Volume 2 — SPEECHES. (continued 19)

They began with the best currency, promised a better, and end with giving none! For we might as well resort to the costumes of our original parents in the garden of Eden, as, in this enlightened age, with the example of the commercial world before us, to cramp this energetic and enterprising people, by a circulation exclusively of the precious metals. Let us see how the matter stands with us here in Kentucky, and I believe we stand as well as the people do in most of the states. We have a circulation in bank notes amounting to about two millions and a half, founded upon specie in their vaults amounting to one million and a quarter, half the actual circulation. Have we too much money? [No no! exclaimed many voices.] If all banks were put down, and all bank paper were annihilated, we should have just one half the money that we now have. I am quite sure that one of the immediate causes of our present difficulties, is a defect in quantity as well as the quality of the circulating medium. And it would be impossible, if we were reduced to such a regimen as is proposed by the hard money theorists, to avoid stop laws, relief laws, repudiation, bankruptcies, and perhaps civil commotion.

I have traced the principal causes of the present embarrassed condition of the country, I hope with candor and fairness, and without giving offence to any of my fellow citizens, who may have differed in political opinion from me. It would have been far more agreeable to my feelings to have dwelt, as I did in 1832, during the third year of the first term of president Jackson’s administration, upon bright and cheering prospects of general prosperity. I thought it useful to contrast that period with the present one, and to inquire into the causes which have brought upon us such a sad and dismal reverse. A much more important object remains to me to attempt, and that is to point out remedies for existing evils and disorders.

And the first I would suggest, requires the coöperation of the government and the people; it is economy and frugality, strict and persevering economy, both in public and private affairs. Government should incur or continue no expense that can be justly and honorably avoided, and individuals should do the same. The prosperity of the country has been impaired by causes operating throughout several years, and it will not be restored in a day or a year, perhaps not in a period less than it has taken to destroy it. But we must not only be economical, we must be industrious, indefatigably industrious. An immense amount of capital has been wasted and squandered in visionary or unprofitable enterprises, public and private. It can only be reproduced by labor and saving.

The second remedy which I would suggest, and that without which all others must prove abortive or ineffectual, is a sound currency, of uniform value throughout the union, and redeemable in specie upon the demand of the holder. I know of but one mode in which that object can be accomplished, and that has stood the test of time and practical experience. If any other can be devised than a bank of the United States, which should be safe and certain, and free from the influence of government, and especially under the control of the executive department, I should for one gladly see it embraced. I am not exclusively wedded to a bank of the United States, nor do I desire to see one established against the will and without the consent of the people. But all my observation and reflection have served to strengthen and confirm my conviction, that such an institution, emanating from the authority of the general government, properly restricted and guarded, with such improvements as experience has pointed out, can alone supply a reliable currency.

Accordingly, at the extra session, a bill passed both houses of congress, which, in my opinion, contained an excellent charter, with one or two slight defects, which it was intended to cure by a supplemental bill, if the veto had not been exercised. That charter contained two new, and I think admirable features; one was to separate the operation of issuing a circulation from that of banking, confiding these faculties to different boards; and the other was to limit the dividends of the bank, bringing the excess beyond the prescribed amount, into the public treasury. In the preparation of the charter, every sacrifice was made that could be made to accommodate it, especially in regard to the president. But instead of meeting as in a mutual spirit of conciliation, he fired, as was aptly said by a Virginia editor, upon the flag of truce sent from the capitol.

Congress anxious to fulfil the expectations of the people, another bank bill was prepared, in conformity with the plan of a bank sketched by the acting president in his veto message, after a previous consultation between him and some distinguished members of congress, and two leading members of his cabinet. The bill was shaped in precise conformity to his views, as communicated by those members of the cabinet, and as communicated to others and was submitted to his inspection after it was so prepared; and he gave his assurances that he would approve such a bill. I was no party to the transaction, but I do not entertain a doubt of what I state. The bill passed both houses of congress without any alteration or amendment whatever, and the veto was nevertheless again employed.

It is painful for me to advert to a grave occurrence, marked by such dishonor and bad faith. Although the president, through his recognized organ, derides and denounces the whigs, and disowns being one; although he administers the executive branch of the government in contempt of their feelings and in violation of their principles; and although all whom he chooses to have denominated as ultra whigs, that is to say the great body of the whig party, have come under his ban, and those of them in office are threatened with his expulsion, I wish not to say of him one word that is not due to truth and to the country. I will, however, say that, in my opinion, the whigs cannot justly be held responsible for his administration of the executive department, for the measures he may recommend, or his failure to recommend others, nor especially for the manner in which he distributes the public patronage. They will do their duty, I hope, towards the country, and render all good and proper support to government; but they ought not to be held accountable for his conduct. They elected him, it is true, but for another office, and he came into the present one by a lamentable visitation of providence. There had been no such instance occurring under the government. If the whigs were bound to scrutinize his opinions, in reference to an office which no one ever anticipated he would fill, he was bound in honor and good faith to decline the Harrisburgh nomination, if he could not conscientiously coöperate with the principles that brought him into office. Had the president who was elected lived, had that honest and good man, on whose face, in that picture, we now gaze, been spared, I feel perfectly confident that all the measures which the principles of the whigs authorized the country to expect, including a bank of the United States, would have been carried.

But it may be said that a sound currency, such as I have described, is unattainable during the administration of Mr. Tyler. It will be, if it can only be obtained through the instrumentality of a bank of the United States, unless he changes his opinion, as he has done in regard to the land bill.

Unfortunately, our chief magistrate possesses more powers, in some respects, than a king or queen of England. The crown is never separated from the nation, but is obliged to conform to its will. If the ministry holds opinions adverse to the nation, and is thrown into the minority in the house of commons, the crown is constrained to dismiss the ministry, and appoint one whose opinions coincide with the nation. This queen Victoria has recently been obliged to do: and not merely to change her ministry, but to dismiss the official attendants upon her person. But here, if the president holds an opinion adverse to that of congress and the nation upon important public measures, there is no remedy but upon the periodical return of the rights of the ballot box.

Another remedy, powerfully demanded by the necessities of the times, and requisite to maintaining the currency in a sound state, is a tariff which will lessen importations from abroad, and tend to increase supplies at home from domestic industry. I have so often expressed my views on this subject, and so recently in the senate of the United States, that I do not think there is any occasion for my enlarging upon it at this time. I do not think that an exorbitant or very high tariff is necessary; but one that shall insure an adequate revenue and reasonable protection; and it so happens that the interests of the treasury and the wants of the people now perfectly coincide. Union is our highest and greatest interest. No one can look beyond its dissolution without horror and dismay. Harmony is essential to the preservation of the union. It was a leading, although not the only motive in proposing the compromise act, to preserve that harmony. The power of protecting the interests of our own country, can never be abandoned or surrendered to foreign nations, without a culpable dereliction of duty. Of this truth, all parts of the nation are every day becoming more and more sensible. In the mean time this indispensable power should be exercised with a discretion and moderation, and in a form least calculated to revive prejudices, or to check the progress of reforms now going on in public opinion.

In connection with a system of remedial measures, I shall only allude to, without stopping to dwell on, the distribution bill, that just and equitable settlement of a great national question, which sprung up during the revolutionary war, which has seriously agitated the country, and which it is deeply to be regretted had not been settled ten years ago, as then proposed. Independent of all other considerations, the fluctuation in the receipts from sales of the public lands is so great and constant that it is a resource on which the general government ought not to rely for revenue. It is far better that the advice of a democratic land committee of the senate, at the head of which was the experienced and distinguished Mr. King, of Alabama, given some years ago, should be followed, that the federal treasury be replenished with duties on imports, without bringing into it any part of the land fund.

I have thus suggested measures of relief adapted to the present state of the country, and I have noticed some of the differences which unfortunately exist between the two leading parties into which our people are unhappily divided. In considering the question whether the counsels of the one or the other of these parties are wisest, and best calculated to advance the interest, the honor, and the prosperity of the nation, which every citizen ought to do, we should discard all passion and prejudice, and exercise, as far as possible, a perfect impartiality. And we should not confine our attention merely to the particular measures which those parties respectively espouse or oppose, but extend it to their general course and conduct, and to the spirit and purposes by which they are animated. We should anxiously inquire, whither shall we be led by following in the lead of one or the other of those parties; shall we be carried to the achievement of the glorious destiny, which patriots here, and the liberal portion of mankind every where, have fondly hoped awaits us? or shall we ingloriously terminate our career, by adding another melancholy example of the instability of human affairs, and the folly with which self-government is administered?

