Newspaper Page Text
1 i w ip&wm THfi'NA'TiONAL REPUBLICAN IS PUBLISHED EVERY HORNING, (SUNDAYS EXCEPTED,) On Sen nti street, near E,- opposite the General' Post Oflice, by LEWIS CLEPHANE & CO. . RATES OP ADVERTISING. One square, three days $1.00 One square, font' days 1.25' One square, fire days 1.50 One square, six days , , 1.75 One square, two weeks 2.75 One square, three weeks , .,. 3.50 One square, one month .-. 4,00 One square, three months 10.00 One square, six months 16.00 One square, one year 30.00 Every other day advertisements, fifty per eeni. additional; once a week advertisements charged as new for each Insertion. Inserted only once, ten cents a line. Church and other notices, and wants, twenty fire cents for each Insertion. Ten lines or less constitute a square. OSffiaitkl; wnattsrc TERMS. To city subscribers six and a quarter cents per week, payable to the carriers. To mall subscribers, three dollars and fifty cants per annum, payable In advance. PRICE ONE CENT. FIRST, KEEP OLD COMPROMISES. SPEECH OP HON. JOHN U. PETTIT, OF INDIANA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 19, 1861. concluded. His motive was revenge on Jackson. lie had attempted to enlist the South in disunion on the tariff. He called tho tariff sectional. Ho invoiced a united South. When nullifica tion was crushed under Jackson's heavy hand, " Now," said Mr. Calhoun, in a speech at Abbe ville," the South can never bo united against the North on tho tariff question. The sugar interests of Louisiana will keep her out, Tho basis of Southern union must be shifted from the tariff to tho slavery question." Jackson's prophetic sight already explored Calhoun' next deep purpose of promoting disunion by slavery agitation, and ho expressed it in tho following letter : Private Washihgton, May 1, 1833. My Dear Sib : 1 have had a laborious task here, but nullification is dead ; and its actors and courtiers will only be re membered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good Government on tho globe, and that prosperity and happiness wo enjoy over every portion of the world. Human's gallows ought to be the fate of nil such ambitious men, who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked dema gogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifieis ; you have them among you ; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is nolo known, was a mere pretext. The next pretext Kill be the negro or slavery question. My health is not good, but is improving a little. Present mo kindly to your lady and family, and believe me to be your friend. I will always be happy to hear from you. Andrew JacksoHi The Rev. Ahdrew J. Crawford. Mr. Clin'QMAN, now Senator from North Carolina, in a speech delivered here Decembdr 2.1, IB-IB, alter the slavery agitation was rile, and Jackson's prophecy had become history, used tho following language: " After tho unpleasant difficulty growing ont of nullification had been satisfactorily settled, there was a general disposition, both at the South and in tho North, to bury all sectional and local ill-feelings and differences. Unfor tunately, however, lor the repose of the coun try. Mr. Calhoun, who had been a prominent actor on the aide of nullification, found himself uncomfortable in his then position. The ma jorities of every one of the Southern States wcro not only opposed to him politically, but viewed him with suspicion and distrust. Being ambi tious of popularity and influence, he sought to restore himself to the confidouce of the South in tho first place, and seized upon the slave question as the means to effect that ond. He professed to feel great dread lest tho North should tako steps in contravention of our rights, and to desire only to put tho South on ber guard against the imminent danger which was threatening her. He only wished to produce agitation enough to unite the South, though everybody well know that thcro was, in relation to this subject, no division there. Whether he had ulterior views against the integrity of the Union, it is not my purpose to inquire ; I am only look ing at acts, not inquiring into motives. The former obviously looked to the creation of political party based on the slavery question." Then, in order to unite tho South against the North, slavery agitation began. A thousand mil ions of dollars worth of slaves was a powerful, influence to be courted. Calhoun led the way. The right of petition had been of immemorial use among the children of Englishmen, whoso tough ancestors, in the twilight of English freedom, had wrung it from King John at Kunnemede, and established it in Magna Charta, so that des potism should never question it afterwards. Calhoun attacked and destroyed it. Next, a bandago was put ou the many-tongued press. Postmasters, at country cross-roads, became its censors, and judged, without appeal, what the press should say, and what tho people should read, and what should be carried in the mails. This was the first lesson, that slave! y was not to be talked about or printed about. If other arguments failed, the resistless