Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Missouri [Mr. GEYER] an opportunity to record
his vote in favor of the reconsideration. It will
be observed that, if we had both voted, the result
would not have been effected in any way. Still,
he is entitled to have his vote recorded on the
question, as I think; and now, having said that
much on that part of the subject, allow me to add
a few words in regard to the proposition itself.

the amendment of the Senator from Ohio-which
made it a condition to the receipt of money already
due to these persons that they should assent to
any modification of the contract-as a violation of
the contract itself. Now, it appears to me that
the amendment which is offered by my colleague
is obnoxious to the same objection. If I am cor-
rectly informed-and, if I am not, I want inform-
ation from any source-we owe these parties for Mr. President, I have not troubled the Senate
two years' mail service; and the primary object with a word before on this question. I have
of this bill is to pay the debt which we owe. I desired to listen, and not to speak, and although I
apprehend that, on a bill which is intended simply have regarded this as a very important question,
to pay what we owe, you cannot properly impose I shall not now detain the Senate for many min-
a condition that they shall not be paid unless they utes. I look upon this as a question deeply affect-
consent to a modification of the contract. I agreeing the commercial interests of this country. We
with my colleague, that the compensation which
they receive is, perhaps, larger than it ought to
be. I am perfectly willing to modify it, if we can
in good faith do so. According to my conception,
however, we have no right to say to these per-
sons, we will pay you the money which we owe
you, provided you will agree to take less than
the sum which, under the existing contract, you
have a right to receive." That is the difficulty
which I have in sustaining the proposition of my
colleague.

[ocr errors]

Mr. PEARCE. I have entirely misconceived the bill if such be its effect. I understand that the appropriation contained in the clause to which I have moved this amendment, is an appropriation of $858,000 for the fiscal year ending the 30th day of June, 1856.

Mr. PRATT. Is it not for the last year?

Mr. PEARCE. No, sir; but as I read the section it contains an appropriation for the next fiscal year. Certainly I should not offer any proposition requiring the parties to enter into an arrangement of this sort, as an amendment to a section providing for payment for services already due.

do not so understand it. The section is, I believe, for payment of the sum which, under the existing contract, they will be entitled to during the course of the next fiscal year. I can only satisfy myself thoroughly about it by examining the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. PEARCE. I beg leave to say now that I am satisfied, from what I am informed by the clerk of the Committee on Finance, that I am right. My amendment is to the first section of the bill, which provides for the next fiscal year. The third section of the bill provides for the deficiencies of last year. The objection of my colleague, therefore, does not apply to this case.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 23, nays 25; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Bright, Brown, Butler, Chase, Clay, Dawson, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Sebastian, Slidell, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, and Wells-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Badger, Bayard, Benjamin, Brodhead, Cass, Clayton, Cooper, Fessenden, Foot, Gillette, Gwin, James, Jones of Iowa, Pettit, Rusk, Seward, Shields, Stuart, Sumner, Thomson of New Jersey, Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Wright-25,

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. President, there was a misapprehension at the time the vote was taken on the proposition of the chairman of the Committee on Finance to strike out the clause in the bill as it comes from the House, which takes away the power to give the notice. The vote on that motion stood twenty-four to twenty-five. I voted among the twenty-five. There was a misapprehension on the part of my honorable friend from Missouri, [Mr. GEYER,] who supposed that he and I had paired off on that question. I now desire to give him a full opportunity of recording his vote. I move to reconsider the vote by which that amendment was rejected, in order to give him a chance to do so. I hold myself bound in honor to give him an opportunity to record his vote, under those circumstances. I move to reconsider the vote by which that amendment was rejected. Mr. TOOMBS called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. CLAYTON. Having made the motion to reconsider, I wish to state that I shall vote precisely s I have done heretofore. I have made the motion, because I desire to give my friend from

are in the midst of a struggle, which has been
raging since the commencement of the year 1850,
with the greatest maritime Power on earth for the
supremacy of the seas. That contest commenced
at the time the British Government passed a law
repealing the navigation laws of that country,
which had stood for two hundred years, and which
were regarded as the bulwark of the maritime|
superiority of Great Britain. No entreaties, no
implorations of our countrymen could induce them
to change their position on that subject; but on the
occasion to which I have alluded, influenced by
considerations which I am not now at liberty to
enter into, owing to the shortness of time which I
feel ought to be allotted to me, they challenged
the United States to a competition on the princi-
ples of what was called freedom of trade, by open-
ing their own ports for the indirect trade, on condi-
tion that we should open ours. Thus the carrying
trade became the subject of rivalry-the prize
offered to victory in the contest between these two
great nations.

SENATE.

ation I can get, that the expense of the Cunard steamers to the British Government has been greater than the expense of the Collins steamers to this Government. But I do not intend to regard the expenditure of a few thousands of dollars when that sum is necessary to be expended to sustain the highest interests of the country.

Mr. President, I do not enter at large into the debate in which other gentlemen have freely indulged in regard to how much benefit we have received, or how much Congress has conferred upon the Collins line of steamers. That part of the subject has been fully discussed by others; but I desire to suggest that in accepting the British proposition we reserve to ourselves exclusive and important privileges and rights for our own commerce which they did not reserve for theirs. They gave up the registry law of their own country. They gave up the exclusive right to build their own ships. Any people in the world may now build ships for them. It is not so here. Our ship builders retain a complete monopoly over ship building, and that great manufacturing interest is protected to the extent of utter prohibition. So it is in regard to the coast-wise trade. We have not suffered others to compete with us in our coasting trade though Great Britain has yielded us the right to participate in her colonial and intercolonial trade. These may be justly deemed as great sacrifices made by us to give the advantage to our commercial marine. I do not propose to consider the question whether these prohibitions ought to be continued, but by referring to these facts I desire to show that you have made much greater sacrifices, in order to sustain your commercial marine, than you are now called upon to make by voting this sum out of the Treasury for sustain

