But I reiterate what has been affirmed by the Senator from Illinois, that it really does look like canvassing for the offices.

Mr. HALE. I have endeavored, in my humble sphere, to move consistently. I have usually looked out for the privates. I understand this resolution aimed at the privates. If it is insisted upon I albe compelled to move to insert the Presiding Officer of this body at the head of the list of those icers to be elected. I am not willing to begin the bottom. I want to begin at the head of the chapter. I shall vote against the resolution; but if it is pressed I shall move my amendment. I need not say to you, Mr. President, nor to any member of this body, that I am influenced only by a desire to carry out a great principle. I think if that ciple applies to one it should apply to all. Mr. BRIGHT. The honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. BERRIEN,] and the honorable Senar from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] reason upon this subject as though I were striking at particular offiers of this body. I have announced that I did not seek or desire a change of the rule in order to reach any particular officer. If either of those Senators suppose that I am striking at a particular

officer he is mistaken.

to

Mr. BERRIEN. Will the Senator allow me

So the resolution was rejected.

Mr. ATCHISON. I now move to reconsider the vote on the resolution; and I move that that

organization. When the Senate commenced its
proceedings, it appointed its officers according to
the nature of its own constitution, and not accord-
ing to the constitution of the other House of Con-motion lie on the table. I am not altogether satis-
gress, and so it proceeded for many years.

fied with the vote which I gave. I wish further time for consideration. Therefore I move to reconsider the vote, and ask that that motion lie on the table. If it is laid on the table, I presume it can be taken up at any time a majority of the Senate think proper.

Mr. DOUGLAS. If I understand the matter, the effect of laying on the table of the motion to reconsider will be to clinch the matter against the power of reconsideration. The universal practice in the House of Representatives is, that after a measure is passed, a motion is made by some of its friends to reconsider it, and to lay that motion on the table, which, if agreed to, prevents the body touching the question again.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not consider that to be the effect of the adoption of the motion.

Mr. HALE. The practice referred to by the Senator from Illinois, is because in the other House it requires a two thirds vote to take any subject from the table. Here it only requires a majority. Mr. DAWSON. If I understand the rule, nottable, any Senator may, to-morrow, move to change the rules of this body to-morrow. We cannot be precluded by any motion of this kind from any exercise of any power belonging to the body.

But I do not wish to pursue inquiries of that kind, but would suggest to the Senate this consideration: The rule which it is now sought to reinstate, had existed for a number of years. During the last Congress a Senator from Missouri, not now a member of this body, [Mr. BENTON,] offered a resolution to rescind the rule, and return to what had been the practice of this body from the beginning. We all recollect when that resolution was introduced, that it was adopted by the unanimous consent of this body. Not one word was said against it. What is the inference? We must suppose, as no one objected, that all were in favor of it. If everybody was in favor of it then, permit me to inquire why it is that any should have changed their opinions since? If it was proper to restore the practice of the Senate, when Mr. Benton was a member of this body, what has happened since, what facts have been developed, what discoveries made, what secrets transpired, which should lead us now to wish to undo what was then done by the unanimous consent of the unenviable position before the country, if we adopt this resolution. When Mr. Benton proposed the Mr. BRIGHT. I said, when first up, that my restoration of the old practice, no man opened his object was to reinstate a rule that had been over mouth against it, and yet now we are told that a twenty years in operation, and one that is in uni-high principle requires the adoption of this resoluson and harmony with the principles of the Gov- tion. It must be inferred, then, that what was ernment under which we legislate. done commanded unanimous consent, because at that time either all of us were so ignorant that we could not discover the great principle involved, or all so timid that none of us objected to his proposition. I hope the resolution will not be adopted. Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall vote for the resolution of the Senator from Indiana. I believe the principle involved is a sound one, and that the practice to which it tends is equally sound. I regard the present rule as substantially establishing the principle of life offices. I shall vote for the resolution without any reference to who are to fill the offices, or whether there shall be any change in them or not. That will be a question to be determined afterwards. But I do believe that the true principle is to have a fixed time at which the office is to expire and an election to be gone into; and in order to establish that, I shall vote for the resolution.

ain? I have not made the slightest sug- body? It seems to me that we shall occupy a very withstanding you may lay this motion on the

that he was acting through any such motive. I know he is not.

