The bill was read and passed to the second reading. Ordered, That the report be printed. was any report was this, that I know the circumstances under which it was reported last session. I know, also, that a bill was introduced for the relief of the widow of another distinguished ofsub-ficer-I mean the widow of General McNeil. When that bill came up, it did not go quite so easy, and I want to know if there is anything peculiar in the two cases. I supposed that if there was anything peculiar which could distinguish the one case from the other, that peculiarity would have been set forth in the report. Mr. H. also, from the same committee, to which was referred the petition of John A. McGaw, mitted a report, accompanied by a bill granting relief to John A. McGaw, of New York. The bill was read and passed to the second reading. Ordered, That the report be printed. Mr. H. also, from the same committee, to which was referred the bill supplementary to the several acts of Congress providing for the better security of the lives of passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam, and for other purposes, reported it without amendment. Mr. FELCH, from the Committee on Public Lands, to which was referred the bill to grant to the State of Ohio the unsold and unappropriated public lands remaining in that State, reported it with an amendment. COMPENSATION OF TREASURERS. Mr. HUNTER, from the Committee on Finance, to which was referred the bill to provide compensation to such persons as may be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to receive and keep the public moneys, under the fifteenth section of the act of 6th August, 1846, for the additional services required under that act, reported it without amendment. It will take but little time, said the honorable gentleman, to dispose of this bill, and I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to take it up for consideration now. It was passed during the last session of the Senate. It is designed to provide compensation for a class of officers who were omitted to be provided for by the act of 1846-I mean that class who were designated as the "depositors.' This bill having passed the Senate last year, probably failed in the House because it only reached that body in the regular order of business. The motion to take up the bill was agreed to. The bill was then considered by the Senate as in Committee of the Whole, and there being no amendment thereto, it was reported to the Senate, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. BILLS INTRODUCED. Mr. DAVIS, agreeable to previous notice, asked and obtained leave to bring in a bill for the relief of Charles A. Kellett; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. Also, a bill for the relief of Enoch Baldwin and others; which was read a first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Com merce. WIDOW OF GENERAL WORTH. The Senate, on the motion of Mr. BORLAND, proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the relief of Margaret L. Worth. Mr. HALE. Is there any report accompanying that bill? If there be, I should like to have it read. Mr. BORLAND. There was no report in the case. It was a bill introduced by me last session of Congress granting a pension to the widow of General Worth. There was no report necessary in the case. The facts were known to all. His position in the Army, the circumstances of his death, his great merit as an officer, added to her claims to support under these circumstances, she was generally regarded as deserving of the care and sympathy and relief of the Government. There were no facts beyond these necessary to be set forth in a report, and these facts were in the knowledge of every Senator. For this reason no report was made. When the bill was reported from the committee, I asked for its consideration. It was passed in the Senate and went to the House, but failed there for want of time, not coming up in the regular order of business. One reason why I ask for its passage by the Senate now is, that I learn from members of the House that it can be passed in that branch of Congress at an early day, and thus afford relief to the widow of one of the most gallant officers ever known in our Army-relief of which she stands eminently in need. Mr. BORLAND. I will not prolong the dis- relief of the widow of General McNeil which Mr. UNDERWOOD. I believe that I made an my firmness to resist an application of that sort, The PRESIDENT. Does the Senator propose Mr. BORLAND. I desire to say one word, although it is not my purpose to say anything in relation to this bill, but simply in response to a Mr. SEWARD. If were possible to frame remark made by the Senator from Kentucky. I a general law embracing cases so meritorious as insist that in asking for the passage of this bill we this and no others, I would agree with the honora- do not seek the introduction of any new principle. ble Senator from Kentucky. But I despair of ever It may indeed be a new principle, according to the seeing any such law; and because it is only by letter of the law, but it certainly is not so accordspecial legislation that we can obtain the attentioning to the spirit of the law; for our present law of Congress to a case so peculiarly meritorious as this, if such a general law were passed; and because other applications less meritorious in their character than this would often obtain an equal consideration under it, I think it is right, and proper, and wise, to consider these cases separately. I think it just to single out for favor such as come recommended to the consideration of the Government by the magnitude and heroism of services rendered, and the destitution of families bereaved. Those cases which have not merit will undoubtedly fail by the way. I therefore cordially support the proposition contained in the bill. I shall record my vote for it now, and I shall be equally happy to record it on its final passage. Mr. UNDERWOOD. The Senator from New York has expressed a wish to have an opportunity of recording his vote in favor of this bill, and I wish to give him that opportunity, as well as to have myself an opportunity of recording my vote against the principle, and therefore I will ask for the yeas and nays. I wish to ascertain the sense of the Senate on this matter-because I think it will save time and expense hereafter-whether they will undertake to legislate in particular cases, and grant pensions when there are no general laws authorizing it. I believe that if we introduce this principle, it will lead to more partiality, more favoritism, and interfere more with the regular legislation of Congress, than almost anything else that we can do. And, Mr. President, my experience has been that there is hardly any case where you bring forward the claims of the individual, and present him or her with the wants by which he or she is surrounded to the sympathies of Congress-I say, there is hardly any individual case which may be thus presented, which will not be provided for; and if you begin to act in this way, without a general principle, you will consume the whole time of Congress in these individual gratuities. Sir, what was the case of Charlotte Lynch? I had occasion, the other day, to mention that case. Mr. HALE. And upon that I had occasion to meet you. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Sir, that case illustrates the whole condition of things. An accomplished lady Mr. HALE, (in his seat.) Certainly, a poetess. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir, a poetess, inMr. HALE. I am by no means opposed to the termingling and associating with members of Conpassage of the bill, and shall not make any objec-gress, making a deep impression upon them by tions. My reason for inquiring whether there her merits in every way; and, sir, it required all grants pensions to the widows of all officers and soldiers who are killed in battle, or who die of their wounds or of disease contracted while in the service of their country. Now, sir, it is true that General Worth was not killed in battle; but I do insist upon it, and say it upon my personal knowledge, as well as upon the knowledge of others, that he returned from Mexico, after having fought the battles of his country, broken down with disease, suffering from wounds received in former battles, and in that condition was ordered to Texas, in the face of the cholera, and he fell before itmarching to San Antonio-a more formidable enemy than any he had ever encountered on the field of battle-leaving his family, whom he had not been able to take care of for more than thirty years, destitute of the common comforts of life. I contend, then, that Mrs. Worth is eminently entitled to receive this pension. I say, also, that there is no new principle, nor any new precedent, involved in the proposition, because we have done the same thing for other widows. This sum of $50 per month, is precisely the sum which was given to the widow of Commodore Decatur. That is the sum which was asked and obtained in that case, and that case can be claimed as a precedent, if necessary, so that the consciences of gentlemen may be relieved on the score of want of precedent. I have no more to say. The question was then taken by yeas and nays on the engrossment of the bill, and resulted-yeas 38, nays 5; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Borland, Bradbury, Brodhead, Butler, Chase, Clemens, Davis, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Jowa, Dougias, Downs, Felch, Fish, Foot of Vermont, Geyer, Gwin, Houston, James, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mallory, Mangum, Mason, Miller, Morton, Norris, Sebastian, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Stockton, Sumner, Upham, Wade, and Walker -38. NAYS-Messrs. Dawson, Hunter, King, Pratt, and Underwood-5. THE COMPROMISE MEASURES. The Senate resumed the consideration of the special order, being the resolution declaring the measures of adjustment to be a definitive settlement of the questions growing out of slavery. Mr. MASON. Mr. President, I do not know that I should have taken part in the debate on this resolution, but that I have thought it proper, and perhaps necessary, to place myself right upon some questions which have arisen heretofore, and were adverted to at a former period by the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. FoOTE,] in reference to PUBLISHED AT WASHINGTON, BY JOHN C. RIVES.-TERMS $3 FOR THIS SESSION. 32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION. the action of certain Senators from the Southern States, myself included, upon the bill for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, which passed during the last Congress, and which formed one of that series of measures which some gentlemen term the compromise. In order that I may be distinctly anderstood upon this question, I will ask the permission of the Senate to read the remarks made by the Senator from Mississippi during the present Session, so far as they refer to it. Those remarks, as reported, were as follow: It is also not forgotten by me, and I hope that it is not forgotten by the Senate either, that this particular act would bave been passed by the two Houses of Congress at a much eier period of the session before the last than it was, but for the fact that it was not deemed politic by certain Southern Senators, who had special charge of the subject, to repert a bill for the recaption and restoration of fugitives from service until it should be ascertained that all the other questous connected with the subject of domestic slavery were likely to be satisfactorily disposed of in Congress. The Senate will remember my former exposition of this matter bere, and cannot have forgotten my statement of an important matter of fact connected with this delicate point, when I declared, in hearing of honorable Senators from the South, who could not deny the truth of what I said, that te honorable Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cass, and ofer Senators from the States of the North, now present, and whom I could easily name, requested me to see the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] and the Senator from South Carolina, to whom I am now replying, at a very early day of the session then in progress, and to urge upon them but the importance of their reporting a bill without delay which, when it should become a law, would secure full stee to the South in regard to fugitives from service, pleng themselves to vote for any bill which should be thus reported, which should be free from constitutional oberoons. The motives of honorable Senators in not reportng this bill earlier I have never arraigned, nor do I on the present occasion. They were doubtless conscientious in dir action, though I thought them at the time injudicious in the course adopted by them, as I still do; the reason Even me for delaying the reporting of this bill, that if the question involved therein should be satisfactorily adjusted at that time, it might prove impossible thereafter to rouse border States to energetic action in coöperation with the thr Southern States, for the vindication of their essential rights, never having been considered by me to be of a char acter sufficiently solid to entitle it to operate potentially upon the deliberations of Congress." Such is the reference made to this subject by the Senator from Mississippi, as contained in the report from which I read. He said there, and said correctly, that a like reference had been made to the same subject at a former time, his purpose being then, as it was the other day, to show that those Senators who it was supposed had the most particular charge of the bill adverted to, had not brongitit forward or pressed it upon the consideration of the Serrate in such a manner as the Senator from Mississippi, and those Northern Senators With whom he advised, deemed it became them to do. I have looked back to his former reference to this subject, and desire now to give a history of the action of the Senate on that bill, and of the agency of those having it in charge, so far as the same has been questioned by the Senatorthat series of measures to which I have adverted, and which is called "the compromise." It is well known that this batch of measures had been aggregated into one bill, called, after the fashion of the day, the "omnibus," and that from being overloaded, or the passengers quarreling by the way, the omnibus broke down, and each measure was