33D CONG....2D SESS.

opposition had grown to such length that the flag which bore this minister to his destination carried also the plot of moral treason from our shores, to incite hostility to his success, and render his efforts in behalf of his country abortive. Malignity, in its most violent spirit, has not the temerity to charge that one whose life has been devoted to the cause of republicanism would falter in the performance of any duty. And though, sir, the chief object which his country expected him to accomplish as Minister to Spain having failed, yet the confidence of his fellow-citizens has not abated.

The extreme opinions imputed to Mr. Soulé upon those territorial questions which were supposed to be settled by the friends of that system of measures, now regarded by the gentleman from Virginia as being a delusion upon the South, furnishes a flimsy pretext for the assault upon that minister.

But the grave charge is made that Mr. Soulé has not only subjected himself to the fault of contending for all the rights of the South, but another and greater disqualification, urged against him and the policy of the Administration in his appointment, is found in the fact that he was born in the country where Lafayette claimed his birthright, and in which lies entombed that manly form of nature's nobleman who, with sword unsheathed, side by side with the Father of his Country, exposed himself to every danger, submitted to every sacrifice, and, without flinching, shed his blood to triumph in battle and achieve the independence of our country.

Mr. Chairman, however willing others may be to disregard the plain provisions of the Constitution securing political rights to the adopted citizens, I will not, here or elsewhere, perpetrate such a libel upon that instrument either to obtain favor from a powerful party or avoid its proscription.

EXECUTION OF UNITED STATES LAWS.

SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,
OF ILLINOIS,

FRIDAY, February 23, 1855.

The Senate having under consideration the bill to provide for the protection of Officers and other persons executing the Laws of the United States, debate ensued, of which the following is part. The other part has been heretofore published. [See pp. 211-246.]

Mr. DOUGLAS said: Mr. President, I am at at a loss to understand the precise object of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. WADE] in the extraordinary course of remark in which he has indulged. Failing to maintain the positions he assumed in opposition to the bill, he has poured forth a torrent of denunciation and calumny in the place of facts and argument. After denouncing the bill as monstrous and nefarious-one which no honest man can support-he says he does not blame southern men for advocating it, and insisting upon its passage. He has even gone to the extent of declaring that, wicked and nefarious as it is in all its provisions and principles, yet, were he a southern man, and the representative from a slaveholding State, he would vote for it. That is to say, it is an iniquitous measure, and if he were a southern man he would perpetrate the inquity; it is a base act, but if he were a southern man, and it would promote his interest, he would perform the deed! According to his doctrine, the act is infamous if performed by a northern man; right and honest, if done by a southern man! Sir, I was not educated in that school of morality which teaches that the same act is morally right or wrong, is virtuous or iniquitous, according to the parallels of latitude where the man resides who may perform it. If an affirmative vote on the bill be morally right in a Senator from the South, I am unable to perceive how it can be wrong in a northern Senator. Doll

a Senator from South Carolina. God forbid that I should judge the merits of a legislative enactment by the residence of the man who happened to be the organ of the committee for introducing it. It is not the first time I have seen on this floor those who obtained their seats in the Senate by appeals to passion and prejudice at home, by stirring up sectional strifes, and inflaming the North against the South, become the fawning sycophants and fulsome flatterers of those very southern men whom they have traduced and maligned; whose character, constituents, institutions, and civilization they are in the daily habit of denouncing as criminal and infamous in the eyes of God and man. Wrong for a northern man to introduce a bill providing for the execution of the laws of the land, which it is right for a southern man to support, and for which these immaculate anti-slavery men say they would vote were they southern men. That is the argument. It is the argument of all who seek to dissolve this Union. Array the North against the South-stimulate the passions of each-urge them into deadly conflict-tell the South you do not blame them; that you would do as they do, were you southern men; that you only blame those northern doughfaces or traitors who seek to preserve peace and fraternity by a strict obedience to the Constitution and a faithful execution of the laws made in pursuance of it. Yes, we are called traitors because of our fidelity to the Constitution. Doughfaces and cowards because of our obedience to that Constitution as our fathers made it, and we, upon the holy Evangelist, swore to preserve inviolate. Doughfaces because we stand between the Constitution and those who seek to trample upon its provisions; because we stand between the Union and those whose measures are aimed at its destruction.

They tell us that we are in vain attempting to resist an overwhelming torrent of northern sentiment; that our course is rushing us to inevitable self-destruction; that we are destined to be swept from the face of the earth, and sunk to the lowest depths of obloquy and infamy, from which there is no resurrection.

With awful doom impending over us, doughfaces and cowards as we are, we calmly look the storm in the face, defy its mutterings and howlings about our heads, and hold on firmly to the Union and to the Constitution as the surest and only means of preserving it, while the sentence is being pronounced which is to decide our fate. This is cowardice, when courage consists in pandering to the passions and prejudices of those immediately around you, while you hurl defiance and insult and calumny at those who are a thousand miles distant. We would cease to be doughfaces, and become as brave as you, if we would only have the courage to throw overboard the Constitution as the compass by which to guide the ship of State, and run with wind and tide, setting a sail for every breeze, and changing our course with the shiftings of the wind. You can pay us no higher compliment than is contained in the charge that we stand firmly by our principles, regardless of consequences personal to ourselves, and hazarding popularity and position in preference to yielding to those mercenary and ambitious allurements which seduce bad men from their fidelity to the Constitution.

Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] has invaded the circle of my private relations in search of materials for the impeachment of my official action. He has alluded to certain

SENATE.

southern interests which he insinuates that I possess, and remarked, that where the treasure is there the heart is also. So long as the statement, that I was one of the largest slaveholders in America was confined to the Abolition newspapers and stump orators, I treated it with silent contempt. I would gladly do so on this occasion, were it not for the fact that the reference is made in my presence by a Senator for the purpose of imputing to me a mercenary motive for my official conduct. Under these circumstances, silence on my part in regard to the fact, might be construed into a confession of guilt in reference to the impeachment of motive. I therefore say to the Senator, that his insinuation is false, and he knows it to be false, if he has ever searched the records or has any reliable information upon the subject. I am not the owner of a slave and never have been, nor have I ever received, and appropriated to my own use, one dollar earned by slave labor. It is true that I once had tendered to me, under circumstances grateful to my feelings, a plantation with a large number of slaves upon it, which I declined to accept, not because I had any sympathy with Abolitionists or the Abolition movement; but for the reason that, being a northern man by birth, by education, and residence, and intending always to remain such, it was impossible for me to know, understand, and provide for the wants, comforts, and happiness of those people. I refused to accept them because I was unwilling to assume responsibilities which I was incapable of fulfilling. This fact is referred to in the will of my father-in-law, as a reason for leaving the plantation and slaves to his only daughter, (who became the mother of my infant children,) as her separate and exclusive estate, with the request that if she departed this life without surviving children, the slaves should be emancipated and sent to Liberia at the expense of her estate; but in the event she should leave surviving children, the slaves should descend to them, under the belief, expressed in the will, that they would be happier and better off with the descendants of the family with whom they had been born and raised, than in a distant land where they might find no friend to care for them. This brief statement, relating to private and domestic affairs, (which ought to be permitted to remain private and sacred,) has been extorted and wrung from me with extreme reluctance, even in vindication of the purity of my motives in the performance of a high public trust. As the truth compelled me to negative the insinuation so offensively made by the Senator from Ohio, God forbid that I should be understood by any one as being willing to cast from me any responsibility that now does, or ever has attached to any member of my family. So long as life shall last-and I shall cherish with religious veneration the memory and virtues of the sainted mother of my children-so long as my heart shall be filled with parental solicitude for the happiness of those motherless infants, I implore my enemies, who so ruthlessly invade the domestic sanctuary, to do me the favor to believe, that I have no wish, no aspiration, to be considered purer or better than she, who was, or they, who are, slaveholders. Sir, whenever my assailants shall refuse to accept a like amount of this species of property tendered to them under similar circumstances, and shall perform a domestic trust with equal fidelity and disinterestedness, it will be time enough for them to impute mercenary motives to me in the performance of my official duties.

Now, sir, a few words in regard to the bill which has furnished the occasion for this furious onslaught upon my friend from Connecticut [Mr. TOUCEY] and myself. What objection has been urged to it, except that it was introduced by a northern instead of a southern man? The same objection was urged to the Nebraska bill, when I reported it from the Committee on Territories, in accordance with the principles recognized in the compromise of 1850, which that Senator, and the party with which he then professed to act, were solemnly pledged to adhere to "in substance and principle.' You, sir, [turning to Mr. WADE,] not only supported General Scott upon the Whig platform in 1852, but affirmed the same principles in your vote for the Washington territorial bill in 1853, which, like the Nebraska bill, repealed a prohibition of slavery, in

33D CONG....2D SESS.

order that the people might have the opportunity of deciding the slavery question for themselves in conformity with the principles recognized in the compromise of 1850.

The bill for the organization of Washington Territory received the vote of every northern Senator who now denounces me for doing, in Nebraska, precisely what each of them did in Washington Territory only eleven months before! If you are sincere in your complaints of my conduct in reference to Nebraska, what explanation, what excuse are you prepared to give your constituents for your betrayal of what you are pleased to call northern rights in Washington Territory? If 1 betrayed the cause of freedom in 1854, you set me the example in 1853. The bill passed this body unanimously about three months after the presidential election, when both parties were pledged by their platforms to sustain the principle of allowing the people of each State and Territory to decide the slavery question for themselves. Why did you not sound the alarm, and proclaim to the world that the sacred cause of freedom had been betrayed by northern doughfaces when you and your party in all the free States pledged yourselves to this principle in the presidential elections of 1852, and carried it into practical operation in the Washington territorial bill in 1853? If you are honest men, if you are sincere in your professions now, make an open and frank confession of your crimes then. If you do not wish to stand upon the record self-convicted of all the nefarious deeds which your malice imputes to others, let us hear no more of this hypocritical cant for political purposes about northern men introducing bills for the extension of slavery, when southern men could not be found to take the initiative. You know that it was not the object of the Nebraska bill, any more than of the Washington territorial bill, either to extend slavery or to circumscribe it. You all know that neither of those bills was intended either to establish, or abolish, or to introduce, or exclude slavery; but that the real object and true intent was to recognize in the Territories the great principle of self-government, in obedience to which the people of each State and Territory coming into the Union should decide for themselves what kind of institutions and laws were best adapted to their condition and welfare. It was in obedience to this great principle, the principle in defense of which the battles of the Revolution were fought, the principle for the preservation of which the Constitution of the United States was adopted, the principle of popular rights and State equality which underlies our whole system of representative Government, for the preservation of this great principle it was that the Washington and Nebraska bills were passed in the form in which they now appear on the statute-book.

