiolies of S. C., tlopkins of Va., tIous~tot of Ala., Hubard of Va., Hunter of Va.. Johnson of Md., Cav,e Johnson of Tenn., Jones of Va., Kennedy of Ind., King of Ga., Lane of Ind., Lewis of Ala., Linn of N. Y., Little,field of Me., McClellan of Tenn., McKay of N. C., McKeon of N. Y., Mallory of Va., Mason of Md.. Mathiot of O., Mathews of O., Medill of O., Miller of Me., M4itchell of N. C., Owsley of Ky., Payne of Ala., Rayner of N. C., Reding of N.HI-., Reynolds of Ill., Rhett of S.

C., Rogers of S. C., Roosevelt of ,N. Y.. q,qunde-rs of N. C., Shaw of N.

H., Shepperd of N. C., Shield.-;.,f Ala., William Smith of Va., Sprigg of Ky., Steenrod of \Va., Summers of Va., Sumter of S. C.. Jacob Thompson of Mis.John B. rhompson of Ky., Triplett of Ky., Turney of Tenn., Underwood of Ky., Warren of Ga., Washingt~on oi N. C., Waterson of Tenn., Weller of O., Williams of Md., H. Williams of Tenn., Wise of Va., Wood of N. Y., 

103. 23. YEAs9. 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 M e., Ituntington of Conn., M1iller of N. J.. Morehead of Ky., Pheips of Vt., Porter of Mich., Simmons of R. I., Smith of Ind., Sprague of Me., Sturgeon of Pa., Tallmadge of N. Y., White of Tenn., Williams of Me., Woodbridge of Mich., Wright of N. Y.-24. N

AYs.-‘.fessrs. Allen of O., Archer of Va., Bagby of Al&., Benton of Mo., Borrten of Ga., Calhoun of S. C., Clayton of Del., Cuthbert of Ga., Folton of Ark., Graham of N. C., Hn Denderson of Miss., King of Ala., Linn of Mo., Mangum of N. C., Merrick of Md., Preston of S. C., Rives of Va., Sevier of Ark., Smith of Conn., Tappan of O., Walker of Miss., Woodbury of N. H., Yoong of I!. 23. 31. Entitled ” An act reducing the duty on imports, and for other purposes.” For the first time, the rates of duty are exclusively ad valorem, and arranged by schedules; paying from 5 to 100 per centum. It was approved on the 30th July, 1846. The vote in the Itou,.e of Representatives, 32. Entitled ” An act reducing t ducty on imports, and for other purposes.” This act is exclusively ad valorem, payingr from 4 tc 30 per centurn, and a reduction 640 The vote in the Senate was yeas 24, nays

Page 641 view page image

TARIFFS.-TEMPORAL ALLEGIANCE DUE THE POPE. 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 Ihouse 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. YEAS. tessrs. Aik-en, AUen, Barclay, Hendley S. Bennett, Benson. Bishop. Bocock, Bowie, Br-anch, Buffinton, Burlingalle, Brnett, Cidwalader, Lewis D. Campbell, CARLILE, t ~t.ie.

Chaffce. Ezra Clarke. Clingman, Villiam4sonr R. TV (sbhb. Comtins, Craige.

Crawvf,*d, Damrell, Davidson, IIENRY WVI,NTER DAVIS. Timothy Davis, Day, Dean, Denver, De Witt, Dickson, Do.dell. Elmunds,,n. Elliott,.English, ETHERIDGE, EU;iTIS. EvN.i N. lulkanzer, Flagler, Florence, FOSTER, Thomas J. D. Fuller, GPrnett o, G Pre, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, J. otrnISO5
lIRP.1. SampsOn W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, IJAVFE. H ert. Thomas It.

Horto n, Valent ine B. Horton, IIoust JrtAlon. Jel. Gre W. Jones, Keitt, Kdly, Kidwel, Knapp, Knowlton, L.AKE. lktcher, Lztmp/kin, Mace, ALEX.KNDER

K. IARSHALL.,ntuel S. urshall, Mawell, McMullin, McQueen., Killian M,li ler, Smith Mfiller, Jlilison. Morrison, Nlott, Murray, Nichols, Orr, Peck, Peltona, Perry, Pike, Powell, PURYEAr., Qnitown, RAx DY, R uffin. Rust, SaTe, Sandidge, Savage, ,ward, Shorter, Samuel A. Smith, If eliam Smith, WILLIAM R. S-.ITH. Spinner. Stewart, Stranahan, Talbott, Tappan, Taylor, Th urston, Trafton, UNDERWOOD, Vail,VALK,Wakeman. TVtalh’er, l,rael W’ashburne. W,elch,I, }/s, Wheeler, WHITNEY, tVilliims, IVins,,w. Wood.

Woodraff, Daniel B. }Fright, John V. Wright, ZOLI.ICOFFER.-123.

NAYs.-Messrs. AKERS, Albright, Allison. Ball, Barbour, Hlenry Bennett, Billinghurst, Bingham, Bliss, Bradshaw, Brenton, BROo0, James II.

Campbell, Caruthers, Colfax, Covode, Cra,in, CULLEN, Cumback, Dodd, DuN.N’. Durfee, Edie, ]I.X EVY M. FULLER, Galloway, Granger, Harlan, HARRISON, lIodg,s, IIolloway, Howard, Kelsey, KFNNETT, King, Knight, Knox, Kunkel, Leiter, HUMPHREY MARSHALL, McCarty, Mill. war-d, MNoo)RE, Morgan, Morrill, NortoD, Andrew Oliver, I’acA-er, lPl rker, Pennington, Pettit, Pringle, Purviance, ICA,UD, 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. subjects fro m their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever? 3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the t ol 12 y 7 C atholic f aith 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 publi c or a private nature? After an introduction, according to the usual forms, the Sacre d Faculty of Divi n ity of Paris answer the first query by declaring: Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, nor any bodv 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 preeminence by Divine insti tution inherent In, or granted, or by any other means bel o nging t o 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 answyer of the first immediately and naturally applied to the second, &c. Answer to the Third Query.-There is no tenet in the Catholic Church by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or those who differ from them in matters of religion. The tenet, that it is lawful to break faith with heretics, is so repugnant 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 adversaries 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. YEAS. Nessrs. AD.‘M8, BELL of Tenn., Benjamin, Biggs, BigleE-, Butler, Clay, Douglas, Etans, Fish, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Foster, Green,.

Gwin. IIousToN, Hunter, Johnson, Mfallory, Magon, Nourse, Pugh, Reid, Rusk. Sebastian, Seward, Stuart, Tbombs. Toucey, Trumbull, WVeller, Wilson, Yulee.-33. NAYS. Messrs. Allen, Brodhead, Collamer, Foot, Geyer, James, Wade, }Vrght. r. Temporal Allegiance due the Pope. EXTRACTS from the declarations and testimonies of six of the principal universities of Europe, on the three following propositions, sul mitted to them, at the request of Mr. Pitt, by tihe Catholics of London, in 1789: T1lE

PROPOSITIONS. 1. tIas the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of lI’Baie, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence whatsoever, within the realm of England? 2.

Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Romue, absolve or dispense with his Majesty’s 41 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 Cardinals, or the church herself, and, consequently, th at kings and so vereigns 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. I 641

Page 642 view page image

TRE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOIL promises, is the same, and is neither shaken IToe r diminished, if those with whom the engagement is made, hold erroneous opinions in matters of religion, &c. Signed in due form, on the 18th of Nuvem ber, 1788. 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 contrary, it is the unanimous doctrine of Catholics, 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 o f Alcala.-To the firs t question, i t is answere d: That none of the persons mentioned in the proposed question, either individuallv or collectively, in c ounsel ass embled, have any right in civil matters; but that all civil power, jurisdiction, and preeminence, 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 manner: That none of the persons above mentioned 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 heretics, or with allv other persons who dissent from there in matters of religion, instead of being all article of Catholic faith, is entirely repugnant to its tenets. Signed in the usual form, MNarch 17, 1789. UIn,versity of tuvain.-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 kingdom that glories in the talents and discernment of its natives. The Faculty being assembled 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 Widrin agton, 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 sovereign and the people; still less can they absolve or free the subjects from their oath of allegiance. Proceeding to the third question, the said Faculty of Divinity (in perfect wonder that tuch a question should be proposed to her) *iost positively and unequivocally answers: ‘hat there is not, and there never has been, among the Catholics, or in the doctrines of the Church of Rome, any law or principle wtich makes it lawful for Catholics to break their faith with heretics, or others of a different 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 Utiversity of Salamaazca.-To the first question, it is answered: That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor any assembly or individual of the Catholic Church, h ave, as such, any civil authority o e, power, juri sdiction, o r preeminence in the kingdom of England. To the second, it is answered: That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor any assembly or individual 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 wi th heretics, or with persons of any other description, who dissent from them in matters of religion. Signed in the usual form, March 7, 1789.

Zraiversity of Valadolid.-To the first question, it is answered: That neither Pope, Cardinals, or even a general council, have any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence, directly or indirectly, in the kingdo m of Great Britain, or over any o ther kingdom or province in which they possess no temporal dominion. To the second, it is answered: That neither Pope nor Cardinals, nor even a general council, can absolve the sublects of Great Britain fiom their oaths of allegiance or dispense with their obligation. To the third, it is answered: That the obligation of keeping faith is grounded on the law of nature, which binds all men equally, without respect to their religious opinions; and with regard to Catholics, it is still more cogent. 642

Page 643 view page image

TEMPORAL ALLEGIANCE DUE TIHE POPE. being directed by these precepts, the most re nowned champions of the Christian nanie replied to the Gentiles, when raging against thenm, as enemies of the empire, with furious hatred: we are constantly praying (Tertulliani in Apologet. chap. xxx.) that all the emperors may enjoy long life, quiet governlment, a loyal household, a brave army, a faithful senate, an honest people, and general tranquillity.

The bishops of Rome, successors of Peter, havp 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 atd 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 l)elhave oil all occasions with integrity and decorum, andi thus become good mod(lels to others; and par ticularly that they be always ready to cele brate the sacred offices, to comnmunicate proper instructions to the people, and to comfort the sick with their assistance; that they, by all means, avoid public assemblies of idle meni 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 hasv( 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, wMlien most flourishing provinces, inhabited almost e-py persons separated from the Catholic Church, had renounced the government of the king of Great Britain, the Province of Canada alone, filled, as it is, almost with innumerable Catli( lies, although artfully tempted, and not yet forgetfutl 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 suffragant 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 people of the Lord, you have nothing in view but the salvation of souls, adversaries will be ashamed ” The Roman Catholic Archbishops of Ire land, at their meeting in Duiblin, in 1791, ag(dre ssed a lett er to the Pope, wherein they described the misprpresentations that had been recently published of their consecration oath, and th e g reat inj ury to t he Ca tholic body arising from them. k * “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 p~ublication of a pamphlet entitled’ The Pre sent State of the Church of Ireland,’ fiom 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 excellent 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 accurate 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 infant church, blessed Peter, prince of the apostles. 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 ignorance o foolish men. The Catholic Church 643 via it is confirmed by the principles of their religion.

Si,,ned in the usual form, February 17, 1789. I

Page 644 view page image

T[IE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. declare that we do not believe that either ils Pope, with or without the general council, or any prelate or priest, or any ecclesiastical powe r whatsoever, c an absolve the subjects of this kingdom, or ny of the m, from their allegiance to his Majesty King Georg,e III., who is, by autho rity of Parli ament, th e lawful ki ng of this realim. ” 2. We abjure, condemn, and detest as unchristian and impious, the principle that it is lawful to murder, or destroy, or anywise injure any person whatsoever, for or under the pretence of being heretics; and we declare solemnly before God, that we believe no act in itself unjust, immoral, or wicked, can ever be justified 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 ecclesiastical power whatsoever. ” 3. We further declare, that we hold it as unchristian and impious principle, that’no faith is to be kept with heretics.’ This doctrine we detest and reprobate, not only as contrary 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, as 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.” (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. Augi’.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 ” lie-rather let them not hesitate to acknowledge that it is, when practised, of great advantage 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 preserved 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 preserve you safe. Farewell. “As your lordship’s most affectionate brother,. 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 d eposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any other persons. We hold such doctrine in detestation, as wicked and impious; and we Below we give an extract from an address of the Bishops of the Catholic Church rece ntly assembled in council a t Baltimor e: 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 towards 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 servants of God.

Respect and obey the constituted 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 614 “L. CARDINAL ANTONELLI, Prefect. 11 A.

ARCHBISHOP OF ADEN, Secretary. ‘- Rome, Juiae 23, 179 I.”

Page 645 view page image

TEMPORAL ALLEGIANCE DUE THE POPE. fully understand and constantly observe.

You know that we have uniformly taug,ht 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 ecclesiastical 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 communication 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 confidence and esteem of our fellowcitizens. Formidable as is the combination for this purpose, we do not despair that the justice and good sense of the nation will soon discover the 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 bief ore men, that the y ma y se e y our good works and,glorify your Father w h o is in Ideasen. Pray for the conversion and salvation 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 Council at Baltimore, the 13th day of May, in the clear of our Lord 1855. t FRANCIS PATRICK, Archbishop of Baltimore. t RICH. VINCENT, Bishop of Wheeling. t 3IICI.AEL, Bishop of Pittsburgh.

t,Ioi.N, Bishop of Richmond. t JOII-h NEpOmuUCEE, Bishop of Philadelphia.

t JOSUE, Bishop of Erie. JOHN-BERRY, Admn’r of Savannah. P. N. LYNCH, D.

D., Adm’r of Charlestown. Richmond, Va., April 19, 1855. Dear Sir: The letter, which you have addressed to me, contains three questions, to which you ask an answer, with a view to publication. First Question: “Whether the Catholics in Virginia do acknowledge any temporal allegiance 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 naturalized 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 o ther 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 nativeborn citizens would be?”

Answer: To me, the hypothesis of an invasion of our country by the Pope, seems an absurdity; but should he come with armies to establish temporal dominion here, or should any other Catholic power make such an attempt, it is nmy conviction that all Catholic citizens, no matter where born, who enjoy the benefits and franchises of the Constitution, would be conscientiously bound, like nativeborn citizens, to defend the flag, rights and liberties of the republic, and repel such invasion., 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 receiving degrees in theology, may be 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 interpreted 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 Church, whatever some theologians or writers may have said on this point, must, like my answers to your inquiries, be considered as opinions for which the writers theme selves only can be held responsible.

