cerns the honor of this Republic and the charac- with inadequate subsistence. This measure had, ter of this nation for integrity and good faith. in fact, little reference to the true interest of I say that if you pass this bill you initiate a these unhappy people, whatever suggestions to policy which will result in the outrageous that effect may be found in the public docubreach of numerous treaties which you have ments, but much more to the advancement of made with the Indian tribes now having a rest- the States from which they were removed, in ing place west of the organized States. Nay, it population and wealth. Hence obligations arise is a present violation of those treaties. It will which appeal to Heaven, and which the highbring upon them irremediable calamities, and est considerations of duty require us to execute will within a few years consign them to utter and fulfill. What, Mr. President, are these annihilation. I am very much indebted to a gen- treaties? I find that they divide themselves into tleman recently a member of the House of Rep- three different classes: First, treaties which stipuresentatives, (Mr. Howard, of Texas,) for a digest late in express terms that the lands ceded shall of these treaties. I have it here in the Congres- not be included within any State or Territory sional Globe of last session. It will greatly fa- without the consent of the Indians. Secondly, cilitate and expedite the examination of the treaties which contain the same stipulation, subject to use this digest, rather than to refer to without any qualification whatever, that is to the treaties themselves. Before I proceed to say, the words "without their consent" are left speak particularly of these treaties, I wish to out, so that the stipulation is absolute; and in recur to the act of 1880, "to provide for an ex- the third class there is nothing said in express change of lands with the Indians residing in any terms about their being included in any State of the States or Territories, and for their re- or Territory; but language is used of an equiva moval west of the Mississippi." By the third sec-lent character. The language in every instance tion of the act it is provided that in making the exchanges, "it shall and may be lawful for the President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation with which the exchange is made, that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them and their heirs and successors, the country so exchanged with them, and if they prefer it the United States will cause a patent or grant to be made and executed to them for the same." This is certainly very strong language. The President is authorized not only to give an assurance, but one of the most formal and solemn character-not only that they should be permitted to occupy their new homes in peace, but that the same should descend to their children and their childrens' children forever; and, moreover, that they might have the option of an absolute title secured by a patent under the sign manual of the President, and bearing the broad seal of our Republic. Considering that we were about to deal with poor, benighted, friendless Indians, such an enactment imposes on us all the obligations of the most solemn treaties; and we have no moral right either to set them aside or to evade in the slightest degree their force. Such was your legislation, based on the policy of removing the Indians from the east side of the Mississippi west of the organized States. It was your policy to take them from their homes-from the graves of their fathers, their wives, and children, across the "Father of Waters" into a land they knew not: and to induce them to yield all that men deem sacred, we said to them you shall have here an abiding place; here you shall no longer be disturbed by the lawless, nor pursued with importunities to yield your new abode. Well, sir, the treaties were made; the promises were all given and the Indians were inacedd to remove though with much difficuty. Even a military force had to be employed to some extent, if I do not mistake the history of the country. I will not speak of the hardships of that journey, nor of those greater hardships which they must have encountered when they found themselves in the far West without dwellings, and

But, Mr. President, my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Territories, insists that he has delivered the bill from the objections which I now urge. In the first place it is admitted that the lines propounded sweep within such Territory the Indian lands thereto appertaining; or, in other words, the exterior lines of Nebraska embrace a portion of these Indian grants, and the exterior lines of Kansas the residue, so that they are all included either in the one or the other. This, it is admitted, would be a clear and palpable violation of the treaties. In order to obviate this difficulty my honorable friend has inserted in so much of the bill as relates to Nebraska the following proviso: for tenur

"That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said Territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of said tribe, to be included within the territorial limite or jurisdiction of any State or Territory; but all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the Territory of Nebraska, until said tribe shall signify their assent to the President of the United States to be included within the said Territory of Nebraska."

And then he has inserted a similar proviso in that part of the bill which relates to Kansas. d

My honorable friend, the chairman, thrusts them all into the Territories, and then, in order to relieve the bill of bad faith, he snatches them

out-where they are to remain until they shall "signify to the President of the United States their assent to be included within the proper Territory." How signify? What amounts to a signifying of their assent? Will they write a letter to the President? Are they to send an Indian talk? Is a delegation to appear at the white house to smoke with the Executive the calumet of peace? There is no suggestion of a treaty. The Senate is to have nothing to do with the subject; but something is to be done which, in the judgment of the Executive, shall amount to a signifying of assent-then they are to jump right in.

