the tyrant and in behalf of the tyrannized. That is the only legitimate method of treating the case. All else seems premature, irrelevant and insulting. Nothing can be more grateful to his enemies and the enemies of liberty in Europe, than to see him rebuffed by the American House of Representatives. After having first invited this distinguished exile to come to us from abroad, and then welcomed him when he landed upon our shores, I hold that it would be disreputable to ourselves, and wounding to the spirit of freedom everywhere, now to refuse to take him by the hand and give him free access to our House. I trust the coun

try will analyze the votes, and place the responsibility of the opposition where it belongs.

The question was then taken upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULLER] to the amendment; and it was rejected.

Mr. TAYLOR offered the following amendment

to the amendment:

No change is contemplated in our uniform course of policy, in conducting our foreign relations.

Mr. POLK. I rise to a question of order. I wish to know, having no special knowledge of the operation of the rules of this House, whether a principle can be ingrafted upon a simple resolution of courtesy? The resolution of the gentleman from Ohio, if I understand it, was to appoint a committee to wait upon Louis Kossuth, and invite him upon this floor. Can gentlemen offer amendments involving the great principle of intervention or non-intervention, upon the part of this Republic? I want to know the legitimacy of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee cannot argue the point.

Mr. POLK. I will not argue it; I merely suggest a point of order.

privilege, I can bring to your attention the question of the Prometheus, the Thrasher case, and introduce upon this platform the case of the poor Cuban invaders. Where is it to stop? Whenever the chairman of this committee will mark out the boundary, and fix a place to stop, I am willing to obey his mandates. But when he confines himself to this case, and admits propositions directly reflecting upon our foreign intercourse, I must claim the privilege of throwing myself upon the House to be sustained.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must state that, upon reflection and examination of the rules, the decision of the Chair that the appeal is de

batable, was not correct.

Mr. POLK. I take back my five minutes, then. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN read the 136th rule in support of his decision. The Chair decides that the pending amendment is in order, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. POLK] appeals from that decision. The question now is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the committee?

Tellers were demanded upon the question and ordered, and Messrs. BROWN, of Mississippi, and HUNTER were appointed.

The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 88, noes 35.

So the decision of the Chair was sustained. Mr. TAYLOR. I would not consume the time of the committee even for five minutes, if it were not that I hear it constantly asserted upon this floor that the illustrious Hungarian exile, now within the city of Washington, is "the guest of the nation." He has been received formally by the President of the United States, courteously, hospitably, frankly, and in a manner becoming this great nation and the Chief Magistrate of our country. He is still remaining with us, receiving the attentions and polite hospitalities of the people of this city, and of many of our most distinguished citizens. But, sir, I dissent from some gentlemen upon this floor, who insist that Louis Kossuth is the guest of our nation. 99 How is he the guest of the nation? What steps have we taken to bring him to this country, and how does he come here? Are all who emigrate to our country the guests of the nation? The messages of the President of the United States made to Congress at the present session, which I have before me, present a list of papers embracing a corre

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PoLK] makes a point of order upon the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TAYLOR] to the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. CHURCHWELL.] The original resolution offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] is one proposing to appoint a committee to introduce Louis Kossuth into the House of Representatives. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TAYLOR] proposes to declare what we intend by that invitation. It is considered by the Chair, that the amendment is in order, as it is a further declaration or explanation of what the House intends to do or not to do, and the Chair believes it to be per-spondence between the Secretary of State of the tinent, and therefore in order.

Mr. POLK. I wished to submit my case, so that I might make an appeal.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman appeal from the decision of the Chair?

Mr. POLK. I do appeal.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I desire to ask a single question-if after you send a matter to a committee, the only way in which you can attach anything to it is not by instructions to that committee? Mr. POLK. Is the appeal debatable? The CHAIRMAN. The appeal is debatable within the five-minute rule.

United States and our Foreign Minister at Constantinople, a letter from Kossuth himself, and one from Mr. Brown, our dragoman at Constantinople, the whole tenor of which goes to show that these Hungarians desired to emigrate to the United States. That after the Sublime Porte received four thousand Hungarian exiles in his Empire, and defied the power of Russia and Austria to take them out of it by force, that he saved their lives by his power, and maintained them by his hospitality and liberality. The people of the United States had their feelings of sympathy aroused in their behalf. And the correspondence between the Government of the United States, our Minister at Constantinople, and the Turkish authorities, shows, that while the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was willing to pay their exthem, or some of the chief personages amongst penses to get them out of his country, and send them, to England, they had not the means wherewith to come to the United States of America, as they desired to come. What did we do, sir, under this state of things, having had their wishes officially announced to us? The Congress of the United States, on the 3d of March, 1851, passed a

Mr. POLK. I do not desire to occupy five minutes; but wish to call the attention of the House to this question: If members are permitted upon this floor to offer amendments and discuss them for five minutes, when are we to terminate? It will be interminable. Then, sir, if the decision of the Chair is sustained, I can offer an amendment to make temperance-as my friend from Illinois, [Mr. RICHARSDON,] a few days ago, did-to make temperance the ruling order and control of this House. [Laughter.] I can go further: I can introduce an amendment declaring that this Government will not longer entertain dip-joint resolution, which I have before me, and lomatic intercourse with the Emperor of Austria. I can go further: I can declare upon an amendment to this resolution, that we will cease diplomatic intercourse with every Government upon the continent of Europe. Is that legitimate? Sir, can I go to that extent? Can I declare upon this resolution that we will maintain relations of friendship and amity and of commercial intercourse with Great Britain? No, sir; you will say. But if I cannot do so, can you decide that the declaration of intervention in the affairs of Europe can be considered here under the head of a proposition merely inviting a distinguished foreigner to take a position upon this floor. Why, sir, if you give me such a liberty, if you give me such a

which, it appears, gentlemen of this House forget or greatly misunderstand. In order that the country may understand it, and that I may stand justified before my constituency, I will read the

resolution:

"Whereas the people of the United States sincerely sympathize with the Hungarian exiles, Kossuth and his associates, and fully appreciate the magnanimous conduct of the Turkish Government in receiving and treating these noble exiles with kindness and hospitality; and whereas it is the wish of these exiles to emigrate to the United States, and the will of the Sultan to permit them to leave his dominions: Therefore,

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and hereby is, requested to authorize the employment of some one of the

public vessels which may be now cruising in the Mediter ranean to receive and convey to the United States the said Louis Kossuth and his associates in captivity."

