33D CONG....2D SESS.

order those epithets bestowed upon the action of the New York council by the Brooklyn brethren, "ANTI-AMERICAN," "ANTI-REPUBLICAN,' "MOST UNWARRANTABLE, ABOMINABLE, and DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION of DESPOTIC POWER," in its "CONFESSIONAL, PENANCE, and THREATS of EXCOMMUNICATION, only equaled by the holy INQUISITION OF SPAIN, and only worthy of imitation by the GRAND COUNCIL OF CARDINALS AT ROME."

I can but believe that the Brooklyn insurgents have used language which the deliberate judgment of the American people will adopt as their opinion of the character, the purposes, and the merits of the order, and this opinion will soon be both verdict and epitaph

Were there no cause for the dissolution of the order in its principles, the discordant materials which compose it would soon precipitate its destruction. The ultra men already elected, agreeing in nothing but hostility to the South, to aliens, and to Catholics, can harmonize in no course of action, foreign or domestic, unless by the happening of a Whig majority in Congress, the tariff should be altered to suit the protectionist theory, or some other doctrine of that party be embodied in a law. If this order takes hold in the South, it will surprise both friends and opponents. It will be a matter of wonder why that section, suffering none of the hardships which are plead as an excuse for the order in the North, and from her institutions peculiarly averse to secret and irresponsible associations, should discard a long history of

triumphant through that section, and reinstate their old principles, and their true men. Is it wiser for the South to trust this new organization, for the just interpretation of the Constitution, on which her rights, and those of the whole Union, depend, or that old party which, even when defeated by desperate factions, has always possessed a large body of faithful men, and who are now in a minority only because they are devoted to the Constitution and the rights of the States?

HO. OF REPS.

the House. I desire only to meet some of the objections which doubtless induced gentlemen to vote against the proposition at the time when it was first moved.

It is said, in the first place, by objectors, to be an intervention on our part with the affairs of foreign Governments. If it be intervention, it is precisely such intervention as this Government has practiced from its foundation. Every Minister sent abroad is sent to influence the action of some foreign Government, and to induce it so to regulate its action as to benefit, and not injure us. In point of fact, we have ourselves had several instances of mediation submitted to us, which we have accepted, thereby admitting that it was not such intervention as gentlemen would now exclude us from offering to foreign Governments. Our Ministers are instructed to interfere with the action of foreign Governments, so far as it may

PEACE MEDIATION.

OF NORTH CAROLINA,

expected to look to the internal action of any Governinent, but merely to its external relations, because in these latter we ourselves have an interest. For example, if the Emperor of Russia should deprive us of the trade of the ports of the Black Sea, or Baltic, our Minister, Mr. Seymour, would be instructed to remonstrate against it. If that interruption should arise from a conflict between Russia and some other Power, why then we might appeal to both of the belligerent parties. In this particular instance, our trade is interrupted in those seas by the existing war, and our Government has a right to relieve us from such an

In a crisis like the present, it becomes the Democratic party to remain steadfast to its old principles. In the " Act for establishing religious freedom," adopted in Virginia, in 1786, and originating in the benevolent mind of Mr. Jefferson, it was enacted that,

"No man shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened, in his body or goods, nor shall he otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument, to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same SHALL IN NOWISE DIMINISH, ENLARGE, OR AFFECT THEIR CIVIL CAPACITIES."

On this tolerant principle the Democratic party, through all the variety of disaster and success, has stood from that day to this. It has been the guardian of every civil and political right, of every individual, and of every section. No error has been too gigantic for its assault, no right too insignificant for its protection. When the rights of the States were in peril during the Federal administration of the elder Adams, it was the champion of our faith, Mr. Jefferson, who was foremost in their defense, resting their security upon principles as wise and venerable as the Constitution itself, and triumphantly sustained by the Democratic party. It was during his administration that the alien and sedition laws," so violative of personal right, were effaced from the statute-book by the votes of the same Democratic party which it is now attempted to seduce into heresies more abominable than those which it then abolished. This new ism is the old "alien law," under a thin disguise; and these two, with "Native Americanism," are bodies into which the old unlaid spirit of Federalism has insinuated itself, hoping, under these forms, to obtain a favor which was always denied it when recognized. It is like Petruchio's nether wedding garment, "a thrice-turned pair of old breeches," betraying the nakedness it was intended to conceal.