At the time the proposition was made by Greating the Collins line of steamers. Britain, I was one of those who advised that this Mr. President, the eyes of the world are now Government should enter into the competition directed to Great Britain and the United States. without hesitation or delay. A distinguished gen- If we gain the advantage in the contest, as we tleman, [Mr. Webster,] who had preceded me think we have done already, it can be attributed in the office which I then held, had given an opin- to nothing but the superiority of our republican ion that, under the act of the 3d of March, 1817, institutions over the institutions of Great Britain. the British proposition could not be accepted with- Our success will vindicate our claim to the supeout the consent of Congress. To have asked the riority of our institutions, as compared with this. consent of Congress at that time, would have been I would not, for any consideration like that of the equivalent to rejecting the proposition. We ac- sum of money which has been voted for the Colceded to the proposition as it stood, construing the lins line of steamers, hazard our success in any act of 1817 as giving us the power, and we haz-degree. I would not agree that Great Britain arded everything on the result. My anticipations of that day have been fully realized. Owing to the influence of our own republican institutions, the character of our seamen and merchants-all the latter deriving their consideration from the former-we have beaten Great Britain in the carrying trade. The result has been, that in five years during which the competition has existed, we have progressed so far that, instead of being the second commercial nation in the world, we are now the first. Our commercial tonnage, at this time, exceeds that of Great Britain herself.

Sir, this struggle is still raging. It is one of the greatest of all the contests that ever existed between contending nations. We rely upon our republican institutions; Great Britain relies on her peculiar institutions; and the question is, which shall evince their superiority? Under such circumstances, for the honor of the country, when not only its prosperity, but its glory, depends upon that struggle, I am not willing to be behind Great Britain in anything which shall tend to put my own countrymen on terms of full and complete equality with her.

The question now before the Senate has bearings and relations far beyond the topics which have been introduced into the debate. The question is, shall we carry on this contest by the aid of British steamers conveying the mail; or shall we, on the other hand, see to it that the mail is carried in American bottoms as ancillary to the exertions of our seamen and merchants, and vindicate our superiority as well in those steamships as we do in the sailing vessels of the ocean? I look on the intelligence which is brought to this country by our steamers as absolutely necessary for the success of our commerce, as necessary to our complete success in that contest to which I have pointed the attention of the Senate. So looking on this question, I am willing to make some and great sacrifices in order to sustain my own countrymen in the struggle. I believe, from the best inform

should keep the post office for us, or carry all our mails. I would not lose the benefit of the intelligence which we receive so much the more speedily by these Collins vessels, than by hers.

I forbear to discuss the question whether the propositions of others are likely to be more advantageous to us, if accepted, than those of the Collins line, solely because that subject has been so fully and ably considered by others, and especially by my colleague. Satisfied that we ought not to hazard the loss of the benefits which the whole commercial and business community derive from this line by abandoning a certainty for an uncertainty, I shall cheerfully give my vote to sustain the Collins line. As to the retention of the power to give the notice to abandon the contract, which the amendment of the House relinquishes, it has been shown by others that the only effect of such a power has been, and will be hereafter, to harass the contractors with constant alarms and apprehensions essentially retarding the efforts, and paralyzing the energies of the contractors.

Mr. TOOMBS. Mr. President, the discussion having been reopened, and the time of the Senate repeatedly occupied this morning by the friends of the measure sent to us by the House, I shall avail myself of my privilege to make a few remarks in reply to the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON.]

Nothing has satisfied me that this whole proposition is without an argument to support it, more than the ability and ingenuity which have been attempted without producing one. The gentleman from Delaware says, in the first place, that this is a question as to the superiority of American shipping over British. Well, sir, what is the question? The very eminent and distinguished Senator from Delaware says that is it. I conceive it to be entirely different. You made a contract in 1852, by which you gave these men hundreds of thousands of dollars as additional compensation, and you only retained the same right over it which

33D CONG....2D Sess.

you have over every contract for the transportation of the mails, by sea and land. You have provided, what is provided in regard to every mail contract in America, that it may be rescinded. The question now is, whether you shall give up that power. It is not a question of gratification to the friends of liberty in Europe, as the Senator from Delaware supposes, to see whether the Collins ships shall get in ten minutes before Cunard's. This is the idlest of all the pretenses by which it is attempted to deprive the Government of a substantial right, without a consideration. Nobody has offered one. Are you going to give an advantage to American shipping in this country by conferring the greatest monopoly that ever has been seen since the Revolution to this day? Is that the way to build up our institutions? Is that the way we have succeeded? Is it by going back for centuries to all the restrictions, to all the monopolies, which disgraced and retarded mankind for five centuries? That is what the gentleman says it is. You are going to build up an American marine, and you are going to make it compete at home and abroad with all the world, by giving a monopoly here!

Sir, the question before us is not even a question of monopoly, on which the gentleman puts it, and if it were, I should oppose it. The question is, whether the American Senate and House of Representatives will give up a wise restriction which they placed on this contract, that they might, on giving six months' notice, reduce the additional compensation, if, in the judgment of the two Houses on the information before them, it should be proper to do so. Why do you say that those who are to come after you shall not have this power, which is provided for everywhere in all the mail contracts of the United States, and in every little act of incorporation? Why, sir, only the other day when a bill was pending to allow the people of Georgetown the privilege of subscribing to the stock of a railroad company in this District, the American Senate, nem. con., voted that they would not allow that act to pass without a right being reserved to repeal it whenever Congress should think proper. It is done every day. in every contract for carrying the mail in the United States, this right is reserved. In regard to every steamboat, railroad, horse-mail, footmail, every mail-carrier, and penny-post in the United States, the right is reserved to take away the contract when you want to do it. It is a just and wise provision. Why should a majority attempt to do away with that right here and maintain it in all other cases? Why should there be an exception here? Is it proper to build up American navigation by giving to these people a benefit which is conferred upon nobody else? You have imposed on them that condition to which every one else, doing similar service, is subjected, and now it is proposed to take it away.

I would take away the whole contract, for I have opposed it for ten years, but I have never succeeded, and do not expect to succeed. I have never supposed that I could succeed in resisting

it.

