33D CONG....2D SESS.

the decrees of your laws, I ask again, where is the necessity for your bill?

Mr. TOUCEY. The necessity of the billMr. BUTLER. Will my friend from Connecticut allow me, [Mr. ToucEY. Certainly.} and I am sure the Senator from Ohio will.

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUTLER. I shall not even be betrayed or provoked into this debate; but, sir, it is a debt of justice to my honorable friend from Connecticut, upon whom the gentleman from Ohio has poured out his wrathful and scornful indignation, without any regard to justice; without any regard to the truth

Mr. SUMNER. I call the Senator to order. Mr. WADE. Never mind.

Mr. BUTLER. I say, sir, without any regard to the truth of the transaction, as far as I can understand its recorded history. Now let the gentleman call me to order.

Mr. BRIGHT. I hope the gentleman - will state his point of order.

Mr. BUTLER. Sir, I had not finished my

sentence.

Mr. SUMNER. The point of order I state is that the Senator from South Carolina has charged & Senator on this floor with want of truth.

Mr. BRIGHT. He has not charged half that is true.

Mr. MASON. The rule requires the point of order to be in writing. Let the Senator from Massachusetts put it in writing.

Mr. RUSK. Put it down.

Mr. BUTLER. I do not want anything of that kind.

Mr. BRIGHT. Let him put his charge down in writing.

Several Senators addressed the Chair. Mr. MASON. Let us get through with this point of order before anything else is done.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. WELLER in the chair.) The Chair will entertain the point of order if it be reduced to writing, but not otherwise.

Mr. WADE. I hope the Senator from South Carolina will be permitted to go on. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will suspend until the point of order is decided. Mr. MASON. Let it be reduced to writing. Mr. BUTLER. The gentleman from Ohio has a much higher perception of his own dignity and what is due to himself, than has his

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is out of order. No remarks can be indulged in until the point of order is decided, and it must be reduced to writing.

Mr. BUTLER. I would have explained that I meant no personal

Mr. WADE. Go on, and explain. Mr. BUTLER. No, sir, let the question of order be put in writing and decided, since it is insisted on.

Mr. MASON. Let it be reduced to writing. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The following point of order is made in writing by the Senator from Massachusetts: "The Senator from South Carolina charged the Senator from Ohio with a want of truth."

Mr. BUTLER. I did not so charge him.

Mr. MASON. I understand the rules to be that the words must be written down. Let him write down the words of the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. RUSK. The writing which the Senator has sent up is no point of order under the rule.

Mr. BAYARD. I presume it all arises from a misconception

Mr. RUSK. Will the Senator allow me? The rule requires that when a Senator is called to order the words must be written down in full, not an ad captandum abtract.

Mr. BAYARD. I think I had the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rule is that the words must be reduced to writing. Mr. BADGER. They must be reduced to writing before anybody has the floor.

Mr. BAYARD, The words put down are not the words which were used by the Senator from South Carolina, and no man except one under extreme bias could have so understood him. The words used by the Senator from South Carolina, I think were 66 contrary to truth, not imputing

any falsity, but having the same meaning as a man has when he says" contrary to the facts of the case. In using such language you make no imputation at all.

Mr. MASON. I rise to a question of order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. This question must be decided without debate.

Several SENATORS. Let the words be written. Mr. SUMNER. [Having obtained the precise words from Mr. D. F. Murphy, one of the shorthand writers for the Globe, who then occupied the reporters' chair.] The language employed was as follows: "It is a debt of justice to my honorable friend from Connecticut, upon whom the gentleman from Ohio has poured out his wrathful and scornful indignation, without any regard to justice, without any regard to the truth." These words I object to as contrary to order.

Mr. DAWSON. The Senator from South Carolina immediately followed that by the expression "as shown by the record," or something of that

sort.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The language sent to the Chair by the Senator from Massachusetts was used by the Senator from South Carolina, but with additional words, which showed upon their face that all that he said was only an impeachment of the memory of the Senator from Ohio. The Chair did not understand it to be an impeachment of his veracity.

Mr. SUMNER and Mr. CHASE. Let us hear the other words,

The PRESIDING OFFICER. They were "as shown by the record," or "as shown by the history of the transaction," or something similar. The Chair undertakes, then, to decide that the whole language which escaped the Senator from South Carolina was not out of order, because it was simply an impeachment of the memory of the Senator from Ohio, and not an impeachment of his veracity.