I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise at the opposition of the honorable Senator from IlliBis, (Mr. SHIELDS.] I had every reason to suppase that the principle sought to be established by this resolution, would have found an advocate in him; but instead thereof, he seeks rather to weaken my proposition, by alleging that my motion is an imprudent one, and not altogether well-timed. I am at a loss how to interpret the language of the honorable Senator. Certainly there is nothing very imprudent in asking the Senate to declare that hereafter they will elect their officers every two years, thus abrogating the law of life estates in fees of this body. Certainly it is not illtimed bere or anywhere else, under a republican form of government, to advocate and declare in favor of so sound a political principle as the one sought to be established by this resolution. view of the political changes in this Government, and the party proscription that has characterized the present Administration, I think there is something due our political friends wherever we have the power; and if the present incumbents are deserving the support of the party in the ascendant here, they have nothing to fear from the reinstate

ment of the old rule.

In

pro

I have offered the resolution because I believe it right. I defend it because of my determination to permit no pressure from any quarter to influence my political action, and if voted down now shall renew it whenever parliamentary order permits. A word in reply to the motion and speech of the honorable Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HALE. He moves to include the President" tempore" in the list of officers to be elected. I will venture to advise him to bring up that as an independent proposition. It is not germane to the question before the Senate. That officer is chosen under a constitutional enactment, and the tenure of his office dependent on something higher than mere rule of the Senate. I hope he will not persist in his motion to amend, but allow us to vote

on the resolution as it is. Mr. BADGER. The honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. BRIGHT] seems disposed to get back to former usages again: to stand super antiquas rizs of the Senate. So do I; and I suppose that the rule of the Senate, as it now exists, is that very me rule under which the Senate was originally rganized. I agree with the honorable Senator, that it is perfectly proper that every legislative body, at its organization, should choose its own ters. But will he tell me when the Senate has rer been organized since the first Senate met? When has there ceased to be a Senate? At what period did a new Senate commence? At what moment in the past history of this body was it without an organization? Sir, under the Constitution, ao such a thing takes place in this body as a new

With regard to the suggestion of the Senator
from North Carolina, I could not see that there
was much force in it. I presume that the reason
why there was no opposition made to the motion
of the Senator from Missouri alluded to, was that
it came up in the morning business, when it was
not known what was the pending question. If
I had known of it, I should not have voted for it;
and the same I believe to be true with regard to
the Senator from Indiana also. But whether that
be so or not, is a matter of no consequence. The

question is, What is the true practice of the Senate
as regards this question? Believing that the
sound practice is to have a fixed term of office, at
the expiration of which a new election is to take
place, I shall vote for the resolution.

Mr. BUTLER. I will add one word to what
has been said by my friend from North Carolina,
[Mr. BADGER.] I regard these officers as holding
their places by a tenure at our pleasure, and also
as holding them during good behavior. I say
that the subordinate officers of this Senate should
not be removed so long as they discharge their
duties properly. That is my opinion. I differ
from my friend from Indiana [Mr. BRIGHT] en-
tirely, in saying that offices of this kind should
be made the subject of contention and strife. An
officer, like our Secretary and those who are
associated with him, should be almost as stationary

as the records. I like to have them associated to

gether. I shall therefore vote against the resolu

tion.

The yeas and nays being taken on the propo-
sition, resulted-yeas 20, nays 24; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bradbury, Bright, Brodhead, Cass,
Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas,
Downs, Felch, Foote of Mississippi, Gwin, Hamlin, Hun-
ter, James, Jones of Iowa, Norris, Sumner, Walker, and
Whitcomb-20.

NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Berrien, Borland,
Butler, Clarke, Davis, Dawson, Fish, Foot of Vermont,
Geyer, Hale, Miller, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rhett, Seward,
Shields, Smith, Spruance, Stockton, Upham, and Wade

-24.