The Senator from Ohio has appealed to the traditions of our fathers to sustain his position upon the slavery question. Well, sir, the tradition of our fathers is that the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed, and the Revolution effected for the purpose of enabling the American people to make their own laws, and establish their own institutions. The object, then, was to secure for the Colonies the same rights and privileges which the Nebraska recognizes and establishes in the Territories. Why, then, this assault upon northern men for their fidelity to the Constitution, and to those principles of self government and constitutional liberty, upon which our whole political system rests? The Senator has intimated the reason. He says the cry of disunion has no terror for him. That I can well understand. He, and those who act with him, do not consider themselves under any obligation to obey the Constitution, or to execute the laws made for the purpose of carrying it into effect, any further than they harmonize with their views on the slavery question. Abolitionism means disunion. Abolitionists are necessarily disunionists, for no sane man believes that this Union can be maintained by any other means than fidelity to the Constitution. The Constitution recognizes the right of each State to have slavery or not, as it chooses; the right of the State to abolish it when it pleases-to establish it when it chooses. The Constitution recognizes the right of a master of a slave to have him surrendered back if he escapes. If your consciences will not allow you to obey thai Constitution, as honest men you are bound to

Railroad Iron-Mr. Seward.

dissolve the Union, and release yourselves from that obligation. Disunion has no terrors. The very declaration implies a willingness to see the act perpetrated whenever necessary to accomplish a cherished object. The Abolition movement means agitation, irritation, sectional strife, until alienation shall take the place of fraternal feeling. The leaders understand this, and hope to carry the masses with them by appeals to their prejudices and passions, until the fatal step shall be taken, before the real and final object shall be discovered, much less avowed. In the midst of all this Nebraska cry, they care no more for the provisions of that bill than they did for the Washington territorial bill when they voted for it. There is not a principle, there is not an objectionable provision, in the Nebraska bill, that you did not vote for in the Washington territorial bill eleven months before.

Then we may as well look this question directly in the face. It is a question of union or disunion. I repeat, no sane man believes that this Union can be preserved, except by fidelity to the Constitution. As long as the Constitution is carried out in its letter and in its spirit, and laws are passed and executed in obedience to its requirements, this Union is safe.

Then the question is, shall we be true and loyal to the Constitution? If we are, we will enforce all laws of the United States, passed in obedience to that instrument; and if there are combinations in States, Territories, localities, or anywhere to prevent the execution of those laws, we must apply the proper remedy. All new States must come into the Union on an equality with the old States. Whatever power under the Constitution may be exercised by any one State, may be exercised by each and all of the States, new and old alike. So long as Virginia has the right to retain or abolish slavery, Illinois and every other State has the same right, under the Constitution, to admit or exclude it in accordance with the wishes of her own people. When you attempt, therefore, to put a limitation on the new States which is not placed by the Constitution on all the States, you violate the great fundamental principle of equality among the States, and declare your unwillingness to abide by the compact that our fathers made.

Then, sir, what becomes of this cry about invading the rights of the North? I deny the right of a band of men, who have, in turn, joined and been kicked out of each of the great political parties because they were found to be unworthy to belong to either, and who have since formed a combination with all the factions and isms of the day, under the title of the fusion party, to come here and speak for the whole North. The North are a Union people, a law-abiding people, a people loyal to the Constitution, and willing to perform its obligations. Once in a while, a combination of factions, brought together under extraordinary circumstances, may procure a majority, and send a man here who is as much a misrepresentative of the sentiment of the North as he is of all the courtesies and proprieties which should exist among gentlemen here as well as elsewhere. I hold, sir, that such men have no right to speak in the name of the North or for the North. This Abolition faction, this disunion cabal, this set of men who make their reputation by slandering better men than themselves, have never been the true representatives of the North. They always come here by a bargain, and they go out at the end of the term at which they arrive. Sir, [turning to Mr. WADE,] you talk about your rebuke to northern men. I do not wish to speak unkindly to you, or to your colleague, [Mr. CHASE,] but your very colleague is to be succeeded by a Nebraska man, [Mr. Pugh,] a true representative of the North, for the next six years, in the Senate of the United States. You talk about your antiNebraska men in Ohio. You do not deny that every one of them came here by Know-Nothing votes. Why did you not boast, then, that there had not been a man elected to Congress from the free States who was not either a Nebraska man or sworn to violate the Constitution by proscribing a man for his religious faith? Why did you not say that every one of them was sworn to proscribe men because of the accident of birth, instead of because they were Nebraska men? Why did you not tell us that they came here because they had been baptized in the Know-Nothing crucible,

SENATE.

and had taken all the unholy oaths of proscription forbidden by the Constitution? I have called upon any man in this Senate to specify a member of Congress, or of the Senate, from a free State, elected since the Nebraska bill was passed, who was not either a Nebraska man, or sent here by the Know-Nothing vote.

Then what is the use of pretending any more that the elections in the North turned on anti-Nebraska alone. How was it with my colleague, [Mr. SHIELDS,] whose case has been referred to in this debate? He voted for the Nebraska bill in obedience to the positive peremptory instructions of the Legislature of Illinois, first given in 1851, and then repeated while the Nebraska bill was pending here, and before he voted. Now they say they have defeated him because he voted for Nebraska. There is consistency for you. First instruct a man to do an act and then beat him for doing it. You profess to believe in the doctrine of instructions, and talk about Senators misrepresenting their constituencies. The fusion Legislature of Illinois at its recent session, or the popular branch of it, passed resolutions declaring it to be the imperative duty of a Senator to obey the instructions of the Legislature, and at the same time voted down a resolution approving the conduct of my colleague and myself in obeying a peremptory instruction! The truth is, my gallant and distinguished colleague was doomed to defeat before that Legislature, whether he voted for or against the Nebraska bill. He had been guilty of the crime of being born in Ireland! Any other obstacle could have been removed, any other offense pardoned in consideration of eminent public services rendered to the land of his adoption. All other stains upon his political character had been washed out with his own blood, so profusely shed in vindicating the rights and avenging the wrongs of his adopted country. All other offenses could be freely pardoned upon the score of patriotic services; but that monstrous offense of being born in a foreign land, and especially in old Ireland, was unpardonable in the eyes of Know-Nothingism, and hence the head of the gallant Senator was brought to the block. yet we are told that his defeat was an anti-Nebraska victory. He was stricken down by a combination of all the factions and isms of the day, of which Abolitionism and Know-Nothingism were the controlling elements.

