strip of this Territory-I believe for its whole extent-certainly from the southern boundary of Kansas, far up to the north-is occupied by Indian tribes, and the fragments of Indian tribes. They are not in their original location. All the Indians who are there, I believe, have already undergone one re

believe no one undertook to make out that there were more than four hundred, or five hundred, or, at the outside, six hundred white inhabitants in the region in which you are now going to organize two of these independent territorial governments with two Legislative Councils, each consisting of thirteen members, and two Legislative Assemblies of twenty-moval, and some of them two. In pursuance of six members each, with all the details and apparatus of territorial governments of the highest rank.

the policy which was carried into execution on so large a scale under the administration of General Jackson, a large number of tribes and fragments of tribes were collected upon this eastern frontier of the proposed Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and have remained there ever since, some of them having made considerable progress in the arts of civilized life.

66

The removal of the Indians was one of the prom inent measures of General Jackson's administration. It was my fortune, sir-it was twenty-four years ago, I believe-my friend from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] will recollect it-as a member of the other House, to take an active part in the discussion of this question. He will remember, I am sure, the ardent, but not unfriendly, conflicts between himself, as chairman of the Committee on Indian Af fairs, and myself on that subject. I then maintained that it was impossible, if you removed these Indians to the West, to give them a permanent home;" for that was the cardinal idea, the very corner stone of the policy of General Jackson-to remove the Indians from their locations east of the Mississippi river, where they were crowded by the white population, and undergoing hardships of various kinds, so far west as would allow them to find a permanent home. I ventured to say then that, in my opinion, they could find no more permanent home west than east of the Mississippi. My friend from Tennessee thought otherwise, and said so, speaking, I am sure, in as good faith as I did in expressing the opposite opinion. But the policy was carried through, and an act was passed authorizing an exchange of the lands occupied by the Indians east of the Mississippi for other lands west of that river. I will read a single short section from that act:

It seems to me that this is not called for by the condition of the country, and is somewhat premature. It was the practice in the earlier stages of our legislation to have a territorial government of a simpler form. In the Territories which were organized upon the pattern prescribed by the ordinance of 1787, there was a much simpler government. A governor and judges were appointed by the President of the United States, and authorized to make such laws as might be necessary, subject of course to the allowance or disallowance of Congress: and that organization served very well for the nascent state of the Territories. There was a limit prescribed to governments of this kind. When the population amounted to five thousand male inhabitants, I think It was, they were allowed to have a representative government. This may, perhaps, be too high a number, and may not be in entire accordance with the character of our people, and the genius of our institutions; but still, sir, I do think, that a government of this kind which we propose now to organize, with a constituency so small as now exists, cannot be that which the wants or the interests of the people require, and is in many respects objectionable. It brings the representative into dangerous relations with the constituent; and bestows upon a mere handful of men too much power in organizing the government, and laying the foundations of the State. It is true, we are told, that the moment the intercourse act is repealed, there will be a great influx of population. I have no doubt that will be the case. There is also a throng of adventurers constantly pouring through this country towards the West, which requires an efficient Government. But even making all due allowance for these circumstances, I do think that it is somewhat premature "SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That in making of such to give this floating, and-if I may so call it-un-exchange or exchanges, it shall and may be lawful for the stationary population, all the discretionary powers President solemnly to assure the tribe or nation with which to be vested in a territorial government of the first the exchange is made, that the United States will for ever class. I think it is giving too much power, too secure and guaranty to them, and their heirs and successors, the country so exchanged with them; and if they prefer it, much discretion, to a population that will not prob- the United States will cause a patent or grant to be made ably amount at first to more than a few hundred in- and executed to them for the same: Provided, always, That dividuals. Still, however, I admit that this is but a such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians question of time. I do not think it a point of vital importance.

When I consider the prodigious rapidity with which our population is increasing by its native growth-when I consider the tide of immigration from Europe, a phenomenon the parallel of which does not exist in the history of the world, an immigration of three or four hundred thousand, of which the greater part are adults, pouring into this country every year, adding to our numbers an amount of population greater than that of some of the older States, and those not of the smallest size, and this double tide flowing into the West, so that what is a wilderness to-day is a settled neighborhood to-morrow when I consider these things, I do admit that a question of this nature is but a question of time; and if there were no other difficulty attending the bill, I should not be disposed to object to it on this score.

