The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 7; noes 111.

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.

Releed, That in adopting this resolution this House does not believe that Louis Kossuth, nobly struggling in behalf of his oppressed country, has given his approbation to, or has any sympathy with the Abolitionists, who, in a convention recently held in Pennsylvania, at which an address was delivered by one of the members of this House, with a wicked disregard of the obligations of the Constitution and laws of the land, proclaimed that they sympathized with Kossuth is his heroic devotion to the cause of human freedom," and expressed the hope that his herculean labors in this behalf would conduce to the overthrow of opprescon not in Hungary alone, but in the United States and throughout the world."

Mr. S. said: I am glad to see that some gentlemen in this part of the House are satisfied with that resolution, and I hope they will vote for it. I shall not vote for the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] as it now stands. I wish to do all that courtesy requires. But in the frst place, we have not had an opportunity of presenting our views upon this question of national tervention, and then again because a demand has Feen made in a solemn form, to give to Louis Koswith the aid and influence of the Abolition socity. I have regarded his movements with a great deal of interest since his arrival in this country, and had I been here when the resolution of welcore from the Senate was passed, I might have reted for it. Since then I have had my eyes pened, and I think it is time for every gentlen here, especially from the Southern country, pause and see what they are about. Now look it the state of things on this floor! Who are the most strenuous and foremost in advocating this resolution? Who most ardent in violating all me, and then sanctimoniously talking of good behavior? Is there an Abolitionist here, who is not urgent in demanding that Louis Kossuth shall be privileged to admission in this House? The honorable member from Ohio, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] and from Massachusetts, [Messrs. MANN and RANTOFL,] and others, are most earnest in aiding to stifle debate, and welcome Kossuth. One of the gentlemen from Massachusetts, who sits near the door, [Mr. RANTOUL,] has said that Kossuth was a State-rights man." A new idea of State rights! That gentleman attained his present position by his opposition to the fugitive law, which he debounced as violating "State rights." Louis Kosthis proclaiming in his speeches, that he is a State-rights" man. What is the meaning of this new doctrine? Do the gentlemen from Ohio and Massachusetts, [Messrs. GIDDINGS and RANTOUL] think the late Abolition convention in Pennsylvania were advocating State rights in adopting the resolutions I hold in my hand, and will insert in my remarks? I wish I had time to read them.

[From the National Intelligencer of Dec. 23d, 1851.] At a Convention of "the members and friends of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society," held at Philadelphia last week, and said to have been largely attended," and which addresses were delivered by Hon. J. R. Giddings and the Rev. Wm. H. Furness, the following resolutions were passed, which appear to us to be too significant to be withheld from our readers:

Rebired, That we heartily congratulate one another, and the friends of liberty throughout the land, upon the aspicious result of the recent trial of Castner Hanaway; sad that the efforts to revive in this country the obsolete and infamous doctrine of constructive treason, and to paralyze, by the terrors of the dungeon and the scaffold, not merely the fugitive's cherished hope of maintaining his freedom, but even the liberty of the press and the freedom of speech on the subject of slavery, have so signally failed; tad that, in the final rejoicing of the people, in view of this result, we see an evidence of the progress of our cause, and a sign of its future triumph.

Releed, That the Convention recommend to the Exec

five Committee of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society to prepare an address, for presentation to Louis Kossuth, expressive of sympathy with him in his heroic devotion to the cause of human freedom, and of earnest hope that his Herculean labors in this behalf will conduce to the overthrow of oppression, not in Hungary alone, but in the United States, and throughout the world.

A member of this House [Mr. GIDDINGS] was present at the meeting where they passed resolutions congratulating the country upon the acquittal of Castner Hanaway-one concerned in the Christiana murder-as being a sign of their success, and indicating a repeal of the fugitive law. They also passed a resolution, in which they expressed the hope that the efforts of Kossuth "would conduce to the overthrow of despotism in the United States." Now, sir, what does this mean? How

that kind, for these State-rights men, in the charnel-house Abolition party, are not bound in that direction. I could not follow them, no matter how sacred the flag they pretended to raise. I should first desire to examine the foot of the standard-bearer, to see if it was not cloven. I could not believe such men were in the right path, unless one rose from the dead, to assure me, when I saw among their leaders, the members from Massachusetts and Ohio, [Messrs. MANN, RANTOUL, and GIDDINGS.]