The integrity and respectability of the Democratic party have been sustained by adhering to the great constitutional doctrines which it incul. cated, and refusing under all circumstances, to ally itself with the temporary isms, which the Whig party has so readily affiliated with, and which have resulted in its corruption, and almost in its destruction. Though defeated at the North, in the late elections, those who stood by their principles through that arduous struggle, are men whose devotion to truth is beyond suspicion, and who, aided by a few thousand of their old friends, whom the excitement and the deceptions of the hour have misled, will soon bear the ancient flag

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 3, 1855.

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

Mr. CLINGMAN said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the attention of the

committee, not to the subject upon which my friend from South Carolina [Mr. KEITT] has so eloquently addressed the committee, for I should not like to attempt to glean in a field which he has reaped so carefully, but to another question which has some intrinsic merits, and which I hope to be able to present in the interval that will elapse prior to the usual time of adjournment.

It will be recollected that, at an early day of this session, I offered a proposition, suggesting the propriety of this Government offering its mediation to the belligerent Powers of Europe. The following is the proposition, as modified by me: A Joint Resolution requesting the President to tender the mediation of the United States to the Powers engaged in the Eastern war.

Whereas, the people of the United States see, with regret, that several of the great Powers of Europe are engaged in a war which threatens to be of long duration, and disas trous in its consequences to the industrial and social interests of a large portion of the civilized world; and being, under the favor of Providence, in the full enjoyment of the blessings of peace, distant from the theater of conflict, disconnected with the causes of quarrel between the parties belligerent, and, as a nation, having no immediate interest in the contest, and no purpose to interfere, forcibly or in au unwelcome manner, nevertheless are of opinion that the controversy may be susceptible of pacific adjustment, through the interposition of a neutral and friendly Power: Therefore

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That we would view with satisfaction a tender to the belligerents of the mediation of the United States, provided it should be in accordance with the President's views of the public interests.

My object at that time was simply to get the subject before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am known to be a member, leaving it to the discretion of that committee to act upon it as to them might seem best. Since then, there has been a great deal of comment upon that subject by the press generally. The proposition has been assailed in some quarters, and defended with ability in others. The course of remark has been such, that I desire to make a short explanation of my views in relation to this subject, and of the reasons which governed me in making the move

A gentleman over the way said, the other day, when I first brought up_this_proposition, that he hoped that the war between Russia and the allied Powers would continue for fifty years. I take it for granted that he did not express this benevolent wish [a laugh] from any opinion that it was advantageous to the parties engaged in it; but he must have made the remark to carry the impression that the United States would derive some advantage from it. It will be conceded, on all hands, that it will give us no glory and no addi-, tional territory. If we are to be benefited, therefore, it must be in a pecuniary point of view, either by increasing our exports, that is to say, exhancing the value of what we have to sell, or 'diminishing the price of what we have to import or purchase.

Let us examine this matter briefly, at the outset of the argument, first with reference to what we have to sell.

Our principal article of export is cotton; and now, in the face of two short crops, it is down to less than eight cents. My own opinion is, and I say it with deference to the opinions of other gentlemen, that but for the war, cotton would probably be now worth eleven or twelve cents, as it was in 1850 and 1851. I say so, because the recent supplies do not, I think, bear a greater ratio to the present demand of the world than did the crops in the years referred to. If so, the loss on this article alone, will make a difference of at least forty millions of dollars in the value of our exports; and, in point of fact, I have no doubt that the war makes a difference of twenty-five to forty millions in this respect alone, besides losses in tobacco and other articles. Gentlemen will say to me, perhaps, that breadstuffs are increasing in value, but they forget that the drought of last year so destroyed the crops in most of the graingrowing States, that we shall have nothing to spare for the next twelve months. We have then to take the chances of deriving an advantage two years hence; if we should then happen to have produce to sell, as a set off to the large and heavy losses that are falling on us.

But, in point of fact, it is the ability of Europe to purchase that determines the demand for and price of breadstuffs. I took occasion some years ago to examine the reports made by committees of the British Parliament in relation to the condition of the laboring population of England. It appeared that during periods of distress and famine the laboring classes were compelled to give up in succession, as the pressure increased, such articlesas were not indispensable; and that, for example, they first gave up sugar, then meat, after using it for a time only once a week, then bread, and finally they relied upon the potato alone. It appeared,

33D CONG....2D Sess.

