27TH CONG......3D SESS. man is too feeble for such an overwhelming power: after achieving the independence of the old thirteen States, and scaling the Alleghany Mountains, they are rapidly filling up the magnificent valley of the Mississippi with a prosperous, happy, and intelligent race of beings, who have subdued the savages of the forest; made the wilderness blossom like the rose; built villages and churches, towns and cities; made roads; cut canals; endowed colleges, and tunnelled mountains. The borders of the mighty rivers of the West are adorned, even at this early day, with everything to make life happy; and these elongated oceans bear on their bosoms floating palaces, animate with gay passengers; and freighted with their own, and the rich productions of every clime and country. This people, imbued with a spirit that holds in contempt all obstacles to their onward march, are now moving up the inclined plane of the vast Western prairies, and in a few years will reach the gorges and passes of the Rocky Mountains from whence, they will precipitate themselves into the fertile region and wild climate of the Territory of Oregon, trampling under their feet all opposition to their progress. But, notwithstanding, the policy of the Government itself has, in the disposition made of all the Indian tribes of the interior States, raised up an artificial barrier, which for the present has stopped the natural On this Inspread of our population to the West. dian frontier, it has reached its limits. This outlet of the West (Oregon) must be opened, or our people will soon break across the bounds within which we have pledged ourselves by treaties that the expatriated Indian tribes shall dwell securely. The Oregon region must be opened to the adventurous and migratory spirit of our people; or the collected flood will soon burst over, and sweep away the Indian, to whom we have solemnly promised an undisturbed refuge in the home to which we have, by so humane a policy, transplanted him. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] regards this bill as going new and dangerous lengthsdangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the two countries. Yet the bills introduced with the same object, long since, under the administrations of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Adams, by Doctor Floyd, were far stronger. They provided for the erection of forts and custom-houses. As for that formidable and perpetual impediment, the treaty, it existed just as much in force then, as now; and surely those gentlemen might be considered as tolerable judges of the force of treaty stipulations. Adverting, then, to the English claim, as founded on their alleged discovery, Mr. LINN treated the pretended visit of Drake to that portion of the Northwest coast as altogether preposterous. The narrative itself, which describes a region bound up in ribs of ice, in the month of June, makes it impossible for any one now to believe that Drake's visit was to Oregon-a coast never witnessing such intense cold, even in mid-winter, and usually enjoying the soft temperature of earlier spring. Nor can any more stress be laid upon the alleged discoveries of Mear's and Vancouver's Lieut. Broughton. But, in truth, this whole British claim is recent. It was never heard of, as against the discovery of Captain Gray, or the explorations of Lewis and Clarke. As late as 1814, the question of our discovery was minutely examined in one of the leading British authorities on such questions, and our claim admitted as incontrovertible. After the surrender of Astoria during the war, (which place fell into the hands of the British, through the treachery of Mr. Astor's English partners,) they began to perceive, in its full extent, the value of this new acquisition; and although it was surrendered to the United States under the first article of the treaty of Ghent, the English began to announce their pretensions to a claim-first, through anonymous writers in the National Intelligencer, at this place, (at the instance, it was said, of Sir Charles Bagot;) and afterwards by the British authorities, in their formal correspondence with the United States Government. As to what England may urge in regard to the force of the Nootka Sound treaty with Spain, it is sufficient, at present, to say that any such claim must have fallen with that treaty itself. Temporary in its character, and speedily dissolved by the war which occurred The Oregon Bill—Mr. Linn. between the two countries soon after, our right, if The Senator from South Carolina has urged that As for me, (said Mr. L.,) I desire, in this irre- we are steadily circumvented. There, as in the I insist that the bill does not attempt to dis- Senate. Oregon,-built forts, set up establishments, settled farms. Why cannot we do the same? I am glad (said Mr. L.) that the Congress of the United States-at least as far as the expression of opinion has gone-has made some progress in this matter. If the Senators [Messrs. CALHOUN and CHOATE] who have just spoken will turn back to the recorded arguments of 1822, and subsequent years, in Congress, they will find that the reasons they now urge against granting lands, were then used against the proposition to build forts, extend I now unour laws, or erect custom-houses. derstand these Senators as resting their objections to this bill on the clause granting away lands in the territory-on our obligations under the treaty of 1818, renewed in 1827; and that they do not raise the same objections to our building forts and occupying such portions of land as may suit our convenience. This is reporting some progress, as there existed three objections formerly, and one only is put forward now. It strikes me, Mr. President,-indeed, I know it to be a fact that the British Government, as a Government, never has built a fort in the Oregon country. It is plain, then, that if our Government erects fortifications on the Columbia, the same objection may be made by the British Government, which is now made here, with regard to grants of land-that it amounts to the exercise of an exclusive right not authorized by our obligations under the treaty. There is, in fact, no objection which can be urged against our making grants of land, that will not equally apply to our Government building forts, and occupying any part of the soil. It is a mere question of a government doing an act openly and honestly as a government; or doing it covertly, through the agency it has itself created. The Government of Great Britain has not directly, in its capacity as a Government, built forts, or selected and occupied lands in the territory; but it has encouraged its creature-the Hudson Bay Company-to do these acts; and, when they are done, it tells us openly that British interests have grown up there, which it must and will protect against the world. The facts are indisputable, that forts, called Hudson Bay "trading posts," exist on the Columbia; that the English have selected and occupied lands in which their Government has promised that their interests shall be protected; and that, although our citizens may, in their private capacities, make settlements and occupy lands there also, our Government has failed to promise them the same protection and security promised to the subjects of Great Britain by their Government. We are, indeed, with some inconsistency, told by the Senators that we may build forts; which necessarily implies the permanent occupation of the sites upon which they are to be built; but we cannot exercise the same power over the contiguous lands, that we do over those on which the forts stand. The principle appears to me to be identically the same, whether we occupy or appropriate one acre or a thousand, or whether the value of the land is little or much. The objection on the score of exclusive appropriation of any part of the territory for Governmental purposes, is like applicable to our obligations under the treaty, if those obligations are in reality susceptible of the construction given to them by the Senators. Great Britain, in her own pursuits, has not so regarded her obligations under the treaty. And all that I propose to do by this bill is, to take the same steps she has taken; to interpret our obligations as she interprets hers; and to offer our citizens the same encouragement and protection she invariably gives to her subjects, through the medium of the Hudson Bay Company. Why should there be anything offensive to Great Britain in all this? Why should this endanger the peace of the two countries? And if she can be so unreasonable as to conceive offence at it, why should that deter us from doing right-from doing our duty? Are we to wait for her permission?