We gave them a passage in one of our foreign vessels as exiles-as men desiring to emigrate to this country for a secure asylum and a home." And that secure asylum and protection they would receive; the whole power of the Government against the nations of the Old World would be exerted to secure it to them, now that they are amongst us, if they choose to remain with us and become adopted citizens of this country. Now, I say we have not made Louis Kossuth, by this proceeding, "the guest of the nation." We have welcomed him and his associates. We have welcomed him, formally, to the capital and to the country. I ask, does that imply that we should go further, and place him upon the footing of Lafayette?-the immortal Lafayette, who struggled and fought for us during fortune, the risk of his life and sacred honor, to our seven years' revolution, and aided us by his secure our own independence? I say that he cannot be placed upon the same footing, and does not deserve to be received in the same way. Yet I would extend to him every sympathy and kindness suitable to his late eminent position in Hungary and his present situation, and do all that is becoming in me to do towards him and his associ

ates, as a citizen of the United States of America.

I now wish to allude one moment to the course of my colleague from the Ashtabula district, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] who, during the debate in the last session of the committee, read at the Clerk's table certain resolutions which he alleged had been voted for by myself.

[Mr. GIDDINGS,] to show what he considered my In the debate on Wednesday last, my colleague, resolution of a direct character, interfering and inconsistency, charged me with voting for a certain European nation in the cause of freedom; and proclaiming our sympathies with a foreign and caused certain resolutions of Mr. Cummins, offered in this House on the 22d March, 1848, relating Italy, to be read by the Clerk. They were read to the state of affairs then existing in France and

as follows:

"Resolved, That it becomes the people of the United States to rejoice that the sentiment of self-government is commending itself to the favorable consideration and adop tion of the intelligent and thinking men of all intelligent nations.

"Resolved, That the only legitimate source of political power is the will of the people, and the only rightful end of its exercise their good.

"Resolved, That we sincerely hope that downtrodden humanity may succeed in breaking down all forms of tyrarsny and oppression, and in the establishment of free and national governments for the good of the governed, and not for the aggrandizement of those who govern.

"Resolved, That we tender our warmest sympathies to the e people of France and Italy in their present struggle for re form, and sincerely hope they may succeed in establishing free and constitutional governments, emanating from and based upon the will of the governed, suited to their want and condition, and such as will secure to them liberty and safety.

"Resolved, That we tender our sympathy and hopes of success to every people who are seeking to establish for themselves free and national governments, and that whatever of blood and treasure may be shed or spent in a struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor, is to be charged to the unjust resistance of the oppressor, who strives to hold and exercise the rights of the people, usurped against their will, and exercised for the benefit of the few and the oppression of the many, and not to the people, who seek only to regain and exercise their natural rights in such manner as will best secure and promote their own happiness and safety."

I was charged with voting for them, and with inconsistency; and the gentleman refused to say who offered the resolutions, or give me any information about them. He did not even say who offered them. But how does it appear by the record? See the Congressional Globe, page 521, vol. 18. These resolutions were objected to, at the time they were offered, and they were not received. No direct vote was afterwards taken upon them. Nor did I vote for them. The Congressional Globe was before the gentleman, and he saw and well knew that I had not voted for or against those resolutions, because no vote was taken upon them, except to suspend the rules to introduce them. I therefore must believe that it was the design of the gentleman to misrepresent me-knowingly, willfully, and maliciously-by a false allegation.

[Here the hammer fell, the five minutes having expired.]

Mr. TAYLOR intended to continue his remarks, by observing:

"To show this, it is only necessary to look at the

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

report of the proceedings of Wednesday last, in the Globe of this morning. The gentleman is there represented as having read by the Clerk the following resolutions: (See Congressional Globe of 1847-8, vol. 18, page 592:)

Resolved, That in the name and behalf of the American people, the congratulations of Congress are hereby tendered the people of France, upon the success of their recent cforts to consolidate the principles of liberty in a republiean form of government.

And be it further resolved, That the President of the Crated States be, and he is hereby, requested to transmit this resolution to the American Minister at Paris, with instructions to present it to the French Govement."

Now, sir, my colleague [Mr. GIDDINGS] did not cause these last resolutions to be read at all. But to show what he called my inconsistency, he had the resolutions of Mr. Cummins read, and not those adopted by the Senate, and sent us for concurrence, in relation to the then recently-established Republic of France.

Those resolutions of the Senate passed this body on the 10th of April, 1848, by a vote of 174 yeas to 2 nays. I voted in the affirmative for the Senate's resolutions. Nor do I act inconsistently, by opposing the resolution offered by my colleague, Mr. CARTTER.] I regret that my colleague [Mr. GIDDINGS] should find it necessary to say, in reference to myself

"Has my colleague forgotten? Sir, it becomes politicians to have memories. If for nothing else, they should know what to do,"

Sir, I would say to him, that it is equally necessary for politicians to have honesty, and to speak the truth. And now, Mr. Chairman, let me ask you, and honorable gentlemen on this floor, with what grace or propriety he dares thus indirectly to censure me, by charging me, in this House, with voting for resolutions when I did not vote for them, and holding me up to the House and to the Country as acting inconsistently.]