Yours, very truly, &c., J. McGILLs Bishop of Richmond. Richmond, April 18, 1855. Rev. Sir: Ilaving heard and read much declamation against the Catholics, because of the alleged temprporal 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 whether, if this country could be and was assailed or invaded by th e army of the Pope (if he had one), or by any other Catholic power, the Catholic citizens of this countrv, no matter where born, would not be as much bound to defeni(- the flag of America, her rights and liberty, as any nativeborn 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. 645

Page 646 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 Hollanid; 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., Belnton, Blount of N. C., Brent of Va., Bryan of N. C., Cal)ell of Va., Claiborne of Va., Coles of Va., Crabb of Md.

Earle of S. C.. FindIcy of IPa., Franklin of N. C.. Gallatin of Pa., (Giles of V.., Gillespie of N. C.. Greenup of Ky., Grove of N. C., Hampton o f S. C., alancork of Va., Hlarrison of Va., ilathorn of N.Y., HIavens of N.Y., IVeath of Va., Ifeister of Pa., Ilolland of N. C., Jackson of Va., Locke of N. C., Lyman, aMaclay of Pa., Macon of N. C., Madison of Va., MIilledge of Ga., Moore of Va., New of Va., Nicholas of Va.. Preston of V., Rtichlards of Pa., Rutherford of Va., Smith of Vt., Sprig, of Md., Thos. Sprigg. Swanwick of Pa.. Tatam of N. C., Van cortla.,dt of N. Y., Yenable of Va., Winn of S. C.-48. NAYs.-Messrs. Bourne of R. I., Bradbury of Mass., Colt of Conn., Cooper of N.Y., Dent of Md., A. Foster of N. H., D. Foster of Mass., Gilbert of N. Y., Gilman of N. II., GI(ln of N. Y., Goodrich of Conn., Griswold of Conn., lIlrper of S. C., IIinda,-n of Md., Kittera of PIa.. Lynman of Mass., Malbone of It. I., Murray of Md., Sitgreaves of Pa., J. Smith of N. If.. N. Smith of Conn., J. Soith 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.-30. The House then provided that said state (Tennessee) should be entitled to one representative until the next general census. On the 30th of May, 1796, the bill was p a s s ed by the iHouse. A conference was agreed on by the two Itouses, which reported that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the toiuse. 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 constitution formed without the previous authority of Congress assenting to her doing so. Tennessee. THE Act approved May 26, 1790, provided a government for the t erri tory of the United States south of the r iver Ohio, the same as th at for the government of the Northwest Ter ritory, exc ep t so far a s wa s otherwise provided in the conditions expressed in n act of Con gress entitled An act to accept a cession of the r Clitcns of th e state of North Carolina to a cer tilin district of western territory. Amtongst the conditions referred to above, ,Wontained in the act of April 2, 1790, em slraced in the de ed of ce ssion from North Carolina to the United States, was the follow ing: ” Provided, that no regulations made or to “Te made bv CJngress, shall te nd to emanci pate slaves.’ On the 8th of Ap ril, 1796, Pr esident yWash ingiton communicated to Congress that, amongst the privileges, benefits, n and advantages secured to the inhabitants of the territory south of the Ohio, by the act of May 26, 1790, ap peared to be the r ight of forming a permanent constitu tional a nd state government, and of admission -s a state, &c.;, that Governor Blount had transmitted pro of s of the seve ral requisites to e. ntitle the territory south of the Ohio to such admission, which, with the constitution there of, a nd f orm of go vern ment o n which they have a-reed, &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 thle United States, and providing for the enu eration of the i nhabi tants the reof. This in struction was in pu rsuance of the r epor t of the committee to whom was ref erred P resident WVashington’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 ceded 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 persons) could claim to be admitted as a new state into the Union.” The bill reported from the comnmittee being before the Senate on the 26th of May, 1796, it was passed by yeas and nays as follows: YF.As. Messrs. Bingham of lPa., Bradford of R. I., Brown (,f Ky.. Foster of R. I., Gunn of Ga., Latimer of Del., Martin of N.

C., Potts of M,d., Read of S. C., Ross of lPa., Rutherfo,rd of N. J., Strong of Mass., Tatnall of Ga., Tazewell of Va., Trumbull of Conn.-15.

N\AYS Messrs. Bloodworth of N. (.* Burr of N. Y., Butler of S. C.. Ilenry of Mld., Langdon of N. It., Livermore of N. 11.. Marshall of Ky., Robinson of Vt. 8. ()n the 28th of May, 1796, Mr. Giles, in the Itouse of Representativ~es, made a report frown the co)mmlittee to whom was referred the bill hrom the Senate, recommending a change in the principles of the Senate b.ill. The report contended that the proceedings of these people had been 80 f’~r regular as to authorize. 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., }iagby of Ala.. Breese of Ill., Buchanan of Pa., Colquitt of Ga., Fulton of Ark., Ilay wood of N. C., Htenderson of 5isa., Hluger of S. C., Lewi.s of Ala., McDuffie of S.‘C., Scrumple of Miss., Sevier of Ark., Sturgeon of Pa., Walker of Miss.. Woodbury of N. H.-16. NAYs.-Mes srs.

Allen of O., Archer of Va.. Atherton of N. It., Barrow of La., Bates of Mass., Bayard of Del. Benton of Mo., Berrien of Ga., Choate of Malss., T.

Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky., Dayton of N. J., Evans of Me., Fairfield of Me., Fost,-r of Tenn., Franc,-i.s of It. I.. Itunting,ton of Con,., Jaruagin of Tenn., Johnson of Md., Mangunm of N. C., Merrick of Md., Miller of N. J., Morebead of Ky., Niles of Conn.. IPeare e of Md..

Ihelps of Vt., Porter of Micb., Rives of Va.. Sim.mons of R. I.. Talimadge of N.Y., Talpan of 0., Upham. of Vt., IdWhite of lnd., WVoodbridge of Mlich., Wright of N. Y.-35. 646 Texas. ANNEXATIO.-,- OF. In the Ilouse of Representati,%-,,i, 12th of Dec., 1844, Mr. C. J. Ingersoll of Pa., from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported joint resolutions for the annexati,)D of Texas.

Page 647 view page image

TEXAS. - the proposition of Mr. Brown as modified by Mr. Douglas, it was agreed to by yeas and ,na ys as follows: YEAs.-Messrs. Arrington of N. C..

Ashe of Tenn., Atkinson L of la., Bayly of Va., Belser of Ala., Bidlack of Pa., E. J. Black of Ga., James Black of Pa., Jas. A. Black of S.C., Blackw,ll of Tenn., Bower of Mo., Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Brold head of Pa.. A. V. Brown of Tenn., M. Brown of Teln.. Wm. J. Brown of Ind., Burke of N.H., Burt of S.C., Caldwell of Ky.. Campbell of S.C., Shepherd Cary of Me., R. Chapman of Al&., Chapman of Va., Chappell of Ga., Clinch of Ga., Clinton of N.Y., Coblb of Ga., Coles of Va., Cross of Ark., Cullom of Tenn.. Daniel of N. C., J. W. Davis of Ind., Dawson of La., Dean of 0., Dellet of Ala., Douglas of Ill., Drongoole of Ta.. Dunca n of 0., Ellis of N.Y., Farlee of N. J.. Ficklin of lll., Foster of Pa., French of Ky., Fuller of Pa.. Ha.mmett of Dliss.. Itaralsog of Ga., Hays of Pa., Hlenly of Ind., Holmes of S. C., Ioge of Ill., Hopkins of Va., Houston of Ala..

Iltubard of V a., Hubbell of N.Y., Hughes of Mo., Chas. J. Ingersoll of la., 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.. Luacas of Va.. Lumnipkin of Ga., Lyon of Mich., Maclay h fM, N. Y., tIcClernand of Ill., McConnell of Ala., McDowell of O., McKay of N. C., Mathews of 0., Morse of La., Murphy of N.

Y.. NeU aton of Va., Norris of N. H., Owen of Ind., Psr mnen ter of Mass..

Payne of Ala., Pettit of Ind., Peyton ofTenii.. E. D. Potter of Conn., Pratt of N.Y., D. S. Reid of N. C., Relfe of Mo.. Rhett of S. C., Ritter of Pa., Roberts of Miss., Rus 11ll of N. Y., Saunders of N. C., Senter of Tenn., Thomas I. Seymour of Conn., Simons of Conn., Simpson of S.C., Slidell of La., John T. Smith of Pa., Thomnas Smith of Ind., Robert Smith of Ill., Steenrod of Va., Stephens of Ga., Jno. Stewart of Conn., Stiles of Ga., Jas. W. Stone of Ky., Alfred P. Stone of O., 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 Ill., Woodward of S.C., Jos. A.

Wright of Ind., Yancey of Ala., Yost of Pa.-118. NAds.-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 It. I., Dana of N. Y., Darragh of Pa., G. Davis of Ky., Rt. D. Davis of N. Y., Deberry of N. C., Dickey of Pa., Dillingham of Vt., Dunlap of Me., Elmer of N. J., Fish 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., litale of N.

If.. ti. HIamlin of Me., E. S. Ilamlin of 0.. Ilardin of 1l., Harper of 0., Herrick of Me.. Hudson of Mass. Wash. If unt of N. Y., Jas. B. Ilunt of Mich., Jos. R. Ingersoll of Va., Irvin of Pa., Jenks of Pa.. P. B.

Johnson of 0., J. P. Kennedy of Md., P. Kin-, of N. Y., D. P. King of Ma,.s&s., MIcCauslen of 0., McClelland of Mich., MoIllvaine of l’a.. Marsh of Vt., Edw. J. Morris of Pa., Jos. Morris of 0., F. I{. Morse of Me., Mo.ely 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., Purely of N. Y., Ramsey of Pa., Rathbun of N. Y., Rsynor of N. C., Redding of N. II., Robinson of N.

Y., Rockwell of Ma.s., Rodney of DelI., Rogers of N.Y.. St. John of 0., Sample of Ind., Schenck of O, Severance of Me.. David L. Seymonur 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., Vanee of 0., Van Metre of 0., Vinton of 0., Wethered of Md., Wheaton of Mas,., John White of Ky., White of Me., Williams of Mass., Winthrop of Mass., Wm. Wright of N. Y. -101. nlessrs. Weller of Ohio, Dougl as of Ill., TibI,atts of Ky., Belser of Ala., Milton Brown of Tenn., Dromgoole of Va., McDowell of Ohio, Burke of N. II., Preston King of N. Y., and Rtobinson of N. Y., respectively introduced bills Ior the annexation of Texas. The reso’utions reported by Mr. Ingersoll, and those iittroduced by Messrs. Weller, Belser, as also the bills of Messrs.

Dromgoole and McDowell, were silent on the subject of the Missouri compromise and slavery. ‘%r. Tibbatts’ bill contained a prohibition of slavery north of 36~ 30’. Mr. Douglas’s resolutions embraced the followilg 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 t’th 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 propositi ons of Messrs. Brown and Burke contained th e followi ng provision s respectively: ” And such s tates 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 admitt ed into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each stat e a sking 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 provision ceding to the United States the jurisdiction of the residue of the ter r itory of Texas, in which slavery shall not exist, unless Congress shall hereafter so determine by law; and this act of admission shall not be construed to imply anly assumption of, or intention on, the part of the United States… to impair the right of said state to the soil, &c… s)r the right of the state of Texas to determine whether slavery shall or shall not exist in said state.” The vote on the passage of the resolution w as the same as the above vote on the amendme nt, with the exception that Messrs. MoCauslen and Morris of Ohio, who voted against the amendment, voted for the resolution, and Mr.

Spence of Md., who 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. On the 28th of January, 1845, Mr. M. Brown of Tenn.

moved his resolutions, containing the provision b ef or e referred to, as an amendmient. Mr. Douglas of Ill. asked the gentleman to acept the f ollowing as a modification of his amendment, to come in after the last c lause: ” And in such states as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude except for crime shall be prohibited.” Ir. 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 amendment of the Committee of the Whole, being In the Senate, Feb. 27, 1845. The resolutions from the tlouse, providing for the annexation of Texas, being before the body, Mr. MiWalker of Miss. offered as an amendment to( the same sec. 3 of the resolution, as hereinafter published in the form in which they became a law. I 0 1 1 1 00 0 0 t I a 64‘2

Page 648 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. 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 Congres s for its fina l a ction, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hun d r ed an d fortysix. Secofid. Said state, when admitted into the Uni on, after ceding to the UnHited States a.ll pub lic edifices, fortifications, bar ra cks, ports and harl)ors, navy and navy yards o s, doHks, magazines, arms, aruaments, and all other property and means pertain ing to the public defoince belonging to said repiub lic of Texas, shall ret ain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owins2 said re pul)lic; and chall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying with in it s limits, to be applied to the p aymen t of the debts and li abilities of said republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discha.rg - ing said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said state may d irect; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become io a ocharge upon the Governmient of the United States. M khirid. New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addi t ion to s aid state o f Texas, and habving suffi cient popy lation may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be fornne(n o ut of the terri tory t hereof, which shall be entit led to admission und er the provisi on s o f th e Fed eral Constitu tion. And such states as ccay be formed out of that portio of f said territory lying south of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes north lati tude, commonly known as the Missouri com promise line, shall be admitted into the Unio n with or without slaver y, as the p eople o f ea ch state as king admission may desire. And in such state or states as shall be formed out of said territory nor th of said Missouri compro ais e line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime), shall be prohibited.

3. And be it further resolved, That if the A President of the Uniited States shall in his judgment abd discretion s deem it most adisable, instea d qf proceeding to submit the tbregoinmg resolutiona to the republic o f Te xas, as ate overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate witlh that repvublic; then, Be it resolved, Thlat a state to be formned out of the present repitblic of Texas with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives it Congress, entil the next apportio,nment of representation, shall be admitted into the Untion, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing states, as soon as t/l,!erms and conditions of stich admission, and the cession of the remali.ing Texan territory to tlie Unrated Sitates shzall be agreed capon by the gqua ernments of Texas and the U~nited States: Anld that the stun of one hundred thosan~d dollars be and the same is hereby appropriated to deJray the expenses of missions anzd negotiations, to agree uponI the tarm* of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to lbe submitted to tile two Mr. Foster of Tenn. offered the following as an amendment to the amendment of Mr. Valker: 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 present territory of Texas lying south of 361 30’

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 so hereafter asking admission may desire. Msr. Foster’s amendment was rejected by yeas and nays as follows: YF.AS. Messrs. Archer of Va., Bayard of Del., Barrow of La.. Berrien of Ga., Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky., Fols ter of Tenn., Ilanneg,an of Ind., Huger of S. C.. Jarnagin of Tenn.. Johnson of Md., Mangum of N. C., Merrick of Md., Morehead of Ky., Pearce of Md., Phelps of Vt., Rives of Va., Sevier of Ark.-18. NAYs.

lessrs. Allen of 0., Ashley of Ark., Atchison of ilo., Ather ton of N.