-to submit to her dictation?-to follow in her wake, in regard to the construction to be put upon this treaty?— to look to her submissively till she says, You may go so far, but you shall go no farther? No, sir; Mr. L. said he could not, would not believe that any t 27TH CONG.......SD SESS. American will, for a moment, entertain the craven thought. He knew something of the colossal power, the boundless energy, and the vast wealth of that little island, fast anchored in the far Atlantic. He knew that, from her isolated sea-girt throne, she overlooks the whole world; and that she has said, and is saying, to the nations of the earth-like one of her monarchs of old to the ocean-"thus far ye shall go, but no farther." But he also knew that we-at least, in times not long past-had refused to bow to her commands, and had set at naught her threats. And he would not now, nor should he ever, as an American citizen, submit to the arrogance of dictation. Either on this, or any other subject of our internal policy, the consideration of her pleasure or displeasure could have no weight with him. Neither as a Senator here, nor as a private citizen elsewhere, would he ever yield one iota of our claim to that territory. It is ours by treaty with France and Spain, by discovery, and by settlement; and he was prepared to take every step in his power to do what is necessary to assert and maintain our title. If, in doing this, we are compelled to approach the verge of war, or plunge in the gulf, let the blame fall on the injustice which drives us to it. He was not insensible to the evils of war. He knew it was a rough game-a scourge to the nations of the earth-and that we must share its miseries as well as its triumphs. He knew, too, that England never wants a pretext for war, when she decides that it is her interest to be the aggressor. If she chooses to make the passage of this bill a pretext, it is the same thing to us as the selection of any other pretext. She makes war or peace, just to suit her own views and further her own policy. She acts for her own interests, regardless of the effects on others. She never asked for our interpretation of the treaty when she encouraged the building of British posts on the Columbia, and the occupation of the whole country through the agency of her fur companies. She did not wait for our permission to build up British interests in the country, which, when erecting, she told us to our teeth she would protect. But we are told on this floor that she construes the treaty to mean a joint occupancy for trading purposes; and we are called upon to interpret it as she does, while we know that her actions do not conform to that interpretation. I hold (said Mr. L.) that we are to interpret the treaty for ourselves. We witness that, under the mantle of her Hudson Bay Company, Great Britain is spreading her coils around the whole territory; and we know that her policy must eventuate in her obtain. ing, not a joint occupancy and jurisdiction, but an exclusive possession. Under this cover, she has already done what this bill calls upon you now to do on our part, or weakly to suffer our rights, even under the treaty, to lapse. She has legislated for the jurisdiction of the whole, under the pretext of legislating for the protection of her Hudson Bay Company and its interests. What is this but the same artful course she pursued in India? For, at first, her movements were under the shadow of her East India Company; until, eventually, she took the reins openly into her own hands, and became the ruler of two hundred millions of subjects entangled in her meshes. On the banks of the Columbia river, she is laying the foundation for a similar state of things. It is in vain for gentlemen, in their overweening confidence in the national integrity of England, to deny the facts indelibly impressed on the pages of history, which records these transactions. He would ask the Senators whether she has not taken the course indicated, in relation to India? and whether the increase of her power there was not fostered in the same way that she is now cultivating it on the Columbia? It is a system from which she cannot and will not depart, wherever she is permitted to prosecute it. It is our policy to put a stop to that system in the Oregon Territory. In what I have said, I would not wish to be understood as meaning to assert that, in exercising her present authority over this territory, Great Britain would think of dispossessing our citizens already settled there, or preventing our emigrants from becoming new settlers. The result to which her poli West Florida Bill-Mr. Giddings. cy must lead, if followed out without interruption, would be, that all settlers-no matter whence they came-should ultimately become her subjects, under the force of circumstances. But what I chiefly insist upon, is, that she has given to the treaty, which we are called upon to respect to the letter, a construction in every way advantageous to herself; and that we, in self-defence, are necessarily obliged to act upon similar views. It is not pretended by her that we may not settle the country south of the Columbia river; for, since her ultimatum of 1827, in which she proposed to take that stream as her southern boundary, the Hudson Bay Company have actually dropped any pretensions to exclusive right on the southern side. Indeed, her hunters and trappers, after exhausting its fur-bearing animals, have gradually withdrawn from the hills and plains of the south, leaving many regular agricultural settlements inthe valley of the Wallamette, where they have farms, and even mills, and have established themselves with increased energy, as if determined to make their settlements permanent on the northern bank of the Columbia. Although this is a disguised admission that they have no right to exclusive appropriation on the south side, it is equally a proof that they do exercise exclusive right over the northern side of the river. But even then they do not give up their jurisdiction over the whole territory down to the 42d degree of latitude, and even to the borders of Missouri and Arkansas.. It has been said by the Senator from Massachusetts, that the British authorities have not construed the treaty so as to confer any joint right but-that of trading; and that our exercising the power of granting away lands for agricultural purposes would be subversive of the objects of the treaty, to maintain the right of hunting, trapping, and trading in the country, by the subjects of Great Britain, and citizens of the United States, jointly. But how do the facts square with this assumption? Have not the British extensive and well-cultivated farms on the Columbia? Have they not large tracts to the north of this river, from which they have prohibited all game from being hunted or trapped? Have they not established at home, in the city of London, the Puget Sound Company, with a view of pursuing agriculture on an extensive scale at Forts Nasqually, Colville Walla-walla, and