make Russia stronger now than she would be with the whole Turkish empire annexed, without these facilities. I take it for granted that a sagacious ruler, like the Czar, would rather improve the condition of his country, in this respect, than prolong such a war. Great Britain is- just the reverse of Russia in this respect; and by reason of her compactness, insular position, and maritime supremacy, she is a formidable antagonist to any country under the sun, having one league of

sea coast.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that there were some mistakes made originally. I think it highly probable that the parties took the successive steps that led them into this war without foreseeing where they would carry them. The Emperor of Russia may not have expected such an alliance when he took possession of the Principalities, and the Allies probably thought he would recede when they made their demonstration. But, sir, they have now placed themselves in a position where neither can well make the first move towards a settlement, without a sacrifice of pride, and perhaps of prestige. Their condition is well described by Vattel, in a few sentences, which 1 will read to the committee. He says:

"Two nations, though equally weary of war, often coninue it merely from the fear of making the first advances to an accommodation, as these might be imputed to weakness, or they persist in it from animosity, aud against their own interests. Then common friends effectually interpose, offering themselves as mediators. And there cannot be a more beneficent office than that of reconciling two nations at war, and thus putting a stop to the effusion of blood. This is an indispensable duty to those who are possessed of the means of suceeding in it."

nical Governments have been put down there, the cause of civil liberty has not advanced. Nor has it in the South American States; nor in the world generally, during hostile struggles. What I mean to say is, not that war may not be sometimes necessary to protect liberty, but I affirm that liberty does not usually spring out of war; that where you have one case of that kind, I can point to a hundred of a contrary tendency. Looking, therefore, simply to the interest, of the masses of Europe, I would rather have peace than war. In peace you have the railroad and telegraph and the newspaper. Every newspaper, and letter, and message is an atom thrown on the side of liberty. You will find that as men become wealthier they will become more intelligent and more tenacious of their political and personal rights.

These views, Mr. Chairman, accord with our own political system. We have the smallest army and navy of any of the great nations, and our policy has been that of peace, in the main, from the days of Washington. There are, too, passages in our own history, which render it imper

Ho. OF REPS.

turned against each other. It was a noble intervention, and -a just return for the good work of the Emperor Alexander in offering his mediation between the United States and Great Britain-good works these peace mediations, and as nearly divine as humanity can reach ;-worthy of all praises of long rememberance, and continual imnation;-the more so in this case of the British mediation when the event to be prevented would have been so favorable to British inters ests-would have thrown the commerce of the United States and of France into her hands, and enriched her at the expense of both. Happily the progress of the age which, in cultivating good will among nations, elevates great Powers above all selfishness, and permits no unfriendly recollection-no selfish calculation-to baik the impulsions of a noble philanthropy.

These, Mr. Chairman, are just and noble sentiments in themselves, and concisely and handsomely expressed. Andrew Jackson, then at the head of our Government, was not a man likely to succumb to an adversary, or to admit improper interference from a foreign quarter. Nor did any man in these Halls, or in the country, censure his acceptance of the mediation. Every one knew that that iron will, before which the veteran columns of England were broken to pieces at New Orleans, would have been not less strikingly exhibited in defense of any right that could claim the protection of our flag.

A VOICE. "Who is it?"

These sentences, Mr. Chairman, express fully what I would say on this point. But if the contest be not terminated now, it must soon become a general European war. It will next year probably get into Germany and Italy, and be more destructive than the wars of Napoleon, because the means of aggression and destruction are greater at this time than they were in his day. When the tri-colored flag is on the Danube, or the Vistula, the impetuous glory-loving Frenchman will have brought back vividly the recollections of Marengo, and Jena, and Austerlitz, and Wagram. All Europe will be in a blaze, and the war will fall with destructive and crushing force on the industrial and lower classes, who, in such times,relieve France from danger or difficulty. are always the greatest sufferers.

one

There are some who look with hope and pleasure to this condition of things. They say that the Governments will be overthrown, and the cause of liberty advanced. I have no doubt but that some of the existing Governments will be put down, but I do not concur in the opinion that republicanism will gain. You may see tyrannical Government overthrown, and another, stronger and more tyrannical, erected in its stead. The only liberty which is worth preserving, is that which is founded upon law. And from the days of Julius Cæsar down to the present time, "arms and laws have not flourished together." On the contrary, during military struggles, despotism raises its head and dominates over the land amidst the clangor of arms. To protect life and property, power must be given to the existing Governments. The greater the perils which surround them, the higher the powers with which they must be invested. Men will submit to any exactions, therefore, to support vast military armaments. But let there be peace and security, and these very armaments, being no longer necessary to the safety of the State, soon become intolerable and will be discarded.

