of 1850 to supercede the Missouri Compromise, and secondly, an opinion declared that such is their "legal effect." clusive that the incompatibility which has been set up, is all a pretence-is an afterthought. The incessant mutations which the proposed legislation has undergone, within a brief period, I deny, utterly, the fact, and I controvert, with show that you have no fixed ideas on the sub-equal positiveness, the soundness of the opinion. ject, and the adroitness of the verbiage which I will not stop to inquire why the honorable chairyou throw around the only operative clause man is dabling with the subject at all, if his alleprove an apprehension that the measure may gations are true, but I choose to meet the issue after all turn out quite hazardous. Indeed, the at once, and flat-footed. whole proceedings have a very bad aspect; and, unless we are willing that the people of this country should believe that the Senate of the United States has ceased to be the exalted, dignified, body it was formerly, we should reject, with indignation, a measure imbued with such singular, not to say unworthy elements. And here, sir, I must be permitted to notice the many incongruous notes which "the organ" published in this city, has sounded forth on this subject. When the honorable chairman asserted in his report, in substance, that he and his associates could not recommend an abrogation of the 8th section, and when, shortly after the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. SUMNER,) proposed an express re-enactment of that section, and the honorable Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. DIXON,) a repeal, these gentlemen were held up to the country as representing extreme opinions, and as being actuated by factious or at least partisan motives. The former was pronounced a mischivous anti-slavery agitator, and the latter and equally mischivous pro-slavery agitator, while the honorable chairman was all that could be moderate, just, and statesmanlike. He (it was insisted) was pursuing an intermediate course, and we were all asked to rally around him and save the country from another convulsion. But soon thereafter he took a leap South and assumed the position of annulment, and then "the organ "lept after him, and indeed sticks to him as closely as his own shadow. It seems to me that the paper alluded to must be "the organ" of the honorable chairman rather than of the Administration. It is clearly contrary to the interests of the latter to involve Congress and the country in another controversey on the subject of slavery. But, Mr. President, I do no intend to rest the case on considerations such as these. I propose to examine the subject in all its bearings, and by a full and precise induction of facts and considerations to show beyond doubt or cavil there is nothing in the legislation of 1850 incompatible with that of 1820, and that it was the intention of Congress and the expectation of the country both should stand together, as well they may. And here I would observe that the honorable chairman, in his opening speech, committed himself to an issue of a very grave character, to which I mean to hold him on the present occasin. He says: "That a close examination of those acts clearly establishes the fact that it was the intent, as well as the legal effect of the Compromise Measures of 1850, to supersede the Missouri Compromise, and all geographical and Territorial lines. Here is, first, a direct and positive allegation of a fact that it was "the intent" of the measures What, Mr. President, were the measures of 1850 They were, (1) to admit California; (2) to adjust the disputed boundary with Texas; (3) to abrogate the slave trade in the District of Columbia; (4) to amend our laws for the return of fugitives from labor, so as to make them more effective; and finally, to provide Territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico. It is not pretended that any of these measures, other than those last indicated, have the slightest bearing on this subject. We will inquire then, whether there is any incompatability between the acts organizing Utah and New Mexico, and legislation for Nebraska and Kansas, leaving the 8th section of the act of 1820 in force. I would observe, in the first place, that there is nothing in either of the acts first mentioned, on the subject of slavery, except the following clause, "And provided further, that when admitted as a State, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission." We do not propose that you should re-enact, in express terms, the restrictions of 1820, but are willing to vote for a bill, so far as this objection is concerned, in precise conformity with the provisions of that which passed the House at the last session, or in other words, for a bill which says nothing of slavery one way or the other. The only difference between such bill and the Utah and New Mexico acts would consist in the fact that the clause above recited appears in the former and would not appear in the latter. Be it remembered that the 8th section of the act of 1820 provides no rule for the admission of States into the Union which might be formed out of the territory lying north of 360 30', but simply provides that, from such territory "slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited." Notwithstanding the word "forever" is used, I apprehend that the 8th section applies only to the country during its Territorial existence, and should a State present itself for admission, with a constitution tolerating slavery, we could receive it into the great national family without violating that section. How then, can the clause which I have recited from the Utah and New Mexico acts, be considered incompatible with legislatien for Nebraska and Kansas, which is silent on the subject of slavery, or which, in other words, leaves those Territories subject to the restrictions of 1820. It is difficult to see how a State which applies