And

Unwilling to occupy more of the time of the Senate, I will take my seat, with the hope that I will not be induced, even by assaults upon my conduct and motives, to trespass more upon the time of the Senate.

Mr. BRAINERD. I will simply observe that I do not believe there were three hundred KnowNothings in the State of Vermont at our last election; at any rate, if there were, I was not aware of the fact. I am here, therefore, certainly without any particular help, in any way, from any Know-Nothing.

RAILROAD IRON.

REMARKS OF HON. W. H. SEWARD, OF NEW YORK,

IN SENATE, February 22, 1855. The bill to authorize a credit of three years on Imported Railroad Iron being under consideration,

Mr. SEWARD offered the following amendment as an additional section:

SEC.. And be it further enacted, That in order to extend to railroad companies who may use American iron in the construction of their railroads, the same inducements as are granted by this act to companies to use foreign iron, whenever any railroad company shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury that they have purchased, for their own use, any iron rails, spikes, bolts, fastenings, or other iron necessary for the construction of railroads of American manufacture, it shall be the duty of the Secretary, and he is hereby authorized and directed, to loan to said company an amount equal to the duties for which credit will be given by this act upon similar iron if imported, paying over the same out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated: Provided, That said company shall secure the repayment of such loans by their bonds conditioned for the amount payable at three years from date, without interest, and by such other security, personal or otherwise, as, in the judgment of the Secretary, will indemnify the United States against loss.

I have offered this amendment because it will serve to illustrate my position in regard to the

33D CONG....2D SESS.

question before the Senate. Some abstractions have been discussed, on which I shall not dwell. If it were demonstrated that New Hampshire was the most loyal, and Pennsylvania was the most disloyal of the States, and even if the political differences of opinion between Massachusetts and South Carolina on questions of political economy were reconciled, yet all this would not affect the merits of the proposition to give a credit on railroad iron.

With the utmost deference, I cannot regard the suggestion of the Senator om New Hampshire [Mr. WELLS] to be one requiring grave refutation. He insists that the bill violates the Constitution. Congress have a right to levy taxes-either direct or indirect taxes. Since they have power to levy, they have power to remit-to remit altogether, or to remit on conditions, to give a credit for duties, or to require their immediate payment.

us.

I see no question of free trade in the case before We have indeed been told that it would be well to abolish custom-houses, and come to direct taxation. It is very easy to say this, and it sounds very high and very sonorously. But, sir, in point of fact we shall sooner abolish the dome and even the skies over our heads, than we shall abolish the need of money, and of a great deal of money, too, to carry on the Government of a very great and rapidly growing empire. Government can raise money only by taxation upon human industry, for even realized wealth is only a production of human industry. Government can find human industry to levy taxes upon only in two places, namely abroad or at home. Thus the industry which must be taxed for the support of any Government is, either the industry of foreign nations, or the industry of its own country. Experience, old as the foundations of the Republic, and unchanging amid all vicissitudes, shows that the United States, following the example of all other nations, have taxed the industry of other countries instead of their own industry, as far as it has been practicable within the limits prescribed by their exigencies in regard to revenue. Senators, like theorists out of Congress, may speculate about abolishing custom-houses, but the practical course of the Government will continue the same until the end. We shall need money, and we shall tax the labor of the foreign miner, lumberman, farmer, mechanic, and artisan to the utmost before we begin to tax the labor of the American miner, lumberman, farmer, mechanic, and artisan. We may, indeed, reduce the duties on imported products of labor, but we shall do so only in the proportion that it can be done consistently with our wants of revenue. But this will not be free trade. It will only be abatement of taxation, with real or relative reduction of revenue. Absolute free trade may, indeed, come into the country, but it will only come when we are ready to dispense with revenues altogether. I ask Senators whether we have reached that time now, or whether they see such a time near at hand? No! No! You are even now, while talking of free trade, enlarging your Capitol, extending and embellishing the Federal city, augmenting and extending your public edifices, increasing your army and your navy, and your revenue service, and your fortifications, improving your rivers and harbors, constructing almost endless railroads, and organizing new Territories. You are, at the same time, raising the salaries of all the agents of the Government, civil and military, at home and abroad, and are not only extending your postal system across the western plains, and into the nooks of the western mountains, but also connecting it by steamships with all the postal systems of the Old World. While you are doing this, you raise not a dollar by direct taxation, and no one proposes, or thinks of proposing, taxation in that form, so greatly lauded by theorists, so instinctively avoided by all practical statesmen. It is preposterous to talk of instituting free trade at a time when you are thus going on more industriously than ever in increasing expenses.