Mr. BRIGHT. The object of the honorable Senator from Missouri is, I suppose, to reach the subject at a subsequent period of the session. If the process of repentance has already commenced in his mind, I hope it may continue until it shall reach that point that a sense of justice will permit him to support the proposition. I hope that a reconsideration will take place at some future day, and that the rule will be reinstated. I shall vote with the honorable Senator under that impression. The motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table was agreed to.

ELECTION OF CHAPLAIN.

On the motion of Mr. HALE, the Senate proceeded to the election of a Chaplain.

.25

The PRESIDENT announced that forty-five
ballots had been cast, of which number twenty-
three was necessary to a choice; of which—
Rev C. M. Butler received... . .
Rev. Mr. Gallagher..
Rev. Dr. Junkin..
Rev. R. R. Gurley.
Rev. C. W. Rodier.

.12

4

3

1

45

The Rev. C. M. BUTLER was declared to be duly elected Chaplain of the Senate for the present session.

RECEPTION OF KOSSUTH.

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being the resolution submitted by Mr. SEWARD, in these words:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That the Congress of the United States, in the name and in behalf of the people of the United States, give to Louis Kossuth a cordial welcome to the capital and to the country; and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to him by the Presdent of the United States.

When the resolution was under consideration yesterday,

Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi, said: I regret exceedingly to feel constrained to say something more in defence of myself and in explanation of the attitude which I occupy in connection with this truly delicate and painful affair. But several remarks have fallen this morning from the lips of the honorable Senator from Alabama [Mr. CLEMENS] which compel me to throw myself again upon the indulgence of the Senate for a few minutes, whilst I endeavor to shield myself against that reprehension to which it is most apparent must stand exposed should I remain silent under the strictures to which I have been so unexpectedly, and I will add so undeservedly, subjected. Sir, it is most true that I am the author of the resolution which has been read in our hearing this morning by the honorable Senator from Alabama, under the authority of which the illustrious champion of Hungarian freedom and independence was invited to our hospitable shores, and made for

none at my hands. His fame fills the civilized
world, and his name has become a terror to
tyrants throughout Christendom. Indeed, I could
not, perhaps, declare all the admiration which I

Sir, I subscribe heartily to every word and sentiment of this noble paragraph. Is it true, Mr. President-I hope that no gentleman upon the Whig side of the Chamber at least will be inclined to dispute it-that in Mr. Webster's "intel'lectual and prudential character are so felicitously adjusted the antagonisms of conservatism and prog'ress, institution and reform, liberty and law, the highest freedom compatible with the scheme of 'actual things on the one hand, and on the other, 'order, obedience, the sacredness of society, of property, and the rights of labor?" Was it Mr. Webster "who settled the boundary question with England by his sense and temper, and put an end 'forever to the possibility of impressing a sailor

qualities, without giving rise perchance to some
suspicion that I was about to become the special
supporter and advocate of his claims to higher
official honors than he has yet enjoyed. Not being
willing to incur the risk of an imputation which
might embarrass my existing relations with the
members of that great political party with which
I have long had the honor of holding a firm and
affectionate alliance, (relations, too, which no man
could value more highly than I do;) and not
feeling authorized, as a member of the Union party
of my own beloved State, at present absolutely
to commit myself in regard to the complex ques-
tion of who shall be elected President in 1852-I
shall, without saying more in praise of New Eng-from under the stars and stripes, by his spirit and
land's gifted son myself, bring forward a witness
in his behalf whose eloquent voice has been often
heard in this grand Hall of national consultation,
and whose manly advocacy of the Constitution
and laws of the Union during that fearful struggle
which, I hope, is now drawing to a close, will
command for his winged words of fervent energy
a more than patient hearing from those whom I
behold before me and around me upon this grave
occasion. Mr. Choate, the other day, in Faneuil
Hall, spoke thus of Mr. Webster, in connection
with the uncertain and tumultuous condition of
the general affairs of the world at the present

moment:

"How unsettled is that world, what clouds and darkness rests on its future of the next four years, you all appreciate. It seems as if the prerogatives of thrones, and the rights of man, and the hoarded up revenges and griefs of centuries, were unsheathing for a conflict, in which, as in the apocaliptic vision, blood shall flow to the bridles of the horses; in which the clock of time shall be found to have struck another hour; in which one age of the race shall pass away forever; in which society itself is to be tried by fire and steel, whether it be of nature and of God, or no.