Mr. Chairman, I have heard it said that Austria, Russia, and Haynau, had friends and advocates in this House. I might, with propriety, refer this unworthy remark to the gentlemen on the other side. The author of it will find among his political friends men of patriotism equal to his, whose deportment he had better imitate, who are as firm in their opposition to this resolution as any on this side of the House. Gentlemen of both parties are opposing it. Whigs and Democrats, actuated by principle, firm, true, and unflinching men, unite in opposing it. Sir, if I were to say of any one here, he spoke like one who had been intimate with discussions at the Five Points in New York, and there learnt his courtesy, I should not be more unjust than he was, who charged those who opposed this resolution as being friends of Haynau."

This matter demands careful consideration when we see the course adopted by the Abolitionists. When we see the proceedings of the Abolition Convention, when we look to the Senate, and there find Seward and Sumner taking the lead in this matter, I pause to know what it means. It is true that General Cass is with them, but Governor Seward will beat him at that game out of sight.

me by the crack of his lash into such an impropriety. To the sentiments which I have at any time expressed here or elsewhere, the gentleman well knows I am ready on all proper occasions to respond and vindicate. The gentleman will bear testimony to the promptitude with which I have ever been ready to take up and answer any attacks upon my opinions on every fitting opportunity. The gentleman shakes his head. I ask the gentleman to point to a single instance in which I have ever failed to meet any gentleman who has assailed my opinions in this Hall when propriety would admit.

Mr. STANLY. You have now.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I will do that on a proper occasion, but not upon this resolution, and under the five minutes rule. The gentleman knows that the opinions which I entertain could not be explained, enforced, and advocated in a five minutes speech. He is attempting to draw me into the vortex of interminable debate, but I am not to be caught in that way. He may, perhaps, catch some younger opponent and drag him into this improper discussion, but he might have known that I was not to be thus caught. I repeat for the fortieth time, that I will not discuss matters which have no relation to the pending resolution. Sir, have we not trifled with this subject long enough? We have injured our reputation in the eyes of the American people by the revolutionary and disorganizing proceedings which were witnessed at our last session. And for what? To prevent the passage of a simple resolution in honor of Louis Kossuth. A minority of this House, in which I regretted to see my friend from North Carolinafor I did not expect to find him in such companyhave resorted to revolutionary and disorganizing measures for the purpose of defeating the will of the majority. The country will mark it as an era in the history of American legislation.

I have only time to add, Mr. Chairman, that I am willing to do all that courtesy requires towards Kossuth: but it is due to him that his name be not allowed to appear as sanctioning the wishes of those who so unworthily are willing to injure him, to give themselves some poor advantage. We are by no means, sir, free from danger. Attempts have been made within a year to invade the Island of a power with whom we are at peace-our whole country has been agitated by the malignant efforts of fanatics North and South-Canada is not always quiet, the world is seeming to be unsettled, and a war is still proclaimed against the South by the enemies of the country. Is this a time for us to commit ourselves to Kossuth's doctrines? I think not. And my duty compels me to vote against this resolution as it now stands. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. GIDDINGS. I have long known the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. STANLY,] who has just taken his seat. I know his sentiments, and the feelings of his heart. I have long served with the gentleman here, and I receive all that he has said in perfect kindness. I will say to him at the commencement, very frankly, that he need feel no trouble about going to Heaven in company with those referred to, or alone. Indeed, I fear he will never find the path there. [Laughter.] The gentleman has not discussed any matter which is before the House, but he has thought proper to travel to Philadelphia and pick up some newspaper article there to discuss in this Hall, instead of the resolution which is under consideration. He appealed to me, as if he felt confident that he could so far draw me from my propriety as to enter into a discussion of that kind. In this he certainly paid no compliment to my judgment. If he had known me as well as I think he should have known me, he certainly would not have flattered himself that he could induce me to participate in such a discussion on such an occasion as the present. I thank him not for the left-handed compliment thus paid to my judgment. He should have known that no slaveholder or overseer could drive

Mr. STANLY. Just as I expected. He backs

out.

Mr. STEPHENS demanded tellers, on the amendment to the amendment.

Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. INGERSOLL and BRIGGS were appointed.

