33D CONG....2D SESS. citizens in the several States," are equally applicable to its associate clause, forming a part of the same section, in the same article, and providing that "persons held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." of this there can be no doubt. If one of these clauses is regarded as a compact between the States, to be carried out by them respectively, according to their interpretation of its obligations, without any intervention of Congress, then the other must be so regarded; nor can any legislative power be asserted by Congress under one clause which is denied under the other. Congress, in abstaining from all exercise of power under the first clause, when required thereto in order to protect the liberty of colored citizens, while it has assumed power under the second clause, in order to obtain the surrender of fugitive slaves, has shown an inconsistency, which becomes more monstrous when it is considered that, in the one case, the general and commanding interests of liberty have been neglected, while in the other, the peculiar and subordinate interests of slavery have been carefully secured; and such an exercise of power is an alarming evidence of that influence of slavery in the national Government which has increased, is increasing, and ought to be overthrown. According to the express words of the Constitution, in the tenth amendment, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;" and since no powers are delegated to the United States in the clause relating to "the privileges and immunities of citizens," or in the associate clause of the same section, relating to the surrender of "persons held to service or labor," therefore all legislation by Congress under either clause must be an assumption of undelegated powers, and an infraction of rights secured to the States respectively, or to the people; and such, I have already said, is the Fugitive Slave Act. I might go further, and, by the example of South Carolina, vindicate to Massachusetts, and every other State, the right to put such interpretation upon the "fugitive" clause as it shall think proper. The Legislature of South Carolina, in a series of resolutions, adopted in 1844, asserts the following proposition: "Resolved, That free negroes and persons of color are not citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution, which confers upon the citizens of one State the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States." Execution of United States Laws-Debate. draws no life from the Constitution, as it clearly And yet, sir, in zeal to support this enormity, Here is a distinct assumption of a right to de-human heart. In prohibiting the use of the county termine the persons to whom certain words of the Constitution are applicable. Now, nothing can be clearer than this: If South Carolina may determine for itself whether the clause relating to "the privileges and immunities of citizens" be applicable to the colored citizens of the several States, and may solemnly deny its applicability, then may Massachusetts, and every other State, determine for itself whether the other clause relating to the surrender of "persons held to service or labor," be really applicable to fugitive slaves, and may solemnly deny its applicability. Mr. President, I have said enough to show the usurpation by Congress under the "fugitive" clause of the Constitution, and to warn you against renewing this usurpation. But I have left untouched those other outrages, plentiful as words, which enter into the existing fugitive slave act, among which are the denial of trial by jury; the denial of the writ of habeas corpus; the authorization of judgment on ex parte evidence, without the sanction of cross-examination; and the surrender of the great question of human freedom to be determined by a mere commissioner, who, according to the requirements of the Constitution, is grossly incompetent to any such service. I have also left untouched the hateful character of this enactment as a barefaced subversion of every principle of humanity and justice. And now, sir, we are asked to lend ourselves anew to this enormity, worthy only of indignant condemnation; we are asked to impart new life to this pretended law, this false act of Congress, this counterfeit enactment, this monster of legislation, which jails and buildings, as barracoons and slave-pens; SENATE. to remove this act from our statute-book, that it This re But the Senator from Louisiana, with these professions on his lips, proceeds to ask, doubtless, with complete sincerity, but in strange forgetfulness of the history of our country: "Did we ever bring this subject into Congress?" Yes, sir, that was his inquiry, as if there had been any moment from the earliest days of the Republic, when the supporters of slavery had ceased to bring this subject into Congress. Almost from the beginning it has been there, through the exercise of usurped power, no where given under the Constitution, for I am glad to believe that the Constitution of my country contains no words out of which slavery, or the power to support slavery, can be derived; and this conclusion, I doubt not, will yet be affirmed by the courts. And yet, the honorable Senator asks: "Did we ever bring this subject into Congress?" The answer shall be plain and explicit. Sir, you brought slavery into Congress, when shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, you sanctioned it in the District of Columbia, within the national jurisdiction, and adopted that barbarous slave code, still extant on your statute-book, which the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. GILLETTE] has so eloquently exposed to-night. You brought slavery into Congress, when at the same period you accepted the cession of territories from North Carolina and Georgia, now constituting States of the Union, with conditions in favor of slavery, and thus began to sanction slavery in Territories within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. You brought slavery into Congress, when, at different times, you usurped a power not given by the Constitution, over fugitive slaves, and by most offensive legislation thrust your arms into distant northern homes. You brought slavery into Cogress, when, by express legislation, you regulated the coastwise slave trade, and thus threw the national shield over a traffic on the coast of the United States, which on the coast of Congo you justly brand as "piracy." You brought slavery into Congress when, from time to time, you sought to introduce new States with slaveholding constitutions into the national Union. And, permit me to say, sir, you brought slavery into Congress when you called upon it, as you have done even at this very For myself, let me say that I look with no pleas-session-to pay for slaves, and thus, in defiance ure on any possibility of conflict between the State and national jurisdictions; but I trust that, if the interests of freedom so require, the States will not hesitate. From the beginning of this controversy, I have sought, as I still seek, to awaken another influence, which, without the possibility of conflict, will be mightier than any act of Congress and the sword of the National Government. I mean an enlightened, generous, humane, Christian Public Opinion, which shall blast with