ON THE COMPROMISE MEASURES,

ON THE COMPROMISE MEASURES,REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF THIRTEEN.IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 13, 1850.[ONthe8thof May,Mr.Clay, as chairman of the committee of thirteen, to whom the proposed ‘compromise measures’ had been referred, presented a long report, embodying the views and recommendations of a majority of the committee, and suggesting that, ‘if such of these several measures as require legislation should be carried out by suitable acts of congress, all controversies to which our late territorial acquisitions have given rise, and all existing questions connected with the institution of slavery, whether resulting from those acquisitions or from its existence in the states and the District of Columbia, will be amicably settled and adjusted, in a manner, it is confidently believed, to give general satisfaction to an overwhelming majority of the people of the United States.’ The report was ably discussed for several weeks,Mr.Clay and his friends frequently enlisting all their energies in its support. The following embraces his reply to several objections which had been raised by opposing senators.]MR.CLAYrose and said: I have risen,Mr.President, for the purpose of making some further explanation, and an additional exposition to that contained in the report of the Committee of Thirteen, which has recently been in consultation upon the important subjects referred to them. When the report of the committee was presented to the senate last week, various members of the committee rose in their places, and stated that certain parts of the report did not meet with their concurrence. It might have been stated with perfect truth that no one member of the committee concurred in all that was done by the committee. There was a majority upon most, and even upon all the subjects reported by them; and each member, perhaps, if left to himself separately, would have presented the various matters which were reported to the senate in a form somewhat different from that in which they were presented in the report. I was myself, upon one occasion, in the minority in the committee; yet I have not been discouraged in the least degree by the differences which existed in the committee, or which were manifested in the senate last week. Gentlemen who did not exactly agree to what was done, will, in the progress of the measure, endeavor to make it conformable to their wishes. If it should not be so modified, I indulge with great confidence in the hope that no one of them is so irrevocably committed against the measures as to induce him, upon the question of its finalpassage, to vote against it. I am not authorized to say, and do not mean to say, that there will be an affirmative vote of every member of the senate in favor of the measure upon the final passage of the bill; but I need not say that I indulge the hope, whether all modifications which were desired by various members of the committee may or may not be made, that finally there will be not only a unanimous concurrence of the committee generally in the measure recommended, but I trust it will leave this branch of congress with a large majority in its favor. I repeat that I am not discouraged by any thing that has transpired in the committee, or in the senate, or in the country, upon the subject of this measure. I have believed from the first, and I yet firmly believe, that if these unhappy subjects which have divided the country shall be accommodated by an amicable adjustment, it must be done upon some such basis as that which the committee has reported. And can there be a doubt on this subject? The crisis of the crisis, I repeat, has arrived, and the fate of the measures which have been reported by the committee, in my humble judgment, determines the fate of the harmony or distraction of this country. Entertaining that belief, I cannot but indulge the hope, that no honorable senators, who, upon the first hearing of the report, might have seen some matters in it objectionable, according to their wishes or judgment, will see fit to oppose its final passage; but that the entire senate, after a full consideration of the plan proposed, and after a fair contrast between this and all other proposed plans—at least all other practicable plans of adjustment of the question—whatever expectations or hopes may have been announced elsewhere, out of this body, will concur in this measure brought forward by the Committee of Thirteen, and that ultimately the measure will obtain the general concurrence of both houses of congress.But I have risen, as I announced, more particularly for the purpose of entering into some further explanation of the course of the committee, and of throwing out some few observations in support of the measures which they have recommended for the adoption of the senate.The first measure upon which they reported was that of the true exposition of the compact between the United States and Texas, upon the occasion of the admission of that state into the Union. Upon that subject, as already announced in the report, I am happy to say, there was an undivided opinion. Two honorable senators—one of whom is now absent, and the other present—while they declared that they would not hold themselves, and did not intend to be regarded as holding themselves, in every possible state of things, and in every contingency, to vote for the admission of states that might hereafter be carved out of Texas; but that they reserved to themselves, as I understood them, the right to determine this question whenever any new states formed out of Texas should present themselves for admission.—Whether, under all the circumstances of the country, and the circumstances under which a newstate might present itself it should or should not be admitted, they made this reservation; and yet they united most heartily in the true exposition of the compact between Texas and the United States, according to which, as we all know, a number of states, not exceeding four, with or without slavery, having the requisite population, with the consent of Texas, were to be admitted into the Union, from time to time, as they might be formed, and present themselves for admission.But I will not dwell longer upon that part of the subject. I will now approach that which, in the committee, and perhaps in the two houses, has given the most trouble and created the most anxiety, amongst all the measures upon which the committee have reported—I mean the admission of California into the Union. Against that measure there were various objections.One of these objections was with respect to its population. It has been contended that it ought only to be admitted, if admittedatall, with one representative; that if admitted with two representatives, it would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and that there is no sufficient evidence before the senate and the country that its population would entitle it even to one representative. I suppose that no one will contend—California and the other acquisitions from Mexico having been admitted into the Union only about two years ago last February (that, I believe, was two years from the date of the treaty of Hidalgo)—that that sort of evidence, to entitle her to one or two representatives, which is furnished by the decenial enumeration of the population of the United States, would be requisite. It is impossible, with respect to California, that any such evidence should be furnished, she having been a part of a common empire only for the short time I have mentioned. Now, let me ask, what was done in the institution of the first apportionment of the representation among the states of the Union? There was no federal enumeration of the people of the United States upon which that apportionment was made. So many representatives were allowed to one state, and so many to another, and so on, completing the number provided for by the Constitution of the United States; but in that instance, the convention that allotted these representatives to the various states based it upon all the information which they possessed, whether it was perfectly authentic or not. It is known by those who are at all acquainted with the adjustment of the question of representation among the several states, that in several of them (I may mention Georgia) it was pretty well known at the time that a larger number of representatives were allotted than the exact state of the population would authorize. But it was said in that case, ‘Georgia is a new state, rapidly filling up; a strong current of emigration is flowing into her limits, and she will soon have—perhaps by the time the two representatives take their seats—the requisite population.’ In this way, not upon information obtained under federal authority, but upon information obtained by all the modes by which it could beprocured, and which was of a nature calculated to satisfy the judgment of the convention, was the apportionment of the representation made by the framers of the constitution.So of a more recent acquisition or annexation—that of Texas. Nobody believed, I think, at the time, that Texas had a population sufficient to entitle her to two representatives. As in the case of some of the old thirteen states, so in the case of Texas, it was known that she was rapidly filling up—as I have no doubt will turn out to be the fact when the next census comes to be taken in Texas—that before the enumeration of the next census was taken, she would have a population entitling her to two, and probably more representatives.Now, sir, there is an error existing, as it seemed to me from the observation of one or two friends the other day, with regard to the requisite population to entitle California to two representatives. It is not, as it is supposed, double the ratio which was fixed by congress ten years ago. The ratio was fixed at 70,680; but it was expressly provided in the law establishing it, that any state which had an excess beyond a moiety of the ratio established, should be entitled to an additional representative. According to the provision of that law, to entitle California to two representatives, she would only be required to have a population of 106,021, and not as was supposed, 140 odd thousand. Now, the question is, leaving out of view altogether the rapid augmentation which is daily taking place in the population of California, whether she has a population at this time—at the time when two members come to be admitted—which would entitle her to two representatives. Upon this subject, I have that which appears satisfactory to my mind, and I trust, to the minds of other senators.In the first place, I offer to the senate an extract from a memorial of the senators and representatives of the state of California to the congress of the United States. To read this memorial, or to state it in substance in detail, would take up a considerable time; and as that memorial has been before senators, and can at any time be referred to and perused by any who have not already examined it, I will merely state, that according to the statements of that memorial—a portion of which are conjectural and a part official—the population of California, from the1stof January, 1850, was 107,069, exceeding the number requisite to entitle the state to two representatives. But that brings it down only to January, 1850. Since that time we are authorized to add to the number, by that of the arrivals by sea at the port of San Francisco, as shown by the official report of the harbor-master from the1stof January, 1850, to the27thof March, 1850. Without going into the classification, there are of Americans, 8,697; of Californians, 13,454; and of foreigners, 5,503—making a total of 16,957. The number of deserters from ships, as stated in the memorial before alluded to, is put at 3,000, in round numbers. The official statement of the harbor-master, made on the first of March last to the legislature, states the number of officers and seamen that left their vessels from various causes to be 14,240.The aggregate of all these statements will give the following results,viz:1stJanuary, 1849, 26,000—8,000 Americans, 13,000 Californians, and 5,000 foreigners; on the1stof January, 1850, the population was 107,069—making a total number on the27thof March, 1850, of 124,026; to which add the number of deserting seamen, 14,240, makes a total of 135,256. Add to this the population arrived from the United States and other places since that time, and altogether, I have no earthly doubt—I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind—that, putting all these statements together, there is at this moment a population in California that would entitle her to two representatives, even supposing there had been no provision for a fraction exceeding the moiety of the ratio fixed by Congress.Upon this question of population I do not wish to take up the time of the senate unnecessarily. They are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, for the greater part. They have lost nothing of intelligence and capacity for self-government by passing from the United States into California. By the treaty of Hidalgo, the Californians who remain become citizens of the United States, if they do not adopt the alternative of remaining Mexicans, within one year after the treaty of Hidalgo was signed. The Constitution of the United States does not any where fix any term of residence sufficient to constitute an individual one of the permanent portion of the people of the United States. In the Constitution, with regard to the subject of taxation and representation, the term ispeopleandnumber. I have very little doubt that there is a sufficient number of citizens of the United States there to entitle California to two representatives. Well, as they will not be represented in the United States, they ought to be represented somewhere. Having gone to California, it is said that they have gone there only for temporary purposes. They have gone there to dig in the mines; and how many will return, how many will remain there, it is impossible at the present time to tell. We have all a right to move from place to place.With regard to Louisiana—I am sure I state a fact that will be borne out and affirmed by the senator in my eye from that state, [Mr.Downs]—thousands and thousands went to New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana shortly after the acquisition of that territory by the treaty of Louisiana—and even up to the present time they go there for temporary purposes, intending to make a fortune, if they can, and then return home. But, so delightful is the climate, so happy do they find themselves when they get there, the number of those who go there for such purposes, who ultimately return to their individual homes, I do not believe amounts to scarcely one in a hundred. So it is and will be of California, I dare say. Vast numbers have gone there with the intention of returning, but after they have become connected by marriage, by social ties, by the acquisition of wealth, and by all those circumstances that tend to fix to a permanent location the residence of this animal man, they will relinquishtheir purpose of returning to the United States, I have no doubt, and become permanent and fixed residents of California. On the question of population, therefore, I think there is no ground of rational objection to the number “two,” which has been proposed by the committee, and which is precisely the number in the case of Texas.Now, sir, with regard to the limits of California.—Upon that subject, a proposition was offered in the committee to extend a line through California, first by 36deg.30min.A member of the committee, however, was not satisfied with that, and proposed 35deg.30min.I believe that a majority of the committee was in favor of that amendment; but when the question of any line came up, it was rejected by a majority of the committee. Is it not a little remarkable that this proposition—this attempt to cut California in two by the line 36deg.30min., or 35deg.30min., or by any other line—does not come from the North at all, from whence it might be supposed it would come? For, with respect to the North, there can be no earthly doubt but if there were half a dozen states made out of California they would all be free states. But the North does not ask for a division. It is from the South that the proposition to divide the existing limits of California comes. The South wants some other states, or another state there. Some gentlemen from the South, it is true, propose that there should be an express recognition of the right to carry slaves south of the proposed line. But I believe that the major part of those who ask for this line, do not even ask for this recognition, or for this enactment, to carry slaves south of this line; and I ask every body who is acquainted with the country, who has taken the pains to look over the map, if he has not come to the conclusion that a friend of mine (I believe now within my hearing) from the South, and a large planter, came to? He said to me the other day: ‘Mr.Clay, if congress was to offer me $500 for every slave I might own, requiring me to take them to one of these new territories and keep them there for ten years, I would not accept the proposition.’Now, suppose you were to take the line 35deg.30min.or whatever line was proposed, what would be the consequence? There would be an open sea on the one side for the escape of slaves—California, reduced as I have suggested, on another; and Mexico, with her boundless mountains, on another. Who would think—who believes—that, if you establish the line proposed, slavery would ever be carried there, or would be maintained there? Moreover, I think I have understood that the delegation in the convention, south of the line of 35deg.30min., or north of it, voted unanimously against the introduction of slavery there. It cannot, therefore, and I suppose it is not designed with any hope that there would be slavery carried there upon the limits of the Pacific at all. The making of a new state or states out of the present limits of California is therefore but adding to the objection which has been made by the South to the preponderance and influence, and the apprehensions entertained ofthe preponderance and influence of northern power. If the North is satisfied, if the thing is not unreasonable, it seems to me that there should be on the part of our southern friends no hesitation in accepting these limits. But they are said to be unreasonable. California is some 600 or 700 miles in extent on the Pacific coast; it is too large. It is stated in the report that with respect to all that portion of California south of 36deg.30min., shortly after you have left the coast, you encounter deserts of sand, which never can be inhabited; and after you pass these deserts of sand, you approach mountains, and are involved in successive chains of mountains until you reach a population that has no intercourse