it may, we want no such ministerial officers to meddle with us. When our laws are violated, we are quite able to punish the offenders; and even when unforeseen accidents occur to prevent punishment, as sometimes will happen both here and everywhere else, we do not mean to invoke, and I trust we do not mean to permit, either France or England, or even France and England, to assume to be sheriffs and judges, and to take American citizens from the decks of American vessels, and from the jurisdiction of American tribunals, and punish them at their own discretion. "All our Government contends for," said the London Times, in 1842, on the subject of the right of search, "is the mere right to act as constables in boarding suspicious vessels bearing the American flag. A modest claim, and modestly urged, especially with the admission made by the same powerful but reckless journal, that in the practical enforcement of the claim to search," the searching party, 'being from the nature of the case the strongest, and moreover, ordinarily speaking, persons of 'summary habits, were apt to be somewhat arbitrary in their judgments of who was American and 'who was English; when they doubted they took the 'trick." Memorable words, never to be forgotten by the American people or by their Government! American citizens offending against our laws are responsible to our tribunals, and to no other earthly jurisdiction, except in the case of piracy, which by universal consent is a crime against all civilized nations, and may be punished by either of them. If indeed adventurers from our own country engage in an unlawful expedition against any other, they are of course liable to the consequences of their acts-punishment by the Government injured, when taken in the attempt. But this is far different from the voluntary interposition of other Powers to watch the high seas, under a pretension which cannot be carried into effect, without assuming as its corollary the right to search every vessel, which may make her appearance upon the Gulf of Mexico, or indeed along our coast, wherever these protecting powers may choose to exercise this new jurisdiction. For the claim to prevent vessels of a certain character from approaching Cuba, includes of course the claim to examine all vessels found within the tabood region, in order to ascertain whether they come within the condemned class; whether in fact the trick may not be taken, by virtue of a little well-timed doubt. Or, in other words, this doctrine, if established, would establish the full right of search at all times upon waters of the ocean, whose free navigation is as essential to the United States as is that of the English Channel to England, and would give to two great maritime Powers the control of the Gulf of Mexico and of the mouth of the Mississippi. Lord Palmerston, indeed, assures us that our commerce shall not be interrupted. Cold comfort this! We had rather depend upon our own rights and power, than upon his moderation or that of his country. "Timeo Danaos" is a wise caution in political affairs, when counsel is proffered by those who are not with us, nor of us. We know the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is not easily turned from his purpose. He has stamped his character as a bold statesman, if not a circumspect one, upon the history of the foreign intercourse of his country; and if he has not always scrupulously regarded the rights of other nations, he has kept a steady eye upon the interest of his own. He undertook to convince us a few years since, that because England had formed a treaty with some of the European continental Powers for the suppression of the slave trade, she had, therefore, a right to search our vessels, in order to carry these engagements into effect. And now, because France and England have constituted themselves the guardians of the Spanish Government in Cuba, therefore their cruisers are at liberty to violate the American flag in seas coterminous with our own coasts, and which are navigated by a large portion of our mercantile marine. The former effort failed, and this will fail, as will the others, in whatever fruitful brain they may originate, which are destined to follow.

I must express my gratification, in looking over the papers, at the ground taken by Mr. Critten den in his communications with the French and British Ministers. He has laid down the true doctrine, the doctrine for which we have always contended; and I trust the Administration will firmly adhere to it. They will meet, I am sure,

with the general concurrence of the country. This is precisely one of those questions before which party disputes should be hushed, and which appeal to the hearts of the whole American people. The resolution was adopted.

RECEPTION OF KOSSUTH.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the joint resolution of

welcome to Kossuth.

By both parties, by the oppressors and the oppressed, his advent here, the first breath he drew upon our soil, must be regarded as fraught with probabilities the most momentous; and every patriot of Europe, from the Rhine to the distant mountains of Transylvania, who has traced in our country the mighty results of the first steps of the Pilgrims upon this continent, doubtless puts up his prayer to Heaven that the footsteps of Kossuth may also lead to country, to freedom, and to home.

Mr. HALE. I desire to say a single word of explanation. The honorable Senator from GeorNow, sir, I am prepared to honor this man; I gia, not now in his seat, [Mr. BERRIEN,] who has am prepared to sympathize with him, because he, manifested some interest in the discussion of this in the centre of the despotism of ages and surresolution, has been called from the city by sick-rounded by the mighty moral and physical influness in his family. On a personal appeal made by ences of time-honored monarchies, had the sagacity him to me in view of that fact, I have concluded to direct his attention to our form of government, to pair off with him in regard to this resolution. I and the courage to lead his people by our example. make this explanation as due to him. I shall Principles, sir, are more mighty in the change of therefore decline voting on the resolution. empires than all the armed intervention that ever unfurled a flag. Kossuth struggled for a principle which we venerate-the principle of self-government, as I understand it, and, struggling, failed. But his very failure in such a cause entitles him as fully to our sympathy and respect as any degree of success could possibly have done.

