33D CONG....2D SESS.

in this regard, is what I would remedy. We give pensions to women, not because they were the wives, or are the widows, of the soldiers, but because their husbands lost their lives in the service of their country. The principle of giving pensions to the widows of those whose husbands have died in the service, is now applied to navy cases, but the second marriage barrier is interposed even against them. This amendment places the Army and Navy upon an equal footing.

I had intended to modify my amendment so as to direct payment to those who received injuries while in the line of duty, from the date of their disability. The whole number of Army invalid pensioners on the rolls as appears from the report of the Commissioner of Pensions, under date of October 10, 1854, was five thousand and six, and the number paid during the year ending with that date, four thousand four hundred and eighty-six.

The number of Navy invalids now on the rolls is four hundred and ninety-seven, and it is supposed they have mostly, if not wholly, been pensioned from the date of their wounds. In fact, sir, such was the practice of the Government in all cases-Army and Navy-down to 1820; and I have never believed that the construction given to the act of 1820, by the Commissioner of Pensions, under the operation of which these men were pensioned only from the completion of their proofs, was in conformity to the spirit of the law or the intention of the law-makers, and scarcely to be tolerated by the letter. Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, then Attorney General of the United States, in speaking of this matter, says:

"But I am distinctly informed by the Commissioner of Pensions that this was the only limitation imposed by the usage of the office, prior to the act of 15th May, 1820, on the payment of pensions for disabilities under the act of 1812; and where the party left the Army at the time he was disabled, the pension was considered as accruing from the date of the disability, no matter when the testimony was completed or produced."

It is not my purpose, however, to find fault with the construction of our pension laws; but I insist that those men who entered the service in the war of 1812 had a right to expect pensions from the date of their disabilities; in fact, sir, it was an implied obligation on the part of this Government towards its soldiers-a contract, to all intents and purposes, for all persons who entered the service under that law had good reason to expect that, if they should become disabled, they would be allowed pensions according to the nature of their disabilities, to commence from the time when they should cease to receive the pay and emoluments of the service. It was in view of the acts of 1780, 1790, 1802, and of January 11, 1812, to raise an additional military force, &c., as well as other regulations and laws never repealed, that many brave men presented their breasts to the enemy, and received the blow which was aimed at their country. Our soldiers had a right to expect, when they entered the service of the United States-as every man of fair sense understood our laws to determine and mean-that if he should become disabled while in the line of his duty in the public service, he should receive an allowance according to the degree of his disability, for life, or during disability, and such was the uniform practice prior to 1820, as before remarked; and while I disclaim the intention of reviewing the authority and correctness of Colonel Edwards's (then, and for nearly a quarter of a century, Commissioner of Pensions) construction of the act, I may be allowed, in conclusion upon this point, to say, the effect of that construction is to repeal the laws of Congress, and repudiate contracts which were made by the Government with the soldiers when they entered the service.

To return-of the four thousand, four hundred and eighty-six invalid pensioners, it is estimated, and I think with great correctness, that about one fourth have been paid from the date of their wounds, leaving to be provided for three thousand three hundred and sixty-four, and estimating the average amount due these men, at $500 each, which is a liberal computation, it will require to pay them, $1,682,000. But suppose it should require $2,000,000, the income of the Government for two weeks will pay them; an inconsiderable sum indeed, in comparison with our boundless resources, and the patriotic purpose to which it is applied.

Of the fifty-four thousand, eight hundred and thirty-three soldiers of the Revolution, who were pensioned by the acts of 1818, 1828, and 1832, only one thousand and sixty-nine remain, and these are rapidly passing away. The money which we have annually expended for this class of pension-votion to our infant struggle, which ended in the ers will more than pay the sums due the invalids of 1812. We have abundant means now in the Treasury, and we are bound, by every consideration of honor and justice, to act promptly in discharging a debt so sacred.

action of past Congresses in a complaining spirit, in paying those patriotic men (or their heirs) who came here from a foreign land, and heroically fought by the side of our brave people, in their struggle for independence. Such sacrifice and deestablishment of a form of Government most perfect, and adopting a system of institutions the most liberal and free of any on earth, and which we now in great fullness enjoy, should not go unrequited. A grateful people, and a just and generous Government should be active in discharg ing all its obligations and duties to those who fought the battles for its establishment, or for its perpetuation in after time, whether native or alien born.

rose to discuss.

