Page images
PDF
EPUB

33D CONG....2D Sess.

not submit to such requirements. I speak to the gentleman as coolly and calmly as I ever uttered a sentiment in my life, when say that men of all parties in the South-Democrats, Whigs, by whatever name known, or by whatever organization they are united-will be found faithful in the hour of trial, to the rights, interests, honor, and institutions of the section of the country in which their lot is cast. They will never consent that the southern section of country shall occupy in this Union, that craven, base, and degraded position which he has assigned to us. Whenever that day shall come, the gentleman may rest assured that the South will be a unit. That all party lines and all party divisions will be obliterated. That there will be one party in the slave States known only as the defenders of southern rights. Whenever we must surrender our rights, or give up the Union, there will be no hesitation in making the selection. We can live without you. We can manage our own relations. We have the means among us that will give us wealth and power, and far better is it that we should go and live by ourselves than that we should submit to such unrighteous and iniquitous demands as have been asserted here to-night. The time has come when the South must prepare to defend her institutions against the aggressive spirit of the North.*

The gentleman thinks the South has no spirit. Sir, let him wait until the next session of Congress, when these measures shall be attempted to be carried out, and he will see of what stuff the South is made. He will see whether we shall quietly sit here, and whether our constituents will tolerate the idea of our quietly sitting here and submitting to such injuries as he has proposed to inflict upon us. The sunny South is our home. It is the land that gave us birth. It is the land in which is deposited the bones of our ancestors. Within the bosom of my own State sleep Jefferson, and Henry, and Madison, and hosts of others whose deeds have illustrated and adorned the annals of our country. And, sir, shall we permit our enemies to invade the sanctity of those homes and those firesides? No, sir; the South will be protected and defended by her sons, at whatever cost, and you will find that there is spirit enough left to repel any attempt at interference with our rights or our interests.

Now, sir, there is still one other point to which I desire to allude. I wish to know from the gentleman from Ohio whether he indorses the sentiments contained in the correspondence which appeared a few days ago in the American Organ of this city.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman be a little more explicit? I do not know precisely to what he alludes?

Mr. LETCHER. I mean the correspondence between Mr. Ellis and Mr. Wilson, the Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. GIDDINGS. I indorse that part of it written by Mr. Wilson, fully. I do not know much about that of Mr. Ellis.

Mr. LETCHER. Do you indorse all the sentiments expressed by Mr. Wilson?

Territorial Policy-Mr. Letcher.

What we intend to do is to purify this Government from the institution of slavery, and leave that institution entirely with the States.

Mr. LETCHER. Upon the principle, I suppose, that, as we inherit it from the North, their children feel the stain of it and want to relieve their ancestors from it.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Well, I can go into that question if the gentleman wishes it.

Mr. LETCHER. Stop a moment. There is another question which I wish to put to the gentleman. Suppose he had been interrogated on the question of slavery, and the power of the Government over slavery, what would have been his answer?

Mr. GIDDINGS. I do not believe I should have done it better than Mr. Wilson.

Mr. LETCHER. Would you not have gone a little further than he does?

Mr. GIDDINGS. I might have gone more into detail. But if I had undertaken to do it in a brief and comprehensive manner, I should probably have done it in nearly the same terms as he has done. His letter contains everything that I have said to-night, only I have elaborated and gone more into detail.

Mr. LETCHER. I should like to know whether the gentleman from Ohio and Mr. Wilson both belong to the samne organization—the KnowNothings?

Mr. GIDDINGS. No man will impute that to me. I know something. [Laughter.] I have known enough, at all events, to keep me here for twenty years. [Renewed laughter.]

Mr. LETCHER. I know the gentleman is not practically a Know-Nothing. I know that very well. But whether he is theoretically a KnowNothing, and practically upon the same platform with Mr. Wilson with regard to the slavery question, is what I want to know.

Mr. GIDDINGS. My friend, I suppose, asks me if I belong to that political or moral organization called Know-Nothing in the common language of the day. I can say to my friend, that, individually, 1 "know nothing" about that organization whatever, either by precept, example, or anything else, excepting, of course, what I have seen in the public press. [Laughter.]

Mr. LETCHER. I find that nobody has any personal knowledge about that organization. They all "know nothing" about it. [Renewed laughter.] And I have yet to see the first man upon this floor-although it has been proclaimed that a number of seats in this Hall are occupied by Know-Nothings-who will acknowledge that he is one. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BANKS] could not be screwed up to it the other day, although every man in this House would swear that the gentleman is a member of the order. [Laughter.]

Mr. BANKS. No one asked me the question.

Mr. LETCHER. Well, then, I ask it now. Will the gentleman answer me? Mr. BANKS. What?

Mr. LETCHER. Do you belong to the order of Know-Nothings?

Mr. GIDDINGS. One moment, if you please. I want to answer the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. LETCHER. Oh, I cannot get anything out of you. [Laughter.]

Mr. GIDDINGS. I do indorse all the sentiments expressed in that correspondence, so far as to say, that the Federal Government has no power of interference with the existence of slavery in the States. My friend must know that I have laid down that doctrine in express terms, but a little more in detail than it is contained in that letter. Mr. LETCHER. Well, let me try the gentle-whatsoever. man on another point a little more explicitly.

Mr. GIDDINGS. A moment if you please.

* The following extract from the Richmond Whig, February 27, 1855, shows that I am not mistaken in the temper and patriotism of the South; all our people will be true: "We have thus given only a brief sketch of the debate last Friday, in order to let the southern people know its true purport and character. It is useless to say that when these doctrines of WILSON and WADE are attempted to be carried out by Congress, there will be an end of the Union. The South will not submit to such Abolition incendiarism. If they shall succeed in their purposes, it will, indeed, be a dark day for the country. Upon them, however, and those who sustain them, will rest the responsi bility and all the consequences. As much as we love and revere the Union, we had rather see it shivered into a thousand pieces than submit to the degradation which SEWARD and bis vile confederates propose to heap upon the South. It is for them, not for the South, to determine whether the Union, hallowed in so many respects and for so many reasons, shall survive or die."

Mr. GIDDINGS. I only want to say that I do not belong to any organization of that kind,

Mr. LETCHER. Very well. That is frank. Mr. GIDDINGS. I have no knowledge of any such organization.