for admission can be excluded though her constitution tolerates slavery, and though she be formed out of territory made free by the act of 1820. Any State now free, can so amend its constitu- connected with the institution of slavery, and tion as to introduce slavery if it pleases, and it out of which controverted questions have sprung, is obvious that the people of the States, whether to see if it were possible or practicable to acalready in or about to come in, must decide this commodate and adjust the whole of them." He troublesome question for themselves. What frequently addressed the Senate on the importthen, does the clause in the acts organizing gov-ance-nay, the necessity of comprehensive and He often specified all the known causes of irriernments for Utah and New Mexico amount to final measures of reconciliation. after all! Fortunately we are not without some light upon this subject. Mr. WEBSTER Voted in tation; and on one occasion he spoke of them favor of that clause when proposed as an amend- as "five gaping wounds"-meaning only the ment by a late Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. matters already alluded to. In no instance did SOULE,) but he observed, "I do not see much prac- he speak of the Missouri restriction as a wound And further, or cause of irritation, nor did he dream of settical utility in this amendment." the honorable chairman himself, in his speech ting it aside. In no instance did any other at Chicago, (October 23, 1850,) took even stronger member suggest or propose the overthrow of ground-"the bills," said he, "establishing Ter- that restriction. Nothing is to be found in the ritorial governments for Utah and New Mexico reports submitted to the Senate or House to are silent the subject of slavery, except the that effect. Nothing in the speeches of honoraupon provision that, when they should be admitted ble members. Nothing in the resolutions or acts into the Union as States, each should decide the of State Legistures, and nothing in the suggesquestion of slavery for itself. This latter pro- tions of the press-either North or South. vision was not incorporated in my original bills, were to have a final adjustment; the harmony for the reason that I conceived it to involve a of the country was to be restored; and every principle so clearly deducible from the Constitu- possible occasion for the reintroduction of these tion that it was unnecessary to embody it in the irritating topics into Congress was to be removed. form of legal enactment. But when it was All this was attempted, and was supposed to offered as an amendment to the bills, I cheer- have been accomplished. The country rejoiced fully voted for it, lest its rejection should be accordingly, and the authors of this happy condeemed a denial of the principle asserted in it." summation were regarded by an immense maSo that Mr. WEBSTER could see "very little of jority of the American people as public benefacpractical utility" in the clause, and the honorable tors. The universality of the adjustment was chairman no utility whatever. The legislation recognised by President FILLMORE in his annual of 1850 was then, in effect, silent on the subject Message, (2d session of the 31st Congress,) in of slavery. Why can you not be silent now, these words: "The series of measures to which and how can any one assert that it was the I have alluded are regarded by me as a settleintent as well as the legal effect of the Compro- ment, in substance and principle-a final settlemises of 1850 to supercede the Missouri Compro- ment of the dangerous and exciting subjects mise? You organise Territorial governments for which they embrace." I venture to assert, also, certain countries, and you do not deem it expe- that the honorable chairman (Mr. DOUGLAS) himdient to prohibit the introduction of slavery. self took exactly the same view of the subjectWhat has that to do with countries many hun- for he observed, in a speech delivered in this to state that I have determined never to make dred miles off, where the circumstances may be, chamber, on the 23d December, 1850: "I wish and are in fact, entirely different? another speech on the slavery question. And I will now add the hope that the necessity for it will never exist. I am heartily tired of the controversy." And then he added, "I will therestop the debate, and drop the fore say to the friends of those measures, let us bject. If we do this, the Compromise do not cease subject. we have gained but little by its adoption." And recognised as a final settlement. If we do not, yet, according to the views now presented by the Senator, there was no final settlementthere remained undisposed of the question of the abrogation of the Missouri restriction, which was calculated, more than any other cause, to inor some part of itflame the country, and set it by the ears. He knew that Territories must sooner or later be formed out of the countryCould he have imagined that on the formation north of the parallel of 36° 30. of such Territories the abrogation could be introduced without raising another storm. And then, what a singular method the Senator has of dropping the subject, and of carrying out his determination "never to make another speech on the slavery question." I strongly suspect that the old relish has returned, and that the disgust of which he spoke was evenescent and temporary. In the next place, Mr. President, I take the ground that the Compromise Measures of 1850 were formed and carried through Congress on the basis of mutual concessions, and with a view not to give either section any considerable advantage over the other. This I can prove by recurring to the speech of Mr. CLAY, already quoted, in which he says: "It appeared to me, then, that if any arrangement, any satisfactory adjustment could be made, of the controverted questions between the two classes of States, that adjustment, that arrangement could only be successful and effectual, by