is a superior Power that overrules all your actions, and all your refusals to act; and I fondly hope and trust overrules them to the advancement of the greatness and glory of our country-that overrules, I know, not only all your actions, and all your refusals to act, but all human events, to the distant, but inevitable result of the equal and universal liberty of all men.""

This very extraordinary suggestion by Mr. Seward, of a "million of freemen from Asia" "twenty years hence," augmenting the increase of freemen of the non-slaveholding States-"an increase of freemen, educated, vigorous, etc.," "such as neither England, nor Rome, nor even Athens ever reared," would not seem to indicate the far-sightedness of the true statesman, nor yet the prophetic vision of the seer. Twice twenty years have passed, and the Northern freemen, while tolerating in a small degree the presence of the Asiatic brother, have yet not added him to their "increase" as a citizen, nor given him that highest privilege of all freemen, nor do they seem to regard his presence as an acquisition to be desired. Mr. Seward's judgment was about as much at fault in this instance as in his prediction that the freedom of the negro would prove to be his annihilation. Thirty years of the fifty he gave the race in which to disappear, have passed-and they have grown from four millions in 1865, to nine millions in 1895-and the land is still darkening with an ever-increasing multitude of free Afro-American citizens.

1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 28, pp. 151–155.

CHAPTER XX.

1854-The Repeal under consideration-Mr. Badger (of North Carolina) makes a statement to the Senate-Dixon and Chase-Debate of March 2d and 3d—Mr. Badger's amendment-Douglas' great speech -Kansas-Nebraska bill finally passed, May 25th-Was signed by President Pierce, May 30th.

The discussion of the Kansas-Nebraska bill still continued with unabated heat and excitement on both sides of the question, and every phase of it was debated by the whole nation as well as by the Senate, and also the House.

On the 2d of March, Mr. Chase, in a speech, said:

"Mr. President, what was the principle of the territorial acts of 1850? The Committee on Territories informed us what it was, distinctly and unequivocally. In their report they left no doubt whatever on that subject. They told us that the principle was-what? Non-intervention with existing laws. That was the principle of the acts of 1850."

1

Mr. Chase still pursued his plan of asserting what every man who heard him, including himself, knew absolutely was not the fact. Not a single advocate of the measures of 1850 ever claimed the principle of non-intervention to be "non-intervention with existing laws." Its principle, clearly defined and openly proclaimed, was non-intervention with the rights of the people of the territories to make their own laws, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. As applied to the territories acquired from Mexico, this principle was nonintervention with existing laws, simply because the principle recognized the right of every community to make its own laws, and the laws of these territories

1 Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, p. 280.

were already made when they were surrendered to the United States in 1848.

When New Mexico was being organized, it will be remembered that Mr. Douglas, the great exponent of nonintervention, made special objection to the clause that her legislature should have no power either "to establish or prohibit American slavery;" on the ground that each territory should be free to make its own laws; and that this clause would be an interdict upon that right. The clause was voted down. Mr. Chase must have known all this.

Mr. Badger, in a speech opposing an amendment offered by Mr. Chase, stated:

"Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Ohio, together with other gentlemen who are upon this floorthe honorable Senator from New York (Mr. Seward) and the honorable Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) is in the habit, as we all know, of daily laying upon the table papers which are called petitions or remonstrances against this Nebraska bill. The Senate, without inquiry or question, is in the habit of admitting these papers upon the respect which they pay to the characters of the Senators who present them, and suffering them to be laid upon the table. They are never read. We know not what they contain. But, sir, I see this stated in a daily paper, which I received this morning, and which I suppose is accurate, because it sympathizes with the honorable Senator from Ohio in the view which he takes of this bill:

"Among the remonstrances presented to the Senate to-day by Mr. Chase against the Nebraska bill were the proceedings of a public meeting at Leesburg, Carroll county, Ohio, one of the resolutions of which was as follows:'

"Now I call the attention of Senators to the language of this resolution, presented here by a member of our body, and laid upon the table:

"Resolved, That each member of Congress who votes for, or in any way gives countenance to, the passage of the bill for the organization of the Nebraska Territory, as reported by Senator Douglas, of Illinois, is a traitor to his country, to freedom, and to God, worthy only of everlasting infamy.'

"Now, sir. the Senate is in the habit of receiving these petitions and remonstrances upon a statement of their general purport by the honorable Senator who happens to present them, and they are laid upon our table without inquiry or objection. Yet, sir, the honorable Senator, by presenting that paper without explanation, without remark, knowing that it is not the practice of the Senate, or of any other legislative body, to receive papers which are insulting to the body, or insulting to the individual members of the body, has himself indorsed the language of the resolution which I have read.

"Mr. Dixon: I desire to know of the Senator from Ohio if he approves or indorses the statements which are contained in the resolution which was read by the honorable Senator from North Carolina?

"Mr. Chase: I have not the slightest difficulty in answering that question. Sir, I do not. I am very far from thinking that a Senator, who, in the performance of what he conceives to be his public duty, intends to vote for this bill, is, therefore, a traitor to his country. Every Senator has a perfect right, and is in duty bound, to consider every question which arises here, independently, and as a Senator; and for the exercise of his deliberate judgment upon this subject, he is responsible to no one but his own conscience, to his constituents, and to his God.

"And now, sir, let me reply directly to what the Senator from North Carolina has said. He says that it is enough that a proposition proceed from one of us or from me.

"Mr. Badger: I said from the Senator from Ohio. "Mr. Chase: I am quite willing to accept the modi

fication. It is enough, he says, that a proposition proceeds from the Senator from Ohio to justify the rejection of it by the friends of this bill.

"Mr. Badger: Exactly.

"Mr. Chase

Because, he says, it is intended evidently to embarrass the bill.

"Mr. Badger: I said because the Senator from Ohio is known to be opposed to the bill, and has announced, by his votes and expressions, that he is bound by no compact which may admit slavery south of 36° 30'.

"Mr. Chase: Have I ever disclaimed the obligation of any compact on this floor? If so, let the Senator from North Carolina show it. Have I ever said that the people of this country would refuse to carry out the Missouri compact? Never, sir.

"Mr. Dixon: Did not the Senator vote to repeal the fugitive slave law?

"Mr. Chase: I am dealing with the Senator from North Carolina.

"Mr. Dixon: I ask the Senator that question.

"Mr. Badger

Certainly he did so vote.

"Mr. Chase: I do not yield the floor.

"Mr. Dixon: Will not the Senator answer the question?

"The Presiding Officer (Mr. Weller in the chair): Does the Senator from Ohio yield the floor?

"Mr. Chase: No, sir. I am dealing now with the Missouri compact, and I will come to the fugitive slave law after awhile, if it will gratify the Senator from Kentucky.

"In respect to the fugitive slave act I have no more to say at present than this: I believe in the doctrine of State-rights; I believe that the Congress of the United States has no power whatever to legislate upon any subject unless that power is conferred upon them by the Constitution. I believe that the clause in reference to the extradition of fugitive servants is a clause of compact between the States as States, and that no power can be