proof that sla very is an element of weakness in a State is, that it cannot stand up safely in the sunlight of free speech and a free press. For tho right Is always strong, and does not fear danger. At first, it was cautious and conciliatory, as it felt its way. But the Texas plot, which re sulted from the accidental position of Mr. Tyler, Calhoun's accomplice in nullification, in tho Presidency, whereby Calhoun becumo Secre tary of State, was a bold and open success in the interest of slavery. Henceforth it has been defiant. Then tho honest Democracy of An drew Jackson was at last fatally involved in Calhoun's plan of revenge, to destroy the Union by founding, as Mr. Clingmnn expressed it, " it political party based on the slavery question." President Buchanan said in tho Senate, in 1843, " All Christendom is leagued against tho South upon the question of domestio slavery. They have no other allies to sustain their con stitutional rights except tho Democracy of the North." Texas was annexed for tho sako of slavery. Calhoun lived to see his policy half complete, and JucKBon died, giving warning, in tho very article of death, in his farewell let ter to his old friend Blair, against Calhoun's insidious policy, ending inevitnbly in disunion. Since then the territorial acquisition of half of Mexico, with the hidden meaning of plunder ing more, the Ostend manifesto, which is a plea for public robbery, repeal of the Missouri com promise, freebooting expeditions against Cuba aud Nicnrngua, unrestrained by law, and after wards justified in a party platform after Walker established slavery in Nicaragua by his per sonal decree, the suspicious protectorate of Mexico, a liquorish lust for Cuba, right or wrong, the criminal and bloody niisgovernment of KniiRaa. crowned bv its election frauds and its Lecompton swindle, and tho greater infamy of the English bill, are only so many. steps in the aggrandisement of slavery, all dono in tho in tuited and prostituted name of Democracy. And if disunion, whose busy ministers have swarmed in all public places and offices, nay, In tho " very summer heat and favor " of tho President's countenance, wearing perjured con sciences to their oaths of fidelity to the Union, while plotting its ruin ; if disunion is to be ac complished now, through tho spirit that has long invested tho Government, then old Jack son's warning has been vain, and Calhoun's ambition, and hatred, and revenge, aro com plete. Noj for the first fifty years after framing the Constitution, the uuiversal condemnation of slavery, South as well as North, went unchal longed. To adopt the happy expression of the minority of the committee, this "was the com mon understanding and sentiment of tho times," and by this judgment we mean to stand. It was only as an agent of family dis cord, and to rend us and destroy us, that mi chlevous men taught that slavery was divine. " One party in the North, after tie war with Mexico, asserted the right of .Congress to ex clude slavery from the Territories," says tho minority of the committee. This means that It was never asserted before, and that, when it was asserted, it was only by one party, and that party in the North. Has Congress such power? Nono understood better the meaning of (he Constitution than thoso who made it. Now, it is indisputable, that iu every instance of form ing a territorial government, from the adoption of tho Constitution until the passage of tha KansaSiNebraska bill, Congress uniformly as serted its power of controlling this subject sometimes, as in the cases of Louisiana, Mis sissippi, and Missouri, admitting slavery under limitations, but in most instances, as the North west Territory Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minuesota, and Oregon utterly excluding it. It was the effect of tho prohibition contained in the Missouri compro mise, forbidding slavery from a region larger than the " Old Thirteen." All the Presidents, till Pierce, admitted its propriety. That Pierco did not does not weaken its authority. Tha most memorable example is the act of August T, 1789, giving fuller effect to the Ordinance of the Confederation- of July 13, 1787, for the government of the territory northwest of the Ohio. Here slavery existed by French law. which prevailed there when England wrested the Canadas from France. Now, this act, which was unanimously passed by the first Congress, aad approved by Washington, and was no half and half measure, not only forbado the introduction of slavery, but entered the Territory where it existed and expelled it' from tho Terriories. Henceforth, examples of tho exercise of this power, like milestones, occur in our history. Adams approved the Indiana territorial act of May 7, 1800: Jefferson, of Orleans Territory and Louisiana district, passed March 2G, 1804; of Michigan, February 3, 1805, and Illinois, February 3, 1809 ; Madison, of Missouri, June 12, 1812 ; Jackson, of Wis consin, April 20, 183G; and Polk, with whom Jackson Democracy flickered for a short season, like a spent candle in the socket, and with whom it died