for it, because, if you insist upon that, his bounty is a mere pittance, not worth receiving. Now, in my humble opinion-and I speak it with deference we ought to step in and do what is but a mere act of justice to these officers.

Mr. DUNHAM. I stated, the other day, that I should not say another word in reference to this subject, but I wish the House to have correct information as to the amount of clerk hire required in these offices. I hold in my hand a list of all the land offices in the country. Now, in order that the committee may have a correct idea of the amount of the clerk hire required, it is necessary to show an account of the warrants which are entered. I will call their attention to this fact. I have but cast my eye over the list, but I will venture to say that not one third-and not one quarter of the land offices in the United States have, for the whole time since Mexican warrants were first issued, located five hundred warrants a year. Now, if this is true, where is the necessity of this extra compensation for clerk hire? Now, as was stated the other day, by a letter received from a gentleman in Iowa, it was shown that three clerks could enter one thousand warrants in two weeks, and they could enter five hundred warrants in one week. Yet, with these facts staring them in the face, gentlemen get up and tell this committee that this compensation is absolutely necessary in order to pay for clerk hire.

I desire to make one further remark, and it is this: In two thirds of the land offices in the United States they do not begin to enter land enough, if we adopt the present rate of percentage, to pay the $500 salary which is paid to the officers. And I again say, what I said the other day, I believe, and if I did not, I will say it now, that in several of these offices, for a whole quarter, not a single

warrant has been located.

I have one other remark. I say to those gentlemen who have control of these public lands, that I think they are neglecting their duty, if they do not, during this Congress, bring forward a bill to consolidate and abolish many of the land offices now existing, where we are not receiving money enough to pay the actual salary which we are compelled to pay the registers and receivers.

Mr. ORR. I desire to ask the gentleman if he has received information from any source, that a single officer has resigned his office in consequence of the increase of labor from land warrants being made receivable? And if he has ever heard of any difficulty in finding other officers as competent if such resignations have taken place?

Mr. DUNHAM. I answered the gentleman's interrogatory the other day, in reply, I believe, to a question asked by my colleague, [Mr. FITCH.] I said that, when the Administration changed, do not know of a single man who was willing to go out of office. And when removals were made, I do not know of a single office in my county where there was not at least a "corporal's guard" of applicants for the place; and that, too, at a time when the bounty land law was in full operation. I know of many cases where the offcers could not make $500 a year out of the office.

Mr. CLARK. I wish further to answer the question propounded by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. ORR.] I wish to say that they did not resign because they expected pay.

The CHAIRMAN. No further discussion is in order.

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

The question then recurred upon Mr. SACKETT'S amendment.

Mr. FITCH. I think the amendment of the gentleman from New York is to reduce the compensation one half. Am I right?

Mr. SACKETT. That is my amendment. Mr. FITCH. I am willing to make a compromise in this matter. Not that I believe that will be doing justice to these officers, but for the sake of making a compromise, I move to amend the amendment by providing for the payment of one dollar for each and every warrant located.

As I remarked, this is not doing justice to these officers, for Congress by making these warrants receivable, have nearly quadrupled the labor of these officers over that of entering these lands for cash. I desire to call the attention of gentlemen around me to some of their own remarks, and particularly that of the gentleman from Georgia,

[Mr. STEPHENS.] As I understood that gentleman, he speaks of the $500 being given these offcers as salary, and of the percentage, as being only designed to pay for traveling expenses, and for a guardianship over the money.

the port of New-York, where there has been an additional amount of revenue collected? Why would it not apply to the officers of the Army and Navy, if by any unforeseen contingency additional services should be imposed upon them?