It is, (said Mr. CLINGMAN, Continuing,) he whose grandsire is pictured on that tapestry, (pointing to the full length portrait of the Marquis de Lafayette, on the left of the Speaker) When we remember the past, made vivid by the sight of that picture and this living representative, is there one who can doubt but that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to France. While I would not pretend that we ought, under the circumstances, to take part, by force, on her side, I nevertheless maintain that we are under the highest obligations to do everything consistently with our own interest, to

At a later period in our history, when we were at war with England, in 1812, Russia tendered her mediation. That mediation was, in the language of Mr. Monroe, the Secretary of State, "willingly accepted" by our Government. Great Britain declined it, but subsequently, and after she had triumphed over her great adversary in Europe, and was prepared to turn all her forces against the United States, and thus give the war a much more serious and formidable character, it is well known that the interference of Alexander of Russia contributed, in a powerful manner, towards the pacification which took place. Russia, too, it appears, then, has strong claims to any good offices we can render her.

Still later in our progress as a nation there is an incident, and a precedent more striking and conclusive in its character. In 1835, when this Government, under the administration of General Jackson was in imminent danger of being involved in war with France, Great Britain tendered her mediation. It was accepted, both by us and by the King of France, and a pacification between the two Governments was the result. Upon this point I cannot do better than to read a few sentences from the work of the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON.] After alluding to the state of things which then existed-the exhaustion of negotiations and the preparatory armaments on both sides, he refers to the fact that General Jackson sent in a message to Congress, announcing his acceptance of the mediation, and uses the following language:

Sir, the history of modern Europe sustains this position. It was after a period of peace that the first French revolution exhibited itself, and at the close of the long and desolating wars to which it gave rise-I mean when the Congress of Vienna sat-liberty lay low all over Europe. It was after a long period of peace that the revolution of 1830 shook down the French monarchy, and extended its vibrations into distant Poland. It was after another long period of peace that the revolutiona of 1848 blazed out in France, illuminating Lombardy, Italy, and Hungary, until its light was dimmed and extinguished by the smoke of battle.

Sir, our neighbor, Mexico, has had war enough in the last fifty years to have made her people the freest on earth, and yet, though many tyran

"In communicating the offer of the British mediation the President expressed his bigh appreciation of the elevated and di-in'erested notives of that offer.' The motives one of those noble spectacles in the conduct of nations on were, in fact, both elevated and disinterested; and presents which history loves to dwell. France and the United States had fought together against Great Britain; now Great Britain steps between France and the United States to prevent them from fighting each other. George toe Third received the combined attacks of French and Americans; his son, William the Fourth, interposes to prevent their arms from being

we fold our arms, and coolly look on, while our former friends are struggling in the midst of perils? Above all, shall we refuse to act because we hope to take benefits from their misfortunes? Is a great Government like ours to occupy the position ef the wrecker, who stands upon the sea-beach during the storm, praying that navies may be stranded, that he may seize upon the floating fragments? Shall we imitate the kite and the vulture that follow armies to prey upon the slain, or the sharks that collect around the sinking ship to devour the drowning inmates? If any gentleman here has such feelings, I envy him not their enjoyment.

If we were, as a nation, too feeble to protect ourselves, we might, upon the plea of necessity, justify being thus contemptible. We might then have an excuse for wishing that others might be crippled lest they should hurt us. But while in a war with any great maritime Power our commerce would seriously suffer, there is no nation in less danger of conquest or mutilation. We can, therefore, afford to be just and honorable, yea, even magnanimous.

There is another reason, Mr. Chairman, which operates with great force on my mind as an argument for my proposition. The impression prevails in Europe, or, at all events, has been sought to be created there, that we are a grasping and a rapacious people. I do not, for a moment, admit the justice of this charge against us. On the contrary, I think the United States have shown, from their earliest history, a commendable moderation. I recollect very well being, told by a gentlenian who had just returned from Europe, whilst the Texas annexation was pending, that the veteran statesman Metternich said to him, there was not a Government in Europe that would have hesitated a moment to take Texas on the terms on which she offered herself. In fact, while England has been taking kingdom after kingdom in Asia, and France has been extending her conquests over Africa, and the other European Governments have been taking all the territory they could acquire without peril to themselves, we may well challenge a comparison with them.

I may say, further, in order that no gentleman may misunderstand the feelings with which I make these remarks, that I belong to what is called the party of progress, or to Young America. I am in favor of the acquisition of territory under proper circumstances. Nevertheless, while I entertain these opinions, and believe that injustice has been done to our country abroad, it is impossible to conceal the fact that the impression prevails in Europe that we desire this war to continue, in order that we may get an opportunity to seize upon our neighbor's territory. Now, by making this movement we shall truthfully, and at the same time, gracefully remove any such impression. Besides, sir, it would be a declaration of neutrality in the most emphatic form. It would not only be a declaration that our Government

33D CONG....2D SESS.

intended to stand neutral, but that it did not desire that the war should continue to the injury of the parties themselves. If the movement were to be successful-if we were to be instrumental in relieving these belligerents from their present difficulties, it would give us the greatest consideration, not only with the Governments, but also with the masses of the people.