"In such a conflict have we nothing to fear? Has not the whole expanse of the Atlantic, since Washington put forth his proclamation of neutrality, not the least of his titles to a pure as well as brilliant fame, has it not contracted, as it were, to a hand's breadth? That same cross sea, that confluence of all winds and waves, through which the great pilot scarcely steered the ship of state, is there no danger that this, that worse than this, will strain our fastenings and rend away our sails, and carry our masts by the board? Shall any seamanship but the highest hold the helm in such a prospect?

a season the guest of the nation. It is equally true
that at the time of the adoption of this resolution
this renowned personage was a prisoner in charge
of the Turkish Government, and that the main
object which I had in view in urging the adop-feel for this gentleman's high powers and gracious
tion of the resolution was to procure the liberation
of Kossuth and his companions in captivity, and
to secure to them a permanent asylum in this
country, where the liberty of which they had been
cruelly despoiled in their native hemisphere might
be restored to them once more. It is also true,
sir, that this resolution did not at all contemplate
the least indelicate or intrusive intermeddling on
the part of the Government of the United States
with the affairs of continental Europe. It never en-
tered into my head for a moment that this move-
ment could in the least degree embarrass or com-
promise our international relations, or commit this
Republic to the multiplied hazards of a bloody
and exhausting war with the despotic powers of
the Old World. I expected Governor Kossuth
and his associates in imprisonment to be brought
in one of our national vessels across the Atlantic,
and to be allowed to become participants with
ourselves in the multiplied blessings which a
bounteous Providence has vouchsafed to the hap-
py millions who inhabit this fair land. Our reso-
lution did express sympathy for those in behalf
of whom it was drawn up and presented for the
consideration of the two Houses of Congress;
but it did not express more sympathy, I am sure,
than was felt by the whole body of our citizens,
and was but faintly typical of that extraordinary
outburst of affectionate regard and admiration
with which this remarkable man is destined to
be received in every part of our wide-spread Re-
public that may hereafter be honored with his
presence. I have already stated once or twice,
and I will again state, that I did not originate
the resolution introduced by me in the begin-
ning of our present session, and afterwards with-
drawn because of the vehement opposition which
I saw it was to encounter here, for the sake
of gaining a little additional notoriety, or even be-
cause I had myself come to the conclusion that
any particular form of reception by Congress was
indispensably necessary. Indeed, I should never
have connected myself with the affair at all, but for
the fact that the gentleman who discharges with
such marked ability the duties of Secretary of
State at the present time did me the honor of call-
ing my attention to the subject a day or two before
the commencement of our session, and urged upon
me the propriety of bringing forward a joint reso-
lution providing for the reception of Governor
Kossuth by the two Houses of Congress. Sir, it
is not as a political ally that I refer to Mr. Web-
ster at present, and surely not in the spirit of
mere partisan opposition. The occasion is one, in
my judgment, far above all mere party or personal
considerations. But censured and carped as I am
in consequence of the part which I have thought
proper to act, under monitions from so high a
quarter, I will say, that no one who knows the
Secretary of State, and is familiar with the attri-
butes which adorn his character as a public man,
can suppose it possible that he could have coun-
selled a movement calculated in the least degree to
compromise our international relations. When I
first proposed to the Senate the resolution offered
by me, I distinctly stated the fact, that I acted under
the advice of the Secretary of State, and that his
name was mentioned in connection with this move-
ment with the knowledge and consent of that gen-
leman himself. Now, sir, this is no fitting time or
place for the delivery of a personal eulogy upon the
accomplished statesman, jurist, and orator, to
whose special promptings I have thought it not
improper for me to yield, touching a transaction,
all the bearings of which, whether domestic or
foreign, I could not doubt his capacity fairly to
appreciate; especially did I deem it discreet to
conform my action to his counsels upon this very
delicate subject, in consideration of the fact that
he was discharging the functions of a high office
under the Government, the incumbency of which
necessarily enabled him to take a more extended
view than any other man of all our international
relations, and qualified him, above all men living,
to determine as to the precise mode in which the
various Departments of the Government should
receive the distinguished guest of the nation at the
nation's capital. Sir, I have said that I should
deliver no eulogy on Mr. Webster. He needs

