close in two or three days, and thus cut us off in the midst of our deliberations on this or other questions. I have heard no reason assigned yet why this bill may not as well pass with this provision stricken out as with it in. All these things whispered around the chamber, which we hear outside of the debate, will be lost to posterity, and nothing will remain of this transaction but the votes which we put upon the record. I put my vote there. I want it to be a vote I can stand by to-morrow, next year, and the year after, and which my children can stand by when I shall be in my grave.

It is said the bill will certainly be lost if it goes back to the House. I do not believe it. There is not one particle of evidence to sustain it. Its friends are in a majority there; and if they are not, the bill ought not to pass. If the bill were ten thousand times better than it is, I would not have it become a law against the will of a majority.

I shall, for the reasons stated, and without detaining the Senate longer, vote for the amendment, but with no purpose to destroy the bill. I have given as much evidence as most senators that I am its friend. Things have been put into it which are objectionable to me. I have never denied, every one knows, that the proviso moved by the senator from North Carolina [Mr. Badger] was distasteful to me. The amendment proposed by the author of the bill was not exactly to my notion. I took it all, however, and went for the bill. But when I am asked, by a separate and distinct vote, to sanction the kind of legislation embodied in this particular section now proposed to be stricken out, I must have stronger reasons than any I have yet heard, or I will refuse to do it. To vote for this section by itself is one thing; to vote for it along with the repeal of the Missouri restriction is another, and very different thing.

THE KANSAS BILL.

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE KANSAS BILL, IN THE SENATE,

MAY 25, 1854.

1

Ir now lacks only ten minutes of eleven o'clock. Of course I do not intend, at this late hour, to detain the Senate with any further remarks on this bill; nor do I design to offer any amendments. But I do not mean that the bill shall pass without my saying to the Senate and to the country that there are two amendments which I intended to have proposed if the Senate had not already indicated, in distinct terms, that it is resolved to pass the bill in its present form. I am not going to run counter to the sentiment of the Senate; but when I have a clear and distinct opinion upon any subject, I am willing to express that opinion before the Senate and before the world; and having a clear conviction upon my mind that there are at least two defects in this bill, I wish, before the vote is taken, to point them out. I am willing that it may stand upon record, for me or against me, through all time, that I thought these were defects. The first is in the fourteenth section of the bill. After speaking of the Missouri compromise, it says:

"Which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and

roid."

I intended to move to strike out the words which relate to the compromise measures of 1850 from the word " with," in line twenty-three, to the word "is," in line twenty-six, and insert "the Constitution of the United States," so as to make it read: "which, being inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, is hereby declared inoperative and void." I would much rather stand by the Constitution than by the compromise. I have much more respect for the Constitution than for the compromise. I need not say that I never have been for that compromise, am not for it now, and never expect to be for it. I have been for the Constitution, am for it now, and ever expect to be for it. I acquiesce in the compromise of 1850, just as we all did in the compromise of 1820, without approving it.

The next amendment which I intended to propose, was an addition to the proviso moved originally by the senator from North Carolina [Mr. Badger]. I will read that proviso:

'Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery."

I intended to move to add these words :

"And that no law of Congress, or law or decree of any foreign government in force on the 1st day of August, 1850, shall be so construed as to protect, establish, prohibit, or abolish slavery in any of the organized territories of the United States."

It will be seen at once that my object would be to extend the terms of the proviso moved by the senator from North Carolina to all the organized territories of the United States. I have not seen, I do not now see, any reason why we should make a distinction between Kansas or Nebraska and Utah or New Mexico, between Kansas or Nebraska and Washington or Oregon. Slavery is prohibited in Washington and Oregon by the direct action of Congress. It is as positive legislation on the part of Congress as was the act of 1820. It was approved by a Democratic president; but it never received the sanction of my vote. Then, sir, if the laws of France or Spain, in force in Kansas and Nebraska at one time, clearly and distinctly protecting slavery, are to be repealed, I know of no reason, founded in sound judgment, why we should not apply the same rule to Utah and New Mexico, and repeal the Mexican law abolishing slavery in those territories.

