present these reasons, as published under his own revision, because we do not feel at liberty, by abridging them, to deprive him of any benefit he may claim from his own vindication of

his course.

In the same speech, in a previous part, he took up the question itself (of territorial acquisition), and thus met it:

"What is the object of this war? I understand it to be for the purpose of providing for our future peace and safety by punishing an aggressor, and to compel Mexico to settle questions in dispute in regard to limits. It looks to peace as the result. The President says, in his message, that it is not a war for conquest; but still, sir, I am obliged to admit that the President intimates that indemnity in land ought to be asked. I regret, sir, that the President has thought it his duty to say any thing from which an inference can be drawn that this war will be prosecuted with a view to conquest. For myself, I confess that I never desire to see the functions of any of the departments of this government exerted for the purpose of obtaining land by force. It is contrary to the genius of our institutions and the spirit of our government. I deny that the further extension of our domain at this time is necessary to the happiness of our people, or to our glory as a nation. The distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jones) said in his speech on the Oregon Question, delivered in this House on the 15th of January, 1846: 'I hope not to live to see the day when the government of the United States will be extended by conquest.' But where do gentlemen, who contend that we ought to seize and hold permanently the provinces of Mexico, find the power in the Constitution to do it? It is said, in the clause which authorizes Congress to declare war. I admit that under that clause we would have a right to overrun and hold military possession of the whole or any portion of Mexico, but that is a very dif ferent thing from annexing it to the United States, and incorporating the Mexican people with our own. If we incorporate them, we must either make them slaves or citizens; the former we have not the power to do, and it would be highly inexpedient to do either. This government should never be the instrument of unyoking, or becoming the sanctuary of the refugee provinces of other nations. We can not make citizens by subjugation; and if we could, it would not be right; they would be untrained in the ways of republicanism. We can not say as the French said when they undertook to conquer all Europe: Come, be brethren of ours, or we will cut your throats.' Our government is founded on the consent of the governed, and depends for its existence upon the virtue and intelligence of the people. What kind of consent could we obtain from the Mexicans, and what kind of virtue and intelligence would they be able to exercise in discharging the duties which our form of government would devolve upon them. But it is said we will not get Mexican people; but I say we will, to the amount of ten or twenty thousand, at least, if we only take New Mexico and California. It is admitted that there is no express grant of power to be found in the Constitution to any department of this government to obtain territory by conquest; and I undertake to say that it can not be properly inferred from the war clause, or any other. The Democratic party have ever been opposed to the exercise of constructive powers. Jefferson said, in one of his published letters, 'Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.' Gentlemen who hold offices under the general government often seem to forget that there is such a thing as state sovereignty, and that the states or the people have retained all the power not expressly granted in the Constitution to the Federal government. We have been told by all the best

statesmen in this country, that where a power is doubtful and only implied, wa should decline to exercise it, except in cases of the most urgent necessity. I object to these experiments with the powers of our government. It is true, our good ship of state has rode out many storms; but, still, we should remember the fate of other republics.

"A thousand years scarce serve to form a state:

An hour may lay it in the dust.

But it is said, Mr. Chairman, that the expenses of this war should be paid by Mexico, and that, as she can not do it in money, we should take it in land. I admit there is plausibility in the assertion, and that it addresses itself to the pride as well as the cupidity of our people; but I take ground against it upon principle; and besides, if we make this idea of the acquisition of territory so prominent, it will prolong the war for years, which will cost this government more in blood and treasure than the whole of Mexico is worth. We must remember that if this war is prosecuted much longer, we must come to direct taxation, and that will not be very agreeable when we consider the number of tax collectors we have already among the people for state and county purposes. But when did this government assert the doctrine before that the expenses of a war must be paid? Did we assert it when we were at war with Great Britain? The last war cost us one hundred and thirty millions of dollars. Yes, our Capitol itself was burned; and did we refuse to make peace until we were paid in money, or the provinces of Canada ceded to us? No, sir, no! and yet no person will say at this day that we did not gain much by it, and that peace was not properly made. We taught old England, as well as all other nations, that our flag, and the persons and property of our citizens, must be respected, or we would punish the aggressors, cost what it might. Where do we find examples to justify the doctrine that the expenses of a war must be paid by the enemy? The example is to be found in the practice of England whenever she comes to blows with a weak and defenseless nation, and that practice has been nowhere so loudly condemned as in this coun try. Who does not recollect the feelings of indignation which prevailed in this country when England made the poor Chinese pay the expenses of a war, and tribute beside? It is the doctrine of the strong over the weak."