I do not arrogate to myself more impartiality, or greater freedom from party bias, than belongs to other men; but, unless I deceive myself, I think I have reached a time of life, and am now in a position of retirement, from which I can look back with calmness, and speak, I hope, with candor and justice. I do not intend to attempt a general contrast between the two parties, as to their course, doctrines, and spirit. That would be too extensive and laborious an undertaking for this occasion; but I propose to specify a few recent instances, in which I think our political opponents have exhibited a spirit and bearing disorganizing and dangerous to the permanency and stability of our institutions, and I invoke the serious and sober attention to them, of all who are here assembled.

The first I would notice, is the manner in which territories have been lately admitted as states, into the union. The early and regular practice of the government, was for congress to pass previously a law authorizing a convention, regulating the appointment of members to it; specifying the qualification of voters, and so forth. In that way most of the states were received. Of late without any previous sanction or authority from congress, several territories have proceeded of themselves to call conventions, form constitutions, and demand admission into the union; and they were admitted. I do not deny that their population and condition entitled them to admission; but I insist that it should have been done in the regular and established mode. In the case of Michigan, aliens were allowed to vote, as aliens have been allowed to become preëmptioners in the public lands. And a majority in congress sanctioned the proceeding. When foreigners are naturalized and incorporated as citizens in our community, they are entitled to all the privileges, within the limits of the constitution, which belong to a native born citizen; and, if necessary, they should be protected, at home and abroad—the thunder of our artillery should roar as loud and as effectually in their defence as if their birth were upon American soil. But I cannot but think it wrong and hazardous, to allow aliens, who have just landed upon our shores, who have not yet renounced their allegiance to foreign potentates, nor sworn fidelity to our constitution, with all the influences of monarchy and anarchy about them, to participate in our elections, and affect our legislation.

Second, the New Jersey election case, in which the great seal of the state, and the decision of the local authorities were put aside by the house of representatives, and a majority thus secured to the democratic party.

Third, nullification, which is nothing more nor less than an assumption by one state to abrogate within its limits a law passed by the twenty-six states in congress assembled.

Fourth, a late revolutionary attempt in Maryland to subvert the existing government, and set up a new one without any authority of law.

Fifth, the refusal of a minority in the legislature of Tennessee, to coöperate with the majority, (their constitution requiring the presence of two thirds of the members,) to execute a positive injunction of the United States to appoint two United States senators. In principle, that refusal was equivalent to announcing the willingness of that minority to dissolve the union. For if thirteen or fourteen of the twenty-six states were to refuse altogether to elect senators, a dissolution of the union would be the consequence. That majority, for weeks together, and time after time, deliberately refused to enter upon the election. And if the union is not in fact dissolved, it is not because the principle involved would not yield to a dissolution, but because twelve or thirteen other states have not like themselves refused to perform a high constitutional duty. And why did they refuse? Simply because they apprehended the election to the senate of political opponents. The seats of the two Tennessee senators in the United States senate, are now vacant, and Tennessee has no voice in that branch of congress, in the general legislation. One of the highest compliments which I ever received, was to have been appointed, at a popular meeting in Tennessee, one of her senators, in conjunction with a distinguished senator from South Carolina, with all the authority that such an appointment could bestow. I repeat here an expression of my acknowledgments for the honor, which I most ambitiously resigned, when I gave up my dictatorship, and my seat as a Kentucky senator. [A general laugh.]

Sixth. Then there is repudiation, that foul stain upon the American character, cast chiefly by the democrats of Mississippi, and which it will require years to efface from our bright escutcheon.

Seventh, the support given to executive usurpations, and the expunging the records of the senate of the United States.

Eighth, the recent refusal of state legislatures to pass laws to carry into effect the act of distribution, an act of congress passed according to all the forms of the constitution, after ample discussion and deliberate consideration, and after the lapse of ten years from the period it was first proposed. It is the duty of all to submit to the laws regularly passed. They may attempt to get them repealed; they have a right to test their validity before the judiciary; but whilst the laws remain in force unrepealed, and without any decision against their constitutional validity, submission to them is not merely a constitutional and legal, but a moral duty. In this case it is true that those who refuse to abide by them only bite their own noses. But it is the principle of the refusal to which I call your attention. If a minority may refuse compliance with one law, what is to prevent minorities from disregarding all law? Is this any thing but a modification of nullification? What right have the servants of the people, (the legislative bodies,) to withhold from their masters their assigned quotas of a great public fund?

Ninth. The last, though not least, instance of the manifestation of a spirit of disorganization which I shall notice, is the recent convulsion in Rhode Island. That little, but gallant and patriotic state had a charter derived from a British king, in operation between one and two hundred years. There had been engrafted upon it laws and usages, from time to time, and altogether a practical constitution sprung up, which carried the state as one of the glorious thirteen, through the revolution, and brought her safely into the union. Under it, her Greens and Perrys and other distinguished men were born and rose to eminence. The legislature had called a convention to remedy whatever defects it had, and to adapt it to the progressive improvement of the age. In that work of reform the Dorr party might have coöperated; but not choosing so to coöperate, and in wanton defiance of all established authority, they undertook subsequently to call another convention. The result was two constitutions, not essentially differing on the principal point of controversy, the right of suffrage.

Upon submitting to the people that which was formed by the regular convention, a small majority voted against it, produced by a union in casting votes, between the Dorr party and some of the friends of the old charter, who were opposed to any change. The other constitution being also submitted to the people, an apparent majority voted for it, made up of every description of votes, legal and illegal, by proxy and otherwise, taken in the most irregular and unauthorized manner.

The Dorr party proceeded to put their constitution in operation by electing him as the governor of the state, members to the mock legislature, and other officers. But they did not stop here; they proceeded to collect, to drill, and to marshal a military force, and pointed their cannon against the arsenal of the state.

The president was called upon to interpose the power of the union to preserve the peace of the state, in conformity with an express provision of the federal constitution. And I have as much pleasure in expressing my opinion that he faithfully performed his duty, in responding to that call, as it gave me pain to be obliged to animadvert on other parts of his conduct.

The leading presses of the democratic party at Washington, Albany, New York, Richmond, and elsewhere, came out in support of the Dorr party, encouraging them in their work of rebellion and treason. And when matters had got to a crisis, and the two parties were preparing for a civil war, and every hour it was expected to blaze out, a great Tammany meeting was held in the city of New York, headed by the leading men of the party, the Cambrelengs, the Vanderpools, the Allens, &c., with a perfect knowledge that the military power of the union was to be employed, if necessary, to suppress the insurrection, and, notwithstanding, they passed resolutions tending to awe the president, and to countenance and cheer the treason.

Fortunately, numbers of the Dorr party abandoned their chief; he fled, and Rhode Island, unaided by any actual force of the federal authority, proved herself able alone to maintain law, order, and government, within her borders.

I do not attribute to my fellow citizens here assembled, from whom I differ in opinion, any disposition to countenance the revolutionary proceedings in Rhode Island. I do not believe that they approve it, I do not believe that their party generally could approve it, nor some of the other examples of a spirit of disorganization which I have enumerated; but the misfortune is, in time of high party excitement, that the leaders commit themselves, and finally commit the body of their party, who perceive that unless they stand by and sustain their leaders, a division, and perhaps destruction of the party, would be the consequence. Of all the springs of human action, party ties are perhaps the most powerful. Interest has been supposed to be more so; but party ties are more influential, unless they are regarded as a modification of imaginary interest. Under their sway, we have seen, not only individuals, but whole communities abandon their long cherished interests and principles, and turn round and oppose them with violence.

Did not the rebellion in Rhode Island find for its support a precedent established by the majority in congress, in the irregular admission of territories, as states, into the union, to which I have heretofore alluded? Is there not reason to fear that the example which congress had previously presented, encouraged the Rhode Island rebellion?

It has been attempted to defend that rebellion, upon the doctrines of the American Declaration of Independence; but no countenance to it can be fairly derived from them. That declaration asserts, it is true, that whenever a government becomes destructive of the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for the security of which it was instituted, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new government; and so undoubtedly it is. But this is a right only to be exercised in grave and extreme cases. ‘Prudence indeed will dictate,’ says that venerated instrument, ‘that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.’ ‘But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, their duty, to throw off such government.’