Mr. LETCHER. Now, let me try the gentleman from Massachusetts. Does he belong to the organization called Know-Nothing, that has been the subject of comment by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. RUFFIN] to-night?

Mr. BANKS. I belong to an organization not that I know that it is called by the name of Know-Nothing-but that answers the description that is generally understood by that name in my own town. Nobody has asked me the question before. I have never declined to answer it, and nobody has "screwed me up to it."

Mr. LETCHER. Then I have gotten one anti-slavery gentlemen here to acknowledge the corn. [Great laughter.] He is the first. Now,

Ho. OF REPS.

many others are said to be here, and I should like to know of the gentleman from Massachusetts, since he acknowledges himself to be a high priest in the organization, how many of his followers are members of this House?

Mr. BANKS. I do not know one.

Mr. LETCHER. It is very remarkable that the gentleman should be the head of a family, and know none of his children—is it not? [Laughter.] I take it that the gentleman is about as nearly a practical Know-Nothing as you could well get. [Renewed laughter.] I have heard it said that it is one of the rules of this organization to know nothing, to know nobody, to say nothing, to hear all they can, to retail all they hear, and to make the best use of all they hear, and I think, after the last answer of the gentleman from Massachusetts, the House will have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the party has been pretty accurately described.

Now, let me call attention to another fact in connection with this matter. Here is Senator Wilson, who is said to be a Know-Nothing. That is a conceded fact, as I understand. I take it the gentleman from Massachusetts knows the fact.

Mr. BANKS. I do not.

Mr. LETCHER. Does the gentleman mean to deny that he and Mr. Wilson are brethren in the same organization, sailing under the same colors, and struggling for the same ends?

Mr. BANKS. Mr. Wilson and myself have long been struggling for a change in the politics of Massachusetts. Whether he is a member of the organization to which the gentleman alludes, I never knew, and have no knowledge any more than from what the gentleman says is the general report,

Mr. LETCHER. Then there is a general report to that effect, and it is most remarkable that gentlemen living in the same State, one the leader of the Know-Nothings from his State in this House, and the other occupying the same position in the Senate, and that each should not know whether the other belongs to the organization! [Laughter.] It does strike me as most extraordinary that there should be an organization which they say is sweeping over the country from North to South and from East to West, obliterating all old party lines, breaking up all old party organi zations, burying all "old fogy" politicians and demagogues, and building up all things anew, and which is to give us a sort of political millenium, and yet of these two men of political prominence, residing in the same State, having the same political objects in view, and struggling for the same political ends-the relief of their State from the power of the party that has hitherto controlled it, under the lead of Webster and Everett, and yet neither knows whether the other belongs to the organization!

Mr. GIDDINGS. Let me put one interrogatory to the gentleman?

Mr. LETCHER. Not just now.

Mr. GIDDINGS. One short question only. Mr. LETCHER. I have no doubt the gentleman from Ohio feels sympathy for his brother Abolitionist from Massachusetts, and would like to get him out of this scrape.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I answered your question. Mr. LETCHER. Yes; the gentleman answered me frankly enough.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Then let me ask if you are a Know-Nothing? [Laughter.]

Mr. LETCHER. No, sir; neither practically, theoretically, morally, socially, or in any

way.

Mr. GIDDINGS. That is the usual answer. [Roars of laughter.]

Mr. LETCHER. Let me say to the gentleman more than that: that whenever I shall join a society, whenever I shall get my own consent to join a political organization, that I shall not have the manliness to say I am a member of, I trust I shall not be here, nor in any other position where confidence shall be reposed in me by a just and generous constituency, such as I represent here. [Cries of "Good!"]'

But let me get back to the point I was discussing. Here, then, is Mr. WILSON, admittedly elected to the Senate of the United States by a Know-Nothing Legislature-one almost unani

[blocks in formation]

mously so. There was one lonely Democrat there, I believe the only poor soul who could muster votes enough to get into the body, (laughter)and there were some four or five Whigs, but the remaining four or five hundred all belonged to this organization. Is it not so? I pause for a reply. Now, I have heard that none of those men are bogus Know-Nothings, in the popular acceptation of the term, but that they are all of the real genuine stripe. Can the gentleman from Massachusetts tell me how that is?

Mr. BANKS. I cannot say.

Mr. LETCHER. The gentleman " cannot say!" Well, sir, I take it that the people of the South will want to know before they are disposed to go the full length in this matter.

HO. OF REPS.

you come to the State of Indiana, how many do hopes of future harmony-we separate with hearts
you think are left there to tell the tale?
A MEMBER. Two.

Mr. LETCHER. Mr. MILLER and Mr. ENG-
LISH are the only two left in that State. What
brought about these results there? Was it the
same thing as in the State of Pennsylvania? Was
it brought about by Know-Nothing influence?
Was it the same thing which has brought new
members and a Senator here from the State of
Illinois? Was it the same thing which brought
so many new members here from the State of
Wisconsin? And these, I believe, embrace about ||
all the elections, save that of Massachusetts,
which have occurred since last fall.
A MEMBER. Michigan.

Another MEMBER. New Jersey.
Mr. LETCHER. Yes, there is Michigan. 1
had neglected that, and New Jersey, where the
same result is effected. Here then comes, last of
all, the State of Massachusetts. She sends an
entire new delegation, I believe, with the exception
of two. What was the cause of that change,
sir? Were not the gentlemen who are now here
strong enough in their opposition to Southern in-
stitutions and to Southern rights, to secure the
retention of their position? Did they differ in
respect to the fugitive slave law, or on any other
question from the gentlemen who will appear here
in the next Congress? The only difference be-
tween them sir, is, I imagine, that those who come
here in the next Congress come fresh from the
people, come with all the feelings, with all the an-
imosities, with all the prejudices which have been
engendered by this combination in Massachusetts,
and, therefore, with a more bitter and more de-
termined spirit to accomplish their purpose, cost
what it may. The result in Massachusetts is an
admitted Know-Nothing triumph, and in many of
the other States I am informed that the Demo-
cratic party was defeated by the power and influ-
ence of this new organization. I do not charge
that the southern Know-Nothings sympathize
with the views of northern Know-Nothings on
slavery.