Mr. BOWNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise here, sir, as a friend of Kossuth and of Hungary, and as one who has voted with the majority throughout this contest, to ask of that majority a simple act of justice. We find that the minority in this House will not rest satisfied with the resolution now under consideration as it now stands, inasmuch as it seems to them to contain something under the rose. Sir, it has been said that any appends to this resolution would seem to imply a discourtesy to Louis Kossuth. Permit me to suggest that we have high authority for differing from this proposition. We find that the President of the United States, in the very act of welcoming Louis Kossuth in person to these shores, tock occasion to say clearly and distinctly, and withal most courteously and properly, that this Government could not indorse the doctrines of its distinguished guest, as regards the propriety of an intervention on our part between the Powers of Europe. Under such circumstances we find the minority here unwilling to vote for a resolution which seems to cover a cloven foot. Now, as a friend to this measure, I call upon the majority, and especially upon my friend from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] who offered this resolution, to come forward and explain to this committee whether or not there is anything behind the proposition now under consideration which does not appear upon its face. I consider that this is due to the minority, and that if the majority do not do it they are responsible for giving what is here been called an insult to Kossuth.

It has been said that by protracting this debate, we insult him. Who are responsible for this, I desire to know? a majority, a majority who can afford to be generous, for they represent a generous principle, or a minority struggling to avoid being misrepresented a minority, permit mego add, in my belief, quite as honestly devoted to Kossuth and his cause as the majority here present? And now, sir, I ask again, if the gentlemen with whom I have been voting here do not desire to do wrongif they do not wish to involve Louis Kossuth in difficulty with the people of this country, how can they object to coming out and satisfying the minority on this head? I admire the man Kossuth

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1852.

and his cause; and I am willing to congratulate him and to ask him here, where he may learn and know what are true republican views. And therefore I trust that this captious argument may be no longer continued-that it may come to an end-and that the majority, with whom I am identified, will show a disposition to abandon their captiousness, and show that, in their desire to compliment the living imbodimeut of a just principle, they have no selfishness, but are willing to throw open their doors to all who may wish to join them. And, sir, furthermore, I will say that unless this majority will consent to this measure which I now proprose, I, for one, distrusting their ungenerousness, will be constrained to refuse again to accord to them my humble vote. And, in doing this, I trust and believe that my motives, as a true friend of Hungary, of Kossuth, and of liberty the world over, will be fully appreciated here, as I know they will be by those whom I represent here, whose undying devotion to the cause of human freedom is above fear and above reproach.

The question being taken upon the amendment of Mr. TAYLOR to the amendment of Mr. CHURCHWELL, it was rejected.

Mr. MOLONY offered an amendment to the amendment, which was read by the Clerk, as follows:

Resolved, That the passage of the original resolution shall be understood as expressive of the indignation of this House in behalf of the American people at the despotic intervention of the Czar of Russia, and crushing by his armed legions the republican and triumphant spirit of Hungary.

Mr. MOLONY said: Mr. Chairman, I owe an apology to the friends of Kossuth upon this floor for offering this amendment at this time. I should not have done it, was I retaining a particle of that strong assurance which, at the commencement of this debate, I entertained, viz: that a proper regard for the dignity of this body, for the proprieties of courtesy due to our illustrious guest, for the manifest will of the American people, which it is our sole province to reflect in our action upon this resolution, and at all times, would insure a favorable and harmonious action upon it. I repeat, I had hoped that these considerations, each and all of them, would secure for this original resolution an emphatic, cordial, and universal adoption. But, sir, that hope has died within me. I perceive, sir, that a factious minority, and in numbers almost contemptible, has for the last three days and part of one night, held, in Committee of the Whole, at bey, by parliamentary tactics, an overwhelming majority of this body-gagged them, sir, and through us gagged the sentiments of the American people in regard to our illustrious stranger-an act alike disgraceful to this body as it is insulting to the nation and its honored guest. I repeat it, sir, that this House, by its unwarrantable, factious opposition to the passage of the original resolution, has disgraced itself in the eyes of the civilized world. Governor Kossuth, sir, is here the guest of the nation; such he is by an invitation extended to him by the proper national authorities, while an exile and a guest of the Sultan of Turkey; such he is by the orders given by the Executive of the nation, that a national salute should announce his arrival in New York; such he is by an invitation of the President and Congress, since his arrival on our shores, to visit the nation's capital; and yet, sir, after all this, the unfortunate yet glorious exile no sooner arrives here than this House is seen perpetrating an act, in them most ungraceful, and insulting to the feelings of their guest, in debating for three days and a part of one night a simple resolution for introducing him to the floor of this House. I have, sir, no responsibility in this matter; I mean to have none. And, sir, for the purpose of putting myself right upon the original resolution before the House, my constituency, and country, I rise, and to throw it upon those who must answer for it to themselves, and should to their constituency and the country. For the original resolution I go hand, head, and heart; and in saying this, I say not that I speak for myself alone, as has been repeatedly announced on the other side of the House, but I speak it as the rep

NEW SERIES....No. 13.

resentative of a constituency of two hundred thousand. Yes, sir; and I would have it understood by the despots of Europe and their sympathizers in America, that my constituency feel strongly the sentiments imbodied in my amendment, and when the proper time and occasion shall arrive, I, as their representative, am prepared to declare by vote that the armed intervention of despotic Russia, in the domestic concerns of Hungary, crushing by its armed legions the republican and triumphant forces of that people, was an outrage upon the sympathies of the Christian world, and alike a violation of international and divine law.

Mr. Chairman, I have accomplished my object in offering my amendment-that was, an opportunity to put myself right upon the original resolution; and, as I have always voted not to embarrass the original simple question with any amendments, I shall defer my approbation of my own amendment for a more fitting time and occasion, and accordingly now vote against its adoption.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. CULLOM. I had not intended, Mr. Chairman, to have participated in this discussion. It was my purpose to vote silently, as I have done from the origin of this question; but since gentlemen arrogate to themselves the prerogative upon this floor of denouncing me and those with whom I act upon these questions as factionists, I have the right as an American citizen-the double right, as a member upon this floor, of acting upon these questions, as upon all others, under all the obligations and sanctions which this high trust imposes. I would be false to myself and unloyal to my constituency, if I did not, as I here do, hurl it back upon its authors as a falsehood. [Applause, and cries of "Good!" "Good!" and