with the Pacific, but whose intercourse is carried on exclusively with Mexico and other countries on the Mexican Gulf and the Atlantic Ocean. When you come to the northern portion of California, there is a vast desert which is said to have never been passed—or which was never known to be passed—extending from the country which the Mormons occupy down to the Pacific ocean. There seems to me, then, to be no adequate motive for the decreasing of the limits upon the Pacific, with a view to the addition of future states—at least from any amount of geographical knowledge which we possess at present.It is mentioned in the report that there are other cases of states which have been admitted without the previous authority of congress. The honorable gentleman from Alabama (Mr.Clemens) stated that in all the other instances of states admitted into the Union, they had served an apprenticeship of so many years. But the statement in the report stands uncontradicted. Michigan, Arkansas, Florida, if no other states, came into the Union without any previous act of congress, according to the usage which prevailed in the early admission of states, authorizing them to meet in convention and form a constitution. But it is said that they were under the government of the United States. So much the better for them; they had a good government—a territorial government. But how was it with California? She had no government. You abandoned and deserted her—violated the engagement of the treaty of Hidalgo—left her to shift for herself as well as she could. In this state of abandonment, she has formed a constitution and come here. I ask again, as I had occasion to ask some three months ago, if she does not present stronger claims upon our consideration than any of those states which had territorial governments, but which, not satisfied with them, chose to form for themselves state constitutions, and come here to be admitted into the Union?I think, then,Mr.President, that with respect to the population of California, with respect to the limits of California, and with respect to the circumstances under which she presents herself to congress for admission as a state into the Union, all are favorable to the grant of what she solicits, and that we can find neither in the one nor the other a sufficient motive to reject or to throw her back into the state of lawless confusion and disorder from which she has emerged.With the committee I say upon this occasion, that all the considerations which devolve upon congress to admit California, sanction what she has done, and give her the benefit of self-government, apply with equal force to the two territories of Utah and New Mexico.Mr.President, allow me, at this stage of the few observations which I propose to address to the senate, to contrast the plans which have been presented for the settlement of this question. One has come to us from very high authority, recommending, as I understand it, the admission of California, and doing nothing more, leaving the question unsettled of the boundary between New Mexico and Texas, and leaving the people who inhabit Utah and New Mexico unprovided for by government. I will take the occasion to say, that I came to Washington with a most anxious desire—a desire which I still entertain—to coöperate in my legislative position, in all cases in which I can judiciously coöperate, with the executive branch of the government. I need not add, however, sir, that I came here, also, with a settled purpose to follow the deliberate dictation of my own judgment, wherever that judgment might carry me. It is with great pleasure, sir, that I state that we do coöperate with the President, to the extent which he recommends. He recommends the admission of California. The committee propose it. There the President’s recommendation stops. There we take up the subject, and proceed to act upon the other parts of the territory acquired from Mexico. Now, sir, which course of the two recommends itself best to the judgment of those who are to act in the case?In the first place, sir, if we do not provide governments for the other portions of the country acquired from Mexico, we fail to fulfil the obligation, the sacred obligation, in the treaty with Mexico. It is said that they will have a government of their own—a local government; that they have such a one now; but they have not such a one now as they had when they were part of Mexico. When they were part of the republic of Mexico, with the common government of Mexico stretching over all the parts constituting that republic, they had all the benefit resulting from their own local laws, and the additional benefit and security resulting from the laws of the supreme government, covering all parts of the republic. We have the place of that supreme government. They were transferred from that sovereignty to this sovereignty, and we stipulated with that former sovereignty that we would extend to them protection to their persons, security to their property, and the benefit of preserving their own religion according to the dictates of their own consciences.Now, sir, if you admit California, and do nothing for Utah and New Mexico—nothing in relation to thesettlementof the boundary question with Texas—I ask you, in what condition, in what state, will you leave these countries? There are the Mormons—a community of which I do not wish to say a word in disrespect. I know very little about them. I have heard very often things said against them; and I believe during this session my colleague, who sits before me,[Mr.Underwood] has had occasion to present some petition or document, showing some very harsh, oppressive, and tyrannical treatment extended by those Mormons to citizens of the United States, who did not compose a portion of their community, and who were merely passing through. Of that people, of their capacity to govern, of the treatment they would give to the other citizens of the United States who might settle among them, or who might wish to pass through, not belonging there—of all these matters I shall not speak. The members from Missouri and Illinois are much more competent to afford information to the senate upon them than I am.But I care not whether they are as bad as they are represented by their enemies, or as good as they are represented by their friends, or what they are: they are a portion of the people whom we are bound by treaty, as well as other high obligations, to govern; and I put it to you, sir, is it right to say of the people of Utah, comprehending the Mormons, and to the people of New Mexico, deprived as they are of the benefit of the government which they once had, the supreme authority of which resides at Mexico—is it right in us to leave them to themselves, and to say, they will take care of themselves, I dare say; and when they get ripe—ay, when will they be ripe for a state government?—when they get ripe, after the lapse of many years, let them come forward, and we will receive them? Is that discharging our duty?I will go further in reference to the message, which I am sorry that I think it my duty to contrast with the plan of the committee which is now under consideration; and I will say that I have no doubt that there were strong, at least plausible reasons, for the adoption of that recommendation in the message of the President, at the time it was sent into congress, at the beginning of the session. I have no doubt it was apprehended at that time that it was impossible to create any governments for those territories, without producing scenes in congress of the most painful and unpleasant character. I have no doubt it was believed, as indeed it was stated in the message, that distraction would be aggravated—differences of opinion, perhaps, carried to extreme lengths, if any attempts should be made to extend government over those territories.But I am happy to be able to recognise what all have seen, that, since the commencement of the session, the most gratifying change in the public mind has taken place. The North, the glorious North, has come to the rescue of this Union of ours. She has displayed a disposition to abate in her demands. The South, the glorious South—not less glorious than the other section of the Union—has also come to the rescue. The minds of men have moderated. Passion has given place to reason. Every where—every where, in all parts of the Union, there is a demand—the force and effect of which, I trust, will be felt in both branches of congress—for an amicable adjustment of these questions, for the relinquishment of extreme opinions entertained, whether upon one side of the question or uponthe other, and coming together once more as friends and brethren, living under the common country, and enjoying the benefits and happiness which have flowed from a common government. I think that if the President had to make a recommendation to congress, with all the lights which have been shed upon the subject since the commencement of the session, now that nearly five months of the session have gone, he would not have limited himself simply to a recommendation to admit California, or to leave the territories to shift for themselves as they could or might.He tells us in one of those messages—I forget whether it is the message of December or January—that he had reason to believe that one of those territories at least (New Mexico) would possibly form a state government for herself, and might come here, even during the progress of this debate. At all events, if there had been such a state of circumstances at the period that this message was sent in as exists down to the present time, I cannot but believe that the gentleman who now presides at the head of our political affairs, if he had had the benefit of our light, would have made a recommendation much more comprehensive, much more general and healing in its character, than the simple recommendation of the admission of California, leaving all the other questions untouched and unsettled.With regard to the abandoned condition of Utah and New Mexico, to which I have alluded, left without any authority of this government, acting locally to protect the citizen who goes there to settle, and to protect the citizen who isin transitubetween these countries, without any authority connected with the supreme authority of the government here—when they are communicating from time to time this state of things existing in those countries, I submit that to abandon them, in face of our obligation contained in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and other high obligations, is not conformable to that duty which we are called upon to perform.Well, then, there is the boundary question with Texas. Why, sir, at this very moment we learn through the public papers that Texas has sent her civil commissioners to Santa Fe, or into New Mexico, for the purpose of bringing them under her authority; and if you leave the Texas boundary question unsettled, and establish no government for Utah and New Mexico, I venture to say that, before we meet again next December, we shall hear of some civil commotion, perhaps the shedding of blood, in the contest between New Mexico and Texas with respect to the boundary; for, without meaning to express at this time, or at any time, any positive opinion on that question, we know that the people of Santa Fe are as much opposed to the government of Texas, and as much convinced that they do not belong to Texas, that they constitute no portion of the territory of Texas, as we know Texas to be earnest in asserting the contrary, and affirming her right to all the country from the mouth of the Rio Grande to its uppermost sources. Is it right, then, to leave these territories unprovided for? Is it right to leave this important questionof boundary between New Mexico and Texas unsettled, to produce possibly the fearful consequences to which I have adverted?Sir, on these questions, I believe—though I do not recollect the exact state of the vote in committee—that there was no serious diversity of opinion. We all thought we should establish governments for them if we could; that, at any rate, we should make the attempt; and if we failed, after making the attempt, we should stand irreproachable for any voluntary abandonment or neglect of them on our part.The next question which arose before the committee, after having agreed upon the proposal to be made to Texas for the settlement of the boundary between her and New Mexico, was the question of the union of these three measures in one bill. And upon that subject, sir, the same diversity of opinion which had developed itself in the senate displayed itself in the committee.A senator, in his seat.—What of the amount to be paid to Texas?Mr.Clay.—Ah! I am reminded that I have said nothing about the amount proposed to be given to Texas for the relinquishment of her title to the United States of the territory north of the proposed line. The committee, I hope, with the approbation of the senate, thought it best not to fill up that blank until the last moment, upon the final reading of the bill; that if it were inserted in the bill it would go out to the country, and might lead to improper speculation in the stock markets; and that therefore it was better to leave it out until the final passage of the bill.—When we arrive at that point, which I hope we shall do in a short time, I shall be most happy to propose the sum which has been thought of by the committee.Sir, the committee recommended the union of these three measures. If the senator from Missouri will allow me the benefit of those two cannons pointed to this side of the house, (alluding to two volumes of Hatsel,) I will be much obliged to him. I believe the senator from Missouri has them on his table.Mr.Benton.—They are in the secretary’s office.Mr.Clay. The union of these three measures in one bill has been objected to, and has been already very much discussed in the senate. Out of respect to the senator from Missouri and to the senate, I feel myself called upon to give some answer to the argument which he addressed to the senate some days ago, to show that it was improper to connect them together. I must begin by stating what I understand to be parliamentary law in this country. It consists, in the first place, of the Constitution of the United States and of the rules adopted by the two houses of congress; and if you please, sir, Jefferson’s Manual, which has been respected as authority, and used, I believe, in most of the deliberative bodies in this country. Now, sir, either the senator from Missouri or myself totallymisunderstands what is meant by Hatsel in the use of the word ‘tacking.’ We have no such thing as tacking in the English sense of the term. Jefferson has no chapter in his Manual on this subject of tacking. Hatsel first. Tacking in England is this: By the constitution of England—or, in other words, by the practice of England, which makes her constitution—money bills, supply bills, bills of subsidy and aid of all kinds, are passed by the house of commons, sent to the house of lords, and the lords are obliged to take them word for word, without making any amendment whatever. They are sent in that shape to the crown, and the crown is obliged to take them without amendment at all. The practice of tacking in England is this: knowing that a money bill is obliged to be passed without any alteration or amendment in the lords, the commons in England frequently, when they have a public object or measure to carry out, tack that measure to a money bill, and send it to the house of lords. They know that the over-ruling necessity of the aristocracy and of the crown is such that they must, for the sake of the money granted to them, agree to that clause favorable perhaps to liberty, or to something else that is tacked on to it. The process of tacking in England is therefore objected to by the crown and by the aristocracy always. It is never objected to by the commons.—And according as the prevalence of the authority of the crown and the aristocracy, or of the public branch of the legislature takes place, the practice of tacking is resorted to. Hence the quotation read by the senator the other day from Chancellor Finch. The king always, and the lords always complain of it. Hatsel, in the very loose and very unsatisfactory work of his which I have often had occasion to refer to, complains of it; but the fact is, the process of tacking in England is favorable to liberty; it is favorable to the commons of England. It is never objected to by them, but it is always objected to by the crown and the aristocracy. Her Majesty would be glad to get the money without being obliged to make any concessions to her subjects; and the house of lords would be equally disposed with her Majesty to think it very wrong to be compelled to swallow the whole. They would be willing to take the money, but they would have to take along with it the clause which has been tacked on in favor of personal liberty or of some rights of the subjects.Sir, I had intended to go into the details of this subject, by way of answer to the honorable senator; but, really, I think it is hardly necessary. You find in the third volume of Hatsel that he has a chapter on the subject of bills tacked to bills of supply. I repeat, sir, that we have no such thing as that tacking process in this country. And why? Because, although tax bills and other bills originate in the house of representatives, and by the Constitution are required to originate there, the senate have a right to amend, to strike out any clause, to reduce the tax, or to make any additions or amendment which they please. The senate is under no such restraint as is the house of lords in England. Hence we have no such thingas tacking, in the English parliamentary sense of the term. But tacking, even in England, is confined to what are considered incongruous measures. Now, sir, the question is, whether there is any incongruity in these measures: a bill for the admission of California: a bill establishing a territorial government in Utah; a bill establishing a territorial government for New Mexico: and what is indispensable, if we give her a government, a bill providing what shall be her boundary, provided Texas shall accede to the liberal proposal made to her? Is there any thing, I ask, incongruous in all this? Where is it? What is the incongruity? What is the indignity? for I have heard time after time that it is undignified, or that it is ill-treating California, to attach her to those portions of territory acquired from Mexico, included in Utah and New Mexico. What is the indignity? I admit that in general, for the sake of simplicity of business, it is better not to make any one bill complex, or even to embrace too great a variety of subjects of a congruous nature. But that rests in the sound discretion of congress. It rests in the pleasure of congress. Sir, it has been said that California has set us a very good example, by providing by her constitution that no two subjects are to be united in the same bill. Louisiana has done the same thing in her constitution. Ask the senator from Louisiana, or ask an honorable member of that legislature, who has just arrived here from Baton Rouge, and they will tell you to what vast inconvenience legislative action is exposed, in consequence of this constitutional restriction. What are incongruous subjects, what are distinct subjects, is a matter not always absolutely certain. If any thing which is thought incongruous is incorporated in a bill in that legislature, it is sent to the judiciary, and if the judiciary thinks the subjects are incongruous, the law cannot be constitutional, because, in the opinion of the judges, it was in violation of the constitution, which declared that the legislature should pass only congruous bills. I have been told, and the senator from Louisiana can state whether I have been correctly informed or not, that in two or three instances laws which have been passed by the legislature of Louisiana have been declared unconstitutional, in consequence of this constitutional restriction upon legislative action, and the courts would not enforce them.I have stated what I think I ought to satisfy every body without dwelling upon it further. Now, sir, I will show you what has been done by congress from time to time in the annexation of different subjects in the same bill. Here, sir, is volume second, page 396, chapter five, ofThe United States Statutes at Large, in which I find ‘An act to regulate and fix compensation for clerks, andto authorize the laying out of public roads, and for other purposes.’