The question was then taken, and decided in the negative--ayes 27, noes 92.

So the amendment to the amendment was not

agreed to.

Mr. WASHBURN moved to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee, by adding thereto the following:

Provided, That nothing in this resolution shall be construed as impairing the effect, or questioning the policy of the measures passed by the last Congress, known as the compromise measures.

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. I raise the question of order, that this amendment is not at all pertinent to the subject-matter before the committee. It relates to the compromise measures of the last Congress.

The CHAIR ruled the amendment out of order, Mr. WASHBURN. I move, then, to amend the amendment, by striking out the word " "only.' The resolution of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] is but a compliment, and it seems to me that it is a natural and appropriate sequence of the joint resolution, which passed a few days ago by the nearly unanimous voice of both Houses of Congress. The opposition which this resolution meets with seems to me a very strange thing. What does this resolution imply? What is it? It implies just what it expresses-nothing more and nothing less. It says that inasmuch as this distinguished stranger has been invited to the capital, and is now at our gates, it is proper and fitting for us to provide for his introduction and reception here, in a manner worthy of ourselves and worthy of him. It cautiously and studiously ignores the question of intervention or non-intervention, and all other questions. And if it is strange that such a resolution should meet with opposition, it is still stranger to me that it should meet with the kind of opposition which it has encountered here. Gentlemen are not only unwilling to pass the resolution, but it seems as if they felt themselves under

an obligation to insult the distinguished stranger, and wound the cause that they profess to have at heart. Not content with opposing the resolution in a fair, legitimate, and straightforward way, they have resorted to every species of obstruction and strategy to prevent us from coming to a vote on the resolution. And for what? Simply to stifle the expression of the feeling of the people of this country in favor of Kossuth and his cause. It would have been infinitely better that no resolution had been introduced here, than that we should have made such a record as will be made -a record that will stand as long as this Government shall last-a record that cannot be blotted out or burnt out.

Now, what principle does he represent? If he represents in these United States any principle at all, it is the principle of intervention for the sake of non-intervention, and further, one which has not been remarked upon in this House, but which I think more objectionable than any other, and that is, that we shall acknowledge, the independence of Hungary-a nation that is not now in existence; and, also, that we shall acknowledge him as Governor of Hungary, when he voluntarily resigned his office to a man whom his friends and admirers in this House charge with being a traitor to Hungary. If this man comes here as the representative of any great principle at all, it is of that. Are we to suppose that he preaches one set of doctrines, when he intends to represent another? Look at his speeches; if they contain the views and doctrines which he intends our people to understand he came here to represent, then he is the representative of the doctrine of intervention for the sake of non-intervention. I do not blame Kossuth. I undertake to say that I feel as much sympathy for him, and admiration for his talents, for his genius, and for the efforts he made in behalf of his oppressed country, as any man in this House. I undertake to say, that no man here feels more for downtrodden humanity, wherever found, than I do. The gentlemen who represent the opponents of this resolution as the apologists of Haynau, or any other tyrant, show little understanding of the intelligence of the American people. I am not to be swerved from my course, because the great cities are in favor of this man's doctrine; for I take upon myself to say, that the people of the great cities are not so sound upon the political questions of the day, as are the yeomanry of the country. We are asked whether we are afraid that Kossuth wants to lead the American people away from Washington, and the policy of Washington. For one, I am not afraid. I do not fear that the American people would be led away from the sacred policy of the country, even though the American Congress should prove recreant to its duty, and vote for all of Kossuth's propositions; for I have no fears that any foreigner, however distinguished, whether a whiskered Pandour, or a fierce Hussar, or any other character, can lead the popular mind of this great country away from its allegiance to its long cherished and settled policy. The hearts of the American people are still fixed with pride and exultation upon Washington and his policy.

