That seems to me to be a Southern doctrine rather than anything peculiar to the North. All that the North got began, and continued, and ended with the admission of California. Mr. HALE. The gentleman suggests that there is nothing in the resolution against acquiring territory at a certain end of the Union. Mr. FOOTE. Anywhere. Mr. HALE. I threw these questions out that the Senator from Mississippi may see what is laboring in my mind, and why I cannot vote for the resolution with the light which I now have. But there is another subject which has addressed itself to my mind, which I want the sense of the Senate upon in some way or other before the session is over. I want to know if it is intended by this compromise, and by this resolution, to endorse the doctrines that have been promulgated in the judicial administration of this law? I want to know if the odious and infamous doctrine of constructive treason, which brought Charles the First to the block and which drove the second James a wanderer from the throne of his ancestors-I want to know if the doctrines of constructive treason, which have been broached in some instances by very high authority, are to be baptized in this sen of Representatives that did it, spoke out the sentiments of the North. That was the matter upon which issue was joined. There was no dispute then about any fugitive slave law; there was no Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I wish to correct dispute then about the admission of California; the gentleman with regard to myself. What I there was no dispute then about whether we should meant was simply this, that, in my opinion, al- give Texas ten millions of dollars, and a hundred though we of the South were opposed to the ad- and fifty thousand square miles of land not to mission of California at the time when she was make war upon us. The sole and simple quesadmitted, I preferred that she should remain in tion which agitated the public mind, and divided a territorial condition for reasons satisfactory the public councils, at that time, was the applicato us, but not at all based on the supposition of tion of this Wilmot proviso to our Territories. many of us, that her admission would be un- That is settled, and what have the North got there? constitutional. Although we were not particu- How much of this territory has been appropriated larly anxious that the District of Columbia bill to them? Not one single inch, You had a northshould be passed through Congress in the form in ern majority here in the two Houses; you made which it did pass, yet I have said that I am pre- the law for that territory; and as if you were not pared to maintain it. The South, the unaggres- certain that slavery would watch its own interests sive South: the South, that has never claimed any- carefully enough-as if you had doubts that that thing except the enjoyment of her domestic rights; institution which had watched with sleepless eye the South, that has stood firmly for the great prin- the progress of this Government from its first inciple of non-intervention and non-aggression; the stitution to the present moment, and would not be South, that has only claimed the establishment of quick to grasp every advantage that might possi-atorial font by this resolution of approbation which internal government, without any instructions on bly accrue to it-your Northern men invited the the subject of slavery;--that South, even in this South to carry slavery there. It was not enough compromise, has obtained, in my opinion, every- that you left it open, but you put in the bill a sugthing she claimed, which was simply a strict adher- gestion to them to take slavery there. You said ence on the part of Congress to the provisions of to the South, "Take your slaves there, and it the Constitution. I did not say that the South, in a shall form no objection to your admission as a matter of bargain, had got the advantage of the State at a future day-you may come in with or North. I did not undertake to say that in a without slavery, as you choose." The South scheme of management the South had out-man- knew that before, just as well as they did after the aged the North. I did not say that there were passage of the act. It seemed to me that it was any essential advantages secured to the South by entirely unnecessary to put that into the bill by this plan of adjustment which the Constitution way of suggestion; but there it is. That is the had not previously most amply secured. Noth- way the question was disposed of. There was an ing of the sort. But I did say, and have always entire and utter abandonment of principle in relamaintained, that although we were opposed on tion to every inch of the territory. California was grounds of expediency to the admission of Cali- admitted; the fugitive slave law was passed; and fornia at the time that she was admitted, and op- in the whole series of measures, I do not know of posed to it for reasons not, in my opinion, very anything which passed in which the most brazenimportant to the passage of the District of Colum-faced man that ever stood up before an insulted bia bill in the terms in which it did pass, yet that the plan of compromise, as a plan of compromise, was, in all its essential features, marked with the true spirit of moral equity, and, as such, ought to be and was satisfactory to the South, she never having claimed anything at the hands of her sister States of the North but simple justice, and a strict and faithful adherence to the Constitution. Mr. HALE. I am confirmed again. The Senator did say that the South had got everything they chimed. Now, I did not say that the South had claimed anything which was unjust. Mr. FOOTE. The gentleman certainly intimated that the South claimed something which the Constitution did not give her. Mr. HALE. I do not know where the Senator from Mississippi saw the intimation. He might bare felt it in the secret sanctuary of his own conscience, but he could not have seen it in anything which I said, for I did not say any such thing; I did not mean to intimate any such thing. But the Senator did say, and I think he said it with great truth, that the South had got everything which they claimed. When the historian of our landand I do not know whether Bancroft has brought his book down to this period or not-but when our historian has written up to these times, the last chapter of our history from the foundation of the Government to the overthrow of the universe, it will be read that the South got everything they claimed. It has been so from the beginning; it is so now; and I have no doubt that it ever will be 80. If the North were to speak the language of truth to the South, when we hear such reflections and taunts as we heard yesterday, our reply, however mortifying it might be, would be the language of Balaam's beast to him when he smote him: "Why hast thou beaten me these three times? Am I not thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine?" [A laugh.] That, sir, would be the truth of history. I was proceeding to relate in my own way something which had passed between myself and my constituents when they had asked me what the North had got by this compromise. There was a question raised some years ago in the other House about what was called the "Wilmot proviso." I think the vote upon that question was nearly, if not quite, unanimous from the Northern States. I do not know that the vote was quite unanimous, but there were certainly very few exceptions. That vote, if ever there was a vote of the House constituency, could tell them there was anything was favorable to the North. That is to be left we are to pass? Sir, I think that here, if nowhere else, in the great council of the nation, the attention of men, of patriots, ought to be directed to this outrage which is perpetrated on the Constitution and laws of the land, and upon all the ideas of constitutional liberty which every man who is read in English or American history