But, sir, the relation of the Indian tribes to the question is, I confess, in my mind, a matter of greater difficulty. Senators all know that the eastern

become extinct, or abandon the same.”

This was the legislative foundation of the policy; and General Jackson deemed it of so much consequence that, in his Farewell Address, he congratu lated the country on the success with which it had been carried out; and his successor, Mr. Van Buren, in one of his annual messages, spoke of it in the same glowing terms.

Now, sir, these were the hopes, these were the expectations on which the policy of removing the Indians west of the Mississippi proceeded. I do not recall the recollection of the subject reproachfully; I have no reproach to cast upon any one. Events which no mortal could have foreseen have taken place. The whole condition of our western frontier has been changed. Our territorial acquisitions on the Pacific, and the admission of a sister State in that quarter to the Union, have created a political necessity of an urgent character for improved means of communication, and I fear that it is not possible to preserve intact this Indian barrier. But

I want information on that snbject. I should like to hear other Senators, who understand the subject much better than I do, tell us how that matter stands; and whether it is absolutely necessary that this measure should go on, in the manner described by the bill, which, it seems to me, if not conducted with the utmost care, will be attended with great inconvenience, if not utter destruction, to those remnants of tribes.

If we must use that hateful plea of necessity, which I am always unwilling to take upon my lips; if we must use the tyrant's plea of necessity, and invade "the permanent home" of these children of sorrow and oppression, I hope we shall treat them with more than justice, with more than equity, with

the utmost kindness and tenderness. Now, I am unable to say, not having ample information on the subject, how their condition will be affected by the clauses in the bill which were struck out yesterday. I am unable to say how it will be affected by leaving the bill without any provisions in reference to that subject. There are, of course, to be appropriations for negotiating with the Indians in other bills; the Senator from Illinois intimated as much; but what the measures to be proposed are, I should like to be better informed. I have no suspicions on the subject; I have no misgivings. I have no doubt that Senators and the Executive will be animated with the purest spirit of humanity and tenderness toward these unfortunate fellow-men; but I should like to know what is to be done with them. I should like to know how the bill in its present condition, or with such supplementary measures as are to be brought in hereafter, will leave these persons who depend upon us, upon our kindness, upon our consideration, for their very existence. I hope that, before this debate closes, we shall hear something on this point from members of the body who are competent to speak on the subject. Unless the difficulty which I feel on this point shall be removed, I shall be compelled, oa this ground alone, to oppose any such territorial bill.

now printed, and on our tables; and I will state, as briefly as I can, the difficulties which I have found in giving my support to this bill, either as it stands, or as it will stand when the amendment shall be adopted. My chief objections are to the provisions on the subject of slavery, and especially to the exception, which is contained in the 14th section, in the following words :

"Except the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is which was superseded by the principles of the legislation hereby declared inoperative."

On the day before yesterday the chairman of the Committee on Territories proposed to change the words "superseded by" to "inconsistent with," as expressing more distinctly all that he meant to convey by that impression. Yesterday, however, he brought in an amendment, drawn up with great skill and care, on notice given the day before, which is to strike out the words "which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative," and to insert in lieu of them the following :—

"Which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Tercalled the compromise measures, is hereby declared inopritories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850, commonly erative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institunor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof tions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.'

No, I agree with the remark made by the chairin the phraseology alone. It covers a somewhat broadman of the committee yesterday, that this is a change er ground, but the latter part of it is explanatory; and as to the main point in which it is proposed to declare the Missouri restriction of 1820 " inoperative amendment and the words contained in the bill on and void," I do not find any change between this our tables. It seems to be the design of both to chairman in his report. I will read from that recarry out the principle which was laid down by the port the following sentences, for I conceive them to be those which give the key to the whole measure :

lish certain great principles which would not only furnish avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the adequate remedies for existing evils, but in all time to come question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the pol tical arena, and commit it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences."