Well, let us come still nearer home. There is the State of Pennsylvania, in which an election for Senator was to take place to-day. There is a strong party of Know-Nothings in the Legislature of that State. We know that they have been in trouble for some considerable time in regard to the election of a Senator, and we have seen in the papers which reached the city this morning the letter of General Cameron, their candidate, announcing his platform of principles, and it is the identical platform which has been laid down here to-night by the gentlemen from New York, [Mr. GOODWIN, and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GIDDINGS.] Now, how is it, that with an organization professing to be national, and to have no other object in view but the preservation of the Union, the perpetuity of our institutions, and the glory, honor, and prosperity of our common country, that whenever they are called upon to elect officers, their candidates come in on anti-slavery platforms? How does that accord with the principle of nationality that is claimed for the organization? How does it harmonize with that devotion to the Union, that anxious desire to preserve all our institutions, to build up our trade, and to advance everything that is the common property and the common glory of all the citizens of this great nation? How do gentlemen undertake to explain these facts? Yet so it is. That is the result. Here is the New York election. Here is the Pennsylvania senatorial election. Here is the Pennsylvania congressional election, where even the Nebraskaites and the Democratic anti-Nebraskaites were swept down in one common wreck. Here is the congressional election in New York, SPEECH OF HON. L. D. CAMPBELL, which they say, was brought about by KnowNothings.

Mr. WITTE, (interrupting.) Will the gentleman from Virginia allow me to make a remark which bears upon this point of his speech? Mr. LETCHER. Certainly.

Mr. WITTE. It is this: that there is not one single member from Pennsylvania who will come to this House, in the next Congress, for the first time, as an anti-Nebraska man, who has not been elected by a combination of what there is of the Abolition element in our State, with Know-Nothingism and anti-Nebraskaism.

Mr. LETCHER. I am very much obliged to the gentleman for his information.

Mr. WITTE. I desire that point to be clearly understood, because I do not wish the old Commonwealth to be misrepresented, and the title "Democracy" to be prostituted. I want it to be distinctly understood that every member not a Democrat, who comes here for the first time in the next Congress has obtained his seat by an unholy coalition between the three elements which I have designated: Abolitionism—what there is of|| it in the State-anti-Nebraskaism, and KnowNothingism.

Mr. FLORENCE. With a sprinkling of Maine lawism.

[Here the hammer fell.]

FREE LABOR AGAINST SLAVE LABOR.

OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE of Representatives,
February 28, 1855.

In reply to Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia.

Mr. CAMPBELL said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: It is now past ten o'clock in the evening of one of the expiring days of the Thirty-Third Congress. I rejoice, as the country rejoices, that we so nearly approach the hour of its dissolution. The history of this Congress, I fear, sir, will prove to the future that we have done more of evil than of good. I look back in vain upon the pages of its Journals for proof that we have done much that is either calculated to promote the great interests of our own nation, or the cause of humanity at large. It is not my purpose now to review our acts in detail. It is enough to say that when this Congress and the present Administration came into power under a pledge to economy, it found our National Treasury full to overflowing. If measures enough have not already passed to drain it, means will be provided before next Sabbath morning, not only to draw from the sub-Treasury vaults the last dollar of the people, but such, sir, I predict, as will compel the Executive to call upon the incoming reform Congress to issue Treasury notes to enable it to raise the means necessary to carry on the Government.

Again, sir, when we were first convened, that sectional strife which had so often disturbed the

Mr. LETCHER. I am very much obliged to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. WITTE,] for the facts he has furnished. Now, sir, let us look at some of the other States. Here is the State of Ohio, for instance. Will there be a sol-national harmony and endangered the perpetuity itary Nebraska man from that State in the next Congress, because, if I understood the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CAMPBELL,] some time ago, he said there would not be a Nebraska man from that State in the next Congress?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Not one, thank God! Mr. LETCHER. "Not one, thank God !!" Put it down, sir, as the gentleman uttered it. When NEW SERIES.-No. 21.

of the Union had happily subsided, and the whole
country rested upon the assurance that it had
secured its long-desired repose. Sir, I cannot,
without deep emotion, again call attention to the
condition of public sentiment produced by that
reckless act of this party, which, regardless of
plighted faith, and defiant of popular will, repealed
the Missouri compromise. We came here full of

full of fear that the storm which the uncalled-for Nebraska act has occasioned will not be allayed without serious results to the great interests of our common country. If it brings woe to our people, let this Administration and its party be held responsible, because in every branch of the Government they have held unlimited power.

Mr. Chairman, I propose to reply to the last speech of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] upon the repeal of the Missouri compromise. There are some remarkable incidents connected with the controversy between us which call upon me to do so. That controversy originated in the consideration of the bill proposed by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. MACE) to exclude slavery from Kansas and Nebraska. When I entered this Hall on the 14th day of December, the gentleman from Georgia had the floor, and was discussing its merits. I had no expectation of embarking in the discussion until, when near the close of his speech, he undertook to prove, in substance, that the labor of a slave in Georgia was more successful than the labor of a freeman in Ohio. Sir, this proposition, in such a crisis as this, involved a principle worthy the consideration of any statesman in any civilized land upon the face of the earth.

But there were other considerations which prompted me to meet the gentleman in controverting so startling an assumption. I had left behind me in my native Buckeye-land, where the foot of slavery never made its imprint, brothers, kindred, true and trusty friends, laboring freemen in every branch of industry. I should have been recreant to my duty here, false to every impulse of my nature, and treacherous to the great cause of human freedom, to have permitted the gentleman's comparison and statistics to remain unanswered. I obtained the floor after he had spoken his hour without any interruption from me, and proceeded to reply. I yielded to him in my hour, thirtythree times, as appears by the record revised by himself, and I afterwards submitted the reporter's notes to him for revision, and such additions as he chose to make explanatory of his views. Under this state of facts, I had reason to believe the controversy was closed. But a month afterwards, the gentleman again took the floor and delivered a premeditated and elaborately prepared assault upon my reply, charging among other matters, that I had sized his argument to my capacity to reply to his! Sir, it is a matter of indifference to me as to how high an estimate the gentleman may place upon his argument," or how low he may scale my "capacity" to meet him; this House and the country will give to each of us our just level. When I arose to correct one of his statements, with haughty mien, he replied to me that my interruption had no pertinence, and then, again, he said "Be brief, sir, I have no time to spare.' May I not, under such circumstances, suggest that the gentleman discovered that he could not "size" his courtesy in debate by the extent of the task he sought to perform, in assuming that slave labor was superior to free labor!

