Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. RICHARDSON obtained the floor, but yielded it to

Mr. GIDDINGS. I am astonished at the excitability of gentlemen on this floor. It would appear that no subject whatever can be introduced here but some minds will seize upon it and give it a connection with matters which are not legitimately connected with it. Most heartily do I concur with the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] in paying the tribute of my respect to this distinguished foreigner. I shall do it most cheerfully. The act is one simple in its character, and obvious in its tendency. But, sir, what right has the gentleman upon the present occasion to drag my name in and attempt to arraign me before this House and before the nation? Why attempt to charge me with a design of involving the nation in war? I have not uttered a word upon this question. I sat here in silence, without the remotest idea of mingling in this debate; and had I taken upon myself to address the committee, it would never have entered into my mind to connect this resolution with the question of slavery, as the gentleman has done, or to connect it with war, as the gentleman has wantonly accused me of doing. Far, far from my thoughts would have been such an idea, and I deny the right of that gentleman or any other, before I have spoken, to anticipate the positions which I should take, and arraign me before the House and before the country for those positions. Have I ever at any time hesitated to express my views openly, with perfect frankness, on any and on every question that has been presented to this body since I have had the honor of a seat in this Hall? I appeal with confidence to those who have served with me, to the country who have read my remarks and votes on every subject brought before us, against this unfounded, this ungenerous charge of the gentleman. My whole political life bears testimony in contradiction of it. Whenever a proper occasion shall present itself, I shall not hesitate to express my opinion on the subject of peace with other nations, and among all nations, in favor of universal peace. But I cannot be dragged into a discussion of those principles on a subject so unsuitable as that now before us.

What authority had the gentleman from New York, or any other gentleman, to charge me with inconsistency in relation to my avowed principles of peace? Certainly from nothing which I have said: nor from any vote which I have ever given. There is something most wanton in his charges. I surely had not provoked it at his hands. To him I would say, Your charge is unfounded and false: you have traveled out of your way to assail me: on those charges I will meet you most cheerfully at the proper time, or whenever the proper occasion shall arrive. The gentleman has spoken of popular sentiment, of which he appears to stand in great dread. I have no such fears. The popular mind is lighted by the intelligence of the people, and it will mete out justice, and no more than justice, to that gentleman and to myself. However much he may shrink from it, he must meet it. The gentleman appears now to tremble in view of the penalty of that " higher law" written upon the hearts of men by the finger of God. This law he has contemned and ridiculed. For the subversion of this law he has sent so many thousands of "lower law sermons" broad-cast throughout the free States. He must, however, meet the penalties of the popular will; he may fear and tremble and turn pale at its approach. It must come; he cannot avoid this supreme law, before which we must all bow. It is already inflicting its penalties upon him, and ere long will consign him to the charnel-house of political apostates.

[Mr. CARTTER,] who submitted the original reso-
lution; and it is for that reason that I am willing
to vote for the proposition of either of those gen-
tlemen. But I am unwilling to go any further. I
perfectly concur in the sentiment which has been
expressed by gentlemen who have preceded me
in this debate, that we should not commit this
country to war for any people except our own. I
have read with a great deal of pleasure some of
the speeches of Mr. Kossuth, and some of them
with much less pleasure. If it is to be a struggle
as to who shall rule in Hungary-if it is to be a
question as to the independence of that people,
and not a question of the elevation of the masses,
then it is a matter of utter indifference to me. I
do not care who shall govern in that country.
But if it is a struggle for the freedom of the people,
they have my sympathy, my wishes, and my
prayer for their success. If it be a question of
power, as to whether this man or that man shall
govern the country with despotism, it is a matter,
as I have said, of utter indifference to me. But,
sir, I trust, I believe, I hope that the struggle has
been to give liberty to the masses; and, believing
that, I am willing to tender to Kossuth, as the
representative of that country, the hospitalities of
But I am not to be deterred from giving

this.

this vote because heretofore we have not been
successful while expressing our sympathies for
the millions of France, in securing their liberty.
The liberties of the people of France have not been
placed in proper hands, and they will fail in Hun-
gary if they fall into similar hands. Whatever
else may be done or accomplished in France, one
thing has been accomplished: the divine right of
kings to rule has been broken and destroyed.

We have heard a great deal said about peace
and war, but, as I have said before, if this coun-
try is to be involved in a war, I want it to be on
her own account. I never wish to see an Ameri-
can army guided by a power alien to us. I never
want to see a war carried on except by the direc-
tion of our own legislation. I wish to see the
American people carry it on under their own
guidance and for their own purposes; otherwise
that flag which has never trailed in the dust may
be humbled. And I am unwilling, while I extend
freely the hospitalities of the nation, and the hos-
pitalities of the individuals of the nation, to Mr.
Kossuth, to commit the nation to a policy until I
know what that policy is. I repeat, if the strug-
gle in Hungary is for the ascendency of the individ-
ual who is to control, and not for the elevation of
the masses, it is a matter of utter indifference to
me whether they succeed or not; but if it is for
the liberty of the masses, they have my ardent
hopes and my best wishes for success.

Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia. I do not regard the resolution before this committee as committing this Government to the doctrines which Kossuth has been attempting to propagate in the speeches he has made since his arrival upon our shores. If I so regarded it, it would not receive from me the feeble opposition which it will now encounter at my hands. On the contrary, if I regarded it in any such light, I should esteem it asolemn duty to my country to resist it with every energy with which God has endowed me. My opposition to the resolution is not of that high character; if it were, the resolution should never pass so long as opposition could delay it. If this Government should ever connect itself with the principles which Kossuth has been attempting to propagate, it would be to give it such a blow as it has never yet received, and which our liberties could not for any length of time survive. It would commit this Government to a course of policy which we have no constitutional power to carry out. I shall not attempt to elaborate this view of the matter at the present time, but I shall feel it my duty upon a proper occasion to go into it more at large. But I desire here, to say that I do not regard this Government as altogether blameless in its conduct in reference to Kossuth. There is evidently a misunderstanding between him and us. He obviously regards the Government as, in some degree, committed to his doctrines; and the Government ought not to allow this delusion to continue: if it does, it may involve humanity in Europe in an extent of suffer