out, approved the organic lawof Oregon. Yet all these acts qualified or excluded slavery. All these acts were consented to by all Con gresses, and by Northern and Southern gen tlemen without dissent. When Indiana and Illinois, on several occasion, applied to Con gress to allow slavery permanently or tempo rarily, Congress refused it. Southern gentlemen being foremost in opposition to the extension of slavery. Only once was the competency of Uongress to exclude slavery brought in ques tion, on the occasion of the approval ot tho .Missouri compromise, when Monroo first sub mitted the question to his Cabinet, consisting of Crawford, Wirt, John Quiucy Adams, and John C. Calhoun, who all agreed that Congress possessed this power. On two distinguished occasions the Supreme Court nffirmed this power in Congress. Tho courts of all the States acceded to this interpretation. Thus, for more than sixty years, Congress asserted its power of controlling this subject in the Terri tories, sometimes qualifying the manner of its introduction, sometimes forbidding it, but in both cases equally asserting its power, and with the acquiescence of tho Executive and Judicial Departments. If this was right then, it is right now. If it did not peril the Union then, it docs not now. If it was not sectional then, it is not now ; or, if it is sectional now, it would be well to know at what time it became sectional. If, from such facts as these, the equality of the States in the Territories is now denied, it began with the men who signed the Declaration, and afterwards, by the Constitution, completed their work by putting together this fabric of free government. If it was wise, proper, and patriotic in those who first made, and then interpreted the Constitution, and in the no less illustrious generation oi great men that followed after them, to observe such a policy, vindicated as it was everywhere by peaceful, orderly, and just government in the Territories, and resulting in such examples of iree, prosperous, and nappy states ns unio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Oregon, strengthening the bonds of our Union, and augmer.ting our honor before all the nations of the earth, those of us who ad here to the same policy now are justified in sheltering under such examples. This plain statement of facts sums up and concludes the argument as to the power of Con- fress to exclude slavery from the Territories. t may be Bafely rested on authority alone, bo cause it subjects the sense of tho instrument to tho practical interpretation of tho great men who made it. In face of this uniform and irre fragible testimony, it was heroism in the mi nority of tho comraitteo to allow it to be im plied that it was only iu 1848 that a party in the free States, and for the purpose of wrong ing the South, first nsserted this power ; especi ally, when it is remembered that two of them, in that very year, voted for tho extension of the Missouri compromise line to tue raciuc, thereby admitting that Congress had power to exclude slavery norlh of that line ; and, espe cially, consideriug that the Democratic conven tion at Baltimore in that very year, affirmed, oy a voio ot zib to 3U, that Uongress had tne power. Thus, instead of being obnoxious to the complaint of setting up a new doctrine, we, In turn, accuse them ot having abandoned tho old one. The argument of the next matter of com plaint, namely, that the transitory right of sla very, from the States into the Territories, is now denied, is involved in the argument just made, because, if Congress may exclude slavery from.thojTerritories.it includes the risht of de- I nying that slavery, by mere constitutional'force, may go Into the Territories. The Constitution makes a Government of expressly granted, but limited powers, and it neither establishes nor conveys any right, unless tho authority for it hi written in the instrument. Now, by the Con otitulion slavery is described as existing in the States, "by the laws thereof" excluding the idea that it has any other authority, than by the laws of the States. And wherever tho subject is named in the instrument, as, in regard to the prohibition of the African ilavo trade after 1808, the basis of representation and of taxes, and tho reclamation of fugitive slaves, slaves are treated as persons, in distinction from prop erty. Indeed, that' it has but a local existence, and limited to the territorial range, whero tho municipal law establishes it, is affirmed in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case, of Prigg vs. the Commonwealth, already quoted, in which it lays down the following rule: "Sla very is n mere municipal regulation, founded upon and limited to the range of territorial laws." Thus, as property, which it is made by the local law, the Constitution extends it no where, and as it does not extend it, it affords it no safety nor protection. The argument main tained by the minority of tho committee, that Congress may not forbid slavery in New Mexi co, by its own act, or by the aot of a territorial legislature, which derives