what is called their Colony of Vancouver? Have they not extensive saw-mills, furnishing lumber for exportation from the Columbia river to the Sandwich Islands and elsewhere? Have they not contracts with Russian settlements to the north, for incredible quantities of wheat, butter, pork, beef, salmon, and other products of the country? And will the Senators say that these are legitimate exercises of the right to trap, hunt, and trade in the territory? Does the treaty, providing for the joint use of the country for purposes of trading, trapping, and hunting, give the British a right to turn it into British agricultural settlements, and deny to us the right of making the like appropriation of the soil? What exclusive right did they obtain to cut down, and turn into lumber, for exportation, the timber of the territory? Was there less exercise of exclusive ownership over the timber, than over the forts built of it? The Senator from Massachusetts says he has no objection to the other portions of the bill, if the grant of lands is stricken out. Does not the Senator see that its whole efficacy would be destroyed by that very operation? It would be a dead letter; for no citizens of the United States would have sufficient inducement to abandon the certainties which they enjoy at home, for the uncertainties, risks, and expenses of an emigration so distant and dangerous, merely on the assurance of protection from a few widely-scattered military posts. They must have this stimulant, which is the rational and substantial encouragement for an enterprise so great to them as emigrating to a wild country, cut off from friends, kindred, and government, by thousands of miles, and by hordes of savage tribes. Our citizens there, and going there, without the guaranty of this cleuse of the bill, would be discouraged, and be ultimately rooted out by the British, to whom the Indians are tributary. Give them the land, and they will hold it. H. of Reps. We have raised a barrier against our own onward march westward, by the Indian tribes planted on our territorial borders. They are there open to a foreign subsidy, for impeding our accession to our ocean limits; and it has become of vital interest to our safety to acquire an ascendency over these treacherous and dangerous neighbors. That ascendency can only be acquired and preserved by placing our population, in part, beyond them, and securing our avenues of intercourse with our distant territory. And we cannot plant any of our population there, without giving that encouragement for colonization, which it has been the uniform practice of every civ. ilized nation to hold out in such cases. That we have the right to give all that encour. agement which this bill proposes, he (Mr. L.) had no more doubt, than he had of our title to some Oregon Territory-a matter that never has been, and never can be, disputed with truth. the In the House of Representatives, January 14, 1843.-On the bill for the relief of the people of West Florida. Mr. GIDDINGS said that a gentleman not now in his seat (the Hon. WM. B. CALHOUN, of Massachusetts) had intended to present some objections to the bill now before the House. As that gentleman (said he) is absent, I feel it my duty to state such objections as exist in my own mind. In or der to be understood, I will briefly relate some historical facts that have a bearing on the subject. As early as 1811 Congress, by secret resolution, authorized the President to take possession of the Floridas, "in case an arrangement could be made with the local authorities of the provinces for delivering possession of the same, or any part thereof, to the United States." By virtue of this act, Gen. Matthews invaded East Florida in the year 1812. While there, the men under his command committed all those depredations which too commonly attend the march of an invading army. They were not restrained by the laws of the Territory, nor by those of necessity. They took property which we never furnish for our troops, and for which, when taken from our citizens by our officers or soldiers, we grant no compensation. Nor did they stop here. They went further, and interfered with the personal relations of the people, and brought away their slaves. What disposition was made of the slaves does not appear. I fear they were not restored to liberty. They were probably held in servitude by their captors, and they, or their descendants, are most likely in bondage in that Territory or some neighboring State. In 1814 General Jackson invaded the Territory of West Florida, and similar depredations were committed by the troops under his command. In 1818 he again invaded East Florida, where like depredations were committed. In 1819 the United States, by her then Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, entered into a treaty with his Catholic Majesty, acting by his Minister Plenipotentiary, Don Onis, by which Florida was ceded to the United States. The last clause of the ninth article of the treaty is as follows: "The United States will cause satisfaction to be made for the injuries, if any, which by process of law shall be establish ed to have been suffered by the Spanish officers, and the indi vidual Spanish inhabitants, by the late operauons of the Ameri can army in Florida.' In 1823, Congress passed a law to carry into ef fect this clause of the treaty. At this time all departments of the Government appear to have concurred in their construction of this provision of the treaty. They limited it to the operations of the American army in 1818, under General Jackson, as its terms plainly import. But I understand that all payment for slaves killed or stolen either by the army, or by the followers of General Jackson's camp, was refused by the Treasury Department. The people of Florida, however, were not satisfied with this limitation, particularly those who had suffered under the invasion by General Matthews. They applied for indemnity also under the law, and their claims were rejected. They then applied to Congress for relief; and in 1834, another law was passed for the purpose of extending indemnity to those who suffered losses by the operations of the army under General Matthews in 1812 and in 1813, This was an act entirely gratuitous. The losses occasioned by the army under General Matthews Jan. 1843. 27TH CONG....3D SESS. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. had not been embraced in the treaty; and Congress went altogether beyond our stipulations with Spain, in passing the law of 1834. Under this law, as well as that of 1823, all kinds of property were paid for; but no payments were made, as I understand, for persons who had been either killed or stolen, up to the year 1838, when the Secretary of the Treasury found himself so strongly beset by slaveholders, who claimed to have lost slaves during the campaigns in East Florida under General Matthews and General Jackson, that he referred the subject to the then Attorney General, Felix Grundy, who seems to have arrived at the very satisfactory conclusion that men were prop erty, (vide opinions of the Attorney General, vol. 6, Ex. Doc. 2d session 26th Congress.) He seems not only to have considered men as property, but he appears to have supposed that stealing them constituted a part of the operations of our armies in Florida. This learned opinion was deemed satisfactory, and the doors of our treasury were thrown open to the slaveholders, and the money acquired by the toil of Northern freemen was handed over in payment for the bones and sinews of their fellow-men. This, sir, is the history; and we are now asked to take another step, and pay for the losses sustained in West Florida by reason of the invasion of General Jackson in 1814. We are, by this bill, not only asked to pay for all property used, taken, and destroyed by his army, and by the followers of his