Mr. Chairman, while on the floor I will take occasion to say that I shall most cheerfully and most heartily vote for the resolution. I wish to tender to the distinguished Kossuth not merely the homage of my own heart, but I wish this House, the representatives of the people, to do it officially, in the name and on behalf of the nation. For this reason I wish to see this resolution pass, and that speedily. I decline all attempts to drag me into a discussion of its merits; they will be appreciated by the people without any aid from us. Mr. RICHARDSON. I was proceeding to saying such as is not anticipated. before yielding the floor, that I did not think there was much difference between the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. Venable,] who proposed this amendment, and the gentleman from Ohio,

Suppose this delusion is permitted to continue upon his mind; suppose this Government does not, in some emphatic manner, repudiate his doctrines, and with the expectation of succor from

[ocr errors]

us, Hungary should again rise and she should again be put under the iron heel of despotism, and this Government should fail to interfere, as we all know, and with absolute certainty, that we should do, shall not we in a degree become responsible for the suffering and calamities which that people would be subjected to in consequence of permitting them to continue under the delusion which Kossuth is obviously now laboring under? If my counsel can prevail, he will not leave this country until there is a distinct understanding between him and this Government; such an understanding that nobody in Europe, or anywhere else, shall be deluded into acts with any expectation of succor from us. There ought to be a distinct understanding. He is clear and explicit in what he asks; we ought to be equally so. I do not understand this resolution as committing this Government at all. My opposition does not grow out of any such impression; it is based upon this: I think we are offering an extent of adulation to Kossuth which his antecedents do not authorize. I have a feeling in respect to this adulation growing out of another circumstance, and a feeling which I confess has touched every patriotic impulse of my heart. Sir, Kossuth is not the first man who has fallen in the fight for liberty in Europe who has visited our shores. About 1793, I think it was, when the fires of liberty were burning in this land with a brightness with which they do not now burn; when the patriots of the Revolution were still living; when our Washington was still among us, Kosciusko, with whom I will not undertake to compare Kossuth, because it would be doing injustice to the dead; Kossuth, who fell in the defence of the liberties of Poland

A VOICE. No! Kosciusko.

Mr. BAYLY. Did I say Kossuth? Of course I mean Kosciusko; I meant that man of whom when he fell the poet said: "Freedom shrieked when Kosciusko fell." His merits as a European patriot, I undertake to say, were at least equal to the merits of this man; death has canonized him, but I canonize no man until death has sealed his character. But his claims upon our gratitude did not stop with his claims to the title of "friend of freedom" in Europe. He was the companion in arms of Washington, and aided in achieving those liberties which we now enjoy. But when he came here and went hence, he received none of those adulations which are so lavishingly poured out upon Kossuth. When I contrast the reception of that man upon his arrival upon our shores with the reception which it is now proposed to give Kossuth, I confess I look upon it not entirely without feelings of mortification and shame.

But, Mr. Chairman, when I took the floor, I did not design to go into this matter to the extent which my feelings have carried me. I wish to say here, and desire that it should go forth to the country, that from an intimate association with members of the two Houses of Congress, and having made it a frequent subject of conversation with them, I here assert-and I hope it may meet Kossuth's eye-that I do not believe there are twenty members in both Houses of Congress who would be willing to sanction the doctrines he has attempted to propagate in this country. And if there are those who are carried away by the enthusiasm which is running through the land, who will for a moment fall in with it, either from motives of popularity-hunting, or from other motives-I say, if there are twenty members of this Congress who are prepared to give way to that feeling-which I am quite sure is not the case-I believe that nineteen twentieths of the American people are the other way. From where I am now standing to the Rio Grande, I do not believe there are one thousand men of substance and character -men whose opinions upon matters of this kind are regarded with respect-I do not believe that one thousand men of this character can be found who would be willing to commit this Government to a policy which would involve us in an eternal strife between European Powers-which would bring upon us standing armies, heavy taxation, and national debts, such as are now pressing down the nations of Europe, and a greater part of which have been incurred in wars waged to carry out this very doctrine of intervention, or non-intervention, whichever you are disposed to call it. If our Government were to become wedded to this policy, I repeat, I do not believe our liberties would survive twenty years; and I believe this is

the opinion of the American people. Upon this mere incidental motion, which I do not regard as committing the House to anything, I shall not go into this debate fully. I shall do it hereafter. I have only said what I have said with a view, possible, of commencing that understanding between this Government and Kossuth, which, I tink, ought to be perfected; and which, if I can have my way, will be perfected before he leaves these shores. He shall be told, in language which be cannot misunderstand, that this Government has no idea of involving itself in the policy which he so actively and industriously propagates.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, said: I shall tate the example of the gentleman from New Yerk [Mr. BROOKs] so far as to send the vote I shai cast upon this question to the country, accompanied by the reasons which induce it; but, Enlike the gentleman, I choose that my vote and the reasons therefor, shall harmonize with each ether.

thus far been steered through storms and tempest, and under this new pilotage to go careering over the sea in a crusade after the rights of humanity and the Utopia of universal liberty? I do not understand how, among well-balanced minds, there can be a difference of opinion as to our public duty in regard to this question.