"Who does not see how difficult and delicate a part the New World may have to act? To observe neutrality steadfast and impartial, yet maintain our rank and fulfill our mission as the successful Republic, whose sound has gone into all nations; to keep peace in this war of giants, if such there shall be, yet so to cause our light to shine before all men, that all, seeing with what felicity, with what glory the people may rule themselves, may be stimulated to pass on the torch of liberty, till its radiant round encircles the world; to mete out public sympathy in time and measure, yet hold unbroken every tittle of the public code to which the repose of the world is intrusted? Such, so hard to reconcile, may be the trials of the next four years.

"To steer our course, not between Scylla and Charyb

dis, but across a whole archipelago of rocks, seen and un-
seen, who shall be our pilot? Who of our statesmen in
circumstances more perplexing than those of the adminis-
tration of Washington may win a second time such praise,
such envy as he extorted from all the world, even from the
very belligerents who could not, or would not, adopt the
wisdom of his policy? Does our partiality deceive us? or
is it he, in whose intellectual and prudential character are
so felicitously adjusted the antagonisms of conservatism
and progress, institution and reform, liberty and law, the
highest freedom compatible with the scheme of actual
things on the one hand, and on the other, order, obedience,
the sacredness of society, of property, and the rights of labor;
who settled the boundary quarrel with England by his
sense and temper, and put an end forever to the possibility
of impressing a sailor from under the stars and stripes, by
his spirit and argument; who rebuked the insolence of
Austria, and will give the right hand of a nation's fellow-
ship to Kossuth-yet raise no casus belli on which Haps-
burg or the Czar could stand for a moment in the forum of
States? Does our partiality deceive us, or is he the pilot
for such a night on this sea?"

Mr. President, I agree perfectly with this dis-
tinguished gentleman, that we have both "a deli-
cate and difficult part" to act as a nation at
the present time. I admit most freely that it is
our true policy, and not less our high moral duty,
"to observe neutrality steadfast and impartial, yet

'maintain our rank and fulfill our mission as the
'successful Republic, whose sound has gone into
all nations; to keep pace in this war of giants,
if such there shall be, yet so to cause our light to
shine before all men, that all, seeing with what
· felicity, with what glory, the people may rule
'themselves, may be stimulated to pass on the
'torch of liberty till its radiant round encircles the

'argument; who rebuked the insolence of Austria, 'and will give the right hand of a nation's fellowship to Kossuth-yet raise no casus belli on which Hapsburg or the Czar could stand for a moment in the forum of States?" I repeat the question emphatically, Mr. President, (and in asking I turn to the Whig side of the House,) Is Mr. Webster deserving of all these commendations, and did I yet act indiscreetly in acting upon his advice? Is the Secretary of State in fact to extend the right hand of a nation's fellowship to Kossuth?"—yet are we censurable for simply urging upon Congress the propriety of according to him an affectionate national welcome?

Mr. President, I shall have more to say of Mr. Webster (nothing, surely, in a spirit of unkindness or disrespect) towards the close of these desultory remarks, when I shall undertake to show, by evidence of a nature not to be successfully opposed, that many years since this gentleman, in a well-considered and most masterly speech, gave expression to what I have ever deemed the true American doctrine, in regard to the policy of this Government towards the despotic Powers of Europe, touching the right claimed by them of intervening forcibly in the domestic affairs of nations rightfully as independent in all respects as themselves, in order to suppress movements therein tending to the establishment offree institutions. Ishall lay certain portions of the speech of this gentleman upon the Greek question, delivered during the administration of Mr. Monroe, before the Senate, and I expect to satisfy every dispassionate mind present, that even in the year 1823, language was held by one of the most conservative statesmen that this country has at any time produced, assuming as high and, as I think, even higher and bolder ground, in regard to the rights and duties of this Government to interpose, in a discreet and becoming manner, for the purpose of preventing the armed intervention of Russia, Prussia, and other Powers, for the suppression of the rising spirit of freedom in continental Europe. When I read these extracts, with a view to historic elucidation merely, I hope not to be accused of having in view the promotion of any public man whatever to Executive honors in 1852. With the presidential contest, now almost at hand, I expect to have no very close connection, and İ shall do nothing in the progress of it whatever that I may not think necessary to the great Union cause, to which, for the present, I am specially devoted.