I have not supposed, and I do not suppose, that a job of this character can be resisted under this Government. I have a duty to perform, however, and I intend to perform it. I will resist what to Commonwealth

will resist what I believe to be unjust. The consequences are with those who have equal power, equal rights, equal duties. I have nothing to say to those who differ from me on this question; but it being, in my judgment, injurious to the public service to take away a power which, I consider, may be important; I cannot consent to it. It may be very important for many reasons, in maintaining the very competition of which the Senator from Delaware has spoken. Why should you give an unlimited, boundless confidence to Collins that you give to nobody else? Suppose, after you give it to him, he will not carry on the rivalry, where are you then? There is no condition in the bond that Cunard shall not be allowed to beat him. The very pretences which you urge are shown not to be true on the face of the contract. Have you any condition that Collins shall beat the Cunarders? Though you give him a large amount of money, there is no provision in

the contract that he shall run over the ocean even in thirty days. You bind him with no conditions.

Mail Steamer Appropriation Bill-Debate.

[ocr errors]

SENATE.

You have bound everybody else. You bind every with the British. Patriotism is a very excellent man who contracts with the Post Office Depart-thing when well applied; but I do not think that ment, except E. K. Collins & Co. Why? The country will ask the reason.

Again, sir, the Senator from Delaware has said, that if the Collins line succeeds, it will prove the superiority of republican Government over monarchy. Mr. President, with great deference to the Senator from Delaware, I must say that there are some statements, I will not call them arguments, as unanswerable from their absurdity as from their reasoning.

Mr. CLAYTON. I think the honorable gentleman has mistaken my view.

Mr. TOOMBS. No, sir; I took down the Senator's language.

Mr. CLAYTON. What I said was that the success of the American mercantile marine, in the great struggle going on with England since 1850, in virtue of the arrangement made at that time between the two countries, would be, and I endeavored to demonstrate that it would be, a vindication of our own institutions. On that question I am perfectly willing to meet the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. TOOMBS. The British Government have never pressed any such race. They get double the service that we do for the same money that we pay. It is not considered to be a very great advantage to a man if he ties both hands behind him; but that is our position on this question. The British Government get a weekly mail service for the same sum of money for which we get a semi-monthly one. That is under an extravagant monarchy, which we have attempted to get rid of. Why, sir, we have made it the pride of our repub. lican Government, that every man in this country is equal. We have boasted that we have no titles, no monopolies, no bounties, but that every man was free to follow the bent of his own genius as he pleased; that he asked no aid from the Government; that he wished no protection, but simply desired to be let alone. We have said that monarchies give exclusive privileges, exclusive orders, monopolies, restrictions, and bounties, so that they grind labor for the benefit of favorites. Now we are to imitate them in that race; here, to-day, in the American Senate, we are called upon to do it.

We, sir, are giving Mr. Collins twice as much money as England gives Cunard, and it is said that the whole honor of the American nation is concerned in Collins beating Cunard. That is the argument of the Senator from Delaware. No man can dispute that that is the only ground upon which we are called to do this; and yet Cunard performs fifty-two trips a year for less mo. than Collins does twenty-six. That is the officia! statement. I know I have heard it whispered about in the lobbies outside, that there is a great deal of money given by the British Government which nobody ever hears of; but, sir, the responsibility of the institutions of Great Britain is as perfect and accurate, and much more so, than our

own.

No dollar is ever voted out of their Treas ury but by act of Parliament. The proceedings of Parliament are public; they are known; and if the Cunard line get any other money than that which is voted for them, it is surreptitiously got. It may be given by patriotic Englishmen out of tors wish to imitate the example, and take money out of their own pockets, and not go to the Treasury of the Union for the purpose of benefiting Mr. Collins, though I might condemn the act, I should not allude to it, for it would not concern me, as a public man here. What they give is by law; and all the talk of their giving more is for the purpose of deluding and deceiving those who wish to be deluded and deceived-who want pretexts and excuses to do what cannot be vindicated in any argument for the public interests.

Now, sir, I do not think that the proper way to promote American navigation is to give a monopoly to one company, and to provide effectually that nobody else shall run a steamship to Great Britain. I consider the navigation laws, to which the Senator from Delaware has referred, as bad laws; and I believe he does; but under them we retain a rivalry amongst our own countrymen. Here he is taking away that rivalry, and giving to one company $858,000 a year advantage over anybody else who wishes to enter into this race

is the proper way to show it. I have heard a great deal said about British rivalry. I take it that that is an expression used by many honorable gentlemen who have no better argument. When these vessels cannot beat each other in a fair race, but it requires us to pay our vessels double the amount of money which the British Government pay theirs, simply for the advantage of five or ten hours in a trip, I feel that the race has lost all reasons for rejoicing in my mind. I believe it is a rule with racers that, if they run together in an even race, it is a fair business; but if you give your man twice as much money in a mere physical matter which money can command, and you are satisfied with that triumph over the British, I am not. But, sir, the Senator from Delaware imagines that the friends of liberty all over Europe are looking at the expedition of the Collins line over the Cunarders.

Mr. CLAYTON. Not at all.

Mr. TOOMBS. Did not the gentleman say that the friends of liberty in Europe looked to these ships?

Mr. CLAYTON. I referred to the struggle between the two countries, undoubtedly-not in regard to this line particularly, but to the contest which was going on under the arrangement of 1850, for the indirect trade of the world.

Mr. TOOMBS. When you get up the contest for the indirect trade of the world, and open the struggle to everybody, I am with you; but I do not think the proper way to accomplish that is to give a monopoly to the Collins line. I understood the gentleman to say, that the friends of liberty in Europe looked to the speed of these ships. I am perfectly willing, however, to take his explanation in his own words. I know how apt I am to misunderstand others, and to be misunderstood myself; and therefore I take the gentleman's words to be exactly as he states them. Then he says, the friends of liberty in Europe are looking with interest to the struggle between America and England for the trade of the world. Sir, I am willing to go as far as he who furthest goes on that point. In my judgment no policy would be more injurious to the attainment of that result than the one which I have heard advocated by the Senator from Delaware. Sir, I would command the high roads of this continent, but I would not go in copartnership with the British for them. I would take a different mode, and I would command what I could get from the independent sovereignties o this continent, fairly, without sharing it with Eng land, or any other foreign Power.