A new element has recently appeared mingling itself in our political contests, or perhaps I should say an old element reorganized and newly developed, under auspices that have lent to it a present importance that many reflecting minds are confident will hardly be sustained in the future.

It is supposed by some that our pension list is quite large, but when it is considered that four hundred and seventy-one thousand six hundred and twenty-two men were engaged in the war of 1812, and two hundred and thirty-four thousand four hundred and ninety-five in the subsequent And in alluding to this matter, sir, I am rewars, including the Mexican-making a grand minded of another topic, now attracting much aggregate of seven hundred and six thousand one public attention, and in reference to which I trust hundred and seventeen-it is a matter of wonder the House will indulge me in offering a few obthat the number of invalids is so small-appar-servations, although not germane to the subject I ently small, in comparison with the number of men who were in the service; so small, indeed, as to induce the belief that there are many meritorious soldiers who have failed to receive pensions, owing to the difficulty of obtaining the strict proof required at the Pension Office. Every Representative knows that cases are often presented to Congress, where the parties are unable to bring themselves within the existing laws. In fact, sir, my attention was first drawn to the investigation of this subject from the applications of many of my constituents, which I had the honor to present for the action of this body; and every step I take in the examination awakens fresh interest in the rights and equities of this misused and neglected class of our fellow-citizens, and renews my zeal and determination to do all in my power to cause this Congress to wash its hands of the deep injustice.

The soldiers' convention at Philadelphia, in 1854, and again in this city in 1855, passed strong resolutions urging Congress to pay invalid pensioners from the date of their disability; and the people expect their Representatives will extend, at least, this act of justice to the men who fought our battles, and shed their blood in defense of their country's rights and independence.

We have not been over scrupulous or cautious in passing acts when more money, and for more questionable purposes were involved; and, in some instances, when the peace and quiet of the country was jeoparded.

But to speak of expenditures. We paid $10,000,000 for a poor strip of Mexican territory, it has been asserted to accommodate a few men who seek to build, with the aid of Government, a railroad along our southern border, from the Gulf to the Pacific coast. One half that expenditure will satisfy a much larger number of persons who have, in time past, with their valor and blood acquired thrice, aye, ten times the domain, and brought it as a legacy to our common country.

We have authorized the outlay of millions more in building war steamers. Urged by considerations of economy, patriotism, and policy, should we not be prompt in paying these men, at an outlay not half as great? Then, sir, if our country is again unfortunately brought in hostile conflict with a foreign Power, the descendants of these patriots will fly to our country's standard, ready and able to push back the first tread of the invader. They will people our armies; build and man our navies; and make a more permanent and invulnerable defense, than can be had in coast and country encircled with walled fortifications, and seas covered with mounted gun-ships. The love and devotion of those whom the Government had justly and gratefully rewarded, would be for our country-its pride and greatness in peace, and its strength in war. Nor have we, in individual cases of service in the revolutionary war, or the war of 1812, shown a parsimony or undue degree of conservatism upon this subject. We appropriated for the payment of the heirs of Baron de Kalb $66,000, and at this I do not complain; I think it just and proper; but, while we are liberal in this direction, let us not fail to do simple justice to our own needy and worthy Army invalids, who fought perhaps in an humbler sphere, but with equal merit and valor.

I make no reference to our action, or the

I approach this subject not without hesitation, because of the mystery in which the Know-Nothing party have seen fit to envelope their purposes, and the machinery by which they accomplish their ends. Notwithstanding some of the results of their initiatory movements may be said to be salutary, their mode of warfare in concealing their forces in ambush, from whence they assail their opponents without exposing themselves, might lead to a suspicion of the correctness of their principles, and the patriotism of their designs. So far, however, as they have seen proper to proclaim the ends they have in view, there is much that deserves attention and examination.

There was a condition of the public mind, produced by leprous political organizations, and an anti-Democratic and mischievous policy of those in power, that seemed to invite a popular demonstration, which, if it did not strike the ancient order of things to the ground, should, at least, teach politicians a lesson which would lead to a correction of some of the existing abuses,→→ for long years practiced. To this state of the public mind may be attributed the rapid progress which this party has made from very small beginnings to a power that is not to be treated with ridicule or indifference, but which, on the contrary, is entitled to our candid consideration. In the late elections it has manifested a strength and vigor that characterizes the maturity of age, and an efficiency of organization which has confounded the counsels of party sages; and while it is true, the good and the evil of this world are often found mingled together in human affairs, it is truly unfortunate that an organization of such early manhood and strength, should be vulnerable to the charge of an illiberal and proscriptive spirit and tendeney.