[ocr errors]

Again, sir, the honorable gentleman would seem to demand for his statistics and arguments great force, for he told us he was "never wrong." I cannot set up for myself such infallibility! I am often wrong; but in this contest I feel a consciousness that the right is with me, and until I am satisfied of my error, neither contemptuous contortions of countenance, violent gesticulations, nor hightoned annunciation can move me one hair's breadth from my position.

Again, sir, the honorable gentleman seems to assume for himself a very elevated position, and to assign to me a very humble one. In alluding to our controversy of December 14th, he compares me to the "wild boy of the forest, with bow and arrow, attempting to shoot into the moon!" Without questioning the gentleman's good taste, I submit to the stigma of the "wild boy of the forest." There is quite as much truth as poetry in it, for bears were very plenty

"Around the hut where I was born," and, in boyhood, it was occasionally my lot to traverge the forest paths in night's dark hours, when the wolf howled behind me. And, Mr. Chairman, I shall not controvert the claim which the gentleman's figure sets up-that he is the veritable man

33D CONG....2D Sess.

Free Labor against Slave Labor-Mr. Campbell.

in the moon! I stood at my desk when the gentleman delivered his speech, as I am here now,

"With bended bow, and quiver full of arrows," ready to "shoot at folly as it flies," whether to the green cheese of the moon, or to the sweet potatoes of Georgia!

The honorable gentleman is adroit in his effort to escape the consequences of the issues he had the temerity to present to this House. I shall bring him back to them in due time, after dispos ing of the outside matters he has introduced. I quoted him as saying "the South asks nothing," and he charges me, therefore, with "putting words in his mouth which he did not utter!" It is due that I should give the gentleman the benefit of his language as published in his first speech as revised by himself. He said:

"But when did we ever come up and ask any aid from the Government of the United States? The constant prayer of the South to you has been to stay your hands. All that we ask of you is, keep your hands out of our pockets. That is all that the South asks, and we do not get even that.”

Now, sir, may I not ask whether the gentleman's complaint has not for its foundation a mere quibble? The substance of his charge is, that the free States have been robbing the South. In what manner has this alleged plunder been perpetrated through the General Government? Let us briefly

examine.

Have we robbed you through our tariff laws? In 1816, Mr. Calhoun was the advocate of a protective tariff. The free States never demanded protection until,under the system proposed by the South, they had been induced to invest, in permanent manufactories, buildings, and machinery, their capital. Then they claimed that, in good faith, the system should be continued. In 1824-28 the system was advocated by southern statesmen, such as Jackson, Benton, Eaton, Richard M. Johnson, and others. Besides, sir, every branch of southern industry has been as fully protected by all our tariff laws as those of the free States. There is no injustice in this branch of Federal legislation. If there is, I challenge the gentleman to show it.

Have we robbed you through our improvement laws? I assert, without the fear of contradiction from any source, that in all the bills that have ever passed Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors, the slave States have received a much greater amount from the National Treasury, according to their Federal representation, than the free States. Such was the case last session. It is so now. In the future, you will not complain if, in this branch of legislation, we say, "keep your hands out of our nockets!"

Have we robbed you in expenditures for acquiring additional territory? On a former occasion I asserted that the free States had never asked for the acquisition of new territories, and attributed to southern demands all the acquisitions since the organization of the Government, to wit: Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, Utah, and New Mexico, and the Mesilla valley. These annexations, the result of southern influence, including the war with Mexico, (the fruit of annexation,) cost the Federal Government more than two hundred millions of dollars, and furnished a legitimate item in reply to the charge of robbery.

The gentleman goes into an elaborate calculation to prove that a portion of this territory is in northern latitudes. The truth of this proposition does not affect my point. The acquisitions are all the result of southern demands upon the Federal Government, the purpose being to strengthen the political power of slavery, which has always been successful. The repeal of the Missouri compromise, and the admission of slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, consummate this policy of the slave States; because our national history shows that no free State has ever yet been formed from territory from which slavery had not been positively excluded by law.

Have we robbed you through the postal arrangements of the General Government? Look, sir, into the last page of the President's message and accompanying documents upon our desks. We have here the figures of an annual robbery. The figures stand thus:

Slave States, cost of mail transportation.....
Slave States, postages, &c., paid..

Deficit

$2,087,225 1,487,984 $599,241

.$4.393,056

Free States, postages, &c., paid...................
Free States, cost of mail transportation, &c..... 2.381,877
Overpaid..........
$2.011,179

The free States pay more than $2,000,000 above the cost of their mails, whilst your slave States (Georgia being a leading defaulter) are annually nearly $600,000 behind. Our people are taxed for the letters you receive, and the day is not far off when they will say to you, through the solemn forms of law, "keep your hands out of our pockets!"

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's last speech discloses a purpose to evade the issues of our first controversy. I am, therefore, induced to follow him briefly in his filibustering wanderings to Cuba. He wants to annex that rich Island. Inasmuch as Spain will not sell it, he seems to propose that our people should become land pirates, and take it through the process of throat cutting. In reference to our objections to his ideas of acquisition, he says: "I see none but an obstinate, fixed, and blind dogmatical nonsense!" And in another part of his speech he says:

"My record may stand as it is made up. I have no desire to change or modify it in the least; not even to cross a tor dot an i. By it, as it stands, I am willing to abide while living, and by it to abide when dead. It was not made for a day, or for an election, but for all time to come."

Mr. Chairman, the honorable gentleman has called attention to his record, with all the solemn forms of a "last will and testament!" I had occasion, on the 14th of December, to look into his record, and will now take up other parts of it, with a view to ascertain whether he had not as well add a codicil, by way of explanation. He seems to regard my argument as deficient in power compared to his own. I choose, therefore, to reply to his late demonstration in favor of taking Cuba whilst Spain refuses to sell it, by the forcible remarks which his record shows he made in this Hall on a former and similar occasion. I read from the Congressional Globe, volume 19, page 163. During our war with Mexico, an obstacle to a treaty of peace was presented in the refusal of Mexico to dispose of her territory. 2d of February, 1848, the honorable gentleman gave utterance to the following noble sentiments. He seems now to repudiate them. I have a right to appropriate them to my present purpose, and to adopt them as my own. By doing so, I have assurance that I quote authority that will command from the honorable gentleman more attention than the offspring of my own intellect.

