the cases of the Chickasaw nation against the United States, and of Corcoran and Riggs, assignees of William M. Gwin, upon which I gave you an opinion on the third of that month, and have most carefully considered the additional evidence and the arguments of the counsel for the parties concerned, and see no reason to change the opinion referred to.

Indeed the effect of the recent evidence is to satisfy me more fully, that that opinion was right; and I therefore again advise you accordingly.

The press of business upon me still continuing, I must wait until the final adjournment of the Supreme Court before I can give in detail the reasons which have led me to the conclusion to which I have come. Should you then desire it, they will be submitted with pleasure.

I have the honor to be, with great regard, your obedient servant,

Hon. THOMAS EWING, Secretary of the Interior.

REVERDY JOHNSON.

This was conclusive; the Secretary was overcome; the attorneys stood aghast; the Indians were floored; the money was paid; Corcoran and Riggs felt comfortable; Dr. Gwin was satisfied, and the scene closed. I drop the curtain over the transaction with this single remark: Before many years shall have passed by, we will be called on to refund this money to the Chickasaws.

THE OTHER SIDE OF "THE TRUE ISSUE
STATED."

A PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY THE HON. ALBERT G. BROWN UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850.

Two pamphlets, of thirty-two pages each, have recently made their appearance in great numbers among the people. These publications are entitled "The True Issue Stated, by a Union Man," and they do me such gross injustice that I feel called upon to notice them. If the man in the mask, who styles himself " A Union Man," would throw off his disguise and appear in his real person, I should doubtless be spared the trouble of answering his gross perversions of truth. An exposure of his name and face would be the most conclusive proof that justice and fair dealing are not to be expected at his hands.

The author of these pamphlets introduces my name in various places and connections, and it shall be my purpose to show how grossly he has perverted, or attempted to pervert, my acts and words.

1st. Reference is made to the introduction of a bill by Mr. Preston of Virginia, to admit, as a state, into the Union, the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico (to wit, California, Utah, and New Mexico), and an attempt is made to produce the impression that I contemplated voting for this proposition. The truth is that I spoke against it, and no one can read my speech without seeing at once that I never could have voted for Mr. Preston's bill, without having it amended in its most essential features. I spoke on the 10th of February, 1849 (see page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe). In that speech I said:

"All our propositions were voted down as they were successively presented, and by that party which claims a right to undivided dominion over these territories. I

never have, and never shall assent to the justice of this claim, and hereafter I will vote to maintain the rights of the South in their broadest latitude, unless I shall plainly see that by an honorable and manly surrender of a portion of these rights, peace may be secured, and the Union rescued from its present perilous condition."

It suited the purpose of "A Union Man" to leave this out. To have included it would have been to show the true temper of my speechthat I never would consent to give up the whole of the territories to the North. Then, as ever since, and before, I was ready to occupy the territories jointly with the people of the North, and if this could not be done, to divide them fairly. The North claimed the whole. "I never have, and never will, assent to the justice of this claim."

With amendments to Mr. Preston's bill, such as would effectually have insured the South justice in the territories, I would have voted for it; without these it never could have commanded my support.

"A Union Man" entirely overlooks the important fact that Preston's bill proposed to confer on the people of California, by act of Congress, the power to erect a state. I spoke against this at length, and yet the singular inference is drawn, that I ought to have voted for the admission of California, erected as she was into a state without the authority of Congress or of any other legislative body. It may be well seen how I could have voted to confer on the people of California the right to form a state government, and yet, how, without inconsistency, I should oppose her admission when she sought it on the authority alone of irresponsible and unauthorized persons. It did not suit the jaundiced eye of "A Union Man," to see the difference between the two propositions. Suppose I had even voted for Preston's proposition, to confer on the people of California the power to erect a state government, would it thence have involved me in an inconsistency to vote against the admission of a state, erected without authority, and by persons having no more right to do so than a nation of Hottentots? But the truth is, I did not vote for the one or the other of these propositions, nor did I contemplate doing 80 at any time.

I submit the following extracts from my speech on Preston's bill. Read them, and ask yourself what was "A Union Man's" intention in suppressing them :—

*

"Here is a conquered people, possessing as yet, no political rights under our laws and Constitution, because not yet admitted to the rights of citizenship, and, what is worse, possessing no practical knowledge of the workings of our system of government, and knowing nothing of our institutions. The substantial question is, shall such a people give laws to our territories, and shape and mould their institutions for the present, and possibly for all time to come. * * * The gentleman's bill gives to every white male inhabitant, over the age of twenty-one years, the right to vote, whether Spaniard, Mexican, Swede, Turk, or what not. * I submit to my honorable friend whether it would not be respectful, to say the least of it, towards his constituents and mine, to require these people, before they pass final judgment on our rights, to make an intimation in some form that they intend to become CITIZENS, as well as inhabitants of the United States." (See page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe, 1849.)