contempt, indignation, and abhorrence, all who, in whatever form, or under whatever name, undertake to be agents in enslaving a fellow man. Sir, such an Opinion you cannot bind or subdue. Against its subtle, pervasive influence, your legislation and the decrees of courts will be powerless. Already in Massachusetts, I am proud to believe, it begins to prevail; and the Fugitive Act will soon be there a dead letter. of a cardinal principle of the Constitution, made the National Government recognize property in men. And yet the Senator from Louisiana, with strange simplicity, says that the South only asks to be let alone. Sir, the honorable Senator only borrows the language of the North, which, at each of these usurpations, exclaims, "Let us alone." And let me say, frankly, that peace can never prevail until you do let us alone-until this subject of slavery is banished from Congress by the triumph of freedom-until slavery is driven from its usurped foothold, and freedom is made national instead of sectional and until the National Government is brought back to the precise position it occupied on the day that Washington took his first oath as President of the United States, when there was no Fugitive Act, and the national flag, as it floated over the national territory within the jurisdiction of Congress, nowhere covered a single - Mr. President, since things are so, it were well || slave. 33D CONG....2D SESS. And now, sir, as an effort in the true direction of the Constitution; in the hope of beginning the divorce of the National Government from slavery, and to remove all occasion for the proposed measure under consideration, I shall close what I have to say with a motion to repeal the Fugitive Act. Twice already, since I have had the honor of a seat on this floor, I have pressed that question to a vote, and I mean to press it again to-night. After the protracted discussion, involving the character of this enactment, such a motion seems logically to belong to this occasion, and may fitly close its proceedings. At a former session, on introducing this proposition, I discussed it at length, in an argument, which I fearlessly assert has never been answered, and now, in this debate, I have already touched upon various objections. There are yet other things which might be urged. I might exhibit the abuses which have occurred under the Fugitive Act; the number of free persons it has doomed to slavery; the riots it has provoked; the brutal conduct of its officers; the distress it has scattered; the derangement of business it has caused; interfering even with the administration of justice, changing court-houses into barracks and barracoons, and filling streets with armed men, amidst which law is silent. All these things I might expose. But in these hurried moments, I forbear. Suffice it to say, that the proposition to repeal the existing Fugitive Act stands on adamantine grounds, which no debate in opposition can shake. The Know-Nothings—Mr. Millson. the Constitution of the United States, with the Mr. BUTLER. He says he recognizes the obli- Mr. SUMNER. Never. There are considerations belonging to the present period which give new strength to this proposition. Public opinion, which, under a popular Government, makes and unmakes laws, and which, for a time, was passive and acquiescent, now lifts itself everywhere in the States where! the act is sought to be enforced, and demands a change. Already three States, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Michigan, by formal resolutions presented to the Senate, have concurred in this demand. The tribunals of law are joining at last with the people. The superior court of Cincinnati has denied the power of Congress over this subject. And now, almost while I speak, comes the solemn judgment of the Supreme court of Wisconsin-a sovereign State of this Union-made after elaborate argument, on successive occasions, before a single judge, and then before the whole bench, declaring this act to be a violation of the Constitution. In response to Public opinion, broad and general, if not universal at the North, swelling alike from village and city, from the seaboard and lakes-judicially attested, legislatively declared, and represented also, by numerous peti-their freedom, were restored to by slave owners, tions from good men without distinction of partyin response to this Public Opinion, as well as in obedience to my own fixed convictions, I deem it my duty not to lose this opportunity of pressing the repeal of the fugitive slave act once more upon the Senate. I move, sir, to strike out all after the enacting clause in the pending bill, and insert instead thereof these words: That the act of Congress, approved September 18, 1850, usually known as the "fugitive slave act," be, and the same hereby is, repealed. And on this motion I ask the yeas and nays. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I have no idea of irritating sectional differences. If gentlemen have the opinions which it seems the gentleman from Massachusetts entertains, be it so. I assure him I do not intend to bandy words with him. He talks as if he was disposed to maintain the Constitution of the United States; but if I were to put to him a question now, I would ask him one which he, perhaps, would not answer me honestly. Mr. SUMNER. I will answer any question. Mr. BUTLER. Then I ask you honestly now, whether, all laws of Congress being put out of the question, you would recommend to Massachusetts to pass a law to deliver up fugitives from slavery? Mr. SUMNER. The Senator asks me that question, and I answer, frankly, that no temptation, no inducement, would draw me in any way to sanction the return of any man to slavery. But, then, I leave to others to speak for themselves. In this respect, I speak for myself. Mr. BUTLER. I do not rise now at all to question the right of the gentleman from Massachusetts to hold his seat, under the obligation of Ho. OF REPS. The Senator from Massachusetts has alluded to the act under which these men were imprisoned. That act is still in force, but we are willing to relax it; and, indeed, under my advice, the Governor of South Carolina has recommended that it shall be entirely changed. I have pitied those poor creatures. I have felt for them as humble sailors condemned by their condition to a situation to which they ought not to be subjected; but, sir, I have never understood anything in southern philanthropy that would reconcile an honorable gentleman to desert his sailors when he could reclaim them by the payment of two dollars. The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands the Senator from Massachusetts to ask for the yeas and nays? Mr. SUMNER. Yes, sir. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. FESSENDEN. Before the vote is taken I merely wish to say that the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Foor,] and the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON,] both being unwell, have paired off on this bill. The question being taken by yeas and rays on the amendment offered by Mr. SUMNER, resulted— yeas 9, nays 30; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Brainerd, Chase, Cooper, Fessenden, Gillette, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Wilson-9. NAYS-Messrs. Auams, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Benja min, Bright, Brown, Butler, Clay, Dawson, Douglas, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Hunter. Jones of flowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pettit, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toucey, Weller, and Wright-30. So the amendment was rejected. cesses, ," the words "and all depositions which may have been legally taken in the State courts, and all records duly authenticated which may have been filed as evidence in the case, shall be received and read as if taken in the courts to which the suit is transferred." The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and the question was stated to be "Shall the bill pass?" Mr. BUTLER. I knew that. Now, sir, I have got exactly what is the truth, and what I intend shall go forth to the southern States. He has chosen to speak of South Carolina's morality and statutes; and his predecessor, [Mr. Winthrop,] upon one occasion, brought up the same subject. Since Mr. Winthrop first brought it up, I have investigated it thoroughly. The former Senator from Massachusetts brought it before us on a letter from a Mr. Ramlett. Now, I intend to make a commentary upon Massachusetts morality in contrast with what I think honesty would require of anybody. As I learn the facts of the case, this man Ramlett, finding that himself and his crew, three of them colored men, were going into Mr. WELLER. I move to amend the bill by Charleston, took an opportunity of making some-inserting in line twenty-five, after the word "prothing by salvage. They used the opportunity, When the ship came into Charleston, those colored men, his crew, were put into prison, under the laws of South Carolina. I acknowledge that was done under the police laws of that State. But, sir, what do you think this New England, this Massachusetts exponent of philanthropy did? He left them in prison, went to Boston, and wrote a most philanthropic letter, in which he said that the laws of South Carolina had proscribed and put into captivity citizens of Massachusetts! He had in his pocket the money which those poor creatures had enabled him to win, and yet he left them in prison, when, with two dollars, he could have reclaimed them. Yes, sir, this man, who could have released his crew by the payment of two dollars, left Charleston, went to Boston, and wrote a philanthropic letter as to the rights of his crew; and those poor creatures, who were entitled to gentlemen in Charleston paying the gaol fees. Here is an instance where a man who sailed in a Massachusetts vessel, in order to earn salvage, carried those poor creatures into the city of Charleston, and allowed them to remain there, while he went home in his vessel and wrote letters on philanthropy, when the money which he had in his pocket, derived from their exertions could have saved them from the situation in which they were placed. Sir, Charleston gentlemen paid the jail fees, and released those sailors; and, if I had been the commander of that vessel, and a dog had been my companion, and that dog had been taken from me, I would have perished rather than have deserted him. I would not only have paid two dollars for him, but I would have stood by him to the last at any hazard. But when those companions were human beings, comrades who had drank out of the same cup, and encountered the same common storm, I would have been the last man to abandon them, especially when two dollars could have saved them. This man, however, went to Boston, and wrote philanthropic letters, instead of paying two dollars which belonged to his poor men. When the gentleman talks in the way he does, I choose to rebuke him. Any man who comes up here with a philanthropy inconsistent with what is practical justice and liberty, I do not say that I scorn him- use no such word—but by heavens sooner than quit those two negroes, who had shared my fate in difficulty and in danger, I would have gone to any hazard that might be encountered in Charleston. I would have readily paid two dollars; but Boston philanthropy was relieved by going home and writing a letter to a Senator. Mr. SEWARD, Mr. SUMNER, and others, called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Mr. DAWSON. I desire to state that the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. PRATT,] in consequence of the illness of one of his children, was called away to-night, and therefore paired off with the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. WALKER.] The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 29, nays 9; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, Brown, Clay, Dawson, Douglas; Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Hunter, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mallo. ry, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Petit, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toucey, Weller, and Wright-29. NAYS-Messrs. Brainerd, Chase, Cooper, Fessenden, Gillette, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Wilson-9. So the bill was passed; and, on motion, the Senate adjourned at twelve o'clock. THE KNOW-NOTHINGS. SPEECH OF HON. J. S. MILLSON, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. MILLSON: I have received many letters inviting an expression of my views upon the new and secret society called Know-Nothings. At this busy period of the session, I have been unable, in separate replies, to communicate my opinions upon the subject. I have, therefore, determined to avail myself of this method of doing so. My constituents, I admit, are entitled to know what I think upon a subject which is beginning to assume a national importance, and though it is not yet directly and immediately connected with the legislation of Congress, it has been several times drawn into discussion here. It may be that, from the mystery thrown 33D CONG....2D SESS. around this new society, I am not sufficiently acquainted with their principles and purposes to form an intelligent opinion about them. There seems, however, to be little doubt as to some of their objects, or of the means by which they seek to accomplish them, and it is to these I shall confine the views I propose to throw out. The Know-Nothings, then, are understood to be a political party whose constitution, forms of proceedings, obligations, and resolves, are all kept secret. Their disciples are secretly admitted, and, it is said, are bound by oath to conform themselves, under certain circumstances, to the will and dictation of others. It is said they are severally enjoined to conceal their membership, and that they even suppose themselves at liberty to deny it. Of their ultimate objects I am, of course, not informed; but it is believed they aim at the exclusion from civil and political offices of every citizen of foreign birth, and of all persons professing the Roman Catholic religion. From the results of many recent elections it seems they would even exclude those also that are neither Catholics nor foreigners who will not aid them in their designs. If, sir, in attributing to them these designs and practices, any injustice is done them, the blame must rest upon themselves. The secrecy they have adopted may excuse any misconception, which publicity would prevent or remove. The Know-Nothings—Mr. Millson. tions of policy are persuaded to dissemble them, do