That's right!"] What have I done as a Representative here for which I am to be thus censured? Have I not demeaned myself in every phase this question has assumed in strict conformity with the rules prescribed by this body for its government? Might I not with far greater propriety charge that the dominant majority upon this question have madly overriden the stubborn rules of the House in order to precipitate this question? and in their holy zeal to do honor to Mr. Kossuth, would crush and thus denounce those whom they choose to call factionists, but who, I assert, are the real American law-and-order party of this House. [Great applause. "Order!" "Order!"] While I am disposed to treat members with all the courtesy due their station as representatives of American freemen, I am here to exact that same observance; and whilst gentlemen are talking for Buncombe and the mobs at the Five Points, they must learn that these indignities are highly unbecoming. Mr. Chairman, I have fully, in my opinion, discharged the obligations of courtesy in relation to the distinguished Individual who is the subject-matter of this discussion. Our Government had invited him to our free country as a refugee from European oppression, and in that same spirit I voted the invitation to visit the capital of this mighty nation. There I choose to stop and hand the distinguished gentleman over to the hospitality of the American people generally, and to the people of Washington in particular; feeling that my legislative functions have ceased; but every amendment limiting our action to mere courtesy (and nothing more, we are assured, is intended) has been voted down, and a new and dangerous doctrine has been shadowed forth through the speeches of gentlemen, from which, as an American, I shrink. My American pride has forced me to take my stand, and it shall be my last intrenchment, by my own country and her time-honored usages. Mr. Chairman, ours is justly called a model republican Government, whilst its enemies tauntingly point to it as a mere experiment; and so it will prove, if your quacks are permitted to practice their experiments upon it. Yes, sir, gentlemen eloquently point to it as a beacon light to which the world have turned their eyes in their struggles against the despotisms of the Old World. How important that this great light should be always steady

and stable; but in the hands of the progressive gentlemen, it would be a mere jack o'lantern, leading the nations of the earth to quagmires and marshes. I am not prepared to commit this country, by my vote, to the new-made and dangerous policy of espousing the quarrels and wars of other and foreign Governments. I am for maintaining our own national honor and rights, at any and all times, let the consequences be what they may. But I adhere to the sacred saying, which has with us become an axiom, "Friendship with all, but entangling alliances with none." I am here, sir, to do homage to no man living. I am no man-worshipper. If I were, the patriots of my own country are entitled to my first adoration. But, in the language of one, upon a very solemn occasion, "I bow the knee to no power, save God Almighty." I lick the dust from no man's feet, I care not what the trappings of royalty or circumstance may be. I am an American. I am a Tennesseean. And those honorable gentlemen who have been so excessive in their eulogies of the great Magyar-and great I admit him to be-will have the same regrets, I fear, that the same people did, who were foremost in their adulations of Mr. Dickens. Yes, Mr. Chairman, he will write a book, and, I fear, these eulogistic gentlemen will occupy the same page that Dickens's admirers did in his book. But for the conservative position which we, who are denounced madly as factionists, occupy, our nation would be precipitated from its ancient moorings. [Here the hammer fell.]

The question was then taken on Mr. MOLONY'S amendment, and it was rejected.

Mr. MEADE offered an amendment to the amendment, (a copy of which was not obtained.) Mr. M. I am one of those who draw a distinction, and a very material distinction, between the honor it is proposed to do Louis Kossuth by the original resolution, and the ultimate design of some, if there be any such in this House, to involve this country in difficulties with European Powers. I am opposed to the latter, and in favor of the former. I believe the questions to be entirely distinct. Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to say to my brethren of the South, that it seems to me they have manifested upon this occasion an undue sensitiveness in reference to this proposition. Do they intend to imply by opposition to this resolution, that the march of free principles in Europe is a march upon the South? If they do, I must beg leave to part from them. I stand here amongst the foremost, whenever republican liberty is the question, to give my aid in every legitimate form for its progress. I do not believe the establishment of freedom anywhere can operate to the prejudice of the South or Southern institutions, and any undue sensitiveness upon that subject is calculated to do us injury-serious injury with the lovers of freedom throughout the world, because we teach them by that means to draw a distinction between the republicanism of the South and republicanism elsewhere. I admit no such thing. I assert that the triumph of democratic constitutional liberty does not, and cannot interfere with the Southern institutions. I will not admit there is a paradox presented by our institutions and the constitutional liberty we enjoy. They are altogether compatible, and I shall always be found among the foremost in advocating whatever may legitimately tend to the establishment of freedom in other parts of the world, but not to the extent of involving my country in intervention with European politics. I am opposed to a policy of that sort; but when the simple question is,, Shall we do such honor to the representative of free principles in Europe as will give aid and comfort to those noble hearts who are now beating high with aspirations for freedom, shall I withhold it? No, sir; I will not withhold it through the vain fear that it may recoil upon our institutions. Our institutions are based upon a firmer principle-a firmer foundation; and the march of liberty elsewhere is not in conflict with our interests. We, at the South, know there would be as much wisdom in a man emancipating his infant children before they have arrived at the years of discretion, as there would be in emancipating the black race. The difference between the two is, that the children of the white man will arrive to a period when they become freemen, and can provide for themselves; the negro never can. A distinction drawn by the hand of the Almighty between the black and the white race, has placed the negro

in his present position, and there he must remain, receiving protection from the white man, and rendering him service for it. The white man must be served by them as the little boy of ten years must serve his father, who protects him. A negro is always a child. Unless we can stand upon a principle which is immutable in relation to our institutions, and also compatible with the great truths of republican government, we shall be condemned; and we are pronouncing our own condemnation if we refuse our sympathies to the oppressed of other countries. Let us avoid, sir, even the appearance of it.

Mr. BOCOCK. This debate has been long protracted, and I have not made an attempt before this in the last two days, to participate in it. Nor should I have done so now, but for the fact that the speech which has been just made by my colleague [Mr. MEADE] places me, and those who have acted with me, in a false position before this House, the country, and our constituents. He has assumed in the remarks which he has just made, that we have been guided solely by a sensitiveness upon the subject of slavery in our course here.