I freely admit the existence of evils growing out of the system of tactics adopted or practised by both political parties in their relations to our adopted citizens. Their prejudices, as a class, have too often been appealed to, and their suffrages secured by means alike discreditable and pernicious, and so far as this order may correct this and other evils of the old organizations, it has my approval and coöperation.

The purity of our elective franchise depends on the influences that control its exercise, and, therefore, all appeals to the cupidity, ambition, or prejudices of the electors should be discountenanced by every friend of our institutions. But surely these good ends can be accomplished by open means, without infringing upon the acknowledged rights of any of our citizens, or doing violence to sentiments which recognize the brotherhood of

man.

The first general idea that has attracted my notice, said to be partially embraced in the designe of this party, is a restriction upon emigration to this country from other nations. That the emigration hither of the criminals and paupers of Europe, giving to us the dregs of a population which the reformatory laws and regulations of

33D CONG....2D SESS.

by the almost universal feeling of the people of the whole country at their respective conventions, held in 1852, to nominate their candidates for President and Vice-President, declared that they would not further agitate the slavery question in Congress or out of it. The Democratic convention passed, among others, the following resolution:

5. Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

The Whigs, at their convention, passed the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the series of acts of the Thirty-First Congress, commonly known as the compromise adjustment, (the act for the recovery of fugitives from labor included) are received and acquiesced in by the Whigs of the United States as a final settlement in principle and substance, of the subjects to which they relate and, so far as these acts are concerned, we will maintain them, and insist on their strict enforcement until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against the invasion of laws on the one hand, and the abuse of their present efficiency to carry out the requirements of the Constitution; and we deprecate all further agitation of the questions thus settled, as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation, whenever, wherever, or however made; and we will maintain this settlement as essential to the nationality of the Whig party, and the integrity of the Union."

With those solemn resolves, made on those important occasions, the two great political parties went into the canvass, and all over the country pledged themselves to stand by their platforms, and in good faith to carry out their resolves. The

election resulted in favor of the Democratic candidate; a large Democratic majority was returned to this House; and the "ball was opened," not with the discussion of the slavery question, but with a quarrel between factions of the Democratic party, about the spoils. We heard of nothing but the Hards and the Softs; the Hunkers and the Barnburners; the Old Line Democrats, &c. From the developments made in these discussions, it appeared that Abolitionists and Free-Soilers had been placed in lucrative and responsible positions. From these developments it was circulated in the South-whether true or not I have not time now to argue-to the annoyance of southern Democrats that the Administration was seeking to "crush out" the true Democrats of the North, and to build up and sustain, by Executive patronage, the Buffalo or Van Buren wing of the party. In the South, the Administration was defended by the Democratic press, and by Democratic orators, upon the ground that old differences had been healed up, and that all stood upon the Baltimore platform, Hards and Softs, Barnburners, Hunkers, and all. This quarrel was confined almost entirely to politicians and office-seekers; or at least extended only to a few localities. The people were quiet; crimination and recrimination was no longer indulged in between the North and the South. In all sections a proper fraternal feeling was springing again into life. The Abolitionists were growing by degrees fewer and fewer every day, and in numbers, "beautifully less." In this condition of things it was that a bill to organize the territorial government for Nebraska was reported back to the Senate on the 4th of January, 1854, with the report which I have before alluded to. I desire to call the attention of the House and the country to this report. The Senate deemed it a document of great importance, for I find the following entry made on the report:

"January 4, 1854-Ordered to be printed, and that five thousand additional copies be printed for the use of the Senate."

In one respect, which I will notice hereafter, the report is not consistent with the bill which accompanied it. First, however, to the report, and I beg leave to read the whole of it:

"The Committee on Territories, to which was referred a bill for an act to establish the Territory of Nebraska, have given the same that serious and deliberate consideration which its great importance demands, and beg leave to report it back to the Senate, with various amendments, in the form of a substitute for the bill."

