which was inseparable by the rules of the Senate, the moment the appeal was made, he yielded to his wishes. If he had persevered in his own motion to strike out and insert, I doubt if the result would have been the same. These are facts, none of which I presume the senator is disposed to call in question. I make no reproaches to the senator. I have no doubt he has acted upon conscientious motives, and of his willingness to meet all the responsibility. But having been charged with this bill, being the chairman of the committee who reported it, I thought it right the country should know the circumstances under which it was lost.

[It has been said, that Mr. Clay assented to Mr. Dawson's amendment, on which Mr. Pearce's amendment was based. The following remarks of Mr. Clay, made immediately after Mr. Pearce had announced his own amendment, will show that he did not assent.]

MR. CLAY. I certainly can not repress the expression of my regret and surprise at this motion. What is its effect? It is to destroy one of the most valuable features of the bill, the object of which is the adjustment of this troublesome boundary question. Now, I think the senator from Maryland should not have been quite so quick in his motion. There were amendments in progress; two were thought of, one of which was to suspend the operation of this territorial provision on both sides of the river until the 1st day of April, with an express provision that after that time, if the boundary is not settled, it shall go into operation on both sides. But even in the shape in which it is, I do not think it is liable to the objections which the senator has uttered. What is it? It is proposed to establish a territorial government on the west side of the river. Well, does it follow, when the operation of the bill is expressly suspended on the east side of the river, that legislation by the territorial government on the west side will operate on the east side? No such thing. When the Territory on the east side comes to be annexed to the Territory on the west side, and there is a common government for both sides, then both will be represented in it; and if there has been any legislation by the west side, the east side coming in with a larger vote, could suspend, alter, or modify those laws at their pleasure. I hope my friend from Maryland, who, I have all along believed, and I yet believe, is desirous for the passage of some effectual measure, will withdraw his amendment until he sees the result of an effort to make the bill consonant with his own peculiar views. Amendments have been contemplated with respect to the operation of the amendment of the senator from Georgia, which will restrain the effect, or rather prevent the effect which is apprehended of a surrender to Texas of all that she claims.

Mr. President, light was beginning to break upon us-land was beginning to be in sight once more-and is it possible, upon slight and unimportant amendments-amendments which will not affect the great object of this bill, upon mere questions of form and punctilio-that we shall now

hazard the safety, the peace, if not the union of the country. I hope that senators, meeting in a spirit of conciliation, and waiving slight objections, will act upon the great principles which led our fathers to adopt the Constitution, and which is suggested in the letter of the Father of this country to the people of the United States, when he stated that there were difficulties and objections, but that all were waived in a spirit of conciliation and peace, and that they had consented to establish a government that would last through that generation, and for posterity. Now, sir, if the amendment proposed by the senator from Georgia shall be restricted, so as to guard against the effect of any concession to Texas of rights on the east side, what is the objection to it? But if a further amendment be made, which can be made, for a suspension of the operation of the whole territorial provision until this effort shall be made to settle the question, let me ask where, then, is the objection of the senator to it? But is it not strange that it should be contended, that, while the question is unsettled, we should create a government to operate on the east side of the river, without reference to the state of the title and the contingences which may happen, and that it shall go into operation and legislate for the whole country? I will put a case just as strong, if there is any thing in it, which I think there is not, as that urged by the senator from Ohio [Mr. Ewing]. Suppose we pass a bill embracing the east and west sides of the Rio Grande, and suppose that ultimately the east is cut off, and the west side is left by itself by the establishment of the title of Texas-what, then, would become of the law made by the whole Territory, the east side being a part, and the west side being a part-when the east side should be no longer a part, but be taken away by the establishment of the title of Texas? I think these imaginary difficulties should not affect the great principle and soul of the measure. Our object is to settle this question of boundary as soon as possible-in half a dozen months-and when it is settled we shall know what we are about. We shall know whether we should establish a government in the Territory that belongs to us rather than to Texas. We shall know whether we shall go on blindfolded or with our eyes open, looking to all the consequences. The proposition of the senator from Georgia is sufficiently clear, as I think; but, if not, it can be made so by amendment; for its object is simply to postpone the operation of a government in the disputed territory until this dispute shall be amicably settled by the parties.