If it be true that the act of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30', and in the country now called Nebraska, has become inoperative and void, I know of no reason why the same thing has not occurred in the country north of the same line, and known as Oregon and Washington. If Congress had no power to pass the prohibitory act of 1820, excluding slavery from Kansas and Nebraska, it had none to pass the more recent act of 1849, excluding it from Oregon. If we are called upon to repeal the first, we are equally called upon to repeal the last.

And again, if it is right to declare that the laws in force prior to the 6th of March, 1820, PROTECTING, prohibiting, establishing, or abolishing slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, shall not be revived, the truth being that these laws did protect slavery, I know of no reason why the laws

existing prior to 1850, either by Mexican legislation, as in Utah and New Mexico, or by our own legislation, as in Oregon and Washington, should not be repealed, the fact being that these laws prohibit slavery. I want to see the laws in all the territories reduced to a uniform standard on the subject of slavery.

I shall not, at this late hour of the night, when I know that senators are impatient to take the vote, press these considerations upon the Senate. But I cannot forbear saying that, with these two amendments, the bill would have been much more acceptable to me than it is in its present form. With them, and with the amendment which has just been voted down, it would be entirely acceptable to me. I have voted in favor of the amendment of the senator from Maryland. I now look upon the provision which it proposed to strike out, as I look upon other provisions in the bill, as pernicious. The provision does not meet the sanction of my judgment. But, sir, there is a great overruling and controlling principle established in the bill, which commands my vote in despite of all the objectionable features embodied in it; and that is, that it proposes to abrogate the odious Missouri restriction-a restriction which, six years ago, and as often as I have had occasion to speak of it since, I declared to be in violation of the Constitution, in derogation of the rights of my constituents, and an insult to the whole southern people. By no deed or word of mine can I sanction, or seem to sanction, the continuance of that act upon the statute-book. I shall, therefore, notwithstanding its objectionable features, still vote for the bill. I think it is due to myself, and not at all disrespectful to gentlemen who disagree with me, to say, that with the amendments I have suggested, the bill would be more acceptable to me than it is in its present form.

ALIEN SUFFRAGE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, JULY 10, 1854, ON ALIEN suffrage.

MR. PRESIDENT: I may vote against striking out this section. I rather think I shall; and I wish to submit one or two observations in explanation of my present views. I do not put the construction upon this section which other senators have placed upon it. My reading of it is not the same as theirs. It provides:

"That if any individual, now a resident of any one of the states or territories, and not a citizen of the United States, but, at the time of making such application for the benefit of this act, shall have filed a declaration of intention, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, and shall become a citizen of the same before the issuance of the patent, AS MADE AND PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT."

"As made and provided for in this act." Take that language in cor. nection with the rest of the bill, and what do we ascertain? The bill elsewhere provides that the patent shall issue at the expiration of five years. It is "made and provided" that it shall do so. It is clear to my mind that if an alien born seeks the benefits of this act, he can obtain them only on the condition of his perfecting his citizenship in the

five years. The act only proposes to hold the land in reserve for him five years. In that time he may complete his citizenship, if he chooses. If he fails, he loses all rights under the act. He cannot receive the title, because, having had the opportunity of becoming a citizen competent to receive it, he has voluntarily declined doing so. The means are "made and provided" for him; and if he rejects them it is his own fault.