must have entertained since the Revolution of 1688. I want to know if the framers, the founders of the Constitution, when, with that foresight which belonged to them, acquainted as they were with the history of the country from which they came, they inserted this provision into the Constitution: that "treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort,"imagined that it was to be overridden by this compromise, or its administration? I look upon it as one of the main dangers of the times, as one of the most alarming facts that the history of this country has developed, that the judiciary of the land have been so swift to prostrate and to prostitute themselves before the operation of this law, so as to override, and nullify, and destroy that great safeguard of constitutional liberty which the framers and founders of our Constitution thought they had secured. I hope that the honorable Senator from Mississippi will let us hear from him upon this subject. I want to know if the fugitive slave law, which confessedly takes away the trial by jury from persons claimed as fugitives, also takes away the right of trial by jury from every one who may come in contact with the operation and administration of this law? I think this is a subject which has not yet attracted the attention which belongs to it. Evil precedents and evil examples always grow up in this way. In times of great excitement, when a very popular, or a very unpopular cause is before the country, men's minds become excited, and, in the madness of the moment, they resolve that which it seems they could not have resolved if their intellects had not been scathed by the Almighty. They utter something which in after times is seized upon as a precedent, and works the most dangerous consequences to the interests of the country. I hope that before this subject is finally disposed of, this matter will attract and receive attention. The Senator says that he would not put the compromise above the Constitution. Well, would he put the compromise above the Constitution in any other respect except in the admission of California? The fugitive slave law is but an act of ordinary legislation. Is that law above the Constitution? And suppose that some sovereign State should come here in her sovereignty and ask that it should be repealed, is the question not to be opened? I understand this compromise perfectly, and I understand this resolution perfectly; and if they were put in the meaning which, in effect, they carry to the public mind, the resolution would read thus: "Resolved, That the South having got everything they claimed, they will be content until I trust it is not necessary for the preservation they want something more; and when they want and conservation of any institution in the land, something more, they will take it." [Laughter.] that that great principle of constitutional liberty If they want California divided, they will have it which has been ingrafted upon the Constitution divided. If that is not enough, if it is found that by its founders, and which they learned by the these institutions for which these champions are bloody history of the Revolution the necessity of ever so zealous and of which they are so jealous-inserting, shall not be overridden by any attempts if they find that these emigrants who come in such fearful numbers, as was portrayed by the eloquent Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] and fill up this territory and make free States, and it is found to be necessary for the protection and extension and perpetuation of human slavery that Cuba should be annexed, I wonder if the compromise would be regarded final as touching that? No, sir; not at all. Whenever they want any more slave territory, they will have it. Pass your compromises and cover them over with resolutions every session, they are only calculated to be binding for the present, until something further is wanted. Mr. FOOTE. The resolution contains nothing against the acquisition of territory. to give peculiar force to the administration of the fugitive slave law. I wish to throw out another subject, on which I trust the Senator from Mississippi will speak, for it was alluded to by the honorable Senator from South Carolina. When I have spoken upon this subject, I have been in the habit of speaking plainly. The honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] when speaking of the great difficulties which embarrassed the South in this matter, said, in effect, that the majority of the judges who had been sent by the Administration into the newly-organized Territories of Utah and New Mexico, were supposed to be those who would give a judicial construction to the law, unfavorable to what he thought was the constitutional law of these Territories. I do not now know what the facts of the case are, but I do know this, that whatever may be the character of the territorial judges, there is a tribunal that sits beneath this Senate chamber, which is the very citadel of American slavery, and that it will be perfectly safe here, whatever the territorial judges may say. I know that although a very large inajority of the people of these Territories may come from the free States, yet the sleepless and watchful guardians of that peculiar interest have retained, and will retain, in the organization of that court, a majority of members who form their local Mr. STOCKTON. I am altogether unacquainted with the rules which govern the order of the Senate; I do not, therefore, know exactly what course to take except this-to say that, as an American citizen and a Senator, I cannot sit here and hear such language in reference to the Supreme Court of the United States, without doing something to arrest this course of debate. I call the Senator to order. The PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Jersey calls the Senator from New Hampshire to order. The Chair does not think himself at liberty to decide that the Senator from New Hampshire is out of order, inasmuch as his remarks do not apply either to this body or to the other House, the rules particularly protecting the other House against any improper allusion on the part of members of the Senate. It is for the Senator himself to determine how far-it is proper for a member of this branch of the Government to hold up either to ridicule or denunciation, another coördinate branch of the Government. It must rest with himself. Mr. HALE. The honorable Senator from New Jersey misunderstood the application of one remark that I made, and that was, in reference to the prostration and prostitution of certain influences. This remark did not apply to the Supreme Court of the United States, because no case growing out of the fugitive slave law ever came before them. I confess that I had supposed it was but a legitimate range of debate to comment upon the proceedings of other branches of Government; and I thought I had authority for it, from remarks which have been thrown out this session, in commenting on some of the duties of the President of the United States. I supposed that the President of the United States was a coördinate branch of the Government, as much as the Judiciary; but remarks reflecting on the conduct of the President of the United States have been indulged in at this session. If my reading is right, there has heretofore been a good deal of latitude allowed in debate, not only in speaking against acts, but in impoaching and impugning his motives. I have only said that the constitution of the Supreme Court of the United States was composed of a majority of men who, from their local position, are supposed peculiarly to represent this interest, and that the advocates of slavery would always find a safe citadel there. They may be driven from the Senate, but it will be a great while before that comes to pass; for these twenty-eight States will not come in so fast as the Senator from South Carolina fancies. I have found that it is always States that are called