camp; but we are asked to pay for the slaves killed and stolen by his army, and those who followed it. The House will bear in mind that the Government holds itself responsible only for the authorized acts of its agents. The commander of an army may impress provisions for its support, if they are not furnished by the Government; or he may impress teams to transport his baggage and arms when they are not otherwise provided. But he cannot go beyond that, and take property not allowed to an army by the laws of the country. If he take my family pictures, or any other articles which we do not ordinarily provide for our armies, it is a trespass, for which he alone is liable. As before remarked, I understand that property of every description was paid for under these acts of Congress, whether it was taken by order of the commanding officer, or by the followers of the camp; or "whether it was property ordinarily allowed to an army, or such articles as we never furnish to our troops. This practice of the Government with our own citizens is the same as in private life. If our agent keep within the bounds of his authority, we hold ourselves responsible for his acts; if he transcend his authority, we are not bound. Now, if the House \desire to go further than we have been accustomed to go with our own citizens, and grant to the people of Florida indemnity for all acts committed by our army, or by those who followed the camp of General Jackson, upon property which they were authorized to take, or upon that which they had no authority to take, I shall not object. It is to that feature in the bill which seeks to grant to the people of West Florida indemnity for the slaves stolen by the army, and by the followers of the army, under General Jackson in 1814, to which I object. I oppose this provision of the bill, for the reason that it seeks to overturn the entire practice of Congress since the adoption of the Constitution; and, in my opinion, is in palpable violation of the constitutional rights of the people of the free States. It is, therefore, an unyielding sense of duty that constrains me to oppose the passage of this bill-a bill which is to take from the pockets of my constituents, and of the people of the free States, their money, and apply it in payment for human flesh. I do it from no wish to stir up strife, by agitating what is generally called "the delicate question;" but I do it in defence of the constitutional rights of the people of the free States. I deem the subject of paramount importance to the nation, and particularly to those States. I have had no agency in bringing forward this bill. That has been done by others. Its passage is urged upon us; and we must silently permit it to become a law; or we must array ourselves in opposition to its further progress. Gentlemen from the free States must select the position which they desire to occupy. They must, by their votes, aid in taking money from the pockets of their constituents, and handing it over to those who claim the bodies, the flesh and blood of their fellow-men, as property; or they must stand forth in defence of the interests and the honor of the Northern States, and of West Florida Bill-Mr. Giddings. the Federal Constitution. I will remark, further, that these questions of the constitutional rights of the people of the several States in regard to slavery, are pressing upon us from so many directions, that their discussion cannot much longer be delayed. The number of bills now upon our calendar, which involve those questions, forbids all hopes of suppressing the agitation of this matter. Again: if we look for a moment to the various parts of the Union, and mark the feeling that exists both at the North and at the South, the intensity of which is increasing daily, from conflicting interests and collisions of supposed rights, we must conclude that every dictate of patriotism impels us to the speedy adjustment of these difficulties. This feeling is constantly gathering strength throughout our country; and every delay will add to its already accumulated force, and will increase the difficulties of allaying it. I therefore deem the present time the most favorable for adjusting those difficulties, from which we have so long shrunk with a tremulous delicacy. If, however, we have not the moral courage to meet those important questions in this hall, and to decide upon them as statesmen and patriots, it requires no inspiration to foresee that the people will assume to themselves the responsibility which they have assigned to us. 1 shall not presume to predict the manner of the adjudication, nor when that event shall take place. Sir, if we pass this bill, shall we not add to the feelings of the North, which have already reached a point where they cannot be trifled with? I ask gentlemen of the North whether they are prepared to take the money of their constituents and pay for slaves killed by the army of General Jackson, or stolen by the followers of his camp? Are gentlemen of either political party, from the free States, prepared to thrust their hands into the pockets of their constituents, for money to hand over to the slaveholders of Florida as a compensation for slaves? If, sir, we are prepared to do this, let us do it openly and fearlessly; let us place ourselves before the world; in that attitude, let there be no dodg ing or skulking; let us say by our acts that we think . our constituents will submit to it; that they have not the spirit to resist, nor the independence to op. pose, such violations of their rights;-let this be made the issue, and the result will not be doubtful. In all sincerity, I ask Southern gentlemen if they believe we can compel the sturdy sons of liberty at the North, whose fathers and brothers fell in the late war, and who were thrown pennyless upon the world, to contribute a portion of their property, acquired by toil, to pay the slaveholders of Florida for negroes enticed away by the followers of Gen. Jackson's camp? If we pass this bill in its present form, we shall adopt a new principle into our legislation-one that has not heretofore been known in an American Congress-one that, up to this day, has been denied and repudiated by this House. Í trust that gentlemen will notice this important fact, and that they will be prepared to say, by their vote upon the passage of this bill, whether they are willing to overturn the principles which have guided our national legislation for more than half a century. I am not prepared to go into a minute examination of all claims for slaves that have been presented to Congress since the adoption of our Constitution. The leading cases were ably examined by my highly respected predecessor, the Hon. E. Whittlesey, in a report which he, as chairman of the Committee of Claims, made to this House in 1830, (vide 3d vol. Reports, 1st session 21st Congress, No. 401.) I will send this report to the Clerk's table, with a request that he will read it to the House. [The Clerk here read the report of the Committee of Claims, made upon the memorial of Francis Larch. When the reading was closed, Mr. GIDDINGS resumed.] The case presented by this report is one of the very strongest character. Francis Larch owned a slave, which he held as property under the laws of Louisiana. This slave, while driving a horse and cart belonging to his master, was, on the day of the battle of New Orleans, impressed, with the horse and cart, into the public service, by order of the commanding officer. During the battle, the slave and horse were killed, and the cart destroyed by cannon shot. Mr. Larch applied to Congress for compensation. The Committee of Claims, composed of members both from the slave and the free States, reported unanimously in favor of paying for the horse and cart, and against any compensation for the slave. They came to this conclusion after learning, from