But how ridiculous is the idea that the whole question of the superiority of American commerce, to which foreigners are now looking with so much interest, is to turn upon whether this Congress shall surrender its power over the Collins line or not. We have the power now to take away a certain portion of their contract, and before God and the country I say that the only question is, whether we shall surrender that power which it is our duty to keep? You may talk about it as much as you please, you may rave about it as much as you please, but that is the real question.

The argument of last night is now abandoned;

the reservation of this power disturbs legislation, that it controls other measures, that perhaps it has had a bad influence on our action. Now, the argument is returning to the naked question, shall we take away from the United States, whom we represent, the power to discontinue the present extravagant compensation if, in the judgment of the honorable men who are to succeed us for the next five years, the owners of this line are not carrying out the contract, and are not maintaining American superiority with fidelity? Shall we at once surrender all the control of the Congress of the United States over this matter, which was reserved by solemn contract when we paid $500,000, and threw it into the hands of E. K. Collins and company? This proposition is not to reduce the pay, to do nothing except to take from the Congress of the United States the power which they now have, of terminating this contract, if, in their judgment, it shall not be faithfully carried

out.

The gentleman from Delaware cannot show one

33D CONG....2D SESS.

reason in the contract for what he has stated. There is no obligation in the contract requiring Collins & Co. to beat the British. That is not in the bond. There is no such stipulation. We are to trust to this company to vindicate the national honor and the national marine, and we are to take away from the American Congress the power to judge independently whether they have or have not done it, and to withdraw the extra compensation. That is the whole question. It is magnified into national honor, national glory, and patriotism; but all these are appeals to the follies of mankind when there is no reason to offer upon so plain and direct a proposition.

Mr. CLAYTON. Mr. President, I certainly do not design to answer that part of the speech of the honorable gentleman from Georgia, which repeated what was stated so often in the debate before, and which was so well and ably answered before I said one word in regard to this measure. The questions he has touched had been sufficiently discussed; and when I rose it was for the purpose of presenting my own peculiar view of the subject, and to say what I believed, that at this time the rivalry between the commercial marine of Great Britain and that of the United States in consequence of President Taylor's acceptance of the British proposition made in 1849, for the free navigation in the indirect trade, was now attracting the attention of the world; that it was a mighty struggle, and I thought it was easily demonstrable that our superiority was owing to our institutions. That superiority has been vindicated since the struggle commenced on the 1st January 1850, and is shown by the fact that we now have more tonnage than Great Britain herself, although, before the freedom of navigation conceded by her repeal of her navigation laws in 1849, she was far ahead of us in this particular. I thought this great consideration was worthy of being taken into view at this time, when we were about to vote on this bill. I said that this measure of protection to the Collins steamers was ancillary to the great American interests in that controversy. I think so still. Nothing which has been said by the honorable Senator from Georgia has induced me to doubt it. Our commercial men gain more speedily and surely commercial information by this means than by any other. I said also that I was unwilling to trust the whole of the mails between Europe and this country in British hands; that I desired it to be in American hands, and that we should compete successfully with them, and beat them with steamers on the ocean as we had done with sailing vessels.

Mail Steamer Appropriation Bill—Debate.

Senator from Georgia has chosen to put those words in my mouth, and to reply to them; but I did say, and I verily believe, and I think any man who will reflect on the subject will concur with me, that the reason why, since Great Britain challenged us to a trial upon the ocean for the indirect trade of the world, we have beaten them in that trial as we never did beat them before, on account of their restrictions upon navigation, is to be found entirely in our republican institutions. I thought so at the time President Taylor agreed to open the ports of the United States to Great Britain, and accept her challenge, and for that reason I advised him to do it. I have been confirmed in it since. What gives us our superiority? Sir, the American captain feels that he is a free man in his own country, and the American merchant feels that he also is a man equal to any here of the same merits in other respects. There is no caste here, thank God! there is no degradation from caste; there is no elevation from titles of nobility; there is no aristocracy here. When the British captain goes into the counting-house of the British merchant, he goes with his hat under his arm, and often looks like a free negro on a Saturday afternoon, in a country store, humbled at the presence of one superior to himself. When the British merchant meets my lord the duke, or my lord the marquis, or the earl, in the street, he doffs his beaver; he is below him; he feels that he is inferior, and there is no equality between them, and there never can exist any equality under their institutions.

But here, sir, the American sailor, the American captain, and the American merchant feels as deep an interest in society as any men among us. It is owing to the republican institutions of our country that the American proves a superior to the British captain when he takes command of a ship. It is owing to the character which our republican institutions confer upon all the men who are engaged in our mercantile marine, and owing to that alone, that the American ship is always in better order and neater trim, and always makes her voyage in a shorter time than the British. It is owing to this that there is more energy displayed by the American who does not, as those on the other side of the water do, often lay-to for a day or two, and go to sleep, while the American, impelled by every consideration which can make life desirable and happy, carries all the sail he can on the voyage, and is never known to strike a topsail while a mast will carry it.

Sir, I know that the patience of the Senate will not allow me now to go at length into this subject; but I say again to the Senator from Georgia, that I attribute the whole superiority which we have exhibited in this great struggle, to this consideration. The world, I think, will inquire why it is that, after the year 1850, when the commercial intercourse between the two nations was fully opened, and all the restrictions on indirect trade between the two countries were taken off, the

that our commercial tonnage now exceeds theirs by more than a hundred thousand tons. Why is it, everybody will ask, and all will be compelled to make the answer, and they can make no other true answer than the one which I have given. Is this not, then, a glorious triumph for our republican institutions?

The honorable Senator, who has entirely misconceived and misrepresented my remarks, has dwelt on the stale charge against the Collins line, that it is a monopoly. Why, sir, would he abolish this and every other line established on the same principle; would he permit Great Britain, which has created-what he calls a monopoly-a monopoly in her behalf, by building up the Cun-American marine went ahead of the British, so ard steamers, and sustaining them constantly by large drafts from her Treasury; would he permit her alone, without competition, to navigate the ocean, and carry the mail for us between Great Britain and this country? I think the Senator from Georgia, himself, on calm reflection, would not agree to that; but he repeats the cry, raised by himself and by others who spoke before him, that this is a monopoly. How? Because we do not give the same sum of money, and the same inducement to others. Monopoly? Why, sir, we must first build up one line that will, at least, compete with the British monopoly; and the question now is, shall the British have the monopoly entirely confined to themselves. That is the true question which is presented to the Senate. When the British Government shall choose to abandon their monopoly, we shall cheerfully agree to leave the competition open to all, or refuse to sustain any one line of steamers in preference to others. He might as well at present raise the cry of monopoly against our Navy, because the privilege of building menof-war is not equally encouraged by the Government, whether men, with or without skill in naval architecture, undertake to build them for us.

Mr. President, I certainly did not intend to say, and I know I did not say, that the question of the superiority of our republican institutions depended upon the Colins line of steamers, although the

I have said that I spoke of the performance of the Collins line in this mighty contest as ancillary to our whole commercial system; and I put it to the honorable Senator, can he not see, and does he not feel that the maintenance of this line is immensely important to us in this view? Our commercial men engaged in this commerce now so deeply, want intelligence at the shortest possible moment, to enable them to maintain the competition. The Senator says the Collins line are not bound to give it to us by their contract, but they have given it to us; and in the fact that they have heretofore given it to us without being bound to do so, we have the best guarantee in the world that they will give it again. I do not entertain any doubt upon the subject. If he does, he may be justifiable in the vote which he gives; but having some acquaintance with the men, I have full confidence that the same pride which has stimulated them heretofore to give us the superiority in speed, will induce them to continue it; and there are not wanting sufficient motives of

[ocr errors][merged small]

|

SENATE.

interest to impel them to the same course. They will feel that when their contract is terminated, if they perform it well, they will be entitled to a favorable consideration from this Government hereafter. They know that they will have forfeited their own self-respect, as well as the respect of Congress, and of this Government, if they fail. They know well the great motives of interest which led us to adopt the course we have taken, and I therefore repeat that I have confidence that we shall have all the benefits we have enjoyed, and even still greater if this bill passes.

-Would the Senator from Georgia, would any other Senator, feel willing now, if there should b a sudden outbreak against us on the part of any European Power, that the whole mail between Europe and the United States should be in the hands of a monopoly, as he calls it, supported by Great Britain? Does the honorable gentleman expect private individuals in this country, without aid from their own Government, to maintain a rivalry with the Cunard line? No one, I venture to say, entertains such an idea; no one can imagine it for a moment. The private fortunes of no gentlemen in this country would permit them to enter successfully into, and maintain, such a rivalry as that. And the question recurs, are you willing now, while there may be at any moment an interruption of the pacific relations between this country and some European nation, to allow all the mail carriage between Europe and the United States to be in foreign hands-in the hands of British monopolists, if you choose to call them so? I would not. The British Government has shown heretofore that it has no hesitation whatever in putting its hands into the British Post Office to read, or even to stop, intelligence which it did not desire to be conveyed, connected with the foreign relations of that country. It has even arrested foreign correspondence. I am not willing to trust to it alone again. No, sir. If a British fleet, or a fleet from any other country, were to start from the shores of Europe, I want the Collins line to bring the intelligence that it is bound here, and that it is expected to attack us. If such a possible case as that should occur, I want an American ship to bring the intelligence; I want men who have American hearts in their bosoms, and who feel as I do, and as I am sure the honorable Senator from Georgia himself does, to have control of the ship that brings it.

I thought it proper to offer these few remarks, because I made the motion to reconsider. Let me say to gentlemen who voted as I did upon the question that I have been impelled to make that motion by a consideration which I cannot resist. My honorable friend from Missouri believed that he had paired off with me. Under such circumstances, it is no question with me whether a contract was really entered into between me and him, but I intend to give him the privilege of recording his vote on this motion, in justice to him, and having done that, I shall vote against the reconsideration in justice to myself.

Mr. GEYER. Mr. President, I rise to make my acknowledgments to my friend from Delaware for affording me an opportunity of recording my vote on this question, in which I have taken much interest. This morning I thought I had paired off with him. I knew myself to be too unwell to remain in the Chamber during the day, and I left it for a few minutes under the impression that I had paired off with him, intending to go to my lodg ings. Before I left the building, however, I was informed that the vote had been taken, to my sur prise, because I had no anticipation that it would be brought up at so early a moment. Coming into the Chamber I learned that the Senator from Delaware cast his vote, under the impression which was, no doubt, made on his mind, that he had not paired off with me. I had made the application, and I interpreted his answer according to my request. I regret very much that in this indulgence afforded to me, the time of the Senate, so very important at this period of the session, should be occupied; and I will not abuse it longer by entering into this debate. I cannot forbear, however, to bring the honorable Senator from Delaware back to the question.

The question is not whether we shall discontinue the effort to outstrip the Cunarders, but whether we shall secure in our own hands, by

33D CONG....2D SESS.

reserving the power to put an end to the contract, the certainty, if it is in the power of these contractors, to maintain the speed at which they have run their vessels. The additional compensation was voted to the Collins line, in 1852, because of their extraordinary performances. We voted them $16,800 per trip more than would have been necessary in order to maintain the speed of the Cunarders. Now, sir, after having voted the money, and having exacted from them terms by which we compel them to maintain the speed, it is proposed that we shall abandon all the security which we have reserved to ourselves for the performance of their engagements.

The honorable Senator from Delaware, in one view of the subject, states the question properly. We are now proposing to place annually in the hands of these contractors $858,000, relying exclusively on their pride, having no other security; for they are not bound to maintain their speed by any contract into which they have entered. They do maintain it only because the $858,000 annually depend upon their performing the service for which that compensation was contemplated. Now let us see how interest will operate against pride. Sir, it is said by Mr. Collins himself that the cost of the superior speed of the Collins over the Cunard line is $16,800 the voyage in and out, and the difference between making New York instead of Boston the end of the voyage, costs the Collins line $9,810. We have voted, and cannot now get rid of it, a bounty, a discrimination in favor of New York against Boston of $9,810 multiplied twenty-six times in the year. That we cannot get rid of, nor can the owners of the Collins line, for they must make New York their terminus. But, sir, reject the amendment proposed by the Committee on Finance, and then where is your security? You present a temptation for them not to excel the Cunard time, to the amount of $16,800 per trip, or $436,800 per annum. Whenever you withdraw your power to coerce the performance of the speed which is required now, and has been performed heretofore, you present an interest equal to $436,800 per annum to weigh against the pride of beating the Cunarders, and in the five years it amounts to $2,184,000.

Now I put it to the honorable Senator from Delaware, whether, in his private transactions, he would be willing to entrust an amount of money equal to that, in the hands of any man, or present a temptation to him, relying exclusively upon his pride to fulfill his engagements. Sir, I think I hazard nothing in predicting, that while Mr. Collins may have an interest in this line, something like a show of the performance heretofore, will be kept up; but it may pass into other hands, and I do not want to present, even to him, the temptation of $436,800 a year to violate what we have a right to insist upon under the appropriation of 1852, as part of our contract according to the terms of that act. I should be perfectly willing to repeal that proviso if stipulations were required that would compel them to perform the service in the time which Congress had in view when that appropriation was voted. Until that is done I cannot consent that they shall be trusted to the whole amount of the appropriation annually, and rely exclusively on their pride.

Mr. PEARCE. I wish simply to state, that on this question I have paired off with the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Foor.]

The question being taken by yeas and nays upon the motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the amendment of the Committee on Finance, resulted-yeas 24, nays 24; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Chase, Clay, Dawson, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Sebastian, Slidell, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, and Wells-24.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Brainerd, Bright, Clayton, Cooper, Douglas, Gillette, Gwin,

James, Jones of lowa, Pettit, Rusk, Seward, Shields, and Wright-24.

Stuart, Sumner, Thomson of New Jersey, Walker, Weller,

So the motion to reconsider was not agreed to. The bill was then ordered to a third reading, and read the third time, and the question being "Shall it pass ?''

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 26, nays 22; as follows:

Territorial Policy-Mr. Goodwin.

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Brainerd, Bright, Brown, Cass, Clayton, Cooper, Douglas, Gillette, Gwin, James, Jones of lowa, Pettit, Rusk, Seward, Shields, Stuart, Sumner, Thomson of New Jersey, Walker, Weller, and Wright-26.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Brodhead, Butler, Chase, Clay, Dawson, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Sebastian, Slidell, Toombs, Toucey, Wade, and Wells-22. So the bill was passed.

TERRITORIAL POLICY.

SPEECH OF HON. H. C. GOODWIN, OF NEW YORK,

HO. OF REPS.

treat with disrespect the opinions and prejudices of others, yet I believe it to be the solemn duty of the Representatives of the free States to speak out boldly and firmly, giving true, free, and adequate utterance to the deep feeling and earnest convictions that so universally pervade the northern mind in regard to the subject of the encroachments and extension of slavery. The action and measures of the Government for the last quarter of a century, the startling realities of the present, and those "coming events" that "cast their shadow before," imperatively require it, every consideration of public welfare and real patriotism demand it, and however the sentiments I feel impelled to express may be here received, and whatever of disapprobation and censure I may here incur by their utterance, yet, following in the clear pathway of duty, indicated by the dictates of my conscience and the convictions of my judgment, sustained by the knowledge that I am only giving expression to the almost unanimous views and Mr. CHAIRMAN: I have given the necessary noopinions of an intelligent and patriotic constitutice, and have sought, and shall still seek, on the ency, I shall be content to await patiently the first proper occasion, to introduce a bill prohibit-popular verdict, confident that, so surely as truth ing slavery in the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and forbidding its introduction or establishment in any Territory of the United States. On this subject of the policy which should be

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
February 27, 1855.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. GOODWIN said:

adopted by the General Government in relation to the vast territorial possessions-organized and unorganized-of the United States, sufficient to constitute of themselves an empire, exceeding in limits the broad domains over which Rome, in the palmiest days of her power, reigned as the imperial mistress of nations, I desire to offer a few remarks, and involving, as whatever policy that may be permanently adopted, most vital principles and divine truth, that underlie the deep foundations of our civil superstructure; forming that solid granite strata on which rests the very pillars of our national greatness and success; giving birth to influences that are not to be confined within the narrow boundaries of the present, but reaching far into the future, will, with irresistible power, impress their character upon, and, as I firmly believe, control the destinies of our country. I trust I may be enabled to approach its consideration animated by that spirit of unselfish patriotism which regards the interests and welfare of the whole Union-that love of truth, humanity, and moral right which should always inspire an American Representative in the discharge of his duties.

will triumph, the lessons of the past and the teachings of the future will vindicate the wisdom and rightfulness of the policy I advocate.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot concur with the sentiments expressed on this floor by the distinguished member from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] and others, that all attempts to restore the clause of the Missouri compromise, which prohibits slavery in the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, will prove unavailing; that further resistance and agitation should cease, and that the discussion of this question is now untimely and useless. There are many reasons, and, to my mind, convincing and unanswerable ones, why this contest should be maintained by the friends of freedom with all the vigor, spirit, and determination that a just and sacred cause can inspire; considerations that render the continued agitation and discussion of the policy of excluding slavery, not only from these, but from all the Territories of the Union, eminently meet and proper. It is well known, sir, that during the last session of Congress, when, unexpectedly and without warning, the bold proposition to repeal the Missouri compromise, to abrogate the "ordinance of freedom," in its application to these Territories, was forced upon the attention of this body, the proceeding was regarded by the whole country with utter surprise and astonishment. So far from its having been demanded by any expression of Before entering upon the threshold of this the public will, even the South had not asked it; discussion-for so unlimited is the field it opens no voice from any part of the country, either and inexhaustible the theme it presents, that, in through the medium of the press, petitions, or the brief hour allotted me, I can hardly hope to public assemblies, had asked it; it had never been do more-it is perhaps proper for me to remark made an issue, nor discussed before the people; not that I am fully conscious of the embarrassments a vote had been cast, nor a Representative elected which surround me; for, in addition to my own in reference to it. This measure, of the greatest inexperience, and the disfavor and impatience practical importance, working an entire change in with which the agitation of these questions are by the policy of the Government, ruthlessly overmany here received and listened to, I cannot but throwing the barriers erected by the wisdom and feel deeply sensible of the wide disparity and patriotism of the past to stay the progress of marked contrast that must be exhibited between slavery, and yielding up, in violation of public any efforts of my own and those of my distin- honor and faith, (so far as the legislation of Conguished predecessor on this floor. Here, with gress could do it,) to that now dangerously powerful his prowess and triumphs as an orator, and abili-institution, territory, rivalling in resources, ferties as a man, fresh in your recollections, I shall not, I am sure, be charged with indulging in the language of eulogy, or unmeaning compliment, when I say that his attractive and commanding eloquence, his high intellectual endowments and mental culture, have given him a position rarely attained in the arena of forensic effort; while the fascination of his social powers, his expansive benevolence and Christian philanthropy could not but win the regard and compel the respect of the members of this honorable body. And although I cannot hope to command the attention, nor receive the consideration so deservedly accorded to his superior eloquence and ability, I shall proceed, with the permission of the committee, to express briefly my views in relation to these questions, in the rightful settlement of which all sections of the country are alike deeply interested, and in so doing fearlessly; for while it is far from my desire to I shall offer no apology for speaking plainly and awaken bitterness of feeling, to renew any unnecessary strife, or wantonly wound the sensibilities, or *Hon. Gerrit Smith.