—The very title shows the incongruity of the subjects treated of. You will find in volume four, page 125, chapter 83, ‘An act to extend the time for the settlement of private land claims in the territory of Florida, to provide for the preservation of the public archives in saidterritory, and for the relief of John Johnson.’ [Laughter.] Here the name of the individual came last, but I have a case before me in which the individual came first. It is to be found in theStatutes at Large, private acts, volume six, page 813, chapter 89, entitled ‘An act for the relief of Chastelain and Pouvert, and for other purposes.’ And what do you suppose those other purposes to have been? About fifty appropriations for a variety of subjects which can be supposed to arise under such a government as ours. Will my friend read the extract for me?Mr.Underwood accordingly read the extract as follows:‘An act for the relief of Chastelain and Pouvert, and for other purposes.‘Be it enacted,&c.That the collector of the port of New York is hereby authorized to deduct from the amount of a bond given by Chastelain and Pouvert, for duties on merchandise imported in the schoonerGen.Jackson, Hawes, master, from Neuvitas, in the island of Cuba, such duties as may have been charged on that portion of said merchandise which was not landed in the United States, having been destroyed by fire in the harbor of New York, upon their producing proof to the collector of New York of the destruction of said merchandise.‘And be it further enacted, That the following sums to pay the balance of accounts for which no appropriations now exist, and which have been passed upon and allowed by the proper accounting officer of the government, are now before them for audit, and for the payment of which appropriations are recommended by the heads of the proper departments, be and the same are appropriated,viz:For an award made by the proper accounting officer of the treasury in favor of the owners of the steamboats Stasca and Dayton, for services rendered under an agreement with Major Charles Thomas, quarter-master for the transportation of supplies, laborers, and other things for the use of the works at Fort Smith, Arkansas, in the year 1838, $13,350. For the payment of a balance due for supplies furnished to the Creek Indians, and medical services rendered to those Indians, after the commencement of the disturbances in the Creek country, and before and during the removal of the said Indians west of the Mississippi, which accounts were incurred under the direction of the proper officers or agents of the government, $7,741.44. For the payment of the expenses of a division of the lands of the Brothertown Indians among the members of the tribe, in obedience to the act of congress of the3dof March, 1839, entitled, ‘An act for the relief of the Brothertown Indians in the territory of Wisconsin,’ the duties having been performed and the accounts presented, $1,830.’Mr.Clay.—There are a great many others.Mr.Benton.—What is the date of that act?Mr.Clay.—It was approved July1st, 1840; but I have one of a later date, if the honorable senator will prefer it. Here is one in 1849, entitled ‘an act for the relief of James Norris, and for other purposes:’‘Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the secretary of the navy be, and is hereby, directed to place the name of James Norris, of Sandwich, in the state of New Hampshire, on the roll of invalid pensioners, and pay him a pension at such a rate per day as is provided by law for the total disability of an assistant surgeon in thenavy of the United States, to commence on the first day of July, A. D. 1848, and continue during his natural life.‘Sec.2.And be it further enacted, That there be, and hereby are appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, the following sums, for the government of the territory of Minnesota. For salaries of governor, three judges, and secretary, nine thousand dollars. For contingent expenses of said territory, three hundred and fifty dollars. For compensation and mileage of members of the legislative assembly, pay of the officers and attendants, printing, stationery, fuel, and other incidental expenses, thirteen thousand seven hundred dollars.—Approved, March 3, 1849.’I never knew that our young sister Minnesota thought her dignity at all affected or offended by this association with James Norris. There was a civil and diplomatic bill under consideration the last session. The senator’s recollection will assist me if it were not last session. To that bill the senator from Missouri (Mr.Benton) moved to add an amendment, to pay certain expenses incurred in the conquest of California. At the second session of the thirtieth congress, the bill ‘making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year ending June30th, 1850, and for other purposes,’ being under consideration of the senate,Mr.Walker proposed an amendment, the object of which was to provide governments for the territory recently acquired from Mexico, including California, which was adopted; yeas 29, nays 27. At the same session, the same bill being under consideration,Mr.Walker, for the first time, proposed the amendment quoted above as agreed to; andMr.Bell proposed an amendment to the amendment ofMr.Walker, which was disagreed to: yeas 4, nays 39.—Senate Journal, second session, ThirtiethCong.pp.241–’43.I shall next notice an act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year 1842. It will be found in the fifth volume of theStatutes at Large, page 476, chapter 29. To that act is annexed a proviso limiting the compensation which should be received for printing the laws and documents of congress. The next subject I shall notice is an act to provide for the support of the military academy of the United States for the year 1838, and for other purposes. It will be found in volume fifth of theStatutes at Large, page 262, chapter 169.—These are only some out of a multitude of the same kind that might have been produced from the passage of such laws, from time to time, founded upon the discretion and good sense of congress, embracing subjects of every variety of incongruity. And yet, upon a bill which proposes to unite three subjects perfectly compatible in their nature, without the slightest incongruity existing between them—subjects which, at the last session, were proposed to be united together by the honorable senator from Wisconsin, in his proposal for the adjustment of these unpleasant questions, it is all at once discovered that the powers of government are paralyzed: that it is ‘tacking’—a word which has not yet been imported from England in her parliamentary law—it is all at once discovered that it is ‘tacking’—amost dangerous and undignified course, which ought not to be sanctioned.I mentioned, sir, a while ago, acts which embraced every possible variety of legislation. I referred to an act providing for the support of the military academy of the United States for the year 1838, and for other purposes. That act makes thirty or forty appropriations for different objects! It makes appropriations for the documentary history of the revolution, for continuing the construction of the patent office, for furnishing machinery and other expenses incident to the outfit of the branch mint at New Orleans, Charlotte, and Dahlonega; for the salaries of the governor, chief judge, associate justices, district attorney, marshal, and pay and mileage of the members of the legislative assembly of the territory of Iowa, the expense there of taking the census, and for other incidental and contingent expenses of that territory, and in relation to the investment in state stock of the bequest of the late James Smithson, of London, for the purpose of founding at Washington, in this district, an institution we denominate the Smithsonian Institution. These and various other acts are all comprehended in a bill making an appropriation for the military academy at West Point.Now, sir, after this, can it be said that there is any want of power, or any non-conformity in the practice of congress, in endeavoring to unite together, not three incongruous and discordant measures, but three measures of the same character, having, in different form, the same general object?I will pass on, with a single observation on an amendment introduced by the committee into the territorial bill. To that amendment I was opposed, but it was carried in the committee. It is an amendment which is to be found in the tenth section of one of the bills limiting the power of the territorial legislature upon the subject of laws which it may pass. Amongst other limitations, it declares ‘that the territorial legislature shall have no power to pass any law in respect to African slavery.’ I did not then, and do not now, attach much importance to the amendment, which was proposed by an honorable senator, now in my eye, and carried by a majority of the committee. The effect of that clause will at once be understood by the senate. It speaks of ‘African’ slavery. The word African was introduced so as to leave the government at liberty to legislate as it might think proper on any other condition of slavery—‘Peon’ or ‘Indian’ slavery, which has so long existed under the Spanish regime. The object was to impose a restriction upon them as to the passage of any law either to admit or exclude African slavery, or of any law restricting it. The effect of that amendment will at once be seen. If the territorial legislature can pass no law with respect to African slavery, the state of the law as it exists now in the territories of Utah and New Mexico will continue to exist until the people form a constitution for themselves, when they can settle the question of slavery as they please. They will not be allowed toadmit or exclude it. They will be restrained on the one hand from its admission, and on the other from its exclusion. Sir, I shall not repeat now the expression of opinion which I have already announced to the senate as being held by me on this subject. My opinion is, that the law of Mexico, in all the variety of forms in which legislation can take place—that is to say, by the edict of a dictator, by the constitution of the people of Mexico, by the act of the legislative authority of Mexico—by all these modes of legislation, slavery has been abolished there. I am aware that some other senators entertain a different opinion; but without going into discussion of that question, which I think altogether unnecessary, I feel authorized to say that the opinion of a vast majority of the people of the United States, of a vast majority of the jurists of the United States, is in coincidence with that which I entertain; that is to say, that at this moment, by law and in fact, there is no slavery there, unless it is possible that some gentlemen from the slave states, in passing through that country, may have taken along their body slaves. In point of fact and in point of law, I entertain the opinions which I expressed at an early period of the session. Sir, we have heard since, from authority entitled to the highest respect, from no less authority than that of the delegate from New Mexico, that labor can be there obtained at the rate of three or four dollars per month; and, if it can be got at that rate, can anybody suppose that any owner of slaves would ever carry them to that country, where he could only get three or four dollars per month for them?I believe, on this part of the subject, I have said every thing that is necessary for me to say; but their remains two or three subjects upon which I wish to say a few words before I close what I have to offer for the consideration of the senate.The next subject upon which the committee acted was that of fugitive slaves. The committee have proposed two amendments to be offered to the bill introduced by the senator from Virginia, (Mr.Mason,) whenever the bill is taken up. The first of these amendments provides that the owner of a fugitive slave, when leaving his own state, and whenever it is practicable—for sometimes, in the hot pursuit of an immediate runaway, it may not be in the power of the master to wait to get such record, and he will always do it if it is possible—shall carry with him a record from the state from which the fugitive has fled; which record shall contain an adjudication of two facts: first, the fact of slavery, and secondly, the fact of elopement; and in the third place, such a general description of the slave as the court shall be enabled to give upon such testimony as shall be brought before it. It also provides that this record, taken from the county court, or from the court of record in the slaveholding state, shall be taken to the free state, and shall be there held to be competent and sufficient evidence of the facts which it avows. Now, sir, I heard objection made to this that it would be an inconvenience and an expense to the slaveholder. I think the expense will be very triflingto the great advantages which will result. The expenses will be only two or three dollars for the seal of the court, and the certificate and attestation of the clerk,&c.Sir, we know the just reverence and respect in which records are ever held. The slaveholder himself will feel, when he goes from Virginia to Ohio with this record, that he has got a security which he never possessed before for the recovery of his property. And when the attestation of the clerk, under the seal of the court, is exhibited to the citizen of Ohio, that citizen will be disposed to respect, and bound to respect, under the laws of the United States, a record thus exhibited, coming from a sister state. The inconvenience will be very slight, very inconsiderable, compared with the great security of the slaveholder.Mr.Butler.—As the bill to which the senator refers has been somewhat under my care, I am sure the honorable senator will allow me to ask a question in relation to this amendment. Is it proposed that the certificate shall be from the judge, or shall be from the court, as it is termed; because I see it seems to be inferred that it must be given by a court, and a court of record, which has a technical meaning? I desire the honorable senator to inform me whether it is thus to be given by a court or by a judge at chambers?Mr.Clay.—Mr.President, I confess I had in view the county courts of probate which prevail throughout the United States, and not the judge. But it can be so modified, if it be deemed essential to the progress of the bill.The committee partake of the same spirit which I have endeavored to manifest throughout this whole distracted question. They are not wedded to any particular plan; and if any amendments are offered that will improve and better the bills reported, they will be accepted. I am sure that I answer for every member of the committee, with pleasure, that any amendments to aid the object we have in view will be accepted. I repeat, sir, I confess I had in view that this record should be taken from the county courts, which prevail in almost all the states, except Louisiana and South Carolina, which have their parish courts. Any one of these courts, after hearing evidence about the ownership of property and the escape of the property, could give the required record, and this would be carried to that part of the country where the parties go.With respect to the other amendment offered by the committee to the fugitive bill, I regretted extremely to hear the senator from Arkansas object so earnestly and so seriously to it. I did not pretend to question his right, or the right of any other senator, but he will surely allow me to say, in all kindness, that of all the states in this Union, without exception, I will not except even Virginia herself, I believe that the state which suffers more than any other by the escaping of slaves from their owners, seeking refuge either in Canada, or in some of the non-slaveholding states, Kentucky is the one. I doubt very much whether the state of Arkansas ever lost a slave. They may, very possibly, once in a while, run off to the Indians,but very rarely. So of other interior states. So of Georgia and South Carolina. Sometimes, perhaps, a slave escapes from their seaports, but very rarely by land. Kentucky is the most suffering state, but I venture to anticipate for my own state that she will be satisfied with the provisions to which I am now about to call the attention of the senate.Mr.President, in all subjects of this kind we must deal fairly and honestly by all. We must recollect that there are feelings, and interests, and sympathies on both sides of the question; and no man who has ever brought his mind seriously to the consideration of a suitable measure for the rēcapture of runaway slaves, can fail to admit that the question is surrounded with great difficulties. On the one hand, if the owner of the slave could go into this non-slaveholding state, and seize the negro, put his hands upon him, and the whole world would recognise the truth of his ownership of property, and the fact of the escape of that property, there would be no difficulty then in those states where prejudice against slavery exists in the highest degree. But he goes to a state which does not recognise slavery. Recollect how different the state of fact is now from what it was in 1793, nearly sixty years ago. There were, then, comparatively few free persons of color—few, compared to the numbers which exist at present. By the progress of emancipation in the slaveholding states, and the multiplication of them by natural causes, vast numbers of them have rushed to the free states.