Mr. BUTLER. I did not even intend to impeach his memory, but simply to impeach his want of information. The Senator from Massachusetts, sir, has put his hand in too soon. I believe my courtesy towards the gentleman from Ohio is generally rather cordial, and I do not believe I would ever allow myself to violate, I will not say the beautiful proprieties which should characterize the conduct of men occupying the relations of gentlemen. I know, sir, under what hat sanctions I speak when I speak here as a gentleman at least, and I had not the least idea of throwing an impeachment on his personal veracity.

I said that I owed a debt of justice to my honorable friend from Connecticut. I must stand here! and perform my duty as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, of which my honorable friend from Connecticut is a member. It has been said by the Senator from Ohio that this measure could be borne if it had originated with and been advocated by southern men; but that, when it came from a northern man, it was one of those things that was to be treated with scorn and contempt. Now, what is the situation of my honorable friend from Connecticut? Did this originate with him? Is it the truth? Let the Senator from Massachusetts call me to order again. The fact is, Mr. President, that this matter came before the committee by a regular reference. It was referred to them upon petitions, resolutions, and remonstrances I may say, from many of the district attorneys, marshals, and I may add, judges of the Federal courts of the United States, and they came from the free States. The subject was fairly referred to the committee, and it devolved upon my friend from Connecticut, indifferently, without regard to sections, to make the report as he did by the direction of the committee. I believe I was the only one-but we ought not to mention what takes place in committee, and I shall not do so. My friend is and has been acting upon the authority of the committee, and not on his own mere motion, as my honorable friend from Missouri [Mr. GEYER] can bear testimony. I said that I rose to do justice to that honorable gentleman, [Mr. TOUCEY.] Why, sir, if I can state what took place in the committee, but I believe I

cannot

Mr. BRODHEAD. You can state it.
Mr. BUTLER. Can I?
Mr. BRODHEAD. Certainly.

SENATE.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. State it all. Mr. BUTLER. Since it is to be disclosed, I will state that I told the committee, substantially: "Gentlemen, I am the chairman of this committee; but when it is said that a constitutional law of Congress cannot be enforced in the State courts, and that an individual discharging the duties of an officer under the authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States is to be made a victim by the decision of an irresponsible multitude, in the form of a court, what am I to think? Are you asking for a law against public opinion? I say, gentlemen, this has gone further than you think. Now, I will say, sir, that my friend from Connecticut then remarked: As long as we are in this Confederacy-and he hoped it might continue-he was for preserving the constitutional legislation of Congress; not as a northern man, not as a southern man, but as a jurist, a statesman, and a gentleman, as he is, and a patriot, as I firmly believe. He did not originate it. The fact is, there were petitions poured in upon that committee, and I believe I was the only one who said nothing upon the subject. The committee authorized my friend from Connecticut to report the bill; and, allow me to say, he stands here in this temple of the Constitution maintaining his rights upon the altar of the Constitution of his country, not as a northern or a southern man, but as the organ of the Judiciary Committee of this body, desiring to preserve the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I hope I shall not be considered responsible for the interruptions which have taken place. I said nothing derogatory that I know of to the Senator from Connecticut, any more than is to be found in the fact that he, as a northern man, was, so far as I could see, (and that is all I accused him of,) responsible for this bill. I did not know who stood behind him, nor did I say who stood behind him. I said I had seen nobody's finger in it except that of the Senator from Connecticut. Now we have had some other disclosures. I suppose the Senator from Connecticut does not pretend that there is anything derogatory to him in a bill which he has deliberately reported. I have not stood here to impugn his motives, but I have stood here to deplore the fact that such a bill should come before us from a northern man, as I understand to be be the fact.

Mr. RUSK. Let me interrupt the Senator, to ask the Secretary to read, for his information, where the bill does come from.

Mr. WADE. I know where it comes from. Mr. RUSK. But I hope it will be put down just here.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is entitled to the floor and will proceed.

Mr. WADE. I give way.

Mr. RUSK. I ask the honorable Senator if the bill does not come from the Committee on the Judiciary?

Mr. WADE. I suppose it does. I am so informed.

Mr. RUSK. Does he not know that it came from the Committee on the Judiciary? Is not that manifest on the records of the Senate?

Mr. WADE. I can say that I have no doubt of it, and I have not denied it.

Mr. RUSK. Well, then, it is very easy to admit it.

Mr. WADE. I have been speaking of its advocates. No man has heard me say where the bill originated. I said I saw no man's finger and no man advocating it, when I spoke before, except northern men; and at that time the remark was strictly true; for nobody had advocated it but the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. SEWARD. Will the Senator from Ohio excuse me for a moment, in order that I may make a statement which I think is necessary to make this matter understood?

Mr. WADE. With pleasure, sir.

Mr. SEWARD. Although it is undoubtedly true that this bill was brought in on a report from a committee, it is also true that there are no papers with the bill, and it is indorsed on the back of the bill, "no papers."