left to take care of itself. They were separated. A great effort had been made to keep them together. But it failed; and each bill stood upon its own merits. The bill for the admission of California passed August 13, 1850. It had on the day previous been ordered to a third reading. On the same day it passed, a motion was made by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] chairman of the Committee on Territories, to take up, 83 next in order, the bill providing a government for the Territory of New Mexico. The Senator from South Carolina, at the head of the Judiciary Committee, [Mr. BUTLER]-the committee that reported the fugitive slave bill-interposed, and said that, according to his view, the bill for the reclamation of fugitive slaves had the precedence, and should be taken up next in order. It was at that time that the Senator from Mississippi took the first notice of what he supposed, and it would appear yet supposes, to have been some delinquency, either on the part of the Senator from MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1851. South Carolina, who had reported the bill, or on spe I wish to show now from the record, because I am desirous that it may go before the country, what steps were taken in reference to that fugitive slave bill; how they progressed, and where they terminated. I have had reference to the register, and find that on the 3d of January, 1850-a very early day after the Senate met-I gave notice of my intention to introduce that bill." It was introduced January 4th, and on the same day, on my motion, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. January 16th the chairman of that committee reported it to the Senate. January 22d I offered an amendment to it, which, at my instance, was laid on the table and printed. I should say, however, that on the 16th of January, the day upon which the chairman of the committee reported the bill, it was on his motion made the special order of the day for January 23d, one week off. On the 23d, as appears from the register, other business interposed, and, on the motion of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the cial order was deferred until the next day. On the 24th the bill was debated pretty much at length by the chairman of the committee who reported it. The Senate on that day adjourned until Monday, the 28th, when I engaged in the debate and spoke at length on the bill. On the 29th, (the next day,) the very distinguished Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] whose absence from the deliberations of this body, and its cause, we all deplore, introduced his resolutions for the purpose of covering all the subjects then before the Senate arising out of the institution of domestic slavery, and on his motion they were made the special order of the day for the 5th of February, six days off. On that day, the Senator from Kentucky addressed the Senate upon the subject of his resolutions, and continued that address during the next day, occupying the 5th and 6th. The debate continued on these resolutions, and on the 13th of February the honorable Senator from Mississipppi [Mr. FoOTE] gave notice that he should at an early day, move for a special committee to which the entire subject should be referred. On the 25th, the debate still continuing on those resolutions, the Senator from Mississippi moved this reference. The debate then continued upon the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky, and upon resolutions of like character offered in the mean time by a Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL,] in connection with the motion made by the Senator from Mississippi to refer them. NEW SERIES.... No. 8. the further consideration of the bill be postponed. The reason assigned was, that the Senator from Ohio desired to be heard it, but that he was called from the city by illness in his family. It appears, however, that a Senator from New Jersey, no longer a member of this body, [Mr. DayTON,] obtained the floor, but did not continue the debate. Thus it was, that the law for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, which had been introduced at an early day of the session, and promptly and actively carried on through its various stages, lay in repose, after the 28th of January, for reasons which I am about to assign to the Senate. The Senator from Mississippi says, according to his recollection or his construction, that there was a policy on the part of the gentlemen who had charge of the bill, in thus keeping it back. I think I have shown, that up to January 28th, whether there was a policy or not, the bill was not kept back, but was urged and pressed upon the consideration of the Senate. I have shown that on the next day (the 29th) the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky were introduced, and that the debate continued upon them, together with the motion to refer, up to the period to which I am about to advert. On the 13th of March, the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky and of the Senator from Tennessee, in connection with the motion to refer to a special committee, being still under debate, a Senator from Connecticut, no longer a member of this body, [Mr. BALDWIN,] moved that all matter in the resolutions relating to the State of California be excluded from that reference. I have no doubt that many Senators, who were present then, will recollect that there was a strong and prevailing inclination on the part of gentlemen opposed to the reference, to except certain favorite measures of theirs from it. This California bill was one of them. Upon the proposition to exclude it, a Senator from Massachusetts, no longer a member of this body, but at the head of the Department of State, expressed himself strongly in favor of keeping it separate. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. CASS] expressed himself favorable to the plan of reference, but said, "My hopes are not strong as to any favorable 'results to grow out of this committee. 'chances have been much diminished by the vote 'taken on yesterday, if that vote contained any 'indication of the feeling in this Chamber with 'regard to the committee itself, and the benefit 'to result from it." The vote to which the Senator from Michigan had reference, was a vote taken the day before on the motion of the Senator from Mississippi to take up the resolution, and his motion to refer, which proposition to take up was carried by a majority of two votes only, the vote being 24 yeas to 22 nays. From this the Senator drew an unfavorable augury as to any benefit to result from the committee proposed to be raised by the Senator from Mississippi. The Senator from Michigan went further, and said: “I 'am sorry to say that I can anticipate very little good from the proposition of the Senator from Mississippi. For myself, I am not prepared to 6 say what my views will be upon this whole matter; they are not formed. I say merely, that this course holds out some hope, and is therefore well ' worthy of adoption." And he goes on to say: "We have been three months here, and what have we done? Nothing. We have not passed a 'single law of the least material importance. We have occupied the whole time by the discussion of this