Will it be pretended that the actual government of Rhode Island is destructive of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? That it has perpetrated a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing the same invariable object, to reduce the people under absolute despotism? Or that any other cause of complaint existed, but such as might be peacefully remedied, without violence and without blood? Such as, in point of fact, the legitimate government had regularly summoned a convention to redress, but for the results of whose deliberations the restless spirit of disorder and rebellion had not patience to wait? Why, fellow-citizens, little Rhody (God bless and preserve her,) is one of the most prosperous, enterprising, and enlightened states in this whole union. No where are life, liberty, and property, more perfectly secure.

How is this right of the people to abolish an existing government, and to set up a new one, to be practically exercised? Our revolutionary ancestors did not tell us by words, but they proclaimed it by gallant and noble deeds. Who are the people that are to tear up the whole fabric of human society, whenever and as often as caprice or passion may prompt them? When all the arrangements and ordinances of existing and organized society are prostrated and subverted, as must be supposed in such a lawless and irregular movement as that in Rhode Island, the established privileges and distinctions between the sexes, between the colors, between the ages, between natives and foreigners, between the sane and the insane, and between the innocent and the guilty convict, all the offspring of positive institutions, are cast down and abolished, and society is thrown into one heterogenous and unregulated mass. And is it contended that the major part of this Babel congregation is invested with the right to build up, at its pleasure, a new government? That as often, and whenever society can be drummed up and thrown into such a shapeless mass, the major part of it may establish another, and another new government, in endless succession? Why, this would overturn all social organization, make revolutions—the extreme and last resort of an oppressed people—the commonest occurrences of human life, and the standing order of the day. How such a principle would operate, in a certain section of this union, with a peculiar population, you will readily conceive. No community could endure such an intolerable state of things any where, and all would, sooner or later, take refuge from such ceaseless agitation, in the calm repose of absolute despotism.

I know of no mode by which an existing government can be overthrown and put aside, and a new one erected in its place, but by the consent or authority of that government, express or implied, or by forcible resistance, that is, revolution.

Fellow-citizens, I have enumerated these examples of a dangerous spirit of disorganization, and disregard of law, with no purpose of giving offence, or exciting bitter and unkind feelings, here or elsewhere, but to illustrate the principles, character, and tendency of the two great parties into which this country is divided. In all of these examples, the democratic party, as it calls itself, (a denomination to which I respectfully think it has not the least just pretension,) or large portions of that party, extending to whole states, united with apparent cordiality. To all of them the whig party was constantly and firmly opposed. And now let me ask you, in all candor and sincerity, to say truly and impartially to which of these two parties can the interests, the happiness, and the destinies of this great people be most safely confided? I appeal especially, and with perfect confidence, to the candor of the real, the ancient, and long-tried democracy—that old republican party with whom I stood, side by side, during some of the darkest days of the republic, in seasons of both war and peace.

Fellow-citizens of all parties! The present situation of our country is one of unexampled distress and difficulty; but there is no occasion for any despondency. A kind and bountiful Providence has never deserted us; punished us he perhaps has, for our neglect of his blessings and our misdeeds. We have a varied and fertile soil, a genial climate and free institutions. Our whole land is covered, in profusion, with the means of subsistence and the comforts of life. Our gallant ship, it is unfortunately true, lies helpless, tossed on a tempestuous sea, amidst the conflicting billows of contending parties, without a rudder and without a faithful pilot. But that ship is our country, embodying all our past glory, all our future hopes. Its crew is our whole people, by whatever political denomination they are known. If she goes down, we all go down together. Let us remember the dying words of the gallant and lamented Lawrence. Don’t give up the ship. The glorious banner of our country, with its unstained stars and stripes, still proudly floats at its mast-head. With stout hearts and strong arms we can surmount all our difficulties. Let us all, all, rally round that banner, and firmly resolve to perpetuate our liberties and regain our lost prosperity.

Whigs! Arouse from the ignoble supineness which encompasses you; awake from the lethargy in which you lie bound; cast from you that unworthy apathy which seems to make you indifferent to the fate of your country. Arouse! awake! shake off the dew drops that glitter on your garments, and once more march to battle and to victory. You have been disappointed, deceived, betrayed; shamefully deceived and betrayed. But will you therefore also prove false and faithless to your country, or obey the impulses of a just and patriotic indignation? As for captain Tyler, he is a mere snap, a flash in the pan; pick your whig flints and try your rifles again.

[The conclusion of the speech was followed with general and tremendous cheering; and the largest, and one of the most respectable multitudes ever assembled in Kentucky, dispersed without a solitary instance of disorder or indecorum occurring.]

ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION.

AT RICHMOND, INDIANA, OCTOBER 1, 1842.

[IN the autumn of 1842, Mr. Clay being on a visit to the state of Indiana, the occasion of his meeting a large concourse of people, was seized upon, for the purpose of presenting him with a petition, signed by many of his political opponents, praying him to emancipate his slaves, in Kentucky. Instead of treating the matter with indignation, as was perhaps expected by some, Mr. Clay replied with good humor to Mr. Mendenhall, who had been selected to present him with the address, in the following words.]

I HOPE that Mr. Mendenhall may be treated with the greatest forbearance and respect. I assure my fellow-citizens here collected, that the presentation of the petition has not occasioned the slightest pain, nor excited one solitary disagreeable emotion. If it were to be presented to me, I prefer that it should be done in the face of this vast assemblage. I think I can give it such an answer as becomes me and the subject of which it treats. At all events, I entreat and beseech my fellow-citizens, for their sake, for my country’s sake, for my sake, to offer no disrespect, no indignity, no violence, in word or deed, to Mr. Mendenhall.

I will now, sir, make to you and to this petition such a response as becomes me. Allow me to say that I think you have not conformed to the independent character of an American citizen in presenting a petition to me. I am, like yourself, but a private citizen. A petition, as the term implies, generally proceeds from an inferior in power or station to a superior; but between us there is entire equality. And what are the circumstances under which you have chosen to offer it? I am a total stranger, passing through your state, on my way to its capital, in consequence of an invitation with which I have been honored to visit it, to exchange friendly salutations with such of my fellow citizens of Indiana as think proper to meet me, and to accept of their hospitality. Anxious as I am to see them, and to view parts of this state which I had never seen, I came here with hesitation and reluctance, because I apprehended that the motives of my journey might be misconceived and perverted. But when the fulfilment of an old promise to visit Indianapolis was insisted upon, I yielded to the solicitations of friends, and have presented myself among you.

Such is the occasion which has been deliberately selected for tendering this petition to me. I am advanced in years, and neither myself nor the place of my residence is altogether unknown to the world. You might at any time within these last twenty-five or thirty years, have presented your petition to me at Ashland. If you had gone there for that purpose, you should have been received and treated with perfect respect and liberal hospitality.

Now, Mr. Mendenhall, let us reverse conditions, and suppose that you had been invited to Kentucky to partake of its hospitality; and that, previous to your arrival, I had employed such means as I understand have been used to get up this petition, to obtain the signatures of citizens of that state to a petition to present to you to relinquish your farm or other property, what would you have thought of such a proceeding? Would you have deemed it courteous and according to the rites of hospitality?

I know well, that you and those who think with you, controvert the legitimacy of slavery, and deny the right of property in slaves. But the law of my state and other states has otherwise ordained. The law may be wrong in your opinion, and ought to be repealed; but then you and your associates are not the law-makers for us, and unless you can show some authority to nullify our laws, we must continue to respect them. Until the law is repealed, we must be excused for asserting the rights—ay, the property in slaves—which it sanctions, authorizes, and vindicates.

And who are the petitioners whose organ you assume to be? I have no doubt that many of them are worthy, amiable, and humane persons, who, by erroneous representations, have been induced inconsiderately to affix their signatures to this petition, and that they will deeply regret it. Others, and not a few, I am told, are free blacks, men, women, and children, who have been artfully deceived and imposed upon. A very large portion, I have been credibly informed, are the political opponents of the party to which I belong—democrats, as they most undeservedly call themselves, who have eagerly seized this opportunity to wound, as they imagine, my feelings, and to aid the cause to which they are attached. In other quarters of the union, democrats claim to be the exclusive champions of southern interests, the only safe defenders of the rights in slave property, and unjustly accuse us Whigs with abolition designs wholly incompatible with its security. What ought those distant democrats to think of the course of their friends here, who have united in this petition?

And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana, to liberate the slaves under my care, in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in the act announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen American colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable, in the original construction of society, and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehend that in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or can the equality asserted among the members of the human race, be practically enforced and carried out. There are portions of it, large portions, women, minors, insane, culprits, transient sojourners, that will always probably remain subject to the government of another portion of the community.