You sweep your boundaries around them in the first instance, and have them momentarily, then put them out with a great parade of fairness, and then you set a snare for them under the head of "assent signified"-knowing that it would have precisely the same affect as if all this jugglery of in and out and in again were -not resorted to.

people, and to place them by themselves, where they could be educated, civilized, and, if possible, christianized: where there would be no motive, either on the part of the General Government or the people of any State or Territory, for dispossessing them of their lands. All this is now to be reversed. And how long can you expect to escape the reproach of just and good men every where. Sir, I rejoice that there is one honorable member of this body--I refer to my friend from Texas (Mr. HOUSTON)-who has long been the protector and guardian of these poor people, and who will endeavor to assert and vindicate their rights under the treaties to which I have referred. He is much more competent to do justice to the subject than I am, and I rejoice to be able to turn the case over to his faithful hands. If you commence the policy of dispossessing, you will pursue it to a consummation. Where are these unfortunate people to go? Will there not soon be a vast population in Minnesota-an immense column of enlightened, intelligent, patriotic freemen, rushing forward from the Mississippi to the base of the Rocky Mountains, and ultimately overleaping that barrier, and occupying the Territory beyond. I ask you, then, can they go North? No, sir! manifestly no! Will they go South: will you turn them down upon the State of Texas? Would it be just to that State to do so! And how long could they exist there? Is there not another mighty column advancing from the Gulf of Mexico to the North and Northwest, which is ere long to give to the State of Texas an amount of population and wealth which will render her little if any inferior to any State in the Union?

You first lay hands on all their territory east of the Mississippi, and now you lay hands on all their territory west of that river: or rather you initiate a policy which is to have that result, to a dead certainty. If you pass this bill you write down against the aboriginal inhabitants of this country a sentence of annihilation. Are they to be dealt with fairly even in carrying out this scheme-which seems to me to be perfidious. Will it not be a spoliation? It is true indemnities will be granted-perhaps inadequate; but whether adequate or inadequate, nine-tenths of the amount will find its way into the pockets of our own people-leaving no substantial benefit to the poor Indians.

Now, Mr. President, I am a plain man, and I desire to say, in broad terms and in measured language, that this is a mockery-a complete mockery! "You keep the word of promise to the ear, but break it to the hope." Now I want to propound to my honorable friend, the chairman of the committee, one question. I want to know if this is not a final act of legislation? Does not this bill include within the Territories all these grants in futuro, and all the residue of the country comprised within the exterior limits, in presenti? And I maintain that to include them by a final act of legislation-though in futuro-is just as much a breach of the treaties as it would be to include them in presenti. You do the very thing which the Indians provided against by these stipulations. They knew that if they were included within the limits of any Territory or State, every effort would be made to get away their lands. And do you gain any thing-so far as the question of good faith is concerned-by including them in the Territories in futuro, and then embarking instantly in that very effort? Does it make any difference to the poor Indians in what order the facts occur? The purpose to include them in the Territories and to get away their lands is entertained at one and the same moment, and that is avowed on the face of the bill. I beg Senators to consider what was the object of these treaty stipulations not to be included in the limits of any State or Territory.place. Was it to secure to the Indians their lands? No! because the treaties declare in express terms that they shall be theirs forever. Was it to secure to them the right of self-government? It was mainly on the ground last assumed that Not at all: for the treaties are equally explicit I opposed the bill of the last session, though it on that point. What, then, was the object of left the Missouri restriction in full vigor. it? It was to protect themselves against the Having passed the House, a motion was made all-corrupting effect of our glittering gold. They on the 2d of March, by the honorable Chairman had experienced the bitter consequences of such (Mr. DOUGLAS) to proceed to its consideraseductions before. Indeed it is well known tion, which failed by a vote of 20 yeas to 25 that it has been the settled policy of this Gov-nays. This motion was renewed the succeeding ernment for the last quarter of a century, in- day, and the bill was taken up without a division, augurated by the late President Jackson, to when a Senator from Arkansas moved to lay it separate the Indian race wholly from our own' on the table, which prevailed by a vote of 23

We are to crush them down, rob them of their territory, and to leave them without an abiding

Ere long nothing will remain of them, but the record of their wrongs on the darkest page of our history.