question, and no practical result has been ' attained; and present appearances do not indicate that such a result is near. But though we have done nothing, we have ascertained that some things cannot be done"-referring to the fact, that in his belief the Wilmot proviso and Missouri 6 Now, as to the fugitive slave bill, I have said that The As a part of the same debate he went on to say: "Well, then, Mr. President, if these things are impossible-if they cannot be done, it remains to inquire what it is in our power to do. My own opinion is, sir, that we should take up the bill for 'the recapture of fugitive slaves, reported by the Judiciary Committee. I am disposed to suspend 'all our discussion, and to lay aside all other business, with a view to act upon that bill," &c. It was to this idea, thus thrown out in debate at that time, when the honorable Senator from Michigan expressed his apprehension, because of the vote taken the previous day, and for other reasons, that no good result was likely to follow from this committee, that it would be better to lay aside all the pending business of the Senate, and take up the fugitive slave bill, and act upon that alone, it was to this stage of the proceedings that the Senator from Mississippi had reference, I presume, when he said that he had had a conversation with the Senator from Michigan, and other Senators, who had expressed a desire to have this law taken up; and that he consulted with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and myself, and we differed from him in opinion. I shall not discuss the question as to who was right and who was wrong in our decisions as to the expediency of carrying out the suggestion of the Senator from Michigan. I know I considered in my best judgment that I was right, and that he was wrong; and I acted accordingly. What was the state of things? The resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CLAY,] I think some eight in number, were intended to cover the whole ground then agitated before this body. The seventh resolution had immediate reference to this fugitive slave bill. It is in these words: "7th. 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 the Union.” The proposition of the Senator from Mississippi was to refer the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky, and everything contained in them, to this special committee, which committee, by its deliberations on all the subjects thus connected, might be enabled to present such a series of tion was first moved by the Senator from Con- this subject, more efficient than that formerly adopted. Mr. MASON. My only object is, as is sometimes said by my friend from South Carolina, [Mr. BUTLER,] to take care of history-to have this matter correctly on record, and to vindicate, as for as may be necessary, myself and those with whom I acted, from any charge that we had been careless of our appropriate duties in reference to this fugitive slave law. It is thus seen that the motion of the Senator from Mississippi was designed to take the matter of this bill, together with its kindred subjects, from the Senate, and to carry them to a committee-a policy in which I fully concurred, and which was ultimately effected. One great and controlling purpose was, when that committee was raised, to except nothing from it, but let the whole subject go to it. I adduce these facts for the purpose of showing that it was the policy of those with whom I acted Thus it was, I apprehend, that the honorable upon the fugitive slave bill, to let that subject go Senator from Michigan, when, on the 13th of along with the rest to the committee. It was em- March, he proposed to take up the fugitive slave braced in the resolutions of the Senator from Ken- bill and act upon it separately, was, as he stated tucky, directly, by a separate and independent at the time, induced to do so because his hopes of resolution. It was embraced in the proposed ref-raising the special committee had failed. He aderence of the Senator from Mississippi, in com- verted to the close vote taken the day before, and prehensive as well as in direct terms; and every declared his belief that no special committee could attempt that was made to except any part of the be raised; or, if raised, would result in no good. general subject from that committee, was resisted I take it for granted that the Senator from Missisby the almost combined vote of Senators from sippi thought differently; for he continued to press Southern States. I recollect perfectly-and doubt- the committee, and eventually carried the measure. less other Senators recollect-that we considered it a Whilst the motion to refer was before the Senate, matter of great moment that these questions should we thought our original line of policy was the not be separated, if a committee was raised. I know, safest, and that the whole should be referred toin reference particularly to the bill for the admission gether. of California as a State, which I and some others looked upon as the most important in the whole measures as would tranquilize and quiet the public propriety, with what justice or reason-contend mind upon this entire subject. The resolution to refer was in these words: "Resolved, That the President's message and accompanying documents, on the subject of admitting California, be referred to a special committee of fifteen, (afterwards amended to thirteen,) to be chosen by ballot, whose duty it shall be to consider the same; and also to take into consideration the various propositions now before the Senate relating to the saine subject, in connection with the subject of domestic slavery in all its various bearings; and to report, if they find it practicable to do so, a plan for the definitive settlement of the present unhappy controversy, and rescue from impending perils the sacred Union itself." The resolution, then, was to refer the whole subject, embracing the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky and of the Senator from Tennessee, to this committee, for a great, practical, and wise end; requiring of the committee to report such a series of measures, embracing the whole subject committed, as would tranquilize the public mind, and make a final disposition of the subject committed. I went for it earnestly and zealously. There were some Senators from Southern States-one of whom, I more especially recollect, was the very illustrious Senator who then in part represented the State of South Carolina, and who is now no more, [Mr. Calhoun,]-who thought it would be better to defer raising that committee until the debate had ended. I differed from that distinguished Senator with great diffidence and great distrust of my Own judgment; but I differed, and believed that it was our duty-a duty we owed to the subject and the country to take the "chance," as expressed by the Senator from Michigan, of some good resulting from the deliberations of such committee. As the best evidence of the opinions of Senators representing slave States on the expediency of raising this committee, I advert to the fact that on the vote which startled the apprehension of the Senator from Michigan-the vote of 24 to 22 on taking up these resolutions-of the 24 yeas 17 were from the Southern