I think the construction placed upon the section by some senators, that a foreigner may continue to reside on the land without becoming a citizen, is not sustained by the language of the section. If he has filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen, and shall actually become so within the five years, a patent shall issue to him, just as though he were a native-born citizen. That is all that the section means, according to my reading of it. If he fails to become a citizen, at the expiration of the five years, he cannot receive the title, and government, having complied with its part of the engagement, may, and doubtless will, sell the land to any one else who may offer himself as a purchaser. Now, sir, a few words as to granting lands at all to foreign-born people. I am, perhaps, as much opposed as any gentleman in the Senate to conferring political rights on foreigners, as long as they are such; but when they have been naturalized, when they have been, by our laws, placed upon the same footing with American-born citizens, then, and then only, am I ready to admit them to all the rights of citizenship. But, sir, during this session of the Senate we have made a very marked exception to that general rule. We have, by the almost unanimous vote of the Senate, authorized, in the two important territories which we have just organized-Kansas and Nebraska-foreign-born people, who are not yet citizens, to vote, and we have admitted them to all the political rights of our own native citizens. And now, sir, shall we hesitate when we are asked simply to allow these same people to settle upon a piece of public land? How can the mere fact of a foreigner settling upon a bit of land affect the political prosperity or property of the country? How is it going to affect the political rights of our people? His settlement there does not give him the right to vote; it does not give him the right to hold office; it confers upon him no political authority. And as far as the mere occupancy of the soil, it no more affects the rights of native-born citizens, or the political rights of the country, one way or another, than if the man were back in Germany or in Ireland. It is the right of suffrage, the right to vote, and to hold office by the votes of other foreigners like himself, that interferes with our people and our politics.

We get a marked advantage from having laborers employed on the public lands; and the labor of a foreigner is quite as productive as though he were a native-born citizen. Every bushel of corn that he raises, every bushel of wheat, every ounce of produce of every kind which he makes by his labor, enters into the general wealth of the nation, and to the same extent as though he were a native-born citizen. Then, I say, that so far as this bill goes, you grant him no right except the mere right of occupying the land and cultivating it; and, in return for this, he gives you all that a native-born citizen would give you; he gives you the products of his labor as an addition to the general wealth. I cannot, myself, see the propriety of first admitting foreigners to all the

political rights of American-born citizens, and then stopping short when you are only asked to allow them to occupy and cultivate the wild lands of the West. If they are are fit to vote and hold office, I hardly think we shall be seriously damaged by allowing them to mingle their labor with the soil which we allow them to govern. If they do any part of the voting, I am for getting as much work out of them as possible; and if they have a fancy for cultivating the soil, I am clear for letting them do it.

I think there is a manifest propriety, when you have admitted a man to political rights, that you should provide for him in some way a home; and that, too, at the cheapest rate at which it can be supplied. What is your interest, sir; what is manifestly your interest towards these people whom you have allowed, by your legislation, to vote in Kansas and Nebraska; and, I believe, in all the other territories? It is to settle them down, to make them permanent inhabitants of the country, to stop their roving disposition, to get them out of your cities and towns, and identify them as early as possible with the soil. That, I believe, is our true policy. If I could have had my way, I never would have admitted these people to political rights until they had been here long enough to learn something of our laws, long enough to learn and study and understand our Constitution; but the policy of the country, as marked out by the two branches of the legislature, and sanctioned by the President, has been different. It has been to admit them to all the rights of citizenship, so far as voting and holding office in these territories are concerned. Now, I am not going to stop short and say to a man, "though you may have the same right to vote as a native-born citizen; though you have the same right to hold office as a native-born citizen, you shall not have the same right to occupy the land; though you may govern, you shall not occupy the soil." I see no propriety in this--no reason for it. Why, sir, I would rather any sort of a foreigner should occupy a quarter section of land than it should be occupied by a wolf or a bear. I would rather that any sort of a foreigner, who would cultivate it, should occupy it, than a savage. And this upon the principle which I have already stated, that his labor is just as valuable as though it were the labor of a native-born citizen. It is worth as much, and the products of it will sell for as much in the market, and go as far in subsisting the country. According to the bill, you do not give him a title until he is a citizen, and made so according to the laws of the land. When he is made a citizen, then, I say, not only in reference to this, but in reference to all other rights, I am for putting him upon a footing with natives-born.

It is said many of these emigrants are bad men; doubtless, this is true. But will he be made a better man by keeping him in a city or town? The best thing that can be done with a bad man is to put him to work, and, as long as you can keep him at it, he will be out of mischief.

Upon the broad principle that one man's labor is as good as another's in raising corn, wheat, cotton, rice, or tobacco, I am willing to see every foreigner go to work on the public lands. When he becomes a citizen in the regular way, I would admit him to all the rights of a citizen, political as well as others. I would not give him the title until he became a citizen; but if he wanted to work the land, I would tell him to go ahead. It would make a better man of him; and when he came to