Gentlemen have endeavored to alter this resolution. They have stood here and chaffered and bartered as to the amount of courtesy that is to be shown to this distinguished republican. They have tried how small a modicum of courtesy they could get extended to him. Allusion has been made to other distinguished individuals who have been invited into this hall. But there has been no case at all parallel to this. Kossuth is here by invitation of Congress. He was brought here, as the President informs us, under the authority of Congress. In an Executive communication, the President recommends that we shall consider the manner in which this man, brought in by our own authority, shall be received and treated. Besides all this, we ourselves, by a nearly unanimous vote, have invited him to come here. He has responded to that invitation, and is now here. I say, then, that we can pass no less resolution than this. This is not like the cases of Father Mathew. Ujhazi, and others. No other individual has been brought to our shores under the authority of Congress, been made the subject of an Executive communication to Congress, or been invited here by joint resolution of both Houses. The circumstances of the case are different, and therefore our action should be different also. I submit further, that it is better to let the naked question go to the country than to qualify it. 1 have voted against all amendments and qualifications, because I will not have an issue raised before the country independent of the question of courtesy. If we adopt any qualification, we raise an issue; on that issue we shall have to go to the country, and it will be said by the people and the press throughout the land that the House of Representatives has as good as said, that should there be another contest between Austria and Hungary, Russia may interfere as much as she likes, with our consent. The adoption of a qualification of any kind means something. You cannot add anything that is unnecessary and out of place without meaning something, and that is the translation that the country will give to it. Now, Iive of the maxims, views, and principles laid say that it is not wise for us to make such an issue. It is better for the peace, quiet, and harmony of the whole country that we should pass a simple resolution.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. BARRERE. Coming as I do from a State which is said to be favorable to this resolution, and intending to vote against it, it is right and proper that I should give some of the reasons why I take that course. It is but proper that the friends of the resolution should give us the reasons why it should be passed, and I have had some anxiety to ascertain why it should be passed. One gentleman tells us that it is a mere matter of courtesy; another, that it is a tribute to the great principles of republicanism and national independence; a third, that it is to indorse Kossuth's views of intervention; and a fourth tells us that it is because the executive officers of this Government have not acted towards M. Kossuth with becoming deference. As to the matter of courtesy, if any blame attaches to the manner of his reception in Washington, it attaches to the Senate's committee, who received him; and not to the executive officers of the Government, or the minority in this House. The President of the United States and the heads of several executive departments, have received and treated him with marked attention and respect. I do not think that this proceeding can be properly looked on in that light. Gentlemen may get up here as much as they like, and say that they do not mean this or that; but the construction that the country, our people at home, and the world, would put upon this resolution will be that we indorse this man's doctrines.

Whilst, therefore, I am willing to extend to Kossuth the hand of friendship; whilst I am willing to do all in my power for downtrodden humanity, I am not willing that the American Congress shall commit itself to the approbation of a set of doctrines which in my opinion are destruct

down by the great founders of our Republic. [Here the hammer fell.]

The question was then taken on Mr. WASHBURN's amendment to the amendment, and it was not agreed to.

Mr. STANTON, of Ohio. I offer the following as an amendment to the original resolution:

And that the Government and people of the United States sympathize with the people of Hungary in their struggle for liberty.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is not strictly in order. The original resolution has no reference to Hungary, but to Louis Kossuth. Mr. FICKLIN called for the reading of the resolution.

The resolution was read.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STANTON] is in order as an amendment to the substitute of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. VENABLE.]

Mr. STANTON, of Ohio. Being a friend to the original resolution, I had not intended to occupy the time of the committee in discussing it, and I should not have done so had I not differed from my colleague, [Mr. BARRERE,] for whom I entertain a very high regard. It is the first time I have ever heard it gravely argued that a simple act of civility-an exercise of the common hospitalities of life, committed a man to the sentiments of his guest. This resolution contemplates a simple act of hospitality. Nay, it is not even that. The two Houses of Congress have cordially welcomed Louis Kossuth to the capital and the country. He is now the nation's invited guest. He stands before it in that position, and it cannot

be escaped. This resolution-copied from one passed by the Senate almost without oppositionmerely contemplates the formal mode of receiving and entertaining him. It is as though you said, when he reaches your door, "Walk in, and take a seat." That is the whole effect of the resolution. But it is argued that the adoption of this resolution would commit this Congress and the nation. to the sentiments of their guest. Sir, I take it to be no such thing. I will not clog this resolution with anything that is inconsistent with it-with anything that is equivalent to saying that we perform this act of civility reluctantly, grudgingly, and hesitatingly, because that is the same as say ing that Kossuth is an unwelcome guest.

Some other things that have taken place in this discussion are rather extraordinary to my mind. Even though gentlemen are not disposed to intervene in favor of Hungary or any other country, I cannot see the necessity of avowing it before the time arrives. The only effect of it can be to say to the despots of Russia and Austria, "So far as we ar concerned, you have our approbation, indorse ment, and permission to go on and trample unda foot the nations of the European continent." For one, I will hold out no inducements or encourage ment to the despots of Europe to trample dow the people there.

I

But I will do this: I am prepared to express the sympathy of the Government and people of thi country in the European struggles for liberty. 1 am prepared to interfere with every species of in tervention short of armed intervention; and whether will resort to armed intervention or not, I wil decide when the question shall properly arise. will say, however, that I can hardly imagine any contingency in which I would vote for a national war, for I am opposed to wars of all descriptions; but I am certainly opposed to declaring in advance and before the occasion calls for it, that we will under no circumstances intervene.

But, sir, as I have already said, that question is not now before us. The question before us is simply one as to the formality in receiving one who is already the nation's guest. I shall vote for this resolution because it is a simple form that has been adopted by the other branch of the Govern ment, and I shall vote for it, too, as an additional indication of the sympathy which we feel for the downtrodden classes of Europe. Sir, I confess I have been much surprised that, upon a question of this sort, involving no constitutional or political principle, and which commits the House and the nation to no practical action that affects the wellfare of the country, revolutionary struggles should have been resorted to, and that a minority should have placed itself in the attitude of a factious endeavor to defeat the passage of the resolution. Now, if such a course is to be pursued upon a question of this sort-if a minority is to rule this body upon an unimportant question, may we not expect the same power to be exercised on every occasion; and is not the right of the majority to govern in this House effectually stricken down? [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. MILLSON. I confess, Mr. Chairman, that I am somewhat impatient of this protracted discussion, and I should be entirely satisfied if the committee would come at once to a vote upon the propositions pending before it. I, for one, have not engaged in any scheme, as gentlemen call it, to defeat the final action of the committee upon the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER.] I have voted upon every division, and therefore the censures, of which gentlemen have been so lavish, are not applicable to me. The committee seem determined to adopt some one of the complimentary resolutions under consideration, and I see no good that can result from mere delay; not that I am at all in favor of the resolution of the gentleman from Ohio. On the contrary, I am warmly and decidedly opposed to it, though not altogether for the reasons that have been urged by those who have preceded me in the debate. The adoption of this resolution will not necessarily commit us to intervention in the affairs of Hungary, though there is a significance in the declarations of Kossuth, and in the remarks of several gentlemen upon this floor, which makes it dangerous to overlook this objection entirely. Nor do I see, as the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. STANLY] seems to suppose, that there is any necessary connection between the question of slavery and a public reception of Kossuth. And I am sure, I need

have alluded, might think I was recreant to the cause which they hold dear. They might suppose I did not treat their sentiments and feelings with proper respect. I am moved, therefore, to utter a few sentiments upon this resolution, and I regret to see that the question has taken somewhat of a geographical character. Now, sir, I think this condition of things is to be deprecated. I come from the latitude of 420 30', and had I sufficient standing and influence here to make myself a peacemaker, I should hope that the little I may have to say would not be without influence, and that the humble sentiments I express would not fall to the ground without any effect whatever.

I can say to my brethren from the South, that they need have no fear of me. There are circles at home, limited, it is true, in which I am regarded as sufficiently a Southern man; and if this be suffident to regard me a constitutional man, I glory in the estimate put upon me where I live. But, Mr. Chairman, to return to the resolution itself: it seems to me that those gentlemen who have opposed this resolution have opposed it without cause. I speak with great respect of those who have opposed the resolution. I refer to the gentleman from Georpa, [Mr. STEPHENS,] from Kentucky, [Mr. MARSHALL,] and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. STANLY;] and I can say most heartily that nything that should fail from the lips of those gentlemen would be entitled to great consideration from me. But, Mr. Chairman, are not their conclusions badly drawn from the proposition? They seem to suppose that if this proposition passes it is an indorsement of the doctrines which have been to zealously and pointedly set forth by the distinguished Hungarian.

Mr. Chairman, I think these conclusions are unwarranted. It has often been said that the only purpose of this resolution is a mere compliment to he distinguished hero of Hungary.