the Register of the Treasury, H. of Reps. 81 that slaves had never been paid for by the Federal Government during the revolutionary war, nor since that period; and after a careful examination of the action of the House upon this question whenever it had come before them. I commend to the notice of gentlemen the action of this House in 1816, when an attempt was made to grant indemnity for slaves killed in the public service. This attempt was opposed by several Southern members, among whom was Mr. McCoy of Virginia; and such was the force of reasoning brought to bear against the application, that only forty members voted for it. We have the authority of this report, made by Mr. Whittlesey, that, up to the year 1830, no payment for slaves killed in the public service, or otherwise lost to their owners, had ever been authorized by Congress. I have carefully examined the proceedings of this body since the date of this report, and so have other gentlemen; but we have found no instance in which Congress has acknowledged any obligation resting upon the United States to pay for slaves. On the contrary, the records of the Committee of Claims show conclusively that, up to the present Congress, that committee, from 1794, (the date of its earliest record,) has rejected every claim presented to them for compensation on account of slaves lost in the public service, whether they had been impressed into the service, or had entered it by consent of their masters. I therefore say, without hesitation, that, from the meeting of the first Congress, in 1789, up to this day, the practice of Congress on this subject has been uniform. All applications for indemnity for the loss of slaves have been rejected, without exception; and Iappeal to gentlemen to maintain inviolate this usage, which, by universal consent, has now become law with us. Lay not violent hands upon a rule thus sanctioned by the wisdom of our predecessors for more than fifty years. The report which has been read speaks of it as "a delicate question," and of adding to the excitement already existing." The committee, like other members, were in the habit of approaching this subject with a kind of horror which their imaginations seem to have thrown around it. They appear to have been unwilling to examine in detail the principles on which they based their report; but the precedents were established by those who assisted in framing the Constitution. Their examples have been approved and followed down to this day, and, in my opinion, should not now be departed from. Those sages and patriots who framed the Constitution must have understood their own intentions in framing it; and, being guided by the most pure love of country, while subsequently serving in this hall, their decisions on this point are certainly entitled to great weight. But, overwhelming as the authority of these precedents is, and conclusive as the former practice of this House would seem to be, there are other and far stronger arguments to be drawn from the Constitution itself. But, before entering upon this part of the argument, I propose to examine briefly the maxim which prevails so generally in the slave States, that "slaves are property." This saying is frequently made by gentlemen from the South, and is sometimes repeated by those of the North. The constitution of Ohio declares that "man is created free, and is endowed by his Creator with a right to the uninterrupted enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This constitution my colleagues and myself have often sworn to support. How, then, we can call man property, and say that, as such, he belongs to his fellow-man, is a matter which I cannot readily comprehend. But it is said that Kentucky, and all the other slave States, by their laws, have declared a portion of their people to be the property of the others. Here is the conflict between the laws of Kentucky and Ohio. They are at variance with each other, and cannot be reconciled. Yet, sir, as I prefer the doctrine of our constitution, I may enjoy the blessings of liberty while I remain in that State. If I prefer the slavery of Kentucky, I may go to that State, and participate in its privileges, and live under her laws. While, then, the people of Ohio cannot demand of me the adoption of their political faith-that man is endowed by his Creator with the right to enjoy his life and his liberty-neither can the people of Kentucky force upon me, while a citizen of Ohio, the doctrine that man can hold property in man. These laws of Kentucky are in force within her territory, but not in Ohio. The laws of Ohio are in force within that State, but 2/TH CONG.......3D SESS. have no validity in Kentucky. But it is said that we are bound to consider slaves as property, because this law of the slave States has declared them such. If that be the case, then are the people of the slave States bound to consider man free, because the paramount law of Ohio has declared him so. Sir, our law is as binding upon the people of Kentucky, as the laws of that State are upon the people of Ohio. We acknowledge no superiority in our sister State, nor do we claim any for our own. We stand upon the same level, enjoying equal rights, and maintaining an equal independence. If she can demand of us a portion of our substance to pay her people for the loss of slaves, may we not demand of her citizens a portion of their wealth to compensate our people for the loss of our sons, our brothers, our husbands, and fathers, killed in defending her citizens (perhaps her slaves) against a foreign enemy? Is the slave more valuable than a freeman? Or is the loss of a slave of more importance to the country than that of a freeman? Has the nation a deeper interest in the lives of slaves, than it has in those of freemen? That difference in the laws of the several States existed at the formation of the Constitution. Had the framers of that instrument intended to have overturned the doctrine of the free States, and of the civilized world, in this respect, they would have been likely to leave some evidence of that fact in the Constitution itself, or in the debates of the convention that framed it. The distinction between persons and property was drawn by the hand of God himself, at the creation. That distinction cannot be obliterated by man. "The human form divine" is distinct from all other earthly beings and things. This distinction was sanctioned and established when the voice of the Almighty proclaimed to man, "Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth!" "This," says Sir William Blackstone, "was the origin of property." It is founded upon the command of Heaven, and is totally unconnected with the laws of our slave States. This marked distinction between persons and property has been observed by jurists, statesmen, and writers, from the earliest antiquity to the present day. In 1776, the Congress of these colonies declared "that all men are created equal." The members of the convention that framed the Constitution were profoundly read in natural and municipal law, and well understood this fundamental distinction. Mr. Madison, who is styled "the father of the Constitution," has left on record his opinion, as expressed in the convention. He declared it "wrong to admit slaves to be property." We have no intimation that an individual in the convention differed from him. On this point, so far as our information extends, there was no difference of opinion. On the contrary, we have conclusive evidence that the distinction between persons and property was kept up by the language of the Constitution itself. In every instance where that instrument refers to the unfortunate class of people called slaves, they are characterized as persons. Thus, in fixing the ratio of representation, in the 2d section of the 1st article, they are denominated persons. When it grants