States, and only 4 from the Southern States were in the minority of 22. I advert to this for the purpose of showing that those Senators who represented slave States, including, of course, those Senators who more immediately represented the fugitive slave bill, went for the committee, and in every instance voted for the reference. There were Senators who were against it altogether. A very distinguished Senator from Missouri, no, longer a member of this body, (Mr. Benton,) was against it. Certain it is that he made strenuous efforts to except from its action the admission of California as a State into the Union. That excep gentlemen held, or by what motives they were Now, as to what particular views or opinions governed, either separately or collectively, I can, after so long a time, answer nothing. The record shows that we desired to except nothing from the deliberations of the committee. batch, and against which our resistance was most Senators to do it, lest, among other reasons, they in our duty, but we did that which we deemed best for the occasion, and from which certainly no mischief has resulted, for the law ultimately passed in a most stringent form, without any very serious or decided opposition. generally had manifested most decided opposition to early legislation on this important subject. I rose simply for the purpose of stating the facts of the case, with the view of vindicating the secret truth of history which had not been previously revealed. My object was not to implicate the Senator from South Carolina or the Senator from Virginia, but simply to enable us to have a better understanding among ourselves, and to let my constituents, and the citizens of the South generally, understand that there was a strong and earnest desire on the part of influential Northern members of this body to accord to the South all that the South could claim on this point. That was my sole object. Mr. MASON. I have finished what I had to say on this point, but I do not wish to take my seat without saying a few words upon the resolution now before the Senate. What I shall say must be brief, from reluctance to detain the Senate, as well as from my present condition, for I am unfortunately so hoarse that I can scarcely speak at all. The resolution which is now before the Senate is of a character which does not, in any form, address itself to my approbation. I can see no reason for it, and no occasion for it. As I understand it, it declares that, in the opinion of this body, the measures cited should be considered as terminating all questions arising out of the institution of slavery. Now, I am not aware that there is any State in this Union, except the State of South Carolina, which continues to protest against them. I am not aware of one of the Southern States, except the State of South Carolina, which has not declared, in the most emphatic manner, to the majority in this Government, If you will stop there, and execute in good faith the law for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, we will acquiesce in what has been done. That being the endition of the country, I can see no reason, no propriety, in further interference with the subject by the Congress of the United States. As to the measures themselves-the law for the admission of the State of California into the Union, the law for the abolition of what is called the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and the law for the dismemberment of Texas-I have no change of plaion to announce, no palinode to sing. I opposed them upon this floor by my voice and by my votes; and when they passed, I united with other Senators in a solemn protest against them. I retract nothing of what I then said; my opinions of them remain unchanged. But they have passed to the statute-book; they constitute a part of the law of the land. I have never counseled, and never shall counsel, my people to further resistance of account of these laws. If they are allowed to remain as they are, and are efficiently executed, there is no purpose or desire on the part of the people of my State to disturb them, hardly and unjustly as we have, in our opinion, been dealt with by their enactment. Such being the general feeling in those States Tot seriously affected by these measures, where is the necessity, where the propriety of disturbing again the subjects they disposed of? As to the fugove slave law, I do not entirely agree with the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BurLER] as to the practical effect of that law. I am not aware (unless it be in the first instance which occurred at Boston) of any instance where the officers of the Federal Government, in the execution of that law, have failed to do their duty. I am aware that, notwithstanding what I really believe to have been the fair and honest purpose of those officers to execute the law, in two States at least it has been effectually resisted. I refer to the cases in Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, and Syracuse,|| New York. What was there done is now the subject of judicial investigation; and I am content to wait the result of that investigation, before I form an opinion whether it is or is not the intention of those States to have the law enforced. So far the law has done good. It has awakened public attention to the necessity of having its provisions carried fully into execution. It has attracted around it the patriotic feeling of a large and intelligent portion of the people in those States. The subject is yet pending, and I am not prepared to pronounce a judgment upon the result. I trust that I am not hoping against hope when I say that I believe, in time, and in good time, the sentiment of the people of those States will be regenerate on this subject. They will find that it carries with it a portion of their constitutional duty; and they will find, also, that it carries with it the safety of the Union. It has been placed upon that distinct issue by almost all of the Southern States, and among others by the State of Virginia; and I do not despair of that law yet doing its office effectually. Then as to this resolution further. I had understood from gentlemen who voted for those measures as a compromise, that they were to be received by the country as the great tranquilizing measure of peace-to end the discord and ill feeling which always attend the agitation of the subject of slavery in our deliberations. I object to this resolution, because it is not the usual and proper mode of legislative action. Our functions are to express the legislative will of the country through the forms of law and under the sanctions of law. The resolution on the table has no sanction-none whatever. It is inofficious, and, for whatever end introduced, its effect must be rather to renew agitation than to quiet it. We are all aware that while these questions were pending the safety of this Union was most seriously endangered; but, in the language of Mr. Jefferson, I had hoped and believed that the billow which threatened us had passed under the ship. The public mind has become to some extent tranquilized. The people of the Southern States who felt themselves aggrieved by it, if not reconciled, are disposed to acquiesce; and in such condition