Mr. DOUGLAS. What necessity is there for

33D CONG....2D SESS.

stating that? Is not the Senator from Ohio able to get authority to sustain his own statements?

Mr. RUSK. On the face of the bill this appears: "In the Senate of the United States, February 17, 1855, Mr. TOUCEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported the following bill; which was read, and passed to a second reading." That appears on the face of the bill, which is on file in every Senator's desk.

Mr. TOUCEY. Mr. President, perhaps I ought to reply to the statement of the Senator from New York. This subject was first committed to the Senator from Georgia, who is absent, [Mr. TOOMBS,] with the papers, and the papers are supposed to be in his possession. After his absence, it was put into my hands, and I have reported this bill by the direction of the committee, and it has my full and hearty concurrence.

Mr. GEYER. In reference to the remark of the Senator from New York, I beg leave to say that it is not customary to report back, with public bills, the petitions and resolutions on which they are based, and which were referred to the committee reporting the bill. When such matters are referred to them, they may report a public bill, and it is stated on its face that it is supported by the authority of the committee, but it is not usual in such cases to submit reports and papers. When a private bill is reported, the evidence on which it is based, is always reported with it. In regard to public bills, the case is different.

Mr. WADE. Mr. President, this only shows what I was contending for before. I now learn, if I understand the gentleman aright, that this bill originated with the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. TOOMBS.]

Mr. BUTLER.. Not at all. You are wrong every way.

Mr. WADE. What did the Senator from Connecticut say on that subject?

Mr. BUTLER. The Senator from Connecticut said what was the fact, that when these papers were sent to the Committee on the Judiciary from a very high source, I may be allowed to sayfrom those persons concerned in the enforcement of the public laws, they were referred to the Senator from Georgia, [Mr. TooмBS,] and not to the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. ToUCEY,] to draw up a bill.

Mr. PETTIT. The Senator from Georgia is absent.

Mr. BUTLER. The absence of the Senator from Georgia was the only reason why we referred it to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. WADE. I understand they referred it to the Senator from Georgia, and in his absence the Senator from Connecticut took the authority upon

himself.

Mr. BUTLER. No such thing.

Mr. WADE. At any rate he went with willingness into the matter.

Mr. BUTLER. I referred it to him myself, and I asked him to take charge of the bill, and report it.

Mr. WADE. Certainly, sir. I had very little doubt that the inception of this measure was in a southern latitude.

Mr. BUTLER. It was not so, sir. I stand here to contradict that, and the gentleman from Massachusetts may now call me to order if he pleases. It did not originate in a southern latitude.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is out of order now; the Senator from Ohio is entitled to the floor.

Mr. WADE. If it did not originate in a southern latitude my first suspicion is true, that it originated with northern men. [Laughter.] There it is, just as I insinuated before; northern men are responsible for this. Now, let me ask, is it not rather surprising that they should have entered upon a measure which southern honor discards? Is not this the very thing of which I accused them? Sir, I doubt whether there is any southern man who is imbued with their high principles of State rights, who would advise the introduction of a bill of this kind, for, most assuredly, as I understand the bill, it outrages every principle they profess to hold dear. It seems, however, that it has devolved on northern men to stand here and abet their peculiar interest by the passage of this bill, discarding the courts of the

Execution of United States Laws-Debate.

States under which they live, impliedly accusing them of a want of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States; and therefore, if I may believe what the honorable Senator from South Carolina now says, they, on their own motion, have stepped in here to vindicate what they conceive to be the rights of the South.

Mr. President, before I was interrupted I had said pretty much all that I proposed to say, and more than I originally intended to say when I rose, because my object in again addressing the Senate was principally to set the Senator from Illinois right in his idea that the result of the late election in Ohio had been brought about by the party called Know-Nothings. I certainly think I have shown that he is entirely mistaken in that. I have pointed him to the fact that in those places where foreigners most abound, as in Cincinnati and in Cleveland, the anti-Nebraska majority was the largest. He then is utterly mistaken in the idea that this great revolution was brought about by any such thing as Know-Nothingism. I am willing that he shall flatter himself that such is the fact; but, sooner or later, he will wake up to understand that the whole free North have risen with the determination that they will undo what was done against their will, against their protestations, and against all they could do to prevent the passage of that bill by their representatives here. Glory to the name of the great State of Ohio. Not Nebraska man from that State will obscure the doors and the Hall of the House of Representatives in the next Congress. Not a man on whose skirts there is the least smoke of the unholy fire, not a man suspected of the least leaning to that bill will be there to represent her. No matter whether he was Whig, Democrat, Free-Soiler, or Know-Nothing, if he wavered upon that point, if he stopped to doubt over it, if he hesitated at all, that doubt, that hesitation, was political death, from which there was and will be no resurrection.

a

Mr. DOUGLAS here addressed the Senate, but his speech, retained for revision, could not be obtained in time for insertion here. It will be found in a subsequent part of this volume.

Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I regret the necessity of trespassing upon the patience of the Senate at this late hour of the session; but since Connecticut has been made to lead off in this new conflict for the defense of slavery by my colleague, who reported the bill before us, I feel myself called upon to represent what I think to be her true sentiments, and vindicate her good name from dishonor. I am free to say, sir, that no other State in this Union more deeply abhors the fugitive act of 1850 than Connecticut; and to no other State could this bill, being intended as a sequel to that act, be more distasteful and odious.

SENATE.

from Louisiana advanced, and I wish to call his attention, and that of the Senate, to certain other facts of a prior date, to show the error into which he has fallen. If I do not greatly mistake, the declaration is true which was made by the Hon. Caleb Cushing, now the Attorney General of the United States, in a letter addressed, in the year 1838, to certain citizens of Massachusetts, in which he says:

"In its industrial, financial, and political relations, sla very is at the bottom of all the action of Congress." "It is that thing which pervades, colors, and controls, by its unpronounced, but ever present influence, all the measures and operations of the Government."

Now, Mr. President, I believe this to be true, literally, historically, humiliatingly true. And in proof of this, I would first call the attention of the Senate to the action of the Federal Government in relation to the District in which we are assembled. Let us begin here. This Government has enacted laws over the National District which are a violation of every principle of freedom and justice, for the existence of which my constituents are held equally responsible with those of the Senator from Louisiana, and which involve every State in this Union in a fearful responsibility-laws which are the sublimation of injustice, barbarity, and despotism, and which, according to Jefferson, impose "a bondage one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose.'

By the enactment and authority of the United States, one portion of the people of this District hold another portion as property, as chattels, to be worked without wages, to be scourged without remedy, and sold without redress.

Laws are in force here, by the enactment and authority of the United States, which authorize and permit some hundreds of children, annually born in this District, to be snatched, "while yet the seal of Heaven is fresh upon them," out of that condition of natural liberty which our fathers truly asserted to be the birth-right of every human being, and doomed to life-long slavery; children which, from their very helplessness, cannot be supposed guilty of any crime, nor for the alleged reason that their mothers (not to speak of their fathers) are criminal. According to the Constitution, the children of the blackest culprits even cannot be attainted. What, then, can be said of the infliction of the severest punishment upon the innocent children of innocent mothers, even the doom of slavery for life? Said Governor Giles, of Virginia:

"Slavery must be admitted to be a punishment of the highest order, and it ought to be applied only to crimes of the highest order."

Yet the Government of the United States dooms innocent men, women, and children to a punishment of the highest order.

By the authority of the United States a part of the population of this District are doomed to the profoundest ignorance, absolutely stultified, and then, if the poor darkened wretch, the eyes of whose mind have been thus put out, and the chambers of whose soul have been filled with dark

Sir, it affords me no pleasure to appear before the Senate on any question which may not be agreeable to some Senators. It would be less uncongenial to my taste and feelings, either to sit in silence, or confine myself exclusively to such subjects as commend themselves to the favorable consideration of all. But when propositions are thrust upon our attention which I cannot approve; or when injustice stalks before us in its most appall-ness, should violate a certain law which he was ing forms, trampling humanity in the dust, I have no option but to oppose them at whatever hazard, and can only say, in self-justification, with a great statesman and orator of antiquity, when about to urge an unpopular measure before an Athenian assembly, that "while I am not so perverse as to study to give offense where no good purpose can be answered by it, my opinion is, that every honest speaker should prefer the interests of the State to the admiration and applause of his hearers."

In the discursiveness of this debate, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BENJAMIN] has charged the North with aggressiveness upon the South. He represented the South as the aggrieved and outraged party, always suffering in her rights from the encroachments of the North, and always acting in defense of her peculiar institution from the assaults of freedom. Such was the burden of much of his eloquent speech. Now, sir, I be lieve this to be as contrary to the whole history of this Government, as opposed to our own observation. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] has called our attention to some facts of recent date to show the fallacy of the idea which the Senator

thus forbidden to read and understand, he is condemned to have his right hand cut off, to be hung in the usual manner, to be beheaded and quartered, and have each fragment of his mangled body hung up in the most conspicuous places in the District. And although, as I am informed, and am happy to believe, this Draconic enactment has not been executed here for many years, I do not understand how a court could evade the infliction of it, upon a conviction of either of the crimes of which it is the penalty, without a renunciation of the lower law dogma.