* *

It will be seen from these extracts, and more clearly by reading the whole speech, what my opinion of Mr. Preston's bill was, and that without amendments, such as should have avoided my objections, and given the South a hope of justice, I never could have voted for it. I confess to have felt then, as at all times, before and since, a strong anxiety to

see the question settled upon terms fair and just to all parties, and in this spirit I said in my speech on Preston's bill: "I am prepared to go to that point where conflicting interests and opinions may meet, and adjust this dangerous issue upon terms honorable to both sides, and without any undue sacrifice by either party." Preston's bill did not go to that point. I made my speech to show that it did not. If it had been so amended as to reach the point designated, then I should have voted for it. Without this, my speech shows that my vote would have been given against it.

2d. The second point made by "A Union Man," is based on what he calls the memorial of the Senators and Representatives from California. I know nothing of this memorial, and care less. My statement was made on the authority of eye-witnesses in the country at the time the so-called California constitution was formed, and upon the better authority of General Riley's published proclamation. Upon these I stated, what is true, that thousands of foreigners were authorized to vote, and that they did vote. I make no qualification to the general declaration that the constitution of California was made by unauthorized personsthat among them were foreigners not speaking our language, knowing nothing of our laws, and caring nothing for our rights.

3d." A Union Man" next takes issue with me on my statement that "the fugitive slave bill," the same that is now the law of the land, is not, and never was, one of the "compromise bills." I repeat now, that it was not, and that it never was, a part of Mr. Clay's omnibus, or general compromise bill. "A Union Man" knows perfectly well, if he knows anything at all on the subject, that the fugitive slave bill, the one that passed, did not come from the hands of Mr. Clay, or the hands of any other compromise man. He knows that Mr. Mason of Virginia, a friend of southern rights, and a bitter opponent of the compromise, introduced this bill, and that it was supported and carried through the Senate and House of Representatives, by Southern votes, and that without the votes of Southern Rights Democrats, it never could have been passed through either House of Congress. He knows that the Fugitive Slave Bill got but thirty-three Northern votes, three in the Senate, and thirty in the House. All the rest, one hundred and forty-four in number, either voted against it, or fled from their seats to avoid the responsibility of voting. All these things "A Union Man" knows perfectly well. Why conceal the facts if he did not mean to deceive the people?

The Fugitive Slave Bill is not a gift from the North, either as a part of the Compromise or otherwise. It was introduced by an Anti-compromise Southern Rights Democrat, and it was carried through both Houses of Congress by Southern votes, and without the aid of the ENEMIES of the Compromise it never would have passed.

4th. The fourth point made against me is that I was a member of a committee in Congress that reported a bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia, in 1849. It is true that I was a member of the committee, made so by the Speaker, without my consent; but it is not true that I reported the bill, or even consented to its being reported. It is not true that I voted for it after it was reported, or ever consented or promised to vote for it.

In this, as in other cases, a "A Union Man" publishes what he calls

extracts from my speeches, taking care to suppress every word that does not suit his purpose. Why were paragraphs like these left out:

Mr. Brown said, "he had always believed that in his representative character, he was called upon to represent the expressed will and wishes of the people of the District of Columbia, having, at the same time, due regard to the rights of the people of the several states, and to the restrictions of the Constitution of the United States." And again, "he did not believe that the strong party in Congress had a right to pass any law for the District without respect to the wishes of the people of the District, and without respect to the Constitution and the rights of the people outside of the District, but that in all this branch of their public charge they should have an eye strictly to the Constitution and to the rights of the whole people." And then again : 'In acting upon a petition from the people of this District, his first object was to inquire how far he might go and still remain within the limits of the Constitution, and then how far he might go without infringing upon the deed of cession from Maryland and Virginia. These limits being ascertained, he should be prepared to go for any law desired by the people of the District, which did not require these fixed limits to be transcended."

These passages have been omitted by a "A Union Man." He could not show them, without disclosing the fact that then, as now, I insisted upon an observance of the constitutional rights of the whole people. Were these rights respected when Congress enacted that the master's slave "should become liberated and free," if he took him to the District, "for the purpose of selling him?"