The report is headed with the declaration that the bill was one of great importance, and that it had had the "serious and deliberate consideration" of the committee. The report then goes on: "The principal amendments which your com

Nebraska and Kansas, &c.-Mr. Rogers.

mittee deem it their duty to commend to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are those in which the principles established by the compromise measures of 1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial organizations, are proposed to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the new Territory.

Ho. OF REPS.

ted States, under the name of Louisiana; which lies north of 36° 30 north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited: Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed, in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid.'

"The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by their salutary and beneficial effects, in allaying sectional agitation, and restoring peace "Under this section, as in the case of the Mexand harmony to an irritated and distracted people, ican law in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disthan by the cordial and almost universa! appro-puted point whether slavery is prohibited in the bation with which they have been received and sanctioned by the whole country. In the judg ment of your committee, those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the Halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences.

"With the view of conforming their action to what they regard the settled policy of the Government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American people, your committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate in their territorial bill the principles and spirit of those measures. If any other considerations were necessary to render the propriety of this course imperative upon the committee, they may be found in the fact that the Nebraska country occupies the same relative position to the slavery question a did New Mexico and Utah, when those Territories were organized.

as

"It was a disputed point whether slavery was prohibited by law in the country acquired from Mexico. On the one hand, it was contended, as a legal proposition, that slavery, having been prohibited by the enactments of Mexico, according to the laws of nations, we received the country with

Nebraska country by valid enactment. The decision of this question involves the constitutional power of Congress to pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various Territories of the Union. In the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void; while the prevailing sentiment in large portions of the Union sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the Territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution, and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the Territories, so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute.

66

Your committee deem it fortunate for the peace of the country and the security of the Union, that the controversy then resulted in the adoption of the compromise measures which the two great political parties, with singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and proclaimed to the world as a final settlement of the controversy, and an end of the agitation. A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of Senators, as well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, enjoins upon your committee the propriety and

even a literal adoption of the enactments, of that adjustment in all their territorial bills, so far as the same are not locally inapplicable. Those enactments embrace, among other things less material to the matters under consideration, the following provisions:

all its local laws and domestic institutions attached to the soil, so far as they did not conflict with the Constitution of the United States; and that a law either protecting or prohibiting slavery, was not repugnant to that instrument, as was evidenced by the fact that one half of the States of the Union tolerated, while the other half prohibited, the institution of slavery. On the other hand, it was insisted, that, by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, every citizen had a right to remove to any Territory of the Union, and carry his prop-necessity of a strict adherence to the principles, and erty with him, under the protection of law, whether that property consisted in persons or things. The difficulties arising from this diversity of opinion were greatly aggravated by the fact that there were many persons, on both sides of the legal controversy, who were unwilling to abide the decision of the courts on the legal matters in dispute; thus, among those who claimed that the Mexican laws were still in force, and consequently that slavery was already prohibited in those Territories by valid enactment, there were many who insisted upon Congress making the matter certain, by enacting another prohibition. In like manner, some of those who argued that the Mexican laws had ceased to have any binding force, and that the Constitution tolerated and protected slave property in those Territories, were unwilling to trust the decision of the courts upon that point, and insisted that Congress should, by direct enactment, remove all legal obstacles to the introduction of slaves into those Territories.

"Such being the character of the controversy in respect to the territory acquired from Mexico, a similar question has arisen in regard to the right to hold slaves in the proposed Territory of Nebraska when the Indian laws shall be withdrawn, and the country thrown open to emigration and settlement. By the eighth section of an act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories,' approved March 6, 1820, it was provided:

"That in all that territory ceded by France to the Uni

"When admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.'

"That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the Governor and a Legislative Assembly.'

That the legislative power of said Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States, nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents.

Writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said supreme court shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner, and under the same regulations, as from the circuit courts of the United States, where the value of the property or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed $1,000, except only that in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said supreme court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except, also, that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the decisions of the said supreme court created by this act, or of any judge, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom; and each of the said district courts shall have and

exercise the same jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States as is vested in the circuit and district courts of the United States; and the

33D CONG....2D SESS.

said supreme and district courts of the said Territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases in which the same are granted by the Judges of the United States in the District of Columbia.'

"To which may be added the following proposition, affirmed by the act of 1850, known as the fugitive slave law:

་

"That the provisions of the Act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,' approved February 2, 1793, and the provisions of the Act to amend, and supplementary to the aforesaid act,' approved September 18, 1850, shall extend to, and be in force in, all the organized Territories, as well as in the various States of the Union.