Mr. BADGER. I rise for the purpose of saying, that although, according to the usage of the Senate, I am now entitled to the floor, for the purpose of discussing this question, yet an honorable Senator from Florida [Mr. MALLORY] having intimated to me that he desires to address some remarks to the Senate, and that, on account of the state of his health, he may not be able to remain within the Chamber so as to be able to submit his views to the Senate and the country at a later hour in the day, I have very cheerfully agreed that he should have the opportunity of presenting those views now.

Mr. MALLORY. Mr. President, I design to vote on this resolution, and ask the indulgence of the Senate while I state the reasons which govern the vote that I shall give. As becomes a new member of this body, I have listened carefully to the remarks of honorable Senators opposed to the resolution, with a mind unbiased, and anxious only to ascertain the course which wisdom and the dictates of a sound policy prescribe. This resolution is opposed by honorable Senators, whose negative, apart from any argument, carries with it a moral influence which this country well understands, and which no Senator better appreciates than myself; and in differing from them on this occasion, as it is my misfortune to do, it is no less respectful to them than due to myself, that I should express something more than a mere negative vote.

The objects of both resolutions, as I understand them the resolution of the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] and that of the Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD]-are identical; and the motives which influence the support of one are equally applicable to the other; and I am free to say that I am prepared to vote for either. The object of the resolution is to extend to Kossuth an honor which, however it may be regarded by other Senators, I contemplate as the highest distinction of the age-a distinction, sir, infinitely above all the gorgeous triumphal spectacles which Rome ever conceded to her conquerors in the palmiest days of the Republic-a distinction emanating from a council of sovereigns-a || distinction which derives both grace and gravity from its association with the name of Lafayette. I would ask, Is the man whom it is proposed thus to greet worthy of this rare and remarkable honor? I will not, at this inauspicious moment, stay to question all that his most ardent admirers concede to him. I will not here question his former views, plans, or policy with reference to his country's wrongs. I will not now, by a hypercritical investigation, seek an excuse for withholding from his present position-from his present heavenborn hope for freedom to Hungary-that sympathy, that respect which his former course, personal or political, whatever it may have been, might possibly have precluded.

In voting for this resolution, I do not regard Louis Kossuth as a man whose every word and deed are to be subjected-as they have been here to some extent to an inquisitorial examination; an examination from which frail humanity, whatever form it take, can never emerge unscathed. But, in yielding him this respect, I regard him as the impersonation, the imbodiment of the principles of civil and religious liberty among the milfions of Europe. I regard him as a man followed to our shores by the eyes of the petty tyrants of every quarter of Europe, and as the man who has concentrated upon himself the gaze of the struggling millions of the earth, who are regarding him at this moment as the forlorn hope of freedom.

can

I feel called upon to say, that in supporting this resolution I am not governed by the question whether Kossuth be or be not the guest of the nation, or whether he was or was not invited to our country by the action of Congress. But, though the solution of this question, about which honorable Senators so widely differ, is regarded by me as unimportant, I am free to confess that ĺ perceive, neither in the joint resolution of Congress, nor in any act of any department of our Government, nothing which confers upon him this charater, or justifies his friends in placing him in this attitude. No fair construction of language, in my judgment, can possibly regard the joint resolution of Congress as an invitation to our country. The utmost that was ever contemplated by this Government was to afford him and his companions in arms, prisoners in Turkey, a means of reaching the United States, if they should desire to emigrate here. No, sir; my sympathy is yielded regardless of any such consideration.

I believe that there is no disposition on the part of Senators who have spoken against this resolution to withhold from Kossuth their respect and sympathy. On the contrary, every Senator whom I have heard express an opinion seems to regard him as the Man of the Age. I will not stop to inquire whether adulation of this character be merited or well-founded. But while yielding him this personal tribute, the feeling with those who oppose this resolution seems to be, that if it shall pass it will be a species of intervention, or, at least, that it may lead to intervention and entangling alliances in the affairs of Europe. Now, differing in toto, as I do, from those honorable Senators, I must nevertheless respect the motive which dictates their opposition; and I am free to confess, that if I could regard it in this light-if I could look at it as intervention in the affairs of Europe, or as leading to such intervention, however slight it might be, it would never receive my vote.

But it is impossible to regard this simple resolution as intervention. I have listened to Senators who have spoken upon the other side of the question, to discover some argument on the subject to show that the expression of sympathy is intervention. But I have failed to discover any. Had I been convinced that it was intervention, the resolution should certainly not receive my support. I cannot regard it as even a discourtesy or as calculated justly to offend any power of Europe. Still I have no doubt but offence will be taken in certain quarters, if the resolution shall pass. It will be borne upon the wings of a thousand winds, and every petty tyrant, from the Rhine to the Volga, will be made to understand that the sympathies and prayers of the American people on this broad continent are with the masses; and the masses themselves will feel their hearts swelling with new hopes, their arms strengthened with new vigor; and it is for this very reason that I am prepared to support it.