—There are in the cities of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston—I have not looked into the precise number—some eight or ten to one in proportion to the number there were in 1793 when the act passed.In proportion to the number of free blacks, multiplied in the free states, does the difficulty increase of recovering a fugitive from a slaveholding state. Recollect,Mr.President, that the rule of law is reversed in the two classes of states. In the slaveholding states the rule is, that color implies slavery, and theonus probandiof freedom is thrown on the persons claiming it, as every person in the slaveholding states is regardedprima facieas a slave. On the contrary, when you go to the non-slaveholding states, color implies freedom and not slavery. Every man who is seen in the free states, though he be a man of color, is regarded as free. And when a stranger from Virginia or Kentucky goes to remote parts of Pennsylvania, and sees a black person, who perhaps has been living there for years, and claims him to be his slave, the feelings and sympathy of the neighborhood are naturally and necessarily excited in favor of the colored person. We all respect these feelings, where they are honestly entertained. Well, sir, what are you to do in a case of that kind? You will give every satisfaction that can be given that the person whom you propose to arrest is your property, and is a fugitive from your service or labor. That is the extent of one amendment which we propose to offer, but there is also another. The amendment upon which I have been commenting provides for the productionof a record. Now, what is the inconvenience of that? It provides that when the owner of the slave shall arrest his property in a non-slaveholding state, and shall take him before the proper functionary to obtain a certificate to authorize the return of that property to the state from which he fled, and if he declares to that functionary at the time that he is a free man and not a slave, what does the provision require the officer to do? Why, to take a bond from the agent or owner that he will carry the black person back to the county of the state from which he fled; and that at the first court which may sit after his return, he shall be carried there, if he again assert the right to his freedom; the court shall afford and the owner shall afford to him all the facilities which are requisite to enable him to establish his right to freedom. Now, no surety is even required of the master. The committee thought, and in that I believe they all concurred, that it would be wrong to demand of a stranger, hundreds of miles from his home, surety to take back the slave to the state from which he fled. The trial by jury is what is demanded by the non-slaveholding states. Well, we put the party claimed to be a fugitive back to the state from which he fled, and give him trial by jury in that state.Well, sir, ought we not to make this concession? It is but very little inconvenience. I will tell you, sir, what will be the practical operation of this. It will be this: When a slave has escaped from the master, and taken a refuge in a free state, and that master comes to recapture him and take him back to the state from which he fled, the slave will cry out, ‘I do not know the man; I never saw him in my life; I am a free man.’ He will say any thing and do any thing to preserve to himself that freedom of which is for a moment in possession. He will assert most confidently before the judge that he is a free man. But take him back to the state from which he fled, to his comrades, and he will state the truth, and will relinquish all claim to freedom. The practical operation, therefore, of the amendment which we have proposed, will be attended with not the least earthly inconvenience to the party claiming the fugitive. The case is bond without surety. The bond is transmitted by the officer taking it to the district attorney of the state from which he has fled. That officer sees that the bond is executed, and that the slave is taken before the court. Perhaps, before the slave reaches home, he will acknowledge that he is a slave; there is an end of the bond and an end of the trouble about the master. Is this unreasonable? Is it not a proper and rational concession to the prejudices, if you please, which exist in the non-slaveholding states? Sir, our rights are to be asserted; our rights are to be maintained. They will be asserted and maintained in a manner not to wound unnecessarily the sensibilities of others. And, in requiring such a bond as this amendment proposes to exact from the owner, I do not think there is the slightest inconvenience imposed upon him, of which he ought to complain.Sir, there is one opinion prevailing—I hope not extensively—insome of the non-slaveholding states, which nothing we can do will conciliate. I allude to that opinion that asserts that there is a higher law—a divine law—a natural law—which entitles a man, under whose roof a runaway has come, to give him assistance, and succor, and hospitality. A divine law, a natural law! and who are they that venture to tell us what is divine and what is natural law? Where are their credentials of prophecy? Why, sir, we are told that the other day, at a meeting of some of these people at New York, Moses and all the prophets were rejected, and that the name even of our blessed Saviour was treated with sacrilege and contempt by these propagators of a divine law, of a natural law which they have discovered above all human laws and constitutions. If Moses and the prophets, and our Saviour and all others, are to be rejected, will they condescend to show us their authority for propagating this new law, this new divine law of which they speak? The law of nature, sir! Look at it as it is promulgated, and even admitted or threatened to be enforced, in some quarters of the world. Well, sir, some of these people have discovered another plausible law of nature. There is a large class who say that if a man has acquired, no matter whether by his own exertions or by inheritance, a vast estate, much more than is necessary for the existence of himself and family, I who am starving, am entitled by a law of Nature to have a portion of these accumulated goods to save me from the death which threatens me. Here are you, with your barns full, with your warehouses full of goods, collected from all quarters of the globe; your kitchens and laundries and pantries all full of that which conduces to the subsistence and comfort of man; and here am I standing by, as Lazarus at the gate of the rich man, perishing from hunger—will not the law of Nature allow me to take enough of your super-abundance to save me a little while from that death which is inevitable without I do it? Why, sir, trace this pretended law of Nature, about which, seriously, none of the philosophers are agreed, and apply it to one of the most interesting and solemn ceremonies of life. Go to a Mahometan country, and the Mahometan will tell you that you are entitled to as many wives as you can get. Come next to a Christian country, and you will be told that you are entitled to but one. Go to our friends the Mormons, and they will tell you that you are entitled to none. But there are persons in this age of enlightenment and progress and civilization, who will rise up in public assemblages, and, denouncing the church and all that is sacred that belongs to it—denouncing the founders of the religion which all profess and revere—will tell you that notwithstanding the solemn oath which they have taken by kissing the book to carry out into full effect all the provisions of the constitution of our country, there is a law of their God—a divine law, which they have found out and nobody else has—superior and paramount to all human law; and that they do not mean to obey this human law, but the divine law, of which, by some inspiration, by some means undisclosed, they have obtained a knowledge. Thatis the class of persons which we do not propose to conciliate by any amendment, by any concession which we can make.But the committee, in considering this delicate subject, and looking at the feelings and interests on both sides of the question, thought if best to offer these two provisions—that which requires the production of a record in the non-slaveholding states, and that which requires a bond to grant to the real claimant of his freedom a trial by jury, in the place where that trial ought to take place according to the interpretation of the constitution of the United States, if it take place any where. Therefore, in order to obviate the difficulties which have been presented, and to satisfy the prejudices in the non-slaveholding states, we propose to give the fugitive the right of trial by jury in the state from which he fled. The statement in the report of the committee is perfectly true that the greatest facilities are always extended to every man of color in the slaveholding states who sues for freedom. I have never known an instance of a failure on the part of a person thus suing to procure a verdict and judgment in his favor, if there were even slight grounds in support of his claim. And, sir, so far is the sympathy in behalf of a person suing for his freedom carried, that few members of the bar appear against them. I will mention, though in no boastful spirit, that I myself never appeared but once in my life against a person suing for his freedom, but have appeared for them in many instances without charging them a solitary cent. That I believe is the general course of the liberal and eminent portion of the bar throughout the country. One case I made an exception, but it was a case when I appeared for a particular friend. I told him: ‘Sir, I will not appear against your negroes unless I am perfectly satisfied that they have no right to freedom; and even if I shall become, after the progress of the trial, convinced that they are entitled to freedom, I shall abandon your cause.’ I venture to say, then, that in all that relates to tenderness of treatment to that portion of our population, and to the administration of justice to them, and the supply of their wants, nothing can be found in the slaveholding states that is not honorable and creditable to them.Mr.President, the only measure remaining upon which I shall say a word now, is the abolition of the slave-trade in the district of Columbia. There is, I believe, precious little of it. I believe the first man in my life that I ever heard denounce that trade was a southern man—John Randolph of Roanoke. I believe there has been no time within the last forty years when, if earnestly pressed upon congress, there would not have been found a majority, perhaps a majority from the slaveholding states themselves, in favor of the abolition of the slave-trade in this district. The bill which the committee has reported is founded upon the law of Maryland, as it existed when this district was set apart and ceded to the United States.—Maryland has since very often changed her laws.—What is their exact condition at present, I am not aware. I have heardthat she has made a change at the last session, and I am told that they may again be changed in the course of a year or two. Sir, some years ago, it would have been thought a great concession to the feelings and wishes of the north to abolish this slave-trade. Now, I have seen some of the rabid abolition papers denounce it as amounting to nothing. They do not care for that. And will my friends, some of my friends on the other side of the house, allow me to say a word or two with respect to their course in relation to this measure. At the beginning of this session, as you know, that offensive proviso, called the ‘Wilmot proviso,’ was what was most apprehended, and what all the slaveholding states were most desirous to get rid of. Well, sir, by the operation of causes upon the northern mind friendly to the Union, hopes are inspired, which I trust will not be frustrated in the progress of this measure, that the north, or at least a sufficient portion of the north, are now willing to dispense with the proviso. When, three months ago, I offered certain resolutions, and when to these measures it was objected, by way of reproach, that they were simply carrying out my own plan, my honorable friend from North Carolina at the moment justly pointed out the essential differences between the plan, as contained in the resolutions offered by me, and that now presented by the committee.At the time I offered those resolutions, knowing what consequences and, as I sometimes feared, fatal consequences, might result from the fact of the north insisting on the proviso, by way of compensation, in one of the resolutions which I offered—the second one—I stated two truths, one of law and one of fact, which I thought ought to satisfy the north that it ought no longer to insist on the Wilmot proviso. Those truths were not incorporated in the bill reported by the committee, but they exist, nevertheless, as truths. I believe them both now as much I did in February last. I know there are others who do not concur with me in opinion. Every senator must decide for himself, as the country will decide for itself, when the question comes to be considered. Well, when our southern friends found they were rid of the proviso, they were highly satisfied, and I shared with them in their satisfaction. If I am not much mistaken, a great majority of them would have said, ‘If,Mr.Clay, you had not put those two obnoxious truths in them, we should have been satisfied with your resolution.’ Well, sir, we have got rid of the Wilmot proviso, we have got rid of the enactment into laws of the two truths to which I refer, but I fear there are some of our southern brethren who are not satisfied. There are some who say that there is yet the Wilmot proviso, under another form, lurking in the mountains of Mexico, in that natural fact to which my honorable friend from Massachusetts adverted, as I myself did when I hinted that the law of nature was adverse to the introduction of slavery there. Now, as you find that just desire is to be obtained, there is something further, there are other difficulties in the way of the adjustment of these unhappy subjectsof difference, and of obtaining that which is most to be desired, the cementing of the bonds of this Union.Mr.President, I do not despair, I will not despair, that the measure will be carried. And I would almost stake my existence, if I dared, that if these measures which have been reported by the committee of thirteen were submitted to the people of the United States to-morrow, and their votes were taken upon them, there would be nine-tenths of them in favor of the pacification which is embodied in that report.Mr.President, what have we been looking at?—What are we looking at? The ‘proviso;’ an abstraction always; thrust upon the south by the north against all the necessities of the case, against all the warnings which the north ought to have listened to coming from the south; pressed unnecessarily for any northern object; opposed, I admit, by the south, with a degree of earnestness uncalled for, I think, by the nature of the provision, but with a degree of earnestness natural to the south, and which the north itself perhaps would have displayed if a reversal of the conditions of the two sections of the Union could have taken place. Why do you of the north press it? You say because it is in obedience to certain sentiments in behalf of human freedom and human rights which you entertain. You are likely to accomplish those objects at once by the progress of events, without pressing this obnoxious measure.—You may retort, why is it opposed at the south?—It is opposed at the south because the south feels that, when once legislation on the subject of slavery begins, there is no seeing where it is to end. Begin it in the district of Columbia; begin it in the territories of Utah and New Mexico and California; assert your power there to-day, and in spite of all the protestations—and you are not wanting in making protestations—that you have no purpose of extending it to the southern states, what security can you give them that a new sect will not arise with a new version of the constitution, or with something above or below the constitution, which shall authorize them to carry their notions into the bosoms of the slaveholding states, and endeavor to emancipate from bondage all the slaves there? Sir, the south has felt that her security lies in denying at the threshold your right to touch the subject of slavery. She said, ‘Begin, and who can tell where you will end? Let one generation begin and assert the doctrine for the moment, forbearing as they may be in order to secure their present objects, their successors may arise with new notions, and new principles, and new expositions of the constitution and laws of nature, and carry those notions and new principles into the bosom of the slaveholding states.’ The cases, then, gentlemen of the north and gentlemen of the south, do not stand upon an equal footing. When you, on the one hand, unnecessarily press an offensive and unnecessary measure on the south, the south repels it from the highest of all human motives of action, the security of property and life, and every thing else interesting and valuable in life.Mr.President, after we have got rid, as I had hoped, of all these troubles—after this Wilmot proviso has disappeared, as I trust it may both in this and the other end of the capitol—after we have been disputing two or three years or more, on the one hand, about a mere abstraction, and on the other, if it were fraught with evil, not so much present as distant and future, when we are arriving at a conclusion, what are the new difficulties that spring up around us? Matters of form. The purest question of form, that was ever presented to the mind of man—whether we shall combine in one united bill three measures, all of which are necessary, or separate them into three distinct bills, passing each in its turn, if it can be done.Mr.President, I trust that the feelings of attachment to the Union, of love for its past glory, of anticipation of its future benefits and happiness; a fraternal feeling which, I trust, will be common throughout all parts of the country; the desire to live together in peace and harmony, to prosper as we have prospered heretofore, to hold up to the civilized world the example of one great and glorious republic, fulfilling the high destiny that belongs to it, demonstrating beyond all doubt man’s capacity for self-government; these motives and these considerations will, I trust, animate us all, bringing us together to dismiss alike questions of abstraction and form, and consummating the act in such a manner as to heal not one only, but all the wounds of the country.

REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF THIRTEEN.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 13, 1850.

[ONthe8thof May,Mr.Clay, as chairman of the committee of thirteen, to whom the proposed ‘compromise measures’ had been referred, presented a long report, embodying the views and recommendations of a majority of the committee, and suggesting that, ‘if such of these several measures as require legislation should be carried out by suitable acts of congress, all controversies to which our late territorial acquisitions have given rise, and all existing questions connected with the institution of slavery, whether resulting from those acquisitions or from its existence in the states and the District of Columbia, will be amicably settled and adjusted, in a manner, it is confidently believed, to give general satisfaction to an overwhelming majority of the people of the United States.’ The report was ably discussed for several weeks,Mr.Clay and his friends frequently enlisting all their energies in its support. The following embraces his reply to several objections which had been raised by opposing senators.]

MR.CLAYrose and said: I have risen,Mr.President, for the purpose of making some further explanation, and an additional exposition to that contained in the report of the Committee of Thirteen, which has recently been in consultation upon the important subjects referred to them. When the report of the committee was presented to the senate last week, various members of the committee rose in their places, and stated that certain parts of the report did not meet with their concurrence. It might have been stated with perfect truth that no one member of the committee concurred in all that was done by the committee. There was a majority upon most, and even upon all the subjects reported by them; and each member, perhaps, if left to himself separately, would have presented the various matters which were reported to the senate in a form somewhat different from that in which they were presented in the report. I was myself, upon one occasion, in the minority in the committee; yet I have not been discouraged in the least degree by the differences which existed in the committee, or which were manifested in the senate last week. Gentlemen who did not exactly agree to what was done, will, in the progress of the measure, endeavor to make it conformable to their wishes. If it should not be so modified, I indulge with great confidence in the hope that no one of them is so irrevocably committed against the measures as to induce him, upon the question of its finalpassage, to vote against it. I am not authorized to say, and do not mean to say, that there will be an affirmative vote of every member of the senate in favor of the measure upon the final passage of the bill; but I need not say that I indulge the hope, whether all modifications which were desired by various members of the committee may or may not be made, that finally there will be not only a unanimous concurrence of the committee generally in the measure recommended, but I trust it will leave this branch of congress with a large majority in its favor. I repeat that I am not discouraged by any thing that has transpired in the committee, or in the senate, or in the country, upon the subject of this measure. I have believed from the first, and I yet firmly believe, that if these unhappy subjects which have divided the country shall be accommodated by an amicable adjustment, it must be done upon some such basis as that which the committee has reported. And can there be a doubt on this subject? The crisis of the crisis, I repeat, has arrived, and the fate of the measures which have been reported by the committee, in my humble judgment, determines the fate of the harmony or distraction of this country. Entertaining that belief, I cannot but indulge the hope, that no honorable senators, who, upon the first hearing of the report, might have seen some matters in it objectionable, according to their wishes or judgment, will see fit to oppose its final passage; but that the entire senate, after a full consideration of the plan proposed, and after a fair contrast between this and all other proposed plans—at least all other practicable plans of adjustment of the question—whatever expectations or hopes may have been announced elsewhere, out of this body, will concur in this measure brought forward by the Committee of Thirteen, and that ultimately the measure will obtain the general concurrence of both houses of congress.

But I have risen, as I announced, more particularly for the purpose of entering into some further explanation of the course of the committee, and of throwing out some few observations in support of the measures which they have recommended for the adoption of the senate.

The first measure upon which they reported was that of the true exposition of the compact between the United States and Texas, upon the occasion of the admission of that state into the Union. Upon that subject, as already announced in the report, I am happy to say, there was an undivided opinion. Two honorable senators—one of whom is now absent, and the other present—while they declared that they would not hold themselves, and did not intend to be regarded as holding themselves, in every possible state of things, and in every contingency, to vote for the admission of states that might hereafter be carved out of Texas; but that they reserved to themselves, as I understood them, the right to determine this question whenever any new states formed out of Texas should present themselves for admission.—Whether, under all the circumstances of the country, and the circumstances under which a newstate might present itself it should or should not be admitted, they made this reservation; and yet they united most heartily in the true exposition of the compact between Texas and the United States, according to which, as we all know, a number of states, not exceeding four, with or without slavery, having the requisite population, with the consent of Texas, were to be admitted into the Union, from time to time, as they might be formed, and present themselves for admission.

But I will not dwell longer upon that part of the subject. I will now approach that which, in the committee, and perhaps in the two houses, has given the most trouble and created the most anxiety, amongst all the measures upon which the committee have reported—I mean the admission of California into the Union. Against that measure there were various objections.One of these objections was with respect to its population. It has been contended that it ought only to be admitted, if admittedatall, with one representative; that if admitted with two representatives, it would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and that there is no sufficient evidence before the senate and the country that its population would entitle it even to one representative. I suppose that no one will contend—California and the other acquisitions from Mexico having been admitted into the Union only about two years ago last February (that, I believe, was two years from the date of the treaty of Hidalgo)—that that sort of evidence, to entitle her to one or two representatives, which is furnished by the decenial enumeration of the population of the United States, would be requisite. It is impossible, with respect to California, that any such evidence should be furnished, she having been a part of a common empire only for the short time I have mentioned. Now, let me ask, what was done in the institution of the first apportionment of the representation among the states of the Union? There was no federal enumeration of the people of the United States upon which that apportionment was made. So many representatives were allowed to one state, and so many to another, and so on, completing the number provided for by the Constitution of the United States; but in that instance, the convention that allotted these representatives to the various states based it upon all the information which they possessed, whether it was perfectly authentic or not. It is known by those who are at all acquainted with the adjustment of the question of representation among the several states, that in several of them (I may mention Georgia) it was pretty well known at the time that a larger number of representatives were allotted than the exact state of the population would authorize. But it was said in that case, ‘Georgia is a new state, rapidly filling up; a strong current of emigration is flowing into her limits, and she will soon have—perhaps by the time the two representatives take their seats—the requisite population.’ In this way, not upon information obtained under federal authority, but upon information obtained by all the modes by which it could beprocured, and which was of a nature calculated to satisfy the judgment of the convention, was the apportionment of the representation made by the framers of the constitution.

So of a more recent acquisition or annexation—that of Texas. Nobody believed, I think, at the time, that Texas had a population sufficient to entitle her to two representatives. As in the case of some of the old thirteen states, so in the case of Texas, it was known that she was rapidly filling up—as I have no doubt will turn out to be the fact when the next census comes to be taken in Texas—that before the enumeration of the next census was taken, she would have a population entitling her to two, and probably more representatives.

Now, sir, there is an error existing, as it seemed to me from the observation of one or two friends the other day, with regard to the requisite population to entitle California to two representatives. It is not, as it is supposed, double the ratio which was fixed by congress ten years ago. The ratio was fixed at 70,680; but it was expressly provided in the law establishing it, that any state which had an excess beyond a moiety of the ratio established, should be entitled to an additional representative. According to the provision of that law, to entitle California to two representatives, she would only be required to have a population of 106,021, and not as was supposed, 140 odd thousand. Now, the question is, leaving out of view altogether the rapid augmentation which is daily taking place in the population of California, whether she has a population at this time—at the time when two members come to be admitted—which would entitle her to two representatives. Upon this subject, I have that which appears satisfactory to my mind, and I trust, to the minds of other senators.

In the first place, I offer to the senate an extract from a memorial of the senators and representatives of the state of California to the congress of the United States. To read this memorial, or to state it in substance in detail, would take up a considerable time; and as that memorial has been before senators, and can at any time be referred to and perused by any who have not already examined it, I will merely state, that according to the statements of that memorial—a portion of which are conjectural and a part official—the population of California, from the1stof January, 1850, was 107,069, exceeding the number requisite to entitle the state to two representatives. But that brings it down only to January, 1850. Since that time we are authorized to add to the number, by that of the arrivals by sea at the port of San Francisco, as shown by the official report of the harbor-master from the1stof January, 1850, to the27thof March, 1850. Without going into the classification, there are of Americans, 8,697; of Californians, 13,454; and of foreigners, 5,503—making a total of 16,957. The number of deserters from ships, as stated in the memorial before alluded to, is put at 3,000, in round numbers. The official statement of the harbor-master, made on the first of March last to the legislature, states the number of officers and seamen that left their vessels from various causes to be 14,240.The aggregate of all these statements will give the following results,viz:1stJanuary, 1849, 26,000—8,000 Americans, 13,000 Californians, and 5,000 foreigners; on the1stof January, 1850, the population was 107,069—making a total number on the27thof March, 1850, of 124,026; to which add the number of deserting seamen, 14,240, makes a total of 135,256. Add to this the population arrived from the United States and other places since that time, and altogether, I have no earthly doubt—I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind—that, putting all these statements together, there is at this moment a population in California that would entitle her to two representatives, even supposing there had been no provision for a fraction exceeding the moiety of the ratio fixed by Congress.

Upon this question of population I do not wish to take up the time of the senate unnecessarily. They are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, for the greater part. They have lost nothing of intelligence and capacity for self-government by passing from the United States into California. By the treaty of Hidalgo, the Californians who remain become citizens of the United States, if they do not adopt the alternative of remaining Mexicans, within one year after the treaty of Hidalgo was signed. The Constitution of the United States does not any where fix any term of residence sufficient to constitute an individual one of the permanent portion of the people of the United States. In the Constitution, with regard to the subject of taxation and representation, the term ispeopleandnumber. I have very little doubt that there is a sufficient number of citizens of the United States there to entitle California to two representatives. Well, as they will not be represented in the United States, they ought to be represented somewhere. Having gone to California, it is said that they have gone there only for temporary purposes. They have gone there to dig in the mines; and how many will return, how many will remain there, it is impossible at the present time to tell. We have all a right to move from place to place.

With regard to Louisiana—I am sure I state a fact that will be borne out and affirmed by the senator in my eye from that state, [Mr.Downs]—thousands and thousands went to New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana shortly after the acquisition of that territory by the treaty of Louisiana—and even up to the present time they go there for temporary purposes, intending to make a fortune, if they can, and then return home. But, so delightful is the climate, so happy do they find themselves when they get there, the number of those who go there for such purposes, who ultimately return to their individual homes, I do not believe amounts to scarcely one in a hundred. So it is and will be of California, I dare say. Vast numbers have gone there with the intention of returning, but after they have become connected by marriage, by social ties, by the acquisition of wealth, and by all those circumstances that tend to fix to a permanent location the residence of this animal man, they will relinquishtheir purpose of returning to the United States, I have no doubt, and become permanent and fixed residents of California. On the question of population, therefore, I think there is no ground of rational objection to the number “two,” which has been proposed by the committee, and which is precisely the number in the case of Texas.

Now, sir, with regard to the limits of California.—Upon that subject, a proposition was offered in the committee to extend a line through California, first by 36deg.30min.A member of the committee, however, was not satisfied with that, and proposed 35deg.30min.I believe that a majority of the committee was in favor of that amendment; but when the question of any line came up, it was rejected by a majority of the committee. Is it not a little remarkable that this proposition—this attempt to cut California in two by the line 36deg.30min., or 35deg.30min., or by any other line—does not come from the North at all, from whence it might be supposed it would come? For, with respect to the North, there can be no earthly doubt but if there were half a dozen states made out of California they would all be free states. But the North does not ask for a division. It is from the South that the proposition to divide the existing limits of California comes. The South wants some other states, or another state there. Some gentlemen from the South, it is true, propose that there should be an express recognition of the right to carry slaves south of the proposed line. But I believe that the major part of those who ask for this line, do not even ask for this recognition, or for this enactment, to carry slaves south of this line; and I ask every body who is acquainted with the country, who has taken the pains to look over the map, if he has not come to the conclusion that a friend of mine (I believe now within my hearing) from the South, and a large planter, came to? He said to me the other day: ‘Mr.Clay, if congress was to offer me $500 for every slave I might own, requiring me to take them to one of these new territories and keep them there for ten years, I would not accept the proposition.’

Now, suppose you were to take the line 35deg.30min.or whatever line was proposed, what would be the consequence? There would be an open sea on the one side for the escape of slaves—California, reduced as I have suggested, on another; and Mexico, with her boundless mountains, on another. Who would think—who believes—that, if you establish the line proposed, slavery would ever be carried there, or would be maintained there? Moreover, I think I have understood that the delegation in the convention, south of the line of 35deg.30min., or north of it, voted unanimously against the introduction of slavery there. It cannot, therefore, and I suppose it is not designed with any hope that there would be slavery carried there upon the limits of the Pacific at all. The making of a new state or states out of the present limits of California is therefore but adding to the objection which has been made by the South to the preponderance and influence, and the apprehensions entertained ofthe preponderance and influence of northern power. If the North is satisfied, if the thing is not unreasonable, it seems to me that there should be on the part of our southern friends no hesitation in accepting these limits. But they are said to be unreasonable. California is some 600 or 700 miles in extent on the Pacific coast; it is too large. It is stated in the report that with respect to all that portion of California south of 36deg.30min., shortly after you have left the coast, you encounter deserts of sand, which never can be inhabited; and after you pass these deserts of sand, you approach mountains, and are involved in successive chains of mountains until you reach a population that has no intercourse with the Pacific, but whose intercourse is carried on exclusively with Mexico and other countries on the Mexican Gulf and the Atlantic Ocean. When you come to the northern portion of California, there is a vast desert which is said to have never been passed—or which was never known to be passed—extending from the country which the Mormons occupy down to the Pacific ocean. There seems to me, then, to be no adequate motive for the decreasing of the limits upon the Pacific, with a view to the addition of future states—at least from any amount of geographical knowledge which we possess at present.