I shall proceed to make, at this time, some additional remarks in reply to the honorable Senator from Alabama, to whose speech on this occasion I listened with a chagrin difficult to be expressed. Sir, I will say nothing disrespectful of that gentleman. I could not do so without greatly wronging that sincere friendship and esteem which I cherish for him. Surely, sir, my friend from Alabama could not have dispassionately examined the delicate and interesting question before us anterior to his launching so boldly upon the ocean of controversy. The honorable gentleman seems to have formed a highly unfavorable opinion of the public character of the great Magyar chieftain, and has indulged in various remarks of a nature decidedly unkind and derogatory. has read to us, too, sir, copious extracts from the columns of a newspaper which he held in his hands, most bitterly aspersive of the motives and conduct of this persecuted patriot. Whilst the honorable gentleman was thus entertaining us,

He

PUBLISHED AT WASHINGTON, BY JOHN C. RIVES.-TERMS $3 FOR THIS SESSION,

320 CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

I ventured to inquire of him the name of the newspaper thus specially honored, and was anwered, as I expected to be, that it was the New York Courier and Enquirer. Sir, I had read in the same paper everything brought to our notice this morning by the honorable gentleman, and I had also read more than one overwhelming refutation of every slanderous allegation which this Thersites of the American press had dared to fahminate against the exalted object of his fiendsh hostility. I shall not go into details on this head at present. It would be useless to do so; but I venture to asseverate, that there is not ene criminatory accusation that James Watson Webb has presumed to publish against Governor Kossuth which has not been so effectually disproved, in other newspapers of New York, and by the adduction of testimony the authenticity of which no man of standing will dispute, as to cover the author of these heartless calumnies with the most lasting contempt. Does the honorable Senator from Alabama 'know who this James Watson Webb is? Why, this is the renowned personage who left the shores of America, early in the administration of General Taylor, under very peculiar circumstances, as Charge to Vienna; and whose nomination was rejected by an indignant Senate with indications of scorn, such as have never been known to mark any similar transaction in our annals. Rumor says that only seven Senators could be induced to vote for his confirmation. I shall not undertake to trace out the history of this personage as the habitual promulgator of printed scandal, and as a mercenary and timeserving political parasite. It is, in my judgment, by no means to be regretted that Kossuth has escaped the laudations of the New York Courier and Enquirer. The exorbitant and unblushing|| ealogist of the bloody house of Hapsburg cannot but hate, with all the demoniac intensity of an eval nature, the man whose resplendent virtues and high achievements have caused him to be recognazed throughout the world as peculiarly and preeatly qualified for the high part which Louis Kossuth is evidently destined to enact on the theatre of continental Europe, as the heroic avenger of long-suppressed freedom, and the chastiser of earth's haughtiest and most heartless tyrants.

Today Mr. FooTE continued:

Mr. President, I was not less surprised than mortified when I heard from the lips of the Senator from Alabama, the same erroneous views of the character of the Hungarian struggle, and of the conduct of Kossuth in connection therewith. If the honorable gentleman had taken pains to inform himself somewhat better in regard to the historic topics which he has discussed this morning with so much spirit, he would have been able to avoid the multiplied errors which he has committed, and the gross injustice which he has unwittingly done to

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1851.

hither, in part at least, in one of our national ves-
sels, dispatched to the coast of Asia for the pur-
pose of bringing this distinguished exile into our
midst. He is in America, in some capacity or an-
other, and at our invitation. This country has not
yet been chosen as his permanent home, and we
all know that he has long since explicitly announced
his intention to return in a few weeks to Europe.