its whole, powers from Congress, because no such, power is expressly granted to Congress by the Constitution, is of equal force, that neither Congress not the' terri torial legislature can introduce slavery, in op position to the law of freedom which existed there at tho time of its acquisition, because the power to do so is not expressly granted in the Constitution. Lot it be considered that the complaint here made by the minority of the committee is, that the Republican party denies that slaves may be taken from the States, and held as such under the Constitntion, in the Territories. I have already referred to the long line of in stances in which Congress directly forbade sla very in the Territories. In addition to these, in the tenth section of the act of March. 28th, 1804, organizing the two Territories of Orleans and Louisiana purchase, it was provided: " No slave or slaves shall, directly or indi rectly, be introduced into said Territory, except by a citizen of the United States removing into said Territory for actual settlement, and being at the time of such removal bona fide owner of such slave or slaves; and every slave imported or brought into said Territory, contrary to tha provisions of this act, shall thereupon be enti tled to and receive his or her freedom." The same provision is contained in the net for the government of the Territory of Mis souri, passed June 4, 1812. In these acts tho authority of Congress to exclude slaves as prop erty from the Territories was distinctly asserted ; for, if Congress had thus the power to exclude them in part, it might do so wholly. Its power of limitation upon the right was, if it saw fit to assert it, a power of exclusion. Let it be further considered that this brief discussion of this question is with reference to the mode of trial invited by the minority of the committee, namely : " by the common under standing of those who were to live under the Constitution, and by the universal sentiment of the times." Not only did Congress deny this travelling or vagrant right of property in slaves from the States into the Territories, but the States denied it as between themselves. For example, the first act of the General Assembly of Virginia, at its session iu 1788, has the fol lowing provision : "It shall not be lawful to bring into this State, or to hold therein, any slavo born out of tne limits ot tbo State." An act of Delaware of tho previous year provided : " If any person shall, after the passing of this act, bring any negro or mulatto slave into this State, for sale or otherwise, the said negro is declared freo to all intents and purposes." At the same time, Maryland enacted a similar law. Even earlier than this. North Carolina forbade the introduction of slaves from other States, under a penalty of one hundred pounds ; and followed it, in 1794, with a heart alive to the justice Of emancipation, then iu progress in the Northern States, by providing further, that slaves brought from any of them where slavery was being abolished, should be set free. But South Carolina led the wav in denvinc that a slave in one State was property in another. In 171C, the introduction of a slave from another colony was forbidden under a penalty of thirty pounds. In the very year of making the Con stitution of the United States, the penalty was increased to one hundred pounds. In 1792 tho introduction and sale was again forbidden. The operation of tho law was limited to five years; but was again extended in 1797, again in 1800, again in 1801, again in 1803, and once more in 1810. This last was repealed in 1818; but in 1 835 was applied tc slaves, from Maryland or Delaware, under a penalty of one thousand dol lars. Here, then, contemporaneous with the Constitution, is found concurrent legislation in Delaware, Marylaud, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, denying that property iu slaves in one State was property in another. Where, then, was this wandering right of prop erty in slaves by the "common understanding of that time 7" All this legislation, which was contemporaneous with making the Constitu tion, puts it beyond a doubt that, by the sense of these States, the right, whatever it was, was created by municipal law, and limited to the territorial operation of the law. Whence, then, the sacred right that is now asserted for it iu the Territories? This was a subject of discus sion in the Senate on the 5th of February, 1850. On that occasion Mr. Clay said : " Now, really, I must say that the idea that, eo inslanti, upon the consummation of the treaty with Mexico, the Constitution of tbo United States carried along with it the institu tion of slavery, is so irreconcilable with any comprehension or reason that I possess, that I hardly know how to meet it. How can it bo argued that the fifteen slave States carried into tho territory their institution of slavery any moru than it can be argued on the other side that by the operation ot the same constitution that iir teen Iree States carried into the ceded territories the principle of freedom which they