before, to discharge my duty as an American senator. I want these abolition gentlemen to understand distinctly that I am not to be chased about from one side of the bill to the other, just as they think proper to shape their course. If I vote for a proposition and they against it, when they come in favor of it I am not bound to be against it-there is no consistency in that. While I arraign the motives of no man, call no man's motives in question, I think there is precious little judgment in acting on a policy of that kind. Let us all act upon our honest, conscientious convictions of what is right. I said, in the beginning, that I had no speech to make on this subject, and I have none; but I cannot reconcile it to my sense of right to vote for a proposition which gives to a foreigner, I care not who he may be, or under what circumstances he may come to our shore, the right to vote in these territories, and then deny the same right to any American citizen who may happen to be in the territory in the service of the country as a soldier or officer in the army. I will not, I cannot do that. I do not say that if the amendment fails I shall vote against the bill. Ever since I came into Congress I have been the firm and steadfast opponent of this Missouri restriction. Nay, sir, ever since I raised my voice as a politician, from my earliest service as a public man, I have warred against the measure as a great and monstrous outrage upon the Constitution of the United States, and upon the rights and honor of the southern people. I am prepared to make many and very great sacrifices to get clear of this odious restriction; to vote for many things of which I cannot approve, by way of getting clear of it. But I am here asked to retain this alien provision; and the vote is to be taken on this proposition separately and distinctly. It stands by itself, and is to be valid, to the exclusion of everything else. Now, our votes are to stand in all after-time as an indication of our sentiments on this particular section of the bill, separately and distinctly. Is it right in itself, and by itself? That is the question; and honorable senators will see at once that it is a very important question. I know very well that frequently a bill like this, covering, as this does, thirty-seven pages of printed matter, and making in one of our daily newspapers some seven or eight columns, may pass without every member being able to scrutinize and examine every provision in it; but when a matter of this sort is brought up in bold relief before you, with a clear and distinct proposition to strike out a particular section, and the mind of every senator is drawn distinctly to the language of it, it must be some great, powerful, overruling influence which would justify any senator in refusing to give his vote to strike it out, if, in his heart, he thinks it wrong. I have seen no such influence. I apprehend that, if the bill goes back to the House of Representatives, they will either agree or disagree to our amendment. If they disagree to it, a committee of conference is the necessary consequence; and if, in the end, we must yield sooner than lose the bill, that will be another proposition. Without a single member of the House being committed on this question in any shape or form, so far as the voting shows, am I to be told that I must swallow this bitter pill, gulp it down, and not say a word against it, for fear of endangering the success of the bill? I feel none of that sort of apprehension; for you have the balance of this year before you in the Senate. There is no press of time. The session is not going to close in two or three days, and thus cut us off in the midst of our deliberations on this or other questions. I have heard no reason assigned yet why this bill may not as well pass with this provision stricken out as with it in. All these things whispered around the chamber, which we hear outside of the debate, will be lost to posterity, and nothing will remain of this transaction but the votes which we put upon the record. I put my vote there. I want it to be a vote I can stand by to-morrow, next year, and the year after, and which my children can stand by when I shall be in my grave. It is said the bill will certainly be lost if it goes back to the House. I do not believe it. There is not one particle of evidence to sustain it. Its friends are in a majority there; and if they are not, the bill ought not to pass. If the bill were ten thousand times better than it is, I would not have it become a law against the will of a majority. I shall, for the reasons stated, and without detaining the Senate longer, vote for the amendment, but with no purpose to destroy the bill. I have given as much evidence as most senators that I am its friend. Things have been put into it which are objectionable to me. I have never denied, every one knows, that the proviso moved by the senator from North Carolina [Mr. Badger] was distasteful to me. The amendment proposed by the author of the bill was not exactly to my notion. I took it all, however, and went for the bill. But when I am asked, by a separate and distinct vote, to sanction the kind of legislation embodied in this particular section now proposed to be stricken out, I must have stronger reasons than any I have yet heard, or I will refuse to do it. To vote for this section by itself is one thing; to vote for it along with the repeal of the Missouri restriction is another, and very different