NEW SERIES....No. 5.

I confess that I cannot understand how he can be
otherwise than regarded as our guest, towards
whom we are bound, in every form, to exercise
the rites of a cordial hospitality. The gentleman
says that inasmuch as the resolution inviting him ||
hither describes him as a person supposed by us to
be desirous of emigrating and settling permanently
among us, and, inasmuch as he has now conclu-
ded not to abandon his own country permanently,
he is not at all entitled to be considered "the guest
of the nation." Well, sir, it does seem to me that
the honorable gentleman's philological explana-in itself, and not less important to us than to other
tions are of a most unsatisfactory character, and
such as hardly demand more than the passing
notice already bestowed upon them.

The Senator from Alabama is greatly dissatisfied with the language employed by Governor Kossuth on several occasions since his arrival in this country, and especially with his reply to the Philadelphia committee. The gentleman says:

"When the news reached Governor Kossuth that the resolution introduced by the Senator from Mississippi had been withdrawn, he saw proper to become highly offended, and assumed to deliver a lecture upon the conduct of Congress."

Sir, I have seen no such lecture; I have seen no proof of Governor Kossuth's becoming offended with the action of Congress at all; nor, in my judgment, did the printed extract read from Governor Kossuth's reported address to the Philadelphia committee at all warrant the description now given of it by the honorable gentleman. He expressed his regret simply, in decorous and respectful language, that Congress had hesitated about according him a national reception, and added:

"Had I known that in the same place, where I was invi

ted to this country by an act of Congress, the same body
would now decline to bid me a welcome, I would have
thought that I was not a welcome guest."

Why, sir, surely if Congress should refuse to
bid him welcome, he could not do otherwise than
come to the conclusion that he was not welcome.
If we refuse to welcome him, will he be welcomed
by us? And if thus refused a welcome, will he
have a right still to regard himself as welcome?
He ventures to add, that had he anticipated this
refusal of welcome, he "would not have wished to
intrude." Certainly, sir, this language is exceed-
ingly proper and not at all disrespectful in its
character. What gentleman in the world would
wish to intrude under the circumstances stated?

Again: the gentleman insists that the intention of Kossuth is to involve us in European war. I

Kossuth and his Hungarian associates. I can hope not, sir; and I must confess that I have seen

assure the gentleman that, when he shall hereafter have leisure for a more thorough exploration of the subject, he will discover with some surprise the grievous extent to which he has been misled by the ingenious fabrications to which he seems to have yielded the most implicit credence. If it should turn out in the progress of the debate to be at all necessary to bring forward here authentic evidence in refutation of the slanderous statements of the New York Courier and Enquirer, and no other Senator should find it convenient to do so, I may be tempted to assume the performance of this task. For the present I shall decline it, and proceed to notice several remarks, which fell from the honorable Senator in regard to the circumstances connected with the coming of Kossuth to this country, and his conduct since he arrived upon our shores. The honorable gentleman denies that Kossuth is the guest of the nation, and contends that the language of the original joint resolution inviting him to this country, affords conclusive proof in refutation of this notion. This, it really seems to me, is a very strange position. The gentleman will not, surely, deny that the resolution did invite him to our shores, and that he is now here in accordance with that invitation, and brought

not the least evidence yet of his entertaining any
such intention. He has certainly, on many occa-
sions, most explicitly disavowed any such design;
and I hold in my hand a New York newspaper,
in which is published an authorized declaration
from him, which reads as follows:

"The impression having gone out through some of the
public journals, that the purpose of Governor Kossuth aims
at a forcible intervention in foreign affairs, we take leave to
say, on authority, that such is not the fact. He asks sim-
ply that England and America shall unite in affirming the
policy that every nation shall have the right to make and
alter its political institutions to suit its own condition and
convenience,' and that the two nations (England and
America) shall not only respect, but cause to be respected,
this doctrine, so as to prevent Russia from again marching
her armies into Hungary. He holds that there is a wide
difference between a resolute attitude, powerful enough to
prevent interference, and the going to war to repulse an in-
tervention already commenced. Governor Kossuth has
not intended to suggest that America should copy the exam-
ple of France during our Revolution, according to the let-
ter, but according to the spirit. The circumstances are
widely different, and all that can be hoped is, that a great
and free country like this should act in behalf of Freedom
according to the time and the circumstances in which it is
placed."