a wrong to society, and are subject to a deserved censure. The wretched excuse urged by the advocates of the Know-Nothings that secrecy is indispensable to their success, is unworthy of serious refutation. It would estimate the lawfulness of any means not by a consideration of their intrinsic propriety, but only by their capacity to effect the end desired. It would make success the touchstone of morality. There is no crime that might not be justified on such principles when its commission would promote the success of our objects. But what are these designs of the Know-Nothings that are supposed to excuse the employment of means so improper in themselves, and so much opposed to the habits of our people? I confess myself unable to form any definite conclusion as to what they are. I have read newspapers and listened to speeches avowedly made for the purpose of explaining them, but there has been such a remarkable contrariety of statement upon the subject as to leave me very much in doubt. Opposition to foreigners and Roman Catholics would be the burden of one; while another, disclaiming all hostility to either, would avow his willingness to vote for both Catholics and foreigners possessing suitable qualifications. Some would maintain that the chief object of this new association is to preserve the union of the States, while others pleased themselves with the fancy that their mission was to suppress the slavery agitation and to restore good fellowship between the North and the South. Sir, I cannot help suspecting that the real object of the greater number is to prostrate both the parties, of Democrats and Whigs, that they may possess themselves of power and place; and that to secure this end the various prejudices of the people are adroitly flattered. The workingman is excited to jeolousy of foreign competition. The fears of the religious Protestant are stimulated by exaggerated accounts of the spread of popery throughout the land. In every locality each interest and sentiment is soothed and caressed, until, from all quarters of the Union, men spring up, agreeing in nothing but a willingness to surrender the great principles of constitutional construction which had made them either Democrats or Whigs, and to unite in a common organization, which, from the very nature of the case, must be impotent to accomplish any one of the objects professedly sought. The greater part of what they desire cannot be the subject of legislation at all, while the little that is allowed to be brought within the sphere of legal enactment, will fall far short of their wishes and expectations. Sir, I cannot conceal my regret and alarm at the effort to accomplish such purposes by such means. That honest and intelligent men should connect themselves with a political party seeking to elect its candidates without subjecting them to a public canvass of their qualifications and pretensions, would excite my surprise, whatever might be their objects, and though they were openly avowed. But that such men should bind themselves to a blind submission to the will of others, though it might be in opposition to their own sense of right-that they should either actively aid, or, by inaction, suffer the elevation of unworthy or incompetent men to positions of high public trust— that they should bury the truth, by concealing, or violate it by denying their membership of such an association-and all this for the purpose of effecting results so irreconcilable with the teachings of an enlarged philanthropy, and so foreign to the spirit of Christian charity, fills me, not merely with surprise, but with sadness. Under whatever delusion they may now be acting, it is impossible it can be of long continuance. Sir, it is an instinct of our nature to utter the truth. It requires an effort, and a painful effort, to repress it, much more to violate it. It cannot be that any sophistry can permanently ingraft upon our moral code the wretched fallacy that, in our communications with one another, it is allowable to deceive, either by the express utterance of falsehoods, or by a studied concealment of facts. The road to truth never did lie through error; and he who thinks he may borrow the livery of the devil to serve God in-that he may promote the cause of religion by a sacrifice of truth, forgets that it was against this very species of falsehood, the punish-parties they have withdrawn themselves, and there ment of Ananias and his wife was intended to warn us. When I see upright, worthy, pious men-I do not mean your mere men of honor; I speak of far nobler characters, men of honesty and conscienceyielding to these horrid delusions, plotting, caballing, prevaricating, deceiving, my whole moral nature receives a shock, and I almost become a skeptic in the existence of human virtue. I am, therefore, most reluctant to believe that such obligations are assumed, or that such practices prevail. For the sake of our common humanity, I hope they do not. I speak only upon the sup. position that the general charge against them is correct. If it be not, my animadversion does not apply to them; but who shall say they are not justly subject to it, if it be true? But, sir, it is not less a duty to confess, to avow, to publish the truth, than to abstain from its violation. No man has a right to conceal his principles. It is by an interchange of views that truth is elicited; and the obligation is almost as great to save others from error as to adopt right principles for ourselves. Opinions often borrow just weight from the personal character of those who profess them; and they who, from whatever considera But, sir, were it even otherwise, why organize a party for this specific purpose? May not all that can be effected by legislative means be safely left to the wisdom of those whom the people, as Whigs or Democrats, invest with authority? Can this new society command more talent, more experience, more patriotism than may be found in the existing party? Why, it is from these very can surely be no ground for their apprehension that the public interests will be neglected because confided to men entertaining opinions in accordance with their own upon other subjects of great national concernment. It is a grave error to suppose that the purposes for which the Democratic and Whig parties were organized have been accomplished, and that they may now be safely disbanded. It is true that some of the most important questions of party antagonism have been settled; but it was not for these, or for any other especial objects that the two parties have been called into being. The difference between them is organic, and must, from its very nature, be perpetual. Scarcely a day now passes in which questions do not arise invoking the application of the distinctive principles of the two great parties. Can it be possible that the Whigs of the country hold their ancient doctrines in so little reverence as to be willing to surrender them to this new organization? Will they abandon principles which, however erroneous we may deem them, have, from the foundation of the Government, divided the American mind, and been dignified by the advocacy of such illustrious names as those of Hamilton, Marshall, and Webster? Will they ·HO. OF REPS. consent to the dissolution of such a party, or allow it to be absorbed in an