to Congress power to suppress the slavetrade, in section 9, article 1, it characterizes them as persons. In section 2, article 4, in providing for the recapture of fugitive slaves, they are again styled persons. But in no instance are they alluded to as property. It would really seem as though these facts could leave no room for cavil as to the light in which the Constitution of the United States regards them. If the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States could make this question more clear, I might cite the decision of Groves vs. Slaughter, reported in 15th Peters, in which this point came before the court, and it was said by Justice McLean that, although slaves may, by the laws of particular States, be declared property, "yet the Federal Constitution regards them only as persons." But, in my opinion, the language of the Constitution is conclusive, and cannot be made more apparent by argument. In some of the States, slaves are declared property. But the question now before us is, Do these laws overrule the laws of other States? and do they supersede the Federal Constitution? The constitutions of the free States, that of the Federal Government, the opinions of the civilized world, the hand of nature, and the voice of God, have distinguished persons from property; and it is The Bankrupt Bill-Mr. Meriwether. It now too late for a particular State to overturn these authorities, and force upon us the new principle that man is property, or that property is man. cannot be done. My friend in front of me [Mr. HOWARD] says it cannot be done short of a "bill of sale from the Almighty." But, Mr. Speaker, should such an instrument be produced, I would at once deny its authenticity. [Mr. HOLMES of S. C. called Mr. GIDDINGS to order for sacrilege. The SPEAKER pro tem. (Mr. McKENNAN) decided that Mr. GIDDINGS was not out of order, and desired him to proceed] Mr. GIDDINGS resumed. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that any gentleman should permit his feelings to become excited at what I was saying. I hope to control my own feelings, let others do as they may. I have said what I desired to say upon the subject of man holding man as property. There is, however, another view of the question to which I wish to call the attention of the House. It is this: that we do not possess the constitutional right to involve the people of the free States in the expense, the disgrace, or the guilt of slavery. With them, it is a matter of principle and of conscience. They will not consent to be involved in slavery, unless they are constitutionally liable to be made participators in that institution. I deny that they are thus liable. I lay it down as a principle well established-one that is not to be denied or doubted-that, by our Federal Constitution, no power was delegated to Congress to involve the people of the free States in the expense, the guilt, or the disgrace of that institution. I have on a former occasion stated some of my views upon this point; but I trust the House will bear with me, if, upon the present occasion, I again refer to the doctrine which I trust will at no distant day be acknowledged as a fundamental principle of this Government. In order to be understood, I will refer to the situation of the several States prior to the adoption of the Constitution. At that period, each State exercised supreme and unlimited power over the institution of slavery within its own limits. Each possessed the power to continue or abolish it without interference or interruption from any other power on earth. Virginia held her slaves subject only to the laws of that State. Massachusetts enjoyed her freedom in the same unlimited and supreme degree. Virginia could not call upon Massachusetts to share with her any portion of the expense, the disgrace, or the guilt of slavery. Nor Could Congress, under the old Confederation, involve Massachusetts, to any extent whatever, in that institution. If the slaves of Virginia were killed or lost, or ran away from their masters, her people sustained the loss, if any; nor could they throw any part of it upon the people of Massachusetts. The people of the latter State enjoyed their freedom, entirely exempt from the restrictions of slavery. Her people were not liable to be called upon to contribute their funds to pay for the bones and sinews of their fellow-men, in violation of their moral principles. At the formation of the Constitution, the people of each State entertained their own views concerning slavery. The North were opposed to that institution. The South deemed it necessary for their prosperity. The same conflicting views and interests existed at that period, that exist at this day. The Northern States were anxious for the abolition of slavery. The Southern States refused to adopt the Constitution, if, by so doing, the Federal Government were to have any power over it. Virginia would not intrust her slavery to the control of the Federal Government, nor would Massachusetts intrust the liberty of her people to that power. On the subject of slavery, each State, therefore, retained to itself its whole powers concerning that institution-delegating no portion of those powers to the Federal Government, except the power to legislate so far as to enable the owners of fugitive slaves to recapture them. This power was expressly given in the Constitution: and its existence there is as strong a negative of the existence of all other powers, as could have been expressed by any language whatever. It therefore follows, that at this day we have no more power to apply the public funds to pay for slaves, than Congress possessed under the old articles of Confederation. We have no more power to take a slave from his master now, than the old Congress had. The citizens of Virgini at this day holds his slave as independent of the Federal Government as he did prior to the H. of Reps. adoption of our Constitution. We, sir, possess no more constitutional power to separate the master and slave in Virginia, than we do to sever that relation between persons in India. Nor have we any more constitutional right to involve the people of the free States in the expense of slavery, or in the moral guilt of paying a slaveholder for loosing his grasp upon his fellow-man, than we have to take money from the people of Great Britain for that object. Sir, we should violate the rights of the people of Canada in no greater degree, if we were to compel them to aid in the payment for lost slaves, than we shall those of the free States, if we com pel them to contribute for the same purpose. Sir, the right of enjoying our personal liberty, and the right of continuing slavery, were State interests, which were never brought into the political copart nership. They constitute no portion of our joint capital; nor can they be reached by the acts of our political firm. We, acting for the joint interests of all the States, cannot interfere with either the slavery of the South or the liberty of the North. The power to do this has never been delegated to us. Its exercise would be a usurpation-a palpable violation of the Constitution-a subversion of the rights of the people upon whom it is exercised. If we have power to involve the people of the free States in the payment of slaves to any extent, we have the right to exert precisely the same power, and to the same extent, for the abolition of slavery in the slave States. Establish the principle that we can involve the people of the free States in the payment of slaves, and it will follow that we have jurisdiction over slavery. If we have power to make the free States pay for slaves, we have power to say they shall not be paid for. If we may interfere to any extent, we may to all extent. If we have jurisdic tion over that institution, let us at once exercise it as becomes a nation professing freedom. I