[Here the Chairman's hammer fell.]

Mr. CLARK. I must say I am taken by surprise.

Mr. BELL. I had no desire to take up the time of the committee by remarks upon this subject; but as it has become fashionable for every member to either offer or oppose some amendment, for the purpose of submitting his views upon the matter at issue, I rise to protest, to some extent, against what I understood to be given as the opinion and feelings of the free and independent citizens of Onio, by one of my colleagues. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. DisSEY, who spoke on a former day, under the half hour rale. When he was inquired of to know how far we may go with propriety, as a nation, upon the sabject of intervention, he was not, if I understood him, free to say that he was in favor of the policy which we have recognized since our national existence-that policy of non-intervention, recommended to us by the Father of our country, and practised by all the Presidents of this Republic, from that day to this.

The correctness of the policy of non-intervention with the governments of Europe, is imbodied deep in the hearts and affections of the people of Ohio. I undertake, Mr. Chairman, as one of the representatives from that State to say, that the people of Ohio have no desire to change that policy. But, while I am free to declare their true adherence to the former and present wise policy of our Government, on the subject of foreign intervention, I do not believe that the people of Ohio, or of any considerable proportion of our common country, wish by the action of this House, to proclaim to all nations of the world, that they may exercise the iron rule of tyranny against those who are struggling to be free as we are, and there shall be no arm to interfere or succor the oppressed. I had prepared, and would have offered, had it been in order under this proposition, an amendment to the original resolution, providing that nothing in the aforesaid resolution should be considered as committing this Government in favor of, or against foreign intervention. That is the ground upon which we should stand.

I heard my friend from North Carolina, [Mr. STANLY,] in his ingenious manner, refer to other subjects, which I hope will not be connected with this resolution or debate. Does he suppose his friends from the South can be driven from their support of this measure by such a course? I ask the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. STANLY] if he expects to drive these men from the support

of this resolution by the shallow pretext of its receiving support from some of the Abolitionists? If he does I think he is mistaken.

The compromise measures of last session have also been referred to. Sir, I do not desire to disturb those measures, now that they have been adopted; not because I approve of all the principles embraced in those measures-for some I do not approve-but because they were passed and adopted as a compromise; and I assure my friend from North Carolina [Mr. STANLY] I intend for one to live up to the spirit of those measures; but at the same time I pledge him and his associates further, being one of the representatives of a free State with a free constitution, that I will not permit the enemies of the abolition cause, here or elsewhere, (because the name may be obnoxious to some,) to connect that with this matter, to interfere with or prevent my expression of sympathy for the oppressed and the great principles of human freedom, of which Louis Kossuth in the Old World has been the exponent, and the man whom we have welcomed to the people of the nation, and assented to by their approbation of the sentiments contained in the President's message. The voice of this nation has spoken. You have invited Kossuth to your doors. Will you invite a guest to your table, and not set him a chair? Is that the courtesy we are to extend to him? I hope not.

[Here the Chairman's hammer fell.]

The question was then taken on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. CLARK] to the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee, and it was rejected.

will come quickly when all these oppressed nations may successfully wage war upon their oppressors, and when the chains which have been forged for them will be burst asunder, and break the heads of their oppressors-when men will be free to act as God has made them free to think. I believe that time is coming; but whether it be the policy for this country now, forcibly to interfere, is a very grave proposition, and one which I very much question.

At home, on our own soil, in our own defence, we can resist the world. The experiment of a foreign war, on a foreign soil, requires sober consideration. Our mission is one of peace-our settled policy has been "friendly relations with all, entangling alliances with none. It is true, we live in an extraordinary age. Ancient usages and established policy are yielding to the force of new opinions. Our position, too, is marked and peculiar. We are the free State among the nations. Our history, mixed population, and commercial relations make us interested observers of what is transpiring in Europe; and while we are watching the effect of our opinions and our example upon the continental Powers, is it not proper for us to declare ourselves in favor of popular rights and constitutional liberty? It becomes us as a nation to assert that we are in favor of our own institutions, and that we recognize the right of every people to frame and adopt their own form of government, and that we regard any foreign interference as an infraction of the law of nations, and at war with the rights of humanity.