association, springing from a temporary occasion, devoted to temporary objects, and founded on no principles of constitutional construction? Let them reflect, too, upon the mischiefs likely to spring from a canvass of religious creeds in our political elections, I speak not now of the glaring injustice of any persecution or proscription on account of religious faith. I speak not of its tendency, from the known laws and sympathies of our nature, to help the very cause attempted to be exterminated. I present it as a mere question of prudence, of policy, of wisdom. If the creed of the Roman Catholic be attacked, is it to be supposed he will content himself with simple vindication? Will not the doctrines of the Protestant churches be assailed in turn? And by whom, sir, are they to be defended? Now, I entertain no fear of the results of enlightened discussion upon this subject. If Martin Luther, standing alone against all the powers of Church and State, established the Reformation by the mere force of argument and reason; if that Reformation has spread throughout the world until it numbers its supporters by hundreds of millions, I can feel no sort of doubt as to the results of a fair, open, intelligent discussion of its claims to universal acceptance. But, sir, as a Protestant, and a member of a Protestant church, I protest against confiding this charge to the mere politician, who knows as little as he cares about even the rudiments of the faith he is set up to defend. I protest against confiding the defense of my religion to the worldling, who, perhaps, looks upon all forms of religious faith with equal indifference or contempt, and has no further knowledge of God than as a phrase to give point to his profanity. I protest against confiding the defense of Protestantism to the demagogue who knows nothing more of the errors of the Church of Rome than that it is his part, as a Know-Nothing, to profess opposition to them, and who can discuss the doctrines of the Reformation not more intelligently than Dickens's raven, which chattered about "Protestant kettles" with quite as much appreciation of congruities. If our religious tenets are to be drawn into argument on the hustings-if political elections are to turn upon the conclusions of voters concerning them-I fear we shall find among the laymen of the country few Wilberforces and Soame Jenynses competent to maintain them against the keen assaults of our opponents. And though a minister of the gospel may here and there be found, willing to come down into the political arena to defend Protestant Christianity, and his own title to popular favor, I confess I think it safer to depend on the Barrows and the Stillingfleets, the Jonathan Edwardses and Adam Clarks. But, sir, what can be more opposed to the structure of our Government than any attempt to connect questions of conscience with the affairs of State? In most countries nearly all the transactions of life are subject to the general regulation. Property, liberty, religion, industry, are matters of governmental control. The rights of the subject are concessions to him from his rulers, not reservations from his grants to them. But we have made a wide departure from these old systems. We have determined on self-government-not the government of a majority-not the government of others, or government by others, but, emphatically, self government. Each man retains the very largest sum of his personal rights consistent with the good order of the State, and self-control is relinquished only in a few well defined cases, in which the public welfare demands that the will of the majority shall prevail. Among the rights thus reserved from the interference of all others-and not merely reserved, but guarded and fortified-is that of liberty of conscience. Freedom of religious faith and religious profession has been ex pressly stipulated. We thought this an improvement upon the systems of the Old World. Other nations, too, seem to have thought so, as our example has not been without its effect in mitigating the rigors of their religious establishment. But a large portion of our people appear to be of a different opinion. They would diminish the sum of personal rights and increase the mass of social powers. They would reëstablish the 33D CONG....2D SESS. dependence of religion upon government. They would sit in judgment upon the creeds of others, and apply all the penalties the laws leave them free to inflict. They would supply the absence of constitutional tests by a popular exclusion hardly less rigorous. Will it be said that the aim of the Know-Nothings is not so much to assail the religious creed of the Catholic, as to guard against the dangers resulting from his supposed allegiance to a foreign Potentate? Sir, were such allegiance admitted, our existing laws are entirely adequate to punish the treason it might prompt. For mere opinion they apply no penalty, but opinion, when it induces crime, is never allowed to bar the punishment which the crime itself provokes. A Congress of Know-Nothings could not frame more rigorous laws than our statute book already contains, for every case of disobedience to the rightful authority of our own Government. Another object, sir, attributed to the Know-Nothings is a repeal or modification of the laws admitting foreigners to naturalization, and the exclusion of foreign-born citizens from civil and political office. As to the first point, I cannot but express my regret that any attempt should be made to control its decision by invoking prejudices, on the one side or the other. It is a simple question of ordinary statesmanship and governmental policy, dependent upon the number, habits, character, and condition of foreign emigrants; and no man should, in advance, announce any fixed determination on a subject which, from its very nature, must be governed by shifting circumstances. Nor would it be more wise to apply an unbending rule to the election or appointment of persons of foreign birth to the various offices of the country. Shall it be said, that in a contest between an honest, worthy, and well-qualified foreigner, and a native citizen of opposite character, the latter must always be preferred? Is there any occasion for jealousy or larm, when the peopie, or the Government, in a case of superior merit or qualification, select as their agent a foreign-born citizen competent to render the service, exacted for their own good rather than for his? I should dislike to see it made a common practice to bestow the offices of the country upon foreigners, and no sensible foreigner would desire it should be done. There are some offices, indeed, such as that of representative of our country at a foreign court, in which I do not wish to see them at any time. But I think these things may be safely left to the ordinary control and management of the people. They do not demand or justify the formation of a new party, when there is no reason to doubt that the people of all parties entertain just views upon the subject. I must not, however, forbear to mention that many editors and politicians, who are now zealous defenders of the Know-Nothing organization, warmly supported the Nebraska bill, which allows unnaturalized foreigners to exercise the privilege both of voting and holding office. To me, this provision of the bill was a serious