"From these provisions, it is apparent that the compromise measures of 1850 affirm and rest upon the following propositions:

"First: That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by the appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that pur

pose.

"Second: That all cases involving title to slaves,' and 'questions of personal freedom,' are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Third: That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States in respect to fugitives from service is to be carried into faithful execution in all the organized Territories,' the same as in the States. The substitute for the bill, which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise language of the compromise measures of 1850."

This is the entire report, and now I will proceed to examine it. As I stated before, in one particular the report is inconsistent with the bill which accompanied it. On the first page of the printed report you will find this language:

Nebraska and Kansas, &c.—Mr. Rogers.

who shall be an actual resident of said Territory, and shall possess the qualifications hereinafter prescribed, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall have declared, on oath, their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act."

There is a further proviso in this section relative to officers, seamen, &c., which it is not necessary for me to read, as it refers to persons in our Navy and Army, and which I will speak of further on in my remarks.

From these provisions it is clear, beyond dispute, that, by the measures of 1850, no person except an American citizen was entitled to the right of suffrage and of holding office in the Territories of Utah and New Mexico; and in the term American citizens are included only persons naturalized according to our general naturalization laws, persons native-born, and those who were recognized as citizens by the treaty with the Republic of Mexico, concluded February 2, 1848.

Whether that provision in the treaty was right or not I will not argue, because I may, and am willing to, concede that it was. But, sir, is no wisdom to be learned by experience? Under the necessities of the case imposed by the treaty, Mexican people were, in the bills of 1850, invested with the right of suffrage and of holding office. The treaty by which the Territories of New Mexico and Utah were acquired, declared that Mexicans transferred with the soil should have all the rights and privileges of American citizens. And, sir, what has been the result of admitting to citizenship a large number of foreigners, before they have passed through a proper and becoming pupilage? It can be shown by a refer last session of this Congress. See Congressional ence to the proceedings in this Hall during the Globe, vol. 28, part 1, page 128:

And on the third page you will find this language:

"A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of Senators, as well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, enjoins upon your committee the propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjustment in all their territorial bills, so far as the same are not locally inapplicable."

To ascertain whether these declarations were true or not, whether the committee did follow strictly the letter or the spirit of the measures of 1850, it will be necessary to compare the bill reported with the bills for the organization of governments for New Mexico and Utah.

In the bill for Utah, I find this section: "SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by the citizens of the United States, including those recognized as citizens by the treaty with the Republic of Mexico, concluded February 2, 1848."

Section six, in the bill organizing the government for New Mexico, is precisely the same as section five in the Utah bill, and the right of suffrage, and of holding office, is extended to the same class of persons in both. How is it with the substitute reported by the Senate committee? I will read the fifth section of the substitute, and see whether or not the "propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the principles" of the measures of 1850, or “a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjustment," was proposed.

"SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years,

"Resolved, That Señor JosE MANUEL GALLEGOS, the sitting Delegate from the Territory of New Mexico, be allowed to introduce an interpreter on the floor of the House to enable him to understand its proceedings; and that said interpreter be paid - dollars per diem out of the contingent fund.”

Mr. ORR objected to the resolution. Mr. HUNT inquired if it was introduced with the consent of said it was. The resolution was ruled out of the Delegate from New Mexico? Mr. STANTON

order.

On page 492, of the same volume I find the following:

"Mr. RICHARDSON. I ask the unanimous consent of the House to enable me to offer the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Hon. Jose M. GALLEGOS, Delegate from New Mexico, be allowed to introduce within the doors of the House of Representatives a person to act as his interpreter, in order that he may more effectually understand and participate in the proceedings of this body.' "Mr. WRIGHT, of Pennsylvania. I object to that resolution."

In explanation, among other things, Mr. RICHARDSON said:

"Mr. GALLEGOS does not understand a word of the English language, which is the misfortune of his constituents; and this is not for his personal convenience, but for the convenience of the people he represents. I move to suspend the rules to enable me to offer the resolution.

The question was then taken; and (two-thirds suspended." not voting in favor thereof) the rules were not

By the bills of 1850, no other foreign-born persons were entitled to the right of suffrage and of holding office except Mexicans, and no Mexicans except those who were transferred to our Government with the soil. And the necessity of investing that portion of the Mexican people with the rights and privileges of citizenship was imposed by the treaty of 1848, to which I have before alluded, and which was negotiated and concluded by Mr. Polk's Administration.