On the

"The sine qua non for peace in the instructions to Mr. Trist, was to take New Mexico and California, and pay $15,000,000 or $20,000,000. No man can be mistaken. The reason that peace was not made, was because Mexico was unwilling to sell a portion of her country; and the her to make the surrender, or to take the whole of it. avowed object in now continuing it, is to compel and force

"Sir, I take this earliest opportunity of saying that I shall never tax my constituents for any such object. If they wish to contribute their substance to sustain a policy so odious and detestable, so entirely at war with the most sacred principles upon which their own Government is founded, they must send some other person here to lay the taxes. I never shall do it.

"The President assumes, if I understand his position, that the honor and interest of this country require us to make this demand of Mexico. Sir, I wholly dissent from any such doctrine. The honor of this country does not and cannot require us to force and compel the people of any other to sell theirs. I have, I trust, as high a regard for the national honor as any man. It is the brightest gem in the chaplet of a nation's glory; and there is nothing of which I am prouder than the high character for honor this country has acquired throughout the civilized world-that code of honor which was established by Washington and the men of the Revolution, and which rests upon truth, justice, and honesty, which is the offspring of virtue and integrity, and which is seen in the length and breadth of our land, in all the evidences of art, and civilization, and moral advancement, and everything that tends to elevate, dignify, and

ennoble man.

"This is the honor of my admiration, and it is made of 'steruer,' purer, nobler 'stuff' than that aggressive and degrading, yea, odious principle now avowed, of waging war against a neighboring people to compel them to sell their country. Who is here so base as to be willing, under any circumstances, to sell his country? For myself, I can only say, if the last funeral pile of liberty were lighted, I would mount it and expire in its flames before I would be coerced by any power, however great and strong, to sell or surrender the land of my home, the place of my nativity, and the graves of my sires! Sir, the principle is not only dishonorable, but infamous. As the Representative upon this floor of a high-minded and honorable constituency, I repeat, that the principle of waging war against a neighboring people to compel them to sell their country, is not only dishonorable, but disgraceful and infamous. What! shall it be said that American honor aims at nothing higher then land, than the ground on which we tread? Do we

Ho. OF REPS.

look no higher in our aspirations for honor, than do the soulless brutes? Shall we disavow the similitude of our Maker, and disgrace the very name of man? Tell it not to the world. Let not such an aspersion and reproach rest upon our name. I have heard of nations whose honor could be satisfied with gold, that glittering dust which is so precious in the eyes of some; but never did I expect to live to see the day when the Executive of this country should announce that our honor was such a loathsome, beastly thing, that it could not be satisfied with any achievements in arms, however brilliant and glorious, but must feed on earib, gross, vile dirt; and require even a prostrate foe to be robbed of mountain rocks and desert plains. I have no such notions of honor; and I have quite as little opinion of that policy which would spend fifty or a hundred millions of dollars in compelling the Mexicans to take fifteen or twenty millions for New Mexico and California, on the score of public interest."

Mr. Chairman, further back in the gentleman's "record," which is to "stand as it is made up," I find wholesome suggestions from him, pertinent to his present proposition to take Cuba. In vol. 16, page 950, of the Congressional Globe, his record shows that he said to the American people, from his desk in this Hall:

"We can only properly enlarge by voluntary accessions, and should only attempt to act upon our neighbors by setting them a good example."

Again, he repudiates filibustering for other nations' territories:

"Fields of blood and carnage may make men brave and heroic, but seldom tend to make pations either good, virtuous, or great."

Still further back in the pages of the gentleman's "record," by which he abides, "dead or alive," he spoke well on the proposition of annex. ing Texas. On the 25th January, 1845, (Congres. sional Globe, vol. 14, page 190,) he is reported as follows:

"Much as he regarded the luster of the lone star,' (and he would let it gleam on,) he admired the brilliant galaxy of the present Confederacy of our glorious old twenty-six States, as they now existed, more. And rather than that star, shooting from its orbit and coming into ours, should produce confusion, he should say let it gleam on alone, and remain where it was."

It will be remembered that during the pendency of the Mexican war the question was raised here, whether we should exact from Mexico any of her territory as a condition of peace. On the 22d of January, 1847, (Cong. Globe, vol. 17, p. 240,) he offered in this House the following resolution:

"Be it therefore resolved by the Senate and House of Rep. resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the present war with Mexico is not waged with a view to conquest,' or the dismemberment of that Republic by the acquisition of any portion of her territory."

And prior to this resolve (June 16, 1846, Cong. Globe, vol. 15, p. 982) he denounced acquisitions of territory:

"As to the objects of the war, he inquired what it was the intention of the Administration to do? Was it to parsue the conquest of Mexico? Was it that our soldiers might revel in the halls of the Montezumas? Was it that we might acquire the Californias and all the mining districts as well as the capital of Mexico itself? If so, he was opposed to it. He declared himself, in advance, in javor of peace so soon as peace could be honorably obtained."

The gentleman's pertinacity against acquisitions of territory was most remarkable. His was the firmness of the "noblest Roman of them all." On the 12th of February, 1847, (Cong. Globe, vol. 17, p. 401,) he said, in reference to conquests and the war with Mexico:

"If there were any other object, it was for the direct and settled purpose of conquest; and that he believed to have been its main object. Ile declared himself opposed to the conquest and dismemberment of Mexico, either for the expenses of the war or for the satisfaction or indemnity of our citizens."

He wants Cuba now. He would have our Government violate or abrogate our solemn treaty with Spain, and turn out its reckless adventurers and speculators to aid the "oppressed Cubans!" Mr. Chairman, there never lived a greater tyrant than Santa Anna. Our war with his Government closed with the treaty by which we acquired the rich mines of California and the vast Territories of Utah and New Mexico. How ran the current of the gentleman's sympathies for the "oppressed" of tyranny then? What were his views of an extension of our domain? On the 19th of February, 1849, (Cong. Globe, vol. 20, p. 557,) the following resolution was submitted to this House by one of its members from my own State, [Mr. Schenck:]

"That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and instructed to enter forthwith into negotiations with the Government of the Republic of Mex ico for the surrender to said Republic of all the territories known as New Mexico and Upper California, or so much

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Free Labor against Slave Labor-Mr. Campbell.

thereof as lies west of the Rio Grande, of any title thereto which was acquired by the United States under the fifth article of the treaty between the United States and Mexico, made and concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the 2d day of February, A. D. 1848," &c.