Mr. STEPHENS. I did not say that was the only reason for the percentage, but as one reason. Mr. FITCH. Very well; as one of the reasons. But the register has no control or guardianship over the money after it is primarily paid. And it will be found that that officer receives no other compensation in the shape of insurance upon this money for transporting it to the Land Office, or to the place where he is directed by law to deposit it. The gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. STUART,] who preceded me, very properly called the attention of the committee to the profession, which was so liberally made a few days since, of willingness to pay these officers a just compensation. I spoke then of these professions as mere subterfuges; and the debate which has occurred to-day, together with the voting upon the various propositions which have been before the committee, will show that I │' was correct in my statement. If there was a dis-part proposed to be stricken out? position manifested upon that occasion to compensate these officers justly and properly for their labor, that disposition will be manifested now by a refusal to do so.

Mr. FITCH. I would ask if the officers of the Army and Navy receive a percentage as a part of their salary? Their compensation is fixed, and no percentage is allowed them.

Mr. FULLER. So I understand; and so I understand the salary of the receivers is a fixed one; and upon the most ordinary principles of justice between man and man, where a man employs a laborer for a specified price, and imposes additional services upon him, beyond those stipulated in the contract to be performed, he is at liberty to say it is a departure from the contract, and I will no longer labor for this compensation.

I have heard this service compared to that of a laborer. I did not hear this in debate, but I have heard it in conversation; and if I mistake not, my colleague, [Mr. DUNHAM,] the chairman of the select committee who reported this bill, has made use of that comparison. Now, for the sake of the thing, let us take it upon this ground. Let us suppose that a laborer under certain considerations is to receive a certain salary or percentage for a service to be performed, and let us suppose that! afterwards the character of that service should be changed so as to not only increase the labor, but to diminish the compensation which he had a right to expect. Is it not fair to compensate that man for his services? Is it not unfair to refuse to make that payment for his services? It has been asked, and the question has been repeated here as if it were pertinent to the subject-Have any of these officers resigned?" The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ORR] asked if any of these officers have resigned for want of sufficient compensation? I will remark, that if these resignations have not taken place, it has been because the original bounty land law made provision for something in the shape of compensation for locating these lands-fifty cents each, if I mistake not. After this law was changed, these officers would hold on month after month with the hope that the location of warrants at these particular offices would not increase, and that the cash sales would not materially lessen, until at last they find themselves creditors to the Government to large amounts in their estimation, and they determine to hold on to their offices until the Government had discharged the debt.

The question was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Firсn; and it was not agreed

to.

Mr. BISSELL. I send up an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is it an amendment to the

Mr. BISSELL. I am not quite certain that I understand the condition of the matter as it now stands. I offer it as an addition to the section.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair supposes it is not in order, as the amendment now under consideration is to strike out a portion of the section and to insert. It will be in order after the question is taken on the pending amendment.

The question was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. SACKETT; and it was disagreed to. Mr. BISSELL. I now propose the amendment which I send to the table, as an addition to the 2d section.

The amendment was read, as follows:

And be it enacted, That registers and receivers, whether in or out of office at the passage of this act, or their legal representatives in case of death, shall be entitled to receive from the Treasury of the United States, for services hereto fore performed in locating military bounty land warrants. the same rate of compensation provided in the preceding section for services hereafter to be performed, after deducting the amount already received by such officers under the

act entitled "An act to require the holders of military land warrants to compensate the land oflicers of the United States for services in relation to the location of those wa rants," approved May seventeenth, eighteen hundred and forty-eight: Provided, That no register or receiver shall receive any compensation out of the Treasury for past services, who has charged and received illegal tees for the location of such warrants: And provided further. That no register or receiver shall receive for his services during any year a greater compensation than the maximum now allowed by law.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman propose it as an additional section to the bill?

Mr. BISSELL. I propose it as an addition to the 2d section.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair then suggests that the phraseology be altered, as it refers to a preceding section, and there is no preceding se tion, the first section having been struck out.

Mr. BISSELL. The amendment can be so altered. I understand, by a vote of this committee this morning, upon an amendment proposed by the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. CABELL,] that it is the deliberate sense of this House, that regis

My colleague [Mr. DUNHAM] said that in some offices there are no lands entered by these warrants. This, surely, is no reason for not compensating officers where lands have been entered, because this bill does not operate upon suchters and receivers ought to be paid for their seroffices. The Government will pay those officers nothing, whether the cash sales have been more or less; whether the percentage amounts to $500, or less than sufficient to pay their annual salary, it matters not.

Mr. DUNHAM. My colleague did not understand me, or I did not make myself clear in my remark. The force I gave to the remark was, that but few warrants were located at those offices, and consequently small cash sales, and that $500 salary would pay for the extra labor of locating

these warrants.

[Here the hammer fell.] Mr. BISSELL. Is it in order to move an amendment at this time?

The CHAIRMAN. Any gentlemen has the right to oppose the amendment.

Mr. FULLER, of Maine. I wish to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, and simply upon this ground: If I understand correctly his mode of reasoning, it is, that because the Government has imposed additional services upon these receivers, it is bound to make them additional compensation. Now, if he is correct, why would not the rule apply with equal force to collectors of our revenue-say, for instance, at

vices in locating military bounty land warrants, and I concur in that sentiment most fully. The committee has decided now, as I understand, that hereafter registers and receivers shall be paid for such services. Am I right? I did not pay par ticular attention to the early proceedings in this committee, but I suppose such was the result of the vote taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. CABELL.] However that may be, I trust that the committee will so decide, and that it will also decide that it is equally just that they should be compensated for the services which they have already performed. I have listened to all that has been urged in this committee to-day, and heretofore, in opposition to the proposition to allow registers and receivers compensation for locating these warrants, and I have listened in vain for anything that answers for an argument. It has been said that five hundred dollars is a sufficient compensation to these men for all their services. If that be so-and I understand that to be the argument of the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS]-I should like to know why that gentleman, before this time, has not introduced a bill into this House to reduce the salaries of registers and receivers: for does he

Again: it has been said that land officers speculate in land warrants, and by that means make money outside of the fees they receive as officers. That is a charge easily made, but against how many of the officers is it true? Gentleinen get up, and proclaim to this House that these land officers speculate in land warrants illegally, and make fortunes thereby. I cannot answer such an argument. I know land officers who have done no such thing, and I do not know of one who has. I do not pretend to deny that land officers have done such things.

Again, it is said that all the warrants located at any particular office in one year, might be located in three weeks by the aid of three clerks, and it is inferred from that, by the gentlemen pressing this argument, that the registers and receivers ought to be paid for only three weeks' services. Why, sir, that may be true-though they would have to be extraordinary clerks to perform that amount of labor in so short a time-yet is it not known that these land warrants come to the land offiees, day by day, scattered along, upon one day one, upon another two, and upon another five, and that registers and receivers know not when they are coming? They have to be at their offices all the time, lest when a man comes twenty, thirty, or fifty miles with his land warrant, he cannot get into the office. The offices have to be kept open, and the officers or their clerks must be there at all times, and should be paid for their services accordingly:

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I ask that the vote may be taken upon this subject, for it is useless to discuss all these amendments.

The question was then taken upon the amendment offered by Mr. BISSELL, and it was disagreed

to.

Mr. BELL. Is it in order to move to insert an additional section to this section?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair supposes that it will not be in order at this time, the 2d seetion being under consideration. The gentleman will have an opportunity to offer his amendment, however, before the bill is disposed of.

Mr. FICKLIN. I propose to amend the 2d section. What was the amendment last voted upon?

The CHAIRMAN. The amendmont of the gentleman from New York, [Mr SACKETT.] Mr. FICKLIN. Was that voted down? The CHAIRMAN. It was.

Mr. FICKLIN. Then I propose to amend by allowing three quarters of one per cent. wherever land is sold for cash. I can see no sound reason why speculators and individuals purchasing land warrants of soldiers, should be permitted to locate them free of charge, when a person who pays the money at $125 per acre is compelled to pay one

per cent.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Illinois. The individual does not pay it, but the Government.

Mr. FICKLÍN. I can see no difference. Now, what is the state of the case, and what is likely to be the state of the case under the operation of the bill which has passed this House, and which, from present indications, will certainly pass the Senate in some form or other, making land warrants assignable? Is it not apparent that alınost the entire business of the land offices in the land States, will be confined to the location of land Warrants? Is it not certain, as absolutely certain as mathematical calculation can make it, that Where individuals can purchase land warrants vering one hundred and sixty acres of land for $100, that all the business of these offices will be Confined to the location of land warrants, not in the hands of the original soldiers who rendered the services for which they were received, but in the ands of speculators who have purchased these Parrants?

S

Now, it has been said by my friend from Geora, [Mr. STEPHENS.] who, not living in any of the ew States where this work has to be performed, annot be so familiarly acquainted with it as the entleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] who ocupies the same position-that $500 is a compen

not a compensation to any land officer competent to the discharge of the duties of one of these offices. It requires something more than a day laborer. It requires a man of education, a man of skill, a man of judgment, to discharge creditably to himself and usefully to the Government and the people the duties of one of these offices. And I think no gentleman upon this floor, in view of the salaries which are paid to the various and almost innumerable officers of the Government, will say that even a clerk, competent to discharge the duties imposed upon land officers, would be compensated by the salary which is given-the sum of $500. It has been well said, and I believe the remark cannot be successfully contradicted, that in most of the offices the percentage and salary added together will not amount to the sum of $700. I ask if that sum will support a family of a man competent to discharge the duties of these

offices?

Mr. CARTTER. If the gentleman will permit me, I wish to direct his attention to this point: What would be the advantage of the position in point of capital for land speculation in these of fices? Would it fall below a capital of $50,000?

Mr. FICKLIN. I will reply to the gentleman's interrogatory-that it is not worth, to the faithful and honest land officer, one cent.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. YATES. I dislike to trouble the House, but I will make one more appeal to the members of the House upon the subject of giving to these land officers fair compensation for past and future services. If the gentlemen upon this side of the House will not listen to the just appeals of their fellow-Whigs, who have been in office, I will address the appeal to the gentlemen upon the other side, and I will say to those gentleman, that while their Democratic registers and receivers were in office they received this commission of one per cent, upon the actual cash sales. They received it all the time, they were in office. This law giving a salary of five hundred dollars, and a commission of one per cent, on the moneys received, as a compensation for clerk hire, receiving, safe-keeping, and transmitting the public moneys, was originally passed in the year 1818. The Democratic registers and receivers have received this compensation for a period of thirty years past. I then ask the Democratic members of this House, if they will not do equal justice to the Whig office holders-the registers and receivers who held office under the last and present Administrations? I ask them to do the same justice to the Whig office holders that this Government has done in all time past to Democratic office-holders.

entirely inadequate. And, sir, I cannot conceive how gentlemen can refuse to allow them that to which they are so manifestly entitled by every consideration of fairness and propriety. And the more especially, should this be the case, when we do not propose to increase their compensation, but to give them only the same pay which registers and receivers have always had from the Govern

ment.

Mr. DUNHAM. I move to insert "one quarter. My object is to give my young friend from Illinois some information that I think he does not possess in reference to this matter, although he resides in the Springfield district. The amount of salary and perquisites of the register at the Springfield land office-who, I believe, was a Whig incumbent was $1,411 94, including the deductions of which the gentleman has spoken. For the three quarters of last year the whole amount of compensation of the receiver was $1,295 and some cents. The whole number of Mexican land warrants located at the Springfield land office, from. the beginning to the present time, was 1,463. They have been about four years being located, which will make something less than four hundred a year; and they received half a dollar each for nearly all of them-making $200 more to be added to the annual compensation I have already stated. I do not know how many additional clerks that register or receiver needed to have employed to locate these warrants. I should think this additional $200 ought to have paid all the additional clerk-hire.

Mr. YATES. What was the amount of cash sales during the same period? How much did they receive upon cash sales?

Mr. DUNHAM. I will give the gentleman the percentage received, and then he can figure it himself. He has more time than I have, as I am speaking and he is not.