I am not prepared at this moment to express my views in regard to the true policy of this country at the present moment upon the delicate

question herein referred to. That question, as has been repeatedly shown, does not at all arise upon this simple resolution of welcome, and I protest against this hasty and extemporaneous decision of a great question of national policy, which is entitled to a calm and extended examination at our hands, in all its grave and momentous bearings, and concerning which the ablest and most experienced statesmen of the Republic might well differ. Certain it is, that there are very distinguished gentlemen in this country who have avowed the opinion that a discreet and enlightened regard to our own safety and honor, as one of the independent nations of the earth, requires that we should, in some form or other, assert at this time, the acknowledged principle of international law, that "every nation shall have the right to make and alter its political institutions to suit its own condition and convenience. "This principle is one of the utmost value civilized nations; and it is undeniably true that movements have occurred within the last year or two, of a nature to call the validity of this principle into serious question, and which, if not in some way checked, must eventually subvert it forever. Sir, the views so forcibly presented by Governor Kossuth touching this point, are not now declared for the first time in this country. They have been long ago declared by some of our ables and most conservative statesmen in the two Houses of Congress, in language of wonderful force and clearness, without, I believe, calling forth disapproval in any quarter. In proof of this, I beg leave to read in hearing of the Senate the extracts from the speech of the present Secretary of State, [Mr. WEBSTER,] upon the Greek question, in the year 1823, to which I

referred in the beginning of these remarks. I shall not, on this occasion, declare my own entire sanction of the doctrines then asserted by Mr. Webster. Still less will I take it upon myself to denounce or to censure them; but I venture to assert, that Kossuth has neither gone further, nor is likely hereafter to go further, than did Mr. Webster during the calm and peaceful administration of Mr. Monroe, in asserting the policy of this country touching the attempts of the Allied Powers of Europe to intervene for the purpose of putting down republican governments newly springing into existence on that continent. It is thus that Mr. Webster expressed himself more than twentyfive years ago:

"I might well, Mr. Chairman, avoid the responsibility of this measure, if it had, in my judgment, any tendency to change the policy of the country. With the general course of that policy I am quite satisfied. The nation is prosperous, peaceful, and happy; and I should very reluctantly put its peace, prosperity, or happiness at risk. It appears to me, however, that this resolution is strictly conformable to our general policy, and not only consistent with our interests, but even demanded by a large and liberal view of those interests."

Again he says:

"It cannot be denied that the great political question of this age, is, that between absolute and regulated governments. The substance of the controversy is, wheher society shall have any part in its own government. Whether the form of government shall be that of limited monarchy, with more or less mixture of hereditary power, or wholly elective, or representative, may perhaps be considered as subordinate. The main controversy is between that absolute rule, which, while it promises to govern well, means nevertheless to govern without control, and that regulated or constitutional system, which restrains sovereign discretion, and asserts that society may claim, as matter of right, some effective power in the establishment of the laws which are to regulate it. The spirit of the time sets with a most powerful current in favor of these last-mentioned opinions. It is opposed, however, whenever and wherever it shows itself, by certain of the great potentates of Europe; and it is opposed on grounds as applicable in one civilized nation as in another, and which would justify such opposition in relation to the United States, as well as in relation to any other State, or nation, if time and circumstance should render such opposition expedient.

"What part it becomes this country to take on a question of this sort, so far as it is called upon to take any part, cannot be doubtful. Our side of this question is settled for us even without our own volition. Our history, our situation, our character, necessarily decide our position and our course, before we have even time to ask whether we have an option. Our place is on the side of free institutions." Further on, he thus continues:

"I will now, Mr. Chairman, advert to those pretensions, put forth by the allied sovereigns of continental Europe, which seem to me calculated, if unresisted, to bring into