The vote stood as follows:

"YEAS-Messrs. Ashmun, Cranston, Crowel, Fisher, Giddings, Henry, Horace Mann, Palfrey, Schenck, Stephens, and Toombs-11."

But, sir, I must leave the gentleman voting with his "Abolition" friends, and pass from this branch of his "record." Necessity does not require further explorations. I said, on the 14th December, when I interrogated him on the constitutionality of the Wilmot proviso, that I had confidence in him as a constitutional lawyer. I repeat it now, in connection with the question of our power to annex territories. On the 25th January, 1845, (Cong. Globe, vol. 14, page 190,) Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, thus defines his position:

"He denied that the Constitution gives to Congress any power, either expressed or implied, to acquire foreign territory; or to the treaty-making power the right to acquire territory for the purpose of extending the Union. He affirmed that the power given to Congress to admit new States was limited to the then territory of the Union."

Now, sir, 1 dismiss the points of the gentle man's last speech, and I leave the "record" which he has given us for all time and eternity, too. I cannot learn from it in what way we can annex Cuba, if he acquires it, either by purchase or by filibustering, without violating the Constitution both he and I have sworn to support. Glancing thus hastily over its pages to learn wisdom on the great points of our power to annex territories, and then to exclude slavery from them, one might very naturally say:

"Man's a strange animal, and makes use

Of his own nature, aud the various arts,
And likes particularly to produce

Some new experiments to show his-parts!" He presented an argument, in favor of taking Cuba, to the people of Ohio, which it is proper I should notice in leaving the subject. He suggests that we are now required to pay heavy duties at Havana, under the laws of Spain, on Ohio produce, which would not be required if the island was annexed. I wish to say to the gentleman, that whatever may be the code of national or individual morals in Georgia, in Ohio we regard American faith as higher than the profits on flour, and principle dearer to us than the value of pork! The Ohio farmer will not consent to cut the throat, or shoot out the brains of a Spanish subject in Cuba, on the gentleman's promise that he shall make two shillings more of profit on his pig!

integrity and ability forbade me from supposing that he had willfully violated the Constitution he had sworn to support; and I assumed that he agreed with me that Congress had power to legislate for the exclusion of slavery from Territories. He did not dispute the assumption. Sir, I shall hold him to the point I established. He is a distinguished leader among southern members. His admissions have not been denied on this floor by southern members. Two months have elapsed, and no southern newspaper that I have seen has denied their correctness. I have, therefore, the right now to assume-and shall assume-that the South, and especially members from the State of Georgia, unite with me, as the gentleman did, in acknowledging the constitutional right of Congress to exclude slavery from all the Territories of the Federal Government.

Mr. BAILEY, of Georgia. I have seen the liberality of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMP BELL] in extending, on being interrupted, the privilege to explain and to answer. He knows well enough that on the floor I have never sought to intrude on the time or attention of any one; but from reference having been made to Georgia, I ask him to allow me the privilege of speaking briefly on this subject.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I have much to say and but little time. If the gentleman repudiates the positions of his colleague, he can say so in a word, and place himself right on the record.

Mr. BAILEY. I wish to say that I not only repudiate that position of my colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS,] but a great many other positions of

his.

[Mr. BAILEY proceeded to define his position at length, stating that he believed the people of Georgia ulso repudiated the positions of his colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS.] Mr. B.'s speech will be found on pages 327-330.

Mr. CAMPBELL. On this branch of the subject I have no longer any controversy with the gentleman's colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS.] We seem to have come together on the great question which underlies the whole difficulty, the constilutional power of Congress to exclude slavery from Territories. He joins me, too, in denouncing the doctrine of " squatter sovereignty," as asserted by the friends of the Nebraska bill. If the gentleman [Mr. BAILEY] joins issue with us, I transfer his colleague [Mr. STEPHENS] to him. They may have their contest before the people of Georgia.

Mr. SEWARD, of Georgia. I ask the gentle

man to allow me a moment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Do you indorse the positions of your colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS?]

Mr. SEWARD. No sir; I do not.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Then I turn him over to you also. Fight it out in Georgia. I carry on no controversy with your colleague further than we may disagree.

Mr. SEWARD here expressed his regret that his colleague [Mr. STEPHENS] had not defined his position more promptly, and proceeded to define his own position, closing with the remark that in a particular contingency in reference to the right of slavery in Territories, &c., he was willing to see this Government rent asunder.

Mr. Chairman, I propose now to go back to the original issues which the gentleman presented in his first speech. They involved: 1, the constitutionality; 2, the expediency of excluding slavery from our national Territories by an act of Congress. I have no desire to discuss self-evident propositions, or those that are admitted by my adversary. Slavery is the antagonist of liberty. In the abstract, it is admitted to be a wrong, hence remarks on this point are needless. Upon the question of the power of Congress over Territories, under the Constitution, there has been ground for dispute; but on the 14th of December the gentleman certainly united in my repudiation of the doctrine that we should give to the people of a Territory unlimited sovereignty. He denounced what is termed "squatter sovereignty,' thereby making an issue with those who aided him to pass the Nebraska bill, and net with me. On these points I pass him over to those who went for that bill on the ground that it secured to the people of the Territories the right of self-perpetuated, it shall not be for the purpose of exgovernment, and the privilege of "regulating all their affairs in their own way."

[ocr errors]

I held that Congress had constitutional power to exclude slavery, and sought to fortify myself|| by the action of our great statesmen, as well as the opinion of the gentleman. To be sure, sir, he was rather twistical in the course of my cross-examination, and said that he had never expressed an opinion on this point, either here or before his constituents. I resorted, then, to that "record," and proved that he had exercised the power, and voted in the Texas resolutions to deprive the people of a Territory of the right to hold slaves, and to withhold from them the privilege of tolerating slavery under any State constitution they might adopt. My high estimate of the gentleman's

Mr. CAMPBELL. All these threats of dis

solving the Union since the repeal of the Missouri compromise have become, in the free States, "stale, flat, and unprofitable!" They do not frighten anybody. Much as our people may have loved the Union, they have pretty generally made up their minds for the future, if this Union is to be

tending slavery into free Territories. Southern gentlemen may stick a pin there!