from policy have chosen to adopt; the power then, Ms. President, in my opinion, does exist with Congress." , Tho argument of the minority of tho com mittee amounts to this : that tho fathers meant to make slavery national, to invigorate it, and protect it, and perpetuate it. If they had meaut this, they would have said it frankly in the Constitution, for they were frank men. Will gentlemen argue, if all the States, where slavery now exists, should abolish it, that slavery would afterwards exist in all the Terri tories by the naked force of .the Constitution? And if the people in all tho Slates and all the Territories if tho people everywhere, wish to getrid of slavery everywhere, must it yet re main in tho Territories, by force of tho Consti tution, in spite of Congress, in spito of territo rial legislation, in spite of every human power, the Wandering Jew of modern politics, that can never die? And if, thus, slavery as a property is nationalized and established and set above men and all possiblo legislation, doos it not then follow that tho great struggle for independence was a strugglo not for man but for property? I havo discussed, at some length, these several matters of complaint of the minority of the committee, partly, becauso it was due to tho subject, but more, because If these several complaints are unfounded, then it follows, that what is wanting, th'e only thing wanting, to quiet discontents and ro establish tho family peace, is to tell the simplo truth, that no one's rights are to be wronged, and that Republican administration will follow tho good and wise examples of tho best periods of our history. The minority of tho committee has nothing more to complain of than this, except that it is claimed as the summary and result of tho argument, that tho election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency was an act of tho free States, with deliberated hostility to the South, on tho sentiment of opposition to slavery alone. These gentlemen seem to know but litflo of the mo tives of this contest. Whether slavery should bo extended into all the Territories, and thus virtually exclude twenty millions of freemen because, whero slavery exists, freo labor is virtually expelled twenty millions already ".cribbed' and confined" within one half the limit relatively now enjoyed by citizens of the slave States, was indeed one great question. But it was a legitimate subject, just as the question of promoting and establishing slavery in'the Territories was equally insisted upon in the canvass in the slave States. But this subject had practically been concluded by the election of 1856 and the progress of events in Kansas. But miscalled Democracy, undcrjthe administrations of Pierce and Buchanan, was arraigned and brought to judgment for eight years'of misgovemment, peculation, and crime. It was much that it had sown dissensions by breaking down old compromises, which gave assurance of confidence and peace. The great crime'against free government in Kansas was notgforgotlen. Its promises of retrenchment and economical administration had resulted, in a'season of profound peace and when no great public enterprises wero inl progress, in expenses increased and doubled. I ho treasury was made bankrupt. When material prosperity was at its height, year by year, the nation was plunging in debt. Piratical enterprises against Cuba and sister republics, our neighbors, went abroad unchecked. The national name be came their terror. Two hundred millions to buy Cuba into tho Union, whether the people consented or not, as if lhe Queen of Spain might sell her people as cattle are sold in a market, making necessary new armies and greater navies to hold it in subjugation, and adding to the public burden, was in sight. Wherever Democracy was touched, it was found rotten to the core. But more than all was the deep conviction of a conspiracy, wide spread and criminal, fostered and hatching aud pervading nil department of the govern ment, having its head in the Presidents Cabi net, and having for its object tho destruction of the Union. This moved tho heart of Northern men scarcely less than in the great States of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, whero Bell led tho cnuso of Union to victory. Such wero some of the articles of impeachment tried in the lute Presidential election. Tho benefi cial measures of the tariff, the Pacific railroad, and tho homestead, were hardly less potent. Theso are issues that the Presidential contest determined. Northern Democrats,who lately held our opin ions and abandoned them, havo been our chief accusers. Killing by damaging innuendoes is kindred to " damning with faint praise." They have called us abolitionists, touched with an insane frenzy against the South. They have aided in spreading Southern delusion, because you seemed to believe them, and took pleasure in being deluded. Men who do not know their own principles, who throw their principles over their shoulders as carelessly as a beggar does his wallet, going from Congressional prohibi tion to compromise, and