exacting from both parties some concession-not of principle-not of principle at all, but of feeling, of opinion, in relation to the matters of controversy between them. I believe that the resolutions which I have prepared fulfill that object. I believe that you will find upon that careful, rational, and attentive examination of them which I think they deserve, that by them neither party makes any concessions of principle at all, though the concessions of forbearance are ample." I would observe here, that the measures ultimately adopted were based on the resolutions of Mr. CLAY; and, indeed, there is an exact coincidence between then. It was supposed that the principle of mutuality of concession had been fully carried out; and on this idea the people acquiesced, and on this only. cessions made on the one side and the other, and the justice and propriety of the adjustment. After expatiating on the various topics embraced in the Compromise, he makes the following broad declaration, "neither party has gained or lost any thing, so far as the question of slavery is concerned." Texas has gained ten millions of dollars, and the United States has saved in blood and treasure, the expenses of a civil war." The honorable Senator did not intimate to his constituents that he had been undermining or tearing down the restriction of 1820. The statement of such fact would have created a profound sensation at Chicago, and indeed throughout the whole northern country. I will not do the Senator the injustice to suppose that he entertained any such idea at the time, for that would be to hold him up to the nation as the most disingenuous of men. If he chooses now to hold himself up in that light, it is an affair of his own, not mine. The repeal of the 8th section would have completely unsettled the balance of concession which Mr. CLAY so carefully adjusted as between the two sections. The South would have obtained a great victory over the North, nay, an absolute conquest! It would be a mockery to call the measures of 1850 a compromise on this hypothesis, Besides all this, I can prove, from the language held by the leading members of Congress during the pendency of this controversy, that nothing could have been further from their The same view of the subject was taken by thoughts than the repeal of the 8th section of Mr. WEBSTER in his speech delivered in this the Missouri act. I shall begin with referring chamber, July 17, 1850. I quote as follows: to the speeches of Mr. WEBSTER. In his cele"Well, sir, the next inquiry is, what do Massa-brated 7th of March speech, I find the following chusetts and the North, the anti-slavery States, passage: "And I now say, sir, as the proposilose by this adjustment? I put the question to tion on which I stand this day-and upon the every gentleman here, and to every man in the truth and firmness of which I intend to act until country. They lose the application of what is it is overthrown-that there is not at this mocalled the Wilmot Proviso, to these Territories, ment within the United States, or any Territory and that is all. There is nothing else that I of the United States, a single foot of land, the suppose the whole North are not willing to character of which, in regard to its being free do or willing to have done. They wish to get territory or slave territory, is not fixed by some California into the Union and to quiet New law, and some irrepealable law, beyond the Mexico; they wish to terminate the dispute power of the action of the Government." This about the Texas boundary, cost what it may. opinion, so strongly expressed, was based on the They make no sacrifice in all these. What they idea that the character of the territory northsacrifice is this: the application of the Wilmot west of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi, was proviso to the Territories of New Mexico and fixed as free territory by the ordnance of 1787, Utah, and that is all." Here is the same idea that the territory west of the Mississippi and of mutuality: the South would concede the ad- north of 36 deg. 30 min. was also fixed as free by mission of California into the Union, and the the restriction of 1820. That the territory comNorth governments for New Mexico and Utah prised within the State of Texas was fixed as without the Wilmot proviso. They would sa-slave territory by the terms and conditions of her crifice the application of the Proviso to these admission into the Union. That the territory Territories. Mr. Webster did not dream that embraced by the limits of California was fixed as they were at the same time sacrificing the re-free territory by the provisions of the Constitustriction of 1820, or in other words, that we were admitting slavery into the countries which we acquired from France, lying north of 36 deg. 30 min. I am truly happy to call to my aid, under this head of remark, the honorable chairman himself, referring again to his Chicago speech, which is, I admit, characterized with ability. He undertook, on that occasion, to defend the mutuality and the equality of the con tion; and the Territories of Utah and New Mexico were fixed as free territory by irresistable laws of nature. To some of these topics he barely alluded, and on others he commented at length, and then concluded as follows: "Now, Mr. President, I have established, as far as I propose to do so, the proposition with which I set out, and with which I intend to stand or fall, and that is, that the whole territory within the former United States, or in the newly acquired Mexican provinces, has a fixed and settled character, now fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed; in the case of Texas without a violation of public faith, and by no human power in regard to California and New Mexico. That, therefore, under one or the other of these laws, every foot of land in the States or the Territories, has clearly received a fixed and decided character." And then, again, he