If we may justly welcome Kossuth to our soilif we could place a national ship at his disposal to bring him here-if we can express our sympa thies in his past sufferings, and our ardent hope for his brilliant future,-if we can do this on our own soil, in our own family circle of States, and under the broad shadow of our flag, what care we

here on this resolution, it is not to be charged to philological criticism, the rule by which we ascerthose of us who oppose its adoption. When the tain the meaning of language, to the question of honorable Senator from New York, [Mr. SEw- the interpretation of language! Why, my honARD,] in discharge of the high duty which he orable friend must have a very singular idea of thought was imposed upon him, thought proper the office and purpose of philology. He seems to introduce this resolution, he accompanied its in- to have made a similar mistake in reference to troduction with a long, elaborate, and soul-stirring that science which was made by a very respectappeal, which was calculated to arouse our feel- able but a rather testy old gentleman of my ings, to excite our passions, and for the moment acquaintance with regard to the science of arithto suspend the calm exercise of our judgments.metic, or numbers, who became extremely offendWhen, after this storm of passion had subsided, ed when waggishly told by a young man sitting we were at length allowed to exercise our own at the breakfast table with him, pointing to a plate judgments, unimpeded by the mystic visions of containing three biscuits, "Mr. R., you cannot grandeur and terror and glory, with which im- tell how many biscuits there are in that plate withpassioned eloquence had surrounded us-when out counting them." "What! sir," says he, “do we were able once more to resume the exercise of you take me for a fool, that I cannot tell that there a calm understanding, and to take, in the language are three biscuits in that plate without counting of my friend from Wisconsin, [Mr. WALKER,] a them?" He rejected the idea that computation dispassionate view of this subject, was it to be ex- and arithmetic were necessary to ascertain numpected that, entertaining different opinions from bers, if the number of particulars were small. I others, we could, in justice to ourselves and what know that my honorable friend did not mean that; we believe to be the true interest of the country, but why did he use that high term? Why did he fail to assign our reasons to the Senate? Were go into this Anglicized Greek word, of which we not called upon, by considerations of high re- many of our constituents at home know nothing, spect for the honorable and distinguished Senator and who would naturally imagine, without an from whom this resolution proceeded, as well as explanation, that those of us who are opposed to for the honorable and distinguished gentlemen who the resolution had brought some new and strange supported this resolution with their eloquence and and barbarous machinery of interpretation to bear their arguments,-were we not bound, independ--brought, perhaps, from some of those Euroent of all other considerations, by due respect for them, to say why we could not go with them when it is always a matter of such deep-felt reluctance to part from them?

Mr. President, I think it is out of place to say that it is a waste of time to subject this resolution to discussion. It is a question which ought to be discussed; its intrinsic merits demand it. The circumstances which surround it in this Chamber and beyond these walls enforce the necessity and the propriety of it; and if we may drop from the high and solemn topics which have been gathered around the reception of Louis Kossuth and his associates in captivity, which have been so brilliantly spread before us-arching the heavens, spangling the firmament, and I know not what other magnificent and startling figures-and look at some of the mundane operations which are immediately before us in the course of our political future soon to be history,-when we consider certain disposals of certain eminent political offices which in a short time are to be made by the American people, we find an additional reason. Why, if we can allow ourselves to subside from the torrent of excited feelings into which we have been plunged, we should present before the American people what we think is the calm and dispassionate and deliberate common-sense view of the subject before the Senate.

I agree with what was said by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER,] who addressed the Senate a few days ago on this subject, that this is a case which requires statement rather than argument; and I would add to his proposition, that it requires argument rather than declamation, and proof of the propriety of adopting this course rather than, I will not say unmeaning (for nothing that is spoken on this floor is ever unmeaning) defiance of foreign Powers, and the large and expansive declarations of American power and prowess, which we have heard, and of our capacity to contend with a world in arms. Let us look at this question as it is presented to us upon its intrinsic merits. What is it? As I have said, gentlemen have admitted (as) is plain, whether admitted or not) that they are to assign some reasons why this resolution should be adopted. The resolution proposes to bid, in the name of the American people, Louis Kossuth welcome to our shores. Several reasons have been assigned why we should adopt this course. I proceed to offer some remarks upon them. It is said, in the first place, that by the joint resolution adopted at the last session of Congress, we have taken the initiatory step which requires us, in point of consistency and honor, to follow it up with what is now proposed. That I deny. I know no method by which we can ascertain what we did at the last session of Congress, and to what, therefore, we may consider ourselves as properly obliged as a consequence of it, than by looking at the language of the resolution. My honorable friend from Michigan [Mr. CASS] said

to

pean despotisms, and totally unknown to our country? Why, we cannot ascertain the meaning of anything which depends upon words, without the application of the rules of philology to it.