H., B D sby n of Ala., Bates of ass.. Be - Lwn of’lo.. Breese of I!1., Buc eanan of Pa., Ch oate of cIass.. Colqnnitt of Ga., Dayto n of N. J., Dickins on of N.Y., Dix of N. Y., Evans of Me., Fairfield of Me., Fra ncis of R. I.. Ilay wood of N. C., Henderson of Miss., Huntingto n of Conn., aewis of Ala., MeDuffie of S. C., Miller of N. J., Niles of C onn., P
orter of Mich., Semupl e of Miss.. Sturgeon of Pa.. Tappa n of 0., Upham of Vt., Walker of Miss.. W hite of Ind.. Woodbridge o f Mic h., Woodbury of VN. I o.-33. T he am endmen t of Mr. Walk er was then agreed to by a vote of yeas 27, nays 25; aind the resolutions of the House, as amended, were passemed. T he yeas and nays, on the third reading, were as follows: YgAs. Me ssrs. Allen o hey of 0., Ashley of Ark., Atchison of ad Athert on of N. H., Bagby o f Ale., Bento o f to fMo., Breese of Ill.. Buclhanan of Pa., Colquitt of Ga., Dickinson of N. Y., Dix of N. Y.. Fairfield of Me., Ilannegan of and., tHaywood o f N. C., ilenderson oft Miss., liter of S. C.. Joh.dsou of Md.. Lewis of Ala., MeDuffie of S. C., Merrick of Mld., Niles of C onn., Semple of Miss.. Sevier of Ark., Sturgeon of Pa., Tappante, towt is. db ry of., alker of Miss., oodbury of N. I.-27. NAYS.

Iessrs. Archer of Ya., Barrow of LA., Bates of Mass., Bayard of Del, Berrien of Ga., Choate of Mass., Clay tou of Deb., Crittenden of Kentucky, Dayton of N. J., Evans of Me., Foster of Tenn., Francis of f. I., Huntingtoni of Conn,., Jarnagin of Tenn., Mangum of N. C.. Miller of N.

J.,.lore headl of Ky.. Pearce of.4d., Phelps of Vt., Porter of MNich., Rives of Va., Simmons of R. I, Upbam 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 resolutions became a law in the following shape: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Cong,ress assembled, That Congress doth consent 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 people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admliitted as one of the states of this Union.

2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing, 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 government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and the i 648

Page 649 view page image

TEXAS -THOMPSON’S CLAIM. Honuses of Congress, as the President may dirc?t., B Approved March 1, 1845 YEAS. Messrs. Allen of 0., Archer of Va., Ashley of Ark., Atchison of Mo., Atherton of N. lI., Bagby of Ala., Barrow of La., Benitoll of Mo., Berrien of Ga., Brease of Ill., Calhoun of S.M C as1 of Mich., Chalmers of Miss,., Colquitt of Ga., Dickinson and Dix of N.Y., Fairfield of Me., liannegan of Ind., Haywood of N. C., Jenness of N. H., Johnson of La., Levy of Fla., Lewis of Ala., Mit,gum of N. C., Niles of Conn., Pennybacker of Va.. Sevier of Ark., Speight of Miss., Sturgeon of la., Turney of Tenn., Westott of Fla.-31. NAYS.-PMessrs. T.

Clayton of Del.. J. M. Clayton of Del., Corwin of 0., Davis of Mass., Dayton of N. J., Evans of Me., Greene of R. I., Ituntington of Conn., Miller of N. J., Phelps of Vt., Simmons of R. I., Upham:f Vt., Webster of Mass., Woodbridge of Mich.-14. So Texas was admitted into the Union. On the 26th of March, 1846, the IHon. Thomas J. Rusk took his sea t i n the Senate as a Senator from Texas, and on the 30th of March his colleague, the Hon. Samuel Houston, took his seat. On the 1st of June Mr. David S.

Kaufman, member elect from the state of Texas, took his seat in the Ilouse, and on the 10th of June his colleague, Mr. Timothy Pillsbury, also took his seat. President Tyler, in pursuance of the d:scre 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 Hlouse of tep)resentatives 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: YFs,S. Messrs. Adams of Miss., Anderson of N. Y., Atkinson of Va., Baker of Ill., Barringer of N. C., Bayly and Bledinger of Va.. Biggs of N. C., Black of Pa., Black of S.C., Blowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Brinkerhoff of 0., Blrodhead of Pa., Mlilton Brown of Tenn.. Brown of Va., Burt of S. C.. Cabell of Fla., Campbell of Pa., Cathcart of Ind., Chapman of Va., Chapman of Ala., Chase of Tenn.. Chipman of Mich., Clarke of N. C., Cobb of Ga., Cocke of Tenn., Colin of N. Y., Constable of Md., Crozier of Tenn., Cullom of Tenn., Cummins of 0., Cunningham of O., Daniel of N. C., Davis of Mliss., D e Mott of N. Y., Dillingham of Vt., Dobbin and Dockery of N. C., Douglas of Ill., Dromgoole of Va., Dunlap of Me., Elllsworth of Ind., Erdman of Pa., Faran of O., Ficklin of Ill., Foster of Pa Fries o f O., 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., Ilaralson of Ga., Ileiley of Ind., IIilliard of Ala., IIoge of ll., lHopkins of Va., iouprh of N. Y., Houston of Ala., Hulmard of Va., Ilungerford of N. Y.. Inunt of Mich., Hunter of V.., Ingersoll of Pa., Jenkins of: Y., Johnson of N. It., Johsoa 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., MeClelland of Mich., McCleonand of Ill., McConnell of Ala., Mcrate of Me., McDowell of Va., McHenry 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., Oweni of Ind., Parish of O., Payne of Ala., Pendleton of V a., Perrill of 0., Perry of Md., Pettit of Inl., Price of Mo., Rathbun 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., Simms of Mo., Simpson of S.C., Smith of Ind., Smith of Ill1., Stanton of Tenn., Stephens of Ga., St. John of 0., Strong of N.Y., Sykes of N. J., Thibodeaux of La., Thomasson of Ky., Thompson of Pa., Thompson of Miss, Thuirman of O., Tibbatts of Ky., Toombs of Ga., Treadway of Va., Trumbo of Ky., Wentworth of Ill., Williams of Me., Wick of Ind., Wilmot of Pa., Woodward of S.C., Woodworth of N.Y., Yancey of Ala., Yell of Ark., Young of Ky. -141. N.Ys.-CMesusrs. Abbott of M ass., Ashmun of Mass., Adams of Mass., Arnold of R. I., Blanchard of Pa., Buffington of Pa., Campbell of N.Y., Chapman of Md., Collamer of Vt., Cranston of t. I.. Culver of N.Y., Darragh of Pa., Delan o of 0., Dixon of Conn., Ew ing of Pa., Foot of Vt., Giddings of O., Grinnell o f Mass., H
amp ton of N. J., Harper of O., Iherrick of N. Y., Holmes of N. Y., Hous ton of Del., Hu bbard of Conn., HudPon of Mass., Hunt of N. Y., J. R.

Ingersoll of Pa., King of Mblss., King of N. Y., Lewis of N. Y., Levin of Pa., McGaughey of Ind., MeIlvaine of Pa., Marsh of Vt., Miller of N. Y., Pollock of Pa., Ramsey of Pa., Rockwell of Conn., Rockwell of Mass., Root of O., Runk of N. J.. Schenck of O., 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 O., Vance of O., Vinton of O., Wheaton of N. Y., White ofN. Y., U’inthrop of Mass., Wood of N. Y., Woodruff of N.

Y.-57. The resolution of the House was passed in the Senate on the 22d of December, 1845, fly yeas and nays as follows:  Thompsoni’s Claim. OPINION

OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL BLACK TIIEREON. Att. Gen. Office, March 24, 1857. Sir: I ha ve received your lette r r elative to the claim of R. W. Thompson, t ogether wittr 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 Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, passed a nd app roved o n the d o of March, 1855, it is enacted that the Secr etary of the Treasury shall pay to R. W. Thompson, out o f any mone y in the Treasury not other wise a ppropriat ed, onehalf of the amo unt stipulated for between him and the Ienoinonee I ndi ans, in a memorial and an agreement, which are specified and described in the act. I have given, not the wdo rds, but the sub stance of the act. It is so unambiguous, simple, and plain, that no man can misunderstand Ft. 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 difficulty in the way of rendering obedience to it. What 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 memorial 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 repeat, 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 changing its effect had been agreed to by both I 649 JoiiN TYLF,]R, President.

Page 650 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. as follows: “Provided, That the same l)e paid with the consent of the Menomonees.” If this had actually been part of the law it wonll have made his right to the money conditional. Hle would in that case h:tve been obliged to get from the Indians a new assent in addition to that which they had previously given in their memorial and agreement. But this lro viso being omitted, his right to the money was absolute. I need iu(t say that such an omit sion cannot be supplied by construction, nor do I see how the omnitted 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 onmitted, 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 suspended by the President until Congress could be consulted on it. I do not presume to discuss 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 thiree sessions since that time, and the law stands yet unchanged in every letter. The lower IIouse 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 WI. Thomipson was entitled to be paid the sum appropriated 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 Ihouse for three whole sessions, any postponement can hardly he thought necessary for the purpose of consulting Congress. Tile question must now be lbetween obedience and disobedience to the admitted wills of the national legislature. After payment to Mr. Thompson had been refused at the Treasury, an agent was appointed to take the sense of the Menomonees, and ascertain whether they would assent or not to the payment of his claim under the lair. The agent reported their refusal to assent, andl Mr. Thompson complained that they weire prevented from giving their assent by the improper 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 certain sum out of funds in their oven treasury, which they had a right to appropriate to that object. From this determin atio n of Congress no appeal lay to the Menomonee Indians. The payment of the money was not made dependent on any future expression of their will lIouses, but left out of the enrolled bill. What evidence this assertion was supported by I know not. I take it for gr anted that it must havse been str ong, s ince it w as sufficient to convince the judgment of you r predecessor and mine. You have not made the evi dence o n tha t point a part of the present case, and, for reasons which will be apparent hereafter, I haie not so ught it out. W e cannot go be hind the written law itself for the purpose of scertaining what the law is. An act of Con gress examined and compared by the proper (,fficers, approved by the President, and en rolle d in the Department of State, can not aft erw ard b e impugned by evi dence t o 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 superiior authenticity. It certainly has happened rery 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 at 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 nassed 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 twothirds. This is not all. If the law may be changed by reference to the journals, any other evidence, written 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 afterward 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 judiciary? 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 ministerial officer wanting those aids for the investigation of truth woo d often be obliged to decide at random. W e must take the acts of Congress as we find ~hem, without addition or diminution. This cule is so obviously necessary that no other has ever been seriously proposed. The clause which it is said Congress intended to insert, but did not, in the bill authorizing the payment to Sir. Thompson, is 650

Page 651 view page image

THOMPSON’S CLAIM.-TONNAGE DUTIES. Their refusal to sanction the law could not re-I else by proof that it is already paid, with theli peal it, or in anywise diminish the obllig,ation consent, to an individual who is their just the executive to carry it out. When Congress I creditor. The act of Congress awarding pay c )innlands a thing, to be done, and the Meno-ment to MIr. Thompson, and ordering the de nionee Indians forbid it to be done, it is not duction from the Indians, will not conclude very difficult to decide where obedience is them on the question of fact whether they did due by an officer of the United States gov-assent or not. But that is no reason why Mr. crnmeiit. To follow the act of Congress, and Thomnpson, who has the act of Congress in his lnot the decision of the Indians, would )be a favor, should not receive what it gives him. t,olerably plain duty in any case, but here it is Not seeing any reason for resisting the will rendered plaincr still by the consideration that of Congress, as expressed in this law, I can it is a disputed and doubtful question of fact only conclude by advising your literal obediwhether the unbiassed opinion of the Indians ence to its provisions. That course is always is opposed to the law or not? the safest. But MIr. Thompson agreed to take the sense I anm, most respectfully, yours, &c., of the Indians, and to that end assented that J. S. BLACK. an agent should be appointed. Did this bind The lion. Ilowell Cobb, him to stand or fall by the agent’s report? If Secretary of the Treasury. hlie had an absolute right under the law to be paid, I cannot say that I think lhe forfeited that Tonnage Duties to make River and Harright by an abortive attempt to comply with bor Improvements.

a condition which the law did not impose on him. Ile made a voluntary effort to strengthen LETTER OF SENATOR DOUGLAS ThEREON. hliiself with the Treasury Department l)y Washington, January 2, 1854. doing what he could not legally have been re-SIR: I learn from the public press that you quired to do. This does not prevent him from have under consideration the proposition to ftlling back on the naked law, and standing convene the legislature in special session. In there in defence of the rights which it gives the event such a step shall be demanded b)y him. the public voice and necessities, I desire to in These, I presume, are all the facts and cir-vrite your attention to a sul)ject of great ineumstances to which you refer as having terest to our people, which may require legistranspired since the passage of the acts. lative action. I refer to the establishment of T”here is but one point more to be noticed. some efficient and permanent system for river That is raised by your inquiry “Whether the and harbor inmprovements. Those portions provision authlorizig, the payment of Mr. of the Union most deeply interested in internal Thomipson is rendered nugatory by the subse-navigation naturally feel that their interests (tienet provision requiriing that amount to be have been neglected, if not paralyzed, by an deducted from the future payments to the uncertain, vacillating, and partial policy. Meinomonee Indians?” Those who reside upon the banks of the Mis Congress has no authority to abrogate a sissippi, or oni the shores of the great northern treaty made by the executive, any more than lakes, and whose lives and property are frethe executive has to abrogate a law passed by quently exposed to the mercy of the elements Congress. But it is not to be presumed that for want of harbors of refuge and means of such was the intent of the act under consider-safety, have never been able to comprehend ationl; Congress took the responsibility of pay-the force of that distinction between fresh and ing a debt due from the Indians to Mr. Thomp-salt water, which affirms the power and duty son out of the United States Treasury. Their of Congress, under the Constitution, to propower to do this cannot be denied, and Mr. vide security to navigation so far as the tilde Thoimpson has no interest in any other part of e)bbs and flows, and denies the existence of the the law. The other provision for deducting the right beyond the tidal mark. Our lawyers amount from the future annuities to become may have read in English books that, by the due under the treaty was inserted, no doubt, common law, all waters were deemed navigaupon satisfactory evidence that the Indians ble so far as the tide extended and no further; were agreed to it. We cannot act now upon the but they should also have learned from the assumption that they will resist the deduction same authority that the law was founded upon when the proper time comes for making it. reason, and where the reason failed the rule But if we know that such would certainly be ceased to exist. In England, where they have the fact, Mr. Thompson’s rights could not be neither lake nor river, nor other /water which affected by it. Congress has chosen to say is, in fact, navigable, except where the tide that he shall be paid at all events, and has rolls its briny wave, it was natural that the taken upon the government all the risk (if law shoull conform to the fact, and establish there be any) of getting a deduction from the that as a rule which the experience of all men Indians. proved to be founded in truth and reason. But The United States have bound themselves it may well be questioned whether, if the comby treaty with the Menomonees to pay them nion law had originated on the shores of Lake certain sums of money. At the stipulated Michigan-a vast inland sea with an average times we must meet this responsibility either depth of six hundred feet-it would have been by payment of the money to the Indians, or deemed “not navigable,” merely because the 651