thing. THE KANSAS BILL. CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE KANSAS BILL, IN THE SENATE, Ir now lacks only ten minutes of eleven o'clock. Of course I do not intend, at this late hour, to detain the Senate with any further remarks on this bill; nor do I design to offer any amendments. But I do not mean that the bill shall pass without my saying to the Senate and to the country that there are two amendments which I intended to have proposed if the Senate had not already indicated, in distinct terms, that it is resolved to pass the bill in its present form. I am not going to run counter to the sentiment of the Senate; but when I have a clear and distinct opinion upon any subject, I am willing to express that opinion before the Senate and before the world; and having a clear conviction upon my mind that there are at least two defects in this bill, I wish, before the vote is taken, to point them out. I am willing that it may stand upon record, for me or against me, through all time, that I thought these were defects. The first is in the fourteenth section of the bill. After speaking of the Missouri compromise, it says:— "Which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void." I intended to move to strike out the words which relate to the compromise measures of 1850 from the word "with," in line twenty-three, to the word "is," in line twenty-six, and insert "the Constitution of the United States," so as to make it read: "which, being inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, is hereby declared inoperative and void." I would much rather stand by the Constitution than by the compromise. I have much more respect for the Constitution than for the compromise. I need not say that I never have been for that compromise, am not for it now, and never expect to be for it. I have been for the Constitution, am for it now, and ever expect to be for it. I acquiesce in the compromise of 1850, just as we all did in the compromise of 1820, without approving it. The next amendment which I intended to propose, was an addition to the proviso moved originally by the senator from North Carolina [Mr. Badger]. I will read that proviso: "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery.” I intended to move to add these words : "And that no law of Congress, or law or decree of any foreign government in force on the 1st day of August, 1850, shall be so construed as to protect, establish, prohibit, or abolish slavery in any of the organized territories of the United States." It will be seen at once that my object would be to extend the terms of the proviso moved by the senator from North Carolina to all the organized territories of the United States. I have not seen, I do not now see, any reason why we should make a distinction between Kansas or Nebraska and Utah or New Mexico, between Kansas or Nebraska and Washington or Oregon. Slavery is prohibited in Washington and Oregon by the direct action of Congress. It is as positive legislation on the part of Congress as was the act of 1820. It was approved by a Democratic president; but it never received the sanction of my vote. Then, sir, if the laws of France or Spain, in force in Kansas and Nebraska at one time, clearly and distinctly protecting slavery, are to be repealed, I know of no reason, founded in sound judgment, why we should not apply the same rule to Utah and New Mexico, and repeal the Mexican law abolishing slavery in those territories. If it be true that the act of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of 36 30', and in the country now called Nebraska, has become inoperative and void, I know of no reason why the same thing has not occurred in the country north of the same line, and known as Oregon and WashingIf Congress had no power to pass the prohibitory act of 1820, excluding slavery from Kansas and Nebraska, it had none to pass the more recent act of 1849, excluding it from Oregon. If we are called upon to repeal the first, we are equally called upon to repeal the last. ton. And again, if it is right to declare that the laws in force prior to the 6th of March, 1820, PROTECTING, prohibiting, establishing, or abolishing slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, shall not be revived, the truth being that these laws did protect slavery, I know of no reason why the law existing prior to 1850, either by Mexican legislation, as in Utah and New Mexico, or by our own legislation, as in Oregon and Washington, should not be repealed, the fact being that these laws prohibit slavery. I want to see the laws in all the territories reduced to a uniform standard on the subject of slavery. I shall not, at this late hour of the night, when I know that senators are impatient to take the vote, press these considerations upon the Senate. But I cannot forbear saying that, with these two amendments, the bill would have been much more acceptable to me than it is in its present form. With them, and with the amendment which has just been voted down, it would be entirely acceptable to me. I have voted in favor of the amendment of the senator from Maryland. I now look upon the provision which it proposed to strike out, as I look upon other provisions in the bill, as pernicious. The provision does not meet the sanction of my judgment. But, sir, there is a great overruling and controlling principle established in the bill, which commands my vote in despite of all the objectionable features embodied in it; and that