Besides, freedom in trade, like freedom in every thing else, has a condition of equality attached to it. If you give universal freedom in trade, you give equal freedom in every department of trade. There must be freedom in the purchase and sale of all materials, and of all fabrics; free trade not only in iron, but in salt, in cotton, in wool, in silk,

Efficiency of the Navy-Mr. Morton.

in wines, in grain, in hemp, in linen, in cattle, in everything. Nevertheless, you propose no such universal freedom as this here. There is no one here bold enough to abolish duties on foreign wheat, rye, corn, oats, sugar, wines, and liquors. No one dares propose to strike down altogether the discrimination which favors some branches of manufactures. Still less does any one propose to level down the wall that protects the farming interest. What now is the principle of this bill? It assumes before me two aspects-first, as a bill for the encouragement of the construction of railroads. This is a policy which would be very judicious and wise in some circumstances. But it is not a judicious or wise policy now, under existing circumstances. It is not wise as here presented, because the encouragement proposed involves a burden not falling equally on all the industry of|| the country, but falling on one department of that industry only, namely, the iron manufacturing interest, and that department itself not only needs, but deserves, at least equal relief at the present conjuncture. The bill proposes to encourage railroads, not by simultaneously encouraging the domestic manufacture of iron, but by sending the railroad companies abroad to buy their iron in|| foreign markets, instead of sending them to our own furnaces and forges. It is, therefore, a bill to encourage and protect foreign miners and manufacturers of iron instead of encouraging American

miners and manufacturers.

The amendment which I have offered seeks to correct that injustice. I know that the measure which it proposes is a novel one. But it seems to me to be defensible on every ground on which the main project contained in the bill can be defended. The forms of the two measures differ, but that is all; what the bill proposes is, in fact, a loan of the duties on foreign railroad iron for three years without interest. What my amendment proposes is also a loan of an equivalent amount for three years without interest, where railroad com. panies shall use American iron. In the one case, the favor extended to railroad companies is in the shape of forbearance from the collection of duties for three years; in the other, it is a loan of money for the same period, and on the same terms.

Incorporate my amendment, and I can very cheerfully vote for your bill. There is, indeed, another objection which arises from contemplating the other aspect of the bill. The bill is a relief law. It proposes an interposition by the Government to give temporary relief to a class of its industrious citizens who are laboring under financial embarrassment. Let us examine it closely. Either the law is to be executed according to its terms, or it is not. If it is to be so executed, then we shall give a credit only for three years, at the expiration of which period the duties are to be refunded. This credit amounts, as I understand, to about $1,000 a mile of the railroads which are now being built. The whole cost of building railroads is about $30,000 or $35,000 a mile.

Sir, will the railroad companies be less embarrassed three years hence than they are now? Will they be sounder and better able to pay then than now? Is anything more certain than it is that, if you stimulate forever, the sufferer will ultimately be exhausted? If by this process the railroad companies are pushed into deeper and more inextricable embarrassment, the relief will have failed. Then you must renew and extend the credit for a longer period, or remit the duties altogether.

But relief laws, always objectionable by reason of their very nature, are doubly objectionable when they are partial and discriminating. Other branches of industry are embarrassed not less than the railroad interest. Such is the case, especially with the woolen interest and the iron interest. They will come to you for relief, also; indeed they are here now importuning you for relief. Will you extend it to them? No; for that involves the necessity of raising duties instead of remitting or giving a credit for them. But these are as important and as meritorious as the railroad interest. They create wealth by converting unimproved resources into capital, while railroad companies create no wealth, but only favor its creation. I am not inimical to railroad enterprises; throughout my whole public life I have favored them, and I share now the suffering of those who have come here to urge this measure.

SENATE.

But I cannot go for such a discrimination as this in their favor. It is actually loaning them additional capital. The miners and forgers of iron in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, want more capital, also. Capital is deranged in its flow through all the channels of industry and trade. It awards now the railroad builder, the wool manufacturer, and the miner and manufacturer of iron. You seek by this bill to direct it into the railroad channel again. But in just the same degree you would divert it from the other channels. Other interests complain, and justly complain, that not only all the embarrassments of railroad enterprises, but also all their own, result from too much partiality having been already exercised by Legislatures, State and National, towards railroad enterprises. The usury laws maintained everywhere with more or less stringency in regard to all other departments of industry, have been virtually suspended in favor of railroads. They are now enjoying the questionable advantages of being allowed to raise money at rates of twenty, twenty-five, thirty, or forty per centum in the money market, while the wool manufacturer, and the miner and forger of iron, is obliged to be content with offering only six, or seven, or ten per cent.

Besides this, the railroad interest has had the benefit of liberal grants of public lands, and of credits furnished by municipal corporations, towns, cities, and States.

It is, in fact, this partial legislation which has stimulated railroad building in such a degree that it has been carried to excess and extravagance, resulting in not only its own embarrassment, but also in the universal derangement of trade and industry.

What is proposed by the bill before us, is only a perseverance in the same policy that has produced the evils complained of. You may alleviate, but the money market has got to recover its equilibrium before you can restore soundness to the railroad department. Sir, railroad stock that is perfectly sure and ultimately sound, and is paying seven, or eight, or ten per cent. dividend, is depre ciated ten per cent., while money can be borrowed at six or seven per cent. on private obligations. This shows conclusively that more than a due proportion of capital has gone into the construction of railroads. If you mean to relieve that department of industry, together with all others, you can only do it by leaving nature to work out her own cure; or else by returning to that generous system of equal discrimination in favor of all departments of industry.

The American people are strong and vigorous. Our Federal system of revenue is yet sound. The spirit of enterprise, although checked, is yet unimpaired. Leave all existing embarrassments of railroads to correct themselves, and the railroad companies, whose undertakings are feasible and judicious, will recover in due time. Any tampering with them will only continue the existing evils, and prevent the separation of those which can be saved from those which, ultimately, must end in ruin. I ask the yeas and nays on the amendment which I have offered.