I have no design to interfere in any contest these honorable gentlemen from Georgia may get up among themselves. They may 64 regulate their domestic institution in their own way," and I will look on with entire complacency. The honorable gentleman to whom I reply, [Mr. STEPHENS,] has substantially indorsed my positions as to the constitutional power of Congress to exclude slavery from Territories. I have proved by his "record" that we have no power to sustain his proposition to annex Cuba, as he now proposes, without violating the Constitution we have solemnly sworn to support.

Ho. OF REPS.

man denies the power of Congress to annex Cuba, I ask him to explain his resolution of last session for the annexation of the Canadas, &c.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman from Mississippi cannot involve me in an inconsistency. My record, here and at home, is straightforward for the promotion of freedom, without proposing to violate the Constitution, or the rights of the South. The resolution to which he alludes, submitted by me at the last session, simply authorized negotiations to be opened, to ascertain on what terms we might acquire the British Provinces in North America, in an honest and peaceful way. It merely presented the inquiry, "What do you ask for them?" without committing Congress to an agreement to pay the price that might be demanded, or to annexation. It was a resolution of inquiry merely. Besides, Mr. Chairman, I thought that, inasmuch as the slave States had so often found power under the Constitution to annex the Territories of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, Utah, New Mexico, and the Messilla valley-wading through rivers of blood, and expending millions upon millions from the National Treasury to accomplish their purposes-and are even now willing to have a war with Spain for the acquisition of Cuba, to increase the slave power of the Union, we, of the free States, might venture to make an honest, quiet, and peaceful inquiry as to the terms upon which we might extend our area of freedom northward. Mr. Jefferson declared the acquisition of Louisiana to be an act beyond the powers of the Constitution. The gentleman from Georgia agreed with him, as I have shown. The acquisition of Louisiana was justified only on that principle known as the

66

higher law" of national necessity. Every acquisition since that finds no other authority than in the principles of that "higher law." My position is, that if the Constitution justifies acquisitions southward for slavery, it justifies them northward for freedom! If the slave States act upon a principle of "higher law" than the Constitution, the free States (being equal copartners in the firm known as "The Union") have a right to adopt it as the rule of their action. And, Mr. Chairman, I intend to assert that right. The Constitution was formed with an implied understanding that no additional territory was to be annexed, and no new slave States admitted into this Union. spirit of the instrument has oftentimes been violated by the friends of slavery; their "strict construction" arguments are only advanced when they fear the onward march of freedom.

The

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen apply the taunt of "Abolitionist" on this floor, and seek to effect their purposes by engendering prejudices. For my own part, I have to say that I have always hitherto been a Whig. Now, that the Whig party seems to have been numbered with the "things that were and are not," and the faithless Democracy has gone down below the point to which it is supposed the arm of resurrection can reach, I shall prefer to have my position known, now and hereafter, by the principles I may avow. I shall hold myself independent of every political organization which would interfere with the progress of justice, or put in jeopardy the great cause of American liberty. On this troublesome question of slavery I fortify my position by the opinions of southern statesmen-of Georgia politicians

Mr. BAILEY, of Georgia. Name them.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Your patriots of 1776, of the day that tried men's souls-the first colonists of Georgia-those who fought for our liberties. And, recently, your colleague, [Mr. STEPHENS,] who seems to have played the part of the flying Parthian, throwing his arrow at his antagonist, then trusting to the fleetness of his horse for safety. But the gentleman has left his record behind him. On the 25th of January, 1845, he is thus reported:

"As a southern man and Georgian, he protested against the correspondence of the Secretary of State on this subject. The institution of slavery was a domestic one, and the Secretary of State sought to make it a national one. He objected to calling on this Government to strengthen the institution of slavery."

Your institution of slavery is local. We deny the right of the free States, or of the General Gov. ernment, to abolish or interfere with it, in the States where it is tolerated, and we deny your Mr. WRIGHT, of Mississippi. If the gentle-right to authorize its extension or its support

33D CONG....1ST SESS.

Free Labor against Slave Labor-Mr. Campbell.

through the power of the Federal Government, either by direct or indirect means. The Constitution confers no power on this subject, except for the reclamation of your fugitive slaves, and I regard any law to carry out that power, which denies the right of jury trial, not only as unjust, but practically inefficient.

[At this point a running discussion took place between Mr. BAILEY, of Georgia, and Mr. CAMPBELL, in reference to trial by jury in the case of fugitive slaves.]

Mr. CAMPBELL. I come now, Mr. Chairman, to the consideration of the only point presented by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] in his first speech, on which we appear to be at issue. That is, the expediency of extending slavery, the comparative merits of free and slave labor, and the relative prosperity of free and slave States. The responsibility of such a comparison does not rest upon me, and I remind the House that the gentleman invited the investigation in his first speech, and followed it up vigorously in his last. I pursue it in no sectional or unkind spirit, but solely with a view to present fairly such facts as should direct us in legislation for the establishment of institutions in our unsettled Territories.

It may be well, sir, to ascertain, before we provide for the increase of slave States or promote .he interest of slave labor, the number of American citizens who have a substantial interest in slavery. The census shows the number of whites in the slave States to be 6,222,418. Number of slaveholders.... Number owning less than five slaves..

347,525 ..174,503

Number owning five and more slaves............173,022

It is a fact worthy of attention, that whilst the whole country is constantly being disturbed by this institution, there are, of the 20,000,000, only 173,000 who own five slaves or more. In the slave States alone, the number of persons who do not own a single slave is 5,874,893; whilst the number of slaveholders is only 347,525. These figures prove either that a large majority of the people of the slave States are opposed to holding slaves on a principle, or agree with me, that even there free labor would be more profitable. The correctness of this conclusion can only be questioned on the ground that the mass are too poor to own even one slave-an assertion which I am not disposed to make.