Mr. MANN. I do not rise, Mr. Chairman, to

Mr. FULLER, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair-utter any warm or passionate words. I wish only mau I offer the following amendment to the amendment, viz:

That in the opinion of this House the armed intervention of one Power in the affairs of another, is a violation of the public law of the world, and a war upon the rights of nations.

Mr. F. Mr. Chairman, I have forborne heretofore from taking any part in this discussion, with the hope that the majority of this House would succeed in securing that final action upon the original proposition of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] which appeared to meet with the wishes and approbation of a majority of this body; but, sir, as that seems to be impossible, and as the opportunity is now afforded for all to express their opinions and views upon this question, I avail myself of it.

I was surprised that there should be any difference of opinion with regard to the propriety of that resolution. It seemed to me, that it should have met at once the unanimous approbation of every member of this House; that it was but the natural consequence of what we had already done; that it was simply, as has already been stated, an act of courtesy, merely decent behavior, upon our part, in consideration of what had previously been done. Why, sir, who intervened to prevent the surrender of this illustrious stranger to the power of Austria? Who intervened to secure his liberation? Who brought him here? Upon whose invitation is he here? And now that he is knocking at our doors, shall we throw them open, or close them in his face? It is, to be sure, sir, an expression of opinion in favor of the Hungarian revolution. I regard it as such.

6

us.

to bring the committee to a calm consideration of the circumstances in which we have placed ourselves. The relation in which we stand to Governor Kossuth, was not sought by himself but by This Government took the initiative. The Secretary of State, by command of the President, first addressed a communication to our Minister at Constantinople, in behalf of this fugitive from Austrian oppression. This step was followed by the action of the Government, tendering the services of a national vessel to bring him to our shores. He accepted the offer, placed himself under the protection of the American flag, and from that time was the nation's guest. The President, in his last annual message, referred to the subject anew, spoke complacently of what had been done, and commended the subject of further demonstrations in behalf of this victim flying from oppression, to the consideration of Congress. In both Houses, Congress acted promptly upon the subject. A joint resolution was passed, extending to him a "welcome,"--a sincere one, as was believed,-and this resolution was signed by the President, and officially communicated to Governor Kossuth. He accepted our salutation, and, as in duty bound, has come here to make fitting acknowledgments. And here we all know he is. He waits only to have the etiquette of his introduction arranged. The President has received him. The Senate has fixed upon the day for a formal reception. But the House demurs. While he stands at our door, we compel him to overhear a wrangle within the House, whether he shall be received in pursuance of the invitation given, or driven rudely away.

And why this revocation of our "welcome," and this breach of decorum? So far as I have heard, for no reason except that he is understood to entertain some notions in regard to a breach of the law of nature and of nature's God" respecting the intervention of one nation in the

It has been well said, by one of the most gifted orators of this country, "that, although the whirlwind has its power, and the lightning its 'power, and the earthquake its power, yet public 'opinion is stronger and mightier than them all.” And it is to a very great extent the public opinion of this country in behalf of free institutions and pop-affairs of another to put down its liberties. He ular rights, which is now operating, and shaping, and moulding public opinion abroad. That the uprising will come which is now predicted, I verily believe; and that Italy and Germany, Poland and Hungary, and even Ireland, will yet successfully maintain their independence, I fervently hope-for, although the head of Emmet has rolled from the block; although O'Brien, and Mitchell, and O'Meagher, have been doomed to transportation, yet the spirit of liberty is still there, and as long as there remains a heart to throb, or a hand to strike, there is hope for their deliverance.

The spirit of liberty has been well compared to volcanic fires, which cannot be quenched, and which, though mountains may press it down, and oceans overwhelm it, will sooner or later burst forth and flame up to heaven. I trust the time

says that when a people has broken loose from the oppressor, a third party ought not to come in and bind the chains anew. But in the first place, is this sentiment so flagitious that we cannot bear to hear it? and, in the second place, where has it been uttered? He has advanced it only in circles of his friends where he has been invited to speak. He has, as yet, made no request of the Government of the United States to act upon this principle. When he makes such a request of us, it will be time enough to refuse him. Nay, I go further, and say, if we fear that he will make such a request of the responsible head of this Government, and we are unwilling to trust that head to answer it, let us instruct the Committee on Foreign Relations to bring in a resolution defining or denying the duty of this Government to interpose against