I maintain that if our country and its Government becomes popular with the people of Great Britain and France, and with the other nations of Europe, the monarchs would not like to quarrel with us in opposition to the wishes of their subjects. But where there is ill-feeling between countries, a single spark will sometimes light the flames of war.

I have, Mr. Chairman, discussed this question mainly upon the narrow ground of our interests as a nation. This, however, is not the mode to do full justice to the subject. To do this will require a much wider range of thought and investigation. Independently of all calculations of interest, considerations of humanity rise up and force themselves upon the mind. The earth was given to man for his dominion and control. But it is only in our times that men are beginning to assert that right in its full extent. I do not mean to say that in former ages men have not been spread over the earth, but it is only in our day that they have begun to turn its great natural agents to account. This war will stop the progress of humanity. It will destroy the greatest and best works of man, and throw him back upon the barbarism of the past.

Besides, it is a war between the different branches of the great Caucasian family-the white races of men, who have shown by their superior mental, and moral endowments, their right to control the world and regulate its destinies. It is also a war, in the main, between Christian nations; and we are impelled, therefore, by considerations of humanity, of race, and of religion, to interpose, if our interposition can avail anything. If the movement is to be made, it should begin here. We represent the feelings, the very heart of the American people; hence our sanction will give greater force and consideration to the movement. But to the Executive, who has the charge of conducting the foreign affairs of the country, it belorgs properly to decide when and how the step should be taken. If there be not a fitting occasion just now, it may be otherwise a few months hence.

Entertaining these feelings, my original object was to bring the subject before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and let that committee determine whether such a movement was advisable, if it were, to let it begin with Congress, but leave to the Executive the mode and manner of conducting it. The President, of course, has an acquaintance with the condition of things which nobody else can possess, and to him, therefore, would I leave it to determine whether the movement should be made now or at some future day, and whether the offer of mediation should be tendered through the foreign ministers here or through our ministers abroad, or in any other mode that he might regard as best calculated to effect the object. Whenever he should think proper to act, he would then move in the matter with all the authority of the Government to sustain him. If the movement shall be made, I have no doubt but that it would be sanctioned and approved by our constituents.

FINANCIAL AND TERRITORIAL POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

Before entering upon a general discussion of the financial policy of the Administration, I will read that portion of the President's message relating to the treaty which was made between the North American British Provinces upon the one part, and the United States of America upon the other, during the last session of Congress:

"Since the adjournment of Congress, the ratifications of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, relative to coast fisheries, and to reciprocal trade with the British North American provinces, have been exchanged, and some of its anticipated advantages are already enjoyed by us, although its full execution was to abide certain acts of legislation not yet fully performed. So soon as it was ratified, Great Britain opened to our commerce the free navigation of the river St. Lawrence, and to our fishermen unmolested access to the shores and bays, from which they had been previously excluded, on the coasts of her North American provinces; in return for which, ehe asked for the introduction, free of duty, into the ports of the United States, of the fish caught oathe same coast by British fishermen. This being the compensation, stipulated in the treaty, for privileges of the highest importance and value to the United States, which were thus voluntarily yielded before it became effective, the request seemed to me to be a reasonable one; but it could not be acceded to, from want of authority to suspend our laws imposing duties upon all foreign fish.

"In the mean time, the Treasury Department issued a regulation, for ascertaining the duties paid or secured by bonds on fish caught on the coasts of the British provinces, and brought to our markets by British subjects, after the fishing grounds had been made fully accessible to the citizens of the United States. recommend to your favorable consideration a proposition, which will be submitted to you, for authority to refund the duties and cancel the bonds thus received. The provinces of Canada and New Brunswick have also anticipated the full operation of the treaty, by legislative arrangements, respectively, to admit, free of duty, the products of the United States mentioned in the free list of the treaty; and an arrangement, similar to that regarding British fish, has been made for duties now chargeable on the products of those provinces enumerated in the same free list, and introduced therefrom into the United States; a proposition for refunding which will, in my judgment, be in like manner entitled to your favorable consideration."