There are twenty millions of our people, therefore, interested in free labor, and only one third of a million who have property in slaves. Is it wise, is it just, that this interest of the few, which conflicts with the interests of the great mass, as well as the genius of our Government, should be promoted by national legislation? The gentleman assailed the statistical facts which I presented on a former occasion. I shall not now confine my tables to the census returns from Georgia and Ohio. With a purpose to test more fully the merits of free and slave labor, I have carefully compiled tables, drawing the line between the free and slave States. In presenting the results, I refer to he pages of the Compendium of the Census, from which my figures have been taken. MANUFACTURES, MINING AND MECHANIC ARTS, (page 179.) Raw Hands Product. material. employed.

Capital invested.

Free States $430,240,051 $465,844,092 950.573 $842,285,058 Slave States, 95,029,879 86,190,639 160,627 165,423,027

$335,210,172 $379,653,453 789,946 $676,862,031

The excess of profit in the free States, it will be seen, is nearly SEVEN HUNDRED MILLIONS OF

DOLLARS.

In connection with our manufacturing establishments much is said about northern slavery. Truc, sir, we have made slaves of our rivers and our mountain cascades. The Connecticut, and the Merrimack, the Miamis, and all the tributaries || of the Mississippi, the mountain streamlets, are made to work in supplying the wants of man. Even now Niagara's cataract, with more power than is contained in the bones and sinews of all the Africans on earth, is being enchained and reduced to servitude by northern energy, for the benefit of

man.

Closely allied to the mechanical interest is the

[blocks in formation]

RATIO OF ILLITERATE TO NATIVE WHITE POPULATION, (page 152.) Slave States.......... .......8.37 per cent. Free States............................. ..........2.40 per cent. RATIO OF ILLITERATE AMONG POREIGNERS, (page 152.) Free States................................9.09 per cent. Slave States............................... 6.37 per cent.

COMPARATIVE RATIO OF ILLITERATE AMONG NATIVES AND

FOREIGNERS, OVER TWENTY YEARS, (page 152.)
Native.
Foreign.
10.62 per cent.
15.15 per cent.

Slave States..... ........17.23 per cent.
Free States.............. 4.12 per cent.

PER CENT. RATIO OF WHITE ILLITERATE TO TOTAL WHITE

[blocks in formation]

HO. OF REPS.

The United States consul at Antwerp recently wrote to Collector Redfield, of the city of New York, as follows:

"It has been discussed in the Legislature of Belgium whether it would not be better to send to the United State all criminals at Government expense, rather than to maintain them at home."

I present these facts for the two-fold purpose of meeting the gentleman's criminal statistics, and of calling the attention of our people to the outrages which foreign Governments are perpetrating in turning loose their cut-throats upon our shores.

PAUPERS.

The census tables show the following results: Foreign. 4,849........ 21.260

Total.

Native.. Slave States......... 16,411, Free States.........50,014.........63,689........113,703 More than three fourths of the paupers in the slave States are native-born; in the free States nearly three fifths are foreign-born. The same general facts I have mentioned in reference to foreign criminals sent to northern cities apply to the pauper statistics.

During the year 1853, there were admitted into two institutions of New York city, (Bellevue hospital and the alms-house,) as stated in the report before me: Foreigners.........

Americans.........

..5,797

...1,236

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

It is worthy of remark that the State from which the gentleman comes, who institutes these inquiries, is ahead of the average of slave States in "illiterate" persons, whilst Ohio, the State he selected for comparison, is below the average of the free States.

CRIME-PRISON STATISTICS.

Rhode Island

Foreign.

Native.

9,247

6,530

........40,580

19,275

5,635

5,898

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has again pressed upon us his comparison of Georgia and Ohio The gentleman goes into the statistics of crime, prosperity, and assails the tables I presented, showand claims a successful comparison. The resulting the value of agricultural products of the two of his statistics might be answered by the well known fact that offenses are more promptly and severely punished in the free States than in the South. But there are other facts worthy of presentation, connected with the statistics of crime, in the present state of public feeling, in regard to foreign emigration. The census tables prove

[blocks in formation]

The inference the gentleman would seem todraw that crime is more frequent under a system of free labor than of slave labor, is simply preposterous, "blind dogmatic nonsense!" Much of the crime in the North is perpetrated by convicts sent to our shores from foreign countries. In proof of this, I submit the following extract from the New York Times of December 24:

"Yesterday morning a highly important arrest of twelve convicts, sent to the United States at the expense of the Belgian Government, was effected by Sergeant Bell of the Mayor's office, and officers Newman and Freude.

"During the past two years a large number of English felons have arrived here from Botany Bay, whom the authorities of the Old World liberated from confinement, and

paid their passage to this port to get rid of them. In the

course of the past summer, about fifty of these notorious thieves were captured and returned."***"Their crimes ranged from petit-larcenies to robberies on the highway,"

States on the basis of New York city prices. He protests against Ohio hay at sixteen dollars per ton, yet I have the Cincinnati prices current, published a few days after he delivered his last speech, showing that it was then selling in that city at seventeen dollars per ton. He is startled, and becomes nervous over the fact, that Ohio hay alone amounts to more than the cotton of Georgia. He complains, too, that I put down his Georgia sweet potatoes at fifty cents per bushel, and claims them to be worth two dollars in New York. His Georgia sweet potatoes are a perishable product, and during the short period they might form an article of commerce, and enter into the exports of Georgia, or into the general consumption of the State, they are not worth more in New York than the rate I affirmed in my former table.

But, sir, I have prepared another table, including every product returned by the census, taking the prices current of New York of the 25th January, which I have preserved to fix the value, which the census does not furnish. To accommodate him I have rated his sweet potatoes at two dollars per bushel, although that figure presents the absurdity of giving Georgia nearly as much credit for her sweet potatoes as for her great staple of cotton. I leave Ohio hay at sixteen dollars, (less than the Cincinnati price, whence it is shipped to southern ports in large quantities.) Whatever sneers the gentleman may have for Ohio hay, and powerful as may be his eloquence in portraying Georgia's success in corn-shucks, it is nevertheless unquestionably true that the quantity of hay produced in Ohio, as returned by the census, estimated at Cincinnati prices, is six millions of dollars ahead of the cotton crop of Georgia estimated at New York city prices! If the census tables are erroneous as to the quantity of products, it is not my fault, for it was the gentleman who commenced this comparison and referred me to these tables. As to his offset of "corn blades," I have only to say, that common sense ought to prove to any mind that Ohio, with fifty millions of bushels of Indian corn, must produce nearly twice the quantity of "shucks," blades," and

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »