man who attempted to execute this law. I have seen the weapons that have been prepared by white abolitionists, to enable the negroes to resist. I trust the penalty will fall upon the white abolitionists."

On the 26th of August, 1852, Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, made a most violent speech against the Fugitive Slave Law, and in favor of its repeal.

Mr. Douglas said in reply: "The arguments against the Fugitive Slave Law, are arguments against the Constitution of our country. Gentlemen should pass over .the law, and make their assaults directly upon the Constitution of the United States, in obedience to which the law was passed. Let them proclaim to the world that they feel bound to make violent resistance to the Constitution which our fathers have transmitted to us. The Constitution provides that no man shall be a senator unless he takes an oath to support the Constitution. And when he takes that oath, I do not understand that he has a right to have a mental reservation, or entertain any mental equivocation that he excepts that clause which relates to the surrender of fugitives. I know not how a man reconciles it to his conscience to take that oath to support the Constitution, when he believes that Constitution is in violation of the law of God. A man who thus believes, and yet takes the oath, commits perjury before God for the sake of the temporary honors of a seat on this floor."

KOSSUTH.

On the 11th December, 1851, when the resolution giving a national welcome to Louis Kossuth, of Hungary, was pending before the Senate, Mr. Douglas said: "I regret that this resolution has been introduced, not because I do not cordially sympathize in the proposed reception, but because it cannot pass unanimously. Its discussion and a divided vote deprive

it of its chief merit. I do not deem it material whether the reception of Gov. Kossuth will give offence to the crowned heads of Europe, provided it does not violate the laws of nations, and give just cause of offence. The question with me is, whether the passage of this resolution gives just cause of offence according to the laws of nations. I would take no step which would violate the law of nations, or give just cause of offence to any power on earth. Nor do I think that a cordial welcome to Gov. Kossuth can be properly construed into such cause of offence. Shall it be said that democratic America is not to be permitted to grant a hearty welcome to an exile who has become the representative of liberal principles throughout the world, lest despotic Austria and Russia shall be offended? I think that the bearing of this country should be such as to demonstrate to all mankind that America sympathizes with the popular movement against despotism. The principle laid down by Gov. Kossuth as the basis of his action, that each state has a right to dispose of her own destiny, and regulate her internal affairs in her own way, is an axiom in the laws of nations which every state ought to recognize and respect. The armed intervention of Russia to deprive Hungary of her constitutional rights, was such a violation of the laws of nations as authorized England or the United States to interfere and prevent the consummation of the deed. To say in advance that the United States will not interfere in vindication of the laws of nations, is to give our consent that Russia may interfere to destroy the liberties of an independent nation. I will make no such declaration. On the other hand, I will not advise the declaration in advance that we will interfere. Something has been said about our alliance with England, I desire no alliance with England."

RETROSPECTIVE VIEW.

Let us now take a brief retrospective view of the Congressional life of Mr. Douglas, up to this time. The first important vote he ever gave in the House of Representatives was in favor of excluding abolition petitions, and his vote stands so recorded. His action, ever since he has been a member of the Senate, has been governed by the same principle. Whenever the slavery agitation has been forced upon Congress, he has met it fairly, directly and fearlessly, and endeavored to apply the proper remedy. When the stormy agitation arose in connection with the annexation of Texas, he originated and first brought forward the Missouri Compromise as applicable to that territory, and had the gratification to see it incorporated in the bill which annexed Texas to the United States. He did not deem this a matter of much moment as applicable to Texas alone; but he did conceive it to be of vast importance in view of the probable acquisition of New Mexico and California. His preference for the Missouri Compromise was predicated on the assumption that the whole people of the United States would be more easily reconciled to that measure than to any other mode of adjustment; and this assumption rested upon the fact that the Missouri Compromise had been the means of an amicable settlement of a fearful controversy in 1821, which had been acquiesced in cheerfully by the people for more than a quarter of a century, and which all parties and sections of the Union respected and cherished as a fair, just and honorable adjustment.

COURSE OF MR. DOUGLAS IN CONGRESS.

Mr. Douglas could see no reason for the application of the Missouri line to all the territory owned by the United States

in 1821, that would not apply with equal force to its extension to the Rio Grande, and also to the Pacific, as soon as we should acquire the country. In accordance with these views, he brought forward the Missouri Compromise at the session of 1845 as applicable to Texas, and had the satisfaction to see it adopted. Subsequently, after the war with Mexico had commenced, and when, in August, 1846, Mr. Wilmot first introduced his proviso, Mr. Douglas proposed to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, as a substitute for the Wilmot Proviso. The Wilmot Proviso not only designed to prohibit slavery in the territories while they remained territories, but proposed to insert a stipulation in the treaty with Mexico, pledging the faith of the nation that slavery should never exist in the country acquired, either while it remained a territory, or after it should have been admitted into the Union as States. Mr. Douglas denounced this proviso as being unwise, improper, and unconstitutional: he never voted for it, and more than once declared that he never would vote for it. When California and New Mexico had been acquired without any condition or stipulation in respect to slayery, the Wilmot Proviso was disposed of for

ever.

At the time that the question began to be discussed, what kind of territorial governments should be established for those countries, a severe domestic affliction called Mr. Douglas from Washington, and detained him several weeks. On his return to the Senate he supported the Clayton bill, which passed the Senate, but was defeated in the House of Representatives. Mr. Douglas then brought forward his original proposition, to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted. This proposition passed the Senate by a large majority, but was rejected, as we have seen, by the House of Representatives. Mr. Doug

las then conceived the idea of a bill to admit California as a State, leaving the people to form a constitution, and to settle the question of slavery afterward to suit themselves. This bill was introduced by Mr. Douglas with the sanction of President Polk. It recognized the right of the people of California to determine all questions relating to their domestic concerns in their own way; but the Senate refused to pass the bill. All this took place before the Compromise measures of Mr. Clay were brought forward. During the period of five years that Mr. Douglas had been laboring for the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, his votes on the Oregon question, and upon all questions touching slavery, were given with reference to a settlement on that basis, and were consistent with it.

MR. DOUGLAS THE AUTHOR OF THE COMPROMISE OF 1850.

When Congress met, in December, 1849, Mr. Douglas was again placed by the Senate at the head of the Committee on Territories, and it became his duty to prepare and submit some plan for the settlement of those momentous questions, the agitation of which had convulsed the whole nation. Early in December, within the first two or three weeks of the session, he wrote and laid before the Committee on Territories, for their examination, two bills: one for the admission of California into the Union, and the other containing three distinct measures; first, for the establishment of a territorial government for Utah; second, for the establishment of a territorial government for New Mexico; and third, for the settlement of the Texas boundary. These bills remained before the Committee on Territories from the month of December, 1849, to the 25th of March, 1850. On that day Mr. Douglas reported the bills, and they were, on his motion, ordered to be printed. These