33D CONG....2D Sess.

cussed by Senators more practiced in debate than myself; and if I felt doubt as to the vote I should give, I have listened to be informed by the remarks of the able Senators around me. I should not, Mr. President, have departed from that course now but for the fact that I was not in my seat when this bill first passed the Senate, and the enunciation of the journals of the day, which has been repeated by my colleague upon this floor, that it passed by a unanimous vote. That is all true in point of fact. The bill, as I understand it, was taken up during the morning hour on private bill day, and, eliciting no discussion, the attention of the Senate was not particularly drawn to its provisions, ard it passed without opposition. Had I been present I should, at least, have recorded my vote against its passage.

I am opposed to the bill, Mr. President, in principle and in detail. An impression has gone abroad in the land, and pervades both Houses of Congress, that the personnel of the Navy is an inferior corps. This, in my humble estimation, is not the fact. It is said that there are many excrescences on the corps, and that the pruning-knife should be liberally applied. From this proposition, too, I dissent. The personnel of the American Navy never occupied higher ground than at the present time. It will compare most favorably with that of any other navy in the civilized world, in every respect. I believe, with the Secretary of the Navy, that "the corps is still full of chivalrous and gallant officers, who are not only ready for the post of danger, but would sustain the proud reputation of our Navy which has won so many laurels for our country, and by its brilliant victories cheered the heart of many a desponding patriot." This is but a just tribute to the officers of the Navy, who only require a proper opportunity and a proper cause to manifest to the world their gallantry and chivalry. Let such opportunity or cause offer, and my word for it, sir, as many laurels would be won now as were gained in the war of 1812.

The Navy, Mr. President, may require reform, but not in the way proposed by the bill under consideration. Have laws and regulations for its government that are well defined; increase the number of your ships, and let them be put in commission, thereby giving your officers active service; do these things first, and then direct your attention to the personnel of the Navy. It is said that many officers have not been in service for twenty or thirty years. Is this so? Where is the evidence? How many are there? With a pretty extensive acquaintance in the Navy, I know but a few, a very few, who have not been to sea within that time; and of those the most of them have served in all the different grades in the Navy, from that of a midshipman to the commodore of a squadron. There are some three or four who have not been to sea from physical disability, but that disability arose from the casualties of honorable service.

But, sir, admit that many officers have not been to sea for twenty or thirty years. What is the reason? It is because the policy of the Government has been not to have many vessels in commission at the same time. The records of the Navy Department will show that these very officers, or the greater part of them, have been constant applicants for service. Look at your Navy Register. You have sixty-eight captains, but you have not employment for more than twenty. You have ninety-seven commanders, but not employment for more than twenty-five or thirty. All these officers, as I before remarked, only require a proper occasion, and by their noble bearing they will not only decorate their brows with unfading laurels, but reflect the highest honor upon the service and the country.

But, Mr. President, let it be granted that the pruning-knife should be applied to the personnel of the Navy. Does this bill do it in the proper way? The President now has the power to do what this bill proposes, with the exception of increasing the number of officers of each grade. Can he not put officers on leave of absence or waiting orders? What is that but a reserved or retired list? Nearly one half of the officers are in that position now.

But, sir, this bill creates a board which, if not contrary to the letter of, is certainly against the spirit of, the Constitution and all the principles of

tions under them will be demanded of them." (See p. 8, Senate Reports of Committee on Naval Affairs, 1st session, 33d Congress.)

Now, Mr. President, the commanders, lieutenants, and passed midshipmen have not had the advantages of an education at the Naval Academy, which seems, in the estimation of the committee, to be essentially necessary for the command of our fleets and ships. It is true the academy has not been in existence more than seven or eight years, but it has already sent forth graduates enough to

The board as now proposed is an irresponsible body; it is a "power behind the throne." The President is to act by and with its advice and consent, instead of counseling with this Senate, as provided for by the Constitution. If this board is necessary to enable the Executive to do his duty, certainly, Mr. President, this Senate should be consulted before its acts receive the full force of law. There is not, Mr. President, a captain in the Navy at this time who did not belong to it in the war of 1812, when it fought itself, if not into existence, I may safely say into favor with the American people. Many of them served with Decatur, Bainbridge, Hull, Stewart, Jones, McDonough, Perry, Blakely, Biddle, Burroughs, and the other gallant spirits of that day, and assisted in achieving those victories which reflected so much honor upon our country, and raised the drooping spirits of our people at that eventful period. Their exploits are interwoven with and constitute the brightest pages of the nation's history. Shall there be a sad counterpart in our future annals on which it is to be recorded that these honored names are no longer worthy to stand in prominence upon our Naval Register? Many of them have received the thanks and other testimonials of Congress and of State Legislatures for their gallant and valiant deeds, and many of them will carry to their graves honorable wounds received in the service of the country. Those who did not distinguish themselves in that war only wanted the opportunity, and the evidence that they have performed well their part is that they are now occupying the highest grade in the Navy.