That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made by the delegations of the thirteen states. In most of them slavery existed, and had long existed, and was established by law. It was introduced and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believe that, in making that declaration, the states that concurred in it intended that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaves within their respective limits? Would Virginia and the other southern states have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into an abolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen states entertain such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and unavowed purpose would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest band of patriots that ever assembled in council; a fraud upon the confederacy of the revolution; a fraud upon the union of those states, whose constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted the importation of slaves from Africa, until the year 1808. And I am bold to say, that, if the doctrines of ultra political abolitionists had been seriously promulgated at the epoch of our revolution, our glorious independence would never have been achieved—never, never.

I know the predominant sentiment in the free states is adverse to slavery; but, happy in their own exemption from whatever evils may attend it, the great mass of our fellow-citizens there do not seek to violate the constitution, or to disturb the harmony of these states. I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have derived it from the parental government, and from our ancestors. I wish every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. But here they are, and the question is how they can be best dealt with? If a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be, to incorporate the institution of slavery among its elements. But there is an incalculable difference between the original formation of society and a long existing organized society, with its ancient laws, institutions, and establishments. Now, great as I acknowledge, in my opinion, the evils of slavery are, they are nothing, absolutely nothing, in comparison with the far greater evils which would inevitably flow from a sudden, general, and indiscriminate emancipation. In some of the states the number of slaves approximates towards an equality with that of the whites; in one or two they surpass them. What would be the condition of the two races in those states, upon the supposition of an immediate emancipation? Does any man suppose that they would become blended into one homogeneous mass? Does any man recommend amalgamation—that revolting admixture, alike offensive to God and man; for those whom He, by their physical properties, has made unlike and put asunder, we may, without presumptuousness, suppose were never intended to be joined together in one of the holiest rites. And let me tell you, sir, if you do not already know it, that such are the feelings—prejudice, if you please, (and what man, claiming to be a statesman, will overlook or disregard the deep-seated and unconquerable prejudices of the people,)—in the slave states, that no human law would enforce a union between the two races.

What then would certainly happen? A struggle for political ascendancy; the blacks seeking to acquire, and the whites to maintain possession of the government. Upon the supposition of a general immediate emancipation in those states where the blacks outnumber the whites, they would have nothing to do but to insist upon another part of the same declaration of independence, as Dorr and his deluded democratic followers recently did in Rhode Island; according to which, an undefined majority have the right, at their pleasure, to subvert an existing government, and institute a new one in its place, and then the whites would be brought in complete subjection to the blacks! A contest would inevitably ensue between the two races—civil war, carnage, pillage, conflagration, devastation, and the ultimate extermination or expulsion of the blacks. Nothing is more certain. And are not these evils far greater than the mild and continually improving state of slavery which exists in this country? I say continually improving; for if this gratifying progress in the amelioration of the condition of the slaves has been checked in some of the states, the responsibility must attach to the unfortunate agitation of the subject of abolition. In consequence of it, increased rigor in the police, and further restraints have been imposed; and I do believe that gradual emancipation, (the only method of liberation that has ever been thought safe or wise by any body in any of the slave states,) has been postponed half a century.

Without any knowledge of the relation in which I stand to my slaves, or their individual condition, you, Mr. Mendenhall, and your associates, who have been active in getting up this petition, call upon me forthwith to liberate the whole of them. Now let me tell you, that some half a dozen of them, from age, decrepitude, or infirmity, are wholly unable to gain a livelihood for themselves, and are a heavy charge upon me. Do you think that I should conform to the dictates of humanity by ridding myself of that charge, and sending them forth into the world, with the boon of liberty, to end a wretched existence in starvation? Another class is composed of helpless infants, with or without improvident mothers. Do you believe, as a christian, that I should perform my duty towards them by abandoning them to their fate? Then there is another class who would not accept their freedom if I would give it to them. I have for many years owned a slave that I wished would leave me, but he will not. What shall I do with that class?

What my treatment of my slaves is you may learn from Charles, who accompanies me on this journey, and who has travelled with me over the greater part of the United States, and in both the Canadas, and has had a thousand opportunities, if he had chosen to embrace them, to leave me. Excuse me, Mr. Mendenhall, for saying that my slaves are as well fed and clad, look as sleek and hearty, and are quite as civil and respectful in their demeanor, and as little disposed to wound the feelings of any one, as you are.

Let me recommend you, sir, to imitate the benevolent example of the society of Friends, in the midst of which you reside. Meek, gentle, imbued with the genuine spirit of our benign religion, while in principle they are firmly opposed to slavery, they do not seek to accomplish its extinction by foul epithets, coarse and vulgar abuse, and gross calumny. Their ways do not lead through blood, revolution, and disunion. Their broad and comprehensive philanthropy embraces, as they believe, the good and the happiness of the white as well as the black race; giving to one their commiseration, to the other their kindest sympathy. Their instruments are not those of detraction and of war, but of peace, persuasion, and earnest appeals to the charities of the human heart. Unambitious, they have no political objects or purposes to subserve. My intercourse with them throughout life has been considerable, interesting, and agreeable; and I venture to say, nothing could have induced them as a society, whatever a few individuals might have been tempted to do, to seize the occasion of my casual passage through this state to offer me a personal indignity.

I respect the motives of rational abolitionists, who are actuated by a sentiment of devotion to human liberty, although I deplore and deprecate the consequences of the agitation of the question. I have even many friends among them. But they are not monomaniacs, who, surrendering themselves to a single idea, look altogether to the black side of human life. They do not believe that the sum total of all our efforts and all our solicitude should be abolition. They believe that there are duties to perform towards the white man as well as the black. They want good government, good administration, and the general prosperity of their country.

I shall, Mr. Mendenhall, take your petition into respectful and deliberate consideration; but before I come to a final decision, I should like to know what you and your associates are willing to do for the slaves in my possession, if I should think proper to liberate them. I own about fifty, who are probably worth fifteen thousand dollars. To turn them loose upon society without any means of subsistence or support would be an act of cruelty. Are you willing to raise and secure the payment of fifteen thousand dollars for their benefit, if I should be induced to free them? The security of the payment of that sum would materially lessen the obstacle in the way of their emancipation.

And now, Mr. Mendenhall, I must take respectful leave of you. We separate, as we have met, with no unkind feelings, no excited anger or dissatisfaction on my part, whatever may have been your motives, and these I refer to our common Judge above, to whom we are both responsible. Go home, and mind your own business, and leave other people to take care of theirs. Limit your benevolent exertions to your own neighborhood. Within that circle you will find ample scope for the exercise all your charities. Dry up the tears of the afflicted widows around you, console and comfort the helpless orphan, clothe the naked, and feed and help the poor, black and white, who need succor; and you will be a better and wiser man than you have this day shown yourself.

ON THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA,

AND OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED WITH

SLAVERY IN THE STATES AND TERRITORIES.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 29, 1850.

[THE thirty-first congress commenced its session in the midst of great excitement, principally in relation to the question of slavery, and more particularly in connection with California, which newly-acquired territory was then seeking admission into the Union as a state. Mr. Clay had been induced to return again to the senate, and his genius and self-sacrifice did more, perhaps, to control the elements of discord, and reconcile contending factions, than the labors of any other single individual. Many projects were submitted, which were nearly unexceptionable; but it remained for Mr. Clay to embody in a series of resolutions such conciliatory propositions as ultimately met the approval of all who were desirous of ‘promoting the greatest good of the greatest number.’ We have not been able to procure a perfect copy of his speech on the occasion of submitting these resolutions, but the following abstract will afford a tolerably correct idea of what was said.]

MR. PRESIDENT: I hold in my hand a series of resolutions, which I desire to present to the consideration of the senate. Taken together, they propose an amicable arrangement of all the questions in controversy between the Free and Slave states, growing out of the subject of the institution of slavery. It is not my intention at this time to enter into a full and elaborate discussion of each of the resolutions, as proposing a system of measures; but I desire to present a few observations upon each resolution, for the purpose of placing them fairly and fully before the senate of the country;—and I may add, with the indulgence of the senate, towards the conclusion of my remarks, some observations about the state of the country, and the questions to which the resolutions relate, whether they shall or shall not meet with the approbation and concurrence of the senate, as I most earnestly hope they may;—as I sincerely trust they will. I trust that, at least some portion of that time which I have devoted with careful deliberation to the preparation of these resolutions, and to the presentation of this great national scheme of national compromise and harmony,—I hope, I say, that some portion of that time will be employed by each senator before he pronounces against the proposition. These resolutions are preceded by a preamble as follows:

It being desirable, for the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union of these states, to settle and adjust amicably, all questions of controversy between them arising out of the institution of slavery, upon a fair equality and just basis; therefore—

FIRST—Resolved, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application, to be admitted as one of the states of the Union, without the imposition by congress of any restriction to the exclusion or introduction of slavery within those boundaries.