Mr. Chairman, if this is an act of mere courtesy to which we are invited, then it is extravagant, under all the circumstances. Compliments, to be appreciated at due value, should be graduated by some standard. Precedent has furnished the standard by which the courtesy of an American Congress should, through all future time, be measured. There (pointing to the portrait of Lafayette) is the "token" of a man, the compeer and compatriot of Washington, to whom in his old age the United States designed to offer the very highest compliment they could bestow upon mortality. He had abandoned prosperity, the smiles of his sovereign, the adulation of a court, fortune, family, and had embarked his all in the struggle for American independence. He had bled freely in that cause. He had expended of his own means $140,000 to clothe our naked soldiery, and had from his own stores put shoes upon the bleeding feet of the American patriots who were fighting by his side through the Revolution. He was an adopted son of the Union. He understood the principles of our Government, because he was of the glorious band who laid the foundations of our freedom. He was the companion of Washington. He had illustrated his principles by a long career in Europe, ever devoted to the establishment of rational liberty. Congress, obedient to the national affection, invited Lafayette to leave his own homestead to revisit our shores that he might contemplate our growth and look upon the results of his own glorious services in our national development. When he came, the undoubted guest of America, Congress passed a resolution directing the Speaker to congratulate him upon his arrival, and to assure him of the satisfaction of Congress in being able to testify to him in person a nation's gratitude. He was introduced accordingly by a committee, and such honors paid as you now propose to accord to Kossuth! Are the cases parallel? Have we so fallen in love with Louis Kossuth that we are ready, without having any further acquaintance with him than is obtained through the mists of the Hungarian war and his own speeches, to pay him the same amount of honor that we offered to Lafayette, and more than we have accorded to Kosciusko, to Father Mathew-to any man of foreign birth, or to any hero of our own free clime? If you so cheapen what has been offered to Lafayraette, abolish the grades of compliment and avow that your courtesy means as little as that of the Spaniard, whose usual salutation is to request his visitor to hold all his host possesses at his own disposition." The universality of your politeness will then render it alike valueless to all. Sir, it must not be forgotten that the compliment bestowed upon Lafayette, of an introduction to the American Senate and House of Representatives while those bodies were in session, is the only instance of the kind to be found in the history of this Government. It is the only instance to be found in the history of any civilized government since the middle ages. Roman consuls had ovations, and returned from conquests attended by crowds of captives to pass under triumphal arches amid the huzzas of the multitude. These did no more. Even these halted at the steps of the Senate house. When gentlemen propose this exalted and extraordinary honor, therefore, to Kossuth-I say extraordinary, since the precedent is nowhere to be found save in the case of Lafayette-I may be well excused for the inquiry as to the cause of this undue excitement in his behalf. Is his extraordinary merit testified by honorable scars received in the fields of battle upon the plains of Hungary? Did he suffer amid the snows of Szolnok, or nerve the Honvöds to stand the dreadful charge of cavalry? Sir, I do not mean to criticise his participation in the struggle of his country. I award him willingly all the merit of patriotism, though in my limited reading I have been so unfortunate as never to have ascertained in what battle his laurels were won. I remember well when Ujhazy-the glorious old Governor of Comorn-came to this country from the fields of Hungary, such honors as these were

We are urged to pass the resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] because it is said that the passage thereof is due as an act of courtesy, simply, to Mr. Louis Kossuth. We are told that it is intended as a mere personal courtesy; its introduction being accompanied by a disclaimer of any idea of committing the Government to a Ise of public policy. Mr. Chairman, I cannot be deluded by this disclaimer, nor by the want of pretension with which this act is heralded. We are here, not in the simple capacity of private citizens, or as a body of American gentlemen, only: we are here representatives of the American people-a constituted legislative body-a part of a constitutional Government; and whatever resoluon we pass, is a governmental act, so far as we can manufacture a public act; whatever extent our act has, so far we commit our Government ez necessitate. Ah! but it is only proposed to introduce Kossuth to this House under the guidance of a committee appointed by the Speaker-no more. The gentleman from Ohio assures the House that he is as much opposed to "hearing a harangue" as any one can be, and that he contemplates no such result to flow from the passage of his resolution. Let me assure that gentleman, and this committee, that while his purposes are so praiseworthy, there are other gentlemen here who do contemplate the delivery of "a harangue" by the Hungarian chief, and who support the resolution because they expect to hear that harangue whenever Mr. Kossuth comes within this Hall. Let e sure the honorable member that the evidence strong and persuasive that Kossuth himself expect to address this House, and that a few days since he sought temporary retirement from public observation, with the view of preparing the ora tion he expected to deliver to this Congress. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have more than the common stock of patience; but I confess that it has been exhausted by the manner in which this distinguished stranger has been treated by the people of the Atlantic cities, and by his "harangues "in New York, and thence to Baltimore, in presence of the multitudes and in reply to the societies which have addressed him. Sir, he is a man of genas, of talent, of wonderful oratorical facilities; but his sentiments are Quixotic, and especially they are not American sentiments, or calculated, by their impress upon the American mind, to promote the harmony and the happiness of this people, or the influence, and glory, and permanency of this Government. When I have read his speeches to the bar, the bench, the press, the peope, and have remarked the care he has taken to teach that the lessons of our forefathers were crude, and can have no permanency as principles of national conduct, every drop of American blood in my frame flows faster with indignation at the estimate he must place upon American intelligence, and at the rapidity with which he uncoils himself under the warmth of our honest, hearty, and well-meant sympathy for him while chilled by misfortune. Look there at our own Washington, as his great image looks down upon this debate, and say whether it becomes us, as Americans, to hear within this Hall, sacred to the business of the people, an oration from a foreigner, the burden of which must necessarily be an attempt to unteach all that he taught; to loosen all the ties which his wisdom provided in our infancy as the guides of our manhood as a nation; to leave behind us forever the landmarks by which the vessel of State has

not proposed in his behalf. He, too, was identified with Hungary as surely as Kossuth. He was a patriot-soldier in the cause of his country, and had fought her battles valiantly and well. He was commended to our consideration as that chief who patriotically held the garrison of Comorn to the close of the campaign against vast odds, and made the terms of his surrender the passport to his expatriation. When the Iron Crown of St. Stephen had fled the limits of Hungary, Ujhazy found a new asylum in a land of real liberty, where he has settled to the peaceful enjoyment of life as a Republican farmer. Now, I respectfully ask why a different grade of compliment should be paid to this Magyar from the mark that Magyar received, admitting both to have been equally patriotic, and equally conspicuous in the cause of their common country? Why shall we pay higher honor to the orator for his advocacy of the principles of liberty, than to the brave old soldier who fought and periled all, and finally asserted the principle in the very terms of his most honorable capitulation to an overwhelming force and necessity? I have indulged in these remarks to prove to this committee that we are asked upon this occasion to go too far, mere precedents considered. But, sir, for one, I am not willing to leave this subject with a cloud of doubt upon it in another of its aspects.

We are told that Kossuth is the invited guest of the country; that Congress sent after him in a national ship; that since his arrival Congress has welcomed him to the capital, and now that he has actually reached the city, Congress is bound, in the exercise of an ordinary courtesy, to welcome him into this Hall, and that the members of Congress shall be personally introduced, &c., &c. Now, Mr. Chairman, I voted in the last Congress, if I remember correctly, to suspend the rules to consider the resolution in regard to sending the ship after Kossuth; but I have no recollection that I voted for the passage of the resolution. I may have done so; I have no memory of the fact. But there was an understanding in Congress at that day that the lives of Kossuth and his associates were in danger; that the Sultan was in jeopardy because of his noble determination to perform the sacred duties of hospitality; that Austria wished the delivery of the exiles into her power; that Russia threatened to avail herself of this pretext to strike the long-meditated blow at the Ottoman Porte, and that, after all, and above all, that Kossuth was anxious to emigrate hither, and to follow Ujhazy and his companions to the far West, where the Magyar might plant his own vine under new and nobler auspices than he had yet known. In all these representations there was much to excite the sympathy of the American bosom. Sympathy for the exile from home and country is a common sentiment of humanity-an emotion of the savage as well as of civilized man. But here was a case of a patriot exiled from his native land, because he had contended for her freedom and her constitutional rights, not to say ameliorations, and we were informed that from his prison grates he looked wistfully to this great country, and probably depended upon our aid for his existence.