remarks, in his speech of the 3d of June, as follows: "On the 7th of March, sir, I declared my opinion to be that there is not a square rod of territory belonging to the United States, the character of which for slavery or no slavery is not already fixed by some irrepealable law. I remain of that opinion." And then, after some observations not material to be quoted, he adds: "I have heard no argument calculated in the slightest degree to alter that opinion; the committee, I believe, with one accord concurred in it." How could Mr. WEBSTER use such broad language if he had supposed that Congress were, by the Compromise Measures of that year, laying the foundation for the overthrow of the restriction of 1820. A quotation from a subsequent part of this speech of the 3d of June, will prove conclusively what his views were: "And let it be remembered," he says, "that I am now speaking of New Mexico and Utah, and other territories acquired from Mexico, and nothing else. I confine myself to these; and as to them, I say, that I see no occasion to make a provision against slavery now, or to reserve to ourselves the right of making such provision hereafter. All this rests on the most thorough conviction that, under the laws of nature, there never can be slavery in these Territories. This is the foundation of all." Mr. WEBSTER obviously thought that the Missouri restriction was a "fixed fact;" and as the celebrated Committee of Thirteen unanimously concurred with him in the opinion, the position which I assume is impregnable. It is idle to pretend that Congress intended by the measures of 1850 to set aside the Cumpromise of 1820. But I maintain that the universality of the adjustment of 1850 has been recognised and admitted in the proceedings of Congress until within a very short period. The action of the two Houses on the Nebraska bill of the last session is a very striking illustration of this fact. It is true that the bill then said nothing on the subject of slavery, either one way or the other. It did not repeal the 8th section of the Missouri act, and therefore left it to operate on the Territory in all its vigor. The attention of the House was particularly called to this fact by an honorable member, (Mr. GIDDINGS,) whose appearance on the floor was pre-eminently adapted to arouse the suspicions and awaken the vigilance of Southern members. After quoting the 8th section of the act of 1820, he remarked that "this law stands perpetually, and I did not think that this act would receive any increased validity by a re-enactment. There I leave the matter. It is very clear that the territory included in that treaty must be forever free, unless that law be repealed." And yet in face of this broad avowal, no less than twenty members from slaveholding States, as before stated, including Mr. Johnson, the present Governor of Tennessee, voted for the bill. How idle is it to pretend now that we had either repealed, or had laid the foundation for repealing, the restriction of 1820, by the Compromises of 1850. The bill was sent to the Senate, and fell into the hands of the honorable chairman; and he reported it back to the body with the recommendation that it should pass without amendment. He was strenuous in his efforts to bring it to the consideration of the Senate, and to secure its passage. He then addressed the Senate at length, and said that it was an act very "dear to his heart." It was dear when he was going for freedom, and it is probably more dear now when he is striking for slavery. Not a word did the Senator say about the wonderful workings of the measures of 1850 in subversion of the 8th section. He tells us that the bill underwent a thorough investigation, both in the House and by his committee; and he seems then to have made no discovery of the occult elements now found to have been lurking under the verbiage of 1850, to which he would give such an extraordinary effect. Even the distinguished and honorable Senator from Missouri, (Mr. ATCHISON,) was in the same oblivious frame of mind: for, in addressing the Senate on that occasion, he remarked, "I found that there was no prospect of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, excluding slavery from that Territory.' It is certain, then, that nobody dreamed-down to so late a period as the last session-that we had, in 1850, done anything to break down, or even weaken, the Compromise of 1820. I do not envy the position in which these facts place the honorable chairman. Did he suppose, in 1850, that we were subverting the 8th section, or laying the foundation for its subversion? If so, why did he not undeceive Mr. WEBSTER} Why did he suffer him to act with fearful responsibilities, under the delusion that the territory north of 36 deg. 30 min., and this side of the Rocky mountains, was fixed, irrevocably fixed for freedom? Why did he suffer the honorable Senator from Missouri to fall, at the last session, into the same error? Or, rather, why did he not rise and correct it on the spot? Why not communicate with his friends in the House of Representatives, and why not lay the true state of the case before the Senate and the country? The Senator, by the position he now assumes, arraigns himself; he impeaches his own conduct; he furnishes conclusive evidence on the issue adverse to himself; and the verdict of impartial and upright men will be quite likely to shock his self-esteem, and to give him a place and a name on the pages of American history quite the reverse of enviable. But, Mr. President, I deny that there is to be found any such principle or policy in the legis lation of 1850, as is suggested in this amendment. I deny that, by the Territorial acts for New Mexico and Utah, you conferred on the people there the power to regulate, at pleasure, their do- more urgent in respect to the newly acquired mestic institutions or left them free to act on Mexican provinces, than in ordinary cases. How this or any other subject. No