With one or two exceptions the captains of the Navy are now as vigorous and capable of performing honorable and useful service as the officers of any other grade. If it be the object to get rid of the officers now filling the rank of captain, and supply their places from the commanders, I warn, in a spirit of kindness, all parties concerned that the people of this country will never consent that an act of injustice shall be perpetrated upon men who have periled their lives in their country's cause for the purpose of promoting the interested and selfish views of their juniors. The captains of the Navy are known to the country. "They have been tried, and not found wanting;" and if we were to be so unfortunate to-morrow as to be involved in a maritime war, to whom would we look to command our fleets and squadrons? Certainly to that class of officers which it is the object of this bill to pull down and destroy. It is said that the commanders and lieutenants are exceedingly anxious that this bill should become a law. If it be so, I tell them in a friendly voice, to use a common expression," they are cutting their own throats." They are advocating a system which will in a short time permit them to enjoy the sweets of retirement, when they will be able to say that" the post of honor is a private station." They are not to be the officers to whom the country is to look in future. We are told, sir, by the Committee on Naval Affairs—

"The Naval Academy has given and is giving to the country officers not only thoroughly educated for the duties of the service, but whose character would adorn any profession. These are the men who will be called upon, in the command of our fleets and ships, not only to contend with the ability and advancement of European navies, but as the protectors of the rights of American citizens and property in foreign seas and foreign countries. A knowledge of the institutions, government, and commercial systems of maritime Powers, and a general acquaintance with the laws of nations, and of the rights, duties, and obliga

high qualifications and experience in the service, why should not the country avail itself of it? The world, Mr. President, is progressive; there is a short road to science and literature, and why should there not be to seamanship and the other qualifications necessary to make a perfect naval officer? There is such a road, sir, or at least the Committee on Naval Affairs say so, and I am the last man to question their scientific and practical information. That road is an education at the Naval Academy. Take a boy, sir, who had never seen a ship; let him remain four years at Annapolis, making during the time one or two trips in the summer across the Atlantic in the practice ship: he goes forth duly qualified to command fleets and ships, to act as a negotiator of treaties, a warrior, judge, and pacificator-an officer that would throw your Hulls, Bainbridges, Stewarts, and the officers of the war of 1812 into the shade!

Now, Mr. President, I do not pretend to ques tion the correctness of all this, for the Naval Committee tell us so, and they know; but, at the same time, I must be pardoned if I should suggest to my friends amongst the commanders, lieutenants, and passed midshipmen, that, inasmuch as they have not had the advantage of these shortcuts to a knowledge of their profession, they should rest quiet and wait until they are promoted in regular order, as were their predecessors. The "scientifics" will be close upon their heels, and we shall hear them say, "we can't wait." "Did not Perry fight the battle of Lake Erie when he was twenty-eight years old, McDonough that of Lake Champlain at thirty-one? And was not Stewart, when he captured two ships, the Levant and Cyane, with the Constitution, but thirty-nine, and Bainbridge, when he took the Java, only thirty-one? And these heroes were not so well qualified as we are, they never having had the advantages of a scientific education at the Naval Academy at Annapolis."

I am by no means, Mr. President, opposed to the Naval Academy. I think it all right that we should prepare our young men by a proper education previous to their entering upon the practical duties of their profession. I merely mention the Naval Academy to illustrate to those officers who are so urgent for the passage of this bill what they in turn may very speedily expect. If these gentleman will have a little patience, and wait for that Providence which rules over the destinies of men, the senior war-scarred officers will be retired soon enough; and when they do go they will not have to say that, after having fought the battles of the country and faithfully and honorably served her in every part they were called to act, they were chagrined, mortified, and degraded because their juniors desired their places.

I have said, Mr. President, that if this bill passes it will accomplish nothing but what the Executive has the power to do without its intervention. It will be nothing more than the crea tion of a class of hermaphrodite officers, making some commanders captains, who will neither be captains nor commanders, and some lieutenants commanders, who will neither be commanders nor lieutenants. The system would form a class of officers unknown to the laws. If a man is a post captain he is entitled to all the pay, rights, and privileges of a captain, and so with commandera and lieutenants. When one of the captains proposed by this bill goes to sea he does not get the pay provided for his rank; he only gets $2,800 per year in command of a frigate, while the regular post captain would receive, for exactly the same service, $3,500; and when the two are waiting, orders or on leave of absence, one will receive $2,500 and the other 1,800. One of these nondescripts might be in command of a seventy-four gun ship, receiving $2,800 per year, and a regular

captain be in command of a thirty-six gun frigate, for whom the brevet rank of admiral ought to be receiving $3,500 per year, and both serving in the created for his gallant deeds and long and meritosame squadron. Why this inequality, requiring rious service; imagine, I say, this gallant officer the same service and responsibility of both, and passing in review before five juniors, (no matter yet pay one seven hundred dollars less than the other? how the board is constituted, they must be his junIt is, Mr. President, not only wrong, but unjust iors,) and they should say that he is incompetent in all points of view. If an officer is a captain or to promptly and efficiently discharge all duty that commander, give him the pay provided now by might be required of him, both afloat and on shore. law for such rank; he is entitled to it upon every The board would have to inquire into the causes principle of justice, and it is wrong to withhold it of the disability, and if, in their opinion, (he not from him. being heard,) it proceeded from any cause implyWe are told, Mr. President, that this bill willing sufficient blame on his part to justify it, they not increase the aggregate cost of the personnel of would be bound to recommend that his name be the Navy; that it is so arranged that it will not stricken from the roll of the Navy. Again, this require an additional cent of appropriation. Well, board has not only to inquire into the mental, but sir, this is a most extraordinary discovery, and the physical condition of the officers. Then, sir, the gentleman who made it ought to receive the there should be surgeons on the board to examine most profound gratitude of the country. Congress into their physical condition. Certainly, the board is asked to perpetrate an act of injustice, create as now constituted, will be incompetent to decide heart-burnings and jealousies in the Navy, because upon the physical qualities of an officer. Will it it will not be a charge upon the public purse. If, not be a beautiful spectacle, sir, to see one of our Mr. President, this reform and reorganization be captains, who participated in the victories of the required in the Navy, why should it be measured war of 1812, passing before this board, composed by dollars and cents? Money cannot compensate of his juniors, the most, if not all, of whom never us if the national honor is tarnished, and the stars smelt gunpowder, except in the firing of a salute, and stripes hauled down in disgrace in a naval con- stript to the buff (as they do raw recruits) to ascertest. It amounts to this, and the friends of the bill tain his physical condition. The gout, I am told, cannot say any more or less; the personnel of our is hereditary, but that it sometimes passes over a Navy is inefficient, decrepid, and behind the times; generation and visits the succeeding one. Now, it requires reform and reorganization, but it must suppose that an officer's father had the gout, and not cost a dollar beyond the present sum required the officer, relying upon the theory that the disease for its support. If it does cost more the present would pass by him, had occasionally indulged in organization will do well enough. Now, such liberal libations of Southside Madeira, and had logic as this will not do for the American people. fared sumptuously when he was on shore, and Our constituents, Mr. President, look upon the the gout should be the consequence. Why, sir, Navy as a great element of national defense, and this gout, which he inherited from his father, and will not be satisfied if we estimate its efficiency by therefore his misfortune and not his fault, might its cost. When the advocates of this measure in the estimation of this board, render him incomhave to resort to such arguments as have been petent to perform his duty on shore or afloat, and advanced, there cannot be much merit in, or ne- it might decide that this incompetency arose from cessity for, this boasted reform. a cause implying sufficient blame on his part to justify it, and therefore they would be bound to recommend that his name should be stricken from the rolls.