Page 652 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tide did not flow, and the water was fresh and sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the local well adapted to the uses and necessities of man. interests and influences in a majority of the A e therefore feel authorized to repudiate, as Congression.al districts of the Union. A legisunieasoiak)le and unjust, all injurious discri lative omnibus was formed, in which all sorts minatioiis, predicated upon salt water and tidal of works were crowded together, good and bad, argument>, and to insist that if the power of wise and foolish, national and local, all craniCong,ress to protect navigation has any exist-med into one bill, and forced through Congress ence in the Constitution, it reaches every por-by the power of an organized majority, aftert tion of this Union where the water is in fact the fearful and exhausting struggle of a night navigable, and only ceases where the fact fails session. The bill would receive the votes o’f L to exist. This power has been affirmed in majority in each house, not because any one some form and exercised to a greater or less Senator or Representative approved all the extent by each successive Congress, and every items contained in it, but for the reason that administration since the adoption of the Fede-humanity, as well as the stern demands of ani ral Constitution. All acts of Congress pro-injured and suffering constituency, required viding, for the erection of lighthouses, the that they should make every needful sacrifice planting of buoys, the construction of piers, of money to diminish the terrible loss of hlithe removal of snags, the dredging of channels, man life by the perils of navigation. The the inspection of steamboat boilers, the carry-result was a simple reenactment of the former ing of life boats, in short, all enactments for scenes. Machinery, implements, and matethe security of navigation and the safety of rials purchased, the works reconimienced-the life and property within our navigal)le waters, money exhausted-subsequent appropriations assert the existence of this power and the pro-withheld-and the operations suspended, withpriety of its exercise in some form. out conmpleting the improvements, or conitribiiu The great and growing interest of navigating materially to the safety of navigation. Intion is too important to be overlooked or dis-deed, it may be well questioned whether, as,I regarded. Mere negative action will not an-general rule, the money has been wisely and swer. The irregular and vacillating policy, economically applied, and in tnany cases which has marked our legislation upon this whether the expenditure has been productive subject, is ruinous. Whenever appropriations of any useful results, l)eyond the mere distrihave been proposed for river and harbor im-butioli of so much money among contractors, provements, and especially on the northern laborers, and superintendents in the favored lakes and the western rivers, there has usually localities; and in others, whether it has not been a death struggle, and a doubtful issue. been of positive detriment to the navigating We have generally succeeded with an appro-interest. priation once in four or five years; in other Far be it from my purpose to call in queswords, we have, upon an average, been beaten tion the integrity, science, or skill of those about four times out of five in one IIouse of whose professional duty it was to devise the Congress or the other, or both, or by the pre-plan and superintend the construction of the sidential veto. When we did succeed, a large works. But I do insist that from the nature portion of the appropriation was expended in of their profession and their habits of life providing dredging machines and snag boats they could not be expected to poSSess that and other necessary machinery and imple-local knowledge that knowledge of currents ments; and by the time the work was fairly and tides-the effects of storms, floods, and begun, the appropriation was exhausted, and ice, always different and ever changin,g-in further operations suspended. Failing to pro-each locality of this widely-extended couiitry, cure an additional appropriation at the next which is essential in determining upon the session, and perhaps for two, three, or four proper site and plan for an improvement to successive sessions, the administration has the navigation.

Withloutdepreciatingtheva’lue construed the refusal of Congress to provide of science, or disregarding its precepts, I have the funds for the prosecution of the works no hesitation in saying that the opinion of an into an abandonment of the system, and has intelligent captain or pilot, who, for a long accordingly deemed it a duty to sell, at public series of years, had sailed out of and into a auction, the dredging machines and snag given port in fair weather and foul, and who boats, implements and materials on hand for had carefully and daily watched the changes whatever they would bring. Soon the country produced in the channel l)y the currents and was again startled by the frightful accounts storms, wrecks and other obstructions, would of wrecks and explosions, fires and snags inspire mie with more confidence than that of upon the rivers, the lakes, and the sea coast. the most eminent professional gentleman, The responsibility of these appalling sacrifices whose knowledge and science in the line of life and property were charged upon those of his profession were only equalled by his who defeated the appropriations for the prose-profound ignorance of all those local and cution of the works. Sympathy was excited, practical questions which ought to determine and a concerted plan of agitation and or-the site and plan of the proposed improveganization formed by the interested sections ment. To me, therefore, it is no longer a and parties to bring their combined influence matter of surprise that errors and blunders to bear upon Congress in favor of the re-esta- occur in the mode of constructing the works, blishment of the system on an enlarged scale, and that follies and extravagance everywhere 652

Page 653 view page image

TONNAGE DUTIES. appear in the expenditure of the money. these evils seem to be inherent in the system; at least, they have thus far lroven unavoidable, and have become so palpable and notorious 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, ai majority of the Democratic party, are in the habltit of considering these works as constituting a general system of internal improveiients by the federal government, and therefore in violation of the creed of the Democratic party and of the Constitution of the United States. These two-fold objections-the one (lenying the constitutional power and the other the expediency of appropriations from the national treasury-seem to acquire additional strength and force in proportion as the importance of the subject is enhanced, and the necessity for more numerous and extensive improveml ents is created by the extension of l,ur territory, the expansion of our settlements, arid the development of the resources of the country. As a friend to the navigating interest, 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 nio hope fi)r any more favorable results from national appropriations than we have heretofore realized. If then we are to judge the system by its results, taking the past as a fair indication of what might reasonably be expecte(d 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 twentyfive 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 description 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 railroad completed, and fifteen thousand noles in addition under contract? It is to be presumed, that if our own state had prostrated itself in huni})le supplication at the feet of the federal grovernment, and, with folded arms, had waited for appropriations from the national t~reasury, instead of exerting state authority, and stimulating; and combining individual enterprise, we should now have in Illinois three thousandl muiles of railroad in process of construction? Let the history of internal improvements by the federal gov5ernment be fairly written, and it will furnish conclusive answers to these in terrogatories. For more tha n a qu arter of acentury th e en e rgies of the natio nal government, together with all the spare funds in the t reasury, were directed to the construction of a macahdamfized road from Cumber la nd, in the sta t e of Maryland, to Jefferson City, in the state of Missouri, without being able to complete onethird of the work. If the gover nment were unable to make t hree hund red miles of turnpike-road in t wentyfive yea rs, 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 protect our widely extended and rapidly increasing commerce on a seacoast so extensive, that in forts years we hav e not be en able to complete even the survey of onehalf o f it, an d on a lake and river navigation more t han four times as extensive as that seac oast? These questions are worthy of the serious considerati on of those who think that improvements should be made for the benefit of the present generation as well as for our remote posterity; f o r I am not awarea that th e federal government ever completed any work of internal insprovernment commenced under its a us pices. The operation s of the government have not been sufficiently rapid to keep pace with the spirit of th e age. The Cumberland Road, whe n commenced, nbav have bee n well adapte d to the purposes for which it was designed; but after the lapse of a quarter o f a c entury, and before any considerable po rtion of it could be finished, the whole was superseded and rendered useless by the introduction o f the railroad system. One reason, and perhaps the principal cause, of the slow priogres s of all government improvement s, consists in the fact that the appropriation for any one object is usually too small to be of smanterial service. It may be sufficient for the comsmencemen t of the work, but before it can be co mpleted, o r eve n so far advanced as to withstand the effects of storms, and floods, and t he elements, the appropriation is exhausted, and a large portion of the work swept away before fund s can be obtained for finish ing it or even pro tectin g that which has been done. The ruinous coIIsequences 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 numberless items of a river and harbor or internal improvement bill cannot pass, each by itself, and upon its own nmerits, 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 paramount importance, unless theirs are embrIaced in the same bill. Each membler seems to think the work in his owvn 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 legislative omnibus, in which all manner of objects are crowded together indiscriminately; and, 653

Page 654 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. tas there never is and never can be money for the improvement of navigation might not enough in the treasury to make adequate ap-conflict with the general enactments for the propriations for the whole, and as the bill regulation of commerce. Yet the first Con cannot pass unless each has something, of gress, which assembled undler the Constitu course the amount for each item must be re-tion, commenced that series of contradictory duced so low as to make it of little or no ser-and partial enactments which has continued vice, and thus render the whole bill almost a to the present time, and proven the fruitful total loss. In this manner a large portion of source of conflict and dissension.

our people have been kept in a state of sus-The first of these acts provided that all ex p)ense and anxiety for more than half a cen-penses for the support of lighthouses, beacons, tury, with their hopes always excited and their buoys, and public piers, should be paid out of expectations never realized. the national treasury, on the condition that I repeat that the policy heretofore pursued the states in which the same should be situ has proven worse than a failure. If we expect ated respectively, should cede to the United to) provide facilities and securities for our navi-States the said works, “together with the gating interests, we must adopt a system com-lands and tenements thereunto belonging, and niensurate with our wantsone which will be together with the jurisdiction of the same.” just and equal in its operations upon lake, A few months afterwards the same Congress river, and ocean wherever the water is navi-assed an act consenting that the states cf gable, fresh or salt, tide or no tide-a system Rhode Islad, Marylan d, and Georgia, might which will not depend for its success upon the levy tonnage duties for the purpose of improv dubious and fluctuatingissues of political cam-ing certain harl)ors and rivers within their paigns and Congressional combinations-one respective limits. This contradictory legisla which will be certain, uniform, and unvarying tionll upon a sul)ject of great national import in its results. I know of no system better cal-ance, although commenced by the first Colii culated to accomplish these objects than that gress, and frequently suspended and renew ed which commanded the approbation of the at uncertain and irregular periods, seenlms founders of the republic, was successively never to have been entirely abandoned.

While adopted on various occasions since that period, appropriations from the national treasury have and directly referred to in the message of the been partial and irregular-sonmetimes granted President. It is evidently the system contem-and at others withheld-stimulating hopes plated by the framers of the Constitution when only to be succeeded by disappointments, ton, they incorporated into that instrument the nage duties have also been collected lby the clause in relation to tonnage duties by the consent of Congress, at various times and for states with the assent of Congress. The de-limited periods, in Pennsylvania, Maryland, bates show that this provision was inserted Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, for the express purpose of enabling the states Georgia, Alal)ama, Massachusetts, Rhode to levy duties of tonnage to make harbor and Island, and perhaps other states. Indeed othe improvements for the benefit of naviga-there has never been a time, since the Decla tion. It was objected that the power to regu-ration of Independence, when tonnage duties late commerce having already been vested ex-have not been collected under state authority elusively in Congress, the jurisdiction of the for the improvement of rivers or harbors, or states over harbor and river improvements, both. The last act giving the consent of Con without the consent or supervision of the fede-gress to the collection of these duties, was ral government, might be so exercised as to passed for the benefit of the port of Baltimore conflict with the Congressional regulations in in 1850, and will not expire until 1861. respect to commerce. In order to avoid this Thus it will be seen that the proposition to objection, and at the same time reserve to the pass a general law giving the consent of Constates the power of making the necessary gress to the imposition of tonnage duties acimprovements, consistent with such rules as cording to a uniform rule, and upon equal should be prescribed by Congress for the reterms in all the states and territories of the gulation of commerce, the provision was modi-Union, does not contemplate the introduction fled and adopted in the form in which we now of a new principle into our legislation upon find it in the Constitution, to wit: “no state this subject. It only proposes to convert a shall lay duties of tonnage except by the consent partial and fluctuating policy into a permanent of Congress.” It is evident from the debates and efficient system. that the framers of the Constitution looked to If this proposition should receive the sanetonnage duties as the source from which funds tion of Congress, and be carried into successwere to be derived for improvements in navi-fuil operation bv the states, it would withdraw gation. The only diversity of opinion among river and harbor improvements from the perils them arose upon the point, whether those of the political arena, and commit them to the duties should be levied and the works con-fostering care of the local authorities, with a structed by the federal government or under steady and unceasing source of revenue foir state.authority. These doubts were solved by their prosecution. The system would be plain, the clause quoted, providing, ineffect, thatwhile direct, and simple, in respect to harbor imthe power was reserved to the states, it should. provements. Each town and city would have not be exercised, except by the consent of charge of the improvement of its own harbor, Congrtss, in order that the local legislation and would be authorized to tax its own com 654

Page 655 view page image

TONNAGE DUTIES. merce to the extent necessary for its construe-, in the channel from the Falls of St. Anthony tion. The money could be applied to no other i to the Gulf of Mexico. There seems to be no object than the improvement of the harbor; difficulty, therefore, in the execution of the and no higher duties could be levied than were plan where the watercourse lies in two or necessary for that purpose. There would seem more states, or forms the boundary thereof in to be no danger of the power being abused, whole or in part; and where the river is en for in addition to the restrictions, limitations, tirely within the limits of any one state, like and conditions, which should be embraced in the Illinois or Alabama, it may be improved the laws conferring the consent of Congress, in such manner as the legislature may pre self-interest will furnish adequate and ample scrio)(. subject only to such conditions and assurances and motives for the faithful execu-limitations as may be contained in the act of tion of the trusts. If any town, whose harbor Congress giving its consent. All the necessi needs improvement, should fail to impose the ties and difficulties upon this subject seem to duties and make the necessary works, such have been foreseen and provided for in the neglect would inevitably tend to drive the same clause of the Constitution, wherein it is commerce to some rival port, which would use declared, in effect, that, with the consent of Conall the means in its power to render its harbor gress, tonnage duties may be levied fol the safe and commodious, and afford all necessary improvement of rivers and harbors, and that protection and facilities to navigation and the several states may enter into compacts trade. If; on the other hand, any place should with each other for that purpose whenever it attempt to impose higher duties than will be shall become necessary, subject only to such abs)olutely necessary for the construction of rules as Congress shall prescribe for the reguthe requisite improvements, this line of policy, lation of commerce. to the extent of the excess, would have the It only remains for me to notice some of the same deleterious effects upon its prosperity. objections which have been urged to this sysThe same injurious influences would result tem. It has been said that tonnage duties are from errors and blunders in the plan of the taxes upon the commerce of the country, work, or from extravagance and corruption in which must be paid in the end by the conthe expenditure of the money. Hence each sumers of the articles bearing the burden. I locality, and every citizen and person inte-do not feel disposed to question the soundness reste(l therein, would have a direct and per-of this proposition. I presume the same is sonal interest in the adoption of a wise plan, true of all the duties, tolls, and charges upon and in securing strict economy and entire all public works-whether constructed by gfidelity in the expenditure of the money. vernment or individuals. The state of New While upon the rivers the plan of operations York derives a revenue of more than two would not be so direct and simple as in the millions of dollars a year from her canals. improvement of harbors, yet even there it is Of course this is a tax upon the commerce of not perceived that any serious inconvenience the country, and is borne by those who are inor obstacle would arise to the success of the terested in and benefited by it. This tax is system. It would be necessary that the law, a blessing or a burden, dependent upon the which shall grant the consent of Congress to fact whether it has the effect to diminish or the imposition of the duties, shall also give increase the cost of transportation. If we a like consent in conformity with the same could not have enjoyed the benefit of the provision of the Constitution, that where the canal without the payment of the tolls, and river to be improved shall form the boundary if, by its construction and the payment, the of, or be situated in, two or more states, such cost of transportation has been reduced to states may enter into compacts with each one-tenth the sum which we would have been other, by which they may, under their joint compelled to have paid without it, who would authority, levy the duties and improve the not be willing to make a still further contribunavigation.

tion to the security and facilities of naviga In this manner Pennsylvania, Delaware, tion, if thereby the price of freights are to be and New Jersey, could enter into a compact reduced in a still greater ratio? The tolls for the improvement of the Delaware river, by upon our own canal are a tax upon commerce, which each would appoint one commissioner, yet we cheerfully submit to the payment for and the three commissioners constitute a the reason that they were indispensablQ to the boardl, which would levy the duties, prescribe construction of a great work, which has had the mode of their collection, devise the plan the effect to reduce the cost of transportation of the improvement, and superintend the ex-between the lakes and the Mississippi, far penditure of the money. The six states bor-below what it would have been if the canal dering on the Ohio river, in like manner, could had not been made. All the charges on the each appoint a commissioner, and the six con-fourteen thousand miles of railroad now in stitute a board for the improvement of the operation in the different states of this Union, navigation of that river from Pittsburgh to the are just so many taxes upon commerce and Mississippi.