Mr. YATES. For the period of four years and eight months, the cash sales were $102,000. Well, by making a calculation the percentage will be over $250.

Mr. DUNHAM. The gentleman is mistaken. I have the record from the land office. Mr. YATES. I have the same. Mr. DUNHAM. I have the record lying before me, that contains the income of every land office in the United States; as also the number of warrants which have been located at every office. The gentleman is in very great error.

Mr. YATES. I have the statement of the Commissioner of the Land Office and cannot be mistaken.

Mr. DUNHAM. If he gentleman will allow nie to ask him a question

Mr. YATES. I would ask the gentleman to excuse me, as I have but a few minutes more. You cannot get a good merchant's clerk in the West for less than $400. Out of that $1,000 is to be deducted clerk-hire, office-rent, fuel, stationery, the expense of receiving, safe-keeping, and transmitting the public money. And in numerous land districts in the West, the percentage on cash sales, and the amount received for locating assigned warrants, are not as much as that received in the Springfield district. Do gentlemen say that this is adequate compensation?

repeat again, sir, that if our Whig friends will not do justice to Whig receivers and registers, I appeal to the sense of justice of the members upon the other side. I ask them to mete out the same measure of justice to Whig office-holders that they have to the Democratic, and especially when they assert with so much confidence that we are to have those offices for so very short a period longer. I submit it to the sense of justice of this House. What more can we do or say? Will gentlemen close their ears against a true statement of the facts? The appeal of these registers and receivers is a just one; their compensation has been and is

was enacted under a Democratic Administration, and at the time one branch of Congress was Democratic; the officers in the land offices were Democrats. I apprehend, then, that the Democratic party have had something to do in fixing the compensation which was to be paid for the location of these land warrants, and consequently I think the Democratic party did mete out to those then in offices, precisely what we are willing to extend to those now holding these offices.

Mr. PARKER. I was not disposed to trespass upon the time of the House, but it struck me there was an idea or two connected with this matter that has not yet been properly considered. I will observe, however, in the first place, that it appears to me this discussion has degenerated, and that it does not become the character of this House, particularly at this juncture, to inquire whether Whigs or Democrats are to be profited by this bill. Our land laws are not of recent origin. They date back some thirty, perhaps forty years, or more. They have worked remarkably well during all that time. If there is any one system of laws connected with this whole country that has been popular with the mass of the people, it is our land laws. What has made them so? Because they were nearly as perfect as any of our laws could be. Now, how stands it, so far as this matter of compensation to registers and receivers is concerned? For perhaps thirty years they have been acting under the system of compensation we ask now that they shall be allowed to act under in reference to bounty land warrants. What new principle has intervened to change the system in this regard? I would like gentlemen to answer me this question. Has the time come to diminish the rate of their compensa

IN SENATE.

THURSDAY, February 12, 1852. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. C. M. BUTLER.

PETITIONS.

Mr. BORLAND presented the memorial of George W. Clarke and others, stockholders in the Arkansas and Central Railroad Company, praying a donation of land to aid in the construction of that road; which was ordered to be laid on the table.

Mr. WADE presented the memorial of Stephen Potts and C. L. Madison, assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Guernsey county, Ohio, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Also, the memorial of the heirs of Daniel Lan

dow, praying indemnity for property destroyed by the enemy during the last war with Great Britain; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. ATCHISON presented the petition of George W. Dent, in behalf of occupants of land in townships 43 and 44, in the State of Missouri, praying the disposition of said lands in conformity to the views of the Solicitor of the Treasury and the Commissioner of the General Land Office; which was referred to the Committee on Public

Lands.

for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

NEW JERSEY ON THE COMPROMISE.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I present to the Senate certain resolutions passed by the Legislature of New Jersey relative to what are generally called the compromise measures.

One of these resolutions instructs the Senators from that State "to resist any change, alteration, or repeal" of those measures.

mented Southard-on presenting to this body inIt was said by one of my predecessors-the lastructions with which he had been honored, that, if the New Jersey Senators were not the most learned members of the Senate, they certainly were the best instructed Senators north of Mason and Dixon's line. But, sir, I do not intend, on this occasion, to repeat my dissent to the doctrine of legislative instruction, or to argue that point with the Legislature of New Jersey. I am satisfied that the members of that honorable body, while claiming the right, as the representatives of a free people, to express their conscientious opinion upon national affairs, will also grant to me the same privilege, in the discharge of my high duties as a member of the Senate of the United States; and if I should on this or any other occasion disobey their instructions, it will not be on account of any disrespect for their opinion, but because I cannot permit the opinions of others, however

Mr, FISH presented the memorial of William Trean, praying the establishment of a tribunal to review the decisions of the late Board of Com-high may be the source from whence they come,

missioners for the settlement of claims of American citizens against Mexico; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Also, the memorial of the New York Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb, praying the publication of certain statistics relative to the deaf and dumb, abstracted from the schedules of the Seventh Census; which was ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. BRADBURY presented the petition of William H. Ellis and others, assistant marshals in the State of Maine, for taking the Seventh Census, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Also, the memorial of ship-owners, merchants, and others, of Bowdoinham, Maine, remonstrating against the repeal of the act for the reduction of expenses of proceedings in admiralty against ships and vessels; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, the petition of George B. Clarke, praying that Congress will redeem the continental money held by him, received for revolutionary services; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. SEBASTIAN presented the memorial of the widow of William Reiley, an officer of the revolutionary war, praying to be allowed the loss sustained by the depreciation of the commutation certificates substituted for half pay for life; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. HAMLIN presented the petition of shipowners and ship-masters of St. George, Maine, praying that a light may be placed at the entrance of Tenant's Harbor; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Also, the memorial of Asa Whitney, proposing to construct a railroad from Lake Michigan to the Pacific ocean, and to transmit the mails thereon, upon certain conditions; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Mr. MALLORY submitted documents in support of the claim of Richard Fitzpatrick to indemnity for losses sustained in consequence of the occupation of his land by the United States troops as a military post; which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, presented a petition of inhabitants of Davis county, Iowa, praying a donation of land for the construction of a railroad from Lafayette, Indiana, to the Missouri river; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

to take the place of my own sense of duty and of my solemn convictions of right,

In presenting these resolutions, I will do what I am not in the habit of doing-never before I believe-throw myself upon the indulgence of the Senate while I state my own position upon the measures referred to.

It is known to the Senate and to the country that I did not approve of the bill reported by the Committee of Thirteen-called the omnibus bill.

I

opposed that bill not because I objected to a fair and honorable settlement of the agitating questions embraced within it-for I yield to no man in an earnest desire to relieve Congress and the country from all agitation growing out of the question of slavery in all its forms. I have never willingly engaged in any agitating debate upon that subject; and, when called upon to express my opinions, I have endeavored to treat the subject as a national, and not as a local question.

I

fined to the mode and kind of settlement it proMy objection to that bill was principally conposed. I preferred another plan of adjustment. refer to that proposed by the late President, General Taylor, in his message to Congress upon that subject. I then thought, and subsequent events have strengthened my opinion, that if Congress had received General Taylor's plan of adjustment of these questions, and carried it out in the same liberal and national spirit with which it was proposed, that plan would have been more satisfactory to the whole country than the one which was finally adopted. But let that pass. I do not desire now to indulge in offensive comparisons.

The grand mistake of the omnibus bill, and that which finally defeated it, consisted in the combination of all the measures in one bill. It was this obnoxious feature that drove from its support many of the best friends of adjustment and compromise. It was evident, from the day that bill was reported until its final rejection by the Senate, that the measures combined could not pass; but it was at the same time equally obvious, that there was no day, during all that time, when either of these measures, presented separately, would not have received a majority of the votes of this body.

We all know the history of the omnibus. After six months of labor and toil, it finally fell, crushed beneath its own weight. Then it was that the real work of compromise commenced. I admit that the materials were gathered from the ruins of the omnibus, but their availability consisted in being used upon a new plan of construction. Each measure was taken up separately, according to the plan of settlement proposed in the original resolutions submitted by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. Although this plan also proposed a general system of measures, yet each measure was permitted to stand upon its own merits-thereby Mr. FISH presented the petition of W. W. leaving every member free to vote upon each, acWoodworth, administrator of William Wood-cording to the dictates of his own judgment. worth, deceased, praying for an extension of patent

Mr. SEWARD presented the petition of William Dusenbury, praying an increase of pension; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. Also, the petition of William Dusenbury, praying bounty land; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

The propriety of this course was clearly shown

upon the final passage of the separate measures; for it will appear by the Journals that several of the most ardent friends of the omnibus bill voted against, or neglected to vote for, several of the measures which they had supported when combined in that bill, while many of its most violent opponents voted for them in their separate form. It was this independent course of action-a course which I was in favor of from the beginning-which finally passed these several measures, and secured to the country whatever there is of good or of evil in the compromise.

More than this: it was this separate consideration of each measure that has secured to these laws a moral and a political force and influence which they would have been deprived of if they had been passed in combination. It is this feature, more than any other, which has lulled excitement and caused these laws to be respected and acquiesced in by all parties. No man can now say, with any show of truth, that these laws were the result of combination. Neither can any man, or set of men, assume to themselves the peculiar honor and glory of saving the Union by the passage of these laws; for they were respectively passed by the votes of men of all parties, and in opposition to votes from all classes of politicians. This constitutes the true strength of the compromise, and secures it from repeal. All these laws but two have been executed, and are now beyond the power of repeal. The law abolishing the slave trade in the District and the fugitive slave law are all that can possibly be made the subject of further agitation. The former no one thinks of disturbing. The latter, although threatened with opposition in a few localities, has the acquiescence, if not the approbation, of the country. Nowhere is the question agitated with any seriousness except in legislative halls—exhibiting the strange anomaly of a people upon whom the law operates acquiescing in and sustaining its enactments, while the law-makers are, by these ex post facto agitations, disturbing the sanctities of a law which they themselves created.

I here desire to state my own course with regard to the fugitive slave law.

Before the Committee of Thirteen was raised, and while the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky were under discussion, I expressed, in a speech made here, my opinions and views upon that measure. I then, in substance, said that, owing to a construction which the Supreme Court of the United States had, in a late decision, put upon the law of Congress relative to the surrender of fugitive slaves, and also upon the State laws upon the same subject, it become the duty of Congress to pass some new law, in order to carry out more effectually the requirements of the Constitution; and I then declared my purpose to vote for any proper law that would effect that object. I also on that occasion attempted, in my feeble way, to defend New Jersey against what I considered an imputation upon her honor, that she would not faithfully carry out the requirements of the Constitution. No one, therefore, has the right to charge me with any factious opposition to the fugitive slave law, or to suspect me of a disposition to agitate that subject.

When the Senate finally acted upon that measure, I was confined at my house in New Jersey by sickness. Had I been present on that occasion, I should have preferred the bill presented by the late Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Webster] to the one which passed the Senate. I think that bill would have been more acceptable to the North, and would have secured the rights of the South as effectually as the present law.

But, whatever opposition I may have felt it my duty to make to any or either of the measures embraced in the compromise while under discussion, yet, as soon as they were enacted into laws, it became my duty, as it is the duty of every good citizen, to sustain them with as much fidelity as if I had voted for each and all of them. In saying this, I but express the common sentiment of the people of New Jersey, who have always shown their devotion to our republican institutions by a cheerful submission to the voice of the majority, when that voice is expressed in constitutional law. I am now opposed to all further agitation upon this subject. The quiet of the country, and even the sanctity of Congress, demand that we should cease our disputations. Sir, my abhorrence to agitation upon this subject is such that it may even