free that, when they get into Congress, and go to voting, are found voting on the side of what the Senator from South Carolina would denominate the fanatics. They are sometimes very conservative in their views; and there is a great deal of truth in the remark which the Senator from South Carolina made yesterday, that the North were South in the House some time ago on this subject; that is, the North sustained slavery in its demands; but he said the South were not true to themselves. What was the reason? Why, it was because Northern servility outran Southern arrogance. That is the reason. They saw Northern men ruining themselves at home among their constituents by the depth to which they yielded, and therefore it was that some from the South gave way and said, they would not slaughter their friends at home by asking them to sacrifice themselves for them. That is the reason the South did not get all that some Southern men desired. Some of those Northern men found what General Scott found when he was ordered to Mexico. They found a fire in the rear, and they began to find that the fire in the rear was hotter than the fire in front; therefore it was that there was a change brought about on the floor of the House of Representatives in regard to the subject of slavery. I say, and I repeat, with all the respect which is due to the Supreme Court-and I am not going to say how much that is reading the reports of their decisions whenever that institution has come before them, the most jealous friend of slavery could not fail to have his fears quieted as he read in the Book of the Chronicles the doings of that tribunal in regard to the institution which is the subject of his affections. No, sir, all the proceedings of those territorial judges, be they what they may, must come for ultimate supervision and correction before this tribunal of the Supreme Court of the United States. I have not, as I said, been making a speech. I have been putting forth matters by way of interrogatory, for the purpose of opening that reservoir of information and instruction which will soon pour its learning upon the Senate, in the hope that the darkness under which I am laboring-the cloud which obstructs my vision-may be illuminated. I confess that there is another dark speck in the horizon. It seems to me that these compromise measures have not had that quieting effect upon the nerves of gentlemen which their friends anticipated. The honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] to whom I listened with a great deal of pleasure and some instruction, did not seem to be quieted. If the honorable Senator from Mississippi is not going to bag his game, and go home in a hurry, I may hope to reply to that speech at some future day. The honorable Senator from South Carolina says the condition of the South is infinitely worse than it was before these compromise measures were passed. He says that before their passage there was a com parative state of quiet, not perfect, for nothing can be perfect in this world, but there was a comparative state of quiet until these "distinguished men of the Senate" came with their soothing palliatives and healing plasters to cover up these bleeding wounds, but that since they have, the case has been infinitely worse. Well, the Senator from Mississippiseems now to think the disease must be treated on the homeopathic principle, and that, as these compromise measures in several acts have produced such a state of irritation in the patients, a small dose by way of resolution, will certainly cure the disease. I do not believe it. I believe, with great deference to the better judgment of the honorable Senator from Mississippi, that the introduction of this very measure-of this very resolution, has not been healing, quieting, and soothing. I know it is out of order to make personal allusions, but I think the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER] mentioned in his speech that it had not had that effect on him, but that it rather opened old wounds which he had hoped the healing influences of time might have cured. Mr. FOOTE. Has it had a soothing influence on the Senator? Mr. HALE. The honorable Senator makes a personal appeal to me; he wants to know if it has had such an effect upon me. I confess that it has not; nor did the original dose in the first instance. I thought it ill-judged and ill-advised, and I think so now. I think it was the greatest misnomer that ever was known to call it a compromise. I think the honorable Senator from Mississippi has very rightly named it when he says that the South got all she claimed; but he adds that she did not claim anything but what was right. I remember hearing a controversy about the freedom of conscience in old times between a Quaker and a Presbyterian. The Presbyterian told the Quaker, "You have liberty of conscience; you have liberty to believe what is right, and nobody should have liberty to believe what is wrong.' The honorable Senator says the South got all she claimed; but he consoles us and applies a palliative to our irritated feelings by telling us that she only claimed what was right. I thought that we of the North claimed nothing but what was right. We claimed that the Government should go on in its old course. We claimed that that system of legislation, older than the Constitution itself, sanctioned by Washington, and by all our Presidents, from Washington to James K. Polk, affirming and determining the right of legislation over slavery in the Territories, should be adhered to. We asked that there should be no new lights set up for us to follow. We asked that we might go on as in the old days of the Republic-that we might walk in the footsteps which Washington himself had planted, and guide our way by the light which his successors had shed upon the path of duty, That was all we asked, and we humbly thought we were asking nothing but what was right; but the Senator from Mississippi comes and asks us to reverse our steps-to retrace our progress, and nullify and stultify the legislation which has marked the history of the country from the adoption of the Constitution, and before the adoption of the Constitution, to the signing of the Oregon bill, and give slavery free liberty to enter upon all the Territories. The honorable Senator asked us to do that, and we did it; and then he says we did no great things after all, because he only asked us to do what was right. When he asked us to give up a principle which had been consecrated by the continued practice of the Republic from its first days to that moment, he asked us not only to say that there should be no legislation against slavery, but that we should invite slavery to go to the Territories. Now he says it was right, and we did well. Sir, I should like to see a spirit of candor, and Northern men and Southern men sit down and candidly talk over the compromise, and count up their winnings and losings. What have the North given up? Why, when a citizen of the free States, black or white, is claimed as a fugitive from labor, all that a Northern man has ever held sacred in the institutions of human government, he has to surrender. He has the trial by jury, and the habeas corpus, and the right of personal replevinall are to be thrown into the scale, and surrendered at once. And is that all? No, sir. He is called upon, after he has done all this after he has yielded to the last inch, every claim, and every demand that are made upon him, and it is said that he cannot have the reputation of being an honest citizen unless he is ready once in twelve months to reendorse the act, and to swear to the compromise. I am afraid that if we magnify this compromise much more, it will come, by and by, in the political creed, to usurp the place of the famous resolutions of '98; and that instead of their being a standard and measure of a man's orthodoxy, it will be this compromise. I thought it was ill-timed in the beginning-I thought it was ill-timed to call it