The same plan could be applied travel, yet we do not repudiate the whole railto the Mississippi, by which the nine states road system on that account, nor object to the bordering upon that stream could each appoint payment of such reasonable charges as are one commissioner, and the nine form a board necessary to defray the expenses of constructfor the removal of snags and other obstructions ing and operating them. But it may be said 655

Page 656 view page image

THE POLITICAL, TXT-BOOK. expending any portion of the money for its protection and improvement. Their conmplaints were just. They should have protested, 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 purpose and none other. In short, a plan similar to the one now proposed would have been a full and complete redress of all their grievances upon this subject. In conclusion, I will state that my object in addressing you this commmunication is to invite your espec,ial 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 distinctly 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 fellowcitizen, S. A. DOUGLAS. 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 ar e. It may b e that the rates of transporta t ion would be less, but would our taxes be re duced there by? No matter who is intrusted with the constr u c tion of works, somebody must foot the bill. If the federal government undertake to make railroad s an d canals, and river and harbor improvements, somebody must pay the expens es. In order to meet this enl arged exp enditure, it would be necessary to augrment the revenue by increased taxes upon the commerce of the country. The whol e volume o f r even ue w hich now fills and overflows the national tre asury, w ith the ex ception of the small i tem resul ting from t he sales of public lands, is der ive d from a system of taxes inmposed upon comnmerce a nd c ollec ted through t he e machinery of the custom houses. No matter, therefore, whether these works are tmade by the federal overnment, or by stimu latin and combining local and individu al a il en terprise under state au thority: in any event they remain a tax upo n co mmerce t o the extent of th e expenditure. That system which will insure the construc tion of th e improvements upon the best plIan and at the smallest cost will prove the l east oppressive to the tax-pa yer and the most useful to commerce. It requires no argumen t to prove for everyday’s expe rience teaches usthat p ublic works of every description can be made at a much smaller cost by private enterprise, or bly the local authorities directly interested in the improvement, than whe n cons truc ted by the federal goverenment. Ience, inasmuch as the expenses of constructing river and harbor improvements must, under either plan, be defrayed by a tax upon commerce 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 federal treasury. Those who seem not to have understood the difference have attempted to excite prejudice against this plan for the improvement 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 people residing upon those rivers did not complain that they were required to pay duties f,)r 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 656 Joel A. Matteson, Governor of the State of Illinois. Union, History of the.* A BRIEF I-IISTORY OF THE EVENTS AND CIR

CUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE UNIO’I OF THE STATES, AND THE FORMATION OF

THil CONSTITUTION. IN the early history of the New England colonies, we find the first instance of the a&. sociation of the people of America for mutual defence and protection, while they owed allegiance to the British Crown. 1-n 1643, the colonies of Massachusetts, PI’ymouth, Conn.eoticut, and New Ilaven, under the impression of dan,er from the surrounding tribes of Indians, entered into a league, offensive and defensive, firm and perpetual, under the name of the United Colonies of New England. The.T
vested in an annual congress of conimis,,iioners, delegated from each colony, the authority to regulate their general concerns, and especially to levy war and make requisitions of men and money, upon the several members of the union in a ratio to their respective nu bers. This confederacy subsisted for upward of forty years, and, for part of the time, with the countenance of the government in England, and was dissolved under Kin(, James 11., in the year 1686. 0 This association is generally considered as the foundation of subsequent efforts for,i. more extensive and perfect union of the British North American colonies; and the people of this country continued, after the dissolution of this league, to afford other instructive precedents of associations for their safety. A congress of governors and commissioners from * This article is from the Statesman’s Manual, by Edwin Williams, Esq.

Page 657 view page image

UNION, IHSTORY OF THE. Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina, w,ere represented. This congress ado)pted a declaration of rights, in which the sole power of taxation was asserted to reside in the colos 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-firnness, tempered with wisdom and moderation, of this first American Congress; co mposed, 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 thie 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,” s ince, in its o rigin and progress, it was wsholley 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 facto of the colonies, but in virtue of original powers derived from the people. The revolutionaryr g (ovresnment 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 maost important of their acts was a declaration, that in determining questions in this congress, each colony or province should o ther col oni es, as well as fr om N ew England, weas o ccasionally held, the better to make ar ranements for the protection of the i ir interi or frontier, of which we have an instance at Al bany in the yea r 1722; an d a much more in teresting congress w as held at the same place in the vear 1754, which consisted of cormmis si on eresfrom the colonies of Netw lamprshire, tMass tlchutisetts, Rho de Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsyli ania, and Marryland. It was called at the instance of th e Briti sh gov ernment, to take into co nsideration the best means of defendint America, a s a wa r w ith 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 colonies, 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 UN-ION of the colonies was absolutely neces sary for their preservation. They likewise rejected all proposals for a division of the co lonies into sepalrate 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 neg,ative of the president, many of the rights of’ war and peace, and the right to lav and levy imii posts and taxes; and the union was to em brace all the colonies front New Ifampshire to Georgia. But the times were not yet ripe, nor the minds of men sufficiently enlarge,d, 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 somie years longrer separate and alien conli,nw)r-ea,lths, enmulous of each other in obedience to the parent state, liut jealous of each other’s piroslperity, and divided bv policy, interest, prejtiulice, and manners. So strong was the force of these consideratio,ns, and so exasperated were the people of the colonies against each other in their dispute.s about boundaries, that Dr. Franklin, in the year 1761, observed that a union of the cohmies was absolutely improssble, or at least wvitlhout being forced by the most grievous tyranntyi an(1 oppre,ssion. The seeds of union, howvex-r, had b.een sown, and its principles were to gather strength and ad~van(ce towarlld malturity ashen the season of c~>mm{,on dangffer approacilhed. W~hen the first attempt upon ourl liberties eras maffe b~y t)le B3ritish gtovXernme,,t, by Z the pas.- Le e iof th-e stamlnp act, ill 1765,o a conglrtlessE of delegatites fr(,ml ninecolonies ass<em~lled! in Bell Yo:rk, in Oct.,,ber o,f that yiear. fit tile instance and rbe{mmnmen(lation o,f Malssachusl~ett.s. The colonies of M~ass~achusetts, Rhlode Island, Connecticut, New Y ork, New J ersey, Pennsylvania, 42 ‘657

Page 658 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. have one vote; and this became the established the ends for which it was instituted, it is the course during the revolution. They proposed right and the duty of such people, founded on a general congress to be held at the same place the law of nature, and the reason and practice in May, in the next year. They appointed of mankin(l, to throw off such government, and committees to take into consideration their provide new guards for their future security. rights and grievances; asserted by number The establishment of the republics of Holof declaratory resolutions, what they deemed land and Switzerland bears a striking analogy to be the unalienable rights of English free-to that of the United States, in the causes men; pointed out to their constituents the sys-which produced them, and ill the manner in tern of violence which was preparing against which they were conducted. The United Nethose rights; and bound them by the most therlands were formerly a part of the immense sacred of all ties, the ties of honor and their dominions of the Spanish empire; but the country, -to renounce commerce with Great violent government of Philip the Second, and Britain, as being the most salutary means to the unrelenting intolerance of the inquisition, avert the one, and to secure the blessings of drove those distant provinces to union and the other. These resolutions were received resistance. In 1579, by the celebrated treaty with universal and prompt obedience; and the of Utrecht, they entered into a league for their union being thus auspiciously formed, it was mutual defence, and that treaty was always continued by a succession of delegates in Con-considered as the bond of their union, and the gress; and through every period of the war, foundation of their republic. But although and through every revolution of our govern-they had for some time made open resistance ment, it has been revered and cultivated as the to the force of Spain, yet it was not till the tutelary guardian of our liberties. 26th of July, 1581, after all hopes of reconcilia In May, 1775, the second continental con-tion were lost, and the authority of Philip had gress of delegates from all the colonies (except been for some time virtually renounced, that Georgia) assembled at Philadelphia, and were the confederated provinces, equally distininvested by the colonies with very amnple dis-guished for their forbearance and firmness, cretionary powers. These delegates were cho-solemnly declared themselves independent sen, as the preceding had been, partly by the states, and absolved from all allegiance to the popular branch of the legislatures when in Spanish crown. It is well known that Spain session, but principally by conventions of the continued to make long and powerful efforts t) people in the various states. In July, Georgia reduce them to obedience, till at last, exhausted acceded to, and completed the confederacy. herself, she was reluctantly compelled to a perHostilities had already commenced in the promanent recognition of their independence at vince of Massachusetts Bay, and the uncondi-the treaty of Westphalia.

Similar to that of tional sovereignty of the British parli:‘mnent the Netherlands was the case of Switzerland, over the colonies was to be asserted y)v an ap-which formerly fell under the dominion of the peal to arms. Congress, chlared with the German empire, acknowledging the counts of general interests and superintending direction Ilapsburg for her protectors, and faithfully of the Union, and supported by the zeal and preserving her allegiance after that family, confidence of their constituents, prepared for under the wellknown name of the house of defence. They published a declaration of the Austria, succeeded to the ilnperial crown. The causes and necessity of taking up ariins, and tyranny of the imperial batiliffs became insupforthwith proceeded to levy and organize an portable, and three of the Swiss cantons threw army, to prescribe rules for the regulLtion of off the Austrian yoke in the year 1308, and their land and naval forces, to emit a paper confederatedtogetherfortheircommondefence. currency, contract debts, and exercise all the The house of Austria carried on an implacable other prerogatives of an independentsovereign-war against them for more than a century. ty, till at last, on the 4th day of July, 1776, That celebrated confederacy, which originally they took a separate and equal station among consisted of only the three cantons of Uri, the powers of the earth, by declaring the united Schweitz, and Underwalden, kept continually colonies to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES. increasing in strength, by the accession of This memorable declaration, in imitat;on of other cantons from conquest or alliance; but that published by the United Netherlands on the union of the thirteen cantons was not coma similar occasion, recapitulated the oppres-pleted for two centuries, nor was their indesions of the British king, asserted it to be the pendence fully and finally acknowledged by natural right of every people to withdraw from the house of Austria, till the treaty of Westtyranny, and made a solemn appeal to man-phalia, in 1648. kind, in vindication of the necessity of the To return to the history of our own governmeasure. By this declaration, made in the ment: the general sentiment of the importance name, and by the authority of the PEOPLE, of the union app)ears evident in all the early these United States were absolved from all alle-pro(ceelii(gs ot’

Cmngress. In July, 1775, a giance to the British crown, and all political vear lef()ie the (le(-laration of iideliendence, connexion between them and the state of Great a r. Frailklin s5t[iiitteI, to the c()lsidc;ration of Britain was totally dissolved. The principles Congress, a sketch,f arti(‘les e)f confederatioi of self-preservation, and of social happiness, between the colonies, to (‘ontinlae until their gave a clear sanction to this act of separation. reconciliation with Great Britain, andl in failWhen the government established over any ure of that event, to be perpetual. This p]lan people becomes incompetent, or destructive to appears to have never beea discussed in ton 658

Page 659 view page image

UNION, HISTORY OF THE. months after they had been submitted by Con gress to the sovereign states, with a s’eliemn averment that they could no longer l)e de ferred; that they seemed essential to the verv existence of the Union as a fiee people; andl that, without them, they might be constraiiie(l to bid adieu to independence, to liberty, and safety. The confederation thus being finally coIi plete, by the ratification of the delegates froiiin 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 fionm 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 Constitiu tion, on the 4th of March, 1789. The fir.,t 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 l)ecome a nation, and in what manner did Colgress 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, t(o that extent the people, froni whose a.cqiiiescence and consent they took effect, must be consider ed as agreeing to form a nation. The Coi gress of 1774, looking at the general terms of the commissions under which the delegates w ere appointed, seem to have possessed the power of concerting such nmeasures as they deemed best to redress the grievalnces, an(l preserve the rights and lil)erties, of all the colonies. The Congress of 1775 and 1776 weres clothed with more ample powers, and the laiin guage of their commissions generally was sufficienly broad to embrace the right to pass measure of a national character and olligation. The Congress of 1775 accordingly assumed at once the exercise of some of the highest functions of sovereignty. They took measures for national defence and resistance; they followedl up the prohibitions upon trade and intercourse with Great Britain; they raised a national army and navy, and authorized limited national hostilities against Great Britain; they raised money, emitted bills of credit, and ccntracted 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 appellate 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 national purposes already existed, and that the Congress was invested[ with sovereign power Rover a.U the coplonios, fox the purpose of pro gross. But durin g the time tha t the d eclara tion of independence was under consideration, Congress took meas ure s for the formation of a constituto p an onional plan of union. On the 11th of June. 1776, it was resolved that a committee should b e app o inted to prepare and digest the form of a confederatio n to be entered in to be tw e en the colonies; and the day following a committee, consisting of one member from e ach col on y, 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, 1I a77, the subject was fr om tim e to t ime de bated, until the 15th of November, 1777, when a c op y of the articles of confedera tion being m ade out, the same was finally agreed to. Congress, at the samb e time, directed that the articles should be proposed to the legislatures of all the United States, to be considered, and, if approved of by thein, 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 AN ovember 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, &c. 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 Julv, 1778, the articles were signed by the delegates of New Ilampshire, Massachusetts Bay, -Rhode Island, Connecti cut, New York, Pennsvlvania, Virginia, and South Carolina. The “delegates from New Jersey, Delaware, anti Maryland, informed Congress that they had not yet received powers to ratifv and sig,n. 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 24tht 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, 177-9; 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 adjusted. This was finally accomplished by cessions from the clainming 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 territorial system, and, eventually, in the ordinkance for the government of the Northwestern territory (passed by Congress in Julyr, 1786). It also removed the insuperable objec tion of the state of Maryland to the articles of confederation; and her delegates signed them on the L~ of March, 17Sl, fou,r years and foulr 659