next destioy compro mises for popular sovereignty, and now aban don popular sovereignty and put up compro mises again, .as if compromises wcro to be put up and knocked down like ten pins ; such men who did not know, in November last, in de fending popular sovereignly, that it would now be turned off as carelessly as a foundling who do not know their own purposes pretend to know best and tell yon what our purposes are. These, tho Cushiugs and UuUctts and Buffalo platform builders, and all their tribe, who, when they turned to Democracy from Abolition, brought nothing but its fanaticism, are enemies to the South in disguise, and will abandon you at the first temptation. Thoso who hold principles from expediency are with out principle. It is only those who hold fast to the covenants of the Constitution who nro true friends both of North and 8outh. The secession of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiuun, does not have root iu any such motives, but in considerations that are incompatible with the Constitution and tho Union. Therefore they wish to get out of tho Union. Since nul lification, South Carolina has " eaten of the insane root," and her people have uecomo poisoned with hatred to the Union. This is no recent infirmity, and tho reasons stated by the minority of the committee, namely, apprehension of disturbance of the subject of slavery in tho States, and the recov ery of fugitives, and tho election even of a Republican President, havo had nothing to do with it. In the convention that declared her late independeuce of tho Union, and just after having completed tho treasonable work, some of its leading gentlemen wcro frank to acknow ledge it. Mr. Parker said : " It is no spasmodic effort that, has come suddenly upon us, but it has been gradually culminating for a long series of years until, at last it has come to that point when tee may say the matter is entirely right," Mr. Ingliss was equally explicit : " As my frieud Mr. Parker has said, most of us have had this matter under consideration for the last twenty years, and I presume we have by this time arrived at a decision upon the subject." Her infuriated orator, Mr.Keitt, exclaimed : " have been engaged in this movement ever since I entered political life." Mr. Rhett, whose whole life has been an ex pression of hatred to the Union, followed : " The tccession of South Carolina is not an event of a day. It is not anything produced, by Mr. Lincoln's election, or by non-execution of the fugitive slave law. It has been a mutter wliich has been gathering head for thirty years." Tho contagion of this bad example had long infected her sister States. Others sigh for cheap slaves, and reopening the African slave trade This is not possiblo in the Union. Others have Utopian dreams of a widespread military empire, embracing nil tho sunny fields of Mexico and the tropics, daz zling with untold riches, and bringing the world to its feet. Tho curious, the idle und tho ad venturous have hopes of distant conquests and plunder. In tho Union nono of these nro pos sible. Then, tooj dissolution will open new fields of domestic enterprise and ambition. Many such motives and hopes, which singly would do no harm, are co-operating and push ing forward revolution. Thus, these States have thrown off authority and allegiance. What cure is there for such malady but to destroy the Union ? The Union is the evil complained of. This is the rationale of secession. But in dis tempered times, tho "cruel and violent havo sway." I verily beliovo that even there, there is now a silent majority in whom tho lovo of Union, with its precious freight of security, peace, happiness, glory, greatness, with rich traditions and auspicious hopes, is not yet ex pired, and that this majority will, in good time, reclaim them from revolution and bring them home. We are now to consider what the exigency demands. The gentlemen of the minority of the committee assisted by their votes iu tearing down the Missouri compromise of 1820, which limited the extension ot slavery northward by the parallel of 30 30'. It was done to remove the agitation cf slavery from Congress, to give peace to the country, to put an end to an in vidious and insolent distinction which denied them equality as States in the Confederacy. Now, at the end of a half dozen years of fac tion, and disorder, and crime, they propose once more to give peace to the country and end slavery agitation in Congress, by crowding the limit of slavery, northward by half a degree. They recommend thnt in the free territory ac quired from Mexico, the slavery line shall bo extended still further north, to the northern boundary of New Mexico. In the territory south of this line, slavery is to be recognised as existing. Congress shall not interfere with it. It shall be protected as property by all the de partments of the territorial government. When admitted as States, it shall be with or without slavery. In places under the exclusive juris diction of Congress, it shall have no power to abolish it. Congress shall not abolish it in tho