It is mentioned in the report that there are other cases of states which have been admitted without the previous authority of congress. The honorable gentleman from Alabama (Mr.Clemens) stated that in all the other instances of states admitted into the Union, they had served an apprenticeship of so many years. But the statement in the report stands uncontradicted. Michigan, Arkansas, Florida, if no other states, came into the Union without any previous act of congress, according to the usage which prevailed in the early admission of states, authorizing them to meet in convention and form a constitution. But it is said that they were under the government of the United States. So much the better for them; they had a good government—a territorial government. But how was it with California? She had no government. You abandoned and deserted her—violated the engagement of the treaty of Hidalgo—left her to shift for herself as well as she could. In this state of abandonment, she has formed a constitution and come here. I ask again, as I had occasion to ask some three months ago, if she does not present stronger claims upon our consideration than any of those states which had territorial governments, but which, not satisfied with them, chose to form for themselves state constitutions, and come here to be admitted into the Union?

I think, then,Mr.President, that with respect to the population of California, with respect to the limits of California, and with respect to the circumstances under which she presents herself to congress for admission as a state into the Union, all are favorable to the grant of what she solicits, and that we can find neither in the one nor the other a sufficient motive to reject or to throw her back into the state of lawless confusion and disorder from which she has emerged.

With the committee I say upon this occasion, that all the considerations which devolve upon congress to admit California, sanction what she has done, and give her the benefit of self-government, apply with equal force to the two territories of Utah and New Mexico.

Mr.President, allow me, at this stage of the few observations which I propose to address to the senate, to contrast the plans which have been presented for the settlement of this question. One has come to us from very high authority, recommending, as I understand it, the admission of California, and doing nothing more, leaving the question unsettled of the boundary between New Mexico and Texas, and leaving the people who inhabit Utah and New Mexico unprovided for by government. I will take the occasion to say, that I came to Washington with a most anxious desire—a desire which I still entertain—to coöperate in my legislative position, in all cases in which I can judiciously coöperate, with the executive branch of the government. I need not add, however, sir, that I came here, also, with a settled purpose to follow the deliberate dictation of my own judgment, wherever that judgment might carry me. It is with great pleasure, sir, that I state that we do coöperate with the President, to the extent which he recommends. He recommends the admission of California. The committee propose it. There the President’s recommendation stops. There we take up the subject, and proceed to act upon the other parts of the territory acquired from Mexico. Now, sir, which course of the two recommends itself best to the judgment of those who are to act in the case?

In the first place, sir, if we do not provide governments for the other portions of the country acquired from Mexico, we fail to fulfil the obligation, the sacred obligation, in the treaty with Mexico. It is said that they will have a government of their own—a local government; that they have such a one now; but they have not such a one now as they had when they were part of Mexico. When they were part of the republic of Mexico, with the common government of Mexico stretching over all the parts constituting that republic, they had all the benefit resulting from their own local laws, and the additional benefit and security resulting from the laws of the supreme government, covering all parts of the republic. We have the place of that supreme government. They were transferred from that sovereignty to this sovereignty, and we stipulated with that former sovereignty that we would extend to them protection to their persons, security to their property, and the benefit of preserving their own religion according to the dictates of their own consciences.Now, sir, if you admit California, and do nothing for Utah and New Mexico—nothing in relation to thesettlementof the boundary question with Texas—I ask you, in what condition, in what state, will you leave these countries? There are the Mormons—a community of which I do not wish to say a word in disrespect. I know very little about them. I have heard very often things said against them; and I believe during this session my colleague, who sits before me,[Mr.Underwood] has had occasion to present some petition or document, showing some very harsh, oppressive, and tyrannical treatment extended by those Mormons to citizens of the United States, who did not compose a portion of their community, and who were merely passing through. Of that people, of their capacity to govern, of the treatment they would give to the other citizens of the United States who might settle among them, or who might wish to pass through, not belonging there—of all these matters I shall not speak. The members from Missouri and Illinois are much more competent to afford information to the senate upon them than I am.

But I care not whether they are as bad as they are represented by their enemies, or as good as they are represented by their friends, or what they are: they are a portion of the people whom we are bound by treaty, as well as other high obligations, to govern; and I put it to you, sir, is it right to say of the people of Utah, comprehending the Mormons, and to the people of New Mexico, deprived as they are of the benefit of the government which they once had, the supreme authority of which resides at Mexico—is it right in us to leave them to themselves, and to say, they will take care of themselves, I dare say; and when they get ripe—ay, when will they be ripe for a state government?—when they get ripe, after the lapse of many years, let them come forward, and we will receive them? Is that discharging our duty?

I will go further in reference to the message, which I am sorry that I think it my duty to contrast with the plan of the committee which is now under consideration; and I will say that I have no doubt that there were strong, at least plausible reasons, for the adoption of that recommendation in the message of the President, at the time it was sent into congress, at the beginning of the session. I have no doubt it was apprehended at that time that it was impossible to create any governments for those territories, without producing scenes in congress of the most painful and unpleasant character. I have no doubt it was believed, as indeed it was stated in the message, that distraction would be aggravated—differences of opinion, perhaps, carried to extreme lengths, if any attempts should be made to extend government over those territories.

But I am happy to be able to recognise what all have seen, that, since the commencement of the session, the most gratifying change in the public mind has taken place. The North, the glorious North, has come to the rescue of this Union of ours. She has displayed a disposition to abate in her demands. The South, the glorious South—not less glorious than the other section of the Union—has also come to the rescue. The minds of men have moderated. Passion has given place to reason. Every where—every where, in all parts of the Union, there is a demand—the force and effect of which, I trust, will be felt in both branches of congress—for an amicable adjustment of these questions, for the relinquishment of extreme opinions entertained, whether upon one side of the question or uponthe other, and coming together once more as friends and brethren, living under the common country, and enjoying the benefits and happiness which have flowed from a common government. I think that if the President had to make a recommendation to congress, with all the lights which have been shed upon the subject since the commencement of the session, now that nearly five months of the session have gone, he would not have limited himself simply to a recommendation to admit California, or to leave the territories to shift for themselves as they could or might.

He tells us in one of those messages—I forget whether it is the message of December or January—that he had reason to believe that one of those territories at least (New Mexico) would possibly form a state government for herself, and might come here, even during the progress of this debate. At all events, if there had been such a state of circumstances at the period that this message was sent in as exists down to the present time, I cannot but believe that the gentleman who now presides at the head of our political affairs, if he had had the benefit of our light, would have made a recommendation much more comprehensive, much more general and healing in its character, than the simple recommendation of the admission of California, leaving all the other questions untouched and unsettled.

With regard to the abandoned condition of Utah and New Mexico, to which I have alluded, left without any authority of this government, acting locally to protect the citizen who goes there to settle, and to protect the citizen who isin transitubetween these countries, without any authority connected with the supreme authority of the government here—when they are communicating from time to time this state of things existing in those countries, I submit that to abandon them, in face of our obligation contained in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and other high obligations, is not conformable to that duty which we are called upon to perform.

Well, then, there is the boundary question with Texas. Why, sir, at this very moment we learn through the public papers that Texas has sent her civil commissioners to Santa Fe, or into New Mexico, for the purpose of bringing them under her authority; and if you leave the Texas boundary question unsettled, and establish no government for Utah and New Mexico, I venture to say that, before we meet again next December, we shall hear of some civil commotion, perhaps the shedding of blood, in the contest between New Mexico and Texas with respect to the boundary; for, without meaning to express at this time, or at any time, any positive opinion on that question, we know that the people of Santa Fe are as much opposed to the government of Texas, and as much convinced that they do not belong to Texas, that they constitute no portion of the territory of Texas, as we know Texas to be earnest in asserting the contrary, and affirming her right to all the country from the mouth of the Rio Grande to its uppermost sources. Is it right, then, to leave these territories unprovided for? Is it right to leave this important questionof boundary between New Mexico and Texas unsettled, to produce possibly the fearful consequences to which I have adverted?

Sir, on these questions, I believe—though I do not recollect the exact state of the vote in committee—that there was no serious diversity of opinion. We all thought we should establish governments for them if we could; that, at any rate, we should make the attempt; and if we failed, after making the attempt, we should stand irreproachable for any voluntary abandonment or neglect of them on our part.

The next question which arose before the committee, after having agreed upon the proposal to be made to Texas for the settlement of the boundary between her and New Mexico, was the question of the union of these three measures in one bill. And upon that subject, sir, the same diversity of opinion which had developed itself in the senate displayed itself in the committee.

A senator, in his seat.—What of the amount to be paid to Texas?

Mr.Clay.—Ah! I am reminded that I have said nothing about the amount proposed to be given to Texas for the relinquishment of her title to the United States of the territory north of the proposed line. The committee, I hope, with the approbation of the senate, thought it best not to fill up that blank until the last moment, upon the final reading of the bill; that if it were inserted in the bill it would go out to the country, and might lead to improper speculation in the stock markets; and that therefore it was better to leave it out until the final passage of the bill.—When we arrive at that point, which I hope we shall do in a short time, I shall be most happy to propose the sum which has been thought of by the committee.

Sir, the committee recommended the union of these three measures. If the senator from Missouri will allow me the benefit of those two cannons pointed to this side of the house, (alluding to two volumes of Hatsel,) I will be much obliged to him. I believe the senator from Missouri has them on his table.

Mr.Benton.—They are in the secretary’s office.

Mr.Clay. The union of these three measures in one bill has been objected to, and has been already very much discussed in the senate. Out of respect to the senator from Missouri and to the senate, I feel myself called upon to give some answer to the argument which he addressed to the senate some days ago, to show that it was improper to connect them together. I must begin by stating what I understand to be parliamentary law in this country. It consists, in the first place, of the Constitution of the United States and of the rules adopted by the two houses of congress; and if you please, sir, Jefferson’s Manual, which has been respected as authority, and used, I believe, in most of the deliberative bodies in this country. Now, sir, either the senator from Missouri or myself totallymisunderstands what is meant by Hatsel in the use of the word ‘tacking.’ We have no such thing as tacking in the English sense of the term. Jefferson has no chapter in his Manual on this subject of tacking. Hatsel first. Tacking in England is this: By the constitution of England—or, in other words, by the practice of England, which makes her constitution—money bills, supply bills, bills of subsidy and aid of all kinds, are passed by the house of commons, sent to the house of lords, and the lords are obliged to take them word for word, without making any amendment whatever. They are sent in that shape to the crown, and the crown is obliged to take them without amendment at all. The practice of tacking in England is this: knowing that a money bill is obliged to be passed without any alteration or amendment in the lords, the commons in England frequently, when they have a public object or measure to carry out, tack that measure to a money bill, and send it to the house of lords. They know that the over-ruling necessity of the aristocracy and of the crown is such that they must, for the sake of the money granted to them, agree to that clause favorable perhaps to liberty, or to something else that is tacked on to it. The process of tacking in England is therefore objected to by the crown and by the aristocracy always. It is never objected to by the commons.—And according as the prevalence of the authority of the crown and the aristocracy, or of the public branch of the legislature takes place, the practice of tacking is resorted to. Hence the quotation read by the senator the other day from Chancellor Finch. The king always, and the lords always complain of it. Hatsel, in the very loose and very unsatisfactory work of his which I have often had occasion to refer to, complains of it; but the fact is, the process of tacking in England is favorable to liberty; it is favorable to the commons of England. It is never objected to by them, but it is always objected to by the crown and the aristocracy. Her Majesty would be glad to get the money without being obliged to make any concessions to her subjects; and the house of lords would be equally disposed with her Majesty to think it very wrong to be compelled to swallow the whole. They would be willing to take the money, but they would have to take along with it the clause which has been tacked on in favor of personal liberty or of some rights of the subjects.

Sir, I had intended to go into the details of this subject, by way of answer to the honorable senator; but, really, I think it is hardly necessary. You find in the third volume of Hatsel that he has a chapter on the subject of bills tacked to bills of supply. I repeat, sir, that we have no such thing as that tacking process in this country. And why? Because, although tax bills and other bills originate in the house of representatives, and by the Constitution are required to originate there, the senate have a right to amend, to strike out any clause, to reduce the tax, or to make any additions or amendment which they please. The senate is under no such restraint as is the house of lords in England. Hence we have no such thingas tacking, in the English parliamentary sense of the term. But tacking, even in England, is confined to what are considered incongruous measures. Now, sir, the question is, whether there is any incongruity in these measures: a bill for the admission of California: a bill establishing a territorial government in Utah; a bill establishing a territorial government for New Mexico: and what is indispensable, if we give her a government, a bill providing what shall be her boundary, provided Texas shall accede to the liberal proposal made to her? Is there any thing, I ask, incongruous in all this? Where is it? What is the incongruity? What is the indignity? for I have heard time after time that it is undignified, or that it is ill-treating California, to attach her to those portions of territory acquired from Mexico, included in Utah and New Mexico. What is the indignity? I admit that in general, for the sake of simplicity of business, it is better not to make any one bill complex, or even to embrace too great a variety of subjects of a congruous nature. But that rests in the sound discretion of congress. It rests in the pleasure of congress. Sir, it has been said that California has set us a very good example, by providing by her constitution that no two subjects are to be united in the same bill. Louisiana has done the same thing in her constitution. Ask the senator from Louisiana, or ask an honorable member of that legislature, who has just arrived here from Baton Rouge, and they will tell you to what vast inconvenience legislative action is exposed, in consequence of this constitutional restriction. What are incongruous subjects, what are distinct subjects, is a matter not always absolutely certain. If any thing which is thought incongruous is incorporated in a bill in that legislature, it is sent to the judiciary, and if the judiciary thinks the subjects are incongruous, the law cannot be constitutional, because, in the opinion of the judges, it was in violation of the constitution, which declared that the legislature should pass only congruous bills. I have been told, and the senator from Louisiana can state whether I have been correctly informed or not, that in two or three instances laws which have been passed by the legislature of Louisiana have been declared unconstitutional, in consequence of this constitutional restriction upon legislative action, and the courts would not enforce them.