Trusting, however, that proper precautions will be taken, and that measures will be adopted, if possible, to give to the more advanced individuals of these tribes, personal reservations of land, to save them from being driven off to some still more remote resort in the wilderness; trusting that this, or some "In the judgment of your committee, those measures other measure of wisdom and kindness will be pur- [the compromise measures of 1850] were intended to have sued, I think I could cheerfully support the terri-adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acqui a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mera torial bill, which passed the House of Represent-sition of Mexican territory. They were designed to estabatives at the last session, and was lost in this body, I believe, for want of time, in the very last hours, certainly on the very last day, of the late session of Congress. If I could, have been assured that proper safeguards were contained in that bill for the Indians, I should have been willing to support it; and when it was revived at this session of Congress, by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. DODGE], and referred to the Committee on Territories, of which I have the honor to be a member, I did certainly hope that, if it were thought expedient to report any bill for organizing this Territory, that one would have been adopted by the committee. The majority thought otherwise, however, and they have reported the bill before the Senate.

I will not take up the time of the Senate by going over the somewhat embarrassing and perplexed history of the bill, from its first entry into the Senate until the present time. I will take it as it now stands, as it is printed on our tables, and with the amendment which was offered by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] yesterday, and which, I suppose, is

This, I suppose, is the principle and the policy to which it is intended, either as it stood at first, or as it is now proposed to amend it, to give the force of law in the bill now before us.

Now, sir, I think, in the first place, that the language of this proposed enactment, being obscure, is of somewhat doubtful import, and for that reason, unsatisfactory. I should have preferred a little directness. What is the condition of an enactment which is declared by a subsequent act of Congress to be "inoperative and void"? Does it remain in force? I take it, not. That would be a contradiction in terms, to say that an enactment which had been declared by act of Congress inoperative and void, is still in force. Then, if it is not in force, if it is not only inoperative and void, as it is to be de

clared, but is not in force, it is of course repealed. | did any one suppose that it acted upon the other If it is to be repealed, why not say so? I think it Territories? I believe the whole system is now would have been more direct and more parliament- abolished under the operation of general laws, and ary to say "shall be and is hereby repealed." Then the influence of that example may have led to the we should know precisely, so far as legal and tech- change. But, until it was made by legislation, the nical terms go, what the amount of this new legis- mere fact that public lands sold in Arkansas, were lative provision is. immediately subject to taxation, could not alter the If the form is somewhat objectionable, I think law in regard to the public lands sold in Missouri, the substance is still more so. The amendment is or in any other State where they were exempt. to strike out the words "which was superseded by," There is a case equally analogous to the very and to insert a provision that the act of 1820 is in-matter we are now considering the prohibition or consistent with the principle of congressional non-permission of slavery. The ordinance of 1787 prointervention, and is therefore inoperative and void. hibited slavery in the territory northwest of the Ohio I do not quite understand how much is conveyed in In 1790 Congress passed an act accepting the ces this language. The Missouri restriction of 1820, it sion which the State of North Carolina had made of is said, is inconsistent with the principle of the le-the western part of her territory, with the proviso gislation of 1850. If anything more is meant by that in reference to the territory thus ceded Congress "the principle" of the legislation of 1850, than the should pass no laws "tending to the emancipation measures which were adopted at that time in refer- of slaves." Here was a precisely parallel case. ence to the Territories of New Mexico and Utah-Here was territory in which, in 1787, slavery was for I may assume that those are the legislative meas- prohibited. Here was territory ceded by North ures referred to-if anything more is meant than that Carolina, which became the territory of the United a certain measure was adopted, and enacted in refer- States south of the Ohio, in reference to which it ence to those Territories, I take issue on that point. was stipulated with North Carolina, that Congress I do not know that it could be proved that, even in should pass no laws tending to the emancipation of reference to those Territories, a principle was en- slaves. But I believe it never occurred to any one acted at all. A certain measure, or, if you please, that the legislation of 1790 acted back upon the a course of measures, was enacted in reference to ordinance of 1787, or furnished a rule by which any the Territories of New Mexico and Utah; but I do effect could be produced upon the state of things not know that you can call this enacting a principle. existing under that ordinance, in the territory to It is certainly not enacting a principle which is to which it applied. carry with it a rule for other Territories lying in other parts of the country, and in a different legal position. As to the principle of non-intervention on the part of Congress in the question of slavery, I do not find that, either as principle or as measure, it was enacted in those territorial bills of 1850. I do not, unless I have greatly misread them, find that there is anything at all which comes up to that. Every legislative act of those territorial governments must come before Congress for allowance or disallowance, and under those bills, without repealing them, without departing from them in the slightest degree, it would be competent for Congress to-morrow to pass any law on that subject.