How was it, sir, with the substitute reported

HO. OF REPS.

by the Senate's committee? The "right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall have declared, on oath, their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act.

Under this provision, every nation upon the habitable globe might empty her population into our borders, and within a few days after their appearance among us they could be transferred to the Nebraska Territory and, as if by magic, would be invested with all the rights of an American-born citizen. Paupers, fugitives from justice, outlaws, and inmates of dungeons, when they become too numerous to be detained without being burdensome to their Governments, land upon American soil, declare their intentions to become citizens, take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and in a day, a week, or a month, are American citizens, with the right to vote, and the right to hold office. If American citizenship is to be so easily attained, I think we estimate too highly the birth-right of which we so much boast, and of which our fathers were so justly proud. Of foreigners who immigrate to our country there is a different class. Some of them are useful and good men, but with the good and useful we get the bad and wicked. The good and useful assist in enriching our great and growing nation; the bad and wicked fill our poor-houses and our prisons, disturb the good order of communities by riots and brawls, and pour into our midst a poisonous compound, dangerous to our national well being.

I think I have illustrated that there was a difference, and a very material one, between the bills of 1850, and the substitute prepared by the Senate committee. By referring to the sections of the bills which I have read, there is another difference In the Mexican and Utah bills, the language is: which, I must confess, I can see no reason for.

"That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory," &c.

In the substitute proposed by the Senate committee, the language is:

"That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall be an actual resident of said Territory," &c.

Who shall be an actual resident of said Territory, and at what time? Why, unquestionably the language in the Nebraska bill means persons who shall be actual residents at the time of the holding of the first election in the Territory, while the language in the bill of 1850 authorizes only persons "who shall have been residents" of said Territories at the time of the passage of the acts to vote, and to hold office. Why was this difference made? Was it because there were no people in the Territory of Nebraska at the time of the passage of the bill except Indians? Whatever the reason was, let us see what might have been the effect of such a change. By this substitute as proposed, and by the Nebraska and Kansas bill, which is now a law, one who was an inmate of a dungeon, or of a poor-house, in Europe at the time of the passage of the bill, might have voted at the first elections in those Territories, and was eligible to a seat in their first Legislatures, which Legislatures have to determine for the future the qualifications of voters, and of those who shall hold office in those Terrritories. I do not say that such persons are in these Territories; I do not pretend that if they were there, they would ever hold any office of profit or trust; but, sir, I am speaking of what they might do under these bills. I think I have shown that the substitute reported by the Senate committee contained in it important and very objectionable features, which do not appear in the measures of 1850. Section five, in the substitute which I have been commenting upon, is identically the same as sections five and twenty-three of the Nebraska and Kansas bill, against which I voted.

At this point it is not unimportant to refer to some facts in connection with the immense immigration to this country and the character of a large number of the immigrants. For this purpose

33D CONG....2D Sess.

I beg leave to extract some passages from a speech delivered in the Senate some days since, by the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. COOPER:

"Senators are aware that a policy, which scarcely seeks concealment, prevails amongst several of the States of continental Europe, in virtue of which, convicted and unconvicted criminals and paupers are transported to the United States at the expense, and by the direction of their Governments." "There is scarcely an emigrant ship which arrives in our ports, that is not to some extent freighted with this kind of cargo. This has long been an evil; but latterly it has increased in magnitude, and to such an extent as to be justly regarded with alarm.

*

"But a month or two since, a single vessel landed in New York one hundred and fifty paupers, and fifteen or sixteen convicts, wearing, as the badges of their conviction, chains upon their limbs. More recently, another vessel, freighted with a similar cargo, was wrecked on Sable Island, from whence the passengers were carried to Halifax, and from Halifax were brought to New York, by the way of Boston. By an affidavit made by one of these passengers, it appears, that they are natives of Switzerland, who, being unable to support themselves at home, were sent hither at the expense of the municipality to which they belonged."

*

* "But it is not only thriftless paupers who are sent hither to add to the burden of our poor laws, and stand between native misfortune and the relief provided for it by charity. Felons, convicts deep dyed in crime, are sent to this country by their Governments. Lately the Sardinian Government shipped to New York, on board a national vessel, (the Degenes man of war) thirtyfour convicted criminals."