[In the same debate, Mr. Clay said as follows:]

There is a language too often employed by senators now and heretofore speaking for the South-"the South, the whole South." Sir, I should think it would be very fortunate if senators were always confident that they were able to represent the sentiments of their own States, without attempting to speak of the sentiments of States whose limits are exterior to their own. Now, I speak in no unkind spirit toward the senator from

Virginia; but I believe that if the people of Virginia had been here, four fifths of them would have voted for that compromise measure which the senator from Virginia has felt it his duty to oppose. I know that the opportunities of the senator from Virginia are much better than my own to obtain information of their wishes, but I profess to know something of the State that gave me birth; and I believe that if the people of Virginia were to be polled to-morrow, three fourths or four fifths of them would be found to be in favor of this measure. Now, sir, do the honorable senators from Virginia and South Carolina imagine that when they return to their constituents with the opposite opinions prevailing upon the subject of this compromise, of this olive-branch held out to the wholeUnion-do they expect to be able to have the sword drawn against the Union, amid such a conflict of opinions as will arise in the slaveholding States upon the very ground of the rejection of this compromise? Mr. President, I have said that I want to know whether we are bound together by a rope of sand, or an effective, capable government, competent to enforce the powers therein vested by the Constitution of the United States. And what is this doctrine of nullification, set up again, revived, resuscitated, neither enlarged nor improved, nor extended in this new edition of it? That when a single State shall undertake to say that a law passed by the twenty-nine States is unconstitutional and void, she may raise the standard of resistance and defy the twenty-nine. Sir, I denied the doctrine twenty years ago—I deny it now-I will die in denying it. There is no such principle. If a State chooses to assume the attitude of defiance to the sovereign authority, and set up a separate nation against the nation of twenty-nine States, it takes the consequences upon itself, and the question is reduced to this: Shall the other twenty-nine yield to the one, or the one yield to the twenty-nine? Call it by what mystic name you please—a State, a corporation, a sovereignty-whatever force of a State is put in array against the authority of the Union, it must submit to the consequences of revolt, as every other community must submit when a revolt is made.

Gentlemen lay to their souls the flattering unction that the army is composed of officers from Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern States, and the army will not draw their swords. Why, sir? the army of the United States, under the command of the chief magistrate of the United States, under the command of the gallant officer recently making the conquest of Mexico, will not do their duty? Gentlemen will find themselves utterly mistaken if such a state of things arises.

But we are told this story of Bernadotte, and I may say I did not put the case of Virginia. I respect her. I venerate her. She is my parent and I have always feelings toward her which are inspired in the filial bosom toward its parent. I did not put the case of Virginia by name. I put the case of no State by name. The honorable senator from South Carolina put his words into my mouth when he made me refer to his State. But if any State chooses to array itself in authority, and give orders to its

citizens to set themselves in military or hostile array toward the Union, the Union is gone, or the resistance must cease. The honorable senator tells us of the story of Bernadotte, who, when he came to the confines of France, was unwilling to invade his native country. Let me remind the senator of a case much more analogous to true republican liberty doctrines than the case of the King of Sweden, who was made such under the authority of Bonaparte, whom he resisted. I admire more that Roman father who, for the sake of Rome, condemned and caused to be executed his own son: that is my notion of liberty.

And with respect to my country, the honorable senator speaks of Virginia being my country. This Union is my country; the thirty States are my country; Kentucky is my country, and Virginia no more than any other of the States of this Union. She has created on my part obligations and feelings, and duties, toward her in my private character which nothing upon earth would induce me to forfeit or violate. But even if it were my own State-if my own State, lawlessly, contrary to her duty, should raise the standard of disunion against the residue of the Union, I would go against her. I would go against Kentucky herself in that contingency, much as I love her.

ON THE ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE IN

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

IN SENATE, SEPTEMBER 3, 4, 11, 12, & 14, 1850.

[MR. CLAY, relieved of his charge of the bills reported by him as chairman of the Committee of Thirteen, when the first of those bills was lost, on the 31st of July, his health being very much impaired, went to Newport, on the 2d of August, for seaair and bathing; and returned to Washington in about three weeks, in season to engage in the debate on the bill to abolish the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. All the other Compromise measures, as reported by him, had passed the Senate in his absence, each in a separate bill. Mr. Clay had the pleasure of seeing them all go through both Houses of Congress, and approved by the president, although they did not pass in what was called the "omnibus" form. The country demanded the adoption of Mr. Clay's entire plan of Compromise, and it was done. The following are extracts from what he said on the bill to abolish the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, in its successive stages.]

THE Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to the consideration of the bill to suppress the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. The bill was read by the secretary.

MR. CLAY. The bill which the Senate has ordered to be taken up for consideration is a very short one, and the subject-matter of it has been very often, and very much discussed, and it is not my purpose, in rising to call the attention of the Senate to it, to occuppy more than a few minutes of their time. The object of the bill is to abolish what is called the slavetrade in the District of Columbia. By the slave-trade is meant a foreign slave-trade, as it respects the interests of the District. It consists of the introduction within the District of the slaves from adjoining slave States, and their being placed in dépôt here, not for the purpose of finding a market at all in the District-for I am told that scarcely a case has ever