How then can it be said that the principle of nonintervention on the part of Congress in the subject of slavery was enacted and established by the compromise measures of 1850? But, whether that be so or not, how can you find, in a simple measure applying in terms to these individual Territories, and to them alone, a rule which is to govern all other Territories with a retrospective and with a prospective action? Is it not a mere begging of the question to say that those compromise measures, adopted in this specific case, amount to such a general rule?

But, let us try it in a parallel case. In the earlier land legislation of the United States, it was customary, without exception, when a Territory became a State, to require that there should be a stipulation in their State constitution that the public lands sold within their borders should be exempted from taxation for five years after the sale. This, I believe, continued to be the uniform practice down to the year 1820, when the State of Missouri was admitted. She was admitted under this stipulation. If I mistake not, the next State which was admitted into the Union-but it is not important whether it was the next or not-came in without that stipulation, and they were left free to tax the public lands the moment when they were sold. Here was a principle; as much a principle as it is contended was established in the Utah and New Mexico territorial bill; but

I certainly intend to do the distinguished chairman of the committee no injustice; and I am not sure that I fully comprehend his argument in this respect; but I think his report sustains the view which I now take of the subject; that is, that the legislation of 1850 did not establish a principle which was designed to have any such effect as he intimates. That report states how matters stood in those new Mexican territories. It was alleged on the one hand that by the Mexican lex loci slavery was prohibited. On the other hand that was denied, and it was maintained that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen the right to go there and take with him any property recognized as such by any of the States of the Union. The report considers that a similar state of things now exists in Nebraska-that the validity of the eighth section of the Missouri act, by which slavery is prohibited in that Territory, is doubtful; and that it is maintained by many distinguished statesmen that Congress has no power to legislate on the subject. Then, in this state of the controversy, the report maintains that the legislation of Congress in 1850 did not undertake to decide these questions. Surely, if they did not undertake to decide them, they could not settle the principle which is at stake in them; and, unless they did decide them, the measures then adopted must be considered as specific measures, relating only to those cases, and not establishing a principle of general operation. This seems to me to be as direct and exclusive as anything can be.

At all events, these are not impressions which are put forth by me under the exigencies of the present debate or of the present occasion. I have never entertained any other opinion. I was called upon for a particular purpose, of a literary nature, to which I will presently allude more distinctly, shortly after the close of the session of 1850, to draw up a narra tive of the events that had taken place relative to the passage of the compromise measures of that year. I had not, I own, the best sources of information. I was not a member of Congress, and had not heard

the debates, which is almost indispensable to come to a thorough understanding of questions of this nature; but I inquired of those who had heard them, I read the reports, and I had an opportunity of personal intercourse with some who had taken a prominent part in all of those measures. I never formed the idea-I never received the intimation until I got it from this report of the committee-that those measures were intended to have any effect beyond the Territories of Utah and New Mexico, for which they were enacted. I cannot but think that if it was intended that they should have any larger application, if it was intended that they should furnish the rule which is now supposed, it would have been a fact as notorious as the light of day.

Look at the words of the acts themselves. They are specific. They give you boundaries. The lines are run. The Territories are geographically marked out. They fill a particular place on the map of the continent; and it is provided that within those specific geographical limits a certain state of things, with reference to slavery, shall exist. That is all. There is not a word which states on what principle that is done. There is not a word to tell you that that state of things carries with it a rule which is to operate elsewhere-retrospectively upon territory acquired in 1803, and prospectively on territory that shall be acquired to the end of time. There is not a word to carry the operation of those measures over the geographical boundary which is laid down in the bills themselves.

the debates which have been made by Senators who have preceded me.