yeas to 17 nays. On the first occasion four

Precisely in this spirit I rise, Mr. President, to Northern Senators, viz: Messrs. Bradbury, oppose the clauses of this bill which proposes to Davis, Fish, and Foot voted with me in the nega- abrogate the Missouri Compromise. In the same tive, and on the last, four also, viz: Messrs. Broad-generous, liberal, and truly national spirit, with head, Davis, Fish, and Phelps voted with me in a view to the peace of the country, and to susthe negative. Messrs. Broadhead and Phelps were tain the reconciliation so happily accomplished not present on the first occasion, and Mr. Brad-in 1850, I shall resist to the last this unnecessary bury on the last. It thus appears that seven Northern Senators, including myself, opposed themselves to this bill resolutely and firmly, no doubt all on the grounds now assumed, and we were supported by every Senator from the slaveholding States, with the exception of the Senators from Missouri, (Messrs. Atchison and Geyer,) and it is with infinite concern I see a disposition manifested now by my friends of the slave-holding States to change front and go for this bill en masse. But right cannot be made wrong, nor wrong right, by the introduction of the negro clause. I shall not envy the position of honorable Senators if such shall be their ultimate course. What will posterity say? What good and just men every where?"

Sir, it is contrary to the true interests of the slave-holding States to filch these lands from the poor Indians, and break up their settlements. My opinion is, we should form the country covered by the grants, and perhaps some of the adjoining country, into a distinct territory-an Indian territory, and then we should concede to them a Delegate in Congress, which if I mistake not, we have authorized them to expect by the terms of one or more of the treaties. I would then change our policy entirely. I would exclude the trader, and above all I would exclude the great curse of the Indian race, alcohol. Whatever goods or agricultural instruments they require can be purchased by the United States through the War Department. I would pursue such a policy as to gradually wean them from the chase to the avocations of the plough, the axe, and the scythe, and thus build up a prosperous if not a great community, as a perpetual monument to the justice and goodness of the American people. I would not depart from the treaties even though you now proposed for the first time to enact the exclusion of slavery north of 360 30'. I am for standing by the faith of treaties at all hazards. “Fiat justitia ruat coelum."

(Here the Senate, on motion of Mr. SEWARD, adjourned; and on the succeeding day, to wit, Friday, February 11th, it resumed the consider ation of the subject, when Mr. SMITH proceeded as follows:)

Mr. PRESIDENT: I resume the remarks which I was addressing to the Senate yesterday, by recurring to some of the last words uttered by the great DANIEL WEBSTER in this chamber. They

were as follows:

"Sir, my object is peace; my object is reconciliation. My purpose is not to make up a case for the North or South. My object is not to continue useless and irritating controversies. am against agitators, North and South. I am against local ideas, North and South; and against all narrow and local contests. I am an American, and know no locality in America-that is my country-that is my country. My heart, my sentiments, my judgment, demand of me that I shall pursue the good and the harmony and the Union of the whole coun

measure. The course which I pursued at the last session, in voting, as already stated, against the bill for organizing Nebraska, when it left the exclusion of slavery north of 360 30" untouched, is proof conclusive that my opposition now is not based on sectional motives. I feel at liberty, under such circumstances, to speak, and shall speak with entire freedom. I do not hesitate, Mr. President, to pronounce this proposition a fire brand thrown into the two houses of Congress. It is, in my judgment, calculated to inflame the country in a high degree, and to bring back upon us all the dangers and evils from which we have but just escaped by the efforts of our wisest and best men. We are now to undo the great measures of peace which were adopted in 1850, and which have been cordially acquiesced in by all parties and all sections of the country. In short, we are to have strifes, bickerings, alienations, and disturbance, without the slightest prospect of benefit to either section. I hope there is enough of goodness and moderation in the body to put down this project of mischief at once, so that we may consecrate our time and our faculties to the promotion of such measures as are demanded by the welfare of a great and united people.

And here, Mr. President, I cannot help notic ing the extraordinary manner in which this measure has been sprung upon Congress. Was it suggested or dreamed of before we met at this Capitol on the first Monday of December? Had it been adverted to in the newspapers, or at public meetings of our citizens, either North or South? Have the legislatures of the Southern States demanded it, or has there been any expression of public sentiment, either there or else. where, to sustain it? On the contrary, is not the universal acquiesence of the country in the bill of the last session, which left the Missouri restriction in full force, proof conclusive that the American people have been taken completely by surprise?