By another law in force here, by the enactment and authority of the United States, if any person of the proscribed class breaks into a shop, storehouse, or warehouse, not contiguous to, or used with any mansion-house, and steal from thence any goods to the value of five shillings, such offender, on conviction, shall suffer death without benefit of clergy. Yes, sir, death for stealing the value of five shillings, when slavery itself is the master-theft of earth, teaching theft as its first, rudimental, and practical lesson-plundering not simply five shillings from the pocket of a man, but clutching the man himself, body, soul, packet,

33D CONG....2D SESS.

shillings, all, and devoting them upon its execrable altar. Death for stealing five shillings, notwithstanding the Constitution forbids the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments!

By another law in force here, by the enactment and authority of the United States, if a person belonging to a certain class, whether man or woman, presumes to strike a person of another class, whether in self-defense against a drunken ruffian or an adulterous villain, or under any provocation whatever, on conviction by the oath of the person struck, he or she she shall be maimed by having an ear cut off, "cropt," as the law has it.

By another law in force here, by the enactment and authority of the United States, if a person belonging to a certain class goes out into the woods and shoots a hog, and refuses to return on the demand of a person of another class, it is lawful to shoot, kill, and destroy such person.

By another law in force here, by the enactment and authority of the United States, any person of the proscribed class, who shall give false testimony against any other person of his own class, shall have one ear cut off on the day of his or her conviction, and receive thirty-nine stripes on his or her bare back; and the next day the other ear shall be cropped, and the like number of stripes given the offender.

It is note-worthy, in passing, that the number of lashes generally meted out to the slaves by slave-law, is thirty-nine. Why this precise number should be designated it is not easy to understand, unless it was suggested by the "forty stripes save one," which St. Paul tells us he received five times from the Jews, and adopted in the hope of canonizing the so-called "Patriarchal institution " into the higher sanctity of apostolic saintship.

By another law in force here, by the enactment and authority of the United States, any colored person, free or bond, coming into the national District, is liable to be seized and imprisoned as a fugitive from slavery; and if unable, in that helpless and forlorn situation, to pay all fees and rewards given by law for apprehending runaways, is liable to be sold into slavery for life to the highest bidder; and to crown the atrocity, the price of blood-"the money or tobacco," as the law reads-shall go into the pockets of the marshal himself the judge in the case-as imprisonment fees, except what may be needed to pay for the arrest of the victim-thus holding out a bribe to the marshal to adjudge him to slavery. Under this law several persons, according to the reports of the marshals, not having been claimed as slaves, and therefore presumed to be free, have been sold into slavery for life. Thus the Government sells its own citizens into slavery, as cannibals sometimes eat their own children.

By the connivance, if not by the positive enactment of Congress, a traffic is here carried on in human beings. Advertisements of sales flare in the newspapers of the District with cold-blooded effrontery; and men, women, and children are bought and sold here, around this Capitol, as brute beasts. I am aware that, by one of the famous compromises of 1850, the bringing of slaves for sale into the District is forbidden, under penalty of the forfeiture of such imported slaves; but I have been unable to learn that any efficient steps have been taken to execute the law; and it is believed that, by concealment and fraud, the traffic is still carried on here to some extent, though the great slave barracoon used by the brokers in human flesh residing in the capital, is just across the Potomac. Soon after arriving in this city last May, I noticed in the organ of the Administration an advertisement of a whole family, consisting of five or six members, to be sold at auction, in front of the City Hall; and during the present session of Congress I have seen persons advertised for sale in the fairseeming Intelligencer, "without restriction," in violation of a provision of the compromise of 1850.

By the authority of the United States, if a person of the proscribed class shall fly any kite or kites within the limits of the Corporation of Georgetown, he shall be fined, or flogged, at the discretion of the Mayor.

Execution of United States Laws-Debate.

port its white poor, to sustain the schools for the education of its white children, and for all the other municipal expenses of the District, while, at the same time, they are precluded from any participation in the benefits of what they are thus compelled to pay, being left alone and unaided by their chivalrous exactors to feed their own poor, to sustain their own schools, and bear all their other burdens as best they can. Language, sir, is too poor to characterize such extortion.

By the authority of the United States, there appeared in this city a few days since, under the meridian sun, a human shape on horseback, dragging a woman by a rope around her body through its muddy streets. With unblushing face, and head erect, gloating over his victim with a spiderlike exultation, this gallant son of" the chivalry," ascended the hill on which we are assembled, with his human prey, and passed by under the very shadow of the Capitol over which at that moment your national flag was proudly floating as the ensign of freedom. Oh, "the model Republic!" "The model Republic!" The great slavemonger, the great slave-market, the great slavery-propaganda of the nineteenth century, around whose Capitol men are bought and sold like oxen, and woman is hunted and led, as savages hunt and lead buffaloes by the lasso!