Although my views do not comport with the views expressed by the President in relation to the reciprocity treaty, I would not have any one infer, therefore, that I am opposed to free trade between the North American British Provinces, on the one hand, and the United States on the other. I have been long of the opinion that a free, mutual, and independent reciprocation of the agricultural productions and manufactured articles in both countries would result alike advantageously to the interests of both. Upon an examination of the articles imported in 1851 and 1852, named in the schedule of the treaty, I find the balance of trade in these articles is more than five hundred per centum against us. Hence I am decidedly of the opinion that the treaty, as it now stands, in its practical effect and operation, has resulted advantageously to the interests of the British Provinces, and, upon the other hand, to the destruction of American interests.

In order to explain my meaning in relation to this point, I will suppose, for instance, that the United States propose and enter into a treaty with Great Britain, in certain specific articles raised here in our own country, and that we are to have reciprocity of trade with Great Britain in cotton, rice, tobacco, corn, flour, beef, pork, butter, cheese-a system which would, in fact, include all the agricultural productions of the United States which are articles of exportation. Take it for granted that Great Britain enters into a treaty with the Government of the United States in relation to these articles. Here would be a treaty resulting directly for the interests of the United States, and against those of Great Britain. The treaty between the Provinces and the United States produces precisely the same effects in relation to the interests of this country. I propose to avoid the evils resulting from such a treaty, to a great extent.

OF MAINE,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 2, 1855.

mate free trade between the Canadas and the States.

The bill which I intend to introduce provides, that whenever the Government of Great Britain

Mr. MAYALL said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I desire to make a few remarks, first, in relation to the financial policy of the Administration, and secondly in regard to its territorial policy.

certain articles of American, produce or manufacture therein enumerated, duty free, into the British Provinces, the same articles produced or manufactured by the British Provinces shall be admitted into this country also duty free. The articles enumerated consist of manufactures from grass, straw, whalebone, hair, hemp, iron, and all

Ho. OF REPS.

other metals, cotton, flax, silk, wool, leather, marble, paper, papier maché, wood, &c., also prepared meats, vegetables, animal oils, paints, glass, &c.; so that there will be an equal encouragement given to the manufactures of this country as to the farming interests of the Provincesmaking it to the interest of those Provinces to take our manufactures in return for their agricultural productions, and thus making the commercial intercourse truly reciprocal, and not merely nominally so.

If the provisions of this bill are much longer resisted by statute, they will triumph in spite of statute. The relative position of the two countries -their business connections-necessarily compel the practice of free trade. The steam car, swifter than the fabled messenger of ancient commerce, is gradually and steadily accomplishing this great desideratum. Already lines of railway penetrate the heart of the Provinces, from Maine, Massachusetts, and New York, and still other lines are in progress or contemplation, which, when completed, will have a direct tendency, and, in fact, will superinduce reciprocity, in spite of all the artificial barriers that unwise legislation can pile up to thwart its peaceful and beneficent progress. The provisions of this bill will then be carried into practical effect. The effect of unrestricted commerce between this country and these Provinces, will be immeasurably to increase the business and enhance the profits of the railway lines in question, a result which will redound more largely to the benefit of our own citizens than to that of our neighbors, because, in the first place, our pecuniary interest in those lines is greater, and because, also, the established and unalterable current of trade must make the Provinces tributary to us, rather than ourselves tributary to them.

No State in the Union is so vitally interested in the question of free trade as Maine. She is equally interested with several other States, on account of the railway connections with the Provinces. She is also more deeply interested from another consideration, being a border State of the Union. With the barriers of commercial restriction kept up between her and the Provinces, her position is isolated, and, like all border States, less favorable to commerce than those States more centrally situated. The establishment of commercial recí procity, either by treaty or statute, between the United States and the British Provinces, will change the face of affairs, and give to Maine a more central position in the world of commerce, augmenting her influence and her power, and thereby securing a larger share of the trade of the world than she can now possibly command. When the great system of railways is completed, which is to strike out a new and shorter path from the commercial metropolis of the United States to that of Great Britain, running through the whole extent of her frontier, Maine will become an essential and eminently central portion of this vast international highway of commerce, and will, consequently, derive all the advantages that her new position will confer upon her, which must be incalculably great and valuable.

The idea that reciprocity will affect unfavorably the shipping and building interests of this country, and especially of Maine, is, in my opinion, founded in error-in a total misapprehension of the effect of reciprocity on one of those branches of industry in which Maine is more largely interested than any other State in the Union. Such an apprehension, I repeat, is grounded in false notions of political economy, and of the effects of commercial freedom. They are precisely the fears expressed by the protectionists of the North, in respect to the effect of reciprocal free trade in navigation between the United States and Great Britain. It was said that that great step towards commercial emancipation would be the ruin of our foreign trade, and drive our ships from the ocean in a very short period. Yet, instead of witnessing the predicted calamity, we behold our commerce expanding, our sails whitening every sea, and every part of the earth is made to contribute to the convenience and luxury of this highly favored nation; our ships engaging in trade in which they never before shared, and successfully competing with those of Great Britain in markets from which they were before wholly excluded.

Then, I say, in view of the successful effects of

33D CONG....2D SESS.

this system in the history of the past, where is the individual who is so completely destitute of every principle of patriotic pride as not to rejoice at the strides of our commercial freedom, and to welcome the approaching proximity of that glorious maxim of "Free trade and sailors' rights?" Nobody would now consent to return to the old restrictive system in navigation; the same will be found to be the case with free trade with the Provinces. Instead of crippling our commerce, and injuring ship-building, it will enlarge the circle of the one, and stimulate the energies of the other. In this day, when new, and almost illimitable fields of commerce are being opened to the enterprising and adventurous, giving employment to more shipping than the industry of all now engaged in that work can supply, it is idle, it is preposterous to talk of ship-building in, or the freighting business of, the State of Maine being ruined, or even injured, in the slightest degree, by all the additions which the concentrated labor of all the Provinces employed in ship-building can make to the common stock of the world.

HO. OF REPS.

not then discovered that it consisted in the privilege of owning the bodies of their fellow creatures, born on the same soil; children, perhaps, of the same father; and nursed, it might be, by the same hands; but now, the right to buy and sell human flesh is called "popular sovereignty.'

But, sir, it would appear that the Administration were not remiss in looking into the question of popular sovereignty. The bill repealing the prohibition of slavery, was brought forward by the friends of the Administration. It was urged upon the Senate and the House by the leaders of the President's party. (I will not call them" Democrats.") The President's organ in this city, was constant and unceasing in its exhortations to pass that bill, promising, that if once passed, it would

Wheat, (bushels)
Flour, (cwt.)
Rye, oats, &c.,

And how much better is the objection based on the hypothesis that reciprocity is to injure the lumbering business in which Maine is so deeply interested? Not a whit; not a whit. It is an erroneous idea which some have entertained, that facilities for transportation of the productions of the interior to the sea-coast, or that any evils extended to any branch of business whereby competition is created, will injuriously affect the price of those productions, or that branch of business thus brought into competition. The experience of all practical business men proves the fallacy of this opinion. All the competition which reciprocal trade with the Provinces will create in the lumbering or the ship-building business of Maine, will but tend to the benefit and profit of those branches of trade. There is no danger that an ample market will not be found for all the lumber which Maine and the Provinces can produce. The danger is rather that both together cannot much longer supply the rapidly increasing demand. The change which reciprocity would lead to in this particular, as respects Maine, would be but slight. Already the lumber regions of the State have been reduced to the St. John and its tributaries. The amount remaining on the Saco, the Androscoggin, and the Kennebec, is scarcely sufficient to supply the rapidly increas-the ing demand for home consumption. The same remark is fast becoming true of the Penobscot; at any rate, there is little danger that a ready market and adequate prices cannot be found for all the lumber that can be manufactured on its waters.

The lumber regions of Maine at this time-all, at any rate, that need protection-are, therefore, on the St. John and its tributaries. What was the condition of the lumbering interest there before the reciprocity treaty? Worse, infinitely worse, than it can possibly be with reciprocity. The St. John is the only outlet. This river, or the mouth of it, is within foreign jurisdiction. Our lumber has to pass out of this river. In its transit it was subject to all manner of delays and pecuniary exactions, so that lumber on the Maine side of the St. John was not regarded as worth more than one half as much as the same amount on the Penobscot. Let reciprocity of trade be established, under which we shall acquire the privilege of carrying our manufactured articles into the Provinces, and the advantages resulting to the United States will be incalculably great and valuable. It will furnish the manufacturers with a new and additional market for almost every article manufactured in the United State, and thereby give an impetus to that branch of industry in which the New England States are so deeply interested. Under this Elgin treaty we are deprived of equality in trade. The Provinces can bring all their productions to us, and we cannot carry anything in return to pay for them, which their trade demands, without paying duty

thereon.

Total

&c.

The above table proves conclusively that all the articles which the Provinces export come in free of duty; for all the articles are named in the schedule of the treaty, viz: "Grain, flour, and breadstuffs of all kinds; animals of all kinds; fresh, smoked, and salt meats; fish of all kinds; hides, furs, and skins; pelts, wool, coal, firewood; fish oil, butter, cheese, tallow, unmanufactured tobacco," &c., &c. I would prefer the Elgin treaty to none for the State of Maine, because Maine has to buy largely, for her own consumption, such articles as are exported from the Provinces. But I think I have proved conclusively that it operates against the interest of the United States, as a whole; therefore, I have called the attention of the House to the subject, and prepared a bill, the provisions of which, if carried out, will result more advantageously to the interests of both countries, and place the United States on an equal footing with Provinces.