It must be acknowledged that there has been some irregularity in the movements in California, which have resulted in the formation of her Constitution. It was not preceded by any action of congress authorizing a convention, and designating the boundaries of the proposed state, according to all the cases of the admission of new states into this Union, which were admitted prior to that of Michigan, if I am not mistaken, which, unauthorized by congress, undertook to form for herself a Constitution, and to knock at the door of congress for admission into the Union. I was myself at the time, I recollect, when Michigan presented herself, opposed, in consequence of that deviation from the early practice of the government, to her admission. The majority determined otherwise, and it must be in candor owned, by all men, that California has much more reason to do what she has done, unsanctioned and unauthorized by a previous act of congress, than Michigan had to do what she did. Sir, notwithstanding the irregularity of the admission of Michigan into the Union, it has been a happy event. She forms now one of the brightest states of this glorious confederacy. She has sent here to mingle in our councils senators and representatives so distinguished, that we may all associate with them with pride, with pleasure, and satisfaction; and I trust that if California, irregular as her previous action may have been, in the adoption of a Constitution, but more justifiable than was the action of Michigan, if she also shall be admitted, as proposed by this first resolution, with suitable limits, she, too, may make her contribution of wisdom, patriotism and good feeling to this body, to conduct the affairs of this great and boundless republic. The resolution proposes her admission when she applies. There is no intention on my part to anticipate such an application, but I thought it right to present this resolution as a part of the general plan on which I propose the adjustment of this unhappy question. The second resolution is as follows:

SECOND—Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of those territories acquired by the United States from the republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for congress to provide, by law, either for its introduction into, or its exclusion from, any part of the said territory: and that appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by congress, in all of the said territories, not assigned as the boundaries of this proposed state of California, without the abolition of any restrictions or condition on the subject of slavery.

Sir, it proposes the declaration of two truths, one of law and the other of fact. The truth of law which it declares is, that there does not exist, at the present time, slavery within any portion of the territory acquired from Mexico. When I say what that truth is, I speak my own deliberate and solemn conviction. I am aware that some gentlemen have held a different doctrine, but I persuade myself that they themselves, when they come to review the whole ground, will see sufficient reason for a change or modification of their opinion; and if they adhere to it, they will be found to compose a very small minority of the whole mass of the people of the United States. The next truth which the resolution asserts is, that slavery is not likely to be introduced into any portion of that territory. That is a matter of fact, with all the evidence upon which the fact rests, which, I suppose, is as accessible to other senators as to myself. I must say that from all I have heard or read, from all the witnesses that I have seen and conversed with, from all that has transpired and is transpiring, I do believe that not within one foot of the territory acquired from Mexico will slavery ever be planted; and I believe it could not be done by the force and power of public authority. Facts are daily transpiring to justify this conclusion. I invite senators, from the free states especially, to consider what has occurred since the last session, and even since we have left our respective constituencies, without an opportunity of our own of consulting with them upon that great and momentous fact. The fact is that California herself, although it was asserted and predicted that she never would establish slavery when she came to be a state, has in a convention, by a unanimous vote, declared against the introduction of slavery within her limits. I think, sir, taking that leading fact into consideration, with all the evidence which has reached me, I am warranted in the conclusion which constitutes the second truth that I have stated in this resolution, that slavery is not likely to be introduced into any of our newly-acquired territories, and the latter part of the resolution asserts that it is the duty of congress to ‘establish appropriate territorial governments within all that territory, exclusive of California, not embracing in the acts by which these governments shall be constituted, either a prohibition or an admission of slavery.’ Much as I am disposed to defer to high authority—anxious as I really am to find myself in a position which would enable me to coöperate heartily with other departments of the government in conducting the affairs of this great people—I cannot concur in the propriety of a dereliction of those territories—of an abandonment of them, leaving them, without government, to all those scenes of disorder, confusion and anarchy, which, I regret to say, with respect to some of them, there is too much reason to anticipate will arise. It is the duty—the solemn—I was going to add, almost the sacred duty of congress—to legislate for that people, if they can; and, at all events, to attempt to legislate for them, and to give them the benefit of law, order and security.

The next resolutions, sir, are the third and fourth, which, having an immediate connection with each other, should be read together:

THIRD—Resolved, That the western boundary of the state of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio del Norte, commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the southern line of New Mexico, thence with that line eastwardly, and continuing in the same direction, to the line as established between the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, whether laying on the east or west of that river.

FOURTH—Resolved, That it be proposed to the state of Texas that the United States will provide for the payment of all that portion of all the legitimate and bona fide public debts of that state, contracted prior to its annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged by the said state to its creditors, not exceeding the sum of ―― dollars, in consideration of the duties so pledged having been no longer applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having thenceforward become payable to the United States; and upon the condition, also, that the said state shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her legislature, or of a convention, relinquish to the United States any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico.

Mr. Clay did not intend to go into the complex question as to what were the due limits of Texas. His opinion was that Texas has not a good title to any portion of what is called New Mexico; but he was free to admit that, looking at the ground which her senators assumed, the law of Texas of ’35, the treaty with Santa Anna, and so on—looking to all these facts, but not yielding to them all the force which gentlemen claimed for them, he must say that there was plausibility in the claim which she sets up. He proposed then, that whether the Neuces or the Bravo is, or is not, the boundary of Texas, that her western limit shall be on the Del Norte, from its mouth to the mouth of the Sabine. He proposed also, in connection with this decision of the question of boundary, that congress shall pay the debts of Texas, for the liquidation of which the duties on foreign goods imported into Texas were pledged prior to annexation.

After some remarks relative to the circumstances connected with the contraction of these debts by Texas, Mr. Clay said, in his humble opinion, he thought if there was justice or truth, we owe to the creditors of Texas the duty of reimbursing them for money loaned upon the pledges of those revenues, which were cut off by annexation. He proposed, also, that Texas should, for the consideration mentioned, relinquish any claim she may have to any portion of New Mexico. He was willing to give something for even an imperfect claim of this kind for the sake of peace.

The fifth and sixth resolutions were as follows:

FIFTH—Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, whilst that institution continues to exist in the state of Maryland, without the consent of that state, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District.

SIXTH—Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit within the District the slave trade in slaves brought into it from states or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein, as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia.

The first of these, said Mr. Clay, simply asserted that slavery ought not to be abolished in the Federal District, except on the conditions named. The sixth resolution expressed the expediency of prohibiting the slave trade in the District. He did not mean to interfere with the sale of slaves, from one family to another in the District; the slave trade which he proposed to prohibit was that which Mr. Randolph, forty years ago, pronounced an abomination. It was a mistake on the part of the North, if they supposed that the people of the South generally looked upon the slave trader, or his occupation, with complacence. The slave dealer was frequently excluded from association with the respectable and worthy in the South. He proposed that the slave trader should go to other parts to pursue his calling—that he should not be permitted to erect his prisons here, and put on his chains, and sometimes shock the feelings by their trains of manacled beings through our streets and avenues. Neither should they bring them here. There was no necessity for it, and it ought to be prohibited.

The seventh resolution related to a matter now under discussion in the senate, and he would refrain from any general remarks upon it. It was as follows:

SEVENTH—Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirements of the Constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor, in any state, who may escape into any other state or territory of this Union.

The eighth and last resolution provided that congress has no power to prohibit the trade in slaves between the states. It was as follows:

EIGHTH—Resolved, That congress has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slaveholding states, and that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular law.

It was obvious that no legislation was intended as a consequence of the resolution; it merely asserted a truth. He had thought that, in looking at this whole subject, it was fit and proper to resort to great and fundamental principles, to keep them before the mind, that they might not violate them. These resolutions involved no sacrifice of any principle; they were founded upon a basis of mutual forbearance and concession—a concession not of matters of principle, but matters of feeling merely. He thought, in view of all the circumstances, a more liberal concession might be expected from the free states than could be asked of the South; and, truly, with gentlemen from the North this question was an abstraction, while with the people of the South it was a principle involving their property, and, as a large portion of them believed, of their prosperity and peace. The North, too, was numerically more powerful, and greatness and magnanimity should always go together. Mr. Clay concluded with a most eloquent appeal in behalf of harmony, peace, mutual concessions, and forbearance, for the sake of the Union. In the course of his remarks, he exhibited a sacred relic—a piece of the coffin of Washington—presented that morning, and submitted some thrilling observations relative to the distinguished dead, and the spirit which he, if upon the stage of action, would urge in the settlement of the momentous question under discussion.