objection, and I desired, as did many others, to confine these rights to citizens of the United States alone. But some of those who loudly complain of a foreign influence in the country, and are, at this time, in high favor with the Know-Nothings, first voted to cut off all opportunity of amendment or change, and then gave their votes for the bill in the form in which it passed. The preservation of the Union is said, sir, to be one of the objects of the Know-Nothings. This, indeed, is sometimes claimed as the chief merit, if not the prominent design, of the society. To be sure, this is a very praiseworthy purpose, in which, I trust, they will not be alone; but their active agency is as unnecessary, as it is likely to prove mischievous. I know no greater danger that threatens the Union than the organization of this Know-Nothing party itself. I have no fear of a dissolution of the Union from a voluntary secession of any of its members. There never was a time when I myself would have consented to secession, as there has never been an occasion that, in my opinion, justly provoked it. And yet, sir there are dangers to the Union-recurring at periodical intervals, exciting no apprehensions-but which, if dissolution should ever come, The State of Parties, &c.—Mr. Yates. indicate, as I think, the manner in which it will Ho. oF REPS. THE STATE OF PARTIES, THE CONDITION OF IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union Mr. YATES said: Mr. CHAIRMAN: Some time ago, when the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] addressed the committee on the Nebraska question, and the result of the last fall elections on that question, I was anxious to have obtained the floor for the-purpose of a reply, and took notes for that purpose. I, however, did not succeed in getting the floor. I had not wholly abandoned my purpose of reply. ing, when, on last night, the debate sprang up afresh, and the positions assumed by the gentleman from Georgia were in substance assumed by other gentlemen, and I determined, if I could get the floor, to give my views upon the subject. By your good favor, Mr. Chairman, I now have the floor, and shall proceed, not very methodically, I fear, to express my views. It will be seen at a glance, that as new parties are formed in the country, and as new States are added to the Union, the danger of a failure to choose a President is greatly augmented. When the people and their representatives are divided into only two parties the danger is scarcely appreciable; but the risk is fearfully enhanced by the addition of a third. The number of candidates will increase with the increase of parties. Each will be supported by his retainers and advocates, and the people, broken into factions, will so divide their suffrages as not to secure a majority of votes to any. Ambition, hatred, pride, revenge, stimu-ity opposed to the repeal of the Missouri comlated by a struggle in which the fiercest passions might be called into exercise, would disincline all to yield; and the failure to make a choice-hardly possible in a contest between only two competi tors-would thus precipitate the very calamities which it is the boasted object of this new party to prevent. I was surprised to hear the gentleman from Georgia say, that the result of the elections returning to the next Congress an overwhelming major promise, was no test of the popular sentiment of the free States on that subject; when, in fact, in the whole history of legislation, from the first dawnings of our national existence down to the present time, no public measure ever met with such withering and blasting popular condemnation as did the Nebraska bill, and its authors and abettors. This condemnation has swept over that measure and its authors like a sirocco, wasting and destroying, to stand forever, I trust, an effectual and perpetual admonition to politicians, that sacred compromises are not to be trampled on with impunity; that the great inalienable and eternal principles of freedom and humanity are not to be sacrificed to the moloch of ambition, and crushed beneath the iron heel of tyrannical legislative majorities. Yes, sir, by the results of those elections, American freedom has proudly and nobly vindicated herself, and shown herself capable of rising superior to the domination of political parties and aspiring political leaders. In every aspect, then, in which I view this new society-its origin, progress, objects, doctrines, practices, and results-there is much to awaken the most melancholy reflections. It is one of the many prodigies that have appeared in these remarkable times. Sir, is it not strange that this age of unequaled enlightenment should, at the same time, be one of unexampled credulity? The wonderful discoveries of science, in seeming to remove every barrier to human progress, may, perhaps, have led us to reject all notions of impossibility, and we believe, too easily, that what may be, is. Superstition and philosophy go hand in hand, because we will not distinguish between the actual and the possible. But we should not have supposed this had we not I repeat, sir, I was astounded at the attempt of so many evidences of its truth. One would think the honorable gentleman from Georgia to evade that these sublime discoveries in physical science the force of this popular condemnation by the would liberalize and elevate the mind. One would plea, that the elections were no test of the popular think that the contemplation of the glories revealed sentiment of the country. The speech was absoto us by astronomy would rebuke every narrow lutely novel in this fruitless adventure to gloss prejudice, unite us in one common brotherhood, over a defeat so palpable and glaring. It took the and incline us to a common worship of the Creator. House by surprise, and was interesting for its Let us think of them a moment. Standing on this very boldness and novelty. Ohio elected her antilittle globe-so small that we are hardly more Nebraska Governor with a popular majority of remote than eight thousand miles from any part eighty thousand, and sent her unbroken delegation of its surface-we see the planets of our system of twenty-four members opposed to the Nebraska revolving round the sun, at distances of hundreds bill. Pennsylvania did almost the same; Indiana, of millions of miles; and beyond them-suns of Iowa, New York, and other States almost the other worlds, centers of other systems-the innu- same; and yet, sir, the gentleman from Georgia merable hosts of stars, distant from us countless asserted the Nebraska question "had nothing to millions of millions of miles. We burn with intense do with it." Now, sir, it so happens, it is a part desire to know something of these bright orbs. of the history of the times-and history of such We wonder whether-as some philosophers, rea- recent occurrence, that to deny it is strange indeed, soning from the strong analogies of nature, main-—that almost the only question discussed in all tain-they are the abode of beings like ourselves; these elections was the Nebraska bill. Every or whether, as the sterner logic of some others political paper teemed with its columns full, pro would almost force us to conclude, they are a and con., on this question. The old questions of dreary chaos; and we are impatient of the restraints tariff and