He then addresses himself to the question of slavery:

Having said thus much in regard to the Mexican war, and in support of the policy of the administration, I come, Mr. Chairman, to consider the amendment proposed to the bill under consideration by my honorable colleague (Mr. Wilmot). The bill proposes to appropriate $3.000,000, to be placed in the hands of the executive, to be used by him in concluding a treaty of peace with Mexico; and my respected colleague, acting upon the belief that the President would use the money to acquire territory, proposes to amend the same by inserting a clause that the treaty shall contain a provision against slavery in any territory to be acquired thereby. Two questions present themselves at once:

"1. Has Congress the power to adopt the amendment in any shape? and, "2. If it has, is it expedient to do it at this time and in connection with this bill? "If we have not the power, it must be admitted that it will be a nullity if adopted. Every member, when he enters this hall, takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. That is the whole of the oath, and it is the one I took. Therefore, when I am called upon to do an act in my legislative capacity, I look for the authority to do it in the Constitution, for that great charter of our liberties enumerates the powers granted to Congress. Every intelligent person, and especially every Democrat, will agree that we should not undertake to do

any thing for which a warrant can not be found in that sacred instrument; for if we do, there will be an end to state sovereignty and the liberties of the people. Now I want gentlemen who are so vehement in support of this amendment to point to the clause in the Constitution which gives Congress power to legislate in regard to territories not yet belonging to the United States, or to advise the treaty. making power. They might much rather do that than to declaim in the cant phrases of the Abolitionists about the evils of slavery, which we all admit and deplore. The only clause which I can find in the Constitution which gives power to Congress upon subjects like the one under consideration, is as follows: The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regula tions respecting the territory or other property BELONGING to the United States.' Therefore, until the territory is acquired, the jurisdiction of Congress does not at tach. The word 'belonging,' no doubt, was inserted for the purpose of preventing Congress from usurping the power granted to the President and Senate to make treaties. The framers of the Constitution no doubt supposed, when they inserted the word 'belonging,' that there would be members of Congress who would consider it their duty not only to control the President, but the Senate. If we have a right to advise the President and Senate in the manner proposed by the amendment, we would have a right to advise in regard to all treaties. Now suppose we do what I think the people and the Constitution have not authorized, and insert this amendment, and a treaty should be made by the President and ratified by the Senate in disregard of it; would not such treaty be binding? Undoubtedly; and, therefore, it is clearly proved that if we adopt it, it will be a nullity. It is a fundamental principle that the powers of the different departments of the government shall not be blended. It is said, however, that we should adopt it for its moral effects, and that all who vote against it will be set down as voting in favor of slavery; that all who vote against it place themselves in a situ ation where they can be misrepresented. Sir, when I fear to vote right because my vote may seem wrong, and my motives misrepresented, I will quit my seat in this hall, for I would be unworthy of a place in it. The course of true policy is the course of true duty, and therefore I will vote as I think right, and run the risk of being misunderstood. But, to show the absurdity of our adopting meas ures merely for their moral effect, suppose that my colleague should offer resolutions in favor of the Christian religion and in favor of a republican form of govern ment; would not every member declare them out of time and out of place (as my colleague, Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, declared this slavery amendment), and feel bound to vote against them? And then gentlemen would get up and say, 'Why, you are opposed to the Christian religion and a republican form of government! Do not these suggestions clearly show the propriety of acting within the prescribed limits of the Constitution? We are here, not in town meeting, but in a grave constitutional assembly, with limited and prescribed powers.

"But there is a want of power in another regard. It undertakes to bind the future action of Congress. It says, 'There shall be no slavery in any territory which shall hereafter be acquired by, or annexed to the United States.' Suppose we were to pass a law, and say in it that it should not be repealed; I would like to know whether we would not subject ourselves to the ridicule of the world? “Now, Mr. Chairman, as to the expediency of this measure. What are the im perative reasons upon the score of expediency which should induce this Congress to exercise doubtful powers, and legislate in regard to territory, the title of which we have not yet got, and can not get except by treaty? There are none which have any foundation in fact, and many against it.

"If we adopt the amendment, we virtually proclaim to the world that this is a war for conquest, and that we are so greedy for territory that we prescribe rules

for its government before we have acquired the title. We subject ourselves to ridicule by counting the spoils before the field is won.

If territory is acquired by treaty, it will, of course, be free; and, therefore, if slaves are taken into it, they will be entitled to their freedom upon the great principle that free territory makes free men, and free ships free goods.

'Slavery can only exist by positive law; and, therefore, as soon as a slave is taken to reside permanently in a free state or territory, he is a free man. This is one of the great principles of the common law, recognized by the courts of England as well as of the United States. My Whig friend and colleague (Mr. Pollock) admitted the correctness of this doctrine in his speech the other day. He correctly said, 'Congress having no power to establish, and, at the same time, having exclusive jurisdiction over the territories, it follows that slavery can have no legal existence in a territory, with or without the action of Congress. The power, therefore, to prohibit, is nugatory, or, rather, no necessity exists for its exercise.' This admission, it seems to me, yields the main point in the controversy. If the territory will be free when it is annexed, and Congress has no power to make it slave, where is the necessity for the adoption of the amendment? If it should ever become a state, Congress would have no jurisdiction over it after it should be admitted into the Union. Pennsylvania would have a perfect right to establish slavery to-morrow if she chose to do it. At the close of the last session of Congress, the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) expressed views similar to those I entertain. He said, There are no slaves in California; slavery has been abolished there; and if we were to make peace, and in that peace to acquire California, there could be no law of slavery established there, unless it was made an article of the treaty itself.'

