our country to be marshaled in hosts against the welfare of their adopted land? and is there no remedy? I would say to those who propose a system of exclusion, that, in my judgment, they have mistaken the nature of the disease, and the extreme resort to amputation will but tend to increase the evil and render it incurable. 'Native Americanism' is not the true remedy. There are political as well as physical disorders for which time is the only infallible physician. Foreign emigrants may be deluded for a season; but for this time is the unfailing, the only corrective. Denunciation, reproach, intolerance, violence of language or of conduct, will but retard the consummation which all true Americans should desire. Experience, observation, intercourse with our people, will rapidly Americanize the foreigner, and divest his mind of unfounded prejudices. It should be our aim to inform, to enlighten, to elevate, and undeceive him. Thousands of emigrants have already discovered, and, if a kindly policy is pursued, every year will swell the number of those who perceive, the worthlessness of unmeaning flattery and sounding professions, and the true importance of wise and beneficent measures of government. Those who complain that five years is too short a term, would do wisely to reflect that years are rolling on, and at every annual revolution the foreigner is becoming more thoroughly naturalized in mind and heart, and more intimately incorporated with the body of our people. New ties multiply around him, and his constant progress in knowledge and improvement fix him more firmly to our soil, forming him a wiser and a better citizen."

Mr. Hunt voted in favor of all peaceful resorts for the settlement of the Oregon dispute, because he believed that it was susceptible of a fair and equitable arrangement honorable to both parties. He opposed the annexation of Texas upon "high national grounds ;" and his belief (he said) that it would involve this country in a war with Mexico was not among the least of his objections. Speaking, on a subsequent day, of annexation, he said:

"He still deplored that event, but it was now consummated. Texas formed a constituent portion of the Union, and he felt ready to act toward her with the same liberality, the same patriotism and equal justice which he would manifest toward any other of the states of the confederacy. He should not now re

vive a topic which was calculated only to excite unpleasant feeling. He deprecated all attempts to keep up those feelings of irritation which had in part subsided. He desired to see a general acquiescence in that which was now past and could not be recalled. He would appeal to the entire American people to acquiesce in a spirit of enlarged patriotism, to allay sectional animosities, and cultivate a feeling of nationality, and to strengthen that common bond which was our only reliance for sustaining the honor and perpetuity of the Union."

The war came, and he voted all supplies asked for its prosecution.* "Whatever," he said, "might be his opinion of the causes which produced the collision, while the country was in actual war with a foreign power there was but one course for him to pursue, and that was, to support all proper measures for its energetic prosecution."

He nevertheless believed that the measures which led to the war were unconstitutional; and he thus vindicated himself, and those who had acted with him, from the reproaches cast upon them for the opinions they entertained:

"It had been said that there were some politicians who were always ready to surrender territory that was in dispute. It had become very common in these days to cast indiscriminate reproach on those who preferred to settle vexed questions of boundary in a pacific manner. To claim all and concede nothing was now held to be the quintessence of patriotism. But he would recognize no such test. He wanted to see these questions discussed in an honorable and a candid spirit, according to the moral considerations of right and wrong. He was for respecting the rights of others without surrendering our own. There was a class of politicians who seemed disposed to make use of all questions touching the foreign relations of the country merely as means and instruments of party aggrandizement and the acquisition of power, and hence they contrived to present these questions in such a form as to compel the minority to vote against them."

And again:

The vote on the Declaratory War Bill [see title, ROBERT C. WINTHROP] does not include the name of Mr. Hunt. He left Washington City about the 1st of May, intending to return by the 9th, but was detained until the 12th, the day after the bill passed the House.

"This attempt to present the minority before the country in the unpopular light of a peace party was wholly without foundation; it was not justified by their acts, neither would it be. Gentlemen seemed to think that power and patriotism were identical; and because they had all of the one, they must, of course, monopolize the other. But if it was glory to maintain the national rights and vindicate the national flag, that was a glory shared equally by both sides of the House.

"He was for a bold and decisive, not for a lingering war. It should be sharp and short. This was the way to secure an economy both of money and of human life. He hoped a high national spirit would be found to prevail, and that the war would be prosecuted till the rights and honor of the country were fully vindicated.