Mr. MEADE. If in the hurry of my remarks I made any such statement, I did not intend it. I only inferred the thing from the resolution offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. STANLY,] and from the fact that the vote here had partaken in a measure of a sectional charac

make against us applies to them. They have trampled on the rules; we have not. They have resorted to unusual and unprecedented modes of action; we have not. We have endeavored to deprive such efforts of a successful result, and thus to maintain the rules and protect our own rights. But for doing so, we are not to be misunderstood as having no sympathy with Kossuth and his cause, nor as improperly bringing the institution of slavery into the arena. We have not done anything to give good grounds for either charge.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I desire to know if it will be in order to move that the committee rise and report the resolution and amendments to the House, and to recommend their reference to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] the other day, carried to the House, from the committee, a bill similarly situated.

Mr. STEPHENS. With the permission of the gentleman, that would not be in order, as it would cut off debate on the amendments. Suppose the resolution should go to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, they have to report everything to the House. I make this suggestion to the gentleman: Let us adjourn over till Monday. It will be then in order to move to suspend the rules to introduce this resolution. If two thirds vote for it, our opposition ceases. If two thirds do not vote for it, is it right that less than two thirds of the House shall pay a compliment to any foreigner, in derogation of the rights of one third of our number? Mr. BOCOCK. If the gentleman has not in- Now, if gentlemen do not want to be factious, tended it, I take this occasion to say for my-give it a fair test; meet on Monday next, when it self to this House, and this country, that it is not is in order to move a suspension of the rules, and the consideration which has chiefly operated upon if two thirds vote for it, let it be done. me, or any of us on this side, so far as I know. Mr. MÉADE. I am glad to hear it.

ter.

Mr. BOCOCK. The vote has in fact been very far from a sectional one. Gentlemen from Indiana, Ohio, and New York have been prominent on our side.

I ask upon what principle is it expected that this resolution is to be adopted? Is it as a personal compliment to, Louis Kossuth? Nobody claims that. Is it because he is the representative of a great principle, that we are to honor him in this House? Now, I ask of what principle is he the .representative? He comes to declare before this country what principle he represents; and he is the organ of his own opinions, sentiments, and wishes. He has proclaimed trumpet-tongued, "I do not ask your empty compliments; I do not ask your empty sympathy." He says the sympathy he wants is operative sympathy. He wishes us to take European affairs under our management, and if necessary to fight for Hungary. When a resolution like this was sent him from the other end of the Capitol, what did he say? He was told it was a compliment. He said no; I know better than you do. There is a meaning, a political meaning in it. He was deceived. Well, it is not Louis Kossuth that we are only deceiving. In deceiving him, are we not, as was said by my colleague, [Mr. BAYLY,] deceiving his countrymen at home, and deluding the poor Hungarians? In aid of his sentiments, we see men in the northern States leaping forward as if in eager competition, to be the first to join in this current. When we see the thing taking through the country, and the public mind becoming inflamed, and when we see gentlemen upon this floor rising and uttering such sentiments as we have heard in this debate from several speakers, and when we see a majority here breaking down the rules to carry out their purpose in this respect,-I ask, is it not time for reflecting, serious, and sober-minded men to pause in their course, ere they upturn the long established policy of the country? We have told him that he was welcome to the capital of the country. We have rendered all that the country, all that magnanimity and liberality required. This I willingly consented to. No man feels more sympathy with the cause of freedom throughout the world, or with the men who dedicate themselves to it, than I do. But our first duty is to ourselves.

I am willing to pay compliments and extend courtesies to the worthy and deserving, if harmless. But when we see that serious consequences are likely to follow from our action, is it not time, I ask, to pause and reflect? And when gentlemen come here, and tell me that with the minority I have resorted to revolutionary measures, and to a factious course, I tell them that the charge they

Mr. RICHARDSON. This question of rules is a matter about which gentlemen upon this floor may well differ. I have my own opinions, and they are as firm and fixed as those of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS.] I entertain them as the representative of the American people, and I abide by them as firmly as he does. We differ very often about them. I make the motion that the committee rise, report the resolution with the amendments to the House, with a recommendation that they be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. STANLY, I ask the Chair, if the com||mittee rise and report this resolution and amendment to the House, and then the previous question be moved, and another gag is forced upon us, where we will be?

Mr. VENABLE. I understand that previous question.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I will ask the Chair, if we are not at liberty to have such a recommendation offered by gentlemen, if it is not in the shape of an amendment?

The CHAIRMAN. Debate is out of order. Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. Is debate not in order?

The CHAIRMAN. All debate is terminated by the latter branch of the 136th rule. This rule provides, "that the House may, at any time, by a vote of a majority of the members present, suspend the rules and orders for the purpose of going into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union; and also for providing for the discharge of the Committee of the Whole 'House, and the Committee of the Whole House 'on the state of the Union, from the further consideration of any bill referred to it, after acting without debate on all amendments pending, and that may be offered." This rule provides, that the House itself may discharge the Committee of the Whole upon the state of the Union from the consideration of any proposition committed to it without debate, after voting upon all amendments which have been offered or may be offered. The committee, by this vote and decision, have determined that the debate upon this resolution should terminate. Then, in the opinion of the Chair, it cannot be reported to the House until all the amendments pending, and which may be offered, shall be voted upon. The Chair overrules the motion of the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. RICHARDSON.]

Mr. RICHARDSON. From that decision I appeal, and demand tellers.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House? Upon that question tellers are called for.

Mr. RICHARDSÓN. I desire to ask a single

question of the Chair: If it is in his remembrance, that a measure was carried out in committee the other day upon the motion of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] with precisely the same recommendation?

The CHAIRMAN. There were no amendments if my recollection serves me. The Chair has not a very distinct recollection of the circumstances attending that resolution, and would thank gentlemen to inform him, whether or not debate had been terminated.

Mr. DUNHAM. There was then no objection to such proceeding. It was by general consent. Mr. STEPHENS. Debate had not yet terminThe CHAIRMAN. It is in the recollection of the Chair, that the debate had not been terminated.

sted.

A motion was made that the committee rise and report the resolution, with a recommendation to the House to discharge the committee from its further consideration.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think the Chair is mistaken.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the impression further, that the proposition that the committee rise was agreed to by unanimous consent. Mr. RICHARDSON. So much the stronger for my position.