I have stated what I think I ought to satisfy every body without dwelling upon it further. Now, sir, I will show you what has been done by congress from time to time in the annexation of different subjects in the same bill. Here, sir, is volume second, page 396, chapter five, ofThe United States Statutes at Large, in which I find ‘An act to regulate and fix compensation for clerks, andto authorize the laying out of public roads, and for other purposes.’—The very title shows the incongruity of the subjects treated of. You will find in volume four, page 125, chapter 83, ‘An act to extend the time for the settlement of private land claims in the territory of Florida, to provide for the preservation of the public archives in saidterritory, and for the relief of John Johnson.’ [Laughter.] Here the name of the individual came last, but I have a case before me in which the individual came first. It is to be found in theStatutes at Large, private acts, volume six, page 813, chapter 89, entitled ‘An act for the relief of Chastelain and Pouvert, and for other purposes.’ And what do you suppose those other purposes to have been? About fifty appropriations for a variety of subjects which can be supposed to arise under such a government as ours. Will my friend read the extract for me?

Mr.Underwood accordingly read the extract as follows:

‘An act for the relief of Chastelain and Pouvert, and for other purposes.

‘Be it enacted,&c.That the collector of the port of New York is hereby authorized to deduct from the amount of a bond given by Chastelain and Pouvert, for duties on merchandise imported in the schoonerGen.Jackson, Hawes, master, from Neuvitas, in the island of Cuba, such duties as may have been charged on that portion of said merchandise which was not landed in the United States, having been destroyed by fire in the harbor of New York, upon their producing proof to the collector of New York of the destruction of said merchandise.

‘And be it further enacted, That the following sums to pay the balance of accounts for which no appropriations now exist, and which have been passed upon and allowed by the proper accounting officer of the government, are now before them for audit, and for the payment of which appropriations are recommended by the heads of the proper departments, be and the same are appropriated,viz:For an award made by the proper accounting officer of the treasury in favor of the owners of the steamboats Stasca and Dayton, for services rendered under an agreement with Major Charles Thomas, quarter-master for the transportation of supplies, laborers, and other things for the use of the works at Fort Smith, Arkansas, in the year 1838, $13,350. For the payment of a balance due for supplies furnished to the Creek Indians, and medical services rendered to those Indians, after the commencement of the disturbances in the Creek country, and before and during the removal of the said Indians west of the Mississippi, which accounts were incurred under the direction of the proper officers or agents of the government, $7,741.44. For the payment of the expenses of a division of the lands of the Brothertown Indians among the members of the tribe, in obedience to the act of congress of the3dof March, 1839, entitled, ‘An act for the relief of the Brothertown Indians in the territory of Wisconsin,’ the duties having been performed and the accounts presented, $1,830.’

Mr.Clay.—There are a great many others.

Mr.Benton.—What is the date of that act?

Mr.Clay.—It was approved July1st, 1840; but I have one of a later date, if the honorable senator will prefer it. Here is one in 1849, entitled ‘an act for the relief of James Norris, and for other purposes:’

‘Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the secretary of the navy be, and is hereby, directed to place the name of James Norris, of Sandwich, in the state of New Hampshire, on the roll of invalid pensioners, and pay him a pension at such a rate per day as is provided by law for the total disability of an assistant surgeon in thenavy of the United States, to commence on the first day of July, A. D. 1848, and continue during his natural life.

‘Sec.2.And be it further enacted, That there be, and hereby are appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, the following sums, for the government of the territory of Minnesota. For salaries of governor, three judges, and secretary, nine thousand dollars. For contingent expenses of said territory, three hundred and fifty dollars. For compensation and mileage of members of the legislative assembly, pay of the officers and attendants, printing, stationery, fuel, and other incidental expenses, thirteen thousand seven hundred dollars.—Approved, March 3, 1849.’

I never knew that our young sister Minnesota thought her dignity at all affected or offended by this association with James Norris. There was a civil and diplomatic bill under consideration the last session. The senator’s recollection will assist me if it were not last session. To that bill the senator from Missouri (Mr.Benton) moved to add an amendment, to pay certain expenses incurred in the conquest of California. At the second session of the thirtieth congress, the bill ‘making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year ending June30th, 1850, and for other purposes,’ being under consideration of the senate,Mr.Walker proposed an amendment, the object of which was to provide governments for the territory recently acquired from Mexico, including California, which was adopted; yeas 29, nays 27. At the same session, the same bill being under consideration,Mr.Walker, for the first time, proposed the amendment quoted above as agreed to; andMr.Bell proposed an amendment to the amendment ofMr.Walker, which was disagreed to: yeas 4, nays 39.—Senate Journal, second session, ThirtiethCong.pp.241–’43.

I shall next notice an act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year 1842. It will be found in the fifth volume of theStatutes at Large, page 476, chapter 29. To that act is annexed a proviso limiting the compensation which should be received for printing the laws and documents of congress. The next subject I shall notice is an act to provide for the support of the military academy of the United States for the year 1838, and for other purposes. It will be found in volume fifth of theStatutes at Large, page 262, chapter 169.—These are only some out of a multitude of the same kind that might have been produced from the passage of such laws, from time to time, founded upon the discretion and good sense of congress, embracing subjects of every variety of incongruity. And yet, upon a bill which proposes to unite three subjects perfectly compatible in their nature, without the slightest incongruity existing between them—subjects which, at the last session, were proposed to be united together by the honorable senator from Wisconsin, in his proposal for the adjustment of these unpleasant questions, it is all at once discovered that the powers of government are paralyzed: that it is ‘tacking’—a word which has not yet been imported from England in her parliamentary law—it is all at once discovered that it is ‘tacking’—amost dangerous and undignified course, which ought not to be sanctioned.

I mentioned, sir, a while ago, acts which embraced every possible variety of legislation. I referred to an act providing for the support of the military academy of the United States for the year 1838, and for other purposes. That act makes thirty or forty appropriations for different objects! It makes appropriations for the documentary history of the revolution, for continuing the construction of the patent office, for furnishing machinery and other expenses incident to the outfit of the branch mint at New Orleans, Charlotte, and Dahlonega; for the salaries of the governor, chief judge, associate justices, district attorney, marshal, and pay and mileage of the members of the legislative assembly of the territory of Iowa, the expense there of taking the census, and for other incidental and contingent expenses of that territory, and in relation to the investment in state stock of the bequest of the late James Smithson, of London, for the purpose of founding at Washington, in this district, an institution we denominate the Smithsonian Institution. These and various other acts are all comprehended in a bill making an appropriation for the military academy at West Point.

Now, sir, after this, can it be said that there is any want of power, or any non-conformity in the practice of congress, in endeavoring to unite together, not three incongruous and discordant measures, but three measures of the same character, having, in different form, the same general object?

I will pass on, with a single observation on an amendment introduced by the committee into the territorial bill. To that amendment I was opposed, but it was carried in the committee. It is an amendment which is to be found in the tenth section of one of the bills limiting the power of the territorial legislature upon the subject of laws which it may pass. Amongst other limitations, it declares ‘that the territorial legislature shall have no power to pass any law in respect to African slavery.’ I did not then, and do not now, attach much importance to the amendment, which was proposed by an honorable senator, now in my eye, and carried by a majority of the committee. The effect of that clause will at once be understood by the senate. It speaks of ‘African’ slavery. The word African was introduced so as to leave the government at liberty to legislate as it might think proper on any other condition of slavery—‘Peon’ or ‘Indian’ slavery, which has so long existed under the Spanish regime. The object was to impose a restriction upon them as to the passage of any law either to admit or exclude African slavery, or of any law restricting it. The effect of that amendment will at once be seen. If the territorial legislature can pass no law with respect to African slavery, the state of the law as it exists now in the territories of Utah and New Mexico will continue to exist until the people form a constitution for themselves, when they can settle the question of slavery as they please. They will not be allowed toadmit or exclude it. They will be restrained on the one hand from its admission, and on the other from its exclusion. Sir, I shall not repeat now the expression of opinion which I have already announced to the senate as being held by me on this subject. My opinion is, that the law of Mexico, in all the variety of forms in which legislation can take place—that is to say, by the edict of a dictator, by the constitution of the people of Mexico, by the act of the legislative authority of Mexico—by all these modes of legislation, slavery has been abolished there. I am aware that some other senators entertain a different opinion; but without going into discussion of that question, which I think altogether unnecessary, I feel authorized to say that the opinion of a vast majority of the people of the United States, of a vast majority of the jurists of the United States, is in coincidence with that which I entertain; that is to say, that at this moment, by law and in fact, there is no slavery there, unless it is possible that some gentlemen from the slave states, in passing through that country, may have taken along their body slaves. In point of fact and in point of law, I entertain the opinions which I expressed at an early period of the session. Sir, we have heard since, from authority entitled to the highest respect, from no less authority than that of the delegate from New Mexico, that labor can be there obtained at the rate of three or four dollars per month; and, if it can be got at that rate, can anybody suppose that any owner of slaves would ever carry them to that country, where he could only get three or four dollars per month for them?

I believe, on this part of the subject, I have said every thing that is necessary for me to say; but their remains two or three subjects upon which I wish to say a few words before I close what I have to offer for the consideration of the senate.

The next subject upon which the committee acted was that of fugitive slaves. The committee have proposed two amendments to be offered to the bill introduced by the senator from Virginia, (Mr.Mason,) whenever the bill is taken up. The first of these amendments provides that the owner of a fugitive slave, when leaving his own state, and whenever it is practicable—for sometimes, in the hot pursuit of an immediate runaway, it may not be in the power of the master to wait to get such record, and he will always do it if it is possible—shall carry with him a record from the state from which the fugitive has fled; which record shall contain an adjudication of two facts: first, the fact of slavery, and secondly, the fact of elopement; and in the third place, such a general description of the slave as the court shall be enabled to give upon such testimony as shall be brought before it. It also provides that this record, taken from the county court, or from the court of record in the slaveholding state, shall be taken to the free state, and shall be there held to be competent and sufficient evidence of the facts which it avows. Now, sir, I heard objection made to this that it would be an inconvenience and an expense to the slaveholder. I think the expense will be very triflingto the great advantages which will result. The expenses will be only two or three dollars for the seal of the court, and the certificate and attestation of the clerk,&c.Sir, we know the just reverence and respect in which records are ever held. The slaveholder himself will feel, when he goes from Virginia to Ohio with this record, that he has got a security which he never possessed before for the recovery of his property. And when the attestation of the clerk, under the seal of the court, is exhibited to the citizen of Ohio, that citizen will be disposed to respect, and bound to respect, under the laws of the United States, a record thus exhibited, coming from a sister state. The inconvenience will be very slight, very inconsiderable, compared with the great security of the slaveholder.

Mr.Butler.—As the bill to which the senator refers has been somewhat under my care, I am sure the honorable senator will allow me to ask a question in relation to this amendment. Is it proposed that the certificate shall be from the judge, or shall be from the court, as it is termed; because I see it seems to be inferred that it must be given by a court, and a court of record, which has a technical meaning? I desire the honorable senator to inform me whether it is thus to be given by a court or by a judge at chambers?

Mr.Clay.—Mr.President, I confess I had in view the county courts of probate which prevail throughout the United States, and not the judge. But it can be so modified, if it be deemed essential to the progress of the bill.

The committee partake of the same spirit which I have endeavored to manifest throughout this whole distracted question. They are not wedded to any particular plan; and if any amendments are offered that will improve and better the bills reported, they will be accepted. I am sure that I answer for every member of the committee, with pleasure, that any amendments to aid the object we have in view will be accepted. I repeat, sir, I confess I had in view that this record should be taken from the county courts, which prevail in almost all the states, except Louisiana and South Carolina, which have their parish courts. Any one of these courts, after hearing evidence about the ownership of property and the escape of the property, could give the required record, and this would be carried to that part of the country where the parties go.

With respect to the other amendment offered by the committee to the fugitive bill, I regretted extremely to hear the senator from Arkansas object so earnestly and so seriously to it. I did not pretend to question his right, or the right of any other senator, but he will surely allow me to say, in all kindness, that of all the states in this Union, without exception, I will not except even Virginia herself, I believe that the state which suffers more than any other by the escaping of slaves from their owners, seeking refuge either in Canada, or in some of the non-slaveholding states, Kentucky is the one. I doubt very much whether the state of Arkansas ever lost a slave. They may, very possibly, once in a while, run off to the Indians,but very rarely. So of other interior states. So of Georgia and South Carolina. Sometimes, perhaps, a slave escapes from their seaports, but very rarely by land. Kentucky is the most suffering state, but I venture to anticipate for my own state that she will be satisfied with the provisions to which I am now about to call the attention of the senate.

Mr.President, in all subjects of this kind we must deal fairly and honestly by all. We must recollect that there are feelings, and interests, and sympathies on both sides of the question; and no man who has ever brought his mind seriously to the consideration of a suitable measure for the rēcapture of runaway slaves, can fail to admit that the question is surrounded with great difficulties. On the one hand, if the owner of the slave could go into this non-slaveholding state, and seize the negro, put his hands upon him, and the whole world would recognise the truth of his ownership of property, and the fact of the escape of that property, there would be no difficulty then in those states where prejudice against slavery exists in the highest degree. But he goes to a state which does not recognise slavery. Recollect how different the state of fact is now from what it was in 1793, nearly sixty years ago. There were, then, comparatively few free persons of color—few, compared to the numbers which exist at present. By the progress of emancipation in the slaveholding states, and the multiplication of them by natural causes, vast numbers of them have rushed to the free states.—There are in the cities of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston—I have not looked into the precise number—some eight or ten to one in proportion to the number there were in 1793 when the act passed.