The next movement to which I desire to call attention is, the repeal of the Missouri prohibition of slavery from Kansas and Nebraska. It was a compact rendered sacred by the circumstances under which it was entered into, by time, and by the faithful observance of all statesmen of the past and the present generation, up to the commencement of the present Congress."

At the last session of the previous Congress, a bill was reported to this House by the Committee on Territories, for organizing a government there. It made no allusion to the Missouri compromise, leaving it in full force. The question was publicly asked of the committee, or a member of it, why the Wilmot proviso was not embodied in the bill? The answer was then made to the House, and the country, that slavery had been excluded by the Missouri compromise, and that no repetition of such exclusion would render it more valid. Sir, no Democrat, no Whig then dreamed that this exclusion of slavery was unjust or unconstitutional. No man, at that time, dreamed that "popular sovereignty," of which we have heard so much, consisted in the privilege of holding a certain laboring portion of the population of this country in bondage-in the power to buy and sell persons who happened to be unable to defend themselves from such treatment. The bill passed this body without opposition or objection on this point; and when it came up in the Senate, the Vice President declared his hostility to the bill on account of the territory to which it applied being free by reason of this Missouri prohibition, but declared, that so far as that objection was.concerned, the bill might as well pass then as at any future day, for that prohibition of slavery could never be repealed. The Senate heard these remarks, and assented to their correctness, so far as "silence gives consent;" for not a member expressed the least doubt of their perfect accuracy. Those grave and reverend Senators, who have since reasoned so profoundly upon "popular sovereignty," had

The people of the free States became alarmed; sent in their petitions; called on their Representatives to oppose the repudiation of this time-honored compromise-rendered sacred by its associations with the best men and greatest statesmen, and patriots of our nation. But the popular mind of the North was regarded with contempt; the will of the people was spurned by the Administration, and these sincere advocates of "popular sovereignty," and the repeal of the Missouri compromise was insisted on. Here, in this Hall, we were told that the President desired the passage of that measure, and Representatives were threatened with political excommunication if they did not aid the Administration in carrying out this policy. The object was attained; the bill passed; slavery was admitted into Kansas and Nebraska.

Mr. Chairman, had the repeal of the Missouri compromise been fairly placed before the people, the result would have been widely different. It was smuggled through Congress in a most unjustifiable manner. Had it been known that Mr. Pierce was in favor of the repeal, he would not now have been an occupant of the White House. He had my cordial support, and I exulted with thousands of others in his triumphant election; but the passage of that bill has scattered the party that sustained him to the four winds. His opposers grasped this new issue with avidity, and they will follow it up to the last extremity. The excitement on the slavery question had begun to subside. The East, the West, the North, and the South, were at peace on that subject. None desired to revive an agitation so detrimental to commerce, and to the peaceful pursuits of industry. The President's promises in his inaugural had given hope that this quiet would be preserved throughout the continuance of his administration in power. The hatred of slavery, naturally strong in the northern mind, was in repose when this firebrand was thrown into combustibles that would "otherwise have remained inert, and it has kindled a fire that cannot now be extinguished. And this was done by the immediate friends, and with not only the marked approval, but also with the strenuous efforts of the present Administration.

There was no immediate call for the establishment of a territorial government in Kanzas and Nebraska. Events have shown since, that the object of the abettors of that bill was to avail themselves of the then condition of Congress, that they might pass through the repeal for the purpose of introducing slavery into that immense territory. A more impolitic course could not have been pursued, even by the South. In all probability there never will be another slave State admitted into this Union. If a compromise that had stood for a third of a century, that had become sacred by age, that the people looked upon as permanent, could be so easily set aside, is it reasonable to suppose that there will ever be another? Such faithless, unprincipled combinations are not to be trusted. Why do the people of the South wish to extend their "peculiar institution" into free territory? They, themselves, are not so disingenious as to deny that it is an evil-and a great evil-and yet they not only refuse to rid themselves of it, but show an intemperate zeal to extend the evil to others. The institution of slavery, they say, is handed down from their ancestors. They find themselves entrammeled with it, and cannot safely extricate themselves from it at once. The gentleman says his finer sensibility does not reproach him, as it is an evil that did not originate in him