and wrote on it all the words which the king had burned in the fire, and there were added besides unto them many like words.' And this always has been, and always will be, the brief history of every effort to silence free inquiry and stifle free discussion. I thank Heaven that it is so. It is this interest and inextinguishable elasticity of opinion, of conscience, of inquiry, which, like the great agent of modern art, gains only new force, fresh vigor, redoubled powers of progress and propulsion by every degree of compulsion and restraint; it is this to which the world owes all the liberty it has yet acquired, and to which it will owe all that is yet in store for it. Well did John Milton exclaim, in his noble defense of unlicensed printing, 'Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely, above all liberties;' for, in securing that, we secure the all-sufficient instrument for achieving all other liberties."

The early and consistent opposition manifested by Mr. Winthrop to the annexation of Texas is matter of notoriety. On the 14th of March, 1844, when rumors were rife that a treaty would soon be sent in by Mr. Tyler for the ratification of the Senate, and when Isaac E. Holmes, of South Carolina, alluded to annexation, for the first time in debate, as the settled policy of the government, Mr. Winthrop thus remonstrated:

"The remark," he said, "seemed to have been made partly in jest, partly in earnest; yet there were some subjects that were too solemn in their character, and too momentous in the consequences they involved, to be even thus adverted to without eliciting the most serious feeling. He alluded to the idea thrown out by the gentleman that this institution [i. e., the West Point Academy] ought to be sustained, because the annexation of Texas was the settled policy of this government. Who settled it? Not, he would undertake to say, not the people, nor the representatives of the people. They knew nothing about it, though he believed there were others who did know. He feared that there was something serious in this matter. He was almost afraid that the gentleman from South Carolina intended to try the temper of the House and the country by throwing out the idea, as he (Mr. Winthrop) had said, half in jest, half in earnest; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Weller) had commented upon it, not exactly in the terms which he (Mr. Winthrop) would like to have heard from a represent

ative of that state. He believed that there was no little danger that the people of the country were about to be taken by surprise on this subject of the annexation of Texas; he believed that that momentous project, which, in his judgment, would endanger the stability of the Union, and which was utterly abhorrent to the feelings of the people in his section of country, was at this moment in a train of secret and stealthy negotiaHe hoped that a call would be made upon the executive

for information.

"Mr. Black rose to a question of relevancy, which gave rise to a brief conversation.

"Mr. Winthrop said he should have concluded what he had to say by this time if the gentleman had not interposed. He had stated his fears; he had stated what, in his opinion, it was the duty of this House to do; and he would now only add, in answer to the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina, that if he (Mr. Winthrop) believed that the continued existence and prosperity of this academy was to encourage the government to plunge the country into a war with Mexico by persisting in the annexation of Texas, he would this instant give his vote to level it to the ground."

On the following day he endeavored to introduce a resolution declaring that no proposition for the annexation of Texas to the United States ought to be made, or assented to, by this government, but the House would not receive it.

known.

His opposition to the mode by which the project was finally accomplished-namely, by joint resolution-is equally well When Charles J. Ingersoll, at that time chairman. of the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas, Mr. Winthrop said:

"He held the doctrines contained in the report to be in violation of the Constitution, and laws, and rights of the states; and he believed, if carried into execution, they were eminently calculated to involve the country in an unjust and dishonorable war. He also held them to be particularly objectionable on the question of slavery."

On a subsequent day, January 6th, 1845, he summed up an elaborate argument with these positions:

"I am against annexation now and always, because I believe it to be clearly unconstitutional in substance; because it

will break up the balance of our system, violate the compromises of the Constitution, and endanger the permanence of our Union; and, above all, because I am uncompromisingly oppos ed to the extension of domestic slavery, or to the addition of another inch of slaveholding territory to this nation."

That policy, however, once consummated, every vestige of opposition ceased, and he has accorded to Texas and her inter ests as willing an ear and as liberal a hand as if she had been one of the original sisterhood. His rule of conduct toward her is well embodied in the sentiment given by him at Faneuil Hall on the 4th of July, 1845:

"OUR COUNTRY: bounded by the St. John's and the Sabine, or however otherwise bounded or described, and be the meas urements more or less, still our country-to be cherished in all our hearts, to be defended by all our hands."

This toast was given at a dinner at Faneuil Hall, which immediately followed the city oration of the 4th of July, wherein some ultraisms and extravagances had been advocated upon the subject of the military and naval defenses of the country.

Mr. Winthrop was among the foremost of those members of both branches of Congress who, in the Oregon controversy, boldly stood forth to stem the current of that popular feeling which seemed to have set in irresistibly toward war with England. [See title, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.] His efforts at three successive sessions can not fail to be remembered and appre ciated by all sincere friends of peace. He was conscious of the reproaches to which, unfortunately, every public man in our country is subjected who dares to take the side of peace; and. in one of his speeches, he thus regards them:

"I am perfectly aware, Mr. Speaker, that, express the views which I entertain when I may, I shall not escape reproach and imputation from some quarters of the House. I know that there are those by whom the slightest syllable of dissent from the extreme views which the administration would seem recently to have adopted, will be eagerly seized upon as evidence of a want of what they call patriotism and American spirit. I spurn all such imputations in advance. I spurn the notion that patriotism can only be manifested by plunging the nation into war, or that the love of one's own country can only be meas ured by one's hatred to any other country. Sir, the American

spirit that is wanted at the present moment, wanted for our highest honor, wanted for our dearest interests, is that which dares to confront the mad impulses of a superficial popular sentiment, and to appeal to the sober second thoughts of moral and intelligent men. Every schoolboy can declaim about honor and war, the British lion and the American eagle; and it is a vice of our nature, that the calmest of us have heartstrings which may vibrate for a moment even to such vulgar touches. But (thanks to the institutions of education and religion which our fathers founded) the great mass of the American people have also an intelligence and a moral sense which will sooner or later respond to appeals of a higher and nobler sort, if we will only have the firmness to make them."

The principle upon which the whole of his action was based was this, that the American title to Oregon was the best then in existence, but that the whole character of that title was too confused and complicated to justify any arbitrary and exclusive assertions of right, and that a compromise of the question was in every way consistent with reason, interest, and honor. Entertaining these views, he introduced, on the 19th of December, 1845, the following resolutions:

"1. Resolved, That the differences between the United States and Great Britain on the subject of the Oregon Territory are still a subject for negotiation and compromise, and that satisfactory evidence has not yet been afforded that no compromise which the United States ought to accept can be effected.

"2. Resolved, That it would be a dishonor to the age in which we live, and in the highest degree discreditable to both the nations concerned, if they shall suffer themselves to be drawn into a war upon a question of no immediate or practical interest to either of them.

3. Resolved, That if no other mode for the amicable adjustment of this question remains, it is due to the principles of civilization and Christianity that a resort to arbitration should be had, and that this government can not relieve itself from all responsibility which may follow the failure to settle the controversy while this result is still untried.

66

4. Resolved, That arbitration does not necessarily involve a reference to crowned heads; and that, if a jealousy of such a

reference is entertained in any quarter, a commission of able and dispassionate citizens, either from the two countries concerned or from the world at large, offers itself as an obvious and unobjectionable alternative."

These resolutions contained the earliest distinct proposition of arbitration by civil commissioners instead of crowned heads. They received complimentary notices from many sources, domestic and foreign. Thiers alluded to them in the Chamber of Deputies, and Louis Philippe was said, in the papers of the time, to have spoken of them in terms of commendation.

That Mr. Winthrop did not escape the suspicions and imputations which he himself anticipated in the extract we have quoted, those conversant with the public concerns of that day For example, in debate in the House,

are aware.

"Mr. M'Ciernand alluded to the proposition of arbitration (in the form of a resolution heretofore offered by Mr. Winthrop), and spoke of its similarity to that subsequently offered by the British minister as a remarkable coincidence.

"Mr. Winthrop here rose and inquired whether the honorable member from Illinois [Mr. M'Clernand] intended to impute to him any collusion or understanding with the British minister

"Mr. M'Clernand said he did not. What he said was, that the coincidence in the views of the gentleman with those of the British minister was remarkable.

"Mr. Winthrop, 'Then, as the gentleman disclaims any offensive imputation, I desire to take this opportunity to set myself right, as this is the same remark that was made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. C. J. Ingersoll], in his speech at the close of the Oregon debate. I desire to say, in the presence of my God, and in the presence of my country as represented by the representatives of the people here, that neither at the time I moved the resolution looking to arbitration, on the 19th of December, nor upon the day-the 3d of January-on which I made the speech advocating it, had I the slightest knowledge the slightest knowledge—the slightest foundation for a belief, that a proposition of arbitration, in any form or under any circumstances, had been, or was about to be, offered by the British minister to the government of the United States. If any gentleman desires any further explanation, I am here ready to give it.'