Page 660 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. of Independencea government constituted by the people. In the Congress of the confederation, the master-minds of James MaIdis(,l and Alexander IHamilton were constantly engaged through the closing years of the revolutionary war, and those of peace which immediately succeeded. That of John Jay was associated with them shortly after the peace, in the capacity of secretary to the Congress for foreign affairs. The incompetency of the articles of confederation for the management of the affairs of the Union at home and abroad, was demonstrated to them by the painful and mortifying experience of every day. Washington, 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 ftomi Congress to the states, of the 18th of April, 1783-” the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature.” At his residence of Mount Vernon, in March, 1785, the first idea was started of a revisal of the articles of confederation, by an organization of means differing from that of a compact between the state legislatures and their own delegates in Congress. A convention of delegates 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 w hich 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-acknowledged defects of the confederation, reported only a recommendation for the assemblage of another convention of delegates, to meet at Philadelphia 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 construction, the convention immediately perceived 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 sov ereignty, to the self-evident truth of the Declaration of; Independence. 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 constituent sovereignty of the people. The convention assembled at Philadelphia had themselves no direct authority from the serving the common rights and liberties of all. The validity of these acts was never doub ted or denied by the people. ON the contrary, they b e came the foundation upo n which the s uperstructure of the liberties and independence of the United States has been erected From the moment of the declaration of indepen dence, if not for most purposes at an antecedent period, the united colonies must be considered as being a natio n d e facto, having a g eneral government over it, created and actinge by the g ener al consent of the people of the colonies. The powers of that government were not, and indeed could not be, well defined. But still its exclu siv e sev ereigthity, in ma ny cases, was firmly established; and its controlling power over the states was in most, if not in all na tional me asu res, un i versally admitted. The articles of confederation were n ot ratified so a ts to become oblirgatory upon all the states, until March, 1781. In the intermnediate 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 treaties’and alliances, and were admitted into the general community of nations, who might exercise the right of belligerents, and claim an equality of sovereign powers and prerogatives. The continental Congress, upon trial, soon found that the powers derived from the articles of confederation were inadequate to the legitimate objects of an efective national government. 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 indispensably necessary to amend the articles in such a way as to give authority and force to the national 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 constitutional 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 been surrounded by armed men, demanding justice, and appealedl in vain for protection to the sovereign state within whose jurisdiction they were sitting;. A single frigate, the remnant of a gallant navy, whlich had richly shared the glories, and deeply suffered the calamities of the war, was disxmantled and sold. The expenses of the nation were reduced to the minimum of a peace establishment, and yet the nation was not relieved. The nation wanted a government founded on the principles of the Declaration eo6O

Page 661 view page image

UNION, HISTORY OF THE. people. Thieir authority was all derived from the state legislatures. But they had the articles of confederation before them, and they saw 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 indispensablyneeded powers were such as no state government, 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 articles of confederation, with a grant of additional powers to the Congress. Their plan was respectfully and tboroughly 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 delegated 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 confederation Congress, by the state legislatures, and fly the people of the several states, in con,entions specially assembled, by authority of their legislatures, for the single purpose of exaningilii, and passing upon it. And thus was consummated the work, commenced by the Declaration of Independence; a work in which the people of the North American Union, actin,, under the deepest sense of responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, had achieved th e mo st transcend ent act of power tha t social all-in. in his m ort al conditi on, can perform; even that of dissolving the ti es of allegiance b y whichli he is bound t o his country-of renouncing, that country itself-)f demolishing its g,)NernmIllent, of institutind, another (roveriinment, and of miaking for himself another country in its stea(d. The revolution itself was a work of thirteen yearsand had ne ver bee n completed unti l that day (when Wash ington wts 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 goveriiinient, then new, not as a, theory, fo;r it had been working itself into the mind of man for many es and b)een’especially ex p,,urded1 in the writings f Lo,cke, bult had ev-er defil’e b~een adop),ted by a great nlation ill prvactice. To the hoaorable the legislatures of Virginia, Delawa,re, Pennsylvaiia, Neuew Jersey, and Auew l’onrk, the commissioners fiom the said states, respectively, assembled (1at Annapolis, humbly beg leave to r-epor-t: That, pursuant to their several appointments, they met at Annapolis, in the state of Maryland, on the 11th day of September, instant, and having proceeded to a communicatioii of their powers, they found that the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, had, in sul)stance, and nearly in the same terms, authorized their respective commissioners “to meet such commissioners as were or might be appointed by the other states in the Union, at such time and place is should be tagreed upon by the said commissioners, to take into consideration the trade anrid commerce of the United States, to consider howt fair a unifiorm system in their comriniercial intercourse and regulations, might be necessary to their coinnllon interest and permanent harmony, and to report to the several states such tan act relative to th is great object, as, when unanimously ratified by them, would enable t he United States, in Congress assembled, effectual ly to provide for the s ame.” That the state of D elaware had given similar powers to their commissioners, weith this difference only, that the act to be framed in virtue of these powers, is required to be reported ” to the United States, ire Congress assembled, to be agreed to by them, and confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

That the state of New Jersey had enlarged the object of their appointment, empowering Alaoeedi igt of coby tiishsiolter.s fi om certeiit states, assemtibled1 at Altltpoli., in September-, 1786, to contsider ont the best in)eatis of remne dying the defects of the jkderial government.

Anntapolis, in the state of Mfi, ry1la1, Sepfember 11, 17886.-At a meeting of ceommissioners from the states of New York, New Jersey, 661

Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia -. present, A’ew loi-k: Alexander Ifamilton, Egbert Benson; New Jersey: Abraham Clark, Willi,,tm C.

Ilouston, James Scliiirem,,tn; Pennsylvania: Tench Coxe; Delaware: George Read, John Dickinson, Richard Ba,,,.-,et; Virgiiiia: Edmund ll,,tndolpli, James Madison, Jr., Saint Geor e 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 commissioners now assembled, it was unanimously a,reed, thata committee be appointed to prepare a draught of a report to be made to the states having conimissi(.)ners attending at this nieetin,. Adjourned till AVednesday morning. Wednesday, Sept. 13.-Met agreeable to adjournment. The committee appointed for that purpose reported the drau,,ht of the report, which being read, the meeting proceeded to the consideration thereof, and after some time spent therein, adjourned till to-morrow mornin,, Th,ti,)..day, Sept. 14.-Met a,,recable to adjournineiit. The meeting resumed the consi der, tti(ii of the di-atight of the report, and after some time spent therein, and amendments made, the same was unanimously agreed to, and is as follows, to wit:

Page 662 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. their commissioners “to consider how far a foreign and domestic, as may reasonably be uniform system in their commercial regular supposed to merit a deliberate and candid dis tions, and other important matters, might be cussion, in sonme mode which will unite the sen necessary to the common interest and perma-timents and councils of all the states. In the nent harmony of the several states;”

and to choice of the mode, your commissioners are report such an act on the subject, as, when of opinion that a convention of deputies front ratified by them, “would enable the United the different states, for the special and sole States, in Congress assembled, effectually to purpose of entering into this investigation, provide for the exigencies of the Union.” and digesting a plan for supplying such de That appointments of commissioners have feets as may be discovered to exist, will be also been made by the states of New Hamp-entitled to a preference, from considerations shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North which will occur without being particularized. Carolina, none of whlom, however, have at-Your commissioners decline an enumeration tended; but that no information has been re-of these national circumstances on which their ceived by your commissioners of any appoint-opinion respecting the propriety of a future ment haiving been made by the states of convention, with more enlarged powers, is Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina, or founded; as it would be a useless intrusion Georgia. of facets and observations, most of which have That the express ternms of the powers to been frequently the subject of public discus your commissioners supposing a deputation sion, and none of which can have escaped the from all the states, and having for object the penetration of those to whom they would, in trade and commnierce of the United States, your this instance, be addressed. They are, how commissioners did not conceive it advisable to ever, of a nature so serious, as, in the view of proceed on the business of their mission un-your commissioners, to render the situation der the circumstances of so partial and defect-of the United States delicate and critical, call ivea representation. ing for an exertion of the united virtue and Deeply impressed, however, with the mag-wisdom of all the members of the confede nitude and importance of the object confided racy.

to them on this occasion, your commissioners Under this impression, your commissioners, cannot forbear to indulge an expiression of their with the most respectful deference, beg leave earnest and unanimous wish, that speedy mea-to suggest their unanimous conviction, that it sures may be taken to effect a general meeting may essentially tend to advance the interests of the states, in a future convention, for the of the Union, if the states, by whom they same and such other purposes is the sitiuationi have been respectively delegated(l, would them of pul)lic affairs may be found to require. selves concur, and use their endeavors to pro lf; in expressing this wish, or in intiimating cure the concurrence of the other states, in any other sentinment, your commissioners the appointment of conmmissioners, to meet at should seem to exceed tihe strict bounds of Philadelphia on the second Monday in May their appointment, they entertain a full confi-next, to take into consideration the situation dence that a conduct dictated by an anxiety of the United States, to devise such furtliher for the welfare of the United States, will not provisions as shall appear to them necessary fail to receive an indulgent construction.

to render the Constitution of the federal gov In this persuasion, your commissioners sub-ernment adequate to the exigencies of the mit an opinion, that the idea of extending the Union; and to report such an act for that purpowers of their deputies to other objects than pose, to the United States, in Congress asthose of commerce, which has been adopted sembed, as, when agreed to by them, and after by the state of New Jersey, was an improve-ward confirmed by the legislatures of every ment on the original plan, and will deserve to state, will effectually provide for the same. be incorporated into that of a future conven-Though your commissioners could not, with tion. They are the more naturally led to this propriety, address these obl)servati(ns and sen conclusion, as, in the course of their reflectiments to any but the states they have the tions on the subject, they have been induced honor to represent, they have nevertheless con to think that the power of reg,ultatiug trade is cluded, from nmotives of respect, to transmi’ of such comprehensive extent, iand (
ill enter copies of this report to the United States in so far into the general system of the federal Congress assemibled, and to the executives of government, that to give it efficacy, and to the other states. obviate questions and doubts concerning its By order of the comnissioners precise nature and limits, lmay require a. corDated at Anna)polis, September 14th, 1i86. responding adjustment of other parts of the federal system. In Coigyi’ess, Wednesday, Fe cbaury 21 That there are important defects in the sys-1787. The report of a gi’raid committee, (Ontein of the federal government, is acknow-sistingof M1essrs. Dane, Varnum, S. M. Mitchledge4d by the acts of all those states which ell, Smith, Cadwallader, Irvine, N.

Mitcihell have concurred in the present meeting; that Forrest, Grayson, Blount, Bull, and Few, to; the defects, upon a closer exanminitoin, mav whoni was referred a letter of the 14th Sepibe found greater and more nonierlius than teinl)er, 1786, from J. Dickinson, written at the even these acts imply, is at least sO far prol,a-relqeost,f ci nmiiissi~iners from the states (tf weo, fi’,1m tile eilnt,;:issltiiicis wlichi chlirai-Vigilr;ai, )Dlawaie, Piennsslvainia, NewJersey, te,izc t~c p.eslcni sta; At.,t1 i,i’ na;Lil all’a aned New York, aeaembled at tiLe city of Anna 662

Page 663 view page image

UNION, HISTORY OF THE. 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 fitter of John Dickinson, Esq., chairman of the conmmissioners who assenmbled at Annapolis, luring the last year; also the proceedings of the said commissioners, and entirely coinciding with them, as to the inefficiency of the Fed ral government. and the necessity of devising such further provisions as shall render the bane adequate to the exigencies of the Union, A -1-ongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward delegates, to meet the roposed convention, on the second Monday in aIy next, at the city of Philadelphia. The delegates for the state of New York thereupon laid before Congress instructions which they had received from their constituents, 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 composing the Union, that a convention of representatives from the said states respectively, be held at, on, for the purpose of revising the articles of confederation anrid perpetual union between the United States of America, and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled, and to the states respectively, such alterations and amendments of the said articles of confederation, as the representatives, met in such convention, shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservaLtion and support of the Union.” On the question to postpone, for the purpose above mentioned, the yeas and nays being required 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 affirmative are in italic. TeCnttto aigbe aiidb h structions to their delegates in Congress have s ugges t ed a convention for the purpose s expr essed in the fo llowing re solution; and such convention appearing to be the m ost 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 confederation, and reporting to Congress, and the several legislatures, such alteration and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, render the Federal 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 Philadelphia, 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 convention, with the constitution, recommended for ratification by the several states, and by Congress, adopted the following resolution: “Resolved, itnanimously, That the said report, with the resolutions and letters accompanying the same, be transmitted to the several legislatures, in order to be submitted to a convenition 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.” tive are in italic. The Constitution having been ratified by the Iasachsetts: Messrs.

King, Dane; Connectincut: e.esrs. number of states required, the foll owing pro.Johnson, S. Mitchell; New York: MNes.srs. Smith, Bens(r,; ceedings took place in the old Congress, prNew Jersey: esrs. Ctdwaller, Clark, Schureman; Penn-paratory to organizing the new government.

sylvania: Mlessrs. Irvine. Me,‘edit/~, Bingham; De~laware: f~yl,,an a: Messr,. I redith, Biani,,. D“‘iawne: -Saturday, S(,ptember 13, 1788.-On the quesMlr. N. Mit(.hell; aryland: Mr. Forrest; Virginia: Messrs,.