internal improvement were lost sight of, that bind us to our narrow home. and the contest was fought, hand to hand and hilt to hilt, upon the bill of Judge DOUGLAS and the Administration to repeal the law of 1820, which had forever consecrated the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska to freedom. That other matters were brought collaterally into the contest, as they are in every election, I do not deny; but that the Nebraska question was the great, the controlling, the dominant question, no man can truthfully deny. The issue had been made up in the Senate and the House at the last session. It was made by the Senator from Illinois, who all the time proclaimed that he was ready to go before the people upon the merits of his bill. From such contemplations as these, we turn our eyes to the petty globe we inhabit-a mere speck, an atom, not filling, in the comparison, the space of the point of the finest needle-and see man, repulsing his fellow as an alien and a foreigner, and grudging him even the poor privilege of learning something more of his own little earth. Sir, it is when beholding these solecisms in human conduct, we feel most perplexed as to the ultimate designs of the Creator; and with a just appreciation of our own nescience, each one of us is ready to exclaim with Socrates, "I know nothing-all that I know is, that I KNOW NOTHING." The issue was made by the gentleman from majority for the Nebraska candidate increased Georgia, when he said, at the last session of Con- over the preceding election, and that was in the gress, in the language of bold defiance, that "the Quincy district, represented by my friend and South had triumphed on every question, when the colleague, [Mr. RICHARDSON.] And, sir, though issue had been made, and she would triumph he, perhaps, would be unwilling to admit the fact, again on this question." And, sir, when the mi- yet, sir, I am well convinced that he was more nority in this House, after a long and protracted indebted to his great personal popularity, than to struggle, unprecedented in the annals of congres- his position on the Nebraska question. That sional legislation, were overborne by a subversion gentleman had served his country with distinof the rules of the House, they then notified the guished credit to himself in our war with Mexico, majority that they would make their appeal to the and with great ability in the Legislature, and in people. And, sir, they made that appeal. Dis- this House, for many years, and also possessing carding all old issues, the friends and opponents sterling qualities of head and heart, a noble and of the Kansas-Nebraska bill met each other on the magnanimous nature, he had a grasp upon the stump, through the press, and at the ballot-box; affections of his constituents which his position and the popular decision has been emphatic and on the Nebraska question could not affect. But, unmistakable. The result was the overthrow of sir, there were other elections more signal-the an Administration which, but two years before, elections of members to the Legislature. I think had ridden into power upon a tempest of popularity. I may safely say, that during the last twelve years The result was a serious and lasting back-set to there has been no period, until now, when the that northern Senator, who had volunteered the Legislature of Illinois was not two thirds Demosurrender of the principles dear to the people of cratic. And yet, sir, notwithstanding only about his own State, and who had trampled upon the one half of the Senators were newly-elected at the sentiment which animates, warms, and sways the late canvass, yet we find a large majority of the northern heart in favor of liberty and humanity. Legislature passing resolutions condemnatory of It is said that the Know-Nothings had a great deal the course of their Senators in voting for the to do with the result. Does this make the anti- Nebraska bill, condemnatory of the bill itself, in Nebraska triumph less complete? Are not the favor of the restoration of the Missouri comproKnow-Nothings American citizens? and if they mise, and electing triumphantly to the Senate of cast their vote for the anti-Nebraska candidates, the United States a gentleman who had distinwas it not because they preferred them to candi-guished himself by his able and eloquent oppodates entertaining opposite sentiments? It cannot sition to the Nebraska bill, and had been elected be contended that their vote was a mere blind force, on that issue, in a largely Democratic district, over so far as this issue is concerned; for how, then, the regular nominee of the Democratic party, by will you explain the fact that nearly all the mem- a majority of two thousand three hundred and bers recently elected to the next Congress are twenty-two votes. anti Nebraska; for, if the Know-Nothings aided in their election, and the vote was a blind one, was there not an equal chance of its falling on the Nebraska side of the question? The truth was, sir, that not only Know-Nothings, but a large portion of our German and English population, hostile to slavery in all its forms, cast their votes, in many parts of the country, for the anti-Nebraska candidates. I am most happy here to declare that, in our State, among the strongest opponents to the extension of slavery is a large part of our foreignborn population. But it is to the State of Illinois, to which I wish particularly to refer. The gentleman from Georgia said, in his speech, "if there is a State in the North which may be appealed to, where there was anything like a contest, it was Illinois." "The Nebraska bill gained strength in Illinois." He says that "the distinguished Senator, who had charge of the bill in the Senate, stood in front of the battle, never giving ground, never yielding an inch; and the gallant gentleman upon this floor, [Mr. RICHARDSON,] who had charge of it here, met the people of Illinois every where on its merits." Now, sir, a few facts will show, that so far from an indorsement of the Nebraska bill by the people of the State of Illinois, its condemnation there was more signal and decisive than in any other State in the Union. If this is the only fountain, from which the gentleman is to drink the waters of consolation, he will find them bitter to the taste. Now, sir, let it be recollected that, in 1852, Illinois was the banner State of Democracy, and that, while all other States had at some time failed in the hour of trial, the State of Illinois had never faltered in its fealty to the Democratic party. At the presidential election in 1852, General Pierce carried the State by the large majority of sixteen thousand votes. Now, sir, if we take the election for State treasurer as a test, as the gentleman from Georgia did, we find that Governor Moore, the popular candidate of the Democratic party, carried the election over his competitor, who was brought out just before the election, without any organization for that purpose, by the meager majority of something over two thousand votes. deny, however, that this was a test. The truest test was in the election of members to Congress; and here we find that the popular majority given for the antiNebraska members for Congress was sixteen thousand two hundred and forty-seven. Three Representatives were elected to Congress favorable