But did my friend mean to imply that there was any disposition to what is called hypercriticism; that is, to bring to the construction of this resolution a reluctant disposition to understand its meaning, and a disposition to cavil with it? Why, if he did, as was justly said by the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. BERRIEN,] there is not the shadow of a foundation for the suggestion. Yet I may be permitted to say, that although I would not feel myself justified in applying to an ordinary resolution or act of Congress any particular strictures of interpretation; though I am not disposed to apply it to this, there would be nothing very unreasonable in such a process, when we recollect from whom the joint resolution proceeded. It came from my honorable friend from Mississippi, [Mr. FOOTE,] known to us all for his extreme exactness in the use of language, and, therefore, it may well stand out as an exception from the general legislation of this body, and we have a right to treat it with more closeness of examination, and more severity of criticism than a resolution proceeding from another person. We all know that the honorable Senator has a place in what he writes for every word; and, he will excuse me for saying, that we also know that he has a word for every place. It is impossible for us, according to my judgment, if I understand the English language, as it is used North and South, that there can be any mistake about the understanding of Congress at the time the resolution was adopted. It says:

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 if it be 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,

Be it 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 he hereby is requested to authorize the employment of some one of the public vessels which may now be cruising in the Mediterranean to receive and convey to the United States the said Louis Kossuth and his associates in captivity.

The preamble of that resolution asserts, in the first place, a fact; and then it alleges a contingency; upon which contingency, and upon which alone, the particular direction of the resolution is founded and is to take effect. The fact affirmed is the sympathy of the American people for those exiles, and their estimate of the noble conduct of the Turkish Government in giving them a refuge. The contingency is, whether or not these exiles desire to emigrate to the United States. If they desire to emigrate, the President is requested to authorize the use of one of our ships cruising upon the Mediterranean sea to bring them to the United States. And if they did not mean to emigrate, it was not the intention of Congress that the Presi

presume that, without any particular dexterity in this dark, barbarous Greek-derived science of philology, we have a pretty tolerable understanding in this country of what is meant by an emigrant and emigration. If an English or a French gentleman comes over to this country to visit it; to look at its railroads, its steamboats, its harbors; to contemplate its government and the condition of its people, we do not call him an emigrant. When we speak of emigrant ships we think we have a clear and distinct meaning attached to the term. An emigrant is a man who leaves Europe; who comes to our shores with a view of making our country his home; who comes to settle amidst us and become one of our people; and to enjoy the privileges and protection which our laws give him; and ultimately, in due time, and at no very distant day, to be allowed to participate equally in all the municipal privileges conferred by the Constitution upon the citizen. Then to whom did this resolution apply? It applied to Kossuth and his companions in captivity, desiring to emigrate to this country and to make it their home. It was intended to afford them facilities in a public ship, in order that they might become domiciled here. That is the plain, unmistakable meaning of the law.

Now, besides the meaning of it as apparent from its terms, do we not all know that that is the way in which we understood it? We took it for granted-the outbreak in Hungary having been crushed by the power of the Czar added to that of the Emperor-the country being restored to its original condition of subjection, but stripped of its privileges-that Kossuth, languishing in a Turkish prison, was desirous to come to this country, and enjoy with us a common freedom, partake of the protection of our laws, and do what he could not do in Europe-live a peaceful and happy life, and die a Christian and quiet death. To this state of things it applied, and this was all. It was not a resolution directly for the benefit of Kossuth, the late Governor of Hungary, by way of doing him an honor in the character which he had then lately sustained. It was not a resolution that bears upon its face the slightest allusion to the fact, that, for the time, he had been possessed of and exercised sovereign power in the direction of this contest. It was addressed to Louis Kossuth as an exile in captivity, seeking to escape from the inauspicious condition of European coercion, to place himself, as a resident and a denizen, upon our shores. No man can successfully deny this. There was a reason why Congress should have desired the President to transport Kossuth and his associates in captivity here in a public ship, which has never heretofore occurred in the case of any other person desiring to emigrate. We all know that the Emperor of Austria considered his entertainment in Turkey an offence to him. We all know he demanded that Kossuth should be expelled from Turkey by the authority of the Sultan. We all know that he sought to seize him and bring him within his jurisdiction and authority, to subject him to such punishment as he might deem suitable to the occasion. It was, therefore, for that reason, important that when the Sultan gave permission to Kossuth and his associates to leave his dominions, if they desired to emigrate to the United States, we should put them under the protection of our flag, which would effectually prevent him from being seized by the power of Austria.