am ready to take jurisdiction of it whenever I can satisfy myself that we can constitutionally do so. When we once commence legislation in regard to slavery, I hope and trust we shall speak of "natural rights," of "human liberty," and of the crime of holding our fellow-men in bondage. When we talk of slavery, I trust it will be to execrate it, to abolish it, and not to discuss the propriety of encouraging its continuance at the expense of this Government and of the free States, or in any other In the House of Representatives, January 4, 1843On the bill for the repeal of the bankrupt law. Mr. MERIWETHER said that he concurred fully in opinion with the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BoWNE,] that there would be no repeal of the bankrupt law at the present session. He had no doubt that many of those who professed to oppose the law, were at heart its friends, and that such would vote for all motions for commit ment, for all instructions, to waste time and defeat action. They were opposed to repeal; but, to save appearances, were compelled to make a show of resistance to the law. The measure had been made a theme for party declamation throughout the Union. It would be difficult to find, in the vocabulary of epithets, one which had not been exhausted upon both the measure and its advocates; and now, after it had been made the stepping-stone to power, it would be too impudent for those who had so used it, at once to vote against the repeal: hence they have sought its defeat by indirect attacks, and will, no doubt, succeed in their purpose. The whole country had been aroused against the law; its provisions had been declared to be ruinous, dishonest, villanous: and yet those very pro visions, thus condemned, had, every one of them, time and again, been commended to the people, by the votes of the leading members of the Democratic party in the Senate. All this the country had neglected to look at; and the advocates of the law had not had time to catch the first calm, in the storm which had swept over them, to demonstrate it. The law-just as it is, without change of a syllable, word, or sentence-is acceptable, no doubt, to the majority of the Democratic party; but they 27TH CONG.....3D SESS. have told the people differently, and must now act with some show of sincerity. But I predict this repeal bill will be strangled just where it is; and, next session, the Democratic party, having the power, will complain of their inability to correct all of "Whig misrule," and leave the bankrupt law still in full operation. The facts just stated by the gentleman show that I am not very far wrong in my suspicions. . He tells us that he voted against the passage of the bill originally; that there is not a man in his district, save one, who does support it; that that one is an "open and avowed supporter" of the law; that the people demand the repeal, and, to insure it, have left him [Mr. BowNE] at home, and elected in his stead this very same "open and avowed supporter" of the present law. This fact shows that the excitement in the gentleman's district was not very alarming, however unanimous it may have been. And it shows, further, that the gentleman may have mistaken public sentiment; and, in order to get into the current again, and to keep up appearances, it may be that his speech was intended to do what he censured in others so much-to stave off the question of repeal! That strange speech had an "awful squinting" that way. This fact shows, furthermore, what confidence is to be placed in the complaints of the Democratic party against their opponents and their acts. No exception to the acts of the Whig party was more prejudicial to them than that founded upon the bankrupt law. It was daily denounced as the means of destroying all confidence in society, and bringing bankruptcy and ruin upon the whole country. It was denounced as a system of robbery, and a palpable violation of the Constitution. These charges have been believed; and the country has, by its vote, evicted from power and place the party who held control when the law was passed. The gentleman was no silent spectator in the great struggle. He denounced the law; his constituents agreed with him, all but one man; and now, when the battle has been won, when the weapon of assault is yet reeking with the blood of the victim, when victory is certain,-that very constituency hurl from their affections the man who had faithfully sustained their views, and have elected in his place one who had opposed him and hem upon this very question. For the party's sake, they joined in the denunciation; and now, for their own sakes, they have elected a Represent. ative who could, without change, subserve their views. They opposed a principle to get into power; and when in power, they sustain it, to keep there. Mr. M. said that he was opposed to the repeal of the bankrupt law. He stated that now, as it was possible he should not again touch the subject under consideration in the course of his remarks, [laughter,] he should follow very closely the example which had been set him. He voted originally for the passage of the bill. He was not satisfied, at the time, as to the wishes of his constituents upon the subject. He had to rely upon the evidence before him, in the shape of memorials addressed to this House-apon private letters received by himself and others-upon conversations with gentlemen who were at the seat of Government, from his State, at the extra session. From all these sources, the overpowering evidence was, that the people of his State desired the passage of the law, and he voted for it. Before the law went into operation, however, he became satisfied that the same people desired its repeal; he therefore voted in accordance with their wishes. Recently, the subject had not been agitated; but he had seen the good effects of the law; it was a measure of justice, sent in mercy to a whole people, groaning beneath the iron rod of heartless power, and struggling, amidst the deepest and most gloomy reverses of fortune, to subsist those whom nature had made dependent upon their labor. Then, upon his own responsibility, he should vote against the repeal. Further, he should so vote upon every incidental motion as would most certainly tend to defeat that repeal. And if, as it had been said, it was an object of great desire to the Democratic party to reserve to a Democratic Congress the honor of repealing the law, he would, by his votes, help to give them an opportunity. Then we should see whether they would repeal the law, or retain it; whether they would modify it; and whether, since they have declared it to be unconstitutional, they would attempt, by their legislation, to set up debts which they now say have been unconstitutionally discharged. Let The Bankrupt Law-Mr. Meriwe' her. them nave a fair sweep; and let us see how far they will verify, by their acts, what they have said to the people. Mr. M. said he had been very much amused at the confession of sins which was now going on with the Democracy. Whether conscience was pricking, or concealment was no longer necessary, he pretended not to say. The gentleman from New York [Mr. BowNE] had said that he was an old Federalist, but as soon as he judged for himself he became a Democrat. Mr. M. thought it was no great effort of judgment to lead a votary of Federalism to Democracy: the dividing line between the two had never yet been defined. The gentleman said that if proscription was to cut off or repel a man from the Democratic party because he was a Federalist, many who were now in their ranks would have no further place here. This was a candid and a true confession; and if a political confessor were appointed, it would be a difficult matter to divine the time of his duration in office, if he but listened for a moment to the confession of each Democrat who