up now to have it rechristened. It seems to me to be an impeachment of the orthodoxy of those who passed the act. Sometimes we know that when a man is converted from one sect to another pretty rigid one, although his children may have been baptized in the form of his old faith, they have to be rechristened in the new. It seems to me that that is the attempt which is made now. It is an impeachment of the orthodoxy of those who passed the act, and as if it gave a force and validity which the original act did not. Therefore it is, perhaps, that we, in our wisdom and strength, are to reendorse and rebaptize it, and tell the good people of the United States that this fugitive slave law in particular is a good one. If this resolution is to be adopted (although I have been accused sometimes of offering amendments with sinister views to defeat the original resolution) I shall question whether it is not my duty, as a member of this Congress, to add some other acts to it, and to include in the resolution other measures which the last Congress in their wisdom enacted, which are good, and ought to be observed and carried out, until some sovereignty wants it altered, for it seems to me that that is all the limitation which the Senator would impose. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I simply rise to say that I am desirous of having an opportunity of vindicating this poor resolution of mine against the opposition of extremists in the opposite sections of the Union. I had expected to see this happy harmony between gentlemen of extreme opinions North and South; I had expected them to feel that sweet concert of action and sentiment here, and my anticipation has been fully realized. But I am exceedingly anxious, feeble as I am, and inadequate as I am to the performance of the task, to have an opportunity of meeting these extremists of the North and extremists of the South upon this subject. I am anxious to have an opportunity of showing to the whole country that this resolution has been wholly misunderstood in its character and bearing, and that it is calculated to have a very different effect from that which the honorable gentleman who has just taken his seat thinks it likely to produce. Certainly it is not at all astonishing that the honorable Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HALE,] and the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. RHETT,] should be opposed to this resolution. It would have surprised me exceedingly if either of them had been in favor of it, because all must understand that the resolution is not calculated to produce additional agitation or to disquiet the public mind. It seems to be strongly censured by gentlemen not very remarkable, they will permit me to say, for the manifestation of a proper willingness to allow the public mind North and South to remain in a state of quiet and composure. The opposition of these gentlemen is the best recommendation to the resolation, and will serve to show to all that the resolution is such a one as should be adopted by the Senate. I did not rise at the present time for the purpose of replying to the remarks of these gentlemen, but Emply for the purpose of suggesting to the Senate the claim which I feel that I have upon their indulgence, to allow me an opportunity to reply to the Senators from New Hampshire and South Caro lisa to-morrow. Mr. BUTLER. I feel it to be but an act of justice to the judiciary to say something in relation to the remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire. I participated in the same feelings which actuated my friend from New Jersey, [Mr. STOCKTos,] when he rose to the point of order. What does the Senator from New Hampshire mean, when he says that so long as the Supreme Court of the United States is organized as it is, we must expect the influence of the judges in favor of slavery? Is it his object to say that that Court should be constituted differently from what it is constitated under the Constitution of the United States? Is it to its organization, as a judicial tribunal, that he objects? What does he mean? Mr. HALE. What I meant to say was this: That the division of the United States into judicial circuits, is such as to give a majority of judges upon the Supreme Bench to those localities in which the institution of slavery is sustained. Mr. BUTLER. Then the Senator undertakes to say that the judges who come from the southern portion of the United States are not honest? for it amounts to that. As far as I can speak of the opinions of the Supreme Court, I can say that I have discovered nothing of the tendency attributed in the decisions of the judges from one portion of the Union to the other. In the case of Prigg and the State of Pennsylvania, the judgment was, I believe, pronounced by a Southern judge, and I believe it has been generally understood to be one of the most unfortunate decisions, in its ets upon the South, of any that has ever been made by that bench. I believe that Judge Wayne was thorized to draw that opinion. Mr. SUMNER. Judge Story delivered that Gamon. Mr. BUTLER. I am informed that Judge Story delivered the opinion in that case, but Judge Wayne certainly concurred in it. The judges were not divided in their decision by any geographical line. Since the gentleman has been so bold in his expressions, I defy him, in the face of this Senate, to produce a single case in which the Supreme Court has deliberated on any matter affecting the institution of slavery in accordance with the sections of country from which they came. The gentleman has made a bold assertion, which he cannot sustain. The strongest opinion ever given on the Supreme bench, in relation to this subject, was in the case of Prigg rs. the State of Pennsylvania, in which Judge Wayne, the extreme Southern judge, gave a separate decision, concurring with Judge Story. Has it come to this, that because judges in the original organization of the Supreme Court under the Constitution, and at a time when honest men were disposed to preserve and observe it-were sworn to observe the Constitution and the laws of the land-they can have it imputed to them that, if they come from one section of the Union, they are less likely to be honest than those who come from another? If the gentleman intends to have a reorganization of this Court, I presume he wants to have it in such a way as to give a preponderance to the Northern section. If you will select a lawyer from any section of the United States, and place him upon that bench, if he is an honest man, I would as soon trust him if he came from the North as if he came from the South. I am not one of those who believe that a judge can act under the temptations of a demagogue. Placed on that bench-elevated above the ordinary excitements which too much influence political controversies, they have nothing to do but to appeal to the Constitution, and be governed by their consciences in the administration of justice. I will not, as a Southern man, allow myself to suppose that any of the considerations imputed to Southern judges would influence Northern judges while in the discharge of the high duties devolved upon them. I will not make such an imputation upon the judges of the North. It is a casuistry of morality which will allow gentlemen to make such charges to pollute the public mind. I would rather have heard of any other department of this Government being assailed, because the other departments may have their representatives and advocates on this floor. The President has his advocates here. The different political parties have their advocates. The Judges of the Supreme Court have to take the aspersions of everybody who may think proper to make political capital by attacking them. I am a very unworthy person to speak for them on this occasion, and I do solemnly declare, so far as regards their opinions on the subject of slavery, in looking through them, I have not been able to discover anything like a bias, North