Sir, we did extend that sympathy, and actively too; but it was on the state of case already made out. When the flag of the Union floated from the quarter-deck of the Mississippi before the prisonhouse of Kossuth, and he saw its broad folds to protect him under the very Ægis of Libertywhen America was at Kitaniah to bear him from a dungeon to freedom, the cause of her intervention was distinctly announced in the preamble and resolution of Congress, which proclaims that Congress understood it was Kossuth's wish and determination, when released, “to emigrate to the United States." Therefore it was the national ship was employed. Therefore it was the arm of this Government was extended to aid him to reach a shelter from the pitiless storm that pursued him, and to find here again a home and a country. I dare to aver no member of that Congress, at the time, dreamed of making Louis Kossuth the Nation's Guest, or of scenes through which we are now passing. Well, sir, in my opinion Kossuth was committed, by his acceptance of the conveyance furnished, under the character of a resolution that accompanied the offer of that conveyance, to the distinct acquiescence in the correctness of our supposition that it was his deliberate purpose, on

being released," to emigrate to the United States." adopted. He goes further. He says that the When he came on board the Mississippi, it was illustration of American policy heretofore, may be in the character of an emigrant and of an exile from found in the economy of the silk-worm-"a poor, Europe. Who was to find upon these shores an miserable insect," which wraps itself in its own asylum from oppression, and to raise here new self-woven web, from which it creeps only-to die. altars to patriotism. If, then, Kossuth and Con- That America belongs to the family of nations, gress labored under mutual mistake as to the inten- owes duties to the family of nations, or she may tions of this distinguished character, surely, when exile herself among the nations, and while she we ascertained that his restoration to liberty was weaves at home a woof of comfort will, like the but the signal for his renewed activity in the field miserable insect in question, only come forth under of European politics, all Christendom would have the policy of Washington eventually-to meet held us released from any further obligations spring-death as a nation, consigned as a "miserable creaing from the exertion of our sympathy in his be- ture" to the contempt of those to whom we owed half. He availed himself of a very early occasion duties and from whom we withheld favors. Now, to announce that he did not intend to emigrate to sir, this language and these illustrations are to my the United States-that he was consecrated to the comprehension alike offensive and impudent. They cause of Hungarian Independence, and that his explain the character of this foreigner, and serve mission was henceforth to preach that cause and to prove the folly of that popular adulation which to arrange the instrumentalities through which its has accompanied his progress so far on our Consuccess might be achieved. After these distinent, in some places, Mr. Chairman, as observable in the case of a danseuse or a cantatrice as in the instance before us-to us, perhaps, not so remarkable, but exceedingly apt to intoxicate and mislead the deluded recipient of these bountiful ministrations. I am desirous to be distinctly understood upon this occasion. I listen with no patience to Mr. Kossuth, when he invites me to abandon the counsels of Washington, and to desert the ancient, time-honored, household gods of my own country, to follow him in the task of reestablishing those of Hungary, if need be, at the expense of war to the United States. I may be an admirer of the artist, of the eloquent advocate, of the enthusiastic patriot, of the knight-errant who preaches the crusade for Hungarian independence with all the zeal of Peter the Hermit,-I may be willing, as a private gentleman, to extend the courtesies and civilities due from an American to a distinguished stranger, and, indeed, may do him festive honors to testify "the passing noble emotions of the heart and the hour,"-I may be willing to the proposition of the member from North Carolina, which authorizes the Speaker to invite Kossuth to a privileged seat. But, Mr. Chairman, these duties of courtesy and these extensions of privilege are easily comprehended by the recipient and by the world.

closures-even had he been invited hither as an emigrant-we should have been under no obligation to receive him as a political propagandist. His mission was distinctly proclaimed in England. He proclaimed it after he was free, and after he had abandoned the conveyance of the frigate Mississippi. Then we, as a people, and Kossuth were mutually released from whatever obligations to each other.

But, Mr. Chairman, the mission to which he has devoted himself brought him here, not our invitation-if it be still insisted that he was invited. True to that apostolical character he assumes, Kossuth commenced his labors in that mission immediately on his arrival at Staten Island. From his first speech there to this moment he has, on no occasion, failed to proclaim why he is in America; what brought him to America, and what results he expects to accomplish by his visit to America. He has accepted every demonstration of popular adulation, as an evidence of approbation of his doctrines. Emboldened by the passive submission of the people to these, his conclusions, and intoxicated by the more active and bold acquiescence in his political principles, by desperate politicians or mere holiday orators, he has at length commenced the work of polling the American population, in imitation of the mode adopted in the Hungarian comitats, making up an expression of the sovereign will of the people upon certain political propositions of his own propounding, which public will he is now bearing to the Government as testimony from the masses, to dictate future American policy! Methinks I can hear the sound and conservative voice of the interior, as it dwells with incredulity upon this infatuation-this folly. Yes, sir, it is a fact, that from the capital of Pennsylvania the programme of Kossuth has been returned to him, indorsed by the people, and he has proudly proclaimed the fact. In New York he directed a vote in a New York comitat (God save the mark!) on the same propositions, and yesterday in the city of Baltimore, in a public assembly, with all the pomp and ceremony due to so imposing an occasion, and with a judge for his herald, the same profound propositions were again received with acclamations of popular applause, and adopted without contradiction!