The CHAIRMAN. There was no objection to it. There was also a suspension of all rules, and this resolution could be introduced into the House in the same way by unanimous consent. Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I beg to correet the Chair, and state the facts. I recollect them perfectly. My motion was first made, as a suggestion to the committee. No member persisted in taking a vote upon the pending amendment, and the committee permitted the question to be detaded by tellers. It was carried by one vote, and you will see, by referring to the Globe, that no member made objection. If any objection had been made, I should have withdrawn my motion. Mr. RICHARDSON. If there was no objection, it but makes the precedent the stronger. If passion leads to it

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not in order.

he obtained it, was ruled out of order, and consequently passed from before the committee. The floor has been assigned to the gentleman from

Tennessee.

Mr. SAVAGE then offered the following amendment to the amendment:

Resolved, That Congress disapproves the political doctrines of Louis Kossuth, in relation to the foreign policy of the United States, and that it is contrary to the practice of this Government and the spirit of the Constitution to pay mere personal compliments to individuals.

Mr. SAVAGE said: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to have passed through this unpleasant discussion without detaining the House by any remarks upon the subject. But I have felt it my duty to offer the amendment just read. It covers in brief the many reasons which have controlled my action relative to Kossuth.

Far be it from me to entertain sentiments of hostility to the so-called great Hungarian. I wish every man on earth peace, glory, success, and contentment; nor shall I ever travel out of my path to lessen the honor of any man, no matter how unmerited he may wear it. But when a question comes up in the line of my duty, no tempestuous enthusiasm, no considerations of safety to myself, shall drive or deter me from expressing my honest and deliberate convictions.

I cannot approve the political principles of the great Hungarian apostle, and there is nothing left for me to bow to. I have been taught to honor principles, not men; and especially will I fail to seek an occasion to pay an unusual compliment to a man advocating principles the practice of which will destroy the peace and glory of this proud Republic. I desire my acts and opinions to accord with each other.

"Whoever dares think one thing and another tell,
My soul detests him as the gates of hell."

It is right to deal honestly with Kossuth, and I confess I have not the ingenuity of paying a compliment to his person and a curse to his principles by the same act. Besides, I am not sent here for either purpose. I am the Representative of a portion of the people of Tennessee. I have been sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, and am willing to perish in a struggle for Mr. RICHARDSON. I want to correct the that purpose whenever an Almighty Providence Chair as to one thing. There were amendments shall so decree. I have not been sworn to suppending, and the question arose in the House, as port the Constitution of Hungary, or to go upon to whether those amendments came with the ori- a crusade for the world's liberty; and I am unginal proposition or not. It was decided that noth- willing to peril the interests I have sworn to guard ing came with the original resolution. The whole by an interference with the affairs of the European question was presented; and concurred in unani-States. I am an American, and want no new light mously by this House then, and ought to be now, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois Mr. RICHARDSON] appeals from the decision of the Chair, and upon that question tellers are demanded.

Tellers were ordered, and Messrs. CARTTER and CABELL appointed; and the question being taken, the tellers reported-ayes 78, noes 44.

So the decision of the Chair was sustained. The question recurring upon Mr. MEADE'S amendment to the amendment, it was taken and derided in the negative.

So the amendment to the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. TUCK offered the following as an amendment to the amendment, to come in at the end thereof:

And it is hereby declared to be the judgment of this House, that the late intervention of Russia in the affairs of Hangary was a violation of the law of nations.

Mr. T. said: That amendment expresses my sentiments, and I am for speaking them out here, let who may take offence.

Mr. CARTTER. I would inquire of the Chair, whether that amendment is in order?

The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is not in order.

Mr. SAVAGE. I wish to offer an amendment. Mr. TUCK. I have not yielded the floor yet. The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman appeal from the decision of the Chair, declaring his amend

ment out of order?

Mr. TUCK. No, but I wanted to offer another amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment was decided out of order.

Mr. TUCK. But I offered another. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman lost his right to the floor when the question, upon which

to shine upon my pathway in politics. The star of Washington has lost to my vision none of its charms or brilliancy. It rose in glory with our Government, to shine eternal and unchanging upon our political horizon. My feet shall follow but one path, my eyes shall see but one light, although many others may glitter in the heavens."

We all know that all the light above us is not useful or substantial. Although many be the stars that have shone upon man's dark and dreary destiny, yet other lights have oftentimes come upon the heavens-not stars of eternity, or of the age or century, but airy, unsubstantial things-brilliant illusions, meteors of the moment, that have ascended in the dark-we know not when or howwhose only glory is displayed in their fall.

Sir, I am content with the history of my Government. It is a lesson of wisdom. I want no new apostle, new bible, or new faith. I would not alter a syllable of the past if I could. I only hope the future may be like it.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas. I presume it is a matter of very small consequence to the committee what my position is in regard to this matter, and I do not state it because of its consequence, but I ask that a little consideration may be given to the few words which I am about to utter.

I have desired, from the outset of this discussion, to take no part whatever in it, but so to regulate my course as to bring the committee to a direct vote upon this resolution-the importance of which has been so much magnified-in order that we might settle it one way or the other. We began this contest last Monday week, when the resolution was rejected, because it did not receive a two-thirds vote. The same was the case last Monday; and now we have been occupied with the subject all day Tuesday, all day Wednesday, and during the whole of yesterday.

If we are going to grant this privilege as an act

of courtesy-and it is evident from the general expression of the House, that if granted at all, it will be as a courtesy and not as an indorsement-let us do it at once. My position in regard to this matter has certainly not been an extravagant one on either side. I have been voting all along so as to bring us to a direct vote on the original resolution; and whenever we reach that point I shall vote against the reception as proposed in that resolution. That is the position which I occupy. Now let us look at the position of the matter itself. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] has offered a resolution that Kossuth shall be received by a committee; but, as I understand it, no one knows what is to be done when he shall be so received; we do not know but that it might lead to his delivering an address in this body, and thus sanction the implication that he was received here for that purpose, and that we indorsed his sentiments on the subject of intervention. There are, therefore, sound and rational objections to that resolution, as I think, if such a possibility exist. On the other hand, the substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. VENABLE] only proposes that Kossuth shall be admitted to a privileged seat on this floor, as Father Mathew and other distinguished foreigners, among them the compatriots of Kossuth, have been. To that, I believe, no rational man can object. But we cannot get to the vote on either of those propositions. Why? Because there are hundreds of amendments to the original resolution which must be perfected before the substitute can be voted on.