or South. Mr. HALE. One fact cannot have escaped the attention of anybody who has been in the Senate for the last few years, because it is a fact to which attention has been called. There was a great constitutional question of law, upon which there was difficulty. I allude to the question whether slavery was or was not abolished in the territories acquired from Mexico by the operation of the Mexican laws. It was remarked as a very astonishing fact upon the floor of the Senate, that every Senator who spoke on that subject, living south of a certain geographical line, took one view of the constitutional question, and those living north of that geographical line, took a contrary view. Mr. WALKER, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. UNDERWOOD, and others. It is not so. slaveholding States have uniformly gone against the five judges from the slaveholding States, in reference to this question? Mr. HALE. I did not say any such thing. Mr. CASS. Then it was not owing to the division of the districts. Mr. HALE. I did not mean any such thing. The honorable Senator from South Carolina alluded to that; and he says that you cannot find a case in which the judges were divided in their opinions by geographical lines. Well, can the Senator from South Carolina find a case where Senators upon this floor have divided according to geographical lines? Can he find it in the other House?. But to return to the point. If these gentlemen have such high confidence in the integrity of Northern lawyers, why has it happened that they have never trusted a majority of Northern lawyers on that bench? If they have had such confidence in the learning and the integrity of Northern lawyers, why, in the name of God, has it not manifested itself in the legislation of the country? No, sir. The territory covered by the free States is vastly larger, and their population and business is vastly larger than that of the slave States; yet this interest has always been careful; or, if it has not always been careful, it has always accidentally secured a majority of Southern gentlemen upon that tribunal, from the beginning of the Government down to the present time. It would be time enough to talk of having confidence in the integrity of Northern lawyers, when you shall have shown yourselves willing to trust a majority of them to try those cases. You never have trusted them, and, my word for it, the day is far distant when this confidence will be manifested in the organization of this court. I know that I am speaking in a Senate full of lawyers. I believe that more than nine tenths of the body are lawyers. I know what the feelings of lawyers are in regard to judges. I know that respect for courts is a part of their very nature;. and I suppose that I have as much of that in my constitution as most men. But with all of it I say, and I repeat it, I appeal to the country to bear me witness, I will make the issue before the world, I will stake what little reputation attaches to so humble a name as my own upon the assertion, that upon the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States rest the final hopes of the institution of slavery. I have said this without impeaching their integrity. I have said nothing about their integrity; and the remark which the honorable Senator from New Jersey [Mr. STOCKTON] attributed to me, about some judges prostrating and prostituting themselves before the influence of this institution, did not apply to the judges of the Supreme Court, but elsewhere, because there have been no cases under this law Mr. DOUGLAS. That is contrary to the fact. Mr. HALE. I say that the fact was so stated upon the floor of the Senate. Such is my recollection. There may have been some exceptions, and gentlemen will remember them if there were. The general fact was, that lawyers on one side of the line pronounced that the question of constitutional law ought to be one way; and lawyers on the other side of the line pronounced that it ought to be the other way. If there were individual exceptions, they have escaped my recollection. This fact was alluded to in a speech delivered to the Senate by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. CHASE.] It is no impeachment of a man's integrity-what-before that court. I stand to the general truth of ever the Senator from South Carolina may consider it to say that a man's opinions are influenced, bent, and biased, by the circumstances in which he may be placed by the localities and influences amid which he may be educated. It is to say nothing more than to say that man is human. That is the fact, and the history of the country will show it; and we are not so blind as to shut our eyes to an existing fact, because we think the fact is not consistent with the highest degree of purity in mankind. Such is the fact; it always has been, and always will be so until human nature is regenerated. What did I say about the Supreme Court? I said, and I repeat, that I believe it is the citadel in which this institution of slavery has been protected, and will be protected; and I say that the constitution of that court-not its constitutional organization, for the circuits are organized by act of Congress-I say that these judicial districts or circuits, are so organized that a majority of the judges upon the Supreme Bench are from those parts of the country in which the institution of slavery is upheld. The Senator from Ohio alluded to this in a speech which he delivered to the Senate some time ago, and in that speech demonstrated, by reference to the history of the country, that it had always been so. If it has not always been so, and if Southern gentlemen have had such high confidence in Northern lawyers, I wonder it has not manifested itself in the legislation of the country. Mr. CASS. Does the honorable Senator mean to intimate, that the four judges from the non the remark which I have made. I believe what I have said, that it has been constituted with that object in view, with the hope that the anchor of slavery might there rest in a sure place. A majority of that court have been selected for their local positions. In saying this I do not mean to say that a man coming from a certain latitude is a dishonest man. No such thing. I have said nothing from which that can be intimated. What I have said I repeat, that the judges of the Supreme Court are nothing but men. I think I have seen as good specimens elsewhere. Being nothing but men, from the necessity of their moral and intellectual constitution, it must be that they are influenced, more or less, by the institutions and influences of the places from which they come. This is what I have said, and this is what I stand by. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Irise to correct the Senator from New Hampshire in one particular. He has fallen into a great mistake, when he says that the Senators south of Mason and Dixon's line thought alike upon the particular subject to which he alluded. In reference to the continuation in full force of the laws of Mexico, I expressed the opinion, upon the floor of the Senate, that they did so continue, in response to a question put to me by the late Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. DAYTON,] Some years since. I have entertained that opinion from that day to this, and have After the avowed it on all suitable occasions. compromise bill was reported by the Committee of Thirteen, I contended that that provision which prohibited the local Legislatures from passing any law in respect to slavery within these territories, amounted, on that account, to the Wilmot proviso, and was anxious that it should be stricken out on that account. I go further. If I am not mistaken, my colleague, [Mr. CLAY,] who was in a very great degree the author of these compromise measures, entertained and expressed the same opinions which I myself have entertained on this subject. So that we at least constitute exceptions to the gentleman's remarks. The Senator from New Hampshire seems to have forgotten that in the organization of the Supreme Court and districts over which the judges are to preside, that that took place many years ago, before this agitation on the subject of slavery occurred. If he will reflect a moment he will see that he is mistaken in another particular. There is much more territory east of the Mississippi, within the limits of the slave States, than there is within the limits of the free States; and in the organization of these judicial districts, originally, some respect was paid to territory as well as to population. On that account the legislation of Congress, Objection was made by several, and the resolu tion was not received. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, called for the regular order of business. Mr. FICKLIN. If I can get the ear of the House, I desire to make a single suggestion. It is, that by general consent we now proceed to call the States for resolutions, in order to give gentlemen an opportunity to introduce their resolutions and bills. WORKMEN ON THE CAPITOL. The SPEAKER. The first business in order is the motion pending on the adjournment yesterday, that the rules be suspended and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, with the view to consider the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. WALSH,] for the continuance of the work on the Capitol. the negative-ayes 46, noes not counted. The question was then taken, and decided in So the House refused to resolve itself into Com in forming the judicial districts, necessarily pro-mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union. duced the organization of the court as it is. The Senator is mistaken in supposing that at the time these judicial districts were formed, the free States had a greater extent of territory than the slave States. The fact is entirely the reverse. So that you can account for the existing state of things without supposing that there were any sinister motives in Congress, in the organization of the Supreme Court, which I think the gentleman has attributed to the two branches of Congress. He should also recollect that during this whole time there has been a majority of the free States in both Houses of Congress. It was Congress that regulated these districts, and they regulated them upon the basis of territory and population. I ask you, Mr. President, and I ask the Senate, if it be right to make imputations against the judges of the Supreme Court, or to make remarks from which inferences can be drawn unfavorable to their purity-from which inferences may be drawn stigmatizing them as corrupt men, without specifying the particular act? When the gentle man makes remarks of this sort, let him point out the particular decision-the ruling of a particular point, which he may be disposed to denominate corrupt or incorrect, before we can take issue with him. It is a very easy matter to deal in general declamation, and to say that a body of men may be unworthy of trust-that they may be corrupt. Why, you cannot take issue upon a general declaration of that sort, except by an unqualified denial. The gentleman chooses to impeach the proceedings of the Supreme Court. Let him point to a decision; let him bring evidence, either of imbecility or corruption, and then we can see the ground upon which the charge is made. So far as my observation of the proceedings of that court has gone; so far as I have read the decisions of that court on questions connected with the institution of slavery, they have done nothing more than carry out the Constitution and laws of the country; and if they had not carried out that Constitution and those laws, they would have been corrupt. They are bound by an oath to support the Constitution and the laws, and their administration of those laws, in accordance with the Constitution, is the very best evidence of their purity. Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I believe that the honorable Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] wishes to make a few remarks on this precise point. I shall be pleased to hear him, but he is not now here. I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was agreed to, and the Senate adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WEDNESDAY, December 17, 1851. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. GOVERNOR KOSSUTH. Mr. CARTTER asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a resolution proposing the appointment of a committee of five by the Chair to wait upon Louis Kossuth on his arrival in Washington, and introduce him to the House of Representatives. Mr. C. said the resolution was the same as that passed on the part of the Senate. Calls for the regular order. The SPEAKER said that petitions were in order from the State of Maine. Mr. CLINGMAN. I would respectfully submit that there have been a great many attempts made by gentlemen to introduce resolutions and bills. I hope, by general consent, we will have a call of the States for resolutions and bills. Mr. FICKLIN. Let us have the general consent to the call for resolutions. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, objected. The House then proceeded to the regular order of business, which was the call of the States for petitions. Mr. KING, of Rhode Island, presented the petition of Lewis E. Simmons, Captain in the United States Navy, praying to be reimbursed for the expenses of certain suits to which he has been subjected in consequence of the discharge of his duty; which was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. SEYMOUR, of Connecticut, presented the memorial of Norman Sherwood, of Southport, Connecticut, praying for relief in relation to Mexican indemnity; which was referred to the Committee of Claims. Mr. KING, of New York, said he had no petitions, and asked the unanimous consent of the House to present a resolution, which he hoped might be read for information. Mr. CLINGMAN objected. Hodge, of Cleveland, Ohio, now a pensioner at Mr. HAVEN presented the petition of John O. the rate of $96 per year, for an increase of pension, in consequence of disabilities received in the Mexican war; which was referred to the Commit tee on Invalid Pensions. On motion by Mr. BOWNE, it was Ordered, That the petition and papers of Joshua P. Powers be taken from the files of the House and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. BOWNE also presented the petition of the assistant marshals of the county of Kings, and southern district of the State of New York, for increased compensation for their services in taking the Seventh Census; which was appropriately re ferred. Mr. BURROWS presented the petition of Captain Hugh N. Page and other officers of the Navy, asking Congress to make provision for their relief similar to that made for the United States army serving in California and Oregon; also, the petition of petty officers, seamen, and marines of the United States Navy, who served in the frigate Savannah, on the coast of California, praying for compensation similar to that granted by Congress to the army serving in California and Oregon; which were severally referred to the Com mittee on Naval Affairs. Mr. B. also presented the petition of Phebe Thompson, widow of John Thompson, praying for a pension; which was referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. Mr. CHANDLER presented the memorial of merchants and others of the city of Philadelphia, asking for the erection of piers and the construction of a harbor in the Delaware river; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. On motion by Mr. JOHN W. HOWE, it was Ordered, That the petition and papers of John Lynch be withdrawn from the files of the House, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. On motion by Mr. KUHNS, it was Ordered, That the papers of James Johnson be withdrawn from the files of the House, and referred to the Committee of Clauns. On motion by Mr. HAMMOND, it was Ordered, That the petition and papers of Samuel T. Anderson, of the city of Baltimore, be withdrawn from the files of the House and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. Mr. BOCOCK presented the petition and papers of Daniel Guenant for a pension, in consideration of injuries received while in the service of the United States during the war with Great Britain; which was referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. Mr. CLINGMAN gave notice of his intention to move to repeal so much of the standing rules of the House as provides for calling the States for petitions. Mr. AIKEN presented the memorial of Ann Y. Kelly, of Charleston, South Carolina, praying for an examination of the proceedings of the Board of Claims against Mexico; which was referred to the Committee of Claims. Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia, presented the petition of James M. Smyth; also, of A. H. Shepherd, for indemnity for loss sustained from hostile Creek Indians in 1836; which were referred to the Committee of Claims. On motion by Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia, it was Ordered, That the petition of the heirs of Moses Matthews, praying for indemnity for property destroyed by the enemy during the war of the Revolution, be taken from the files of the House, and referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims." liam O. Handley, grandson of Major George Mr. JACKSON presented the petition of WilHandley, of the Georgia line of the Continental Army, praying for commutation pay; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions. Tepeti Mr. MOORE, of Louisiana, presented the tion of the register and receiver of the land offer at Monroe, Louisiana, for compensation for locating military land warrants and Choctaw scrip; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. M. also asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill, of which previous river raft. notice had been given, for the removal of the Red Mr. McMULLIN objected. Mr. GIDDINGS wished to say to the House that the presentation of petitions in this manner was a waste of time. Gentlemen were at liberty to send in their petitions indorsed at any time under the rules. He moved that we dispense with the further call for petitions, and that the House do now proceed to the next order of the day. Mr. JONES said that motion was not in order. Mr. GIDDINGS then asked unanimous consent. • Objection was made. Mr. EDGERTON presented the petition of Abner Merrill for an invalid pension; which was referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. Mr. E. also gave notice that he would on tomorrow, or some subsequent day, introduce a bill for the survey of the townships of Pulaski, Centre, and St. Joseph's, in Williams county, Ohio, being townships six north, and ranges one, two, and three east of the principal meridian. Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill, of which previous notice had been given. He asked that it might be read for information. Mr. FICKLIN said, that he would be glad to accommodate the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. MARSHALL,] but objection had been made to all other attempts to introduce bills. He therefore objected to this. Mr. STANTON, of Kentucky, presented the memorial of Charles C. Lacy and J. F. Jones, late assistant marshals in the State of Kentucky, asking for compensation for taking the census; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, presented a resolution of a public meeting of the citizens of the town of Westfield, county of Hamilton, and State of Indiana, recommending that no more public lands be sold, and that Congress provide for the free grant of the public lands, in small parcels, to T Tel the landless citizens of the several States and Territories. He asked that it be referred to the Committee on Agriculture; which motion was agreed to. Mr. HENDRICKS presented the petition of Hiram Duncan and 52 others, of the counties of Hancock and Hamilton, State of Indiana, praying that the offices of chaplain in the Army and Navy and Congress might be abolished; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. BISSELL presented the petition of Jacob Shy, praying for a back pension; which was referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. Mr. B. also asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill; which was objected to. Mr. FICKLIN presented the petition of James M. Davis and others, late registers and receivers of the land office at Vandalia, Illinois, asking compensation for the location of bounty land warrants; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois, presented the memorial of the widow and heirs of Elijah Beebe for losses by Indian depredations; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Mr. C. also asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a bill for the improvement of Rock Island and the Des Moines Rapids, in the Mississippi river. Mr. EVANS objected. Mr. CAMPBELL also presented the memorial of John Frink, praying for relief; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas, asked the unaninous consent of the House to introduce a bill, of which previous notice had been given. Mr. J. said, if objections were continually made to the introduction of bills, he wished to know when members were ever to have the opportunity of g them, and having them referred to committees? objected to its introduction. Mr. STUART, it was Henry Chapman and William Woodbridge hdraw their petitions and papers from the ase, that they may be referred to the Committee on are Judiciary in the Senate. Mr. CONGER presented the memorial of C. Roosevelt and others, late and present registers and receivers of the land office of Genesee, Michigan, asking compensation for locating military land warrants; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. Mr. C. also presented the joint resolution of the Legature of Michigan in favor of a canal around the Fails of St. Marie; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. Mr. C. also gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a bill to provide for the construcof a ship canal around the Falls of the St. Marie river, at the foot of Lake Superior. Also of a bill to grant certain public lands to the State of Michigan, to aid that State in the construction of the Clinton and Kalamazoo canal; which were referred to the Committee on Commerce. Mr. EASTMAN presented the petition of Cornelius Zielie, for back pensions; which was referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Pensions. Mr. SIBLEY gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill to grant to the several States of the Union the proceeds of certain public lands, for the relief and support of the indigent insane therein. THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. Mr. WEIGHTMAN said the people of New Mexico had been urged to set up an independent government for themselves, and they had been promised the sustenance of several of the States of this Union. He hoped, under these circumstances, it would be the pleasure of this House to grant the people their light to impart to them knowledge of the affairs of the Government. He asked the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the following resolution: Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be directed to cause, as soon as practicable, to be translated into the Spanish language the President's message and reports of beads of Departments, and to have printed in said language five thousand copies of the same, for distribution among the Mexicans, in the territory acquired by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mr. FICKLIN objected to the introduction of the resolution. Mr. HOWARD presented a memorial from the merchants and other business-men of Galveston, Texas, praying for a reconnoissance of the coast of Texas, and for the construction of a light-house, navy-yard, and