"The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Dromgoole) has alluded to the objects of the war, and the spirit in which he would wage the contest. While he would pursue the Mexicans in a spirit of vengeance, his patriotism revels in the prospect of large indemnities of land and money. National honor is also to be measured by leagues, and all our wrongs, real or imaginary, will be healed by the addition of fresh provinces and enlarged dominion. Mr. Hunt would pursue the contest in a different spirit. He wished to see it prosecuted with decisive force and efficiency till we could secure an honorable peace; but when the time shall arrive to dictate the terms of peace to Mexico, he hoped to witness a display of justice and generous magnanimity. If we could conquer our own rapacity, and restrain the lust of territorial acquisition, we should achieve a moral victory more glorious than the trophies of war. In imposing the conditions of amity, he hoped we might exhibit a spirit of moderation and forbearance becoming a great republic conscious of its power. By our rectitude and generosity in the hour of victory, we might yet do something to restore the drooping honor of the country. When that hour should come, we must not disguise it from ourselves that appearances were against us. While we are strong and powerful, Mexico is feeble and distracted; and we are already in possession of a vast territory which was recently wrested from her by our own people. But a war is upon us; and while it continues, it must be prosecuted with vigor, and men of all parties must co-operate, by united counsels and common VOL. I.-Z

efforts, to bring the struggle to a speedy and honorable termination."

He has opposed the acquisition of Mexican territory under all circumstances, whether as territory conquered, or purchased, or obtained under the guise of indemnity for expenses of the war; and he has insisted upon the incumbent duty of Congress to declare what were the purposes and objects for which the war was waged. He resisted the idea that such declarations would be inconsistent with the honor of the country, and her high position before the world.

"There were many examples," he said, "both in ancient and in modern times, which were applicable to the existing state of our affairs. Without multiplying citations, he would call the attention of gentlemen to one of the leading events in modern history. He referred to the contest of England and her allies against the conquering ambition of France, and which resulted in the overthrow of the dominion of Napoleon. After the close of the memorable campaign of 1813, in which, at the great battle of Leipsic, the French army was utterly routed, and its leader driven with his shattered forces within the limits of the French territory, England and her allies, being then completely victorious, could dictate their own terms to the vanquished warrior. Yet, in a speech from the throne, made in London in November of the same year, it was declared that England entertained no disposition to exact sacrifices from France which were inconsistent with her national honor and all her just pretensions, and that no such requirements should present an obstacle to a general peace in Europe.

"The British Parliament responded to the speech; and, after the French forces were driven into France, and before the allies entered on the French soil, they put forth a manifesto expressive of their desire that France should remain powerful and happy, and especially disavowing all purpose of conquering any portion of territory legitimately pertaining to that kingdom. If to the pride of England and of all Europe in arms, when invading a country they had subdued, it did not appear to be against their honor to make such a declaration, could it be inconsistent with the honor of the United States, and the dignified position they occupied before the nations of the world, for them, in like manner, after all their triumphs, to declare that they waged the

war, not to dismember Mexico, but to obtain their just dues, es tablish their true boundary, and secure their national rights against future aggression? Such a declaration would carry with it a mighty moral influence: it would unite our people in the war; it would quiet the fears of those who were now inclined to suspect and to fear the results of the contest."

Carrying out these views, he offered a declaratory resolution "that the war with Mexico shall be prosecuted, not with a view to conquest or to dismember the territory of Mexico, as recog nized by us ante bellum, but to establish a just line of boundary, and to secure an honorable adjustment of all pending differences." He contended that "we already possessed as much territory as we ought to desire; enough for every rational and enlightened purpose; enough for ourselves and the generations which are to come after us; enough to gratify even the extrav agance of national pride and ambition."

And, when giving his vote in favor of the Wilmot Proviso, he said:

"Slavery having been extended over the Louisiana and Florida purchase, and, finally, over Texas, the free states have pronounced, 'Thus far and no farther!' We insist that this com mon government of ours shall not be employed to spread slavery over territory now free; that human bondage shall not be carried into other lands under our national flag; and that our armies shall not go forth under the colors of freedom as the propagandists of slavery. That, sir, is the lofty attitude and the inalienable purpose of the North. In this there is no abolitionism to justify the incessant denunciations that have been heard. Gentlemen seem to deceive themselves by neglecting a distinction too obvious to be overlooked. We aim, not to abolish, but to preserve. Where slavery exists, we leave it untouched; where freedom prevails, we demand that you shall not abolish it. While gentlemen denounce the abolition of slavery as treasonable and criminal, I hope they will indulge us if we protest against the abolition of freedom in California, New Mexico, and Chihuahua.

"Mr. Hunt here expressed his surprise at the remarkable language of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. C. J. Ingersoll). I am speaking of the opposition to slavery and its extension which exists in the Northern states. He said it was a mere