The proviso itself, which forms so prominent a characteristic and so important a part of this bill, the proviso that when the Territory, or any part of it, shall be admitted into the Union as a State or States, it shall be with or without slavery, as their constitution at the time of admission may prescribe, was no part of the original compromise, as I understand it. The compromise consisted in not inserting the Wilmot proviso in the Utah and New Mexico bills. That was moved and rejected, and the Territory was to come in without any such restriction. That was the compromise in reference to those Territories; and after the Wilmot proviso had been voted down, a distinguished Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Soulé], not now a member of this body, but abroad in the foreign service of the country, moved the proviso which I have just recited; and he did it, as he said, "to feel the pulse of the Senate." Mr. Webster, in voting for that motion of Mr. Soulé, as he had just voted against the Wilmot proviso, used these remarkable words:

"Be it remembered, sir, that I now speak of Utah and New Mexico, and of them alone."

It was with that caveat that Mr. Webster voted for the proviso which forms the characteristic portion of this bill, and which is supposed to carry with it a law applying to this whole Territory of Nebraska, although covered by the Missouri restriction of 1820. Mr. Webster had on a former occasion, in the great speech of the 7th of March, 1850, to which I shall in a moment advert again, used the following remarkable language:

"And I now say, sir, as the proposition upon which I stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of which intend to act until it is overthrown, that there is not at the character of which, in regard to its being free soil ter this moment within the United States a single foot of land ritory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some irrepealable law, beyond the power of the action of the Government."

It would be singular if, under any circumstances, the measures adopted should have this extended effect, without any words to indicate it. It would be singular, if there was nothing that stood in the way; but when you consider that there is a positive enactment in the way-the eighth section of the Missouri law, which you now propose to repeal because it does stand in the way-how can you think that these enactments of 1850 in reference to Utah and New Mexico were intended to overleap these boundaries in the face of positive law to the contrary, He meant, of course, to give to the Missouri reand to fall upon and decide the organization of Ter-striction the character of a compact which the Gov ritories in a region purchased from France nearly ernment in good faith could not repeal; and thero fifty years before, and subject to a distinct specific was in the course of the speech a great deal more legislative provision, ascertaining its character in said to the same purpose. reference to slavery? Sir, it is to me a most singu- And now, sir, having alluded to the speech of lar thing that words of extension in 1854 should be Mr. Webster, of the 7th March, 1850, allow me to thought necessary in this bill to give the effect dwell supupon it for a moment. I was in a position posed to have been intended to the provisions of the next year-having been requested by that great and acts of 1850, and that it should not be thought neces- lamented man to superintend the publication of his sary in 1850 to put these words of extension into works-to know very particularly the comparative the original bills themselves. estimate which he placed upon his own parliamentary efforts. He told me more than once that he thought his second speech on FOOTE's resolution was that in which he had best succeeded as a senatorial effort, and as a specimen of parliamentary dialectics; but he added, with an emotion which even he was unable to suppress, "The speech of the 7th of March, 1850, much as I have been reviled for it, when I am dead, will be allowed to be of the greatest importance to the country." Sir, he took the greatest interest in that speech. He wished it to go forth with a specific title; and after consider able deliberation, it was called, by his own direction, "A Speech for the Constitution and the Union." He inscribed it to the People of Massachusetts, in a dedication of the most emphatic tenderness, and he prefixed to it that motto-which you all remember-from Livy, the most appropriate and felicitous quotation, perhaps, that was ever made: “Truo things rather than pleasant things."-Vera pro gratis: and with that he sent it forth to the world.

Now, sir, let us look at the debates which took place at that time, because, of course, one may always gather much more from the debates on one side and the other on any great question, as to the intention and meaning of a law, than can be gathered from the words of the statute itself. I have not had time to read these debates fully. That is what I complained of in the beginning. I have not had time to read, as thoroughly as I could wish, those voluminous reports-for they fill the greater part of two or three thick quarto volumes; but in what I have read, I do not find a single word from which it appears that any member of the Senate or House of Representatives, at that time, believed that the territorial enactments of 1850, either as principle, or rule, or precedent, or by analogy, or in any other way, were to act retrospectively or prospectively upon any other Territory. On the contrary, I find much, very much, of a broad, distinct, directly opposite bearing. I forbear to repeat quotations from