"It is a common practice in several of the States of continental Europe, to auction off to the lowest bidder, to the person who will bring them hither cheapest, their paupers; and, in some instances, the inmates of their prisons and penitentiaries. Agents of the great passenger line of packet.ships are maintained in these States for the purpose of making arrangements with the municipal authorities of the various towns, for the removal of their paupers to Antwerp, Bremen, Havre, or other sea-port towns, with a view to their transportation to the United States. In England, or rather in Ireland, a similar policy is pursued; and Miss Dix, amiable, benevolent, and philanthropic as she has proved herself to be, by a life of devotion to the interests of suffering and unfortunate humanity, writes to her friends in this country from Ireland, where she is now sojurning, in terms of indignation, excited by witnessing the practices of the English Government in pouring upon our shores the polluted population of their hospitals, almshouses, and prisons." "If a stop be not speedily put to this kind of immigration, the fountains of public morality will be corrupted, and the public safety compromised. Can it be otherwise, when those who are brought here are the vicious, the turbulent conspirators against order, pickpockets, thieves, burglars, and murderers? These people are the stuff of which mobs are made; they are the class which invade the purity of the ballot box, and interfere with the elective franchise. In the great cities of the Republic-in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, St. Louis, and New Orleans-the evils which have grown out of the admission of these classes of immigrants, have become gigantic-frightful. Not only have the irresolute and timid become alarmed at the magnitude of the mischief which threatens the public peace and endangers the public morals, but firm-minded and far-sighted statesmen have likewise seen and appreciated the imminence of the danger, and the necessity of prompt and energetic measures to arrest it."

*

"I now beg leave, briefly, to call attention to the state of pauperism and crime in the United States, as disclosed by the census, prison discipline societies, and other similar associations. And, first, I refer to pauperism as it existed in 1850:

"The foreign population of the United States in 1850, as compared to the native, was nearly as one to ten, there being 21,947,274 natives, and 2,244,602 foreigners. The whole number of paupers supported wholly, or partially, in the

Nebraska and Kansas, &c.-Mr. Rogers.

last mentioned year, was 134,792; and of this number, 68,583 were of foreign birth, leaving but 66,434 natives.

"In 1850 the number of paupers supported in the poor-houses of Massachusetts, and who received partial support out of doors, was 15,777: and of this number 6,530 were native, and 9,247 foreigners. In New York the whole number was 59,855; and of this 19,275 were natives, and 40,580 foreigners. In Pennsylvania the whole number was 11,551; and of this, 5,898 were natives, and 5,635 foreigners. In Rhode Island the whole number was 2,560; and of this, 1,115 were natives, and 1,445 foreigners.

"I shall pursue these statistics of pauperism no further, being compelled to turn to a calendar of crime absolutely sickening in its details; and I shall first call attention to the number of criminals who were convicted by the courts of several States, in 1850. In Connecticut, the whole number of convictions was 850; and of these 545 were natives, and 305 foreigners. In Illinois, the whole number convicted was 316; and of these 127 were natives, and 189 foreigners. In Maine, the whole number convicted was 744; and of these 284 were natives, and 460 foreigners. In Massachusetts, the whole number was 7,250; and of these, 3,336 were natives, and 3,884 foreigners. In Missouri, there were 908 convictions; and of these 242 were natives, and 666 foreigners. In New York, the number of convictions was 10,279; and of these 3,962 were natives, and 6,317 foreigners. In Pennsylvania, the number of convictions was 857; and of these 594 were natives, and 293 foreigners. In Vermont, the number convicted was 79; of whom, 34 were natives, and 45 foreigners.

66

By a table, published in the compendium of the seventh census, giving the number of convicts in the prisons and penitentiaries of the several States, out of every ten thousand of the population the proportion of natives and foreigners in that number is as follows:

"In Maine, out of every ten thousand, five foreigners to one native; in Kentucky, six to one; in Mississippi ten to two; in New York, three to one; in Tennessee fifteen to two; in Vermont, eight to one; in South Carolina, twenty-eight to one; in Alabama, fifty to one; in Georgia, six to one; in Indiana, four to one, and an average in all the States is a fraction less than six to one.

"But it is in convictions for capital offenses that the proportion of foreign and native born becomes startling. It is true, I have found no extended data from which to make the comparison, but out of two hundred and twenty convictions which took place in about eighteen months, in seven States, viz.: In New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Louisiana, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland, there were one hundred and thirty-eight of foreigners to eighty-two of natives."

Are not these facts startling to every patriotic American? Is it not high time to abridge the political rights of foreigners, rather than to extend them? Or, at least, in view of such facts ought

we not to hesitate before we invest aliens, who owe allegiance to other countries, and who would, in law, be our enemies in war, with the right to vote, and consequently the right to govern American citizens. If the Nebraska and Kansas bill, which passed Congress and which is now a law, had extended the right of suffrage and of holding office to American citizens only, I should have voted for it. I think this was known to all my colleagues during the pendency of the bill. I had other and grave objections to the bill, of which I will speak before I close my remarks, but I felt disposed to waive them, if by doing so I could coöperate with my southern colleagues upon this floor.

1 propose to examine further these fifth and twenty-third sections of that bill, in connection with the proviso moved by the distinguished Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON,] and which was in the bill as it originally passed the Senate.

On the 2d of March, Mr. CLAYTON moved to amend by striking out, in the provisions conferring the right of suffrage and of holding office, these words:

"And those who shall have declared, on oath, their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act❞—

HO. OF REPS.

So that the proviso would read: "Provided, That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States." The question being taken, the amendment was agreed to-yeas 23, nays 21; as follows:

"YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Sebastian, and Slidell-23.

"NAYS-Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglass, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Gwin,Hamlin, Jones of Iowa, Norris, Pettit, Seward, Shields, Smith, Stuart, Summer, Toucey, Wade, Walker, and Williams -21."

By this vote it will be seen that every southern Senator who was present voted for the Clayton proviso, and every northern Senator voted against it, except Mr. BRODHEAD, of Pennsylvania. A short debate took place in the Senate when this proviso was introduced and adopted. The bill, with the proviso in it, was sent to this House, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. After a long and angry debate, which will not soon be forgotten by the members of this House, or the country, on the 22d of May the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] said:

"I rise to a privileged motion. I will state to the committee, and I want the attention of the committee to my object in making that motion; it is to cut off all amendments, and to have this bill reported to the House, that we may have a vote upon it.

"The 119th rule of this House is in these words: "A motion to strike out the enacting words of a bill shall have precedence of a motion to amend; and, if carried, it shall be considered equivalent to its rejection.'

"Let this committee agree to my motion, and let this action be reported to the House. When we get into the House, the question will be upon agreeing to that report. If the friends of the bill vote that motion down we shall then have the bill before the House to vote upon, or to amend, as a majority may determine. When the majority has disagreed to the report, as I suppose they will, it will then be in order for the chairman of the Committee on Territories to offer his substitute, which all of us want to vote upon, as an amendment; the friends of the bill standing together, will then be brought to vote directly upon the measure, and in this way we shall get rid of these continued motions to amend." * * * "The friends of the bill, as it stands in the substitute, know that it now, as they intend to pass it, grants to the people of the Territories all the powers over the subject of slavery that we can grant them under the Constitution of the United States. The phraseology now is as full and clear as it can be made on this point. No amendment can make it clearer. In the bill they have all the power that they can have under the Constitution. They cannot ask more, and if they did we could not grant it."

At this stage of the progress of the bill, my colleague [Mr. PURYEAR] and myself, left the friends of the bill. The motion was upon striking out the enacting clause of the Senate bill, which was equivalent to its rejection. This vote was taken in committee, where the yeas and nays cannot be ordered. My colleague and myself both endeavored to get the floor, to state our reasons for the course we should pursue. I succeeded, but was called to order, and under the rules could not proceed. We both voted against striking out the enacting clause of the Senate's bill, which had in it Clayton's proviso. The bill was then reported question then was on agreeing with the report o. to the House, as rejected by the committee. The

the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. My colleague and myself voted in the affirmative. My vote was influenced by this consideration. It had been announced by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] that a majority of the House had determined to pass the substitute, in which was contained the alien suffrage clause, and which differed from the Senate's bill in that important feature. I was determined not to vote for any bill granting such powers over the subject of slavery in the Territories, unless Clayton's proviso was in it: and especially before there was any effort to save that proviso in the bill. It was avowed upon this floor, that the Senate's bill was not to be revived with a view of