I hope, therefore, that after this long debate, we may be permitted to have a cessation of amendments to the original resolutions, and may come to the substitute itself, to which gentlemen can offer such amendments as they desire. But it seems to me, that it would be much wiser and more rational to have a vote upon the substitute at once. I candidly believe that it would be carried, for appreciating M. Kossuth, as we all do, I believe we should all be disposed to admit him to a privileged

seat.

Gentlemen must bear in mind, that we have debated this question, not only before the American public, but before the whole world; every kind of extravagant consideration connected with the subject, has been brought in. I hope the Buncombe is now exhausted, and that after four days talking, we may be permitted to have a vote.

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

Mr. BRENTON offered the following amendment to the amendment, viz:

Provided, further, That nothing contained in this resolution, or any action which may be had thereon, shall be so construed as to identify any member of this House, against his own will, with any of the principles advocated by Louis Kossuth.

Mr. B. said: My object in offering this amendment is not to relieve myself but other gentlemen from the fears under which they labor, lest their votes should be wrongfully construed by the country. By the adoption of that amendment every gentleman will, at once, be placed in a position where he can exercise his own private judgment, either for or against the principles which have been advocated by Louis Kossuth.

It has fallen upon my ears most strangely when I have heard the arguments which have been advanced and the declarations which have characterized this House since the beginning of this debate, that an act of courtesy, extended to Louis Kossuth personally, involves necessarily the adoption or recognition of the principles which he advocates. If this position be correct, then whenever we condescend to extend the common civilities of life to those who may differ in opinion from us, we adopt the sentiments which those individ-uals may entertain upon any great question whatsoever. There is nothing more erroneous. We practice upon this principle every day in the ordinary business of life. Is it true, because I invite a neighbor to partake of the hospitalities of my house that I necessarily adopt all the abominable notions he may entertain upon any question whatever? Suppose, for instance, the honorable gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. STANLY] should, under the influence of his known hospitality, tender to his distinguished friend from Ohio [Mr. GIDDINGS] the hospitalities of his house: would it be taken for granted that he had adopted the senti

ments of that gentleman, and would the country become alarmed with the fear of his becoming a Free-Soiler? If so, they would come to that conclusion against every principle of common sense. The most that could be made out of it would be this: that the gentleman from North Carolina had, in the kindness of his heart, thrown open his doors, and, while detesting the sins of the party, he loved the sinner. Mr. Chairman, I have sufficient confidence in the intelligence of the people of this country, and especially in that of the people whom I have the honor to represent. I believe they will distinguish between the personal reception of this distinguished individual and the adoption of his principles. If Louis Kossuth had come to this country on his responsibility, by his own funds, as a private individual, I would be ready to do him honor, and the country would be ready to do him honor; for I know we are ready and willing to extend this honor to individuals of high rank from foreign countries, and we are especially willing to pay those honors to the poor and downtrodden who have fled from foreign despotism, when they shall land upon our shores; but we extend this honor to them without adopting their principles.

Mr. MOORE, of Louisiana. I desire to say a few words to set myself right upon this question. I was originally in favor of this resolution, and I am still in favor of it, because it is paying respect to a great principle of liberty which I recognize as republican. But although I am in favor of paying this tribute of respect, I have voted with the minority in this committee, and I cannot consider that a factious minority, as we are acting under the rules and orders of this House, and those rules and orders are the statutes of this country--as much so as any other statutes until they are repealed. As I have stated, I have voted with the minority upon several occasions, because this resolution was introduced here in violation of the rules of the House, and in violation of the decisions of the honorable chairman of this committee, and therefore I say that the minority were not acting factiously. They were acting under the rules and orders of this House, and they have the right so to act. Though I had intended to vote for the resolution, yet I have voted with the minority, because the rules of the House were violated by its introduction. With this explanation, I shall vote for the resolution, though I am opposed to intervention; and in voting for it I wish to be understood that I do not indorse the doctrines of Louis Kossuth. I shall support the same policy-the policy of Washington-in relation to intervention, which has always been supported by this Congress since the foundation of this Government. With this explanation I take my seat.

Mr. GORMAN. I understand that gentlemen are permitted to speak five minutes for and against an amendment, by a rule which was adopted during the last Congress. I ask the Chair if I am right?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Mr. GORMAN. Then the rule provides that one gentleman may be permitted to speak five minutes in favor of the amendment, and another in opposition to it the same length of time. I rise to say, that I hope the Chairman will enforce this rule, and not allow two gentlemen to speak upon one side of the same amendment. I hope the friends of the resolution will not speak at all.

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

Mr. POLK offered the following amendment:
When the Committee on Foreign Affairs shall report, all

who wish will have an opportunity to speak on the subject

of intervention.

The CHAIRMAN.

in order.

That amendment is not

Mr. POLK. Upon what ground does the chairman rule my amendment out of order? The CHAIRMAN. Upon the ground of irrel

evancy.