District of Columbia, whilo it exists in Mary laud and Virginia, nor without the consent of its inhabitants, nor without just compensation. Congress Bhall never prohibit officers of the Federal Government from bringing their slaves into the District. Congress shall not prohibit the transportation of slaves from State to State, by land, by rivers, or by sea. Congress shall provide by law for indemnity for fugitives whose recovery is obstructed. The United States may tuo nnd recover from the counties, for tho dam ages of rescue, with interest. Congress shall not abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States. All theso articles of amendment shall be perpetual. If so much is granted, says the minority of the committee, "harmony and pcaco will bo restored to our people, and our Union soon again be reconstructed on such a foundation that it can never be shaken." And all this is to bo irrevocably written and estab lished in the Constitution. This is proposed as a compromise. This, on full consideration of our present discontents, is tho recommendation of tha minority. Through this whole debato tho best hopes have been founded in compromise. I like the friendly word compromise. It implies that there can be such things as trust and confi dence. It shuts out tho idea of unbrotherly strife. Occasions have risen, aud may arise again, for which tho Constitution has made no rule; or if it has, in which there are honest disagreements about interpreting it, and then some just accommodation of it is better than blows. Such an instance occurred on the acquisition of Louisiana. It was probably true, as the minority of the committee has said, when the Constitution was made, it was not intended to provide for any further acqui sition of territory. In some considerable part of Louisiana slavery then practically existed. It had been fixed and rooted there for three quarters of a century. But it theoretically existed there, everywhere, throughout tho whole of tho acquired territory, westward to the Stony mountains, aud northward to tiro British line, by the operation of French law. Should this imperial domain, greater than Alexander's empire, become all slavo terri tory, or should it all become freo territory ? Tho application of any absolute rule would have made it all cither ono or tho other. Without entering into tho dreary aud angry controversy that then resulted from the Mis souri compromise, it is enough that that memorable compromise and settlement, de vised and imposed by tho Southern section, which is, by the net, concluded from denvini: its fairness, as it is concluded by subsequent events from alleging agaiust tho Northern soo tion a lack of fidelity in its execution, at tempted then to settle the question of slavery in that whole territory forever, on the dis tinct ground that there then was no rule of just application to all of it, and that soma equitable and peaceful compromise of tho dis- Iiuto was tho best adjustment of- it. It has lecome the judgment of tho generation that followed this settlement that some such accom modation of this perilous dispute, for tho rea son given, was then eminently proper. But tho importance of this great event was not so much iu making it as in observing it. This compromise, like all compromises, implied good faith, imported that it wai made and consented to ou the single security of the good faith of the parties to it, that it should be re ligiously and perpetually kept. It was, to be sure, in form, only a law, and therefore sub ject to be repealed ; but to save it from ruth less hands, it was, at its very birth, baptized into the sacred name of compromise, aud put in ward of the public honor and affection till it grew, as Mr. Polk expressed it in his Oregon message, "intd a sacredness akin to the Con stitution." Tha wretch who first stripped from compromises the security and sanctity that public confidence had invested them with, and taught that they wero nothing but vulgar laws, mere estates at will on tho statutes, has spread more mischief and done more wrong to public morals thnn all the common rogues that public justice has chastised into the public ja Is and penitentiaries. The confidence, tho faith of tho States in each other, is tho only just as surance of affection and peace ; and tho faith breakers, the assassins of compromises, aro tho enemies of both. Tho merit of all compro mises, I repeat, is not in making them, but in observing them. Before making new compromises, let us begin by keeping the old ones. After tho work of making the Constitution was com piete, George Washington, president of the convention, wrote a lettor to the old Congress, " by unanimous order of tho convention," in which he used this language: "The Constitu tion which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable. That it may promota the lasting uxlfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our mostardent wish." Now, the Constitution of the United States is a bundle of compromises. It is a compro mise that the President elected by a constitu tional majority