I extract again from the same speech:

Mr. Brown said: "If gentlemen desire it of him, he would now tell them that he felt the necessity, on the part of the South, of standing together upon every question involving the right of property in slaves, the slave trade, and Abolition in all its forms. He knew that they must stand together for defence: therefore, as the South vote so he should vote, till the pressure from without should be withdrawn. The South acted together upon the principle of self-protection and self-preservation. They stood for protection against destruction and annihilation. He knew not the motive which prompted this outward pressure; he felt its existence, and he knew that the South acted purely on the defensive; they merely warded off the blow directed against their peace-their lives. Such were his motives for voting with the South. And he now said to all who were opposed to him or his country, Withdraw your pressure; cease to to agitate this question; let us alone; do whatsoever you think be right without endangering us, and you will find that we, too, are ready to do right." Mr. Brown trusted he had not been misunderstood; for it was known that, to a Southern member, this was a delicate question. He had expressed his honest views— views which he desired to carry out in good faith. He did very well know, that if the South were let alone-if they were not positively ill-treated, the North might be assured they would come up and do what was right. They stood together now for their own preservation, and nothing less than unity in their councils could be expected of them in the present crisis. If individual members did not always vote exactly according to their views of right upon these questions, it was because of this known, and now universally acknowledged, necessity of unity and concert among ourselves. When a sleepless and dangerous enemy stood at our doors, we felt the necessity of acting together. Let that enemy withdraw-let us out into the open sunshine, where we could look upon the same sun that you look upon-where the air, the land, the water, everything could be seen in common, and enjoyed in common-and we should be ready to meet you as brethren, and legislate with you as brethren. But so long as you keep up this pressure, these endless, ceaseless, ruthless assaults upon us, we must stand together for defence. In this position we must regard you as our enemies, and we are yours.

These, and other kindred expressions, were meanly suppressed, because it would not do to disclose the fact, that then, as now, I stood by the South, and with the South, in the defence of Southern interests, Southern rights, and Southern honor.

This bill of 1849, which I did not introduce, did not in any way support, and for which I never would have voted, except (as stated at the time) in company with the great body of southern members, and not. then, unless certain constitutional impediments had been first removed— this bill only punished the overt act of selling or offering to sell, by the fine and imprisonment of the master or owner of the slave. The bill, as passed into a law, by the Compromisers, punishes the "purpose" or intention to sell by setting the slave free. It is the act of setting the slave at LIBERTY, because his master intends to sell him, that I complain of, as the special outrage inflicted by this Compromise.

These are the material points made against me in pamphlet number ONE. The positions against me in the second number are:

1st. That I voted, on two occasions, with certain Abolitionists in Congress-first, on the Utah bill, and next on the Texas boundary bill. For both of these votes I had good and sufficient reasons, and I have so often given them to the public that I deem it useless to repeat them at length. Let a very brief statement suffice. And first, as regards the Texas boundary bill. This bill, and that to give a territorial government to New Mexico, were included in one proposition. I could not, therefore, vote for, or against the one, without voting for or against the other. The Abolitionists desired to take from Texas about 80,000 square miles of the territory south of 36° 30', and pay her nothing; I was not willing to give up one inch of territory south of that line, or pay anything if it was taken; and hence, for very different reasons, we were brought together in voting against a proposition to take forty-four thousand square miles of territory, and pay ten millions of dollars. And then, as regards Utah. This was the last of the territorial bills that came up for consideration, and for many reasons I did not think it a matter of much consequence. If justice had been done us in the other territories, I might have voted for this bill. Utah lies entirely above 36° 30′, and if our rights had been respected south of that line, I should not have contended against giving up the territory north of it. But if our rights were not acknowledged south of the line, I would not voluntarily abandon our claim north of it. As many Free-Soilers as felt willing to risk the Mexican law abolishing slavery in the territories voted for this Utah bill. Those who insisted upon the Wilmot proviso, in terms, voted against it. But since the bill has passed they are all satisfied, and they will remain so as long as the Mexican law has the EFFECT of excluding slavery, and whenever it fails in that effect, if it ever does, they will fall back upon the Wilmot proviso. These territories, Utah and New Mexico, were organized with the distinct understanding among all northern men, and with many southern men, that slavery was already excluded by the law of Mexico. And without this understanding, it is well known that northern senators and representatives would not have voted for these bills. I could not, and would not make myself a party to such an understanding, and for this, as well as for other reasons, I voted against these territorial bills.

Why was not this Mexican law repealed? I will show the reason; and I will show, moreover, that "A Union Man" acts the hypocrite when he charges it as a FAULT against me that I voted with the Abolitionists. Is not A Union Man" the friend of General Foote ?-and, if so, how does he excuse such votes as the following? Colonel Davis introduced.