Page images
PDF
EPUB

Douglas, Felch, Houston, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Shields, Spruance, Sturgeon, Wales, and Whitcomb-just seventeen, and the one absent would make eighteen. And that I hold to be the true strength of the omnibus bill, as proved by the result, when every member was at liberty to vote precisely as he thought right, uninfluenced by any other consideration than what belonged to the bill itself. Then with respect to the Committee of Thirteen, I find there were only five of them voting for the whole of these measures, and I read their names, so that if there be any mistake I may be corrected. They were Messrs. Bright, Cass, Cooper, Dickinson, and Dodge of Iowa. So that there were only five of the committee out of thirteen who voted for all of these bills; one of them (Mr. Webster) being absent by reason of accepting a Cabinet appointment, and another for his health. Now, sir, the majorities by which these bills passed severally were these: Utah by a majority of eighteen, Texas boundary by a majority of ten, California by a majority of sixteen, and New Mexico by a majority of seventeen. I give these results for the purpose of justifying myself in standing out for what I considered to be parliamentary law, in originally wishing to separate all these bills, and I now say that the result has confirmed everything I said upon this floor."

Mr. Douglas said: "I do not deem it very profitable now to stop to inquire whether it would have been better to have passed the several bills jointly or separately; the important point was to secure their passage. The particular form of the proceeding was a matter of small moment. I supported them all as a joint measure, and when they failed I supported each as separate measures. I had no idea of losing the great measures which my judgment approved, and upon which I believed the peace and quiet of the country depended, by a petty quarrel as to the mode in which the thing should be done. The Committee on Territories hesitated long and deliberated well whether we should report the measures in separate bills or combine them all in one, when we first brought them before the Senate. I prepared the bills for California, Utah, New Mexico, and the Texas boundary separately, and laid them before the committee in that shape, with the view of taking the judgment of the committee whether they should be joined together or kept separate. The decision of that point involved no principle; it was purely a matter of policy. We came to the conclusion that it was expedient to pass California separately, and to unite the governments for Utah and New Mexico with the Texas boundary in one bill, and accordingly I reported them from the Committee on Territo ries in that shape. When the Committee of Thirteen subse

quently united these two bills in one, and recommended their passage in that form, I gave them my cordial support. I could see no reason why I should oppose my own bills merely because they had been united together. My object was to settle the controversy, and to restore peace and quiet to the country, and I was willing to adopt any mode of proceeding and to follow any gentleman's lead which could bring us to that desirable result. When the omnibus was defeated, I fell back upon my own separate bills, which, fortunately for the country, received the sanction of the two houses of Congress, and became the laws of the land. California, Utah, New Mexico, the fugitive slave bill, and the bill for the abolition of the slave trade in this District, each passed the Senate as separate measures. In the House, New Mexico was joined to the Texan boundary and both passed as one bill. Thus it will be seen that neither plan has entirely succeeded. No man and no party has acquired a triumph, except the party friendly to the Union triumphing over abolitionism and disunion. The measures are right in themselves, and collectively constitute one grand scheme of conciliation and adjustment. They were all necessary to the attainment of this end. The success of a portion of them only would not have accomplished the object; but all together constitute a fair and honorable adjustment. Neither section has triumphed over the other. The North has not surrendered to the South, nor has the South made any humiliating concessions to the North. Each section has maintained its honor and its rights, and both have met on the common ground of justice and compromise. It will always be a source of gratification and just pride to me that I had the opportunity of acting an humble part in the enactment of all these great measures, which have removed all causes of sectional discontent, and again united us together as one people."

Mr. Davis of Mississippi remarked: "Whilst gentlemen are dividing the honors that result from the passage of these bills, either in a joint or separate form, I have only to say that, so far as I represent the public opinion of my State, I do not represent that public opinion which required the passage of them here, either jointly or separately.

"So far as the public opinion of the community which I represent has been shadowed forth in public meetings, and in the public press, it has been wholly adverse to the great body of these measures. I voted for one, that which the Senator from Virginia originated, and which was modified in the Senate till I thought it became efficient for the protection of our rights. That was the only one."

CHAPTER IV.

Close of the Session-Laws relating to California and Oregon—Distribution of publie lands-Bounty land bill-Donations of public lands to railroads-Sale of Mineral lands-Consequences of the compromise measures-Agitation continued—Fugitive Slaves-Opinions on both sides—Arrest of fugitives in New York and Philadelphia-Case of Crafts in Boston-Conduct of government officers-Letter from the President-State of political parties-Judge Sharkey's address-Mr. Rhett-Action of Georgia-Alabama-Mississippi-Governor Quitman's message-South Carolina— Message of the Governor-Union Meetings in the South-Nashville ConventionUnion meetings.

WHEN the most important of the compromise bills had been disposed of, the session had become so protracted, that Congress manifested a strong disposition to terminate its deliberations. At this time, though Congress had been in session more than nine months, the appropriation bills had not yet been passed. A decided repugnance prevailed in the minds of members to consider any subjects which would require debate. They were all anxious to return to their homes to take part in the fall elections, and to explain, defend or assail the measures which had been adopted.