shall be inducted into office by the consent of tho whole people, and exer cise in their name the executive power of tho United States. It is a compromise that the wish of the people expressed by the forms of election shall bo respected and obeyed. It is a compromise that tho Constitution, and tho laws ot the United Statc3 made in pursuanco thereof, shall bo the supremo law of tha land, anything in tho Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. It is a compromise that the President shall bo the commander-in chief of the army and navy. It is a compromise that no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, coin money, or emit bills of credit. It is a com promise that no State shall, without the con sent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports. It is n compromise that no State shall, without the consent of Con gress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war. But the paramount compromise, and that which is the summary of all compromises, is the Union of theso States, one and inseparable, now and forever. Now, when I am invited to new compromises by these gentlemen, I first ask, will you observe these old compromises? aid the President in executing his office of preserving the Union and enforcing the laws? frown on all wrongful interference with Federal authority in all the States 7 preserve and keep the public properly? Becuuse, if you will not do this, what assurance exists that you will keep the new compromise? And having made anew compromise, what as surance then that you will not deny its obliga tion until you have exacted another ? First last, and all the time, I stand by the sacred duty of obedience to the Constitution and the laws. What? Coerce a State? No I In a con stitutional sense, State authority is consistent With Federal authority, and can never conflict with it. Each is independent of the other. Each has its powers und function, divided from the other by a line. State and Federal author ity move iu concentric orbits. Whero one has power on a given subject, the other lacks tho power. Federal sovereignty is made by a grant of powers; State sovereignty in the exerciso of reserved rights. Thus, Congress may impose duties; a State cannot. So that if duties are collected even in the name of a Stale, it is yet not the State that does it, for such functions aro denied to it, whilo the Constitution lasts, but thit act is a mere lawless usurpation of au thority. So in regard to forts, harbors, armies, treaties, alliances. States have no constitu tional power over such subjects, and when at tempted, their acts are merely nugatory. No I I would not touch a State, acting as a State only can, in its appointed province ; but against all usurpation ot Federal authority, no matter under whut name disguised, the Constitution is emphatic, requires obedience from all of ns, and the Executive can make no distinction between the vulgar mail-robber and other wrong-doers no matter what their numbers, that cross its authority. I am not hero discussing secession. That argument was long ago ended. As a right granted by tho Constitution, it does not exist. Tho arti cles of confederation adopted by the old Con gress of 1778, concluded with this compact: " The articles hereof shall bo inviolably ob served by tho States wo respectively represent, and the Union shall bo perpetual." When the Constitution came afterwards to be formed, it was "in order to form n more perfect Union" than existed nndcr the articles of confedera tion. Therefore, instead of providing for a dis solution of the Union, provision was made for its amendment, but not for its destruction. But tho nsserted right of secession implies that they whoso purpose it was to make a perpetual Union, provided, by secession, tho means of iU overthrow, dependent, nt any moment, on the cuprico of any ono of tho thirty-four States. Secession is but another narao for dissolution, and if now acknowledged as a right, the Union of tho States is not worth preserving. Tha statement of tho argument is its own refutation. Secession, in the language of Mr. Madieon, is " ultra constitutional and revolutionary," and armed secession is treason. Following tho forms of tho Constitution, Mr. Lincoln has been elected to the Presi dency. Now, it is claimed by the minority of the committee, that unless slavery obtains new jjunranlics, something that it did not naie pe tore, and does not have now, a dissolution of the Union is tho remedy. 1 his introduces Mexicau manners into our politics, and for the purpose of abandoning the freo spirit and early policy of the Government. In form, the Fed eral Government of Mexico is like our own; but, Iu fact, the minority, defeated at the ballot box, takes arms in its hands and inaugurates revolution. Thus that unhappy country has been torn by violent factions and wasted by civil war. Shall we become Mexicans, or main tain the good old rule of bowing to the au thority of constitutional majorities, looking for the security of erery right to the abundant means aud in tho mode provided In the Con-