Grayson, adis on; North Carolina: Messrs Blount, ilaw-tion to agree to the following proposition, it ki.s; South Carolina: Msr.Bull, Ke-an, Huger, Parke,r; 1 kiio, outih Me Bulil, Kean, Eulr Parker;e was resolved in the affirmative, by the unani(,eorgia: Messrs. Few, Pierce. mous votes of nine states, viz., of New iamnp A motion was then made by the delegates shire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, for Massachusetts, to postpone the fuir ther con-New Jersey. Pennsylvania, Virginia, South sideration ot the report, in order to take into Carolina, and Georgia.

consideration a motion which thev read in “Whereas, the convention assembled in Phitheir place; this being agreed to, the miotion ladelphia, pursuant to the resolution of Conof the delegates for Massachusetts was taken gress, of she 21st of February, 1787, did, on up, and being amended was agreed to, as fol-the 17th.of September, in the same year, relow:-
port to the Uniited States, in Cong i ess asseinbled, “Whereas, there is provision in the articles a Constitution for the people of the United of confederation and perpetual union, for iiiak-States: whereupon, Congress, on the 28th of ing alterations therein, by the assent of a Con-the same Septenmber, di(l resolve unanimously, gress of the United States, an(l of the legisla-‘ that the said report, with the resolutions and tures )f the several states; and whereas, ex-letter accompanying the same, be transmitted perience hath evinced that there “tie defects in to the several legislatures, in order to be subthe present confederation, as ad mean to remnie-iiiitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in dv which, several of the states, and particu-each state by the people thereof, in conformity larly the state of New York, by express in-to the resolves of the convention, made and I 663

Page 664 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. provided in that case;’ and whereas the Constitution so reported by the convention, and by Congress transmitted to the several leg’islatures,a has been ratifiedin the mannerthereiii declared to be sufficient for tile establishment of the same, and such ratifications, duly authenticated, have been received by Congress, and are filed in the office of the secretary, therefore ” Resolved, That the first Wie(dnesdaly in January next be the day fior a)ppoiinting electors in the several states whiilh boil(,re the said day shall have ratified the said C)ristitution;p that the filrst Wednesdaiy in FeblruIryv next li) e the day for the electors to assemille in their respective states, and vote for a Pres3ident; aind that the first Wednes(ldty in airch next be the time, and the present seat (of C,-ng-ross d [bNew York] the place, for coiiiinencing proceedings under the said constitution.” of the federal government, as resulting from th e compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain se nse and intention of the instrument constituting that compact,,is no farther valid than they are a utho rize d c )r the grants enumerated in that compact; anpd that in case of a deliberate, palpable, aim3 dangerous exercise of other powers, not griat ed by the said ompact, the estates, who ale parties thereto, hav te rthe r ight, andn a re t:l duty bou nd, to interpose, for arresting theC progress of the evil, and for main tainingt witl in their r espective l imits the authorities, a igltS, and l iberties appertaining to them. That the General Assembly doth also e;-d prests its de ep regret, th at a spirit has, in su it dry instances, b ee n m anifested by the federal government, to e nlarge its powers by fr(;e(i constructions of the constitutional lter which defines them; and, that indications have appeared of a design to expound certmain general phrases (which, having been copied( fi’om the very limited grant of powers in tLe f ormer Articles of Confederation, were the less liable to be mnisconstrued) so as to destroy tic meaning and effect of the p articular entulnera tion which necessarily explains, and limit,i the general phrases, and so as to consoliti.te the states by degrees into o ne sovereitnity, the obvious tendency and inevitable result (I’o whic h woul d be, to tra nsform the prese nt re publican system of the United States into aln absolute, or at best, a mixed monarchy. That the General Assemlbly dotlh articu larla prote st a gainst the palpab le and a h’l  ing infractions of the Constitution, in the twe(late cases of the ” Alien and Sedi tion Acts,” pas sed at the last s ession of Congress; the first of which exercises a power neowtere, delegated to the federal government, and which, by uniting legislative and judicial po)wers 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 Conistitu tion, but on the contrary, expressly anm po,sitively forbidden by one of the am,endmdients thereto; a power which, more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against the right of freely exainin-iiing public characters and measures, and of’ free communication ainon g the people thereonf which has ever been justly deemedt the only effectual guardian of every other right. That this state having by its Conivention, .wlhich ratified the Federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, ” the liberty of con~scienlce and~ the press cannot be cancelled~, abridlged, restrained(, (,r modified1 by any authority of the Unite,d States,” andl fromt its ext,‘ene anxiety to guard these rights from every p~ssible attack o)f sophistry and ambition, having writh other states recommended an amendm(llent fo~r that purpose, which amendment was, in due tilde, annlexcA to the Constitution, it would mark a Vermont. ON the 9th of February, l191, a Dlessag,c was received by Congress fromn the President of the United States, informing the IIouse that he had received documents expressiing the consent of the legislature of New York and the territory of Verlllont that the said territory be admitted into the Union as a distinct member thereof. A bill immediately passed both IIouL:les and became a law by the approval of the President on the 18th of February, 1791, admitting Vermont as a state into the Union. Another law was passed and approved February 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. IN THE

VIRGINIA IIousr OF DELEGATES,. Friday, Dec. 21, 1798. Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virg,inia doth unequivocally expr.ess a firm ‘resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the constitiit,,ii of this state, against every aggressioni e r foreign or domestic; aii(I that -they will Sl lI ),rt the government of the United States ii nall.n,~lres warranted by the foirier. ‘r;,:~t this Assembly most solemnly d(eclares a -ir:~ attachbri(nt to the Union of the states, t,, niittintai,t which it pledoes its powers; aiil, txt fior this end, it is their duty to watch oarter and oppose every infi-‘etion oftthlie,, I)rinciples which constitute the only basis of that Uinion’, because a fiitlifuil olservatnce of them cain alone secure its existence and the public happiness. That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremrtorily declare, that it views the p,)wers 664 Virginia Resolutions of 1798. PiIONOU iCING THE ALIEN AND Sr,,DITIO q LAWS TO BE UNCO

;STITUTIONAL, AND I)E ]FINING THE ItICfiTS OP THE STATES. DRAWN BY MR.

MADISON.

Page 665 view page image

VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798. reproachful inconsistency, and criminal de genelacy, if an indifference were now shown to the m&ost palpable violation of one of the riolts, 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, liavil1 ever felt, and continuing to feel the most sincere affection for their brethren of the othleio states; the truest anxiety for estab)lishing and perpetuating the Union of all; and tlthe most scrupulous fidelity to that Constitution, 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 confilence that they will concur with this co)iii,-onwealth, in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional; and, that the necessary and proper mieasures will be taken by each for cooperating 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 executive 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 Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States. Attest, JOHN STEWART. 1798, December 24th.

Agreed to by the Senate. PI. BROOKE. A true copy from the original deposited in the office of the General Assembly. Joss STEuWART, Keeper of Rolls. tained without the cooperation of the states, furnish the stronge s t incitements upon the state legislat ures to watchfulness, and impose upon them the strongest obligation to pre serve unimpaired the line of p artition. The acquiesce nce of the states under icifract tions of the sfederal compact, would e it he r beget a speedy consolidation, by precipitating the state governmen ts into impotency and conten pt; or prepare the way for a revolution, by a re petit ion of these infractions, until the people are aroused to appear in th e majest y of their strenogth. It is to avoid these calami ties, that we exhibit to the pe ople the er momf en tous question, whether the Constitution of the United States shall yield to a construction which de fie s ever y restraint, and overwhelms the best hopes of republicanism. Exhortations to disregard domestic usurpa tions until f oreign d anger shall have passed, is an artifice which may be for ever used; be cause the possessors of power, who are the a dvocates for its e xten sion. can ever create national emb arrassments, to b e successively employed t o soothe the people in to s leep, whilst that power is swelling silently, secretly, and fatally. Of the same character are insinua tions of a foreign influence, which seize upon a lau d able enthusiasm against danger from abroad, ond distort it by an unnat ural appli cation, so as t o blind your eye s aga ins t d anger at homne. The sedition act presents a scene which was never e xpected by th e early friends of the Constitution. It nwast then admitted that the state sovereignties were only d iminished by powers specifically enumerat ed, or necessary to carry th e specified power s into effe ct. No w fed eral authority i s deduced from implication, and from the existence of state law it is inferred that Congress possesses a siinilar power of legislation; whence Congress will be endowed with a power of legislation in all case s whatsoever, a nd t he states will be stript of ever y rig ht reserved by the concurrent claims of a paramou nt 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 p.ower 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 enumerationl 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 wre search for any specified powers 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 pre~amlble, and Ihad the federal government been endowel with Extracts from the Address to the People, which accompanied the foregoing resolutions: FellowCitizens: Unwilling to shrink from our representative responsibility, conscious of the purity of our motives, but acknowledging your right to supervise our conduct, we invite vour serious attention to the emergency which dictate d 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 bottolped on firmness but tempered with moderation. 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 support 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 government whose organization cannot be main 665

Page 666 view page image

THE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. whatever they shouldjudg,e to be instrumental towards union, justice, tranquillity, common defenee, general welfare, and the preservation of liberty, nothing could have been more frivolous than an enumeration of powers. All the preceding arguments rising from a defi iecncy of constitutional power in Congress, apply to the alien act, and this act is liable to .ther objections peculiar to itself. If a suspicion that aliens are dangerous constitute the justification of that power exercised over thein by Cng,ress, then a similar suspicion will justify the exercise of a similar power over natives. Because there is nothing in the Constitution distinguishing between the power of a state to permit the residence of natives and aliens. It is therefore a right originally possessed, and never surrendered by the respective states, and which is rendered dear and vatlable to Virginia, because it is assailed through the bosom of the Constitution, and l)ecause her peculiar situation renders the easv 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 despotic power over a numerous class of men. Are such measures consistent with our constitutional principles? And will an accumulation of power so extensive, in the hands of the executive, over aliens, secure 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 monarchy, who opens the treasures of corruption, by distributing emolument among devote id partisans, may at the same time be approaching his object, and deluding the people with professions of republicanism. lie may confound monarchy and republicanism, by the art of definition. He mayv varnish over the dexterity which ambition never fails to display, with the pliancy of language, the seduction of expediency, or the prejudices of the times. And he may come at length to avoww that so extensive a territory as that of the United States can only be governed by the energies of monarchy; that it cannot be defended, 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 consist: In fiscal systems and arrangements, which keep an host of commercial and wealthy individuals, embodied and obedient to the mandates of the treasury. In armies aInd navsies, which wrill, on the one haLnd, 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 imanianary insurrections, under the pretext of preventive justice. In swarmse of offic ers, civil and nmilitary, who can inculcate polit ical tenets tending to co ns olidation a nd mon archy, bot h bay induigences and severities; and can act as spie: over the free exercise of human reason. In restraining the freedom of the press, and investing the executive with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, over a numierous body of men. And, that we may shorten the catalogue, in establishing by successive precedents such a mnode of construing the Constitution as will rapidly remove every restraint upon federal power.

Let history be consulted; let the man of experience reflect; nav, let the artificers of monarchy be asked what farther materials they can need for building up their favorite system? These are soleInn, but painful truths; and vet we recommend it to you not to forget the possibility of danger fromn without, although danger threatens us from within. Usurpation is indeed dreadful, but against foreign invasion, if that should happen, let us rise with hearts and hands united, and repel the attack with the zeal of freemen, who will strengttleni their title to examine and correct domestic measures by having defended their country against foreign aggression. Pledged as we are, fellowcitizens, to these sacred engagiements, we yet humbly and fervently implore the Alhniighty Disposer of events to avert from our land war and usurpation, the scourges of mankind; to permit our 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 prevent the laborer and husbandman from being harassed by taxes and imposts; to remove from ambition the iii(m.ns of disturbing the commonweath; to annihilate all pretexts for power afforded by war; to maintain the Constitution; and to bless our nation with tranquillity, 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, JOIIN STEWART, C. II. ]D. 1799, Jan. 23.

Agreed to by the Senate. II. BROOIE, C. S. A true copy from the original, deposited in the office of the General Assembly. JoII STEWART, Keeper of Rolls. ANSWERS OF TIlE SEVERAL STATE LEGISLA TURES. STATE OF DELAWARE.-In the Ilouse of Representatives, Feb. 1, 1799. Resolved, By the Senate and Ilouse 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 66d

Page 667 view page image

VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798. by the governmnent thereof, and l)being c(n vinced that the Fe4eral 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 unnece sary to make any professions of heir attach meit to it, or of their firm determination to support it against every aggression, fi)reign or domestic. But they deem it their duty solemnly to de c l are, that while they hold sacred the priilici 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 o f t hat govern ment to which the pe o pl e themselves, by a solemn compact, lhavTe exclusively committed their nat ional concerns: That, a lthough a liberal and enlightened vi,ilance among the people is always to be cherished, yet an un reasonable jealousy ofh the men of their ch oice, and a recurrence to me asur es of extremity, xupon ugrtudless o r trivial pretexts, have a strong, tendency to destroy all rational liberty at home, and t o deprive the United States of the most essential advantages in their relations abroad: That this legislature are persuaded, that the decision of all case s i n la w and equity, arising under the Constitution of the Uni te d States, and the construction of a ll lawes madle in pursuance thereof, are exclusively vested by the people in the jud ici al courts o f 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 legislatures the judges of the acts or measures of the federal government, but have confided to them the power of proposing such amendmernts of the Constitution, as shall appear to them necessary to the interests, or conforma ble to the wishes of the people whom they represent. That by this construction of the Constitutioll, 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 unconstitutional, and should she oppose successflly her force and will to those of the nation, the Constitution would be reduced to a mlere cipher, to the form and pageantry of authority, without the energy of power. Every act of the federal government which thwarted the IviewNs or checUked the ambitious lprojects of a particular state, or of its leading and influential members, would be the object of opposition and of remonstrance, awhile the people, convulsed and con fused by the conflict between two hostile jurisdictions, enjoying the protec.tionl of neither, would be wearied into a sub ference with the general government and con s.t’itulted author i ties of the United States, and of dangerous tend ency, and therefore not fit subject for t he f urth er con si deration of th e (;entneral Assembly. ISAAc DAVIS, Speak er Qf the S enate. STUEPHi. LEWIS, Speaker of the at. of e a R’s. Testc-Johin Fis her, C. S. John Cal dwell, C. Hd. R. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND

PROVIDENCE I’I,ANTATIONS. In General Assemb)ly, Febru;11Y, A. D. 1799.

Cert ain resolutio ns o f th e legis Ilture ae of V irginia, passed on 21st of tDecember last. Ieing c onmmu nicated to this Assembly 1.

lRlesolved, That in the opinion of this lcislaturc, the second section of third article of the Constitution of the United States in these words, to wit: The judicial power shall extend t o all cases arising under the laws of the United States, vests in the federal courts, exclti sively, and in the Su prem e C our t of the United States ultimately, the authority of dleci(id,, on the constitutionality of any act or law of he C(mgess of the U nited States. 2. Reseol-ed, That for any s tat e l egislature to atssume th at authority, would be, est. Blending together legislative and judicial powers. 2c. Itlazarding an interruption of the peace of the states by civil dis cord, in case of a diversity of opinions among the state legislatures;i e ac h state having, in that case, no resort for vindicating its own opinions, but to the strengi,th of its own arm. 3d.