"No one has said, and no sensible man supposes, that we will ever get more than New Mexico and California; and most of these provinces are above thirty-six degrees thirty minutes-the line of the Missouri Compromise-above which, it is admitted on all hands, slavery is to be prohibited. All the Southern representatives have offered, this session, to extend that line to the Pacific Ocean; and besides, slave labor could not be profitably employed in either of those places. Neither sugar, rice, cotton, nor tobacco can be profitably cultivated there. The truth is, that climate and soil have more to do with the extension of slavery than any thing else. No person need fear that slaves will be taken from the cotton and rice fields of the Southern States around Cape Horn, or overland to California. That country must be the home of a maritime people, and the course of settlement must be from the seaboard to the interior.

"The amendment is out of time and out of place—is a rider, and has been a firebrand in our midst. When we are engaged in a foreign war, and we should present an undivided front to the enemy, this question of slavery, which has always been an exciting element in our political system, is thrust forward, to excite sectional jealousies, distract our councils, and delay the adoption of the measures recommended by the President for the vigorous prosecution of the war. The Whigs seize hold of it to make political capital. Notwithstanding tens of thousands of our people are suffering all the hardships of a campaign in a foreign land, at an expense, too, of near two millions of dollars a month, here we are, wasting our time in angry debate about negroes whenever a war or peace measure is brought forward. All this sort of uncalled-for debate has been occasioned by my colleague's amendment; and yet he says he asks the neutrality of this government upon the subject of slavery.' If that is all he asks, I submit it to the virtu ons and intelligent mind of this House, and the country, whether I have not shown that he should not have brought forward the amendment.

"It is a peace-breaker, and has been seized hold of, as the honorable gentleman

from Indiana (Mr. Wick) said the other day, by the Whigs and Abolitionists, to bring the Democratic party into tribulation, and to embarrass the administration in a proper prosecution of this war. It will delay, if not defeat, the passage of this bill in the Senate; and if a treaty should be formed as it directs, it is well known that it can not be ratified, for it takes two thirds of the senators present to do it, and thus the war will be prolonged for years to come. This amendment has produced so much excitement and irritation among members, that they seem to forget that it is our solemn duty to co-operate with the President in bringing this war to a speedy and successful termination at the earliest practicable moment. "Finally, it is not only an abstraction, which can not possibly affect either the character or the interests of the people of the Northern States, but may do great harm in creating a geographical division of parties. When that kind of division takes place, this Union is gone, and with it the protection to persons and property which it affords. But what nation was ever asked before to stipulate with a foreign nation as to its internal policy? The amendment asks that the President should make it an article in a treaty of peace with Mexico, that slavery shall not exist in the territory ceded to us. Now, suppose that provision to be inserted in the treaty; we take possession of the territory, and after a while admit it as a state: would not that state have a right to authorize slavery without the consent of the general government? Every person who knows any thing about our form of gov ernment will admit that it would. Hence we may get into war again with Mexico for a violation of a treaty-stipulation.

"Mr. Chairman, my honorable colleague, in his speech yesterday, talked a great deal about free labor, and the rights of the free labor of the North. Sir, at the last session I did not think he was such a great advocate for the free labor of the North. He voted with the warmest advocates of free trade in the South upon the tariff question, and was the only representative upon this floor from Pennsylvania who did. Upon that memorable occasion he undertook to give my Democratic colleagues and myself, as well as the Democratic party, some good advice. He said (I quote from the last page of his speech), 'The sooner, in my judgment, the democracy of Pennsylvania severs its alliance with Eastern Federalism and the Whig party, and, placing her interests upon high and national grounds, appeals to the democracy of the Union for liberality and support, the better for those interests, and far better for her republican character.' Now, sir, I think, if he would take a little of this advice to himself, it would be serviceable; and, as he is now not only acting upon this question with the Eastern Federalists, but the Abolitionists besides, I hope they will treat him better than the Whigs of Pennsylvania did my Democratic colleagues and myself after voting with them upon the tariff question, in opposition to the wishes of many of our own party.

"I have thus, Mr. Chairman, briefly stated my objections to my friend and colleague's celebrated amendment. I will now make some observations of a general character 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 be misunder stood. First, however, permit me to premise, that if we had acquired either New Mexico or California, and a bill was before the House providing territorial governments therein, or a bill was before the House providing for the admission of either of those provinces as states (the territory being first acquired by treaty), I would vote for a provision excluding slavery. I favor the principle contained in the amendment of my colleague, and will go for engrafting it upon the legislation of the country, but in the proper form, and at the proper time and place, and when the power to do so can be rightfully exercised.

"The institution of slavery is upon us, and we must make the best of it, and get clear of it as fast as we can. We never can get clear of it by abusing those