This being the state of the case, I desire to know upon what authority gentlemen say, that by that resolution we have invited Kossuth to our shoreshave made him the guest of the nation? Is there a word in that resolution expressive of invitation? Is there a word in it that declares that the people of the United States desire that he should come to our shores as a guest? The difficulty interposed by the word "if" was to be solved before this public ship was to be placed at his disposal, or used for his service, and there is not a word in the resolution which intimates that the United States cared whether or not he decided to come. It announced nothing but this: This man was in captivity; we understood he wanted to come to our country. We knew that in the existing state of things, if he left Turkey without being put aboard an American ship, he might not be permitted to exercise his free wish to come. Therefore we tendered him the opportunity to come

this investigation. Scout the idea of applying

the whole of it. He was no invited guest of the nation, not a whit more an invited guest of the nation than the humblest emigrant that leaves the shores of Europe and finds himself in the port of New York. If the fact of placing that ship at his control, or rather of charging that ship with the duty of bringing Kossuth and his companions to our shores; if the fact that he was brought to our shores in that ship would have constituted him the guest of the nation, he did not come in that capacity. He left that vessel at Gibraltar, and made an excursion to England. He left his associates to come under our flag without him, and he came here afterwards in a private packet How, then, is he to be distinguished in the par. ticular to which I am referring from any otheo emigrant who seeks our shores? He can in no ay be distinguished. Other men who come here are more humble. They may not have achieved the name which he has acquired. They may leave a transient impression in the little circle which surrounds them, and then be forgotten, while his name may remain and be perpetuated by history to succeeding generations; but so far as the claims of an emigrant may extend-so far as a generous desire to give our hospitality to those who come so far as a wish to offer a refuge to the persecuted, the oppressed, the unhappy, extends, Louis Kossuth stands no particle higher than the meanest and humblest down-trodden individual of Europe who ever reached our shores. Indeed, so far as claims to our sympathy are concerned, surely to a generous mind there are particular reasons why this sympathy should be opened and shown forth more towards the lowly and the humble. I say, then, that there being nothing in the original resolution but a simple proposition to bring to this country one who was supposed to be desirous of emigrating here, there is no more reason why we should pass a resolution of welcome towards him than towards those thousands of humble individuals who come here not under a particular resolution, but under general invitation held forth by our Constitution and our laws to the oppressed, the poor, and the humble of every state and clime.

The resolution of the last Congress, then, does not pledge us to this step; but if it did, I ask, how is it possible to resist the conclusion that the amendment offered by my honorable friend from Georgia [Mr. BERRIEN] ought to be attached to the pending resolution and that the honorable Senator from New York, when he drew it, should have inserted in it the name—not the individual names but the general name, descriptive of all those persons who are embraced in the original act of Congress which gave rise to those proceedings. The resolution of the last Congress makes no distinction among them. The President is requested to furnish to them all, as Hungarian exiles in captivity, a passage to this country-"to Kossuth and his associates in captivity." What a strange spectacle, then, do we exhibit, when our friends on the other side of the Chamber resolutely refuse to permit the associates of Kossuth to be incorporated in the resolution of welcome to Kossuth! Is it to be construed as a degradation to Kossuth to be put alongside in this resolution of those his associates? If the association be not offensive-if he was willing to keep company with them, to be prisoner with them, to receive their affectionate ministrations and their affectionate sympathies, my opinion is, that, if he has the soul of a man in his bosom, he will resent the idea of having compliments paid to him alone, did we offer to do it. When, during the war of 1812, and during the

recent war with Mexico, one of our commanders gained a great victory, and Congress expressed the sense of the nation upon the subject, were the thanks of Congress expressed toward the commander-in-chief, and the officers and soldiers who served under him omitted and forgotten? No, sir; the thanks of Congress were always bestowed upon the commander-in-chief, and, through him, to the officers and soldiers who served under him, and by whose aid and assistance the victory had been achieved. Has it not been always so? We may vote medals to the generals; we may sometimes give additional pay to the soldiers; but the thanks of Congress, the expression of the sense of the country in behalf of those who have served faithfully, and added another leaf to the laurels which crown her brow, have always been voted to all, in whatever situation, who have partici

tion, in advance of the President's message being received in this body, the fact that the President would make substantially the recommendation which is to be found in the message. He requested me especially, and in a manner marked with particular earnestness, to introduce, at the earliest possible moment after the commencement of the session, a joint resolution for the purpose of raising a joint committee of the two Houses of Congress, to decide, in accordance with the recommendation of the President contained in his message, upon the most expedient mode of affording a national reception to Governor Kossuth. He went further, as I may now state. I dislike to go into these particulars; but really, the allusion of the honorable gentleman makes it necessary for me to do it. He requested me-having a very

pated in the gallant deed. And yet here are Mr. Kossuth's associates, not, I suppose, servants-men, I suppose, his equal in the sense in which we understand equality. I presume they are men whom he takes by the hand, whom he does not keep at a distance, compelling them to approach him in the attitude of servile dependence. Yet when Congress is asked to bring Kossuth and these very associates here, the first thing after that, and after they are brought, is, that a resolution is offered by the Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD,] to welcome Kossuth, and turn our backs upon his associates. Sir, if any reason in the world can be assigned for the resolution, it follows as a necessary and indispensable corollary from it, that the amendment should be also adopted. I do not understand this thing. It is not consistent with my notions, and what I believe to be Ameri-high respect, as we all have, for that knowledge of can notions, of equality. We have sent a public ship, or we have authorized the using of a public ship, to bring Kossuth and some twenty or thirty other Hungarians, who have all fought for their country, who have shared a common captivity with him. When we propose to include these men in the resolution of welcome, it is opposed as interfering with the preeminent dignity of the chief. Is that the American idea of equality?