had the same sin upon his shoulders which the gentleman admitted was on his own. Mr. M. had sometimes been at a loss to account for the great zeal of the gentleman [Mr. BoWNE] in behalf of the cause of Democracy. If he is a penitent at the footstool of political mercy, and if, by shifting from Federalism to Democracy, he has found (or thinks he has found) a political regenerating grace, it may be that to the maxim, that "new converts are always the most zealous," is to be attributed his fiery zeal. But Mr. M. had likewise heard it said, that the most "zealous converts" were not always the most radically reformed. The gentleman might still be under a delusion as to his conversion, and as to the probabilities of conversion at all for one who occupies his place. But, be this as it may-whether the gentleman be reformed or not-whether it be in fancy or in factjudging of the past by the present, if the past was as bad with him, proportionably, as the present seems to be, let no man who seeks political refor mation ever cease from the struggle to acquire it; for, looking upon the gentleman's present condition as improved, I feel that, in the most perfect respect to him, I may say to others, go on For while the lamp holds out to burn, The vilest sinner may return." But, turning from the gentleman and his faith, I desire to say something of the auction sale, which is the subject of a speculation. My friend from Indiana [Mr. THOMPSON] expressed the opinion that the article offered was damaged, and there would be no bidders. I thought then, and yet think, he was mistaken. The thing is damaged, beyond doubt; but the Democracy, rather than be without power, would bid for and use any article, however badly damaged; and, in the sequel, we shall see that their too free use of a damaged commodity has resulted in damaging them. The gen. tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CUSHING] was too old a dealer in politics-was too skilful and provident-not to know the value of the article to be sold. He knew the character of the bidders too well— their necessities and dispositions--to hazard his object. He stood behind the screen; he saw those who pulled the wires; he knew the suppliants for Executive favor; he held his notes in his pocket, and saw and knew all the motives to action--who must act, when they must act, and how; he saw over the entire ground, and knew the stations of his men. The result has shown that he was not mistaken. Never did auctioneer ply his bidders so well before; never did bidders respond more kindly before. True, there was some little squeamishness at first--some little restlessness; but this was natural, and to be expected, when the business had been so suddenly and publicly thrown upon them, All seemed to like Mr. Tyler very well; he was quite an honest man; he had been badly served by the Whigs-a most rascally set of ingrates, who had put him in office, and then had refused to put their heads down as stones on which he might step higher and longer. They did not like Daniel Webster and John C. Spencer, however; but this was a secondary matter; they would support Mr. Tyler's measures that were right, and they knew he would offer nothing that his conscience did not approve, unless seduced by Daniel Webster. This was the maiden coyness with which the Democracy began their bids; but, as an earnest that more would be granted, if enough had not been H. of Reps conceded, the auctioneer was assured that the Democracy would not dash themselves against the "constitutional fact." As the auction has advanced, the bidders have been warmed up, and better terms have been offered. The gentleman [Mr. BowNE] comes up fully in public to the terms doubtlessly reserved and dictated in private. He says: Take Daniel Webster and John C. Spencer, with all their sins upon them; receive them gladly and with open arms; and tells his brethren that if they are rejected for the sin of Federalism, measuring the same justice to others, they must force "thousands of other gentlemen" from their ranks. Does not this look like bidding, and bidding freely, for the damaged "thing?" and would the gentleman [Mr. CUSHING] have opened this sale if he did not know that circumstances would force the Democracy to show their loyalty here? Sir, this auction has been a troublesome matter to the Democracy; it has driven them to assume positions, to show division, to disclose purposes, which they had hoped to hide from the public eye. The Whigs have had their day of adversity; offices and measures were swept from us, like sand before the wind. This was a day of rejoicing for the Democracy; they laughed at our adversities, and feasted upon the full harvest of Executive patronage; and, so long as the Captain-General was in the dispensation of his favors, all was quiet and happy; so long as the war was against the Whigs, not a sorrowful thought crossed their happy bosoms. But that war is over; the enemy is supposed to be routed; and now the Captain begins to inquire, What share of the spoils is mine? What profit enures to me? Who bids for the "constitutional fact," against which I have dashed our common foe? There are in my family those who intend to be heard in the next Presidential election. Who bids for my power? Sir, I may repeat, this auction has been a troublesome matter for our opponents. Accustomed to grief ourselves, we have more philosophy in its midst. We have looked upon the sorrows of our opponents with compassion, since the bright sunshine of their hopes has been turned to the chilling damps of disappointment. We would that the bitter cup could pass from them. We have seen that the hour of their dissolution has come, before they have yet entered upon the Elysian fields of their glory. But, who bids? is the hateful sound that rings through their ears. Who bids? is the accursed knell which foretells the hour of their doom. But, sir, a community of action is likely to beget a community of sympathy. The Democracy have been the soldiery with which Captain Tyler has waged his war upon the "friends he left behind him." They have imbibed a love, as was natural, for their Captain; and the dispensation of many favors of good and substantial offices, all held at his will-has not failed to impress upon these favorites, and their friends' friends and relations, and upon all who think that, by possibility, they might_fall into the "line of safe precedents," that the Cap. tain has manly virtues, lofty genius, noble daring; and "Who should be king but Charlie?" Besides, there are "buddings of disaffection" in the ranks of the Democracy, growing out of the succession, as the gentleman [Mr. CUSHING] very shrewdly told us. Differences between the Northern and the Southern house were far from any hope of speedy reconciliation. In the mean time, the "fact" was here and could not be surmounted. All these things had brought uncertainty into the ranks of the Democracy; and at this moment, so inopportune for them, the President has snatched the banner of the guard, and planted it in their midst. Who feels that they need my power? Who bids for it? is the ready query that, like an electric shock, thrills throughout their whole ranks; and bid, some one must. Now, sir, it is unnecessary for any one to disguise the fact that Mr. Tyler has divided and broken the ranks of the Democratic party. Their "one and indivisible" front is a mass of chaos. Followers are flocking to his banner; and the little guard, once so insignificant, is now quite an army of well-disposed affections, if not counted men; and all its recruits are drawn from the Democracy. The number, too, is greater than public opinion has allowed. The "givings out" of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BowNE] favored this opinion; and, if I am not mistaken, from the gentleman's speech of yesterday, [Mr. WELLER,] he h |