of things, I submit, to what useful end should the subject be further agitated here? Sir, I did not sympathize in the slightest degree with what fell from the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] who addressed us yesterday and the day before, when he declared himself for disunion. There is no State which made greater sacrifices to obtain this Union than the State which I have the honor in part to represent. She has made another great sacrifice to preserve it, by her acquiescence in the measures which are referred to in this resolution. The transactions of the past Congress, so far as they may affect the institution of slavery, are with her matters done with and ended. For what has passed, Virginia does not seek disunion. None can look with greater horror than do her people upon disunion for disunion's sake. But the Union which they cherish must continue a Union under the Constitution. A Union by force, or a Union in which the forms of the compact are alone regarded, whilst the rights of the minority are violated, her past history shows she will be the first to repudiate and to disown. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. Mr. President, as I stated yesterday, it would be exceedingly gratifying to me to obtain an early vote on this resolution. If I could be satisfied that the Senate would be now prepared to decide the question involved in the resolution, I should not hesitate to decline to address them, more especially as I feel that my present physical condition is such as to justify a desire on my part not to be compelled to go through the labors of the debate now in progress. I would say in addition, that if there are honorable Senators here who are anxious to be heard upon the question, and who do not design making any extended address to the Senate, I shall willingly give way. I mention this, because a friend suggested to me this morning that he should perhaps deem it desirable to be heard for a few minutes in explanation of the position of his own State in relation to this delicate question. I am willing to give way, or to take any course which honorable Senators may see fit to prescribe. Mr. BRODHEAD. If the honorable Senator from Mississippi is not prepared to proceed with his speech, which I know will take him some time to deliver, I have a few remarks to make, in consequence of an allusion made to my State by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT.] Mr. FOOTE. I shall give way to the gentleman with pleasure. ject. The gentleman stated, in a very denunciatory tone, that the fugitive slave law had not and would not be executed in any of the other Northern States; cited the Christiana riots in Pennsylvania, the recent trial in Philadelphia, and asserted that not a hair of the heads of the offenders would be harmed; and if they were convicted of offending against the laws, the Governor would pardon them. Now, sir, this statement does the State which I have the honor in part to represent, great injustice, and casts an imputation upon her, and the public authorities, which I feel bound to repel. It calls in question the fidelity of that State as a member of this Confederacy, in a manner entirely unauthorized by the facts; for there is not a State, old or new, more loyal to the Constitution and laws, or more devotedly attached to the Union. er. Mr. President, I undertake to say to the Senate that the fugitive slave law has been executed, and will hereafter be faithfully executed in the good old Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that if any man is convicted of riot or any other offence in resisting it, the distinguished Democratic Governor elect (Colonel Bigler) will not grant a pardon, certainly not sooner than to any other offendThe single instance, or rather exception, to which the gentleman has referred, proves nothing against the other facts of the case. He might as well have cited any other case of riot in Pennsylvania, to prove that we cannot execute our own laws, and maintain the public peace. Is there anything in the recent trial in Philadelphia that goes to prove that the officers did not do their duty? Does any lawyer pretend to say that the distinguished judge (Grier) did not expound the law of treason correctly to the jury, and did not properly denounce abolition fanaticism? Would the honorable gentleman have charged the jury in any other way if he had occupied a place upon the bench? The zeal upon the part of the officers in Philadelphia faithfully to execute the law, led them, perhaps, to mistake the proper remedy and undertake too much. In connection with the Christiana case, another important fact should be stated, to wit: that in nearly every week since the passage of the fugitive slave law, fugitives from labor have been delivered up in Pennsylvania. The truth is, sir, that if a prejudice exists in Pennsylvania which could obstruct the due administration of justice, it is against the Abolitionists. But, Mr. President, I have still stronger evidence to submit to the Senate in support of the position I assume, and that is the action of our State Legislature, and the result of the recent election in that State. The fugitive slave bill became a law in September, 1850. Shortly after that our Legislature assembled, and there being a large Democratic majority in the lower House, and a small one in the Senate, a bill was passed repealing the State laws which were in contravention of that provision of the Constitution relating to the surrender of fugitives from labor. The Whig Governor refused to sign the bill-the Legislature adjourned, and he kept it in his pocket. In a month thereafter the Democratic party assembled in convention, nominated a candidate for Governor, (Colonel Bigler,) passed resolutions in favor of the fugitive slave law, the compromise measures generally, and the repeal of all obstruction laws. The candidate accepted the nomination, and in the most emphatic manner pledged himself to carry out the views of his party, especially in relation to the fugitive slave law. The Whig convention met, and Governor Johnsten made a speech before it, in which he talked about the right and duty of Congress to modify the law, and refused to say whether he would or would not sign the bill repealing the obstruction laws. Here are the resolutions adopted by the Democratic Convention : Resolved, That the sixth section of the act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, passed on the third of March, 1849, denying, under severe penalty, the use of our State jails for the detention of fugitive slaves while awaiting their trial, ought to be expunged from our statute-books, both because it interposes obstacles, by means of State legislation, to the execution of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and because it is a virtual disregard of the principles of the compromise, and is calculated seriously to endanger the existence of the Union. Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. President, I design to make a statement, not a speech; for while I occupy a place here it is my intention to endeavor to make myself useful as a working man, rather than conspicuous as a speech-maker. The observations of the gentleman from South Carolina respecting the execution of the fugitive slave law in Pennsylvania, render it necessary for me to bring to the notice of the Senate the whole truth upon the sub-zens of the Republic, but also from the kind and fraternal Resolved, That the Democratic party of Pennsylvania are true to the Union, the Constitution, and the laws, and will faithfully observe and execute, so far as in them lies, all the measures of compromise adopted by the late Congress for the purpose of settling the question arising out of domestic slavery; and this not only from a sense of duty as good citi feelings which they cherish towards their brethren of the slaveholding States. You will therefore perceive, Mr. President, that a distinct issue was thus made up, and an appeal was made to the virtuous, intelligent, and patriotic mind of the people, and their decisive result is well known. Shortly after both candidates were nominated I took occasion to declare my own position upon the question, and state my view of the issue to be decided, in a letter which I wrote to a Philadelphia committee, an extract from which I beg leave to read to the Senate. "Political issues are to be determined this fall in our good old State, which justly occupies so important a position between the dividing interests of the North and the South, of the gravest character, in a State as well as a national aspect. I need not name them all. The true friends of the Union throughout the Confederacy look with anxious solicitude to the result. No State election was ever held so important in its national bearing. Pennsylvania is now to decide what she esteems to be her duty to her sister States upon the slavery question. She is now to decide how she construes the conipact of Union. The Democratic party and its candidate frankly declare their purpose faithfully to execute the provisions of the Constitution, the fugitive slave law without complaint or modification, to repeal all obstruction laws, and to cherish fraternal feelings toward their southern brethren. Governor Johnston, the Whig nominee, (for whom personally I have the highest regard,) is pledged to a different policy; modification or repeal of the fugitive slave law, further agitation of the slavery question, and no repeal of the obstruction laws. Now, let us have an election which will decide something; for the safety of the Republic requires that there should be some end to the discussions about negroes and negro slavery. Let us see whether the National Whigs, as they cad themselves, and the Abolitionists can unite in support of Governor Johnston. There has been heretofore too much paltering with grave and important questions prior to elections, and the result was witnessed in the fearful struggles of the last Congress, and can now be seen in the difference of opinion which exists between the Whig national and State administrations." It seems to me, therefore, I have submitted sufficient evidence to the Senate to show that the fugitive slave law will be faithfully executed in Pennsylvania, and that one reason assigned by the Senator from South Carolina for desiring to withdraw from the Union has no foundation in fact. While up, Mr. President, I beg leave to refer to another matter, in connection with this subject. It has been asserted that my honest, patriotic, and true-hearted predecessor, (Dr. Sturgeon,) who voted for the fugitive slave law, was not reelected on that account. Sir, that is not the fact. The people of Pennsylvania approved of that vote. If I had been here, I would have voted in the same way; and those who elected me very well knew it. My position in regard to the Wilmot proviso and Abolitionism was and is well known. Mr. RHETT. In the observations which I made the other day, I was very far from desiring to cast any imputation upon the ancient Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I thought myself fully justified by the facts as they have occurred, to suppose that the fugitive slave law would not be there fully executed. I think my honorable friend from Pennsylvania has shown sufficient grounds himself, in what he has now submitted to the Senate, for the belief which I had intended to express. He has told us that the Governor of Pennsylvania refused to sign an act repealing the prohibitory laws which stood in the way of the execution of the fugitive slave law in Pennsylvania. He has told us further, that it became an issue in Pennsylvania; that the Democratic party took issue on that question, whether those laws should be executed or not. He tells us that the Democratic party have prevailed; but by what majority? Why, I believe by a majority of some six or eight thousand out of over three hundred thousand votes cast. The question was made a party issue, in which one half the people were arrayed against the other half. Under such circumstances, had I not good grounds to suppose that a law of this kind could not and would not be faithfully executed? One man on a jury may defeat the execution of a law. Several things are yet to occur in Pennsylvania which may alter the impression which I have entertained. If the Legislature of Pennsylvania should again pass an act repealing those prohibitory laws, certainly it will be a strong indication on the part of that State that she is determined to carry out the fugitive slave law in good faith. Another requisite is, that all offenders who have resisted the execution of the law should be punished. That is yet to be shown. Although the honorable Senator-and I have no doubt he speaks | with the utmost confidence in his opinion-says it will be enforced, it is yet to be seen that a single man can be punished in the free States for resistance to this law. There has not yet been one man punished for resisting it in any part of the North, although the frequent infractions of the law call loudly for punishment. The result of the Christiana trials must yet show whether these offenders can be punished. I should be very happy to know that Pennsylvania or any other State would do anything to accommodate the differences which now exist, by showing a disposition to be faithful toward the execution of laws. I have my doubts, however, and these doubts are based upon the facts which the Senator himself has laid before the Senate. Mr. BRODHEAD. It is true that the Democratic candidate for Governor had but about eight thousand majority, but the issue to which I have referred was not the only one to be tried before, the people. One word as to the Executive pardon, and the manner in which the fugitive slave law is to be executed. The gentleman has intimated that offenders against this law will not be punished. Why, if there is any prejudice in the State which would prevent the due administration of justice, it is against the Abolitionists, and not against the southern slaveholders. That is my answer. Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I did not intend to trespass upon the Senate during this discussion; and while it was confined entirely to another latitude, I did not feel disposed to interfere. But it seems to be peeping up this side of 360 30', and therefore I may put in a single interrogatory. An inquiry has already been put and answered by the Senator from Mississippi, which throws some light upon the subject in regard to what my duty may be as to the vote I am called upon to give. That is the question which was propounded by the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] to the honorable Senator from Mississippi. It was laboring in my own mind at the time, and I felt relieved when the question came out and was answered. The question was this: If a proposition should be submitted to the Congress of the United States now to divide California by the line of 360 30', would the embodiment of the compromise go in for it? The honorable Senator from Mississippi says he would go in for it. The compromise, then, is to be final, with exceptions. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I am reported in the Republic to have used precisely the language which the gentleman has attributed to me; but I was very particular in expressing myself to a somewhat different effect to that just now stated. I said most expressly, that I would vote upon such a proposition, coming from the State of California, precisely as I would upon a similar proposition coming from any other of the sovereign States of the Confederacy. I said that I did not conceive the compromise to be above the Constitution; and that, as the Constitution allowed new States to be formed out of old States, with the consent of those States, if such a proposition were submitted, with the consent of California, and if I should deem it politic and right to allow such division to take place, why I would deem it right, under present circumstances-especially knowing, as I do, the desire entertained by a large portion of my constituents-I would vote for the proposition, not with the intention of impairing the compromise, or calling into question the principle upon which the compromise is based, or in the least degree interfering with the compromise as a compromise. Every principle of it would still stand firm. All that we would do, would be to establish a new State, in the manner and form allowed by the Constitution. If the honorable Senator, or anybody else, considers the compromise above the Constitution, and, therefore, as liberating honorable Senators from the obligation which is imposed upon them by their oath to maintain the Constitution inviolate, it is not my sentiment. I did not say, here or elsewhere, that I shall attempt to obtain a modification of the compromise, so as to allow new States to be formed within the limits of California; but I said distinctly, that I would treat this proposition, coming from the State of California, precisely as I would treat a proposition of a similar kind coming from the State of Texas, or from New York, or from any other State; and that in doing so, I should not consider myself as interfering in the least degree with the compromise acts. On the contrary, I should look upon them, in the language of the President of the United States, as, in principle and substance, a final and definite settlement of the question. Mr. HALE. I am unfortunate in not seeing that the Senator has made any difference between the manner in which he has now stated the proposition, and the way in which I understood him to state it before. He says he holds it, as a compromise, to be final; but that a certain measure, if brought up in a certain shape, would receive his support. He would be willing to divide California if she wished it. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. It must be obvious to the gentleman, that I should have considered the admission of California as part of the plan of compromise, just as valid, if the line of 350 30′ or 360 30′ had been made the southern boundary, instead of the present line. Will any man of sense-will the Senator himself-undertake to point out to this Senate, how the compromise is better or worse, as a compromise, in consequence of a particular line being the southern boundary of California? Would it not be precisely a compromise, and a settlement of the question of slavery, whether the southern boundary of California were one line or another? If the people of California, as a sovereign State of the Union, should think proper to apply for a subdivision of their territory, in such manner as to establish new States therein hereafter, and they should come into the Union, upon the same terms upon which California came in, will any one undertake to point out in what respect the compromise, as a compromise, in principle or in substance, would be in the least degree impaired? I am not now engaged in a chop-logic contest; nor do I wish to amuse the audience by lightly discussing these great points; but what I have said will serve, in other minds, if not in the mind of. the Senator from New Hampshire, I think, as a pretty solid distinction, and one based upon principles exceedingly valuable to those of us, at least, who seek the future repose of the country. Mr. HALE. My object simply was to obtain light, and I wish to put in a query now, before the Senator from Mississippi makes his argument. I want light, and I want to attract his attention to the points upon which I need enlightenment. I understand him now-stripped of all the eloquent adjectives with which he has dressed out his proposition, and which he uses as well as any man in the Senate-I understand him now, after these repeated disclaimers and explanations, to go back to precisely the same answer which he gave to the honorable Senator from South Carolina; that is, if the sovereign State of California, in her sovereignty, comes here to this representative conclave of sovereignties-(I am not a sovereign man, and hence I do not know that I always use this adjective in a proper way; I do not represent a sovereign State here; the State of New Hampshire has not a right to make war or peace; she has no right to coin money, or to send or receive ambassadors, and she is stripped of a great many other attributes of sovereignty)-but if California comes here as a sovereign State, and asks for a division, she will not lack the vote of the Senator from Mississippi in order to obtain it. That I understand to be the proposition. I am not discussing the question whether it is proper or improper, or how far it is consistent with the views of those gentleman who have supported the compromise. I simply want to ask Northern Senators what they got by this compromise? A compromise, I understand to be something in which there is a giving and a taking on each side. The honorable Senator from Mississippi said—and I think with a great deal of truththat the South ought to be satisfied, for they had got everything which they had demanded. I believe it. I have been asked sometimes by some of my unsophisticated constituents at home, "What did the North get in this compromise?" Well, I have been compelled to tell them that it had escaped my recollection if they had got anything. It was said that the North had probably got something by the admission of California; that that great State had been admitted with a constitution excluding slavery. But some of my friends have said, Did not the people of California frame their own constitution, and is not that the Southern doctrine, that every State may frame its own constitution, and ask for admission into the Union, |