Mr. Clay said, his proposition was not to take absolutely from Texas the territory which she claimed; it made a proposition to Texas for her consideration. He had expressed, it was true, his own opinion that the title of Texas was not good to the territory in question, and at the same time he would be happy to discuss that question.

In the course of a conversation which ensued between Mr. Clay and Mr. Foote, the latter asserted that the faith of congress was pledged to all the Southern states, and not Maryland alone, for the preservation of slavery in the District.

Mr. Clay. Suppose slavery be abolished in Maryland to-morrow, have we no power to abolish it here?

Mr. Mason, of Virginia, and Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, expressed their determination never to sanction such a compromise as that embraced in the resolutions which had been offered. They also indulged in some reflections upon the course of Mr. Clay, as a senator from a slave state.

Mr. Clay replied briefly, premising by saying, in answer to the reflections cast by the senators from Virginia and Mississippi (Mr. Mason and Mr. Davis,) I tell these gentlemen that I know my duties, and I mean to express my opinions, fearless of all mankind. He also said—Coming from a slave state, as I do, no earthly power can ever compel me to vote for the positive introduction of slavery, either north or south of the Missouri Compromise,—No, Sir—No!

Mr. Clay desired to say, that these were not abstract propositions, but designed for positive action, by their reference to appropriate committees, who shall report bills in relation to the several subjects requiring legislative action.

ON THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA,

AND IN REPLY TO SOME

REMARKS ON HIS INTERCOURSE WITH OTHER SENATORS.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEB. 15, 1850.

[DURING the progress of the debate on the resolutions submitted by Mr. Clay, President Taylor transmitted to congress a message, apprising that body that he had received the constitution adopted by the people of California, accompanied with an application for admission as a state into the Union. The reference of this message was warmly discussed; and while it was under consideration, Mr. Clemens, of Alabama, indulged in several unwarrantable ‘flings’ at Mr. Clay, among other things expressing his surprise at the ‘fellow-feeling’ which existed between him and Mr. Benton. This drew forth the following rejoinder, in which other matters are collaterally noticed. (It may be proper to state here that the resolutions of Mr. Clay, together with several other propositions from different sources, were finally referred to a committee of thirteen, which was chosen by ballot, and of which Mr. C. was elected chairman.)]

MR. CLAY rose to reply to one of the remarks of the senator from Alabama, Mr. Clemens. What right had the senator to animadvert upon a conference held between the senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton) and him? It was very true that for several years there did exist other than the most cordial feeling between him and Mr. Benton—that a system of non-intercourse was established between them, if gentlemen pleased so to call it. Some three years ago they had come together, having made peace with each other, as Mr. Clay wished he might be able to do with all the world; but with respect to intimations of any mutual deliberation and consideration of measures proposed to be introduced, he had to say, that there was nothing of the kind; he had never seen or heard any thing in relation to the bill proposed and introduced by Mr. Benton, proposing to reduce the boundaries of Texas, until it was brought into the senate. On the other hand, Mr. Benton had never seen, heard or thought, so far as he knew, of the series of resolutions recently introduced by him. What, then, had the senator who had denounced their intercourse to go upon? Was he to speculate upon the object of that private conference, and to make such deductions as seemed to him to be proper? He had no right so to do, and the conclusion showed how incorrect his deductions were. He would repeat that there was no interchange of opinion between him and Mr. Benton at all, in relation to their respective projects. It was true, that at the time alluded to, they did converse together upon the proper dispositions of subjects coming before the senate, but what right had others to attempt to place a construction upon their motives? He must protest against submitting his private intercourse to any such test as that. He was, and had been so deeply impressed with a sense of the awful dangers which menace the existence of the government, that if the senator had been his most bitter enemy, and had come to him to consider the means best calculated to rescue the common country from impending danger, he would have counselled with him, as with his friend—if by so doing he might hope to accomplish so desirable an end. Mr. Clay desired to notice one or two other points to which the senator had alluded. He (Mr. Clay) had said, that in the admission of California there was no concession from either side:—true, the North would get what she wanted; but it would be from causes not under the control of congress, and not by concession. It had been said that, if received with her inhibition of slavery, congress would be responsible for it. He proceeded to show that this was not true, but that if congress passed laws allowing the people of California to frame a constitution and erect a state, congress would then more reasonably be held responsible for any act decided upon by the people, with reference to the institution of slavery. He had admitted that there was some irregularity in the action taken by California; but was there not good ground for excuse for this child, which, having been abandoned by its natural parent, had adopted the necessary measures for her own protection, and now came back again, asking its neglectful parent to receive it into the family of states? Similar irregularities had been overlooked in the case of Michigan, notwithstanding the necessities of her situation were by no means commensurate with those of the people of the Pacific—the former had a form of government, under which she had existed and found peace and security for years—the latter were without law or means of protection. A sentiment had been reiterated in the senate to-day, which he had heard, alas! too often, and which he never heard without a shudder. The senate was told that, in a certain contingency, the South were to take a specific course, regardless of consequences. Was that true? For one, he knew of no condition in which man could be placed, either on the boundless prairies of the west, in the midst of the howling winds and lashing fury of the ocean storm, or in the deliberative body—none in which a moral, rational, accountable being could take a step regardless of consequences. It was because he did regard consequences the most important, that he was led to make every effort in his power to avert the greatest of human calamities—a consequence fraught with evil, not to his country alone, but to the cause of humanity throughout the world.

Mr. Foote made some remarks in vindication of his observations in relation to the recent intercourse between Mr. Benton and Mr. Clay; in the course of which he suggested to Mr. Clay that there was sometimes something in his demeanor, when excited in debate, which had the appearance of menace. He also alluded to a speech made by that senator eleven years ago, in which he said that certain acts, if persisted in, would dissolve the Union, and dissolve it in blood. Mr. F. went on at length with some personal remarks upon Mr. Clay, Mr. Seward and Mr. Benton.

Mr. Clay said a few words in reply to Mr. Foote’s remarks about the intercourse between him and Mr. Benton, and in the course of a few observations, suggested to him the impropriety of attempting to draw deductions from such private intercourse. He reminded Mr. Foote that he himself that morning had come over to him, and held a long conversation with him, in relation to the difficulties which concerned the affairs of the country,—and asked him whether it would not have been unfair for some northern man to have imputed to the senator dishonorable motives in seeking that interview. It is an evil—a political and social evil—it is a wrong toward those who are the sufferers thereby—those were his opinions, but he quarrelled with no man who thought otherwise. In conclusion, he denied all ambitious projects: he stood, as it were, upon the brink of eternity, expecting soon to go hence, and owed no responsibility which he was not prepared to meet here and before God. If the senator from Mississippi chose to call him an Abolitionist—well and good; he would only say, that if there was any one man in the community more abused by the Abolitionists than another, it was he.

Mr. Cass (interrupting) said, that if Mr. Clay claimed to be the best abused man in the community, he must take exception. (Laughter.)

Mr. Clay further defended his resolutions. He had honestly, in the sight of God, endeavored to bring forward a scheme of compromise for the purpose of keeping the Union together in one family, with harmony and concord. In supporting that scheme he had not forgotten to rebuke the fanatics of the north for their course, as well as to call upon the south not to persist in what would not bear the scrutiny of reason and judgment. It was enough for him that his plan of settlement was rejected by the ultraists of both sections.

ON THE COMPROMISE MEASURES,

REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF THIRTEEN.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 13, 1850.

[ON the 8th of May, Mr. Clay, as chairman of the committee of thirteen, to whom the proposed ‘compromise measures’ had been referred, presented a long report, embodying the views and recommendations of a majority of the committee, and suggesting that, ‘if such of these several measures as require legislation should be carried out by suitable acts of congress, all controversies to which our late territorial acquisitions have given rise, and all existing questions connected with the institution of slavery, whether resulting from those acquisitions or from its existence in the states and the District of Columbia, will be amicably settled and adjusted, in a manner, it is confidently believed, to give general satisfaction to an overwhelming majority of the people of the United States.’ The report was ably discussed for several weeks, Mr. Clay and his friends frequently enlisting all their energies in its support. The following embraces his reply to several objections which had been raised by opposing senators.]