In proportion to the number of free blacks, multiplied in the free states, does the difficulty increase of recovering a fugitive from a slaveholding state. Recollect,Mr.President, that the rule of law is reversed in the two classes of states. In the slaveholding states the rule is, that color implies slavery, and theonus probandiof freedom is thrown on the persons claiming it, as every person in the slaveholding states is regardedprima facieas a slave. On the contrary, when you go to the non-slaveholding states, color implies freedom and not slavery. Every man who is seen in the free states, though he be a man of color, is regarded as free. And when a stranger from Virginia or Kentucky goes to remote parts of Pennsylvania, and sees a black person, who perhaps has been living there for years, and claims him to be his slave, the feelings and sympathy of the neighborhood are naturally and necessarily excited in favor of the colored person. We all respect these feelings, where they are honestly entertained. Well, sir, what are you to do in a case of that kind? You will give every satisfaction that can be given that the person whom you propose to arrest is your property, and is a fugitive from your service or labor. That is the extent of one amendment which we propose to offer, but there is also another. The amendment upon which I have been commenting provides for the productionof a record. Now, what is the inconvenience of that? It provides that when the owner of the slave shall arrest his property in a non-slaveholding state, and shall take him before the proper functionary to obtain a certificate to authorize the return of that property to the state from which he fled, and if he declares to that functionary at the time that he is a free man and not a slave, what does the provision require the officer to do? Why, to take a bond from the agent or owner that he will carry the black person back to the county of the state from which he fled; and that at the first court which may sit after his return, he shall be carried there, if he again assert the right to his freedom; the court shall afford and the owner shall afford to him all the facilities which are requisite to enable him to establish his right to freedom. Now, no surety is even required of the master. The committee thought, and in that I believe they all concurred, that it would be wrong to demand of a stranger, hundreds of miles from his home, surety to take back the slave to the state from which he fled. The trial by jury is what is demanded by the non-slaveholding states. Well, we put the party claimed to be a fugitive back to the state from which he fled, and give him trial by jury in that state.

Well, sir, ought we not to make this concession? It is but very little inconvenience. I will tell you, sir, what will be the practical operation of this. It will be this: When a slave has escaped from the master, and taken a refuge in a free state, and that master comes to recapture him and take him back to the state from which he fled, the slave will cry out, ‘I do not know the man; I never saw him in my life; I am a free man.’ He will say any thing and do any thing to preserve to himself that freedom of which is for a moment in possession. He will assert most confidently before the judge that he is a free man. But take him back to the state from which he fled, to his comrades, and he will state the truth, and will relinquish all claim to freedom. The practical operation, therefore, of the amendment which we have proposed, will be attended with not the least earthly inconvenience to the party claiming the fugitive. The case is bond without surety. The bond is transmitted by the officer taking it to the district attorney of the state from which he has fled. That officer sees that the bond is executed, and that the slave is taken before the court. Perhaps, before the slave reaches home, he will acknowledge that he is a slave; there is an end of the bond and an end of the trouble about the master. Is this unreasonable? Is it not a proper and rational concession to the prejudices, if you please, which exist in the non-slaveholding states? Sir, our rights are to be asserted; our rights are to be maintained. They will be asserted and maintained in a manner not to wound unnecessarily the sensibilities of others. And, in requiring such a bond as this amendment proposes to exact from the owner, I do not think there is the slightest inconvenience imposed upon him, of which he ought to complain.

Sir, there is one opinion prevailing—I hope not extensively—insome of the non-slaveholding states, which nothing we can do will conciliate. I allude to that opinion that asserts that there is a higher law—a divine law—a natural law—which entitles a man, under whose roof a runaway has come, to give him assistance, and succor, and hospitality. A divine law, a natural law! and who are they that venture to tell us what is divine and what is natural law? Where are their credentials of prophecy? Why, sir, we are told that the other day, at a meeting of some of these people at New York, Moses and all the prophets were rejected, and that the name even of our blessed Saviour was treated with sacrilege and contempt by these propagators of a divine law, of a natural law which they have discovered above all human laws and constitutions. If Moses and the prophets, and our Saviour and all others, are to be rejected, will they condescend to show us their authority for propagating this new law, this new divine law of which they speak? The law of nature, sir! Look at it as it is promulgated, and even admitted or threatened to be enforced, in some quarters of the world. Well, sir, some of these people have discovered another plausible law of nature. There is a large class who say that if a man has acquired, no matter whether by his own exertions or by inheritance, a vast estate, much more than is necessary for the existence of himself and family, I who am starving, am entitled by a law of Nature to have a portion of these accumulated goods to save me from the death which threatens me. Here are you, with your barns full, with your warehouses full of goods, collected from all quarters of the globe; your kitchens and laundries and pantries all full of that which conduces to the subsistence and comfort of man; and here am I standing by, as Lazarus at the gate of the rich man, perishing from hunger—will not the law of Nature allow me to take enough of your super-abundance to save me a little while from that death which is inevitable without I do it? Why, sir, trace this pretended law of Nature, about which, seriously, none of the philosophers are agreed, and apply it to one of the most interesting and solemn ceremonies of life. Go to a Mahometan country, and the Mahometan will tell you that you are entitled to as many wives as you can get. Come next to a Christian country, and you will be told that you are entitled to but one. Go to our friends the Mormons, and they will tell you that you are entitled to none. But there are persons in this age of enlightenment and progress and civilization, who will rise up in public assemblages, and, denouncing the church and all that is sacred that belongs to it—denouncing the founders of the religion which all profess and revere—will tell you that notwithstanding the solemn oath which they have taken by kissing the book to carry out into full effect all the provisions of the constitution of our country, there is a law of their God—a divine law, which they have found out and nobody else has—superior and paramount to all human law; and that they do not mean to obey this human law, but the divine law, of which, by some inspiration, by some means undisclosed, they have obtained a knowledge. Thatis the class of persons which we do not propose to conciliate by any amendment, by any concession which we can make.

But the committee, in considering this delicate subject, and looking at the feelings and interests on both sides of the question, thought if best to offer these two provisions—that which requires the production of a record in the non-slaveholding states, and that which requires a bond to grant to the real claimant of his freedom a trial by jury, in the place where that trial ought to take place according to the interpretation of the constitution of the United States, if it take place any where. Therefore, in order to obviate the difficulties which have been presented, and to satisfy the prejudices in the non-slaveholding states, we propose to give the fugitive the right of trial by jury in the state from which he fled. The statement in the report of the committee is perfectly true that the greatest facilities are always extended to every man of color in the slaveholding states who sues for freedom. I have never known an instance of a failure on the part of a person thus suing to procure a verdict and judgment in his favor, if there were even slight grounds in support of his claim. And, sir, so far is the sympathy in behalf of a person suing for his freedom carried, that few members of the bar appear against them. I will mention, though in no boastful spirit, that I myself never appeared but once in my life against a person suing for his freedom, but have appeared for them in many instances without charging them a solitary cent. That I believe is the general course of the liberal and eminent portion of the bar throughout the country. One case I made an exception, but it was a case when I appeared for a particular friend. I told him: ‘Sir, I will not appear against your negroes unless I am perfectly satisfied that they have no right to freedom; and even if I shall become, after the progress of the trial, convinced that they are entitled to freedom, I shall abandon your cause.’ I venture to say, then, that in all that relates to tenderness of treatment to that portion of our population, and to the administration of justice to them, and the supply of their wants, nothing can be found in the slaveholding states that is not honorable and creditable to them.

Mr.President, the only measure remaining upon which I shall say a word now, is the abolition of the slave-trade in the district of Columbia. There is, I believe, precious little of it. I believe the first man in my life that I ever heard denounce that trade was a southern man—John Randolph of Roanoke. I believe there has been no time within the last forty years when, if earnestly pressed upon congress, there would not have been found a majority, perhaps a majority from the slaveholding states themselves, in favor of the abolition of the slave-trade in this district. The bill which the committee has reported is founded upon the law of Maryland, as it existed when this district was set apart and ceded to the United States.—Maryland has since very often changed her laws.—What is their exact condition at present, I am not aware. I have heardthat she has made a change at the last session, and I am told that they may again be changed in the course of a year or two. Sir, some years ago, it would have been thought a great concession to the feelings and wishes of the north to abolish this slave-trade. Now, I have seen some of the rabid abolition papers denounce it as amounting to nothing. They do not care for that. And will my friends, some of my friends on the other side of the house, allow me to say a word or two with respect to their course in relation to this measure. At the beginning of this session, as you know, that offensive proviso, called the ‘Wilmot proviso,’ was what was most apprehended, and what all the slaveholding states were most desirous to get rid of. Well, sir, by the operation of causes upon the northern mind friendly to the Union, hopes are inspired, which I trust will not be frustrated in the progress of this measure, that the north, or at least a sufficient portion of the north, are now willing to dispense with the proviso. When, three months ago, I offered certain resolutions, and when to these measures it was objected, by way of reproach, that they were simply carrying out my own plan, my honorable friend from North Carolina at the moment justly pointed out the essential differences between the plan, as contained in the resolutions offered by me, and that now presented by the committee.

At the time I offered those resolutions, knowing what consequences and, as I sometimes feared, fatal consequences, might result from the fact of the north insisting on the proviso, by way of compensation, in one of the resolutions which I offered—the second one—I stated two truths, one of law and one of fact, which I thought ought to satisfy the north that it ought no longer to insist on the Wilmot proviso. Those truths were not incorporated in the bill reported by the committee, but they exist, nevertheless, as truths. I believe them both now as much I did in February last. I know there are others who do not concur with me in opinion. Every senator must decide for himself, as the country will decide for itself, when the question comes to be considered. Well, when our southern friends found they were rid of the proviso, they were highly satisfied, and I shared with them in their satisfaction. If I am not much mistaken, a great majority of them would have said, ‘If,Mr.Clay, you had not put those two obnoxious truths in them, we should have been satisfied with your resolution.’ Well, sir, we have got rid of the Wilmot proviso, we have got rid of the enactment into laws of the two truths to which I refer, but I fear there are some of our southern brethren who are not satisfied. There are some who say that there is yet the Wilmot proviso, under another form, lurking in the mountains of Mexico, in that natural fact to which my honorable friend from Massachusetts adverted, as I myself did when I hinted that the law of nature was adverse to the introduction of slavery there. Now, as you find that just desire is to be obtained, there is something further, there are other difficulties in the way of the adjustment of these unhappy subjectsof difference, and of obtaining that which is most to be desired, the cementing of the bonds of this Union.

Mr.President, I do not despair, I will not despair, that the measure will be carried. And I would almost stake my existence, if I dared, that if these measures which have been reported by the committee of thirteen were submitted to the people of the United States to-morrow, and their votes were taken upon them, there would be nine-tenths of them in favor of the pacification which is embodied in that report.

Mr.President, what have we been looking at?—What are we looking at? The ‘proviso;’ an abstraction always; thrust upon the south by the north against all the necessities of the case, against all the warnings which the north ought to have listened to coming from the south; pressed unnecessarily for any northern object; opposed, I admit, by the south, with a degree of earnestness uncalled for, I think, by the nature of the provision, but with a degree of earnestness natural to the south, and which the north itself perhaps would have displayed if a reversal of the conditions of the two sections of the Union could have taken place. Why do you of the north press it? You say because it is in obedience to certain sentiments in behalf of human freedom and human rights which you entertain. You are likely to accomplish those objects at once by the progress of events, without pressing this obnoxious measure.—You may retort, why is it opposed at the south?—It is opposed at the south because the south feels that, when once legislation on the subject of slavery begins, there is no seeing where it is to end. Begin it in the district of Columbia; begin it in the territories of Utah and New Mexico and California; assert your power there to-day, and in spite of all the protestations—and you are not wanting in making protestations—that you have no purpose of extending it to the southern states, what security can you give them that a new sect will not arise with a new version of the constitution, or with something above or below the constitution, which shall authorize them to carry their notions into the bosoms of the slaveholding states, and endeavor to emancipate from bondage all the slaves there? Sir, the south has felt that her security lies in denying at the threshold your right to touch the subject of slavery. She said, ‘Begin, and who can tell where you will end? Let one generation begin and assert the doctrine for the moment, forbearing as they may be in order to secure their present objects, their successors may arise with new notions, and new principles, and new expositions of the constitution and laws of nature, and carry those notions and new principles into the bosom of the slaveholding states.’ The cases, then, gentlemen of the north and gentlemen of the south, do not stand upon an equal footing. When you, on the one hand, unnecessarily press an offensive and unnecessary measure on the south, the south repels it from the highest of all human motives of action, the security of property and life, and every thing else interesting and valuable in life.

Mr.President, after we have got rid, as I had hoped, of all these troubles—after this Wilmot proviso has disappeared, as I trust it may both in this and the other end of the capitol—after we have been disputing two or three years or more, on the one hand, about a mere abstraction, and on the other, if it were fraught with evil, not so much present as distant and future, when we are arriving at a conclusion, what are the new difficulties that spring up around us? Matters of form. The purest question of form, that was ever presented to the mind of man—whether we shall combine in one united bill three measures, all of which are necessary, or separate them into three distinct bills, passing each in its turn, if it can be done.

Mr.President, I trust that the feelings of attachment to the Union, of love for its past glory, of anticipation of its future benefits and happiness; a fraternal feeling which, I trust, will be common throughout all parts of the country; the desire to live together in peace and harmony, to prosper as we have prospered heretofore, to hold up to the civilized world the example of one great and glorious republic, fulfilling the high destiny that belongs to it, demonstrating beyond all doubt man’s capacity for self-government; these motives and these considerations will, I trust, animate us all, bringing us together to dismiss alike questions of abstraction and form, and consummating the act in such a manner as to heal not one only, but all the wounds of the country.

Back to IndexNext