Why, sir, that bill was carried through the House by a large majority-the vote being yeas 98, nays 43. There were in the affirmative no less than twenty votes from the slaveholding States, viz: From Maryland, Evans; from Virginia, Holliday, McMullen, and Powell; from Alabama, Cobb and Smith; from Louisiana, Landry and St. Martin; from Kentucky, Gray Stone, and Ward; from Tennessee, Johnson, (Andrew,) Watkins, and Williams; and from Missouri, Darby, Hall, Miller, and Porter. Thus we find gentlemen from every part of the country supporting the organization of Nebraska with slavery totally excluded from its limits by the act of 1820. I am disposed to think that there is not a man in the nation who has been more strenuous in upholding the rights, the interests, and the honor of his own section, than the pre

striction, But, nevertheless, he informs us that his object is "to carry into practical operation" certain "propositions and principles." Well, then, sir, why not write them down at once! But this, it seems, would not answer some inserutible purpose of the chairman, and therefore he

sent able Executive of Tennessee; and yet he deemed it but just that the Missouri restriction should be maintained, and Nebraska organized subject to that restriction unimpaired and in force. I would inquire, moreover, why the President did not advert to this subject in his annual message at the opening of the present ses-adds as one of his propositions or principles, sion. If the restriction be a grievance, and its repeal be called for by the public sentiment of the South, surely he must have known it. If it be repugnant to the adjustment of 1850, and subversive of our true interests, surely the fact could not have escaped his vigilance. And yet, sir, in a moment of profound repose, and without the knowledge or suspicion, I venture to say, of five members, this magazine of explosive materials has been introduced into Congress, and we are required to deal with it as best we may. I am confident the impression will exist universally, or nearly so, that there are other objects than the public good, which have prompted this extraordinary procedure. I fear that this is nothing but a movement on the political checkerboard, and has more reference to party objects, and future presidential elections, than to the real welfare of the American people.

I cannot avoid, Mr. President, taking some notice here of the singular mutations which this measure has undergone. It has been presented to us in all manner of shapes and forms. In the first place, we have submitted to us a report from the Committee on Territories, in which, after looking at the subject in all its bearings, they very wisely and properly conclude, that they could not recommend the repeal of the 8th section of the Missouri act, and they report a bill which certainly does not repeal it in express terms, but concludes with the following

section:

of

I consider this section as one of the most ex

"that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives." Now, sir, what does this mean? Does it repeal the restriction of 1820? Was it intended to repeal it? If so, why not use the ordinary words of repeal? I venture to assert that never has Congress, nor the American people, been puzzled so much as they were by this Delphic oracle. In one quarter of the Union it was understood to mean one thing and in the opposite quarter a different thing. I, myself, concluded that it would take a jury of nineteen Philadelphia lawyers to fix its meaning. I am pretty well satisfied that the real object was to discredit the 8th section and to throw it into doubt. I think I can find a clue to the real purpose of that part of the bill now before us, in the language addressed by the honorable chairman (Mr. DOUGLAS) to the Senate, on opening this debate, as follows:

"I know there are some men, Whigs and Democrats, who, not willing to repudiate the Baltimore platform of their own party, would be willing to vote for this principle, provided they could do so in such equivocal terms that they could deny that it means what it was intended to mean in certain locali ties. I do not wish to deal in any equivocal language."

We all know the honorable chairman is dis

tinguished for his frankness; he uses no equivocal language-not he! His object was truly philanthropic-it was to accommodate certain tender-footed "Whigs and Democrats" who might be "willing to vote for this principle "— that is to say, the overthrow of the Missouri compromise-"provided" they could do so in such equivocal terms that they could deny that

it means what it is intended to mean in certain localities. Ah! ha! “equivocal terms!" Great statesmanship, this!

I think the bill was before us in this form for

about three days, when my honorable friend from Kentucky, (Mr. DIXON,) and I feel under great obligation to him for the service he has rendered us-introduced a proposition to abrogate the 8th section of the act of 1820 at once. This seems to have involved my frend, the chairman for the Territories, in pretty serious difficulty, and he all at once concluded to come up to the scratch; therefore he reports a new bill, dividing the one Territory which he proposed originally into two, and inserting instead of the 21st section of the bill first reported the following provision:

traordinary samples of legislation which has ever been presented to the civilized world. It opens with intimating that the bill is susceptible some "misconstruction," but how, or where, is not indicated. The question here arises, that if there be doubtful clauses in the bills, why not amend them at once. Why resort to such a "That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States roundabout way to do what might be done with which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force two or three dashes of the pen? But the hon- and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States. Except the eighth section of the orable chairman will have it that there is a act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, lurking doubt somewhere, which he himself per-approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which haps could not detect. The bill is everywhere hundred and fifty, commonly called the Compromise Meas was superseded by the principles of the legislation of eighteen very plain, and does not touch the Missouri re-ures, and is hereby declared inoperative."