such liberty of was it with New Mexico? We had there an action has ever been conferred by this Govern- uncongenial and a hostile population, speaking ment on the people of the Territories. Origin-a foreign language, just subdued by our arms, ally, the whole power of legislation was con- ignorant of our form of government and unfafided to the governor and judges of the respec-miliar with the principles of our free institutions. tive Territories; but latterly, the people, I adinit, have been allowed to participate to some extent therein. But let us recur to the New Mexico and Utah acts, and see how the matter stands. I say there is written down in each of those acts a declaration of want of confidence in the people of those countries. We have invested the President with the power of appointing, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, all the executive and judicial officers of each Territory. We have assumed that the people are not competent to elect such officers. How, then, can it be supposed that Congress intended to confide to them, exclusively, the power of deciding the momentous question of slavery or freedom. How indispensable, then, was it that we should have the power to hold such a population in check, and to overrule any and all their deter ninations, and yet in face of the plain provisions of these acts of Congress, and of the palpable facts of the case, this amendment, in effect, asserts that we left them "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." But, Mr. President, I will bring the matter at once to an issue, which I challenge the honorable chairman of the committee, (Mr. DOUGLAS,) to meet, You say that by the Utah bill you intended to leave the people there perfectly free to regulate their domestic institutions as they might see fit. What are those domestic instituIt is true they are authorized to choose a coun- parent and child, guardian and ward, and mastions or relations? They are husband and wife, al to consist of thirteen members, and a house ter and servant. Now, I desire to ask the chairof representatives to consist of twenty-six, but the legislative power and authority" is not Utah the power to introduce polygamy, for man, did you intend to confer on the people of vested in them solely, but the governor is asso- that appertains to one of the domestic relations. ciated with them in the exercise thereof. The I want the honorable chairman to stand up here language of both acts is, "that the legislative and tell us whether, if the legislative assembly power and authority of such Territory shall be were to send an act here sanctioning polygamy, vested in the governor and legislative assem- he would let it stand a single hour? On the Wy;" and again, “that the governor shall ap contrary, would he not seize a pair of tongs and prove all laws passed by the legislative assem-thrust it out of yonder window? bly before they take effect." Hence, it appears, But, Mr. President, let us trace this matter a that the people can do nothing without the as- little further; let us consider what would be the sent and concurrence of the governor. Give me modus operandi of the singular principle, annunthe appointment of the governor, and I can ex-ciated in the amendment, in reference to the dude slavery forever if not introduced, or perpetuate it if tolerated. No matter how anxiously the people may desire its introduction or its exclusion-no matter though they may be unanimous in calling for slavery or freedom, the governor, who holds his office at the will of the Executive here, can pronounce a peremptory negative, and overrule their wishes. polygamous relations of Utah. If they may introduce polygamy in their Territorial condition, if this is one of the relations which they are perfectly free to establish, and if Congress cannot gain say it, then I say Utah can knock for admission into the Union, and must be received, though she be covered all over with this moral leprosy. We must admit Brigham Young with But this is not all, sir, another part of the acts his forty wives! Nay, more! Brigham might, provides that, "All the laws passed by the le- and probably would, be elected one of the Senagislative assembly and governor, shall be sub-tors from the new State: has the honorable mitted to the Congress of the United States, and chairman considered whether he is to bring his if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect." forty wives to the Seat of Government; and if Sangular liberty, this! And equally singular so, I would ask in what part of the city is he to method of conferring on them the power "to establish his harem? The committee on "Publie form and regulate their domestic institutions in Buildings and Public Grounds" should take his their own way." Congress says, in effect, we case into tender consideration, as it seems to me. will not entrust to you the power to enact even a Any patriot having forty wives on his hands, wolf or dog law-we will appoint a master over ought, in the matter of his harem, to have a lityou-one who is not responsible to you, but to tle relief from the public coffers. And, besides, us; he shall revise all your doings, and may our present system of "mileage and per diem" write them down a nullity if he sees fit. And would hardly do for such a case. I would sug in order to make all safe we reserve to ourselves gest to my friend the chairman, (Mr. DOUGLAS,) the power of ultimate revision. Though you he should allow at least two dollars per day adobtain even the concurrence of the governor,ditional for each wife. Discrimination would be it shall not avail you; in short, we do not intend indispensable. I have long thought that there you shall have any legislation for Utah and New Mexico except just such as we approve. The demands for these precautions were infinitely should be some distinction made between those Senators who do their duty to society and the fairer portion of God's creation, and those who |