Mr. POLK. Then I move to strike out in the amendment the word "distinguished;" not that I am not willing to award to Kossuth all the honor to which he is entitled, but I do it for the purpose of enabling me to express my views upon this question. If I understand it correctly, the President of the United States directed our diplomatic agent at Constantinople to invite Kossuth to this country. Three days after, if I understand the

record, Congress passed a resolution inviting him here. Here is a double duty. The President first, and Congress afterwards sanctioning the Executive power. And not only that, but an American vessel is sent to bear him to our shores. He lands here and becomes the nation's guest. He comes to Washington; and what does Congress do? It says, "Mr. Kossuth, your sentiments are such that we cannot receive you in our delegated capacity." No. You pass a resolution three or four days after the beginning of the present Congress in which you invite him to the capital of the country. And now, how does the case stand? Kossuth is here by the invitation of this House, with but sixteen votes in the negative-for I remember the yeas and nays were called-but sixteen were found to vote against giving to the great Magyar a reception worthy of himself and the cause in which his country has fallen. By your own invitation he stands at your portals, and what are you doing? You are consulting whether you will receive him or not. You invite a guest, and then call a family circle to discuss the propriety of receiving him. Kossuth is in the city. He is under the very portals of your Capitol, and here we are debating the question as to whether we will receive him! Gentlemen upon the other side of the House have indulged in epithets, and have even used the word "falsehood" to the majority, because we dare to exercise our rights. Sir, we Idare to proclaim them factionists, and we dare to stand by the consequences. We have done nothing to elicit this charge. I belong to that majority, and I will give my vote for any reception which I may deem proper and just; and that minority must understand that I will not share in any opprobrium or epithets of that character. When they fling stones of that kind they must take care that they do not

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we shall soon come to a vote upon this question; and I know if I do not get the floor now, some one else will, to fill out the five minutes that would be appropriated in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. PoLK.] I do not know that my opinions are of any consequence here or elsewhere, upon this question. And I have no solicitude whatever, sir, as to what conclusion may be drawn from my vote, in favor of this resolution to receive Governor Kossuth-none whatever. I shall not travel out of my way for the purpose of making a declaration to Russia, If you interfere again in the affairs of Hungary there will be no danger from us. If there were no other reason in the world why I would refuse to make such a declaration, it would be that, and that alone, that while it would palsy the arms of patriots struggling for liberty, it would nerve the arm of the tyrant that is now stretched over them. Gentlemen say they are as much the friends of Kossuth and his cause as we are. I shall not question their motives; but let me ask them what the effect of their opposition is? Who are they who first upon this floor talked about incorporating a principle upon that simple resolution? Were they the friends of this resolution? No, sir; but the enemies of it, who, looking far into the future for something to embarrass us, must go out of their way to declare that they will or will not do thus and so. Sir, I had just as leave, and rather, that Russia should infer from our action here that we intended to interfere. I will not say what I would do, but it seems to me he is not a wise statesman who, without knowing anything about the extent of the danger that surrounds the future-who, without knowing anything about what governments we may get into difficulty with, or what embarrassments may result to our commercial relations, or what the extent of our interests involved, yet goes out of the way to try his hand upon a principle of that kind. Sir, I hope the friends of this resolution will cease offering amendments; for if we cease offering them, the five minute speeches will soon be ended. Let the enemies of the resolution talk alone and take the consequences. So far as I am concerned, I am not so much mystified as some others at the result. The country can know just as well, whether this resolution pass or not, who were and who were not in favor of it, and the motives by which they were governed. Governor Kossuth himself is too intelligent not to know, that though this resolution may not pass, that there are two to one in favor, and that it is

A VOICE. Two to one cannot suspend the rules.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, (interrupting.) If the gentleman will allow me

Mr. ROBINSON. I cannot be interrupted in a five-minute speech. The gentleman has had two or three speeches. The gentleman from Georgia bases his opposition upon the rules, and that if we set them aside, we are in a revolution. Does not every gentleman know, who has been here a sufficient length of time, that nothing is more common than that when a majority desires, they override the rules?

[Here the Chairman's hammer fell.]

The question was then taken upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. POLK,] and it was rejected.

Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi, offered the following amendment:

And be it understood, that the House of Representatives declines at this time to express any opinion as to whether this Government will or will not interfere in the wars that may hereafter occur between other nations.

Mr. BROWN. I have offered this amendment in good faith.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of opinion that the amendment is not strictly in order. It does not connect itself with the resolution.

Mr. BROWN. I will change the resolution so that it will read in this manner:

Be it understood, that the House of Representatives declines at this time to express any opinion as to whether this Government will or will not be indifferent to the doctrines of Kossuth.

I offer this amendment in good faith. When, a little more than twelve months ago, I voted to send a national ship to bear this distinguished man to our shores, I did it, sir, that he might come here in the character of an emigrant. I never dreamed-as I am sure no member of the last Congress ever dreamed-that he was coming here as a propagandist of new doctrines. I appeal to every member of this Congress, who was a member of the last House of Representatives, if any member supposed he was coming here upon any such mission? The first we hear of his intentions was in one of his English speeches-Ia think in his Southampton speech-when for the first time he made it known that he was coming to procure the intervention of this Government in the struggles that were going on in the Old World.. I do not desire that our action here, either in inviting this distinguished man to this country, or inviting him to come to take a seat within the bar of this House, shall be construed into any expression of opinion upon the subject of his doctrine of intervention. And why? I can very readily imagine that in the progress of human events a case may arise in which it may become important for this Government to interfere. No such case has, in my judgment, arisen yet. But I would not, by saying that we never would interfere, cut ourselves off from the possibility of doing so if a case should arise. So much has been said upon this subject, not only by that distinguished man himself, but by his friends in Congress and out of it, that the inference may be drawn that we either intend to indorse his doctrines upon the one side, or that we do not upon the other. that, in my judgment, it is imperative upon us to say whether, in our action here, we do intend to express a judgment pro or con. Surely this cannot wound the sentiment of the distinguished Governor of Hungary. But whether it does or does not, we are here the representatives of the American people, not responsible to Kossuth, but to the people of this country-responsible for the exercise of an important trust, and the manner in which we shall exercise it will have an important bearing upon the present and future peace and prosperity of the country. I have done nothing, and I shall do nothing captiously. I am willing to do all proper honors to this distinguished man, but I am not prepared to show him such honors as never have been shown to any living man. If it is the will of his friends to vote him an invitation within the bar of this House, when we have sufficiently discussed the question to show to the American people that we do not intend to indorse his doctrine, then I am willing to withdraw oppo- | sition and invite him in. But you cannot separate this distinguished man from the great principles he