On the 9th September, the Senate concurred in the House resolution, fixing the 30th of September as the termination of the session, and Congress immediately applied itself to the consideration of those bills, the passage of which was deemed indispensable to the operations of the government, but many measures of high importance were, in the prevailing indisposition for general legislation, passed over. Among the most pressing bills remaining to be acted upon after the passage of the appropriation bills was the act for extending the laws and judicial system of the United States to the State of California. All laws of the United States, not locally inapplicable, were declared of the same force and effect there as elsewhere in the United States. The State was divided into two judicial districts, the one south and the other north of the parallel of 37° north latitude; and the judges in each, invested with the same powers and jurisdiction as the judge of the Southern District of New York, and in civil cases, with concurrent jurisdiction and powers exercised by the Circuit Courts of the United States, with the right of appeal in such cases to the Supreme Court of the United States, as exists in other Circuit Courts. The salary of the judge of the Northern District was

fixed at $3,900; and that of the judge of the Southern District at $2,800. A difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives upon the question of salaries, endangered the passage of this bill. Mr. Gwin declared that it would be almost impossible, with such compensation, to fill these offices with competent judges: that the means of living in California were at present so exorbitant that the salaries proposed would not justify any qualified lawyer in accepting the appointment, and that the salaries given to the State judges varied from $5,000 to $10,000. He, however, consented to the sums fixed by the bill, for the sake of insuring its passage, with a distinct understanding that he would, hereafter, move for their increase. Besides this bill, Senators Fremont and Gwin introduced a large number of bills in relation to California, but the session was too far advanced to admit of their being duly considered. A bill was passed creating a surveyor-general of the public lands in Oregon and providing for the survey of those lands, and for the donation of a part of them to settlers. All resident citizens of the United States or such as might become residents by the year 1851, or naturalized foreigners, or such as should declare their intentions to become naturalized, before 1851; if single, were to be entitled after four years occupation and cultivation to half a section (320 acres) of land; if married, to a whole section, 640 acres. All white males naturalized or having made declaration of intention to become so, emigrating to the territory between 1850 and 1853, to be entitled, if single, to a quarter section of land, and if married, to half a section. In cases of donation to married persons, the wife should have, in her own right, one-half the land donated. While this bill was under consideration, Mr. Walker, of Wisconsin, moved an amendment, ceding all the public lands in the United States to the several States in which they lie for distribution among actual settlers. The amendment was negatived, Messrs. Walker and Dodge of Wisconsin, and Mr. Seward voting in its favor. The State of Wisconsin had specially instructed her Senators to sustain such a measure. In various parts of the United States, resolutions had been adopted by public meetings in favor of thus disposing of the public lands. In some of them the doctrine had been advanced of limiting the amount of lands which any individual should be permitted to acquire, by purchase and inheritance, coupled with that of the inalienability of the land belonging to the head of a family. The vote, on the proposition of Mr. Walker, shows that the proposed disposition of the public domain found no favor in the Senate of the United States; yet it cannot be doubted that some of the measures adopted by the 31st Congress indicate

a growing disposition to consider the husbandry of the public lands for the purpose of deriving from the sale of them a permanent revenue as of secondary importance. Such is the indication manifested in the passage of the bill called the bounty land bill of this session, and the act granting lands to aid in the construction of the Chicago and Mobile railroad.

The first bill grants to any person or his surviving heirs who served in the war with Great Britain of 1812, or in any subsequent Indian war, or in the war with Mexico, for a period of nine months, 160 acres; those who served four months, 80 acres, and to any person who served one month, 40 acres. The occupation of actual settlers is protected from infringement by the claimants under this law, and any assignment of the warrants for the location of lands authorized by it, if made prior to the issue of the patent, is declared void. The Secretary of the Interior is required to locate the warrant of each claimant, if requested so to do, free of any expense to him. It is estimated that under the provisions of this bill nearly a fourth part of the most valuable of the surveyed lands in the different Western States will be alienated.* If Congress had felt inclined to look to the public lands as a source of revenue, which was required for the support of government, it can hardly be supposed it would have sanctioned a bill so liberal in its provision.

A very large amount of public lands was likewise appropriated to aid in the construction of the Mobile and Chicago railroad. Alternate sections for six miles on each side of the proposed road were given to the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Illinois for such distance through those States as should be traversed by the road. Various other propositions were made to Congress for grants of the public lands. A proposition for the grant of 10,000,000 of acres was made, to be applied by the States for the benefit of insane persons. This proposition met with a favorable reception in the Senate, and was apparently only postponed for the want of time to discuss its provisions.

An act was passed at this session by which the public lands in Michigan and Wisconsin, comprising the mineral region, were allowed to be sold as other lands at the minimum price of $1,25 per acre. This act may be considered as the abandonment of that system of reserving mineral lands in the West, which experience has proved to be inefficient for purposes of revenue, and a hindrance to the settlement of those portions of the government territory to which it applied. It is, we believe, admitted that all attempts to derive a revenue of any importance from

* See Documents, for this bill.

« PreviousContinue »