SENATE.

Mr. GILLETTE. The honorable Senator, I think, has given the very profoundest reason he can for his disbelief, with a characteristic courtesy.

Mr. MALLORY. I trust the Senator from Connecticut will be suffered to go on, and not be interrupted. The statements which he has been making can certainly do no harm in the country; if wrong, they can be corrected.

Mr. RUSK. I feel great interest though, if the Senator will allow me to say a word, to know the name of that thing, in the shape of a man, who was seen dragging a woman with a rope tied around her body. As a matter of curiosity, I should like also the time when it occurred.

Mr. GILLETTE. In reply to the Senator from Texas, I will say, that I am not informed as to the name of the " thing.' It passed this Capitol about one o'clock, p. m.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. When? To-day? Mr. GILLETTE. On Monday of last week. Mr. RUSK. Did the Senator see it? Mr. GILLETTE. No, sir; but I have the testimony of several persons who did see it. Mr. RUSK. Will the Senator name who they

are?

Mr. GILLETTE. If essential, I could name the persons. They were ladies at the boarding house where I lodge. One of them, the wife of a

Representative, and a fourth, the sister of another Representative.

Mr. RUSK. Then I understand the Senator did not see it himself?

Mr. GILLETTE. I never pretended that I myself saw it.

Mr. RUSK. I am glad of that, for I believe the Senator would have chivalry enough to stop such a thing if he should see it; and I would help him in doing so.

Mr. GILLETTE. I am glad to have escaped such a spectacle.

Mr. BUTLER, (to Mr. GILLETTE.) What would you have done if you had seen it?

Mr. GILLETTE. I would have called the attention of the Senator from South Carolina to the scene, as a specimen of his "patriarchal institution," as it exists in the Federal District, and

Mr. GILLETTE. Certainly. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Code" from which the Senator has been quoting, and on which he has made his speech, is a New York work, "by Worthington G. Snethen, Coun. selor-at-Law; Published for the A. and F. AntiSlavery Society, by William Harned, 61 John street. That is the title page of the book. I merely wish the authority for the Senator's statements to go out with his speech.

"

Mr. GILLETTE. I ask the Senator from Tennessee whether in his State the authority of an author is discredited, from the fact that his work is not issued by a publishing house in Tennessee? Does he question the validity of the United States laws because they are published in Boston, and not in Tennessee?

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Not at all; but with me, the fact that anything on the subject of slavery comes from an A bolition source, is enough to make me regard it as questionable. If it is published by an anti-slavery society, it is pretty sure to be a slander on the South, and on the

ernment. I mentioned it by way of illustration of the subject in hand.

Mr. BUTLER. I know what I would have done.

"to

Mr. GILLETTE. Now, Mr. President, it is pertinent to inquire, by what authority did the Congress of the United States, acting under a Constitution ordained, among other purposes, establish justice"-aye, sir, to establish justiceand "secure the blessings of liberty," enact the consummate injustice of earth, and the outrage upon liberty, of striking down thousands of persons in this District to the degradation of chattelhood? In what article, section, or clause of the Constitution is the tremendous power given to this Government to make a man a slave, to snatch from him the crown and jewels of his immortal nature, and load him with chains? We look in vain for any power therein given to Congress to chattelize a part of the people, and throw them, despoiled and helpless, into the hands of another class, to be used as property, "to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever," in the language of slave law.

Such legislation is no less a violation of the Constitution than an outrage upon humanity. It is an arrant usurpation of power, such as few, if any, eastern despots could safely commit. By the Constitution, Congress has no more power to make a slave than a lord; no more authority to rob a man of his liberty than of his life; no more warrant to legalize slavery than piracy. The Constitution forbids the granting of any title of nobility-does it then authorize the granting of a title of ignobility, even the ignominy of slavery, and invest one man, with whip and spurs, to ride another man whithersoever he listeth, by the grace of this Government? We find no warrant in the Constitution for thus dividing society into distinct castes more odious than any to be found in the Old World, into slaves and slaveholders, menials and masters, bondsmen and freemen, vassals and tyrants, victims and victimizers.

It can hardly be necessary for me to say, that

33D CONG....2D SESS.

the Constitution, based, as it is, on the great principle of the national declaration, the exact equality of all men by nature in political rights, so far from countenancing "the wild and guilty fantasy that man can hold property in man," nowhere recognizes the principle of slavery in any such sense as to authorize, support, and countenance it; but on the contrary, if faithfully executed, slavery could not exist another hour anywhere under its exclusive jurisdiction. Instead of its shield, it would prove its sword; instead of its refuge, its hot avenger. The Constitution, while its declared objects, in part, are "to establish justice," and "secure the blessings of liberty," expressly provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;" and that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Slavery, as it is well understood, deprives persons of life, liberty, and property, not by due process of law, but by the summary process of force; it annuls the right of people to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, by breaking open the very sanctuary of private rights, searching, and seizing, not only property, but persons, and dragging them forth as booty, to be worked, whipped, and sold in the human-flesh markets. It suspends, in effect, the writ of habeas corpus, the great bulwark of liberty, in relation to persons not guilty of invasion or rebellion, but "guilty of a skin not colored like our own," and not even of that, in many cases, but of a "pure white" complexion-the negro Anglo-Saxonized.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. Will the Senator from Connecticut allow me to make a motion to adjourn?

Mr. BUTLER. Let him go on. Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. I do not see any end to this talk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. WELLER.) Does the Senator from Connecticut yield the floor? Mr. GILLETTE. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. It is evident to my mind that this is to come to nothing, but that we are to have an interminable discussion on subjects which nobody wishes to hear or cares anything about. I wish to go home now, and come back to-morrow to attend to the appropriation bills and other measures properly appertaining to the business and interests of the nation, and let the Senator from Connecticut make his speech on some leisure occasion when we have nothing else to attend to. I do not wish to listen to him now; I wish to adjourn, so that I may get some rest, for I did not come here to-day prepared to sit so many hours.

Mr. CLAY. I trust the motion will not prevail. I want the Senator from Connecticut to deliver himself of the one idea which he brought here with him, before he goes away.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. Does the Senator from Alabama expect to get a vote?

Mr. CLAY. Yes, sir. Let us unkennel the whole pack to-night.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky move that the Senate adjourn? Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. Yes, sir; if the Senator from Connecticut will allow me to do so?

Mr. GILLETTE. Certainly; I yield the floor for that purpose.

Several SENATORS. No adjournment now. Mr. SEWARD. Let us have the yeas and

nays.

Execution of United States Laws-Debate.

those who rose in favor of taking the question by yeas and nays.) There are only five Senators rising-not a sufficient number, in the opinion of the Chair. The yeas and nays are not ordered. Senators, you who are in favor

Mr. COOPER, Mr. SUMNER, and others. Count the other side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is too late now to ask for a division. The Chair decided that the yeas and nays were not ordered, and no division was asked for at the time.

The motion to adjourn was not agreed to. Mr. GILLETTE. I am very sorry, Mr. President, to tax the patience of the Senate, but at the same time I am not responsible for the introduction of this subject into the Senate, and therefore I shall proceed with what I have to say.

The Constitution expressly prohibits the passage of any bill of attainder, yet slavery defiantly attaints persons of African descent to such a degree that the purest anglo-Saxon blood of the "first families" has but little power to bleach out the taint and work an absolution. The experiment has been in progress in this country for more than two hundred years, under the cunning and conservative, principle, partus sequitur ventrem; and still it is found that it requires not less than fifteen-sixteenths of the purest Caucasian blood to remove the attainder and restore the attainted to the rights and dignity of manhood. In the early history of the country three-fourths parts of white blood entitled the slave to freedom, and be became, in virtue thereof, a white man; but owing since to the rapid fading of the slave's complexion, it has been thought necessary and profitable, practically, to dispense with color altogether as an index of slavery, and make it depend—not on paternal, no, no-but on maternal descent. Such is the fact in this District. Persons are held here in slavery, at this moment, as white as the whitest Senator on this floor.

I am aware that, in years past, when the free States, through their Legislatures and otherwise, have invoked Congress to abolish slavery in the Federal District, it has been the policy of its defenders to take refuge behind the States which ceded the District, and cast the responsibility upon them, but, in my opinion without any shadow of a reason. Let us examine this subterfuge for a moment. The slave laws of the District, no one will deny, were enacted by the Congress of the United States, approved by the President of the United States, and they are enforced by the authority of the United States, in a District over which Congress has "exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever" by the Constitution of the United States. Because Maryland may have had such laws at the time of the cession of that part of the District now remaining to the United States, so far from making that State responsible for their existence here, it only shows that Congress copied those laws from her statutes, and adopted them as its own. Supposing, if it were possible, Congress had derived those laws from the customs of some barbarous tribes, would that act have inculpated those barbarians, and exonerated Congress and the United States from the responsibility of their enactment and existence here? No man could entertain so preposterous an idea for a moment.

