"YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Berrien, But

son, Downs, Foot, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soulé, Turney, and Underwood-25.

But I will return to the debate, which I know will be heard with more interest, and carry with it more weight than any thing I can say. Mr. BUTLER said:

"Sir, I was going on to speak of the people having a right, independently of the Constitution, by which even Congress derives its power to make whatever laws they please for themselves. That is, indeed, a new idea. The principle which pervades all legislation upon this subject is, that a Territorial Legislature is given by Congress, subject to all the limitations imposed by Congress, and it has no powers except those which are given to it by Congress. In other words, it has power to legislate upon those subjects only which are specified in the grant. This, I am aware, is inconsistent with the broad notion that those squatters, the moment they put their feet upon the soil, are freeholders, and are entitled to exercise all the priviliges of citizens of a State."

I propose now to read from the speech of the late Vice President, Mr. KING. He took part in this debate, and among other things said:

"I, sir, am opposed to giving to the Territorial Legislatures any power either to prohibit or introduce it, (slavery.) I believe that the power does not exist on the part of Congress, and in that respect I differ with the Senator from Illinois in toto. Sir, his argument is a free-soil speech; it is the Wilmot proviso, so far as the argument goes, as to giving to the Congress of the United States the power of regulating every description of property which the citizens of the country possess who choose to emigrate there. The Senator went vastly beyond what I have heard before, because it was then confined to slavery." * Sir, I never did agree with my friend from Michigan in regard to what is supposed to be the construction of the Nicholson letter. I never did believe that a

66

Territorial Legislature possessed any power whatever, but such as is delegated to it by the Congress of the United States; and the power which it did possess simply related to the protection of persons and property, and the punishment of crime. Sir, what do you require of them? That they shall pass no law that is not to be submitted to Congress for its approbation, leaving them strictly to the control of the Congress of the United States in every act that they may pass. And yet gentlemen get up at this day and advocate, on the floor of the Senate, the monstrous doctrine that these Territorial Legislatures, consisting of a mere handful of men, should make laws to affect every description of property."

There are other portions of this debate which I would like to read, but it would extend my remarks to too great a length. I will, however, read a short extract from the speech of Mr. DICKINSON, of New York. At the conclusion of his remarks, he said:

"NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Upham, Walker, Webster, and Whitcomb-30,"

Mr. Berrien moved to strike out, in the sixth line of the tenth section, the words "in respect to," and insert the words "establishing or prohibiting," so that it would read:

"But no law shall be passed, interfering with the primary disposal of the soil, nor establishing or prohibiting African slavery."

The yeas and nays were ordered upon this amendment, and resulted as follows:

"YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Berrien, Borland, Butler, Clay, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dickinson, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soulé, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Webster, and Yulee-30.

"NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clark, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Underwood, Upham, Walker, and Whitcomb-27."

I desire to call attention to these votes. Upon the amendment offered by Mr. Davis only one northern man voted in the affirmative, Mr. Dickinson, of New York, and only one southern man in the negative, the honorable gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Benton,] who is now a member of this House. On the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Berrien,] five northern Senators voted in the affirmative, to wit: Messrs. Dickinson, Jones, Spruance, Sturgeon, and Webster; and two southern Senators in the negative, to wit: Messrs. Benton and Underwood. These votes may be found on pages 375 and 376 of Senate Journal, 1st session 31st Congress.

Here, then, was every southern Senator, in 1850except in one instance, Mr. Benton, and in another, Mr. Benton and Mr. Underwood-voting for a proposition declaring that the Territorial Legislatures should not establish or prohibit slavery within their limits, for a proposition declaring that slavery in the Territories should be left to exist or

not under the Constitution and laws of the United States, without any interference to that extent either by Congress or by the Territorial Legislature. As was announced by Mr. Dickinson, that was true non-intervention. Yet by some it is said that those who stood upon similar ground in 1854 are untrue to the South, and are disposed to surFree-Soilers and Abolitionists. render the rights of the South into the hands of When I find myself standing upon the same ground as Berrien, Clay, Dickinson, Foote, King, Mangum, and others, the most distinguished statesmen and patriots that the South, or this whole country, can boast of, I care very little for the assertion, wholly unsustained by any fact, that I am untrue to the South, or that I have surrendered, or that I am disposed to surrender, her rights into the hands of her enemies. Until the names and the patriotism of these great statesmen shall have been forgotten, I feel that no harm can come to me, humble as I confess myself to be, from the empty declarations of those who may style themselves the champions of the South, and the only true conservators of her interests and rights.

I have thus far considered alien suffrage and squatter sovereignty as recognized in the Neand Kansas bil!. I am uncompromisingly opposed to both.

I will now briefly speak of another objection which I had to the bill. I believed, when this bill was introduced, as I believe now, that it was unwise and injudicious to propose such a bill in Congress. I believed then, as I believe now, that no good could come of agitating the slavery question, in Congress or out of it. The South never has gained anything by such agitation. The country never has been benefited by such agitation. It has tended, and ever will tend, to alienate the North from the South, and the South from the North, and engender a feeling of hostility one towards the other. As I stated before, at the beginning of the present Congress, we had but few

HO. OF REPS.

Free-Soilers or Abolitionists amongst us. The kindliest feelings were entertained between members from all sections, and there was no disposition to reopen any question which would lead to the formation of sectional parties, or the creation of sectional annimosities. The next Congress will not open with such relations existing between members from the two sections. Agitation will be renewed, and crimination and recrimination will be revived in this Hall, and in the country. And, I ask, who will be responsible for it? I answer what I believe to be true-those who originated and sustained the Kansas and Nebraska bill.