I do not understand a very great deal about this contest. Some of my honorable friends here, who are much better acquainted with the case than I am, have regarded it as a sort of attempt to uphold the Magyar-or Maguire, as some of us call it-superiority of race. Even if that is so, I presume these associates of Kossuth are neither Croats nor Sclavonians, but belong to the privileged race, as well as himself. I do dot suppose that Kossuth will feel his dignity insulted if we choose to say to him, We are glad to see you, and are glad also to see the men you have brought with you.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. I would ask my friend from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] if he will vote for the resolution in case the amendment he has so much at heart should_prevail?

Mr. BADGER. The question need not have been asked by the honorable Senator, because I had answered it already. Allow me to assure the Senator that he places me in no difficulty by asking questions of this kind. I have said, and I repeat, I am opposed to the whole resolution, with or without the amendment. Therefore the Senator did not ask the question in order to be informed. For what purpose he did ask it, he is best able to determine.

Sir, other reasons have been assigned in the course of this discussion. It has been said that we were committed to adopt some such precedent as this, because it was of Executive recommendation. I think, sir, some of the House who consider ourselves pretty good Whigs, were rather twitted by some of our friends on the other side, because we were opposing what they said the President recommended. Permit me to remark, it is no Whig doctrine, that a Whig is bound to support, with or without reason, whatever a Whig President may recommend. If that doctrine obtains among our friends on the other side with regard to a Democratic President, it may be necessary they should urge some special excuse for departing from it in any particular case, while such departure might, without such excuse, be considered a ground of censure, and an intimation that they had stepped off the Democratic platform. But we acknowledge no such doctrine, and therefore it would be a sufficient answer to say, that even if it were the President's recommendation, we do not agree in its propriety, and therefore cannot support it. But the fact is, the President of the United States has recommended no such thing?

Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. Will my friend allow me a moment of explanation?

Mr. BADGER. Certainly.

Mr. FOOTE. If I was understood as stating that the President of the United States recommended this resolution, I was certainly grossly misunderstood. I stated the simple facts to be, as I shall explain them on this occasion. I wish it to be understood distinctly, that I said this before, that I should never have moved, or thought of moving in this business, but that I received an unexpected, kind, and very complimentary written application from the Secretary of State of the United States, requesting an interview upon this subject; which interview was immediately held. In the course of that interview he brought to my atten

parliamentary precedents which distinguishes so highly the Secretary of this body-to go to him immediately. I went to his house without delay, at the instance of the Secretary of State, for the purpose of ascertaining how, in some way consistent with Senatorial usage, such a joint resolution could be introduced and passed, if such a thing should turn out to be practicable, without the necessity of previous notice. I learned from the Secretary that the mode of proceeding thus intimated by the Secretary of State, was not practicable. Therefore I did proceed to give notice, as the Senate recollects.

I will state further, in explanation of my conduct, that I should not have mentioned the name of the Secretary of State at all except upon his express authorization. It appears to me that if a joint committee was raised, the Secretary should himself deliver the address to the Governor of Hungary. I spoke to him to that effect; which he promptly declined, from an unwillingness to do anything which might look like compromitting our neutral relations.

If I had known at first that there would have been so much discussion about this delicate subject, as to the responsibility which the Administration have assumed, or intended to assume, I would have been more circumstantial in the first instance. But really I could not anticipate such a course of proceeding. It is true, and the Secretary of State will bear me witness of the fact, that in the course of my interview with him, he went so far into particulars as to refer to the former reception of the Marquis de Lafayette, as affording a proper precedent. So that idea did not originate with this side of the Chamber. He suggested it to me as the proper precedent, and said that in his opinion the best mode would be to bring in Kossuth, without any particular ceremony, to each House, and have him introduced to the President of this body and to the Speaker of the other House, when suitable addresses should be made, in some formal mode, by the presiding officer of each House. That was the idea of the Secretary of State; and concurring with him, I adopted the course which I have pursued.

I wish all to understand, that owing to the delicate character of this affair, I resolved not to enlist in it at all unless I could be authorized by the Secretary of State to say that it was at his instance that I acted, and that he sanctioned the proceeding.

I

hope that in all I have said, no one will understand me as casting censure on any person. I have been very desirous of receiving Kossuth in a manner creditable to the nation, creditable to our national feeling, and in a manner required by the almost unanimous voice of the people. Knowing the feelings of some members of the Administration, I was anxious to give the gentlemen on the other side of the House a fair opportunity of participating in the eclat of the proceedings, and if they have declined it, I think they have made a great mistake, and that it has been one of the most serious political blunders they have ever committed.

Mr. BADGER. I would ask my friend from Mississippi, whether, after having introduced this resolution, at the instance of the Secretary of State, he withdrew it without any conference with that gentleman?

Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I withdrew the resolution certainly, without any conference with him. I withdrew it, because I did think honorable gentlemen had not conferred as they might have done with the powers that be. I did consider that I was rather ungraciously treated by some honorable gentlemen on the other side of the House,

who seemed to misunderstand my position, and not to afford me that liberal support which they ought to have done, when the proposition was brought foward under such auspices. I withdrew the resolution for the additional reason, that I saw very plainly, that if Governor Kossuth was received on the day when it was originally expected he would be received in New York, it was not at all likely, from the opposition experienced here, provided a similar opposition was presented in the other House, that we should be able to act in time to receive this distinguished stranger in the mode contemplated. I stated these reasons at the time I proposed to withdraw the resolution. I did it, as I stated then, without the least feeling of unkindness or disrespect toward any human being in the world; but with feelings of the most profound mortification, that gentlemen had not acted up to what I had supposed would be their course of conduct.

his hasty visit to England, but we had no authoritative expression of his purpose in coming, and what he expected to accomplish, until after he landed in this country.

Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. In justice to the Secretary of State, and to the Administration, I must say that the object of his visit was not spoken of in the interview which I had with Mr. Webster. The reception referred to and recommended by Mr. Webster was based upon our resolution of last session, and he suggested to me the propriety of my moving in the matter, on account of my being, as he knew, the author of the original resolution. I feel bound to say, that if the Secretary of State had supposed that any expectation was entertained by Governor Kossuth that an armed intervention was to take place on the part of the United States in European affairs, I think he would have been one of the last men in the world to have requested me to offer any resolution on the subject. I do not think now that anything of the sort is contemplated in any quarter.

Mr. BADGER. I am obliged to my friend from Mississippi for this explicit statement, which he has made with his usual candor. It seems, then, that so far as the action of the Administration is concerned, the President and the Secretary of State both referred to a supposed emigrant coming among us for the purpose of settling here, and making this country his domicile.

Mr. BADGER. I gave the opportunity to the gentleman from Mississippi with great pleasure to make these statements; because, although he has already spoken several times with reference to this particular point, some misapprehensions have prevailed which this opportunity has enabled him to rectify. But at the time he interposed I was not referring particularly to the introduction of his resolution, under the sanction of the Secretary of State; I was alluding to a remark made by the honorable Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] that this was a measure recommended by the Ex- Mr. FOOTE. If the gentleman understood me ecutive of the United States in his annual message. as saying that the application was made to me to So far as that is concerned, it seems to me that no introduce my resolution this session with a view to two things can be more clearly and distinctly sep-providing for the reception of Kossuth as an emiarate than what is contained on this subject in the grant, he misunderstood me. I stated no such thing. President's message and this resolution. The If the gentleman will refer to the British papers, he President had been desired by Congress to cause will find that Governor Kossuth stated in many these Hungarian patriots to be brought here in a speeches in England, that he was coming to the public ship. He had, in compliance with that re- United States merely as a visitor in behalf of his quest, caused them to be brought in the ship; and country, and not as an emigrant. We ascertained they were daily expected at the time the President's months ago that our original expectations upon this message was written. He could say nothing less subject had not been founded upon actual facts. than he has said. He has simply communicated to Congress the fact that these captives had been brought here according to their request, and he desired them to do what they thought proper under the circumstances. The President does not intimate that he wished one disposition or another to be made of them, or of the subject. Of course he was bound, as President, to inform us in his annual message what he had done in accordance with our desire, and to ask us to make such further disposition of the subject as we thought right.

Again: and now I refer to what my friend from Mississippi has said. It was the desire of the Secretary of State that this resolution should be introduced. As regards his application to the Senator from Mississippi for that purpose, the introduction of the subject and the withdrawal of the resolution, we must keep dates in view in order to give a proper influence to these various transactions. The President's message was prepared and printed, as we all know, before the meeting of Congress. It was in the town in which lived, before I left there for the seat of Government. Before it was sent to either House of Congress it was in the possession of the postmaster, ready to be delivered when he should receive a telegraphic dispatch authorizing him to do so. Everything, therefore, in the President's message, was prepared, written and printed before the arrival of this gentleman in this country. The resolution, offered by my friend from Mississippi,

was,

if I recollect aright, introduced on the very first day of the session. It was withdrawn on the Thursday succeeding, being the fourth day of the session, and Kossuth did not arrive in this country until the day afterwards-until Friday. We must bear in mind that Kossuth had been expected to come to this country as an emigrant. It was in that character that a public ship was employed to bring him here. It was in that character he was expected to arrive. It was with reference to that character that the President's message referred to him. It was with reference to the same thing the resolution was proposed to be introduced by the Secretary of State, and that the resolution was introduced. That state of things continued until the resolution was withdrawn. Never, until Kossuth landed upon our shores, did we have any authentic declaration from him of the purpose for which he came here. We may have drawn our conjectures from what he said in