MR. CLAY rose and said: I have risen, Mr. President, for the purpose of making some further explanation, and an additional exposition to that contained in the report of the Committee of Thirteen, which has recently been in consultation upon the important subjects referred to them. When the report of the committee was presented to the senate last week, various members of the committee rose in their places, and stated that certain parts of the report did not meet with their concurrence. It might have been stated with perfect truth that no one member of the committee concurred in all that was done by the committee. There was a majority upon most, and even upon all the subjects reported by them; and each member, perhaps, if left to himself separately, would have presented the various matters which were reported to the senate in a form somewhat different from that in which they were presented in the report. I was myself, upon one occasion, in the minority in the committee; yet I have not been discouraged in the least degree by the differences which existed in the committee, or which were manifested in the senate last week. Gentlemen who did not exactly agree to what was done, will, in the progress of the measure, endeavor to make it conformable to their wishes. If it should not be so modified, I indulge with great confidence in the hope that no one of them is so irrevocably committed against the measures as to induce him, upon the question of its final passage, to vote against it. I am not authorized to say, and do not mean to say, that there will be an affirmative vote of every member of the senate in favor of the measure upon the final passage of the bill; but I need not say that I indulge the hope, whether all modifications which were desired by various members of the committee may or may not be made, that finally there will be not only a unanimous concurrence of the committee generally in the measure recommended, but I trust it will leave this branch of congress with a large majority in its favor. I repeat that I am not discouraged by any thing that has transpired in the committee, or in the senate, or in the country, upon the subject of this measure. I have believed from the first, and I yet firmly believe, that if these unhappy subjects which have divided the country shall be accommodated by an amicable adjustment, it must be done upon some such basis as that which the committee has reported. And can there be a doubt on this subject? The crisis of the crisis, I repeat, has arrived, and the fate of the measures which have been reported by the committee, in my humble judgment, determines the fate of the harmony or distraction of this country. Entertaining that belief, I cannot but indulge the hope, that no honorable senators, who, upon the first hearing of the report, might have seen some matters in it objectionable, according to their wishes or judgment, will see fit to oppose its final passage; but that the entire senate, after a full consideration of the plan proposed, and after a fair contrast between this and all other proposed plans—at least all other practicable plans of adjustment of the question—whatever expectations or hopes may have been announced elsewhere, out of this body, will concur in this measure brought forward by the Committee of Thirteen, and that ultimately the measure will obtain the general concurrence of both houses of congress.

But I have risen, as I announced, more particularly for the purpose of entering into some further explanation of the course of the committee, and of throwing out some few observations in support of the measures which they have recommended for the adoption of the senate.

The first measure upon which they reported was that of the true exposition of the compact between the United States and Texas, upon the occasion of the admission of that state into the Union. Upon that subject, as already announced in the report, I am happy to say, there was an undivided opinion. Two honorable senators—one of whom is now absent, and the other present—while they declared that they would not hold themselves, and did not intend to be regarded as holding themselves, in every possible state of things, and in every contingency, to vote for the admission of states that might hereafter be carved out of Texas; but that they reserved to themselves, as I understood them, the right to determine this question whenever any new states formed out of Texas should present themselves for admission.—Whether, under all the circumstances of the country, and the circumstances under which a new state might present itself it should or should not be admitted, they made this reservation; and yet they united most heartily in the true exposition of the compact between Texas and the United States, according to which, as we all know, a number of states, not exceeding four, with or without slavery, having the requisite population, with the consent of Texas, were to be admitted into the Union, from time to time, as they might be formed, and present themselves for admission.

But I will not dwell longer upon that part of the subject. I will now approach that which, in the committee, and perhaps in the two houses, has given the most trouble and created the most anxiety, amongst all the measures upon which the committee have reported—I mean the admission of California into the Union. Against that measure there were various objections. One of these objections was with respect to its population. It has been contended that it ought only to be admitted, if admitted at all, with one representative; that if admitted with two representatives, it would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and that there is no sufficient evidence before the senate and the country that its population would entitle it even to one representative. I suppose that no one will contend—California and the other acquisitions from Mexico having been admitted into the Union only about two years ago last February (that, I believe, was two years from the date of the treaty of Hidalgo)—that that sort of evidence, to entitle her to one or two representatives, which is furnished by the decenial enumeration of the population of the United States, would be requisite. It is impossible, with respect to California, that any such evidence should be furnished, she having been a part of a common empire only for the short time I have mentioned. Now, let me ask, what was done in the institution of the first apportionment of the representation among the states of the Union? There was no federal enumeration of the people of the United States upon which that apportionment was made. So many representatives were allowed to one state, and so many to another, and so on, completing the number provided for by the Constitution of the United States; but in that instance, the convention that allotted these representatives to the various states based it upon all the information which they possessed, whether it was perfectly authentic or not. It is known by those who are at all acquainted with the adjustment of the question of representation among the several states, that in several of them (I may mention Georgia) it was pretty well known at the time that a larger number of representatives were allotted than the exact state of the population would authorize. But it was said in that case, ‘Georgia is a new state, rapidly filling up; a strong current of emigration is flowing into her limits, and she will soon have—perhaps by the time the two representatives take their seats—the requisite population.’ In this way, not upon information obtained under federal authority, but upon information obtained by all the modes by which it could be procured, and which was of a nature calculated to satisfy the judgment of the convention, was the apportionment of the representation made by the framers of the constitution.

So of a more recent acquisition or annexation—that of Texas. Nobody believed, I think, at the time, that Texas had a population sufficient to entitle her to two representatives. As in the case of some of the old thirteen states, so in the case of Texas, it was known that she was rapidly filling up—as I have no doubt will turn out to be the fact when the next census comes to be taken in Texas—that before the enumeration of the next census was taken, she would have a population entitling her to two, and probably more representatives.

Now, sir, there is an error existing, as it seemed to me from the observation of one or two friends the other day, with regard to the requisite population to entitle California to two representatives. It is not, as it is supposed, double the ratio which was fixed by congress ten years ago. The ratio was fixed at 70,680; but it was expressly provided in the law establishing it, that any state which had an excess beyond a moiety of the ratio established, should be entitled to an additional representative. According to the provision of that law, to entitle California to two representatives, she would only be required to have a population of 106,021, and not as was supposed, 140 odd thousand. Now, the question is, leaving out of view altogether the rapid augmentation which is daily taking place in the population of California, whether she has a population at this time—at the time when two members come to be admitted—which would entitle her to two representatives. Upon this subject, I have that which appears satisfactory to my mind, and I trust, to the minds of other senators.

In the first place, I offer to the senate an extract from a memorial of the senators and representatives of the state of California to the congress of the United States. To read this memorial, or to state it in substance in detail, would take up a considerable time; and as that memorial has been before senators, and can at any time be referred to and perused by any who have not already examined it, I will merely state, that according to the statements of that memorial—a portion of which are conjectural and a part official—the population of California, from the 1st of January, 1850, was 107,069, exceeding the number requisite to entitle the state to two representatives. But that brings it down only to January, 1850. Since that time we are authorized to add to the number, by that of the arrivals by sea at the port of San Francisco, as shown by the official report of the harbor-master from the 1st of January, 1850, to the 27th of March, 1850. Without going into the classification, there are of Americans, 8,697; of Californians, 13,454; and of foreigners, 5,503—making a total of 16,957. The number of deserters from ships, as stated in the memorial before alluded to, is put at 3,000, in round numbers. The official statement of the harbor-master, made on the first of March last to the legislature, states the number of officers and seamen that left their vessels from various causes to be 14,240. The aggregate of all these statements will give the following results, viz: 1st January, 1849, 26,000—8,000 Americans, 13,000 Californians, and 5,000 foreigners; on the 1st of January, 1850, the population was 107,069—making a total number on the 27th of March, 1850, of 124,026; to which add the number of deserting seamen, 14,240, makes a total of 135,256. Add to this the population arrived from the United States and other places since that time, and altogether, I have no earthly doubt—I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind—that, putting all these statements together, there is at this moment a population in California that would entitle her to two representatives, even supposing there had been no provision for a fraction exceeding the moiety of the ratio fixed by Congress.