is, that it proposes to abrogate the odious Missouri restriction-a restriction which, six years ago, and as often as I have had occasion to speak of it since, I declared to be in violation of the Constitution, in derogation of the rights of my constituents, and an insult to the whole southern people. By no deed or word of mine can I sanction, or seem to sanction, the continuance of that act upon the statute-book. I shall, therefore, notwithstanding its objectionable features, still vote for the bill. I think it is due to myself, and not at all disrespectful to gentlemen who disagree with me, to say, that with the amendments I have suggested, the bill would be more acceptable to me than it is in its present form. ALIEN SUFFRAGE. SPEECH IN THE SENATE, JULY 10, 1854, ON ALIEN SUFFRAGE. MR. PRESIDENT: I may vote against striking out this section. I rather think I shall; and I wish to submit one or two observations in explanation of my present views. I do not put the construction upon this section which other senators have placed upon it. My reading of it is not the same as theirs. It provides : "That if any individual, now a resident of any one of the states or territories, and not a citizen of the United States, but, at the time of making such application for the benefit of this act, shall have filed a declaration of intention, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, and shall become a citizen of the same before the issuance of the patent, as made and provided for in this act.” "As made and provided for in this act." Take that language in cor. nection with the rest of the bill, and what do we ascertain? The bill elsewhere provides that the patent shall issue at the expiration of five years. It is "made and provided" that it shall do so. It is clear to mind that if an alien born seeks the benefits of this act, he can obtain them only on the condition of his perfecting his citizenship in the my five years. The act only proposes to hold the land in reserve for him five years. In that time he may complete his citizenship, if he chooses. If he fails, he loses all rights under the act. He cannot receive the title, because, having had the opportunity of becoming a citizen competent to receive it, he has voluntarily declined doing so. The means are "made and provided" for him; and if he rejects them it is his own fault. I think the construction placed upon the section by some senators, that a foreigner may continue to reside on the land without becoming a citizen, is not sustained by the language of the section. If he has filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen, and shall actually become so within the five years, a patent shall issue to him, just as though he were a native-born citizen. That is all that the section means, according to my reading of it. If he fails to become a citizen, at the expiration of the five years, he cannot receive the title, and government, having complied with its part of the engagement, may, and doubtless will, sell the land to any one else who may offer himself as a purchaser. Now, sir, a few words as to granting lands at all to foreign-born people. I am, perhaps, as much opposed as any gentleman in the Senate to conferring political rights on foreigners, as long as they are such; but when they have been naturalized, when they have been, by our laws, placed upon the same footing with American-born citizens, then, and then only, am I ready to admit them to all the rights of citizenship. But, sir, during this session of the Senate we have made a very marked exception to that general rule. We have, by the almost unanimous vote of the Senate, authorized, in the two important territories which we have just organized-Kansas and Nebraska-foreign-born people, who are not yet citizens, to vote, and we have admitted them to all the political rights of our own native citizens. And now, sir, shall we hesitate when we are asked simply to allow these same people to settle upon a piece of public land? How can the mere fact of a foreigner settling upon a bit of land affect the political prosperity or property of the country? How is it going to affect the political rights of our people? His settlement there does not give him the right to vote; it does not give him the right to hold office; it confers upon him no political authority. And as far as the mere occupancy of the soil, it no more affects the rights of native-born citizens, or the political rights of the country, one way or another, than if the man were back in Germany or in Ireland. It is the right of suffrage, the right to vote, and to hold office by the votes of other foreigners like himself, that interferes with our people and our politics. We get a marked advantage from having laborers employed on the public lands; and the labor of a foreigner is quite as productive as though he were a native-born citizen. Every bushel of corn that he raises, every bushel of wheat, every ounce of produce of every kind which he makes by his labor, enters into the general wealth of the nation, and to the same extent as though he were a native-born citizen. Then, I say, that so far as this bill goes, you grant him no right except the mere right of occupying the land and cultivating it; and, in return for this, he gives you all that a native-born citizen would give you; he gives you the products of his labor as an addition to the general wealth. I cannot, myself, see the propriety of first admitting foreigners to all the |