Mr. BADGER. I understood all that before. What I meant to say was this: Not that the Secretary of State had spoken to the Senator from Mississippi to offer this resolution to receive an intended emigrant-not at all. It was the resolution of Congress under which the President was directed to bring him here which fixed the character and what he now expected. That resolution contemplated his coming as an emigrant. Whatever he might have said in England, we had no authoritative exposition from him before he landed here, that he was to act in any other character. When, therefore, these proceedings took place, I say that it is clear upon the record that they referred to an expected emigrant. As soon as Kossuth lands upon our shores, he assures us that we were mistaken, and that he does not come as an emigrant; that he does not purpose to become a citizen of the country; but that he is here as a visitor -not for the purpose of curiosity or improvement, but upon a political mission. He comes here to agitate among the people of this country, and to endeavor, so far as he can, to awaken among them a spirit which may prompt intervention in the future contest that is expected between Austria and Hungary-intervention in order to prevent the Czar from interfering. Now the whole character of the case is changed. We invited Kossuth, if we invited him at all, to come here for purposes personal to himself. We invited him to come here as an emigrant and live among us. says, I come in no such character, for no purposes personal to myself; I come upon a political mission, to place myself in that character before the people of this country, and to induce them to give me pledges that they will make any intervention on the part of Russia in the affairs of Hungary, ineffectual. There has been no sanction given by the Executive Department of this Government, in any of its branches, to a resolution proposing to welcome this gentleman in any such character. It is one thing to welcome him as a distinguished foreigner, coming from exile to settle among us, and it is another and a very different thing to welcome him as a political agitator among our countrymen. Whatever else may be said, it is no diminution of the high character this gentleman occupies for intelligence and high standing to say, that it is in exceedingly bad taste, in my judgment, for a foreigner, who has just set his foot on our soil, who comes here to invoke our

He

sympathies, to become a propagandist of his opinions, to endeavor to influence the people to the adoption of measures which he may think beneficial to the cause of Hungary, without regard either to the law or the policy of our Government; and to hint, not obscurely, that, whatever may be the action of Congress, he will appeal to the freemen of the United States, as our sovereigns.

Now, when emigrants come to this country to seek refuge from abroad; when they come to settle among us, and to mingle with our people, to enjoy the privileges of our institutions, to add energy to the industrial pursuits of our country, so that we may all together enjoy the blessings of civil liberty, and that they may become a perpetual strength to the country, we might well bid' them welcome. And when einigrants come to this country, as sometimes they do, who are able to minister to our assistance, and to shed glory upon our country in different and far higher spheres, who are able to direct the thunder of our armies in the field, and to add grace and wisdom to our legislative counsels, I shall ever be ready, as, if my friend from Illinois [Mr. SHIELDS] will permit me to say, I have in respect to him already done, to place them near to my heart. However it may not be in unison with the temper of the times, I say I thank no foreign emissary to come here and assume to instruct our people with regard to our duties at home or abroad. Whether it is a member of the British Parliament who endeavors to provoke sectional discord, and if possible to shake the fabric of this Union to pieces, or whether it is a Hungarian exile, however eminent, who comes here to persuade us either to make an empty boast and utter an unmeaning threat, and thus expose us to the derision of mankind, or else to mix us up in the turmoils of European politics and cause us to expend the blood and treasure of our free citizens in disputes with which they have no concern, and from which they can derive no benefit, terminate as they may, makes in this respect no difference to me. I can agree to welcome neither the one nor the other.

It may be, sir, that I have not got the idea of progress which is peculiar to the times. My honorable friend from New Jersey, [Mr. STOCKTON,] in speaking of that policy of non-intervention which we received from Washington, said that what was proper then might not be proper now and he asks, Is adhering to that policy, progress? I think it is. A man may advance, though he does not change the road in which he travels. To make progress it is not necessary that a man should be perplexed and bewildered with repeated changes of direction, and perpetually retracing his steps, and beating out new and devious paths in which to tread. I want progress in old principles towards the full development of our institutions-to the consolidation of our liberty. Progress upon old principles to make us and to keep us Americanized forever. That is the progress which I wish.

Nor can I consider it entirely harmless in a person to come and inflame the people of the United States, or particular portions of the United States, hastily to commit themselves to measures like this. It is not only against the settled policy, but it is against the statute law of this country. Our law forbids armed intervention in all its forms, by citizens or others from the shores of the United States, in the affairs of other nations with whom we are at peace.

Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi. I believe the sedition law has been repealed.

Mr. BADGER. It might perhaps be fortunate for some, in certain events, that the sedition law has been repealed. I am not affected by any reference to the sedition law. There is a sedition that does not depend upon that statute, and although that sedition law has been repealed, the repeal has not made sedition honorable. Í say that it is not entirely innocent for any man to endeavor to inflame particular portions of the people of this country, in favor of this measure which Kossuth desires to recommend. Why is it not so? I was about to state why, when the anticipative genius of the Senator from Mississippi at once sprang far ahead of me, and he saw in his mind's eye that bugbear of the Democracythe sedition law. We have a statute which forbids all armed intervention from this country in the affairs of any nation with which we are at peace. That statute forbids the sending forth, or setting