fortifications; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. The SPEAKER then proceeded to call the standing committees for reports. On motion by Mr. HOUSTON, it was Ordered, That the Committee of Ways and Means be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Thomas Barclay Livingston, consul for the United States at Halifax, Nova Scotia, for increased compensation, and that it be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. On motion by Mr. H., it was Ordered, That the Committee of Ways and Means be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Pierce Crosby and William E. Buckner, officers in the Navy of the United States, praying to be paid their respective shares of the award of the sale of the schooner Oregon, and that it be referred to the Committee of Claims. On motion by Mr. HALL, it was Ordered, That the Committee on Public Lands be discharged from the further consideration of the [subject not heard,] and it was referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims. On motion by Mr. CABELL, of Florida, it was Ordered, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Abigail Connell, of New Hampshire, for a navy pension; and it was referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. On motion by Mr. BOCOCK, it was Ordered, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Josiah P. Pilcher, a volunteer, asking for certain pay, and that it be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. It was so referred. RESOLUTIONS. The SPEAKER then proceeded to call the States for resolutions, commencing with the State of Maine. Mr. FULLER presented the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to, viz: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be and they are hereby instructed to inquire into the expediency of repealing so much of the provisions of the act of Congress, approved March 3, 1847, chapter 45, as deprives seamen, who may libel a vessel for the recovery of wages, from recovering full costs, and to report by bill or otherwise. NEWSPAPERS TO MEMBERS. Mr. FULLER submitted a resolution providing for four daily papers to the members of the present and future Congresses. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I believe that the rules prescribe that no member shall offer more than one resolution. The SPEAKER. That is the rule of the House. Mr. FULLER. That is in regard to resolutions on the same subject. The SPEAKER. It is not in order without the general consent of the House-the resolution being a distinct one in a distinct form. Mr. FULLER withdrew the resolution. Mr. GOODENOW offered the following resolution, and upon its adoption demanded the previous question: Resolved, That during the present and every future session of Congress, each Representative and Delegate in Congress be furnished with such newspapers and publications as he shall select, not to exceed in amount per annum the cost of four daily papers. The previous question was then seconded, and the main question ordered. The question now being on the adoption of the resolution, Mr. STANTON, of Ohio, demanded the yeas and nays; but they were not ordered. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, asked for tellers upon the call for the yeas and nays; but they were not ordered. Mr. JONES moved to lay the resolution upon the table; which motion was disagreed to. The question recurring on the adoption of the resolution, it was taken, and the resolution agreed to. Mr. FULLER moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted, and to lay that motion upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to. Mr. TUCK, in pursuance of previous notice, on leave, introduced a bill to provide for the ascertainment and satisfaction of claims of American citizens for spoliations committed by the French prior to the 31st day July, 1801; which having been read a first and second time by its title, Mr. T. said there may be a difference of opinion in the House as to the allowance of these claims, but I think there should be no difference as to a proposition to refer the bill to a select committee. Mr. BAYLY moved that it be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. TUCK hoped that it would not be killed in that way. Mr. DUNHAM moved that it be laid on the table. The question was then taken, and the House refused to lay the bill upon the table. The question then recurred upon referring the bill to the Committee on Foreign Affairs; which was agreed to. Mr. MEACHAM, agreeably to previous notice, on leave, introduced a bill providing for the payment of Vermont volunteers in the battle of Plattsburg; which having been read a first and second time by its title, Mr. M. moved to refer it to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. DUNHAM moved its reference to the Committee on Military Affairs. The question was then taken upon referring it to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and it was not agreed to. The question then recurred upon referring it to the Committee on Military Affairs, and it was agreed to. Mr. ALLEN offered the following resolution: Whereas the best interests of the country demand that the great and rapidly-increasing patronage of the Executive Department of the General Government be diminished, by transfering the power of appointment, whenever it can be done without prejudice to the public service from the Executive to the people; and whereas the appointment of more than twenty thousand deputy postmasters constitutes the largest branch of that vast patronage Be it therefore resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report, within thirty days, an amendment to the Constitution, by which Congress shall be empowered to provide, as far as practicable, for the election of deputy postmasters by the qualified voters in the respective localities in which post offices are situated: Provided, That if, in the opinion of said committee, Congress has already such constitutional power, said committee shall, instead of said amendment, report within the time aforesaid the bill to effect the aforesaid object. The resolution having been read— Does it go over? The SPEAKER. The resolution would go over after the first thirty days of the session. Mr. ORR. I make the question with the Chair. Will the Chair decide it? Mr. JONES. If the Speaker will refer to the 24th rule that in relation to receiving petitions the first thirty days-he will find it as follows: "That petitions, memorials, and other papers addressed to the House, shall be presented by the 'Speaker, or by a member in his place; a brief statement of the contents thereof shall be made verbally by the introducer; they shall not be de'bated on the day of their being presented." 6 The 25th rule says, that resolutions shall then be called for in the same order, and disposed of by the same rules which apply to petitions. The SPEAKER. The Chair, upon examining the 24th and 25th rules, and finding that resolutions must be disposed of in the same manner as petitions, changes his opinion, and the resolution must go over. Mr. ORR. I propose to debate the resolution. The SPEAKER. Then it will go over. Mr. KING, of New York, offered the following resolution; which was read, and by unanimous consent considered and agreed to: Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to this House the correspondence upon which the claims of citizens of the United States against Portugal have been adjusted, if not incompatible with the public interest. Mr. HAWS, on leave, introduced a bill, of which previous notice had been given, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act regulating the carriage of passengers in merchant vessels,' approved February 22, 1847; also to amend an act entitled 'An act to provide for the ventilation of passenger vessels,"" approved May 17, 1845; which was read the first and second time by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. Mr. BOANE, on leave, introduced a joint res |