Submitting most important questions of law to less colmpetent tribunals; and 4th. A n i nfracti on of the Constitton of the UniteSttsxresed States, expressed in plain terms. 3. Resolved, That although for the above reasons, this legislature, in their public capacity, do not feel themselves authorized to consider 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 delefated to Congress, and promotive of the welfare of the United States. 4. Resolved, That the governor communicate these resolutions to the supreme executive of the state of Virginia, and at the samne 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 Virginia, passed on the twenty-first day of DecemI1er last. A true copy, SaMUEL EDDY, Sec. I I I I 67 I (‘,OMMONWEALTH C)F MAS,-,ACHUSETTS.-In Senate, Feb. 9, 1799. The legislature of Massachusetts having taken into serious consideration the resolutions of the state of Virginia, passed the 21st day of December last, and communicated by his excellency the governor, relative to certain supposed infractions of the Cojostitution of the -linited States,

Page 668 view page image

TIlE POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK. mission to some bold leader, who would establish 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 governients, to decide upon the constitutionality of the acts of the federal government, still, least their silence should be construed(
into disapprobation, or at best into a doubt of the constituitionality of the acts referred to by the state of Virginia; and, as the General Assemiib1ly 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 temnporatry protection, while they yield a temporary allegiance; a protection which ought to be withdrawn whenever they become “dangerous to the public safety,” or are found guilty of “treasonable machination” against the government: That Congress having been especially 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 concerning aliens, were threatened with actual invasion, had been driven by the unjust and amb)itious conduct of the French government into warlike preparations, expensive and burthensome, and had then, within the bosom of the country, thousands of aliens, who, we doubt not, were ready to cooperate 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 removal of aliens is the usual preliminary of hostility, and is justified by the invariable usages of nations. Actual hostility had unhappily 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-I tion of it, as the one in whom the Constitution I 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 cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and fromi its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, with 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 thle anmendment adopted by the Union. The words of that amendment, on this subject, are, ” Congress shall make no law abridging tho freedom of speech or of the press.” The act complained of is no abridgment of the freedom of either. The genuinie liberty of speech and the press, is the liberty to utter and publish the truth; but thle constitutional right of the citizen to utter and publishl the, truth, is not to be confounded with the licentiousness in speaking and writing, that is only employed in propagating falsehood and slander. This freedomn of tie press has been explicitly secured by most, if not all the state constitutions; and of this provisi(in there has been generally but one construction aonOng enlightenerd men; that it is a security for the rational use and not the abus e of the pr ess; of which the courts of law, the julies, and people will judge; this right is not infringed, but confirmed and established by the late act of Congress. By the Constitution, the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of government are ordained and established: and general enumerated powers vested in them respectively, 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 guiaranity to the several states a republican foirm of government; to protect eachI state agtainist invasion, and, when applied to, against domestic violence; to hear and decide,all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, and under ally treaty or law maide in pursuance thereof; and all cases of adm-iiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and relating to the law of nations. WVhenevrer, therefore, it becomes 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 Comstitution has left no occasion to resort to implication for these powers; it has made an express grant of them, in the 8th section of the first article, which ordains, ” That Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall he necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foreg-oinig powers, and all other powers vested bv the Constitution in the government of the UJnited States or in any department or officer thereof.” This Constitution has established a Supreme Court of the United States, but has made no provision for its protection, even against suc;h improper conduct in its presence, as mnight disturb its proceedings, unless expressed in the section before recited.

But as no statute has been passed on this subject, this protection is, and has been for nine years past, uniformly found in the application of the printi I 668

Page 669 view page image

VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798. ples and usages of the common law. The same protection may unquestionably be afforded bv a statute rassed in virtue of the beforementioned secti,n, as necessary and proper, for carrying into execution the powers vested in that department. A construction of the different parts of the Constitution, perfectly jus t a nd fair, will, on analogous principles, e xtend protection and security against the offences in qu estion, to the o ther departments of governient, i n discha rge of their respective trusts. lTh e Pr e sid ent of th e Un ited States is bound by his oath ” to preserve, pr otecter, pand defend the (oistitiition,” and it is expressly made his duty ” to take care that the law s b e faithfull s executed;” but th is would b e impracticat)le by any created being, if there could be no letal re stra int of those scandalous misrepresentations of his aneasures and motives, which dir ectly t end t o rob him of the public confidei(‘e. Anid eqtuallv impotent would be every other pub lic officer, if thus left to the mercy of the sed itihous. It is hol(len to be a truth most clear, that the important trusts before enumerated cannot be discharged by the government to which the are committed, as without the power to restra in sed itious practices and unlawful cognbinations against itself, and to protect the officers thereof from abusiv e misrepresentations. Ilad the Constitution with he ld this power, it would have made the government responsible for the effects without atny 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 combinations against the federal government, or any officer thereof, in the performance of his duty, as well as licentiousness of speech and of the Stress, 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 punishment which that authorizes, and admits of any investigation of public men and measures which is regulated by truth. It is not intentded to protect men in office, only as they are agents of the people. Its object is to afford leeral security to public offices and trusts created fi)r 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 Massachusetts 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 audacious and unprincipled spirit of falsehood and abuse had been too long unremittingly exerted for the purpose of perverting public opi nion, and threatened to undermine and des t ro y the whole fabric of government. The legislatu re further declare, that in the foregoin g senti men ts the y have expre ssed the general opinion of their constituents, who have not only acquiesed without complaint ina tho se particular measures of the federal government, but have given th eir explic it a pprobation by reelecting e en wo ve r those m en who v oted for the adoption of them. Nor is it apprehended, that the citizens of this state will be accused of supin ene ss o r of an in differe nc e to their constitutional rights; for while, on the o n e hand, they regard with due vigilance the conduct of t he government, on the other, their freedato, safety and happiness require, that they should defend that government and i t s constitutional measures against the open or insidious attacks of any foe, whe ther foreign o r domestic. And, lastly, that the legislature of Massachusetts feel a strong conviction, that the several United States are connected by al common inter est w hi ch ought to render their union indissol uble, and that this state will always cooperate with its confederate states in rendering that union productive of mutual security, free’toim, and happiness. Sent down for concurrence. SA.MIUEL PoeIaIPSs, President. In the Ilouse of Representatives, Feb. 13, 179)9, Read and concurred. EDWARD II. ROBBINS, 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 inviolate, 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 Constitution and the laws of the United States whereby the interference of the legislatures of the particular states in those cases is manifestly excluded: And whereas our peace, prosperity, and happiness, eminently depend on the preservation of the Union, in order to which, a reasonable confidence in the constituted authorities 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 jealousies equally hostile to rational liberty, and the principles of a good republican government: And whereas the Senate, not perceiving that the rights of the particular states have been violated, nor any unconstitutional I 669 0

Page 670 view page image

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 ients 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 them,elves 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 legislature 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 principles contained in the aforesaid resolutions; and particularly the opposition to the “Alien and Sedition Acts”-acts which the Constitution authorized; which the exigency of the country rendered necessary;’ which the constituted 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 excelJency the governor be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution to the governor of Virginia, that it may be cominunicated to the legislature of that state. Passed in the House of Representatives unanimously. Attest, JOHoN C. SMITH, Clerk.

Concurred, unanimously, in the upper IHouse. lutions of the legislature of te sate Kentucky, of the 10th of Notemsber, 17938; rept,rt as follows: The legislature o f Ne cw lIItapslhire, having taken into consideratin erin eoution certain resolutions ot the Gen eral Assembly of s irginia, dated December 21, 1798; also certain reso lutions o f tre o entc y the leislature of K entucky, of the 10th of November, 1 798, Resolv ed, That the legislat ure o f New sIampshire unequivocally expres s a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, a nd the constitution of this state, against every aggression, either foreign or do mes,ti c, and that they will support the government of the United State s im all measure s war ranted by the for m er. That the state legislatures are not the proper tribunals to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the general governments that the duty of such decision is properly a nd exclusively confided to the judicial depart.ment. That if the legislature of New IIampshire, for mere speculative purposes, were to express an opinion on the acts of the general government, commonly called ” the Alien and Sedition Bills,” that opinion would unreservedly be, that those acts are constitutional and, ill the present critical situation of our country, highly expedient. That the constitutionality and expediency of the acts aforesaid have been very ably advocated and clearly demonstrated by many citizens of the United States, more especially bv the minority of the General Assembly of Virginia. The legislature of New II-,mpshire, therefore, deem it unnecessary, by any train of arguments, to attempt further illustration 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. JOIIN PRENTICE, Speaker.

STATE OF VERMONT.-In the Ilouseof Refry sentatives, October 30, A. D.

1799. The i c House proceeded to take under their consideration the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, relative to certain measures of’ tlhe general government, transmitted to the legislature of this state for their considerati)oni whe r eupon, 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 Teste, SAM. WYLLYS, Sec’ry. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.-In the House of Representatives, June 14,1799.-The committee to take into consideration the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, dated December 21, 1798; also certain reso 670 In -Sen,-tte, san-ie day, read and concurred -ii unaniniousl. A true copy. Attest, JOSEPH PEARSON, Sec’r3-.

Page 671 view page image

VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798.-WALKER AMENDMENT. in their nature and dangerous in their ten-! !enecy. It belongs not to state legislatures to :ecide 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 requested to transmit a copy of this resolution to the executive of Virginia, to be communicated to the General Assembly of that state; aind that the same be sent to the Governor and Council for their concurrence. SAMUEL C. CRA FTS, C lerk. In Council, October 30, 1799.-Read and concurred in unanimously. RICHARD WHITNWEY, Sec’ry. YEAS. -Xle,qsrs. Atchison of Mo., Bell of Tenn., Berrien of Ga..

Borland of Ark., Butler of S. C., Davis of Miss., Dick inson ot N. Y., Dodge of Iowa. Douglas of Ill., Downs of La., Fitzgerald of Mich., Fitzpatrick of Als., Foote of Miss., Hannegan of Ind.. tlouston ofTTexas, 11 uter ofta.. Johnson of La., Johnson of Ga., King of Ala., Mangum of N.C., Mason of Va., Rusk of Texas, Sebastian of Ark.. Sturgeon of lPa., Turney of Tenn., Underwood of Ky., Walker of Wis., Westcott of Fla., Yulee of Fla.. 29. RNAYs.-Messrs. Allen of 0., Atherton of N. II., Badger of N.

C., Baldwin of Conn., Bradbury of Me., Bright of Ind., Cameron of Ia., Clarke of R. I.. Corwin of 0., Davis of Mass Dayton of N. Y., Dix of A.

Y.. Dodge of Wis., Feleh of Mich., Greene of R. I., Hale of N. II..

Ilamlin of Me., Johnson of Md.. Jones of Ia., Miller of N. J., Niles of Conn., Pearce of Md., Ihelps of Vt., Spruanee of Del., Upham of Vt., Wales of Del., Webster of Mass 27. The bill having passed as amended, and being before the Ilouse, 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., Bedinger of Va.. Birdsall of N.Y., Blocock of Va., Botts of Va., Bowdon of Ala..

Bowla ofof MIo., Boyd of Ky., Boyden of N. C, Bridges of Pla.. Brodhlead of lea., Chas. Brown of Pa., Albert G. tlrow n of Miss., Buckner of Ky., Burt of S.C., Cabell of Fla., Chapniai of Md., B. L. Clarke of Ky., Clingman of N. C., IHowell Cobb of Ga., Cobb of Ala., Coke of Tenn., Crisfield of Md., Crozier of Tenn., Daniel of N. C., Donnell of N. C., Garnett Duncan of Ky., Alex. Evans of Md., Featherston of oMiss., Ficklin of Ill., Flournoy of Va., French of Ky., Fulton of Va., Gaines of Ky., Gayles of Ala., Gentry of Tenn., Goggin of Va., Green of Mo., Willard P.

Iall of Mo., Ilaralson of Ga., Ilarmanson of La., Harris of Ala., Ilaskell of Tenn., Ilill of Tenn., Ilillard of Ala. I sa ac E. Holmes of S. C., Geo. S. Houston of Ala., Jno. W. IIouston of Del., Inge of Ala., C. J.

Ingersoll of Pa., Iverson of Ga., Jameson of Mo., Andrew JohnsooTn t. Jn A rk. h Jons of Tenn.,. W. Johnson of Ark. eo. W. Jones of Tenn., J no. W.

Jones of Ga., Kaufman of Texas, Kennon of O., Thos. B. King of Ga., La Sere of La., Leffier of Ia., Levin of la., 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 o f N. C., d e ndleton of Va., Peyton of Ky., Phelps of Mo., Plilsbury of Texas, Preston of Va., Rhett of S.C., Richardson of Ill., Roman of Md..

Sawyer of 0., Shepperd of N. C., Simpson of S. C., Stanton of Tenn..

Stephens of Ga., Thibodeaux of La., Thomas of Tenn.. Jacob Thompson of is.DO.. io. IThompson of Ky., Robt. A. Thompson of Va., Tompkins of Miss., Tooribs of (Ga., enable of N. C., Williams of Me., Woodward of S. C. -100.

NAYs. Messrs. Abbott ofa.Mass., Ashmun of MNass., Belcher of MIe., Bingham of Mich., Blacknar of N. Y.. Bradiy of Pa., Butler of Pa., Cauby of O., Catlheart of Ind., Collaru,er of Vt., Collins of VN. Y., Conger of N. Y., Ci-ar.ston of R. 1. Crowell of O., C ummins of O., Darliug of W
is., Dicke’y (t Pa., Dixon of Conn., Duer of N. Y., Du,nn of lnd.. E,kkert of Pa., Edsall of N. J., Edwards of O., Embree cf Ind., Nathan Evans of O., Faran of 0., Farrelly of l’a.. IF isher of O., Freedley of lPa., Fries of O.. Giddings of O., GC,tt of N. Y, Greeley of N. Y.. Gregory of N. J., Grinnedl of 3!.1ss..!ale of Mass., N. K. Hall of N. Y., Ilamos of e.. Ja s. Tiaiimpton of N. J.. lenley of Ind.. lh-.ry of *t.. Eli,- s ]. Holmeso N Y ad o Cn of N.Y., IIbbar of Conn.. ds tf.. tt of N. Y., Jenkins of N…

Jameson o f N. i. 1. logg of N.Y., Daniel P. King of as.. L,l ).. i. T.

Lawrenc e of NY., Sidey L aree it t… IY ie.., ell., L ord of N. Y., Lynde fof 0i., iCelld (of Ni.. S,Ilvain of Ila., Job Mali