33D CONG....2D SESS.

the Constitution of his country, which he has sworn to support. Perhaps it might have been well for him to have looked into the enormity of that Constitution before he pledged his honor and his conscience to his Maker to carry it into effect. The same remark is true in regard to the law for the surrender of fugitive slaves. He tells us that the object of this bill is to aid in executing a law of the United States. Is it an objection that our legislation here is intended to carry out the laws and the Constitution of the country? What man who is loyal to his country-what man who regards his oath to support the Constitution-what man who claims to be a good citizen, can rise and assign as his objection to a bill that it is intended to execute the laws of the land? That is the only objection which the Senator assigns. It is the gravamen of his change? He wants to know if I am prepared to deny that the object of this bill is to enable the constituted authorities to execute the laws which have been passed in pursuance of the Constitution? No, sir; I am not prepared to deny that such is the object of this bill. It is not confined to the fugitive law alone, but extends to all cases where it is necessary to protect the officers of the United States in the execution of the laws of the United States. I am in favor of the bill for the precise reason that the Senator from Ohio is opposed to it, to wit: that its object is to execute the laws, to prevent anarchy, to put down rebellion and violence against the constituted authorities of the country. Little did I expect to hear it avowed in the Senate Chamber, that a proposed law was monstrous, because it was to be made in aid of the fulfillment of the Constitution and laws of the Union. He thinks it is monstrous that a man in Ohio, who has a suit, should be liable to have it transferred into the Federal courts. Now, does not the Constitution provide for that transfer whenever the case is between the citizen of one State and the citizen of another State? The Constitution says, in so many words, that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States shall reach that case. This law is proposed to be enacted for the purpose of carrying out that express provision of the Constitution. The Senator from Ohio thinks that it is a monstrous act of injustice that his constituents should be compelled to obey the laws.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly.

Mr. WADE. If the supreme court, the court of last resort, of a sovereign State, should declare that law unconstitutional, will he hold that the Federal courts may, over their heads, execute it violently? Who is the judge in the last resort, the State, or the Federal authority?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will tell the Senator. In the last resort, the State courts, within the limits of their jurisdiction, in the exposition of their own laws, are the highest tribunals; but in the execution of a provision of the Constitution of the United States, or a law of the United States, or a treaty of the United States, the Constitution has provided a Supreme Court as the highest and ultimate judicial tribunal, to which all others must yield obedience. Hence the laws of the United States adjudged by the Supreme Court to be constitutional, are declared to be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Constitution, in so many words, has decided the gentleman's position against him. Then, when the Constitution has thus declared the supremacy of the laws and Constitution of the United States over State constitutions and State laws, it has also said that the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Hence, I say, that in case of a conflict between the Federal and State authorities upon a law within the scope of the Federal Constitution, the State law must yield of necessity to what the Constitution of the United States has declared to be the paramount law.

Mr. WADE. Let me ask the gentleman if he believes in the resolutions of 1798?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am not surprised that the Senator from Ohio desires to escape from the position in which he has placed himself, by resorting to the resolutions of 1798, or something else which he has been in the habit of ridiculing during his whole life. I am not to be drawn from the main issue between us by idle queries upon irrelevant points. I say the Senator has raised here, in the Senate Chamber, the standard of rebellion against the Constitution of his country; against the laws of the land; against the highest constituted authorities of the Republic. He says he is ready for the conflict which this bill is to produce; a conflict which he tries to bring about between the Federal and State authorities. Sir, I trust that Mr. DOUGLAS. Of course, I yield the floor. that conflict is never to come. If it does come, I Mr. WADE. I stated that this bill was in- shall endeavor to perform my duty as a citizen, tended to promote and help the execution of the and that duty will consist in maintaining every fugitive bill. The Senator does not deny it. I right which a sovereign State possesses within the said there were States in this Union whose highest scope of our complex system of government. I tribunals had adjudged that bill to be unconstitu- am a State-Rights man. I would not allow this tional, and that I was one of those who believed Federal Government to invade any one of the it unconstitutional; that my State believed it un-rights of the States; nor, on the other hand, would constitutional; and that, under the old resolutions of 1798 and 1799, a State must not only be the judge of that, but of the remedy in such a case.

Mr. WADE. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him, for he either misunderstands me, or he intends to mistake my position?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, Mr. President, this is the first time I have learned that the Senator from Ohio regarded the resolutions of 1798 and 1799 to be superior to the Constitution of the United States. That sacred instrument provides that the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance of it, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Constitution has declared, therefore, the supremacy of the laws of the United States over those of the States in those cases where the right to legislate has been given to Congress. Then, is it to be insisted that, under the authority of the resolutions of 1798 and 1799, Ohio deems it a great outrage that she is not at liberty to annul and set aside the Constitution of the country? That I understand to be the Senator's position. It is no answer to this argument to say that, in the private opinion of the Senator from Ohio, the fugitive slave law is not constitutional. The Constitution of the United States has provided a Supreme Court for the purpose of determining the validity of an act of Congress; and wherever the fugitive law has been brought before the courts of the United States, it has been held and adjudged to be constitutional.

Mr. WADE. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question?

I advise my constituents to raise the hand of violence against the Federal Constitution. The line of demarcation between State and Federal jurisdiction is so clear that in this case there is no necessity, and very little excuse, for a misunderstanding upon the point.

Now, sir, I know that in some quarters it is fashionable in these days to justify resistance to law, and repudiation of constitutional authority, and of conscientious obligations, under the veil of humanity, towards the black man. I have often had occasion to say that all the objection which any person really entertains to the fugitive slave law is that it sends the negro back to his master, where he is held to service under the laws of the State. I have never yet found an Abolitionist whose objection to the law did not consist in the fact that it sent the slave back to his master. If that be the objection, I wish it to be borne in mind that the objection is not to the law, but to the Constitution of the country; for the Constitution says he shall be delivered up, anything in the constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The provision is:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up.”

Then, sir, if a man desires to be faithful to the compact between the States, faithful to that great palladium of our liberties-the Constitutionwhich recognizes all our rights, all he has to do is

SENATE.

to execute the Constitution and the laws enacted for the purpose of carrying it out. If a man's conscience will not allow him to be faithful to the Constitution and the laws, as an honest man he is bound to proclaim himself at once a disunionist, and, by dissolving the Union, absolve himself instantly from those obligations which bind him to surrender up the fugitive slave. The moment my conscience will not allow me to be faithful to the Constitution, I will refuse to degrade myself, or perjure my soul by coming here and, for the sake of a seat in the Senate, swearing that I will be faithful to the Constitution, when I intend to violate and repudiate it. [Applause in the galle ries.] Sir, let us deal with this question fairly and directly. Either the Constitution must be obeyed, or those opposed to it, as honest men, should declare that they will not obey it, but desire to dissolve the Union, and release themselves from the obligations which it imposes. If that be the issue in the approach of which the Senator from Ohio rejoices, I am prepared to meet

it.

And, sir, I find nothing in the rebuke to which the Senator alluded so tauntingly in the late elections to deter me from meeting the issue boldly and directly. What is that rebuke of which he speaks? Was the result of the recent elections a manifestation of the determination of the people of the free States that the Constitution should not be carried out, so far as it relates to the rendition of fugitive slaves? Was that the issue, or was it that the Nebraska bill was wrong? or was it that a Maine liquor law ought to be passed? or was it that men born in a foreign land should be proscribed because of the place of their birth; or that, wherever born, they should be proscribed if their religious opinions did not harmonize with those of the majority?

Sir, it is fashionable to talk about your antiNebraska triumphs in the free States; but I should like to know a man in any free State of this Union whom the anti-Nebraska men have elected to either House of Congress, who was not elected by the Know-Nothings? I ask any Senator present to point me to a man of them who did not receive the Know-Nothing vote? Will the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WILSON] say that it was anti-Nebraskaism that sent him here? Was it the anti-Nebraska feeling that beat every antiNebraska member in Massachusetts who was a candidate for reëlection? That is one of the antiNebraska victories which are spoken of, where a whole delegation, arraying themselves under the black banner of Abolitionism, and fighting Nebraska, were all swept away, and another delegation, under a similar black banner, are to come in their places? Is that one of those glorious victories at which the Senator from Ohio rejoices?

Mr. WADE. If the gentleman can find any consolation in that, I am glad of it.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am not seeking consolation merely, but the truth. Will he point me to an anti-Nebraska man elected in Ohio this year, who did not receive the Know-Nothing vote? Were they not all elected by the Know-Nothing organization ?

Mr. WADE. I hope not.

Mr. DOUGLAS. He hopes not; but he knows that they were elected by Know-Nothing votes; and yet, on this floor, in order to aid his friends and allies in Virginia and the southern States, he talks about that as being an anti-Nebraska triumph. Sir, [turning to Mr. WADE] you boast that you beat every Nebraska Democrat in Ohio at the last election; and you might have added that you beat every anti-Nebraska Democrat also, because the Know-Nothings demanded other men. Look over all the recent elections, and wherever you will show me one Nebraska member of the House cut down, I will show you, I think, nearly two for one anti-Nebraska men defeated at the same election by the same causes. Was it the Nebraska issue, then, that administered this rebuke, or was it caused by your secret conclaves, where you get men together at the dark hour of midnight and administer to them the most terrible oaths that they, with a smile upon their faces and a friendly grasp of the hand, which is calculated to disarm suspicion, will strike down their neighbor in the dark, and conceal the hand that inflicts the blow?

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Mr. WADE. Will the gentleman suffer me to ask him a question?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly.

Mr. WADE. I ask the gentleman if his Nebraska bill was not concocted by a secret conclave in the night time? (Laughter.]

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am not surprised that the Senator wishes to ask such questions-anything to draw my attention from the real point of this case. He does not choose to controvert any one fact which I have detailed here, and if those facts be true, they overwhelm every position he has taken. I answer him, no, sir; the Nebraska bill was not concocted in any conclave, night or day. It was written by myself, at my own house, with no man present. Whatever odium there is attached to it, I assume it. Whatever of credit there may be, let the public award it where they think it belongs. It will not do by inuendo to attempt to avoid the issues presented. The fact is, and the gentleman knows it, that in the free States there has been an alliance, I will not say whether holy or unholy, at the recent elections. In that alliance they had a crucible into which they poured Abolitionism, Maine liquor law-ism, and what there was left of northern Whigism, and then the Protestant feeling against the Catholic, and the native feeling against the foreigner. All these elements were melted down in that crucible, and the result was what was called the Fusion party. That crucible, in which these various elements were melted, solved, and united was, in every instance, a Know-Nothing lodge. But for your Know-Nothing lodges Illinois, instead of giving three thousand majority at the recent election for the Nebraska ticket, would have given twenty-five thousand. But for that my colleague of the other House, who is now within my eye, [Mr. RICHARDSON,] instead of being elected by eight hundred majority, would have been elected by three thousand on the Nebraska issue. My other colleague in the House, who is elected to the next Congress, [Mr. THOMAS L HARRIS,] and turns out your Abolition Fusion Know-Nothing member-I speak politically, with no design to be personally offensive-in the Springfield district, would, instead of receiving two hundred majority, have received two thousand, if he could have had the Nebraska issue as the test, without the interference of your secret Know-Nothing organization. Notwithstanding these facts, it suits the purposes of some to parade all these victories, as they call them, as triumphs of anti-Nebraskaism in the North, and as rebukes to northern men? Am I to understand that, if Mr. Wise should be defeated in Virginia, and a Know-Nothing delegation should be sent from that State to 'Congress, as from Ohio, and other free States, it would be proclaimed as an anti-Nebraska victory? If you should happen to carry the entire southern States this year, and turn out your whole delegations, bringing in a new lot vociferating their devotion to southern rights and southern institutions, all under the secret management of the mysterious Know-Nothing machinery, will you call that an anti-Nebraska victory in the South?

Sir, this will not do. Let us call things by their right names. Let us look the real issue in the face. What we had to fight at the North, was nominally a Fusion party, but the organization was the Know-Nothing councils. Its whole vitality, its energy, and its power, arose simply from the fact that its incongruous elements, which were to be moulded into one harmonious bond, could be assembled at the dark hour of the night, when honest people were asleep, and there, under the protection of the most horrible oaths to observe secrecy, plan and plot, and pledge themselves to the execution of schemes which an honest man would never dare to proclaim to the world or avow in the light of day. Thus, by stratagem and terrors, men personally hostile, were forced to act together-men who were the advocates of adverse and irreconcilable political theories, were apparently moulded into one common brotherhood; and although they might not approve of the objects, yet, being bound by oath to obey orders and vote as they were directed, they felt constrained to yield obedience under the terrors of being branded as traitors and perjurers, as your Littlejohns and other recreants have been for voting for Mr. SEWD. If you caught a Democrat in your councils

Execution of United States Laws-Debate.

||

or lodges he was required to abandon his party, and repudiate his time-honored principles, and become a FUSIONIST; if you caught a Nebraska man, Whig or Democrat, he was compelled by his oath to vote the Abolition-Fusion ticket; if you caught an Abolitionist, or a man belonging to any other party or faction, he was bound to vote precisely as a majority of the council or lodge should determine. But it so happened that, in the portion of the country where I reside, and I think, throughout the whole Northwest, every lodge was under the control of Abolition leaders and Abolition auspices; and hence you could turn it all against Nebraska men, and all other advocates of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Mr. WADE. How did it work when they caught Democrats?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, sir, if they could find a Democrat green enough to be caught, they administered to him the oath, and then, I suppose, he did like all the others, yielded to an oath which he abhorred, and acted with men whom he did not respect in aid of principles that he believed to be revolutionary, before he would violate the oath into which he had been entrapped in that secret lodge. I have no doubt you took a few Democrats from us in that way; but I believe the day of reckoning is coming. The nature of that institution is becoming well understood. I have felt its powers and its terrors, and if I could defy them then, I can defy them now. Sir, the rebuke of which the Senator from Ohio spoke, has no terrors for me. I would rather be proscribed, and retire to private life, in the company of men with whom I have sympathy of principle and feeling, and for whose course I have respect, than to be triumphant by such means, and controlled by such elements. Sir, I have faith that the storm is now passing off; but whether it is or not, whether it be short or long, I say, let us stand firmly by our principles, our creed, our organization, and make no compromises with the enemy. Let us stand by the flag that now floats over us. Let us be obedient to the Constitution, which we have sworn to support. Let us maintain the rights of those States which have honored us by sending us here. Let us be faithful to our trust, and despise, and condemn all the allied isms of the day, and leave Providence and the people to work out, what I believe will be a glorious result.

Mr. WILSON. The Senator from Illinois has put a direct question to me, and when a direct question is put to me, sir, I choose to answer it here or elsewhere. I answer the Senator, then, by saying, that anti-Nebraskaism did not place me where I am. But I have another word to say, and it is this; no man from Massachusetts can fill a place on the floor of this or of the other House who is not opposed to the Nebraska act of last year. The people of that Commonwealth, in their opinions on that measure, approach unanimity. Men of all parties are opposed to it. We have no controversy there about it. Massachusetts is anti-Nebraska. Those who sent me here are imbued with that feeling in common with nearly the whole population of that State, and I entirely sympathize and agree with them in their uncompromising hostility to it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Mr. President, I have but a very few words to say in reference to this bill, and those words will not be words of paesion, for I have no passion to exhibit on this occasion. I see very plainly that the bill comes here, and has been taken up this mornin, by a concert and association so strong that there is not the slightest possibility of resisting it. It is perfectly manifest to me, as it is to every other member of the Senate, on either side of the Chamber, that it must be passed, at some time or other, before we can proceed with any other business; and the only question in my mind is, whether I should suffer it to pass silently, and record my vote against it, or state very briefly the reasons why I shall vote against it, and what is the opinion I entertain of it.

I have no reply to make to the honorable Senator from Illinois, with reference to the main part -much the larger part-of his speech. If he can draw any consolation from the elections which have been held since he introduced what is called the Nebraska bill into the Senate, he is welcome to all the consolation that he sun get. If he can

SENATE.

convince himself that the result of those elections was owing to Know-Nothingism, or any other ism except opposition to that measure, of which he was the father and great advocate, he is welcome to do so. I do not believe, however, when he sits down calmly and looks at the progress of affairs, and the progress of opinions by which those elections were brought to result as they did, that he can, in the secresy and silence of his own chamber, convince himself that the Nebraska bill, so called, had nothing, in fact, or very little, to do with them. If he has such an idea, I would point him to the election in Connecticut, the State represented in part by the honorable Senator who has introduced this bill, [Mr. ToUCEY;] to the election of last year in New Hampshire, which took place before Know-Nothingism was heard of; to the election in Maine, with which that organization had little or nothing to do; to the election in Rhode Island; to the election in New York, a contest which resulted in sending my honorable friend [Mr. SEWARD] back to this place for six years; and let him ask himself if Know-Nothingism produced those results there? For other parts of the country I cannot answer. I do not feel it necessary to do so; but I know well that if gentlemen lay the flattering unction to their souls, that, in the free States, opposition to slavery, or rather to the extension of slavery, had nothing to do with the result of those elections, they will find themselves, at a future day, just as much mistaken as they have formerly been. Allow me to ask whether the honorable Senator himself, and other honorable gentlemen, did not urge, through the northwestern States, the consideration that the Nebraska bill was intended for freedom, and that the result of it would be to insure the State of Kansas as a free State, as an inducement to stand by the Nebraska bill? And if that was urged as an argument, why does the Senator present it in the manner he does now?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator puts a question to me, and I will answer him. I never urged that consideration in any speech that I made during the whole campaign. What others did, I leave them to judge, for I do not think I heard one Nebraska speech during the whole campaign that I did not make myself.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Well, Mr. President

Mr. DOUGLAS. Allow me one moment; I am going to answer the Senator. I took the ground distinctly that the object of the Nebraska bill was to leave the people of each State and of each Territory, to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way; that if Kansas wished to have slavery, she had a right to it; and that if she did not want it, no power on earth should force it on her; that a new State had as much right to decide that question for herself as an old oneIllinois as much as Virginia; and hence, that it was a violation of the principle of that bill, either directly or indirectly, to attempt to control the people of Kansas and Nebraska, for slavery or against slavery; and I condemned every effort at interference from the outside, either from Massachusetts, or from Missouri. That was my position.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I am aware that in the debate which took place here, that was the position which the Senator assumed and advocated. Mr. DOUGLAS. And at home, too.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is not for me to assert the contrary. I did not have the pleasure of hearing or reading the speeches which he made at home; and of course I cannot question that he maintained the same ground there. But the Senator, I apprehend, will not attempt to deny, that both in his State and in other States in the Northwest, that argument was used on the stump by members of his party, to reconcile the people to the Nebraska bill.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have no reason to believe that any Nebraska man in Illinois used any such argument. I have no reason to believe it. On the contrary, I believe they assumed the same position that I did, and that we were of one accord throughout the State upon that question.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Whether they were Nebraska men, or not, in terms or profession, I know not, I care not; but that they were members of the same party as the honorable Senator; that they were endeavoring to sustain him and his friends; that they were endeavoring to sustain

33D CONG....2D SESS.

the action of Congress with regard to that Nebraska bill, I presume he will not deny. It was a matter notorious that, throughout the northwest, that was the argument which was used to the people; and that it had its effect-but how much I am not able to say. It is a matter perfectly well known to all sections of the Union that such was the position which was taken. But, now that the battle has been fought out, and fought out upon that ground-because the Nebraska bill was the matter in controversy in Illinois as well as elsewhere-now that it has been fought out, and the contest decided, so far as every free State of the Union which has voted since that period is concerned, it is mighty convenient for gentlemen to come here and go elsewhere, and say it is all due to Know-Nothingism, and secret lodges, and other matters which I cannot pretend to enumerate. Neither can I follow the honorable Senator in his eloquent denunciation of an order of people of whom I know nothing.

Mr. WELLER. I hope, when the honorable Senator speaks of all the free States who have held their elections, that he excepts my State; because, there we had six candidates for Congress, two Whigs and four Democrats-though only two were to be elected-and all of them, Whigs and Democrats, were pledged to the Nebraska

bill.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I presume I must except California.

Mr. WELLER. I should be glad if you would.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I would not attempt to go west of the Rocky mountains at all. When speaking of the North, and of the free States, I have not been thinking of California at all. I believe I am aware of the fact that all the candidates in California found it convenient to place themselves on the ground of supporting the Nebraska bill; and although some of them were called Whigs, and some Democrats, since they did place themselves in that position, let me say it makes very little difference to me, or any of those at the North who were formerly, or are now, called Whigs, on which side of the contest that was going on they were, or what was the result of that

contest.

|

The honorable Senator from Illinois has spoken of three thousand majority in Illinois in support|| of the Nebraska bill. I was surprised to hear him say so. He knows much better than I do what the result was; but, if I am correctly informed by a debate which took place in the other House, there was something like fifteen thousand majority for those members of Congress who were elected as anti-Nebraska men.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will put that matter right in a few minutes. Each of the regular Democratic candidates went for the Nebraska bill in the same terms and with the same explanation which I have announced to you. In the southern district there were two or three candidates, all of whom were in favor of the Nebraska bill; and, in the other House, in order to make up the majority for the anti-Nebraska candidates, they count a part of those candidates as anti-Nebraska. Then again, in one district, that in which Judge Trumbull was elected, he, as I am told and believe, in order to get Democratic votes, pledged himself against the further agitation of the question, against even the bringing in of a bill to change or repeal the Nebraska act, and thus he probably got nearly as many Nebraska as anti-Nebraska votes. Hence the congressional election does not furnish an unerring test on the Nebraska question, although we elected to the next Congress one more Nebraska man than we have in the present Congress, being a clear gain of one member.

But there is one test on that subject which I will give, and the Senator from Maine will recognize it as a proper one. Old John Moore, as he is called in Illinois, an Englishman by birth, was State treasurer, and as State treasurer he had charge of the State House in Springfield. When Mr. GIDDINGS went there to make an Abolition speech, old John Moore told him he could not speak in the State House and utter sentiments such as he held of disloyalty to the Union. When, I think, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. CHASE] went out there to make an anti-Nebraska speech,|| he was refused admission into the State House.

Certainly, if he asked it, it was refused. When Cassius M. Clay went there, he asked it, and old John Moore told him he could not have it, and turned him off. Do you think that many Abolitionists voted for old John Moore after that? He was a foreigner by birth, and denounced by the Know-Nothing organization. Do you think he got many Know-Nothing votes after that? The Whig central committee came out and denounced him in a circular; do you think he got many Whig votes? And yet, with the Know-Nothings against him, with the Abolitionists against him, with the Whigs against him, with all these sins, as you would call them, to account for, he received a popular majority of three thousand in the State over a man who was by no means unpopular. That was the result, sir. He was an open Nebraska man, an honest man, and a true Democrat.

Mr. CHASE. The Senator from Maine will allow me to say a word. When I did happen to speak at Springfield, during the last canvass, the State House was not refused to me or to the antiNebraska men. I am bound to say, in justice to Mr. Moore, whom I understand from all quarters, Nebraska and anti-Nebraska, to be a perfectly honest man and most worthy officer, that upon that occasion every courtesy I could ask or desire was extended to me by the citizens of Springfield. The State House was, as I was informed, not in a condition to be occupied by anybody at that time, and I think there was some rule against any parties occupying it. My honorable friend from Illinois [Mr. SHIELDS] spoke the evening before at a private hail, and I spoke in the court-house.

Mr. DOUGLAS. That answer is not such as I should have expected from the Senator from Ohio. I was not at Springfield at the time, and was not certain whether he applied for permission to speak in the State House, or whether it was refused to his friends for him. If he had applied, it would have been refused. He has reason to know that it was refused to Cassius M. Clay. He has reason to know that every Abolition, Fusion, Know-Nothing orator in Illinois, denounced John Moore for that act on every stump in the State. He has reason to know that John Moore never explained or disclaimed it, but allowed the election to take place on that issue; and, receiving the combined fire of Know-Nothingism, Abolitionism, Maine-Lawism, and Anti-Nebraskaism -all of the isms together-he had a popular majority of three thousand in the whole State; and I submit, now, whether he got many Abolition votes? Not one in the State.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I did not expect to say so much in reference to the election in Illinois, or to be drawn into a controvery about it; but I have understood-and the honorable Senator, and other gentlemen from Illinois know whether it is true or not-that the nomination of any candidate against Mr. Moore was not known in a part of the State, which threw a very heavy anti-Nebraska vote, and that the result was owing to that fact.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish to state that the Senator from Maine would do well to inquire of those who have the means of knowing, instead of repeating here what my honorable colleague in the House denounced, when it was said by a man who did not know it, and which we all know was unfounded. The gentleman who made that statement was from Galena, within about six miles of Wisconsin. He never went down to the central or southern part of the State during the election, and I tell you that Miller, the Know-Nothing candidate, was nominated weeks, if not months, before the election; that circulars were sent all over the State, to every Know-Nothing lodge, commanding them to vote for Miller; that Simeon Francis, the chairman of the Whig central committee, sent out circulars to every corner, every neighborhood in the State, weeks before the elec tion, urging the Whigs to vote for him; that the Abolition and Free-Soil committees sent out circulars urging the same thing, and the newspapers gave as a special reason why John Moore should be beaten, that he was the only State officer running all over the State, and if they did not beat him, and yet got the Legislature to pass resolutions of instructions on Douglas, Douglas could turn around and say that is not the voice of the people, for John Moore had a majority. These reasons were urged everywhere. More time was

SENATE.

spent, more money was employed, more effort was brought into requisition to beat John Moore than any other man in the State, for that avowed reason, and that reason was published in all the newspapers weeks before the election, so that there is not a pretext for this charge that you have an anti-Nebraska majority there.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. President, is, undoubtedly, under some obligation to me for giving him an opportunity to make all these explanations.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It seems there are a great many difficulties in reference to that election for which he cannot account, and it requires a considerable explanation from the Senator to remove them, one by one, as they are suggested.

Now, sir, what information I have was gathered from the public papers, and statements made in the course of the debate in the other House. I read the debate upon that subject. I have not come to the conclusion to which the honorable Senator from Illinois has arrived, who judges from his personal knowledge of the subject; but, sir, there is one thing not looked at-that is, that, in the great Democratic State of Illinois, it seems the Know-Nothings were so terribly powerful that they could not even carry the only candidate they had, the candidate for State treasurer. They who did everything else could not, it appears, succeed in their own nomination in that State. What else did we see, sir? We saw that the antiNebraska members of Congress were elected by a large majority-whether it was ten or fifteen thousand, I do not know. What do we see next? We see a strong anti-Nebraska Legislature electedmembers in each branch, who, when they come together, are so strongly infected with dislike of the Nebraska bill, and all its consequences, that, though made up of a majority of original Democracts, they would not even reelect the colleague of the honorable Senator from Illinois, who has addressed the Senate this morning. They would not send him here with all his great popularity, with all his great personal worth, with a reputation for high personal qualities which-I cannot help saying-I would as soon take with me when I leave this Chamber as the reputation of any other man who is a member of the Senate. If his public worth and strength with his own party. which had a majority in that Legislature, could not send him back again, notwithstanding the strong personal regard which they have for him, what is the reasonable inference with regard to public feeling in Illinois. The members of the Legislature must be presumed to be somewhat acquainted with the feelings of their constituents, and somewhat infected with them.

But, sir, I am willing to pass over this matter. I alluded to it with no intention to speak upon it long, but have fallen into the error into which many men fall, and that is, only intending to say a few words they say a great many. It has no particular bearing upon the bill now before the Senate, and that is the matter on which I rose to speak.

The honorable Senator from Illinois says that this is a question whether we will support the Constitution. Here is an act brought before the Senate which we are called upon to pass, which, he says, involves the question, with reference to gentlemen who are to vote here, whether they are willing to carry out the provisions of the Consti. tution on the question of slavery. I acknowledge no such question. Many bills may be presented to the Senate which are constitutional in terms, and would be constitutional in effect, and yet are so odious in their provisions, so unnecessary, so uncalled for, so contrary to the sense of the Senate, or of some individual members, and of a vast number of individuals in the country, that men may well differ upon them, and hesitate how they shall act. I deny the proposition which has been advanced by the honorable gentleman from Illinois, that this is a constitutional matter, and that every man who stands up and says he objects to this bill, and that he shall oppose it to the utmost of his power and by constitutional means, must be held a traitor to his country and to his trust. Sir, I acknowledge no such thing. I say, with regard to this bill, that I understand its object; at any rate, I understand how it has come here, and why it has come here; and if I speak harshly in

33D CONG....2D SESS.

regard to the bill itself; if I speak of it harshly at home; if I denounce it both here and everywhere; if I agitate upon it, it is because I do understand both its origin and its object. And, sir, allow me to say, not with my honorable friend from Ohio, who proclaims himself no agitator, that, on a question of right, a question of justice, a question affecting the interests and feelings of my constituents, I am an agitator. I will agitate such questions. It is my duty so to agitate; and I am not to be silenced by the mere declaration that I am disturbing the country. Let those talk about that matter who introduce this measure. They are the real agitators. It is not for them to introduce measures into the Senate and before the country calculated to stir up agitation, and then denounce those as disturbers of the peace of the Union, and agitators, and violators of the principles of the Constitution, who oppose them. Sir, all that kind of declamation goes by me as the idle wind. I have heard it for years, and I have learned to disregard it. It is of no more consequence to me than the idlest rumor that could reach my ears.

Well, sir, how does this bill come before the Senate? Let us look at it. We have heard from honorable gentlemen, on the other side of the Chamber particularly, for the last week or more, that the session was drawing to a close, that we must economize time, that we were spending it in idle debate, when we were introducing measures here that had no chance of passing both Houses of Congress. I say we-I do not speak of myself, however, but of other gentlemen, who, from their position on committees, have power to bring questions before the Senate. We have been told this. Well, sir, what do we see in the face of all this? We heard the same story even from the honorable Senator from Connecticut this morning. He appealed to the Senate to stop debate on a little matter of business which was intended to regulate the close of our proceedings at this session; and yet, sir, at the moment that was ended he rose in his place and called up this bill, which he knew well must occasion debate and consume time; which he knew, as well as any one, could stand no chance of being acted upon, unless by some suspension or violation of the rules of proceeding of the other House, such as resulted in carrying the Nebraska bill through late one night; yet, the honorable Senator, after he had read this lecture upon the close of the session, and upon the necessity of ending debate and economizing time, introduced this measure, which, he knows well, must occupy much valuable time, and which, in my judgment, he cannot believe will lead to any practical result at this session.

Sir, when that bill came here, I found, on looking at the Calendar, and you will see, that it is the last bill but three, which has been reported to the Senate. It has been brought in here, then, within some two or three days-I cannot tell when exactly; the honorable Senator can inform you. It has gone to the Calendar this morning for the first time. There are but three bills after it; there is the whole Calendar before it. It comes in here at this period, and we are appealed to to stop debate, to economize time, and yet the very first thing done is to call up a bill of this kind, involving great principles, involving as much feeling as necessarily must be involved; and it is taken out of its order before we have an opportunity to examine it, before we are notified of its existence, before we have had a chance to discover what its provisions are, and on the simple statement of the Senator from Connecticut, we are called upon to pass the bill, he giving notice that it is unnecessary to have any debate upon it. Sir, I am sorry that it has been brought forward for these reasons. I am not sorry for another reason, because if gentlemen intend to follow this system of measures, if they intend to irritate all they can the feelings of the people of the free States of this country, let them do it. The faster they do it, the better. I care not how soon these measures come, if they are to come; and if these gentlemen choose to take the responsibility of them; if they choose to outrage the North, be it so. The responsibility is not on me; but I shall not forget my right to speak in the matter, and take up as much time as is necessary, because of any consideration arising from our near approach to the close of the session.

Are any reasons given why-as has been well

inquired by gentlemen who have preceded methis bill is introduced? Why, I again ask, does it come? Why is it sprung upon us in the manner that it has been? Why is it that no reasons are given for it? Sir, has it been pretended that there is a pressing necessity for it in this country? The honorable Senator from Illinois says it is a measure designed to carry out the existing laws of the United States. What law? Sir, are we so blind-is it to be supposed that we are so blind

that we cannot see, and will not notify the people of our respective States, that it has but a single object, that it is brought in for a single purpose, brought in at the close of the session, and|| sprung upon us to be carried through by party machinery-I say party machinery-with reference solely to slave questions connected with the fugitive slave law, or some collateral question growing out of the execution of that law?"

Sir, the matter is obvious. It cannot be concealed; and gentlemen have come to us with the same honeyed phrases we have heard before, that there is no agitation; that the Nebraska bill was introduced not to create agitation; that it was simply to establish a great principle of non-intervention; but that bill was passed, and the people did not believe a word of all such pretenses. A few days ago we had a bill to pay for slaves who had been carried away, and I remarked, as a most singular fact, that on that private bill, without any discussion of its merits, without a knowledge, in fact, on the part of, I may say, five or ten Senators, every Democratic member of the Senate, save one, from the free States-every Administration member, if I may so call them, and every southern man, without exception, voted for that bill. It was a most remarkable event, sir, in connection with a private claim, and a private claim exclusively.

Mr. BUTLER. What was the bill? Mr. FESSENDEN. It was a bill to pay somebody for slaves that were lost.

Mr. BAYARD. I ask the honorable Senator from Maine, whether any objection was made to the bill by any Senator, except on the ground that it was to pay for slaves?

Mr. FESSENDEN. With reference to the bill, the honorable Senator from Ohio stated that he did not think, on an examination of it, that it came within the provision of the law upon which it was said to rest. He said, moreover, that he was opposed to the principle. I did not state that I was opposed to that principle, and I never have so stated. I am not prepared to state now that I am so opposed, under any, and all circumstances. I voted against it, and why? I voted against it because the common courtesy which is granted to every member of this Senate when he rises in his place and moves a postponement of a question, in order that he may examine it, was refused to the Senator from Ohio. Why? Because the Senator from North Carolina put a question to him that I never heard propounded to any Senator before since I occupied a seat in this Senate, and that was, sir, whether he had not already formed a definite opinion on the subject?

Mr. BADGER. Will the Senator allow me to correct him, as he refers to the Senator from North Carolina? Does he not recollect also, that I asked the Senator from Ohio, whether that, one week before, on the preceding Friday, he did not object to the consideration of the bill? He admitted he did; and does he not recollect further, that I asked him, whether he had looked into the bill after it was passed over on that occasion, on his objection, and that he said he had not?

Mr. FESSENDEN. Precisely; and is it customary, in the ordinary course of business in this Senate, to put every gentleman, when he requests further time to examine the subject, upon his honor, to say whether he has done his duty? What I would say, is, that the question put to the honorable Senator on that occasion, was a new test, and one which has never been applied to any other Senator in my hearing-a question which I have never, as long as I have been a member of the Senate, heard asked, by any body, on any occasion.

Mr. BADGER. Then I want to ask the Senator if he wants delay to be granted, why might not another after that, and still further, to ask the question, whether, when a private bill comes

SENATE.

before the Senate, and a Senator had objected a week before, and which during the course of the week he had not examined, it is proper for that Senator to ask another week's delay, when he announced at the same time that he would not vote for the bill? I had another reason for the course which I pursued, and that was, that I had no idea that the honorable Senator intended to examine the bill, or wished to examine it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The honorable Senator supposes it to be so. Would the same remark have been made on the same occasion, upon any other subject whatever? Supposing a Senator had demanded, or requested the same courtesy with reference to any other subject-matter, any other private bill before the Senate, would it have been heard of that any gentleman would ask him, “Sir, do you intend to look at it, and will you look at it?" Sir, I impute nothing offensive to my friend from North Carolina. Everybody knows that he is one of the best natured, amiable gentlemen in the world-one who is most courteous in his ordinary demeanor here, and from the very fact that he, of all men in the world, with his courtesy and his kindness, could on that occasion exhibit a feeling of the description which he did exhibit, was proof to my mind that, whenever anything comes up here with which this matter of slavery is connected in any degree, there is but one system to pursue, and that is to go it through, and go it blind, and that without reference to any consideration of the consequences which may ensue.

Mr. BADGER. Will the Senator allow me to ask whether he has any right to urge that as an objection, assuming it to be true; for on the other side, is it not one steady and continuous system which is pursued, that whenever compensation is sought for the owners of slaves, under any circumstances, it is always utterly and pertinaciously opposed, and that the opposition go it blind?

Mr. FESSENDEN. Therefore the honorable Senator will not inquire whether anything is actually due or not-a most logical conclusion-but will take it on trust whenever such a bill is reported, without examination.

Mr. BADGER. The honorable Senator will permit me to say that I do not think that is a fallacy in his logic, but it is one that is utterly unfair in his conclusion. I said nothing about passing a bill without examination. The bill was open to discussion. The Senator from Ohio had full power to discuss it the whole day, and the whole week if it continued so long. The sole and single question before the Senate was, whether at the close of the session, a private bill which had been postponed a week at the instance of a Senator who requested that he might be permitted to look into it, who had not looked into it in a week, who had no purpose or intention to look into it, and who announced his intention to vote against it under all circumstances-when the bill was not to be hurried through upon the previous question, which was not to be passed without consideration of its merit, should be then considered. That was the question.

Mr. FESSENDEN. What right has the honorable Senator from North Carolina to say that the Senator from Ohio had no intention or desire to look into it.

Mr. BADGER. I gave that as my opinion in the presence of the Senator from Ohio. 1 have given it twice, and he seems to give his assent

to it.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I imagine that such illiberal opinions are not advanced in this body except on precisely such bills as these. Senators do not judge in that way except on such bills. I adduce that as an instance showing that, in reference to anything of this kind, the determination is made beforehand to press the measure through.

Now, with reference to this bill, I have alluded to the fact, that it came in but a day or two since. It presents itself, and is laid upon our tables when they are loaded with business-when all the leading Senators are saying to us that we must economize time. Yet, sir, take the example of the Senator from Virginia, who never does anything amiss intentionally, especially with reference to the business of the Senate. He warned us that we needed all the time we had; yet I notice that he, this morning, voted to take up this bill, in the teeth of his profession, that all the time was needed for the

33D CONG....2D SESS.

necessary appropriation bills now, or soon to be, before the Senate.

What is the object of this bill? It is admitted there is no dispute about it-that it is intended simply and solely to deprive the courts of the several States of any and all power on any question arising under the fugitive slave act, or any other act of the United States which may be passed with reference to that or any other subject, but particularly with regard to that subject. Has there been any reason given for it, I again ask? This power, ever since the formation of the Government, has existed in the State courts; and has any difficulty arisen? Never, since the first act which was passed on that subject, has the matter been mooted here. Is there any pressing occasion? Why did not the honorable Senator from Connecticut tell us what the necessity was for bringing, at this late period of the session, this bill before the Senate? Why did he not inform us whether or not any outrageous act had been committed, or was to be committed, which made it necessary to introduce this bill? He has specified no such act; and yet we are obliged to take it as it comes to us at this stage of the session, and either vote upon it in silence, or else waste the time of the Senate-for it is, in one sense of the word, wasting the time of the Senate to enter upon a discussion of a measure of this kind at so late a day.

Execution of United States Laws-Debate.

for govern us it does-I stand here to oppose them, to make my opposition and protestation against them on all occasions; and I shall stand at home-if I ever reach it-ready to agitate upon this subject, and to convince the freemen of my honored State, if I can, that this measure is but a renewed assault upon the honor and independence of the free States, and the just rights of their || people.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I had not the slightest idea of engaging in this discussion when I came here this morning; but, sir, assertions have been made and repeated upon this floor, such as have always been made to the detriment of those who advocate the rights of the southern States from the time when, in an evil hour, gentlemen from the North undertook to direct Federal legislation to a subject with which the Federal Government has nothing to do.

SENATE.

Union, and which could not be recognized as law by any man of common candor or common frankness, who properly considered the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. President, I am not going too far in stating that the whole course of northern legislation upon this subject, for the last few months, has been a course of direct war upon the South; and the bill now before the Senate is a measure not of aggression, but of defense. Here is a law of the State of Michigan, which was brought to the attention of the Senate yesterday. Let me ask the attention of honorable Senators to this law, and let me ask those gentlemen who are most opposed to the rights of the South, as asserted by us on this floor, in common frankness and common candor, if this is, or is not, a direct nullification of the legislation of the United States? I mean to take this law, passage by passage, and say a few words upon it. The statute of Connecticut is the same in substance. The decision of the supreme court of Wisconsin is the same in substance; and the honorable Senator from Ohio tells us that scarcely will the Legislature of his State have again met, when a similar legislation will follow in the lead of what he calls the "glorious" example set by Wisconsin. The first section of this law of the State of Michigan provides that

With reference to the people of my own State, and the people of the eastern States, I wish them to understand that this new legislation is designed for the purpose of depriving their courts of all vitality, all power to protect the rights of their own citizens, whenever a question affecting a sup-southern rights and southern property free from posed or alleged fugitive slave is concerned whenever the question which has excited so much feeling in those States is agitated at all. The object is to deprive them of the power to grant the writ of habeas corpus, or to decide the fact upon such a writ, and otherwise to put every question of a similar nature within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, under the direction of Federal officers, who are appointed by this Government, paid by this Government, and who, as my honorable friend from Ohio says, have recently had their salaries increased, so far as a vote of the Senate can increase them, though I would hope that he was in error in supposing that that increase was made in view of this meas

ure.

But, sir, I would inquire, as my friend from Ohio did, do you suppose that we shall not resist the enactment of a law of this kind, and, if it becomes a law, do you suppose that we shall not find some way in the States, within the limits of the Constitution, in which we can protect the rights of our fellow-citizens when they are jeoparded? Sir, you mistake the temper of the eastern people.

I am not one who indulges in threats. Threats are idle everywhere, and especially in this place, whether they come from free States or slave States; east or west, north or south. I make none; but I tell you this will not go on to the statute-book merely as a wise precaution taken to protect Federal officers against injury from the citizens of the States. It will not go on merely as a calm, deliberate enactment for a good purpose, but as an intentional, direct insult to the courts and the people of the several States-a declaration that you have no confidence in them; that you have no confidence in the people of the free States; and as a declaration of the honorable Senator from Connecticut, in connection with those with whom he acts, that he will lend his aid to break down the respectability of that judiciary for which, certainly, he ought to entertain respect, for no man knows better than he does its high character and position.

Now, sir, in conclusion, I wish to state that no man need impute to me the declaration that I will disregard the Constitution of the United States. I mean to respect it at any and all times. I understand the oath I have taken; but, while making this declaration, I wish to say still further to gentlemen who give their support to measures of this description, that whenever they are brought forward with such a design, whenever they exhibit such a tendency, whenever they show that our legislation is to be directed, at all times, with reference to this slave power which governs us

further aggression. We are told, sir-and the Senator from Vermont, near me, [Mr. BRAINERD,] seems to think the assertion is a triumphant onethat it is we who now begin this aggression. Why, sir, the Senator from Michigan [Mr. STUART] brought to the notice of the Senate yesterday a law of the State of Michigan; at an early period of the session we had brought forward a law of the State of Connecticut; at a different period during the present session of Congress our attention was called to a decision of the supreme court of the State of Wisconsin, and what do we find, sir? We find that State after State, throughout the North, is directing its legislation, and not only directing its legislation, but that its courts of justice are perverting its jurisprudence in direct attacks upon the Constitution of the country and the rights of the southern portion of the Confed

eracy.

Mr. President, since the last session of Congress, under a pretext that a law of the United States, which did nothing but recognize the constitutional principle that the people of each portion of this Confederacy were, by the Constitution, vested with the exclusive right to regulate their own domestic affairs, and govern their own domestic institutions, was a violation of the rights of the North, the people in the northern States of the Union have been directing a fierce and prolonged agitation, not only against that law, but against a law which has stood upon your statute-book since the time when General Washington was first elected President of this Republic. Now, sir, that idea of nullification about which we heard so much a few years ago, when the rights of the southern States were pushed to the extent of nullifying the constitutional enactments of the General Government by the acts of the Legislatures of the States, has changed its locality, and South Carolina is now taken into the arms and affectionately caressed by Ohio, Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Connecticut.

Mr. President, it is a familiar adage, that times change, and we change with them. Who would ever have expected, a few years ago, to have heard it said in the Senate of the United States, by Senators from the North, that State tribunals were vested with jurisdiction, in the last resort, to determine upon the constitutionality of laws enacted by the Congress of the United States; that their decisions were of greater weight, and entitled to higher respect, than the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; and that it required nothing more than an inflamed popular prejudice to pervert the course of decisions in any one of our sister States in order to make that law in one State which was not law in any other State of the

"The people of the State of Michigan enact, that it sball be the duty of the prosecuting attorneys, within their re

arrested or claimed as a fugitive slave, on being informed thereof, diligently and faithfully to use all lawful means to protect, defend, and procure to be discharged, every such person so arrested or claimed as a fugitive slave."

I say nothing of this. I omit all comment on a State Legislature directing State officers to interfere when a citizen of the United States claims the execution of a law of the United States enacted under a constitutional authority delegated to Congress.

The second section provides, that

"All persons so arrested and claimed as fugitive slaves shall be entitled to all the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus and of trial by jury."

Now, sir, this is in direct opposition to the laws of the United States, enacted for the purpose of enabling such owners to reclaim their fugitive slaves in northern States; and it is, and is intended to be, in direct contest, in avowed opposition, to the laws of Congress in that particular. The law does not stop here.

The third section provides, that

"If such writ of habeas corpus shall be sued out in vacation, and if, upon the hearing of the same, the person imprisoned, arrested, or claimed as a fugitive slave shall not be discharged, such person shall be entitled to an appeal to the circuit court for the county in which such hearing shall

have been had, on furnishing such bail within such time as the officer granting the writ or hearing the case shall judge reasonable or proper."

It is not necessary to comment on this..
Take the next section:

"The court to which such appeal is taken, and any court to which a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of any such person claimed or arrested as a fugitive slave is made returnable, may, and shall, on application of either party to such proceedings, allow and direct a trial by jury on all questions of fact in issue between the parties in the matter aforesaid; and the taxable costs of such trial shall be chargeable to the State whenever the same would be otherwise chargeable to the person arrested or claimed as a fugitive slave."

The State of Michigan is not only going to interfere in opposition to the right of the claimant to his property, it is not only to employ its officers (who are sworn to obey, not only the laws and constitution of the State, but the laws and Constitution of the Uuited States) to resist the execution of a Federal law, it is not only enacting, in direct opposition to the terms of an act of Congress, that the habeas corpus shall be applied to such cases, and an appeal and trial by jury also allowed; but the State of Michigan, out of the State treasury, will pay the costs incurred in resisting the execution of a law of the United States. It will go still further. Sir, it makes it a penal offense for any officer of the State to receive within the limits of any prison or any jail of the State, any fugitive committed for trial. In the next section it provides an imprisonment of not less than three nor more than five years to any person who shall fail to prove his property in his fugitive slave. If a southern gentleman goes to the State of Michigan, in search of a fugitive, in search of his property,