to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, four opposed to it, and the remaining one is to be decided upon a contested election. In one district only was the Here, then, is the triumph of the gentleman from Georgia in the State where he says the issue was fairly presented, and where the distinguished Senator had met the people, never giving ground, or yielding an inch." Yes, Mr. Chairman, a mighty effort was made to carry Illinois; the young giant was there, but he was there with his locks cut; shorn of his strength, he was there to meet an indignant constituency. He returned to that people, not as he did of yore. They had heaped their highest honors upon him. More dexterous and politic than his equals and superiors in his own party, he had got upon the current of popular favor in that party, which was powerful and dominant in the State, and favored by good fortune and favorable breezes, he had been borne, almost without opposition, to the highest honors of the State and the nation. Enjoying the full confidence of a generous and impulsive party, such as I admit the Democratic party of my State to be, he had been greeted, on his return, at the end of each session, to his constituents, from his duties in the National Councils, with the cordial salutations of welcome. But when he returned at the end of the last session, he returned to meet a people whose kindness he had slighted, and whose repeated favors he had returned by a ruthless and successful attempt to destroy a sacred compact for freedom, which, according to his own declarations to them just four years before, had "stood for a quarter of a century, and been approved by men of all parties in every section of the Union, and canonized in the hearts of the American people as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb." The result is before the world. The Senator has his reward. The Allies may take Sebastopol, but he will never take Illinois again; he has had his trial in that State, and the verdict of an honest and high-minded people has been pronounced, and from that verdict he will not recover as long as "grass grows or water flows." There are thousands of slaveholders at the South who regard slavery as an evil, but who see no remedy for it, but to treat it wisely and humanely, and who look forward, with hopeful anxiety, to its ultimate extinction. There is another class who believe slavery is right, and, therefore, they advocate it. For both these classes I entertain respect; for, sir, let a man be true to his convictions, though he believe a lie! but how shall.we feel other than the most unmitigated contempt for the political schemers who, taught in all the inspiring lessons of freedom, in northern climes, where the very mountains, rivers, and skies, as well as the charters and constitutions of society, Ho. oF REPS. "crook bear the mighty impress of freedom, yet the pregnant hinges of the knee" to slavery for the sake of promotion and official station. The slave himself, groaning beneath his fetters, is far more deserving of our admiration than the cringing, fawning sycophant, the northern man with southern principles. The one eats the bread of wellearned, though involuntary, servitude; the other the iniquitous wages of voluntary subserviency and debasement. We have found at the North men who, at different points of time in the history of the slavery question, were ready to smother the spirit of free discussion, to trample in the dust the sacred right of petition, to close the United States mails to papers opposed to slavery, and last, not least, to gag the mouths of the ministers of the living God against denouncing what they deemed to be wrong. I speak not of southern men, but of northern men, with professed southern principles-men who, having deserted the North, would play Dalgetty to the South, as soon as "thrift" in that direction "should not follow fawning." Another important thing, sir, in relation to the Illinois election, I state what I have no doubt is true, that the condemnation of the Nebraska bill would have been almost unanimous, but for the argument so pertinaciously urged by its friends in that State, that there was not the least probability that slavery could ever exist in Kansas under the Kansas laws; that the slaveholder had no right to take his slave there; that the slave would be free the moment he got there, that the laws of God, of climate, of physical geography, forever prohibited slavery there. They were told that it was not the object of the repeal of the Missouri compromise to establish slavery, but the great principles of self-government-and the delusive authority of Senator BADGER and other distinguished Southerners was quoted to show that Kansas would not become a slave State. There was but one opinion in that State upon the subject of the extension of slave Territory. The popular sentiment of the State on that question is not to be mistaken. No more slave Territories or slave States to be made out of our common territories, is a sentiment as indelibly written upon the popular mind and heart of Illinois, as is beauty and fertility upon the bosom of her prairies. To have admitted that there was the least chance for the admission of Kansas as a slave State under the operation of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, was to have stamped that bill with the seal of universal reprobation. Hence, sir, the pretense, the evasion, the delusive argument that Kansas must and would be free. Why, it was asked, agitate the country for a restoration of the Missouri compromise, when it could not alter the status of the Territory as to slavery, and when Kansas must inevitably be free whether the compromise was restored or not? These were the arguments which enabled the friends of the Nebraska bill to carry with them the minority which they did in the State of Illinois. Otherwise, sir, that minority would not have been a corporal's guard. It was in vain that we pointed that minority to the locality of Kansas, with Missouri a slaveholding State on the east, and Arkansas and Texas on the south-and that the slaveholder of the South, with eyes ever open to behold and hands ever outstretched to grasp each new field for slave labor, would be the first on account of near neighborhood, to preoccupy the Territory of Kansas, and to write upon the tabula rasa (as they called it) in colors, dark and durable, the blackening lines of human bondage. It was in vain that we showed that slavery had eaten and occupied up to the very fence erected against it by the Missouri compromise, and that if that fence was removed, it would go over and occupy the consecrated heritage of freedom; it was in vain that we showed that there was nothing in the locality, latitude, soil, or climate, rendering it unfit for slave occupation; that slavery was as profitable in the western part of Missouri, and would also be in Kansas, fine hemp growing and tobacco producing regions, as it was on the sugar and cotton plantations of the South; it was in vain we showed that Indiana would have been a slave State but for the prohibitory ordinance of 1787, and that her Territorial Legislature had petitioned Congress five times for the suspension of that ordinance. It was in vain we referred to the persevering effort of slavery to get a foothold in the |