Upon this question of population I do not wish to take up the time of the senate unnecessarily. They are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, for the greater part. They have lost nothing of intelligence and capacity for self-government by passing from the United States into California. By the treaty of Hidalgo, the Californians who remain become citizens of the United States, if they do not adopt the alternative of remaining Mexicans, within one year after the treaty of Hidalgo was signed. The Constitution of the United States does not any where fix any term of residence sufficient to constitute an individual one of the permanent portion of the people of the United States. In the Constitution, with regard to the subject of taxation and representation, the term is people and number. I have very little doubt that there is a sufficient number of citizens of the United States there to entitle California to two representatives. Well, as they will not be represented in the United States, they ought to be represented somewhere. Having gone to California, it is said that they have gone there only for temporary purposes. They have gone there to dig in the mines; and how many will return, how many will remain there, it is impossible at the present time to tell. We have all a right to move from place to place.

With regard to Louisiana—I am sure I state a fact that will be borne out and affirmed by the senator in my eye from that state, [Mr. Downs]—thousands and thousands went to New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana shortly after the acquisition of that territory by the treaty of Louisiana—and even up to the present time they go there for temporary purposes, intending to make a fortune, if they can, and then return home. But, so delightful is the climate, so happy do they find themselves when they get there, the number of those who go there for such purposes, who ultimately return to their individual homes, I do not believe amounts to scarcely one in a hundred. So it is and will be of California, I dare say. Vast numbers have gone there with the intention of returning, but after they have become connected by marriage, by social ties, by the acquisition of wealth, and by all those circumstances that tend to fix to a permanent location the residence of this animal man, they will relinquish their purpose of returning to the United States, I have no doubt, and become permanent and fixed residents of California. On the question of population, therefore, I think there is no ground of rational objection to the number “two,” which has been proposed by the committee, and which is precisely the number in the case of Texas.

Now, sir, with regard to the limits of California.—Upon that subject, a proposition was offered in the committee to extend a line through California, first by 36 deg. 30 min. A member of the committee, however, was not satisfied with that, and proposed 35 deg. 30 min. I believe that a majority of the committee was in favor of that amendment; but when the question of any line came up, it was rejected by a majority of the committee. Is it not a little remarkable that this proposition—this attempt to cut California in two by the line 36 deg. 30 min., or 35 deg. 30 min., or by any other line—does not come from the North at all, from whence it might be supposed it would come? For, with respect to the North, there can be no earthly doubt but if there were half a dozen states made out of California they would all be free states. But the North does not ask for a division. It is from the South that the proposition to divide the existing limits of California comes. The South wants some other states, or another state there. Some gentlemen from the South, it is true, propose that there should be an express recognition of the right to carry slaves south of the proposed line. But I believe that the major part of those who ask for this line, do not even ask for this recognition, or for this enactment, to carry slaves south of this line; and I ask every body who is acquainted with the country, who has taken the pains to look over the map, if he has not come to the conclusion that a friend of mine (I believe now within my hearing) from the South, and a large planter, came to? He said to me the other day: ‘Mr. Clay, if congress was to offer me $500 for every slave I might own, requiring me to take them to one of these new territories and keep them there for ten years, I would not accept the proposition.’

Now, suppose you were to take the line 35 deg. 30 min. or whatever line was proposed, what would be the consequence? There would be an open sea on the one side for the escape of slaves—California, reduced as I have suggested, on another; and Mexico, with her boundless mountains, on another. Who would think—who believes—that, if you establish the line proposed, slavery would ever be carried there, or would be maintained there? Moreover, I think I have understood that the delegation in the convention, south of the line of 35 deg. 30 min., or north of it, voted unanimously against the introduction of slavery there. It cannot, therefore, and I suppose it is not designed with any hope that there would be slavery carried there upon the limits of the Pacific at all. The making of a new state or states out of the present limits of California is therefore but adding to the objection which has been made by the South to the preponderance and influence, and the apprehensions entertained of the preponderance and influence of northern power. If the North is satisfied, if the thing is not unreasonable, it seems to me that there should be on the part of our southern friends no hesitation in accepting these limits. But they are said to be unreasonable. California is some 600 or 700 miles in extent on the Pacific coast; it is too large. It is stated in the report that with respect to all that portion of California south of 36 deg. 30 min., shortly after you have left the coast, you encounter deserts of sand, which never can be inhabited; and after you pass these deserts of sand, you approach mountains, and are involved in successive chains of mountains until you reach a population that has no intercourse with the Pacific, but whose intercourse is carried on exclusively with Mexico and other countries on the Mexican Gulf and the Atlantic Ocean. When you come to the northern portion of California, there is a vast desert which is said to have never been passed—or which was never known to be passed—extending from the country which the Mormons occupy down to the Pacific ocean. There seems to me, then, to be no adequate motive for the decreasing of the limits upon the Pacific, with a view to the addition of future states—at least from any amount of geographical knowledge which we possess at present.

It is mentioned in the report that there are other cases of states which have been admitted without the previous authority of congress. The honorable gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Clemens) stated that in all the other instances of states admitted into the Union, they had served an apprenticeship of so many years. But the statement in the report stands uncontradicted. Michigan, Arkansas, Florida, if no other states, came into the Union without any previous act of congress, according to the usage which prevailed in the early admission of states, authorizing them to meet in convention and form a constitution. But it is said that they were under the government of the United States. So much the better for them; they had a good government—a territorial government. But how was it with California? She had no government. You abandoned and deserted her—violated the engagement of the treaty of Hidalgo—left her to shift for herself as well as she could. In this state of abandonment, she has formed a constitution and come here. I ask again, as I had occasion to ask some three months ago, if she does not present stronger claims upon our consideration than any of those states which had territorial governments, but which, not satisfied with them, chose to form for themselves state constitutions, and come here to be admitted into the Union?

I think, then, Mr. President, that with respect to the population of California, with respect to the limits of California, and with respect to the circumstances under which she presents herself to congress for admission as a state into the Union, all are favorable to the grant of what she solicits, and that we can find neither in the one nor the other a sufficient motive to reject or to throw her back into the state of lawless confusion and disorder from which she has emerged.

With the committee I say upon this occasion, that all the considerations which devolve upon congress to admit California, sanction what she has done, and give her the benefit of self-government, apply with equal force to the two territories of Utah and New Mexico.

Mr. President, allow me, at this stage of the few observations which I propose to address to the senate, to contrast the plans which have been presented for the settlement of this question. One has come to us from very high authority, recommending, as I understand it, the admission of California, and doing nothing more, leaving the question unsettled of the boundary between New Mexico and Texas, and leaving the people who inhabit Utah and New Mexico unprovided for by government. I will take the occasion to say, that I came to Washington with a most anxious desire—a desire which I still entertain—to coöperate in my legislative position, in all cases in which I can judiciously coöperate, with the executive branch of the government. I need not add, however, sir, that I came here, also, with a settled purpose to follow the deliberate dictation of my own judgment, wherever that judgment might carry me. It is with great pleasure, sir, that I state that we do coöperate with the President, to the extent which he recommends. He recommends the admission of California. The committee propose it. There the President’s recommendation stops. There we take up the subject, and proceed to act upon the other parts of the territory acquired from Mexico. Now, sir, which course of the two recommends itself best to the judgment of those who are to act in the case?

In the first place, sir, if we do not provide governments for the other portions of the country acquired from Mexico, we fail to fulfil the obligation, the sacred obligation, in the treaty with Mexico. It is said that they will have a government of their own—a local government; that they have such a one now; but they have not such a one now as they had when they were part of Mexico. When they were part of the republic of Mexico, with the common government of Mexico stretching over all the parts constituting that republic, they had all the benefit resulting from their own local laws, and the additional benefit and security resulting from the laws of the supreme government, covering all parts of the republic. We have the place of that supreme government. They were transferred from that sovereignty to this sovereignty, and we stipulated with that former sovereignty that we would extend to them protection to their persons, security to their property, and the benefit of preserving their own religion according to the dictates of their own consciences. Now, sir, if you admit California, and do nothing for Utah and New Mexico—nothing in relation to the settlement of the boundary question with Texas—I ask you, in what condition, in what state, will you leave these countries? There are the Mormons—a community of which I do not wish to say a word in disrespect. I know very little about them. I have heard very often things said against them; and I believe during this session my colleague, who sits before me, [Mr. Underwood] has had occasion to present some petition or document, showing some very harsh, oppressive, and tyrannical treatment extended by those Mormons to citizens of the United States, who did not compose a portion of their community, and who were merely passing through. Of that people, of their capacity to govern, of the treatment they would give to the other citizens of the United States who might settle among them, or who might wish to pass through, not belonging there—of all these matters I shall not speak. The members from Missouri and Illinois are much more competent to afford information to the senate upon them than I am.