These propositions constitute his published programme of principles whereby the family of nations is to be saved through the application of intervention, to enforce non-intervention. I skall not enter upon the discussion of these principles or of the policy they portend. I am not afraid of their adoption by my country. I allude to them now merely to indicate who it is-the character of the mission, and some of the virtues of the apostle we are called upon as an American Congress to receive here in our places with superlative forms of commendation, and compliment almost without a parallel in the history of civilized government. Mr. Chairman, it is worthy of remark that Mr. Kossuth enforces these (his) propositions with a strain of logic and oratory at once peculiar, and, to American ears, no doubt, felicitous. Not to go further back than to his speech in Baltimore, he tells our people that of all national policy, that which, in his opinion, is most important, is our foreign policy; that the foreign policy we have pursued from the era of the Constitution to the present time is "no policy at all," and that through the future our true policy is to be found in the programme of principles he has furnished, and which the people of Baltimore afterwards so clamorously

I am unwilling to see the American Congress, as a legislative body, pass the resolution now before us. I know it will be the precursor of disturbance. I know it is the entering wedge for an order of things destructive of the stand we should occupy before our own countrymen. Iam unwilling to turn this sacred Hall into a lecture room-a school house-where American statesmen may receive their lessons in political wisdom and be taught the propositions upon which are said to rest the prospective grandeur and the glory of the Union, from a foreigner who has not been yet thirty days upon our shores.

Mr. INGERSOLL remarked: It was with many regrets he had witnessed a discussion springing up on the resolution now before the committee. He had hoped that the bare announcement of the resolution of the honorable member from Ohio to this body would have elicited a prompt and universal response from all parts of the House; and coming as we do direct from the voices of the sovereign people of these States, we would respond to what he believed to be the wishes of that people, and award to the illustrious individual whose name forms a part of the resolution, that cordial welcome which, wherever he has gone, the friends of liberty have given him. He had witnessed with feelings somewhat akin to mortification, the course which the discussion of a resolution of welcome to Kossuth had taken in another end of this Capitol; and when he thought of the effect of that course upon the sympathizing friends of freedom in the Old World, and when he could almost hear the exultations of the minions of despotic and monarchical power when the news of that discussion shall have crossed the Atlantic and reached the ears of those despots who claim by "divine right" to awe into submission "their people," upon whose necks their feet are placed, he could almost bow his head in shame It had been his fortune, perhaps misfortune, to have spent the better portion of the last few years in a land of strangers to liberty and the rights of man. The greater portion of that period was spent within the dominions of that northern Autocrat whose hireling forces crushed the rising spirit of Hungary, and sent her illustri

and sorrow.

Th

ous leader a wanderer in other lands. He (Mr. I.) had witnessed the struggle and the defeat, fa temporary one, he trusted in God;) and knowing what he did of that struggle, and of the feelings in regard to it of the people of the patriotic State he had the honor in part to represent in Congres he should be unworthy of a seat in that bod aye, of the name of an American citizen, could F hesitate for one moment as to his course of actic upon the resolution now before the House. was not, it seemed to him, the proper time and o casion to go into the history of the Hungarian wa the greater part of which Kossuth was. The tir for speeches has passed-the time for immediate action has arrived. Kossuth is in our country, as he was before his arrival in the hearts of our countrymen. He is at our inner doors: shall we wound him in the house of his friends? How does he come here?-as an exile? Let gentlemen remember that a national ship received him from his exile in Turkey, and that before he put foot upon our shores he was received by a national salute-that salute fired from a national fortressthat fortress in the command of the Executive of these United States. Away, then, with the idea of Kossuth as an exile. No, Mr. Chairman, he is here as the great champion of freedom in Europe; and in view of what the Government here has already done towards receiving him, good faith and honor on our part, to say nothing of the dictates of humanity, demand that we should extend to him all the honors so justly his due.

But in voting for this resolution, he (Mr. I.) wished not to be understood as placing himself at this time upon the platform of armed intervention by the Government of this Union in the affairs of Hungary. That was not necessary in voting for this resolution. Indeed he would add, that, for his part, he was willing to abide by the counsels of Washington and the doctrines of Monroe in regard to intervention. He (Mr. I.) was not quite ready to send an American army to the Danube; and, in conclusion, he would remark that he had witnessed, with some forebodings, the position of men at the North who surrounded Kossuth during his sojourn in New York, and who were urging the intervention policy upon the Government and people of this country. thought he saw in their movements a foundation for a plan, to be developed hereafter, to interfere in the affairs of our domestic States, as they now wish, on the same plea of humanity, to intervene in the affairs of foreign States. But he would not now go into this great question of intervention, and he hoped that the resolution would pass with great unanimity.

He

in

སཝ

Mr. GENTRY. I should have preferred to have given a silent vote upon the proposition that is before this committee. I think that would have been in the best taste, in my own view of what is proper, and in view of what we owe to ourselves under the circumstances which surround us. But so much has been said pro and con, that I feel disposed to say a word or two by way of indicating the reasons which have influenced me, and will influence me in all the votes I may give in connection with this Kossuth question. If a man presents himself at my door when I know he comes for the purpose of asking me to indorse his note for $50,000, if he is a gentleman in character and position I will invite him into my house, and extend to him all the courtesies which are due to a gentleman, though I may know him to be insolvent, and though I may feel all the while that duty to myself and my children imperiously imposes upon me the necessity of refusing to indorse the note. I would be careful more especially to do so, if the doors of my house had been opened to him by myself, and I had invited him to come there upon another ground not connected with the indorsement of his note. I would invite him into my house if I supposed him a gentleman of high character, principles, genius, and talent-overwhelmed by a torrent of misfortune, though I might know he came to ask me to do that which would imperil the fate of myself and family, and though I could not give him all he came to ask. Still, respecting him as a gentleman-respecting him for his genius, the exalted principles and motives which I believe actuated his conduct-though I might believe that the wave of misfortune had buried him beyond all hope of resurrection, and I could do nothing for him except to give him my respect and sympathy, would I slam the door in

me.

stability of its policy, I consider Louis Kossuth as a very harmleas individual. If I am wrong in that, I am wrong in believing the theory upon which this Government is founded. If this peo

his face and say, "Get away from here! you shall not ask me to indorse that note?" [Laughter.] Not at all. It would be an exceedingly painful operation, and therefore I should make my courtesies and hospitalities all the more abundant, be-ple can be made to forget the high destiny to se presently I should have to give a most unwelcome response to the favor which he asked of That is the position in which we stand in reference to Louis Kossuth; and the only question in the American House of Representatives to conder is, that they shall be careful to demean themselves as gentlemen upon this occasion, and not as rowdies. The question of indorsing the note is en after question, which we are not called upon consider now. We are called upon to extend the civilities and courtesies which the proprieties growing out of the circumstances that surround as demand at our hands. We are called upon to represent and take care of the dignity and character of this great nation in this regard. Whether in relation to what is passed we have done right wrong, is not now the question. This gentleman is here. How is he here, and what are the circumstances under which he presents himself here? It surprises me that any debate or adverse opinions should have arisen here in relation to this subject. After the disastrous termination of the Hungarian struggle for national existence, when Louis Kossuth was a prisoner in Turkey, this Government, responding to the just, proper, and honorable feelings of the American people, in all the forms which it could employ exhibited its anxiety for his condition and fate. Much as I am opposed to embarking this nation in the affairs of Hungary, I am not ready to admit that we are called upon to be afraid to show we sympathize upon this or the other side of questions which may arise beyond our borders. Congress passed resolations upon this subject. Our diplomatic representatives to European Governments were instructed and required to use the influence which they might legitimately and rightfully employ to release Kossuth from imprisonment. A ship was sent across the Atlantic ocean, and its commander was instructed to receive and bring him home to our shores, if he chose to come. Kossuth accepted the offer, and he is here, regarding himself as the guest of the nation. It is enough that the world so understands and regards it, whether we ahall so regard it or not.

to

I

which they are called, and the great responsibility which rests upon them-if they can be made to forget Washington for Louis Kossuth, why then our institutions are not worth a struggle, and the whole experiment which our fathers have undertaken, and which we are seeking to perpetuate, is a fallacy and is of no value. I do not believe a word of it. A rabble of fools and demagogues, in this or that locality, may shout at his heels, and profess themselves in favor of plunging this Government into any line of policy which he may request. Such characters as these are merely seeking to appropriate to themselves some small portion of the glory and eclat that surround the name of Kossuth; and after all it will presently be seen that they cannot really effect anything, either to save or destroy the Republic. Let them shout-let them huzza-it is all harmless. Who is afraid? [Laughter.] You need have no fear for the Republic in this regard. The intelligence and patriotism of the American people will take care of all these questions. The only thing we have to look to, is to take care of our dignity, and not permit the thing to be overdone. I have the most profound confidence in the capacity of my friend from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] [laughter] to form a just conception of what the proprieties of the occasion demand; and if this resolution shall be adopted, the SPEAKER will doubtless associate other sensible gentlemen with him, and such a committee will no doubt execute in good taste what a just conception of the circumstances of the case demands. Let Louis Kossuth be invited into this Hall, and let him take a seat within the bar of the House of Representatives, and let that be the end of it here. Let him speak elsewhere as much as he wants to, and I will give five or ten dollars to hear him. I have already subscribed a paper to give him a dinner. Let him speak, but he cannot un-Americanize me, or this Congress, or this nation. If I am wrong in that, I want to be undeceived. I desire to see the experiment tried. [Laughter.] Gifted though he be, eminently gifted, let us not be afraid of his genius. Is there no genius in America-are there none to plead as eloquently and as ably as he can do, for the United States, and the duties of this Government, in view of the present and coming generations, as well as those that are past? Do not be scared about it. [Laughter.] If gentlemen have any surplus cashif you are disposed to be liberal, hand it over. [Laughter.] We are rich and prosperous, and can stand a little of that sort of individual and voluntary depletion. Gentlemen are afraid of Kossuth, lest he should make us forgetful of our duties as American legislators, into whose hands has been committed this great legacy of freedom, which we hold in trust for all mankind-not for this generation alone, but all coming generations. Let them dismiss their fears.

Now, the question is, what does propriety require at our hands? Though perchance since his arrival upon our shores, as an humble petitioner he may ask that which we cannot grant, yet propriety requires at our hands that we should receive him with all the civilities due to the occasion and the circumstances which surround him and us. But gentlemen are afraid that he will make a speech-that he will overturn the long-established policy of the nation. They seem to be afraid that the American people in their admiration for Kosseth will forget Washington. I have no such fear. Let him speak as much as he pleases. Let him go into every Congressional district in the United States of America, and speak as often as he desires. His speeches will be harmless. I expect, if occasion should make it necessary, resist, with as much firmness as any other man, the line of policy which he would induce us to take. Let him speak. Why, sir, I am so much of a Democrat-a real genuine Democrat-that am willing to submit every and all questions which have arisen, or can possibly arise, involving the interests and honor of this Republic, to the arbitrament of the American people. If the people are not competent to solve safely for the Republic all questions that can be submitted to them, why, then our Government is founded upon a false idea, and it is needless for us to struggle against the rain that is inevitable. If Kossuth can overturn this Republic, or unsettle the long-established and firm convictions of this people, and make them disregard the admonitions of Washington, so as to make them abandon the policy that has made them what they are, and which, if persevered in, is destined to make them infinitely more power-this, we must tell it to him. But being here under ful than language can tell, or imagination conceive-if any foreigner from another clime can do all that, if our only safety is in not giving him a chance to speak, [laughter,] why, then this legaey which we have inherited from our fathers is not worth struggling or fighting for at all. In respect to the safety of this Government, and the

When it shall become necessary, we will tell Mr. Kossuth-and I desire to call him Mr. Kossuth distinctly, and for a reason, because it is the policy of this Government to recognize existing governments-governments de facto--and I conform to this established policy-we will tell Mr. Kossuth, that inasmuch as it was our example which animated him and his Hungarians to the great and glorious efforts which they made, and which, though unsuccessful now, we hope will be more successful in the future, we will keep that light of our example burning and shining upon the pathway of the nations, to guide them onwards like that cloud by day and pillar of fire by night which guided the Israelites from Egyptian bondage to the promised land. We will keep it burning upon their pathway, to guide them from the darkness of tyranny and despotism to the sunlight of liberty. But we will not imperil the good we have ourselves, and which we hold in trust for all humanity, by plunging into adventures as he invites us to. When the proper time comes for us to tell him

all the circumstances in which he is here, we are called upon to behave towards him as gentlemen.

The Senate has passed a resolution, I believe, precisely similar to that which the gentleman from Ohio has offered. Now, is it in good taste for the two branches of the legislative departments of the Government to be at issue upon such a question

as this a mere question of courtesy, involving nothing beyond that? Let gentlemen do what is demanded of them as gentlemen, and as Representatives of the dignity and character of the nation, quietly, decently, and in order. The only danger is of its being overdone. There ought to have been no debate about the matter at all. There ought to have been an understanding among us as to what was the proper resolution to be offered, and it ought not to have been debated, but should have passed without any argumentation whatever.

Mr. Chairman, you must realize the fact-every gentleman here must realize the fact that if you were to go to the house of any gentleman where you understood you had an invitation, or, at least, an implied permission to go, and when you got to the door you found one half the family declaring that you should not come in, and the other half insisting that you should come in-a sort of intestine war in the household as to whether you should be received and treated with courtesy or not-though you might get in by and by, you would not enjoy yourself much. [Laughter.] You would wish to be away again.

Now I think that we ought quietly to pass this resolution, without further debate, and leave it to the discretion and good taste of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] and of the other gentlemen that the good sense of the Speaker will associate with him, to do this little mere matter of manners in that way which the proprieties of the occasion demand. We disgrace ourselves by talking on the subject.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I think that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GENTRY] has been quite as unfortunate in the analogy that he has submitted to the House as he has been in his argument. He has compared Kossuth to a poor man who comes to your door with a note of $50,000, which you know he cannot pay; but he asks, "Will you, therefore, refuse to admit him?" And he asks, Would it be civil to turn the door upon him? Sir, that is not the case, But I will give him one. Suppose that a man in the condition he represents, going through the gentleman's own town endeavoring to raise money, should receive a note on the street by a messenger from the gentleman, inviting him into the gentleman's house-into his parlor-and after he gets in, the gentleman should say, I cannot indorse your note: would it be civil to send for the man barely to tell him that you would not aid him in the matter? I ask the gentleman who has been lecturing us to-day about good taste, and manners, and courtesy, if he does not think that it would be rude to send out on the highway and ask a man into his house to treat him in such a manner? Would it not be much more courteous at least to wait until he should come and knock? Mr. Kossuth, we all "material aid. It is know, wants money, or true he has not yet knocked at our door-but we all know it-and the gentleman says that he does not intend to grant it. He has said so here today. Why, then, do you ask him here? why invite him into your house, unless it be to tell him that he cannot get the "aid" he desires? If, Mr. Chairman, Louis Kossuth was here as the representative of the principle to which the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] referred, I might extend this courtesy to him. But I do not look upon Louis Kossuth on the continent of America as Louis Kossuth in Hungary. He is no longer the representative of the principle of constitutional liberty that was overthrown in his native land. The only principle that he is now the representative of is the principle of intervention to prevent intervention. That is the principle which he is now urging-the object of his mission is to carry out this principle. Does he advocate any other wherever he goes? Did he not make the issue distinctly in New York? "I do not want to be feasted," said he. He does not ask your courtesy or your compliments. He wants nothing short of armed intervention, if need be. wants you to change the settled policy of your Government-and he wants no mistake about it. I admire his candor. He said he wished not to steal into our feelings "by any easy, slippery evasion." He is here, I say, as the open, avowed representative of this great principle, and there can be no mistake about it. If, then, we take him by the hand, and extend to him the privileges of this floor, do we not do it in approbation of the cause

He

which he styles his mission? Can we do it without giving countenance to that principle?

defend the liberties of my country, when they paid so little regard to the principles of their own. Sir, I say again, I was disposed to have little apprehension of the effect of Kossuth's progress here till I saw that his coming had disorganized the American House of Representatives. Answer me, answer me, any man upon this floor, whether you can pass the resolution to-day without beating down and battering down the law by which you are governed, and with it one of the safeguards of the Constitution of your country? You cannot do it. Gentlemen speak a great deal of down-trodden Europe and liberty. Sir, I am an admirer of liberty; I am a friend of liberty; but the liberty I have attachment for is constitutional liberty. It is not a wild unrestrained licentiousness, but it is a liberty defined and regulated by written law. It is such liberty as I find in my own country, and nowhere else on the habitable globe. For this reason I love my country-this "my fatherland." And when we look out upon the nations of the earth and see our country rising up as the great light of the world to cheer up the spirits and gladden the hearts of the victims of power and misrule elsewhere-when I look upon it, as the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GENTRY] says, as "the pillar of cloud and of fire" to direct other nations in their exodus from tyranny and despotism—it may not be impertinent to ask ourselves, what is it that makes it so? What are the massive columns that uphold this towering dome of American liberty in its majestic might-in that grandeur which challenges the admiration of the world?

66

My countrymen-for so shall I appeal to you this day while you are acting, as you now are, upon this resolution in violation of the law of the House-I address you as a town-meeting, for you have no rightful power to consider this resolution but by an overthrow of your own rules and in open disregard of public law-I say to you, that this great work of American liberty, my countrymen, this great achievement which no other nation or people have ever attained, depends solely upon the supremacy of the law. This is the whole secret-a strict maintenance of the law. The first step towards despotism is a disregard of law. When the restraints of law are removed, anarchy reigns until force is called in for self-preservation; and I call upon every man that regards his own country, not only to stand this day by the laws of this House, but by the principles upon which his own Government was founded, and do not, in an eager desire to be conspicuous in giving evidence of a surpassing liberality abroad, overthrow and demolish the outposts of liberty at home.

The gentleman from Tennessee tells us that he is not afraid of Louis Kossuth; and he says "don't be afraid." Sir, I do not know whether the gentleman thinks Kossuth a little man, and, therefore, not to be feared. I will tell him, however, that I am by no means in a panic. But I am not one of those who seem disposed to attribute too little importance to the powers of this man. I believe him to be a man of great abilities—a man of rare talents. In my estimation he stands forth as one of the first of his species. Every speech, everything that he says, bears the marks, the deep unmistakable impress of mind, of intellect, and of genius of the highest order. It is because I admire him, and believe that he has the mind to appreciate sense and intellect, that I wish not to go through with the solemn mockery that gentlemen here would urge upon the American Congress. Let us not ask him in the House that we may tell him that we do not intend to indorse this new principle of his. If we do not intend to give him the indorsement, let us treat him with that dignity that will become him and ourselves. But, sir, the gentleman says again, "don't be afraid." Well, I will say to him I was not very apprehensive myself of the effect of this illustrious foreigner's influence upon the American mind until I came in here this morning. Since then, I must confess my mind has had reason to undergo a change on that subject. It is true, we are told with an easy air and grace not to be afraid that the legacy of Washington will be thrown away! Sir, those were wise and patriotic words that fell from the lips of Patrick Henry, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." I have received a new lesson upon that subject here this day. We are here in the American Congress, having intrusted to us, if you please, that legacy. I hold in my hand the Constitution of the United States, which imbodies that language, and which we have all sworn to support that this Constitution says that the members of this House shall make rules for their government. We have made rules in the exercise of this power granted Here they are. These rules are the law of this House-as much binding upon every member of it as any law of the land. The 17th of these rules declares who shall be entitled to a place or seat on this floor. All others are excluded. Louis Kossuth does not come within either of the classes of persons herein named as those who may be admitted upon the floor. The 136th rule declares that there shall be no change or alteration of either of the standing rules of this House without one day's notice. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] comes in here and moves a resolution giving the privileges of the floor to a person not now entitled under the 17th standing rule, and without any notice. Not only this, but he moves this resolution in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, where, according to all parliamentary law, no original matter can originate; and yet I have here this day seen a majority of this House disregard precedent, usage, and the express law of the House under the Constitution, and sustain this unheard-of pro-ling to abide their decision. Thus frankly disclaimceeding-carried away, I suppose, by this late contagious sympathy for the cause of intervening in other nations' affairs in order to give and secure universal liberty to mankind. And I have seen the gentleman from Tennessee himself acting with that majority-riding "rough-shod" over the laws of this House to be civil and courteous to a man who comes here to teach us that Washington did not understand the interests of this country as well as he does-this, too, in the very presence of the Father of his Country, as his noble countenance beams from yonder canvas. It comes, sir, with a bad grace from the gentleman to tell me, in the midst of these scenes, and what I have here this day witnessed, not to be "afraid that the legacy of Washington will be thrown away." Here the gentleman stands, and here a majority of this House stands, presenting the strange spectacle to the world of taking the initiative step for assuming jurisdiction over the liberties of all the rest of mankind by grossly violating and overriding the laws of their own Government. Poor defenders, gentlemen, you will prove yourselves to be of other people's liberties when you will not maintain the bulwarks of your own! And never would I, if I were Kossuth, place much reliance on the promises of any people to

Mr. GENTRY. In reply to my friend from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] I will say, in all frankness, that although I have been a member of this House a good many years, I have not scanned and studied the rules with great care. I have thought that, generally, business was more expedited by acquiescing in a wrong decision, than by debating questions of order; and hence I generally put myself under the protection of the Speaker, or the Chairman, as the case may be, and in most cases am wil

ing everything like pretensions to a very accurate knowledge of the rules of the House, and of parliamentary law, I must say that the gentleman's argument rests mainly upon an assumption, which, in my humble opinion, is unfounded in fact. In my opinion, the House has not overridden its rules, as contended by the gentleman. If you look into the copy of the rules before you, you will find it noted there, that in the early history of the Government no proposition touching an appropriation of money could originate elsewhere than in a Committee of the Whole House. That being found inconvenient, the rule was changed in that regard. My opinion is, that when the House chooses to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole upon the state of the Union, the Committee of the Whole may make any report back to the House which it may believe to be demanded by the exigencies of the Union. That is my belief; but I will waive that. I will not argue it. It is needless to do so.

In answer to the gentleman's argument that to pass the resolution now under consideration will be to change a standing rule of the House, in palpable violation of that rule of the House which requires notice to be given in advance of such proposition, before it can be made, I maintain that by the action now proposed we change no

standing rule of the House. We only make an exception to the operation of a standing rule. I hope that this distinction will be borne in mind. We change no standing rule of the House. We agree to invite Louis Kossuth upon this floor, but the standing rule remains unchanged. We simply, by virtue of power residing in this House, in view of reasons satisfactory to ourselves, choose to make an exception to a standing rule, which we have prescribed for our everyday ordinary government; and that standing rule still remains unchanged as the common law of the House. We choose, for reasons satisfactory to ourselves, to make an exception to the standing rule for this present necessity. I have so high, an opinion of the fairness and candor of the gentleman who has spoken, that I cannot even intimate that he has indulged in any intentional sophistry upon this question. I think, however, that when the excitement of the hour has passed from his mind, when he reviews his argument, he will see that he has not to-day met this question fairly and squarely, as he usually meets questions. I think he has not exhibited his usual candor. I think the skill of the advocate has pushed aside the candor of the man. I think he plays the lawyer a little upon this occasion.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Will the gentleman allow me to put a case to him which tests the sophistry.

The CHAIRMAN stated that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RANTOUL] had yielded the floor to allow an explanation to be made, and he did not conceive the gentleman had a right to yield it to others.

Mr. RANTOUL yielded the floor.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. We have a standing rule of this House that bills shall be offered in a particular manner. Suppose an individual member arises and moves as an exception to allow his bill to come in, would it be sophistry to urge that the House should not change the rule? No, no, I move barely this as an exception to the standing rules. You cannot make an exception to a standing rule, but by changing it. The rule has to be removed to make the exception. I think the gentleman would so decide, could he see through the Kossuth fog which has come over his brain.

Mr. GENTRY. I would gladly answer the question propounded to me by my friend from Georgia, Mr. STEPHENS,] but another gentleman was talking to me when he propounded it, and prevented me from hearing or comprehending him. It is by no means essential to the purpose of this debate, waiving all question of rules, I assume here, and do it fearlessly, that while ordinarily due deference and observation ought to be paid to the rules we have instituted for the regulation of the ordinary business of legislation, an occasion may arise when the rules may be set aside by the will of the House, in deference to what the public necessity may demand. We do it every day upon the most trivial questions, and I am surprised that the thunders of my friend's eloquence have not heretofore been heard upon this floor, when he has seen questions of order decided one way to-day, and reversed the next day. We have constantly-recurring examples of opposite and contrary discussion upon questions of order, just according to the humor of the House. I am sure this declaration will be supported by every gentleman who has any experience on the floor. This habit has, I think, grown into an abuse that ought to be corrected. However, admitting what he says is true, I stand where I stood in regard to the proprieties of the occasion. I do not admit the arguments or conclusions of the gentleman. He says if we invite the gentleman in we are bound to indorse his note. I am willing to rest it there. I say if a man of high character, of honorable and high aim, one as he has been so known and recognized through his whole life, shall be overtaken and overwhelmed by misfortune, although I may believe he had come to my house to ask me to indorse his note for $50,000, which in view of what was due to myself and children, I would be bound to refuse, yet I could not, as a gentleman, shut the door in his face, because I knew he had come to ask a favor which duty would not permit me to grant. Am not I, under such circumstances, bound to invite him in? Am not I bound to extend to him every civility, which a gentleman, and especially a gentleman overwhelmed by mis.

« AnteriorContinuar »