By the constitutional provision anticipating the cession of the District, the jurisdiction of the United States is unconditional and complete, without anything implied or understood. Neither Maryland nor any other State asked to exercise coördinate jurisdiction over the District, and dictate its legislation. Had such a demand been made, the answer would have been found in the Constitution, vesting in Congress the right to "exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District;" thus inhibiting Congress from becom

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. As the Senate do not appear to favor my motion, I withdrawing a party to any such stipulation. Says Madiit; but I will not remain here to listen to this worse than useless discussion. Other Senators can stay if they choose.

Mr. SEWARD. I move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. BUTLER. I hope we shall not adjourn. Mr. BADGER. It is very early; only half after six o'clock.

Mr. SEWARD and other SENATORS asked for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (after counting

son, in the forty-third number of the Federalist:

"The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of Government carries its own evidence with it."

The absurdity of the pretense of an implied obligation to Maryland, or to any other State, to maintain slavery in the Federal District, according to the pleasure of such State, may be thus exposed: Supposing a landholder should make an absolute conveyance of a farm with an unsightly and pestilential marsh upon it, and when the owner proposed to drain and reclaim it, his neighbors

SENATE.

should tell him of am implied obligation to do no such thing, inasmuch as the grantor has a similar swamp of vastly greater size on his remaining lands, and there are many such on the surrounding farms, all of which would appear the more unsightly and repulsive by the contrast, and the whole neighborhood be exposed to a partially purified and healthful atmosphere. The utter baselessness of such a pretension is obvious. Is it any the less preposterous to say, that inasmuch as Maryland had slavery when she ceded the District to the United States, there was an implied obligation on the part of the latter, never, without her consent, to abate the nuisance within the District, to drain the pestiferous marsh, because her own slavery might appear all the more odious from the contrast with liberty here, and not only herself, but all slavedom would be in danger from freedom.

Congress is responsible to all the States, and to the people of the States, for its legislation here, and not to Maryland solely, else the National is subordinate to a State authority, and is incompetent to fulfill its great design. Congress has the same authority to abolish slavery in the Federal district, that Maryland, or other slave State, has to abolish it within her limits, and to assume that the only legislative power in the District is incompetent to do away the evil here, is tantamount to saying that it cannot repeal the laws of its own enacting, within its own exclusive jurisdiction, which is contemptibly absurd. If a lunatic Congress should frantically assume to legalize robbery in the District, could not a subsequent Congress, restored to reason, blot out the barbarous enactment, and make restitution to the victims? Clearly then Congress, having enacted laws by which men are held in slavery in this District, can hasten to their relief, knock off their chains, and restore to them their plundered rights, their long-lost manhood.

The Jeffersonian Ordinance of 1787, abolishing and prohibiting slavery within the Northwestern Territory, was ratified by the unanimous vote of the first Congress under the Constitution. Supposing some member from Virginia had arisen there and objected, on the ground that, inasmuch as Virginia had ceded that Territory to the United States, there was a tacit and implied understanding that Congress would not abolish slavery therein, without the consent of Virginia-he would have been challenged to produce the proof, and, failing, would have been justly regarded as more zealous for slavery than wise for freedom.

But, Mr. President, I deem it unnecessary to pursue the argument further on this point, since the power of Congress over slavery in the District has been admitted by the highest authorities in the country; and, in 1850, conceded by Congress itself, by the passing of a law prohibiting the importation of slaves into the District, for sale. If Congress can abolish the slave-market here, can it not strike another blow at the root of the complicated wrong, and abolish slavery itself? If it can forbid the traffic in men, can it not forbid the enslavement of men, by repealing the laws of its own enacting, which make men slaves? If Congress is competent to declare every slave brought into the District for sale, free, is it not competent also to declare every slave already in the District free? Thus, sir, the whole question has been conceded and settled incontrovertibly.

The maintenance of slavery in the Federal district, by the authority of the United States, exerts a conservative influence over the institution in the States, by clothing it with the countenance and sanction of the nation. The District of Columbia is thus made the citadel of American slavery, its munition of defense; or as the late Mr. Calhoun once said, "the very key of slavery." Its existence here under the attendant circumstances, involves the whole nation in all its responsibility and infamy, from which Connecticut and other free States have repeatedly and earnestly implored Congress to relieve them, and cast from their shoulders the ignominious load. Petitions for this object now lie on your table, sir; and but a few days ago, the sovereign State of Michigan, through her noble Legislature, spoke to us in relation to this and other kindred abuses, in a voice so clear and thrilling, that none but squatter-sovereigns, clamorous for "popular sovereignty," can disobey.