The motives of none will I assail; but, those who originated the bill stand in a very different position so far as responsibility goes, from those who supported it after it was introduced. There was a difference between making the issue voluntarily and in taking sides after the issue was made. I know that a great many who voted against the bill did it with reluctance; and I know equally well that a great many who voted for it, did so with reluctance; some, I may venture to say, almost against their positive convictions. Then what was the necessity for the reopening of this agitation? What northern gentlemen answer to this question, I cannot now go into; but their position is very different from that taken by southern gentlemen. Southern gentlemen answer that it was necessary to pass this bill in order to repeal "an odious and an unconstitutional" restriction upon the rights of the South, and they now add, in order to make a slave State of Kansas. The question then recurs, are they willing to incorporate into their territorial policy the doctrines of squatter sovereignty, and alien suffrage, and reopen agitation upon the slavery question to accomplish the first object, and to be enabled to run the risk of accomplishing the second? Their answer must be, that if we cannot get all we want we must compromise. We must take what we do not want, in order to procure what we do And these very same persons, strange to say, declaim most vociferously against all com. promises. I think I have shown conclusively that, if the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional, the Kansas and Nebraska bill is unconstitutional, because they both assume that Congress has power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories.

want.

But I propose to examine these two answers, and I am frank to say that they are the only two answers to the question which I have ever known many southern men to give. A great many from the North justify their vote for the bill upon the ground, and for the reason, that it established the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, and of alien suffrage. Some from both sections claim, I know, that they voted for the bill because it established the doctrine of non-intervention. But that will not do. I think I have shown that this bill not only does not establish the doctrine of non-intervention, but is itself positively intervention, in that it interposes its authority to enable the Territorial Legislature to determine the question of slavery, which authority the Territorial Legislature could not possess without express or implied authority from Congress.

What I have read from speeches made by the late and lamented Vice President King, by Mr. Dickinson, of New York, and others, I think sustains me in these positions.

But to proceed: It is said that it was necessary to pass this bill in order to repeal "an odious and an unconstitutional" restriction upon the rights of the South, and to place the South upon an equal footing in the Territories with the North. I am not going to defend the Missouri compromise, because, as an original proposition, I would not have been in favor of it. When did the necessity for the repeal of the Missouri compromise arise? It was passed in 1820, and the country went on in its progress to greatness undisturbed upon the subject until 1850. Then there was a convulsion; but once more all was quiet; and on the 4th of January, 1854, this fact was solemnly announced to the country, in a report from the Senate Committee on Territories. Referring to the measures of 1850, that report says:

"The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by their salutary and beneficial effects in allaying sectional agitation, and restoring peace

33D CONG....2d Sess.

and harmony to an irritated and distracted people, than by the cordial and almost universal approbation with which they have been received and sanctioned by the whole country. In the judgment of your committee those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the Halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences.'

It states that the principles and spirit of the measures of 1850 are incorporated in the bill reported, and then goes on:

"If any other considerations were necessary to render the propriety of this course imperative upon the committee, they may be found in the fact that the Nebraska country occupies the same relative position to the slavery question as did New Mexico and Utah, when those Territories were organized."

Nebraska and Kansas, &c.—Mr. Rogers.

braska, when the Indian laws shall be withdrawn, and the country thrown open to emigration and settlement. By the eighth section of "an act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories," approved March 6, 1820, it was provided:

"That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30', north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of erimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited: Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed, in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.'

"Under this section, as in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid enactment. The decision of this question involves the constitutional power of Congress to pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various Territories of the Union. In the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void; while the prevailing

"It was a disputed point, whether slavery was prohibited by law in the country acquired from Mexico. On the one hand, it was contended, as a legal proposition, that slavery having been prohibited by the enactments of Mexico, according to the laws of nations, we received the country with all its local laws and domestic institutions attached to the soil, so far as they did not conflict with the Constitution of the United States; and that a law, either protecting or prohibiting slavery, was not repugnant to that instrument, as was evidenced by the fact that one half of the States of the Union tolerated, while the other half prohibited, the institution of slavery.

"On the other hand it was insisted that, by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, every citizen had a right to remove to any Territory of the Union, and carry his property with him, under the protection of law, whether that property consisted in persons or things. The difficulties arising from this diversity of opinion, were greatly aggravated by the fact that there were many persons, on both sides of the legal controversy, who were unwilling to abide the decisions of the courts on the legal matters in dispute; thus, among those who claimed that the Mexican laws were still in force, and consequently that slavery was already prohibited in those Territories by valid enactment, there were many who insisted upon Congress making the matter certain by enacting another prohibition. In like manner, some of those who argued that the Mexican laws had ceased to have any binding force, and that the Constitution tolerated and protected slave property in those Territories, were unwilling to trust the decision of the courts upon that point, and insisted that Congress should, by direct enactment, remove all legal ob stacles to the introduction of slaves into those Territories."

Who were the persons who were unwilling to trust the decision of the courts, but required a declaration by Congress one way or the other? They were unquestionably extremists, North and South. The report goes on:

"Such being the character of the controversy in respect to the Territory acquired from Mexico, a similar question has arisen in regard to the right to hold slaves in the proposed Territory of Ne

the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the Territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution, and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the Territories, so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute."

So we see that on the 4th of January, 1854, according to this report-and five thousand extra copies were ordered to be printed by the Senate, I suppose for circulation-there was no necessity for a repeal of the Missouri compromise line, but, on the contrary, it was insisted that, for the preservation of peace and harmony, and to avoid the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850, Congress ought not to make any act "affirming or repealing" the Missouri compromise, or declaratory of the constitutional powers of Congress over the subject of slavery in the Territories.

Let us see, for a moment, in what light this report was viewed by the organ of the Democratic party. In the Union newspaper of the 5th of January, 1854, the day after this report was made to the Senate, I find a short editorial, headed "Nebraska-Mr. Douglas's Report-The Compromise," which is as follows:

"The report submitted to the Senate on yesterday, by Mr. DOUGLAS, chairman of the Committee on Territories in the Senate, in regard to a territorial government for Nebraska, will be read with profound interest. This subject has been looked to with serious apprehension, in consequence of the supposition that it might fearfully revive the slavery agitation. Mr. DOUGLAS was fully impressed with the importance and delicacy of the issue involved, and has devoted the full power of his capacious mind to its investigation. He has arrived at conclusions which seem to us to be unassailable. He plants himself resolutely upon the compromise of 1850 as a final settlement

not final merely as to the Territories then in dispute, but final as to all future legislation for

HO. OF REPS.

territorial governments. Adopting this as the basis of his action, he has applied the great pacific principles of the compromise measures of 1850 to the bill for organizing the Nebraska Territory. He goes further, and extends the provisions of the fugitive slave law to the Territories. The reasoning of Judge DOUGLAS strikes our mind as unanswerable, and we indulge the confident hope that the propositions submitted by him will be unhesitatingly affirmed by Congress. They present a practical test of the sincerity of the covenant entered into by the Democratic party at Baltimore. If the principle of the compromise, as brought forward in the Nebraska bill, are sustained by the united Democratic votes of Senators and Representatives, all doubt as to the final expulsion of the slavery question from the Democratic organization will be put to rest. We may then gladly proclaim the National Democracy a unit and repose confidently upon the conviction Mr. DOUGLAS's report, not only for the ability that the Federal Union is safe. We commend with which it is prepared, but for the sound, national, Union-loving sentiments with which it abounds. We shall publish the report in our next

issue."

Such was the language of the National organ of the Democratic party, published in this city. Judge DOUGLAS argued against the repeal of the Missouri compromise in this report with all the weight of his "capacious mind," and "planted himself resolutely upon the compromise of 1850," and his conclusions are unassailable. The report is commended for its great ability, but more for "its sound_national, Union-loving sentiments." With my Democratic friends, it seems to me, I could desire no better defense for my vote, even if I were disposed to place it upon the ground of opposition to the repeal of the Missouri act.

As promised on the 5th, the report was published in the Union of the 6th of January, 1854, and was introduced to the public by an editorial, which I will read. It is headed, "Mr. Douglas's Nebraska Bill," and is as follows:

"We are enabled to lay before our readers today the report of Senator DOUGLAS, accompanying the bill for organizing the Territory of Nebraska. Upon perusing this important document, our readers will readily comprehend why we attach so much importance to it. In upholding the policy of the present Administration with such efficiency as we could command, we have been forced to vindicate the President as wel as ourselves against the charge of favoring Free-Soilism and disunionism. Our vindication of both has rested upon the assumption, which we have felt fully authorized to adopt, that the policy of the Administration recognizes none as orthodox Democrats who do not faithfully abide by the compromise of 1850 as a final settlement of the slavery issue. Upon this ground we have gone before the country, and upon the issue we have signally triumphed. The Nebraska bill is drawn upon the same principle, and presents an opportunity for a practical vindication of the policy of the Administration, which is destined to exert a prominent influence upon the political mind. But so important a document will command universal attention, and needs no commendation from us."

Then follows the report. The question will suggest itself at once to a person reading these editorials, does not the Nebraska and Kansas bill, which passed Congress, and which is now a law, embody the doctrines of this so much praised report? Are not the principles which it advocates incorporated in that bill? Let us see. The bill repeals the Missouri compromise, and opens the door for slavery agitation. The report argues against both, and the Union said all orthodox Democrats would stand by the report. The bill which I voted against has incorporated in it the doctrine of squatter sovereignty and alien suffrage. The report advocates neither, but declares for the principles of the compromise of 1850. The sweetest morsel is yet to come from the Union. I would like to take more than one more, but my remarks have already been extended to a greater length than I desired they should. January 16, Mr. DIXON, a Senator from Kentucky, gave notice of an amendment which he intended to offer to the bill, proposing to repeal the Mis

33D CONG....2D SESS.

souri compromise. Mr. SUMNER also gave notice of an amendment which he should offer. On the 20th of January an editorial appears in the Union headed "The Missouri Compromise." I wish I had time to read it all; it fills about one column. But I must satisfy myself with extracts. The editor says:

"We have expressed our cordial approval of the bill introduced by Mr. DOUGLAS, providing a territorial government for Nebraska. It will be remembered that the bill, as proposed to be amended by Mr. DOUGLAS, reenacts and applies to Nebraska the clause on slavery adopted in the compromise of 1850. That clause is silent as to the question of slavery during the territorial condition of the inhabitants, but expressly recognizes and asserts their right to come into the Union as a state, either with or without the institution of slavery, as they may determine in their constitution. Two propositions have been made in the Senate one by Senator DIXON, a Whig, and the other by Senator SUMNER, an Abolitionist-which indicate that the bill, as proposed by Mr. Doug LAS, is to be vigorously assailed. Mr. Dixon proposes to amend it by a clause expressly repealing the act of 1820, commonly known as the Missouri compromise. Mr. SUMNER proposes to amend it by expressly declaring that the Missouri compromise is to continue in force. Persons professing to speak the sentiments of General CASS, have persisted in declaring that he was not satisfied with Mr. DOUGLAS's bill, and that he would offer so to amend it as to declare the Missouri compromise repealed. We place no reliance upon these statements as to General CASS's position. It would only be necessary to remember his course on the slavery question in 1850, to know that a bill which reenacts the vital principles of the compromise of that year could not be otherwise than satisfactory to him."

*

"But notwithstanding the real position of General Cass, it is still true that a Whig Senator and an Abolition Senator have proposed amendments which bring up the Missouri compromise."

*

*

*

We accepted the acts of 1850 as they were passed, and approved their passage as a final compromise; and in the same spirit we have been content with the perpetuation of that compromise as proposed by Mr. DOUGLAS's Nebraska bill. We have never yielded to the Missouri compromise any other obligatory force than that which attaches to a solemn covenant entered into by two opposing parties for the preservation of amicable relations. To such considerations we have felt bound to yield as ready an acquiescence as if the compromise was the law of the land, not only in form, but in substance and reality. Viewed as a legal question, we should be constrained to pronounce it unsustained by constitutional authority; viewed as the evidence of a compromise of conflicting interests and opinions, we have been ready to waive the legal question, and to abide faithfully by its-the Missouri compromise-terms. If we have studied the southern sentiment correctly, this has been the view taken of the Missouri compromise in that division of the Union."

"We have

labored under the impression that these considerations were all fully and maturely weighed in the discussions of 1850, and that the compromise then adopted was designed as a permanent rule for future action. It was upon this view that we gave to Mr. DOUGLAS's bill our ready approval; and we still think that the peace and harmony of the country will be best secured by its adoption. We are free to express our strong aversion to the reopening of the slavery question; and we still believe that true reason dictates that this can be best avoided by standing firmly upon the compromise of 1850 as a final adjustment.

"We trust that we shall not be considered officious in noting the fact that the propositions in the Senate for the amendment of Mr. DOUGLAS's bill, have proceeded from members of the two parties which are irreconcilably opposed to Democratic ascendency. Although these propositions emanate from quarters apparently antagonistic to each other, yet it can do no harm for Democrats to bear in mind that their antagonism does not prevent them from harmonizing in antagonism to the Democratic party. It may not be out of place, also, in us, to bear in mind that our party has come NEW SERIES-No. 12.

Nebraska and Kansas, &c.-Mr. Rogers.

33 * *

nearer to making shipwreck of its fortunes upor the slavery question than upon all others. "We assert, with confidence, the claim that we are THE Union party; and we claim that by our action at Baltimore, in 1852, we clearly illustrated and established this claim. Whilst exulting in such reflections, it may be well for us to scrutinize, with care, the movements of those who are our uniform opponents. That Abolitionists would rejoice to see the fires of discord rekindled by a revival of the slavery agitation, no one can doubt. And those who have perused the extracts from Senator SUMNER's speech, which we lately published, will not be slow to suppose that agitation is his object in offering his amendment.

history of the Whig party which ought to make "On the other hand, there is nothing in the past it offensive in us to say, that of late years its only hopes of ascendency have been based upon the slavery agitation, in some one of its forms.' When, therefore, a prominent Whig Senator, like Mr. Dixon, proposes to go beyond Judge DOUGLAS, and beyond the compromise of 1850, in showing his devotion to the rights of the South, it may not be out of order to remind our friends, that in the great issue of 1850, the body of Mr. Dixon's political friends, especially at the North, were not prepared to go even as far as the Nebraska bill goes! But Mr. Dixon's amendment may serve to stir up excitement on one side, while Mr. SUMNER's will effect the like object on the other; and as Whigism and Abolitionism have everything to gain and nothing to lose, the upshot may be that the agitation may inure to the benefit of the common opposition to the Democratic party. Prudence, patriotism, devotion to the Union, the interests of the Democratic party, all suggest that that public sentiment which now acquiesces cheerfully in the principles of the compromise of 1850, should not be inconsiderately disturbed. The triumphant election of President Pierce shows that on this basis the hearts and the judgments of the people are with the Democracy. We may venture to suggest, that it is well worthy of consideration, whether a faithful adherence to the creed which

has been so triumphantly indorsed by the people does not require all good Democrats to hestitate, and reflect maturely upon any proposition which any member of our party can object to as an interpolation upon that creed. In a word, it would be wise in all Democrats to consider whether it would not be safest to let well enough alone.' To repeal the Missouri compromise, and, according sional non-intervention of all embarrassment; but to our view, would clear the principle of Congreswe doubt whether the good thus promised is so important that it would be wise to seek it through the agitation which necessarily stands in our path. Upon a calm review of the whole ground, we yet see no such reasons for disturbing the compromise of 1850 as could induce us to advocate either of the amendments proposed to Mr. DOUGLAS'S bill."

I ask particular attention to this editorial of the Union. It appeared, as I before stated on the 20th of January, the same day Mr. DOUGLAS accepted the amendment of Mr. DIXON, repealing in express terms the Missouri act. After that time, the Union advocated that amendment, which but just before it denounced as a scheme concocted by Whigs and Abolitionists to reopen agitation, and

to

"disturb the compromise" of 1850. What reasons were there which influenced Mr. Douglas, after the 4th of January, when his report was given to the Senate, which did not influence him on the 20th of the same month, when he accepted the amendment of Mr. Dixon? What necessity existed on the 20th of January, for a repeal of the Missouri compromise which did not exist on the 4th of the same month? What necessity was there on the 20th of January which did not exist on the 4th, for reopening the questions which involved "the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850." Mr. Chairman, I have neither seen nor heard any reason to show that a necessity existed on the 20th of January, 1854, which did not exist on the 4th, for a repeal of the Missouri compromise, or an abandonment of the principles of the measures of 1850? And the "Union" newspaper, the organ of the Democratic party up to the 20th of January, and in its issue of that

Ho. OF REPS.

date, opposed in strong terms both the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and an abandonment of those principles, and insisted that the Democratic party had pledged itself at Baltimore, to stand by those principles in good faith. The able report of Mr. DoucLAs, makes these positions so clear that I might stop here. I will, however, read a short extract from the President's first annual message to this Congress, sent in but little over one month before it was proposed to abandon the principles of the measures of 1850, and to repeal the Missouri compromise, and again to reopen the grave issues, which were then settled. After declaring that it was not his purpose to give prominence to any question which might properly be regarded as set at rest, and speaking of the perils and dangers which we had passed through in 1850, and the repose and security which followed, he says:

"That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured."

If the positions taken by the Union newspaper up to January 20, 1854 were correct; if the doctrines contained in Mr. DOUGLAS's report, made on the 4th of the same month, and sustained with such great ability, were correct; if it were neces sary to maintain that repose of which the President spoke in such emphatic language, it was wrong to pass the Nebraska and Kansas bill, which disturbed that repose, overturned those doctrines, and upset those positions.

I have endeavored to show, from high Democratic authority, how little necessity there was for a repeal of the Missouri compromise, and for the reopening of the agitation of the subject of slavery in the last Congress.

I will now briefly endeavor to show what hopes were then entertained by the friends of the Kansas and Nebraska bill of making a slave State of either Territory. I shall speak of the hopes and opinions of the friends of the bill at the time the bill was under discussion and to be voted for or against, because any new-born hopes or opinions upon the subject certainly could not have influenced any one for or against the measure before those hopes and opinions were entertained. I cannot more fairly treat this subject than by reading the views of gentlemen from their published speeches. Upon this point Mr. DOUGLAS said:

"I do not believe there is a man in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slaveholding country. I have no idea that it could."

Mr. BUTLER said: "As far as I am concerned, I must say that I do not expect that this bill is to give us of the South anything, but merely to accommodate something like the sentiment of the South."

Mr. BADGER said: "I have no more idea of seeing a slave population in either of them than I have of seeing it in Massachusetts-not a whit."

Mr. HUNTER said: "Does any man believe you braska? I confess that, for a moment, I permitted will have a slaveholding State in Kansas or Nesuch an illusion to rest on my mind.'

Mr. JAMES C. JONES said: "Mr. President, I was satisfied to let this question alone. As I told the honorable chairman of the Committee on Territories, and as I have expressed myself everywhere, when I have given my opinion upon this subject, I was content to let this matter stand as it was, because, in my judgment, there was nothing practical in it."

Mr. Chairman, I must be permitted to say here, that, although I had objections to the Kansas and Nebraska bill, which forced me to vote against it; yet, since it is the law of the land, I would vote against its repeal, if that question were to arise, and resist it with what little of ability I may have. As I said before, I am opposed, uncompromisingly, to alien suffrage and squatter sovereignty. Those two questions, and particularly the first, can be reached without repealing the Kansas and Nebraska bill, if American citizens will determine that Americans only shall govern in America. A proposition to repeal that bill would bring around again the scenes which we witnessed during the last session in this Hall, and which, in 1850, and in 1820, threatened the existence of the Union. I hope, sir, I may never be

33D CONG....2D SESS.

instrumental in renewing such scenes, or bringing about such discord and strife. I would rather heal the wounds of the past, and close them up forever, than to reopen them to fester and gangrene until the parts can never reunite.

I have discharged, I admit, in an humble manner, a duty which I felt that I owed to my constituents as well as to myself. I have endeavored to enable them to understand the doctrines embodied in the Nebraska and Kansas bill, and to understand my views upon those doctrines. I may be assailed directly or indirectly, openly or covertly, by manly opposition or unmanly inuendo, but whatever course may be pursued towards me, shall not improperly influence my course towards others. I will, as I think I have done in my remarks, deal frankly with my constituents and all others as to my conduct and views. I blame no man for entertaining different views from my own upon this bill or any other subject. I have endeavored to sustain my position by fair argument. I hope those who differ with me in opinion will pursue the same course towards me. I would not, if I could, reach an adversary by appeals to prejudice.

Mr. Chairman, I will indulge in no declamation to satisfy my constituents or the country of my loyalty to the South or of my love to the Union. While the Union accomplishes the great ends for which it was created, I will stand by it. While the Constitution shall be preserved in its purity, and the rights of the States shall be observed, I will stand by the Constitution as the ægis of our safety. Should the Union fail to accomplish those ends, should sacrilegious hands be laid upon the Constitution, and aggressions be made upon the rights of the States, I will stand by my section and by my State in the last extremity.

COLLINS STEAMERS.

Collins Steamers-Mr. Olds.

1 design, Mr. Chairman, bri fly as possible, to present to this committee such facts and figures as have collected, relative to our ocean mail steamers; feeling, that although they may not change the opinion, or influence the vote of a single gentleman of this committee, that it is still due to myself that I should explain the process by which my own prejudices have been removed, and my preconceived opinions so radically changed.

Mr. Chairman, although as early as 1819 an American ship called the Savannah, propelled in part by steam and in part by wind, had made the trip from New York to Liverpool in twenty-six days, yet to Great Britain we are indebted for the origin of the system of ocean mail steamers. The Great Western, the first regular ocean mail steamer, was built in 1838. In April of that year she made her first passage from Liverpool to New York in fifteen days. The performance of the Great Western led to the establishment of the Cunard line, by the British Government, in 1839. Mr. Cunard contracted with that Government to carry the mails twice a month from Liverpool via Halifax to Boston, for the sum of £65,000, or $325,000 annually. This compensation was afterwards increased by the British Government to £85,000, or $425,000, Mr. Cunard then stipulating that the service should be performed in ships of twelve hundred tons, and four hundred and fifty horse power.

I refer to these historical facts, sir, in order to show that the British Government, in stipulating as to the size and power of the Cunard ships, designed having such vessels constructed, as upon any emergency might be converted into war

steamers.

OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
February 15, 1855.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the Ocean Mail Steamer Appropriation bill

Mr. OLDS said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I propose the following amend

ment:

Strike out from the 7th to the 18th line, both inclusive, and insert the following:

For transportation of the mails from New York to Liverpool and back, $858,000; and that the proviso contained in the first section of the act enti'led "An act to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the services of the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1852, approved the 21st day of July, 1852, be and the same is hereby repealed:" Provided, That Edward K. Collins, and his associates shall proceed, with all due diligence, to build another steamship in accordance with the terms of their contract, and have the same ready for the mail service in two years from and after the passage of this act. And if the said steamship is not ready within the time above mentioned, by reason of any neglect or want of diligence on their part, then the said Edward K. Collins, and his associates, shall carry the United States mails between New York and Liverpool, from the expiration of the said two years, every fortnight, free of any charge to the Government, until the new steamship shall have commenced the said mail service.

Mr. OLDS. It will be remembered, sir, that during the last session of this Congress, I reported from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, a bill, not only containing the notice to Mr. Collins and his associates, that the extra compensation allowed them by the act of 1852 would, in future, be discontinued; but, also providing that the whole contract be rescinded, and that the mail service between New York and Liverpool be awarded by the Postmaster General to the lowest responsible bidder. That I might be able to defend the bill, which, as chairman of the committee I had introduced, I commenced and gave to our ocean mail steamer service a patient and thorough investigation. That investigation, sir, notwithstanding all my preconceived prejudice, has so far changed my views upon the subject, as to induce me, not only as an act of national policy, but also in justice to Mr. Collins and his associates, to propose the amendment I have indicated.

The English. Government did not make such large appropriations of money merely to sustain a mail service between that country and this. Viscount Canning, as chairman of a special committee, in his report to the British Parliament in 1853, says:

"The objects which appear to have led to the formation of these contracts, and to the large expenditure involved, were, to afford a rapid, frequent, and punctual communication with those distant ports which feed the main arteries of British commerce and with the most important of our foreign possessions; to foster maritime enterprise; and to encourage the production of a superior class of vessels which would promote the convenience and wealth of the country in time of peace, and assist in defending its shores against hostile aggression.

"These expectations have not been disappointed. The ocean has been traversed with a precision and regularity hitherto deemed impossible; commerce and civilization have been extended; the colonies have been brought more closely into connection with the Home Government; and

steamships have been constructed of a size and power that, without Government aid, could hardly, at least for many years, have been produced."

This extract from the report of Mr. Canning demonstrates the objects desired to be obtained by the British Government. England is the great maritime power of the world. Her statesmen, with that sagacity which has always characterized English legislators, early foresaw that nothing would so much enhance the commerce of that country as the fostering and protecting of her

ocean steamers.

"These large expenditures," says the Viscount, "have encouraged and promoted the production of a superior class of vessels, such as will enhance the commercial wealth of England in time of peace, and become the means of defense in time of war."

"The vessels now under contract with the Government," says the Viscount, "are, however, for the most part, required to maintain high rates of speed. The contractors are also subject to a variety of conditions, designed partly to secure the efficiency of the postal service, and partly to render their vessels available for other national purposes wholly unconnected with that service. In return, they are in the receipt of subsidies largely in excess of the amount of revenue derived from the mails they carry, and those subsidies are guaranteed to them for terms of years varying from four to twelve, most of which have at the present time not less than seven or eight years to run.'

Ho. OF REPS.

Mr. Chairman, every succeeding step taken by the British Government relative to her ocean mail steamers demonstrates the more clearly that these large subsidies are not paid because they are demanded by her mail service, but because it was the true policy of that Government to have constructed steamers of "great power and speed," in order to render them "available for other national purposes wholly unconnected with her mail service."

As demonstrating the importance attached by the British Government to its steam marine, allow me, Mr. Chairman, to make another short extract from the report of Viscount Canning. The report

says:

"We have now under contract with the admiralty sixtythree ocean mail steamers, every one of which may be converted into war steamers. The aggregate power of these steamers is twenty-nine thousand six hundred and twenty horse power; their tonnage is sixty-one thousand three hundred and forty-eight; they annually steam one million five hundred and seventy-five thousand miles; and the aggregate amount paid by the Government for mail service performed on these several routes is about $4,000,000.”

This, sir, was the condition of the British steam mail marine two years ago. What the number of steamers, their power and magnitude, employed in the mail service of Great Britain at this time is, I have not the means of knowing. That the number has been greatly increased since that time, and that the subsidies now paid for this service greatly exceeds four millions of dollars I entertain no doubt. Viscount Canning says:

"All these vessels, in their contract with the admiralty, are to be good, substantial, steam vessels, of such construction and strength as to be fit and able to carry guns, of the largest caliber now used on board her Majesty's steam vessels of war."

Chambers's Miscellany, an Edinburgh work of great repute, in speaking of the magnitude and importance of the British mail steam marine, the liberal appropriations by which it is sustained by that Government, and the greatly increased commercial correspondence which it has created, says:

"The Indian mail which left Southampton in August last, filled one hundred and seventy-five chests, each capable of holding ten thousand letters, and at Malta one hundred and twenty smaller chests were added that had been brought through France. Making allowance for the newspapers contained in these, the number of letters must still have been enormous. All this writing and transmission of intelligence necessarily increases trade, and consequently bring additional supplies of articles to this country, ine duties on which must more than make up the difference between the payments to the companies and the revenues to the post office. But on the higher considerations than those of mere profit and loss, we have no hesitation in saying that the blessings to the country of these lines of speedy communication would not be purchased dearly if not one farthing of the contract money were returned."

Now, Mr. Chairman, let it be borne in mind, that whilst the British Post Office Department yields a net revenue to that Government of nearly six millions of dollars, her ocean mail steamers require nearly two millions from the British treasury over and above the revenue they yield from postages, in order to sustain and keep them in successful operation, and then, sir, we shall understand and appreciate, in some degree, the importance attached by the British Government to her ocean mail steam marine, as a means of national defense, should that Government be assailed at home, or as potential and efficient auxiliaries to her navy, in the prosecution of a foreign war..

Great Britain has fostered and taken care of her ocean mail steamers, not because she ever expected them to be a source of revenue through her Post Office Department, but because she looked forward to the time when she might need their service as vessels of war. That time has now come. Great Britain has not been disappointed in her expectations. She is now realizing the benefit of the millions of pounds sterling she has lavished upon her ocean mail steamers. She has now withdrawn more than forty of these vessels from the mail service, has manned them with guns, and converted them into war steamers. From Mr. Cunard four of his seven steamers have been taken and sent to aid in the blockade of Sebastopol.

Sir, what has been so soon realized by Great Britain may soon be realized by the United States; that necessity which has compelled England to convert her ocean mail steamers into vessels of war, may soon be the necessity of this Government. Great Britain has wisely acted upon the

33D CONG....2D SESS.

maxim that "in peace is the time to prepare for. war." It is our province, and we should be unwise legislators did we not profit by the experience of that Government.

I have said, Mr. Chairman, that the British mail steamers cost that Government nearly $2,000,000 more than the revenue derived from them in the way of postages. The report of Viscount Canning furnishes us the following tabular statement of the debit and credit of each of the English ocean mail steam lines for the British fiscal year for 1852. It is as follows:

From the above exhibit it will be seen, Mr. Chairman, that, whilst the Post Office Department yields a net revenue to that Government of nearly six millions of dollars, her mail steamer service costs one million seven hundred aud twelve thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars, over and above the whole revenue derived from that service. In the foregoing exhibit the appropriation to the Cunard line is put down at £188,040, or $940,200 annually. But from a careful perusal of Viscount Canning's report, one can hardly fail in drawing the inference, that Mr. Cunard receives a large sum from the British Admiralty, over and above that which meets the public eye.

But I have said enough, sir, to satisfy every unprejudiced mind that the British ocean mail steam marine is sustained, at whatever cost and at all hazards, by the British treasury.

Mr. Chairman, whilst England, our great commercial rival, was thus, through her ocean mail steamers, extending her commerce and her influence into every ocean, and every sea, the Congress of the United States could not remain idle. British example aroused our Government to the importance of securing and maintaining an ocean steam marine, that should be commensurate with the commerce, as well as the political importance of the country.

The American Congress, whilst appropriating largely and liberally from the national treasury for the building of war steamers, as an important arm of the American Navy, did not fail to profit by the policy of Great Britain, and with commendable liberality contracted with the American ocean mail steam companies for the building and the employment in the mail service of the United States of such steamers, as at any time, in any emergency, might be converted into war steamers, and added to the United States Navy.

As the policy of our Government has always been adverse to a large standing army, relying rather upon the patriotic heart and the stalwart arm of the citizen soldier than the disciplined regular, so the Congress of the United States, rather than keep up a large standing Navy, deemed it more expedient to encourage the building of such steamers, to be used in the merchant and the mail service of the United States, as might upon any emergency, be converted into war steamers, and added to the naval service of the Government.

The experience of this Government in the war of 1812, as to the value and efficiency of American privateers, like the experience of the United States in the Mexican war, as to the efficiency and reliability of the citizen soldier, has done much to establish the confidence of Congress, as well as that of the people of the United States, in the steam mail marine and the merchant service, as auxiliaries of the American Navy in a time of

war.

Mr. Chairman, the President, in his annual message to Congress on the 4th of December last, in speaking of the proposition of some of the

Collins Steamers-Mr. Olds.

European Powers to make the renunciation of privateering an article of international law, expresses clearly and forcibly the feelings of the American people, in their firm reliance upon the merchant and steam marine in time of war. The President says:

"The bare statement of th condition in which the United States would be placed, after having surrendered the right to resort to privateers, in the event of war with a billigerant of naval supremacy, will show that this Government never could listen to such a proposition. The navy of the first maritime Power in Europe is at least ten times as large as that of the United States. The foreign commerce of the two countries is nearly equal, and about equally exposed to hostile depredations. In war between that Power and the United States, without resort on our part to our mercantile marine, the means of our enemy to inflict injury upon our commerce would be ten-fold greater than ours to retaliate. We could not extricate our country from this unequal condition, with such an enemy, unless we at once departed from our present peaceful policy, and became a great naval power. Nor would this country be better situated in war with one of the secondary naval Powers. Though the naval disparity would be less, the greater extent, and more exposed condition of our widespread commerce, would give any of them a like advantage

over us.

"The proposition to enter into engagements to forego a resort to privateers, in case this country should be forced into war with a great naval Power, is not entitled to more favorable consideration than would be a proposition to agree not to accept the services of volunteers for operations on land. When the honor or rights of our country require it to assume a hostile attitude, it confidently relies on the patriotism of its citizens, not ordinarily devoted to the military profession, to augment the Army and the Navy, o as to make them fully adequate to the emergency which calls them into action."

Mr. Chairman, the Government of the United States can no more keep up such a Navy as that sustained by her great commercial rival than she can keep up a standing army equal to that of the Autocrat of all the Russias. The people and the Government of the United States must rely upon our mercantile, and our ocean mail steam marine, to protect our commerce upon the ocean, and defend, in case of a hostile aggression, our extended coasts both upon the Atlantic and Pacific.

It was, sir, in view of such a policy as this, that your ocean mail steam lines were originally established. Your every contract with these lines requires the construction of steamers of great size and power, not because such vessels are demanded for the mail service, but because you regard them as national vessels, auxiliary to the Navy of the United States. To this same end you have required these steamers to be constructed under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Navy. For the same purpose you have stipulated, in all these contracts, that the Government, at any moment, may take possession of these steamers and convert them into vessels of war.

As illustrating this position still further, I need only advert to the fact, that the appropriations for sustaining these steamers upon the two most important lines are not even made from the revenues of the Post Office Department, but from the national Treasury, the same as the other naval appropriations. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that E. K. Collins & Co. in accordance with the design of Congress, have constructed steamers, not such as are demanded by the mail service-not such as can be profitable either in the mail or the merchant service, but such as can be converted at any time into war steamers-such as are capable, and such as have triumphantly competed with the best steam ships in the world.

Sir, ever since the establishment of the Collins line, there has been going on between the American line and the British line, a continued contest for the palm of victory. I need not tell this committee, that American skill, American enterprise, and American seamanship has been completely triumphant.

Mr. Chairman, the Congress of the United States has expended upon the steam vessels in our Navy, more than six millions of dollars. I will not dwell sir, upon the history and the exploits of these steamers. I would rather drop a tear to their memory, and let them sleep in peace; but justice to Mr. Collins and the noble steamers belonging to his line, would seem to demand a comparison, between our Government steamers, upon which we have lavished so many millions of dollars; and the Collins steamers, from which we are now called upon to withhold the extra pay heretofore given them, for the service they are so creditably rendering the country. This compari

Ho. OF REPS.

son has been made by other and abler hands, as I shall have occasion to demonstrate before concluding my remarks. I must, nevertheless, be permitted to say in this connection, that the Collins steamers have done more, for the American name, more to establish our prowess upon the ocean, than all your Government steamers put together.

66

Sir, you may ask ninety-nine out of every hundred of the citizens of the United States, and they can scarcely tell you the name of one of your Government steamers, unless connected with some memorable disaster, such as the bursting of the peace maker" on board the Princeton, the utter worthlessness of the first government steamer Fulton, or the total destruction of the Missouri at Gibralter. But, ask them about the Collins steamers, and their memory brightens with the exploits of the Baltic, the Pacific and the Atlantic; and they are at once ready to sympathize with Collins and his associates over the unforeseen and unavoidable loss of the noble Arctic.

Go to England, sir, and, as my colleague [Mr. TAYLOR] informs me, from his personal observation, you can hear, in all conditions of life, and from all classes in community, of the Collins steamers for the triumph of these noble vessels over the British Cunarders was as mortifying to the English nation, as it was glorious to the American people-but you will hear no comment, except in derision, upon our Government steamers. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that every American citizen, whether at home or abroad, has reason to be proud, and may challenge the world to compare steamers with the Collins line; but the less he says of our Government steamers, the less cause he will have to be mortified by disparaging remarks. In short, sir, the beauty of model, the excellence in construction, and the unrivalled performance of the Collins steamers, has done more to establish the superiority of the American naval architecture, and maritime enterprise, than the whole Government Navy of the United States, which is now depleting our national Treasury at the tune of more than $10,000,000 a year.

I ask then, sir, shall we, in the face of such facts, suffer this line, for the want of this extra compensation, to go down? For go down it must and will, if this extra appropriation is withheld.

By large appropriations of money, you have induced American citizens to build steamers of great size, and power-steamers that are the pride and boast of the whole country. For, sir, I speak knowingly when I say that the Collins steamers are as much the pride of the farmers of the West, as they are of the merchants of New York.

By the former liberality of Congress, you have induced our enterprising citizens to enter into a contest with the enterprise of the Old World. To enter into a contest with the skill, the power, and the money of Great Britain. In that contest, American skill and enterprise has triumphed-signally and gloriously triumphed! Cunard, backed by the British admiralty, and supplied from the British treasury, has been compelled to yield the palm of victory to E. K. Collins and his associates. Although it was the Collins against the Cunard line, yet it was really a national contest. The whole American, as well as the whole British nation, felt it to be such. And for the first time in the world's history, Old England has been fairly, completely, and honorably outdone upon

the ocean.

Sir, Congress felt this to be a national contest. When in 1852, they gave this extra compensation to Mr. Collins, Congress was then satisfied that Collins, without increased pay, could not sustain himself against British power and British money. Congress, upon a complete and full investigation, became satisfied that Collins and his associates were entitled to receive the extra compensation now sought to be withheld.

The bill granting that compensation, was fully investigated by the Finance Committee of the Senate, and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House. It received the recommendation of both these committees, and after a most patient and thorough investigation, and a protracted discussion, it passed both Houses of Congress, and received the approval of the President of the United States. It would, at this time, be a reflection upon the wisdom, the intelligence, and the patriotism of that Congress, its committees, and