I am, Mr. President, for paying the officers in the service of the country the full amount to which their rank entitles them, so that they may support the dignity of the position and fully maintain the honor of the flag either abroad or at home. How humiliating will it be, sir, to one of these new captains, when he returns from a cruise of two or three years, having commanded one of the largest ships in the Navy, to find that he is embarrassed, having absorbed all his pay in maintaining the honor and dignity of the flag of his country, and then settle down on a commander's leave-of-absence pay! If you promote these officers in the manner proposed, in the name of justice I ask you to make no discrimination in the pay. Give them the pay which the law prescribes for the rank. Pass this bill in its present shape, and eighteen months will not elapse before you will have petitions on your table to increase the pay to which the rank entitles him, and complaining loudly of the injustice of the inequality of the pay of officers of the same grade. The time of the Senate and House that will be taken up in the consideration of those petitions will be worth more to the country than the cost of the difference of pay which you propose to save by this bill.

The board, Mr. President, is to be composed of five officers of the three higher grades, and no officers are to examine into and report upon the efficiency of a grade above them. When the efficiency of the captains is inquired into, I presume the senior captains will have their characters, qualifications, and efficiency examined into by five of their juniors; for it is to be presumed that the Executive will select from each grade none but officers about whom there can be no question as to the propriety of their remaining on the active service list. Now, sir, this board is to inquire into the capacity of the officers promptly and efficiently to discharge all the duties, both on shore and afloat, which may be required of them; and, if incompetency should arise, in the judgment of the board, from any cause implying sufficient blame on the part of the officer to justify it, they shall be recommended to be stricken from the roll of the Navy. Just imagine, Mr. President, the gallant Stewart, (Old Ironsides,) the only officer on the Navy list who was a captain at the commencement of the war of 1812, who, with Commodores Hull and Bainbridge, prevented the ships of the Navy from being laid up in ordinary; a man

But it is unnecessary for me, Mr. President, to point out what this board can or will do. It is organized upon a wrong principle, one that is violative of all right and in direct opposition to those great constitutional privileges which are enjoyed by the citizen for his protection. Why, sir, if a citizen is prosecuted for a simple assault, he is entitled to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. He must know the nature and cause of the accusation; he must be confronted with the witnesses against him; he is entitled to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and the assistance of counsel for his defense. No judge will or can preside in a matter where he has the most remote interest; no juror who has formed and expressed an opinion on a case is competent; no member of Congress or of a State Legislature will vote upon a question in which he has a personal interest. Organize this board as you will, its acts must be in conflict with all these constitutional and dearly-cherished guarantees. The members of the board will be directly interested in their decisions unless you take the five senior officers of each grade. Of this there is no prospect. If you take junior captains they are interested in getting their seniors out of the way. So with the commanders and the lieutenants. It does not follow, Mr. President, because the naval profession is highly honorable that its member are not subject to all the passions, feelings, and prejudices that we are; they are nothing more or less than poor human nature, and we have no right to expect that they will differ from the rest of the world. We should not lead into temptation, as this bill will certainly do, the officers who will, in all probability, compose this board.

By the law, Mr. President, governing the organization of courts-martial and courts of inquiry, where the accused has an opportunity to confront his accuser, cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution, and introduce testimony on his defense, a majority of the court must, if the exigency of the service will permit, be his seniors. There is no such provision for this inquisitorial "star-chamber court. The junior officers of each grade can be taken; and in the case of the captains they must necessarily call in question the character, qualifications, and habits of their seniors.

HO. OF REPS.

INCREASE OF THE ARMY.

SPEECH OF HON. T. H. BENTON,
OF MISSOURI,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
February 27, 1855,

On the proposition to raise four new Regiments for the regular Army.

Mr. BENTON said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: This large proposed increase of the regular army comes from an Executive recommendation on account of Indian hostilities, and is an intended permanent increase for an admitted temporary exigency. This is illogical, and implies some design beyond the object avowed. I like the proposed substitute of our Committee of Ways and Means much better, which is to raise volunteers for a limited time; and still better I like the proposal which I shall submit, and which is to