tility, and extent, the original States of this Union, was thus suddenly, and in a period of profound quiet, thrust upon the country. Its advocates, as if fearful-nay, conscious-of the result, refused to submit it to the people, and await their judgment, the issue was arbitrarily withheld from that high tribunal wherein is vested the real sovereignty of the land; and while there existed no color of necessity for immediate action, this legislation, unauthorized by the people, and involving their interests and welfare to an extent beyond the power of human judgment to measure, was hurriedly consummated. Its introduction and agitation created a degree of feeling, anxiety, and excitement rarely paralleled in our political annals. The press and the pulpit, institutions of learning, religious associations, the people in primary assemblies, and the Legislatures of sovereign States uttered their solemn protests. From commercial emporiums and inland cities, the numerous villages and settlements of the North, the East, and the West, came earnest voices of expostulation, remonstrance, and stern rebuke; the awakened. masses petitioned Congress against the adoption of

33D CONG....2D SESS.

a policy that would place "free territory" at the mercy of an institution whose character is written in the fearful wrongs, the ruin, and desolation it has wrought; and when, in the face of these overwhelming popular demonstrations, in defiance and contempt of the public will, this measure, sustained and pressed by the strong arm of Executive power and patronage, aided by the votes of Representatives who had closed their ears to the entreaties and mandates of those who clothed them with "brief authority," was forced through the Halls of legislation by trampling upon the ordinary rules and correct principles of legislation, its final consummation caused the quick-pulsed billows of indignation to rush up from the depths, and surge over the troubled and heaving surface of the great deep of public sentiment, foreshadowing the gathering and breaking of that tempest which has since swept with resistless force over the face of the free States, burying in graves that know no political resurrection those who, although from the free North, yet had disregarded her convictions, sympathies, and conscience-who were deaf to the voices of freedom, justice, and humanity.

Sir, since the passage of this bill-since this policy which aims to strike down liberty in her own sanctuary, and raise up slavery, has become a law-the people have spoken in the manner provided to give form and authority to the expression of their will-through the ballot-box. Elections have been held in twelve of the States of this Union, containing a large proportion of the population of the whole country; the issue was distinctly made before the people; and most emphatic and conclusive is the verdict of condemnation they have rendered every where the supporters of this measure were utterly overthrown and prostrated. The results have broken the power and paralyzed the strength and influence of the Administration. The immense patronage of the Executive is insufficient to redeem proffered pledges to supply with "lucrative places," and thus quarter upon the people the long list of the wounded and disabled who have fallen in this conflict, under the withering ban of the people's disapprobation. Already one hundred and seventeen Representatives, pledged to restore the prohibitions of slavery, have been returned to Congress. The senatorial elections, thus far, have achieved glorious triumphs for freedom. The Legislatures of Illinois and Michigan, States, in times past, distinguished for their subserviency to the slave power, have passed resolutions censuring the action of their Senators, and instructing them to vote for the restoration of the Missouri compromise. I thus hastily refer to these subsequent results that now form a part of the history of this eventful transaction, to show that, if the people had not been misrepresented and betrayed, this infraction of a solemn and time-honored covenant, this high-handed outrage on the rights of the North and the cause of freedom, could never have been accomplished.

Sir, the theory of our representative Government requires that these clear indications and expressions of the popular will should be here fully understood, considered, and respected; those clothed with executive or legislative authority should realize in their action that they are not the masters but the servants of the people; that it is not the part of Government to environ public sentiment with metes and bounds, to bid its strong tides to ebb and flow at its behests. The attempt is as vain and fruitless as that of Canute to sway the trident of Neptune, and speak the advancing waves back to their ocean bed. It is idle for members here to insist on silent acquiescence and shameful submission. The people have demanded that Congress should reconsider its legislation, undo this great wrong, and restore to freedom the fair heritage torn from her grasp by fraud and injustice. New England, with that staunch firmness and alacrity that partakes of the spirit of her pilgrim founders and her revolutionary battle-fields, has demanded it. The States of the great West-those Titans of the prairies, the youthful, but vigorous, offsprin of the blessed ordinance of 1787-have demanded it. Redeemed Iowa, the only free child of the Louisiana purchase, Pennsylvania, and the Empire State, with a voice fitly symbolized by the thunders of her own Niagara, have demanded it. These potent responses of the people forbid a cessation of agitation and

Territorial Policy-Mr. Goodwin.

discussion; they urge Congress, with voices that may not be unheeded, to return to the pathways wherein are discernable the foot-prints of the early fathers of the Republic, and which are thickly studded with the land-marks erected by their wisdom and patriotism.

Mr. WITTE. I wish to ask the member from New York a question. Did I understand the gentleman to say that the voice of Pennsylvania has demanded the restoration of the Missouri compromise?

Mr. GOODWIN. I so regard it.

Mr. WITTE. I beg to say that the member from New York does not understand the estimation in which the people of Pennsylvania regard it. It has not so spoken. I say so in their

name.

Mr. GOODWIN. Are not the majority of her Representatives elected to the next Congress in favor of the restoration of the Missouri compromise so far as to exclude slavery from these Territories?

Mr. WITTE. If a majority of the Representatives of Pennsylvania in the next Congress are in favor of the compromise, they do not represent the majority of the State.

Mr. GOODWIN. I would rather take the decision of the people of that State, as pronounced by her electors, than the opinion of any man.

Mr. HENN. As the gentleman has included Iowa in that sweeping charge, I wish to say to the gentleman that my successor is as strong a Nebraska man as ever was in this House, and he was elected upon that issue.

Mr. GOODWIN. Can you say that of Mr. Harlan, the Senator elect?

Mr. HENN. No, sir; I refer to Mr. Hall. And I will say to the gentleman from New York, that no senatorial election has taken place in Iowa constitutionally.

Mr. GOODWIN. How do the Representatives from Iowa stand in the next Congress? Mr. HENN. Just as this does.

Mr. GOODWIN. What was the result of the election for members of her Legislature in regard to that question?

Mr. HENN. I will say to the gentleman, that the House of Representatives of Iowa passed anti-Nebraska resolutions, and the Senate indorsed the Baltimore platform.

Mr. GOODWIN. What are the views of the Senator elect, and of the Governor, who canvassed the State upon that direct issue?

Mr. HENN. He was elected on the Maine quor law, as much as on any other ism.

Mr. GOODWIN. Then, sir, anti-Nebraska and anti-liquor were joined together. They go well in company.

Mr. Chairman, I need not refer further to the results in these States. There, as in the State of New York, other issues may have entered somewhat into the canvass, but it is folly to attempt to conceal the great fact that it was the annulling of the slavery restrictions of 1820, and the violation of the spirit of those of 1787, to which circumstances had given the sanctity of constitutional enactments, that so deeply stirred the public mind, and mainly produced the decisive and overwhelming results the country has witnessed, of the Empire State and the verdict of her people. I can speak with full knowledge and authority, for I am from them and of them. I have felt the throbbings of the popular pulse. There is no mistaking her utterances, sir. A high sense of honor, a just appreciation of the dignity and sacredness of human rights, an irrepressible sympathy for the weak and wronged, and an inherent abhorrence of oppression in all of its forms, are sentiments inseparably intertwined with the very fibers of her great heart, its every life-beat is for freedom and against slavery; upon this issue she is on the side of justice, humanity, and good faith, and she has responded to the voices of her sister States as "deep calleth unto deep." And here, sir, let me say to the honorable member from North Carolina, [Mr. RUFFIN,] who has this evening spoken in terms of disparagement and derision of the North and of the State of New York, and ridiculed and

sneered at their abhorrence of the institution of slavery, which he declared to be "the greatest of political, social, and moral blessings," that in these vain attacks he but wastes his breath, and

Ho. OF REPS.

exhausts to no purpose the "stores of his rhetoric," and the "brilliants" of his fancy. From such impotent attacks New York needs no defense; she pleads her own cause; "there she stands" in her colossal greatness and massive strength, with that proud and expressive motto, "Excelsior," emblazoned on her front, by the general consent of her sister Sovereignties, in reality, as in name, the Empire State of this glorious Union. With her inexhaustible resources that are being steadily developed, her immense population and great wealth, earned by honest industry and free labor, with her vast commerce, her cities and villages, her system of common schools, and her great works of internal improvements, she challenges the respect and admiration of the world. Sir, as one of her humblest sons, I love to dwell upon the State of New York. While Egypt can boast of her grand and gigantic pyramids, Rome of her coliseum, her lofty domes and towers, and Greece of her graceful columns, and the beauty of her ruined fanes and temples-works that display the perfection of art and the power of genius, New York can point with just pride to her free schools, to her system of internal improvements, with its hundreds of miles of railroads and canals, the grand highways of commerce, trade, and travel; links that bind the prairies of the West to the shores of the Atlantic; works of real utility and practical beneficence that stand forth eloquent and impressive monuments of the wisdom and foresight, the energy and enterprise of her citizens. Sir, people educated in her schools, and reared under these influences, can never sanction the extension of slavery and the limitation of freedom.

Mr. Chairman, other recent developments require that this question should receive the renewed attention of Congress. It will be remembered that when this proposition was under consideration, its advocates, both in the Senate and in this House, insisted that those who were pleading for good faith, who stood up to the last against the consummation of this odious measure, were battling for a mere abstraction, that this was but the assertion of a principle, and that, so far as slavery was concerned, no practical effects could flow from it; that Nature's statutes, the soil and climate, shielded Kansas and Nebraska from the inroads of slavery-this was vociferously proclaimed to the whole country.

Senator BADGER, of North Carolina, said:

"I have no more idea of seeing a slave population in either Kansas or Nebraska than I have of seeing it in Massachusetts-not a whit."

Senator BUTLER, of South Carolina, said: "It is certain that Kansas and Nebraska will never be slaveholding States."

Senator EVERETT, of Massachusetts, said: "I am quite sure everybody admits that this is not to be a slaveholding region."

Many others of both Houses expressed the same views. Representatives from the free States who gave it their support, as if in the condition of those on whom the malediction of the Scriptures had fallen: "Having eyes, yet they would not see, and ears, yet would not hear;" insensible to the signs of the times, and not realizing that there could be a North, seized upon this pretext as an excuse for, and a justification of, their actions. What has been the result? But a brief period has elapsed, and the disguise is now unblushingly thrown off, and the purpose of making Kansas a slave State is openly avowed. It is declared that this was the issue there made, at the late election of a Delegate to represent that Territory in Congress, and slavery is yet exultant over the triumph there achieved.

Sir, the scenes attendant upon that election illustrate the arrogant and aggressive spirit of this institution-its defiance of all "law and order." Armed bands of men from the neighboring slave State of Missouri flocked in great numbers to this Territory, and, at many of the precincts, surrounded the polls, overawed the inhabitants, cast their ballots, and usurped the rights of the citizens of Kansas, and thus, without the color or pretense of being residents of the Territory, controlled and impressed upon its first election the seal of proslaveryism.

And now, communications and addresses are paraded in the public prints to show that slavery will thrive and prosper in Kansas; that its soil

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »