title: The position of John Bell and his supporters.
text: ,0 -^ ->'ss^.' «.^ c 'bV'^ ■^0 ^°' .. V*^\^^ %^^^''\^'' V*^*>' "-^ ' y^' .. ^^-^^^ ^°-n^. ■^ C, . _r^<^rv. 1*^ . » ' n^^iS » 'f' ^^ >-o^ ..<^ lO .V < o A i^ t 0*". o. o > ■r. <• .^' .0' ,'/•', V THE POSITION OP JOHN BELL AND HIS SUPPORTERS. SPEECH OF HON. HENRY WILSON, AT MYRICK'S, SEPTEMBEE 18, 1800. FROM THE» VERBATIM REPORT IN THE DAILY ATLAS AND BEE. PUBLISHED BY THE BEE PRINTING CO., Nos. 7 & 9 State Street, Boston. Fellow Citizens : When the year 1833 dawned, the fell spirit of nullification threatened the peace of the nation and the unit}' of the Republic; but the maliga couni;els of John C. Calhoun and his confederates were baffled by the inflexible firmness of Andrew Jackson, the concilia- tory counsels of Henry Clay, the inspiring appeals of Daniel Webster, and the lofty patriotism of the American people. Thomas U. Benton, in his "Thiity Years' View," tells us that " Mr. Calhoun, when he went home in the spring of 1833, told his friends ' that the South would never be united against the North on the Tariff question ; that the sugar interests of Louisiana would keep her out, and that the basis of southern union must be shifted to the slave question.' " Ilis associates and disciples pre- pared to ''force the issue upon the North," and that issue was unfaltering fidelity to human slavery in America. Andrew Jackson saw with clear vision the designs of the great nuUifier. and he declared that the tariff had been made the mere pretext for nullification — that the next pretext for disunion would be the slavery question. In June, 1833, Mr. Madison wrote Mr. Clay, " It is painful to see the unceasing efforts to alarm the South by imputations against the North, of unconstitutional designs on the subject of slavery." And that venerable statesman, in 1836, again wrote of a susceptibility of the contagion of the heresy of nulhfication, secession and disunion in the southern States, and of the '• inculcated impression of a permanent incompatibility of interests between the North and the South." " lie was," says Benton, " a southern man, but his southern home could not blind him to the origin, design and cou.sequences of the slavery agitation. He gives to that agitation a south- ern origin; to that design a disunion end; to that end disastrous consequences to the South and the North." Mr Calhoun proclaimed that " Many in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and pohtical evil; that folly and delu.sion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world." His Lieutenant, Mr. McDuffie, declared that "slavery was the corner stone of the Republican edifice." Inspired by such counsels the aspiring men of the South rejected the ^ajfiments and theories of the Fathers of the Repub- lic, asSmned slavery to be a positive good, an institution to be fostered, nurtured, extended and nationalized. New theories of constitutional construction were invented and promulgated, and the policy of slavery extension and domination inaugurated. Then commenced the policy of slavery aggression, which has for a quarter of a century been pursued with reckless audacity and tireless energy, in defiant mockery of the sentiments of mankind and the laws of the living God. The right of petition was fur years cloven down, the constitutional right of the Free- dom of Speech and of the Press violated. Texas was now " to give," in the words of Gen. Hamilton, " a Gibralter to the South;" to "add," in the language of llenry A. Wise, ''more weight to her end of the beam." The army was marched to the banks of the Rio Grande, the nation drawn into a war, and half a million square miles of ter- ritory won. The North was forced iguominiously to abandon the policy of applying to the acquired territory the prohibition of slavery, and the foot of the slave was permitted to pollute soil consecrated to freedom by Mexi- can humanity and law. A Fugitive Slave la,w, inhuman and unchristian, was enacted, and public men and politi- cal organizations forced to endorse these victories of slavery over freedom. The proliibition of slavery in Kan- sas and Nebraska was abrogated, and the slave masters permitted to range with their bondmen over soil once consecrated to freedom. The Supreme Court was bid- den to decree in the Dred Scott case the dogmas ol slave propagandism, and the President directed to proclaim that by virtue of the constitution "the master has the right to take his slave into the Territories as property, and have it protected there under the Federal Constitu- tion;" that "neither Congress nor the Territorial Legisla- ture, nor any human power, has any authority to annul or impair this vested right." The nation has been forced to accept the creeds, acknowledge the sway, and bear the crimes of slave propagandism, and now slavery is master of the Republic. Issues growing out of the existence of human slavery in America are now the paramount issues before the na- tion. Shall slavery continue to expand? shall it continue to guide the councils of the Republic? or shall its ex- pansion be arrested, its power broken and it forced to re- tire under the cover of the locil laws under which it ex- ists? These issues loom up before the nation, dwarfing all other issues and subordinating all other questions. Public men and pohtical organizations are forced to ac- cept the transcendant issues growing out of the existence of slavery in America. The American Democracy, which for twenty -five years has borne the banners of slavery, won its victories and shared in its crimes against humanity, though broken into fragments, struggles on, faithful still to the interests of slavery. Breckinridge and Lane accept the creed of slavery expansion, slavery protection and slavery domi- nation. Douglas ■' don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," and Jolinson, commended by the Massachusetts Democracy at Springfield for his "honest and fearless promulgation of Democratic truth," pro- claims that it " is best that capital should own labor." The American Democracy, demoralized by slavery, has ceased to speak of the rights of man — it now speaks only of the rights of property in man! The Republican party, brought into existence by the aggressions of slavery upon freedom, cherishing the faitli of the founders of the Re- public, and believing with th<'lr chosen leader, Abriiham Lincoln, that " lie who would be no slave must consent to have no slave," pledges itself, all it is, all it hopes to be, to arrest the extension of slavery, banish it from "f the Territories, dethrone its power in the National Gov- ernment and force it back under the cover of State sover- eignty. While the conflict, the "irrepressible conflict," is going on between freedom and slavery ; while the nation is pro- foundly agitated with the great contest, and the eyes of the nation are upon us, a Convention assembles in the city of Baltimore to place in nomination a candidate for the Presidency. God in his providence imposes upon the men of this generation duties which must be bravely met or ignominioasly shunned. These men, representing portions of the American people, ingloriously shrank from the living issues of the age in America, proclaimed " that it is both the part of patriotism and of duty to re- cognize no political principle other than the Ooustitution of the Country, the Union of the States and the Enforce- ment of the Laws," and nominated for Chief Magistrate of the Republic John Bell, a slaveholder of slaveholding Tennessee. While this Convention, to delude, deceive and cheat the people of the North, proclaims that "it is the part ot patriotism and duty to ' recognize no princi- ple,' " the head and body of the party in the South vaunt their fidelity to slavery, and triumphantly appeal to the record of their chosen leader. The Union State Convention of Alaijama passes res- olutions, affirming that " neither Congress nor Territorial Legislature has any light or power to legislate on the subject, except so far as maybe necessary to protect the citizens of the Territory in the possession and enjoyment of this slave property;^' and " that the public speeches and acts of John Bell, during the period of thirty-five years of active service in high public stations, show conclusively that the principles and opinions set forth in the foregoing resolutions are in accordance with his own ; that he has never uttered a sentiment inconsistent therewith.'''' The Louisville Journal, the leading organ of Bell in the South, declares that, '' We hold that Congress pos- sesses the undoubted power to protect the rights of proper- ty of every kind in the Territories of the Union, and that it is the unquestionnble duty of Congress to exercise this power ivhenever it is necessary. And we hold that the right of slave property in the Territories is justas sacred as the rig it of property of any other sort. * * * * John Bell's record, as compiled under his own eye for the special purpose of setting forth in an authentic form his opinion on the minor issues of our politics, and as recently published at length in our columns, commits him unequivocally and indisputably to the i^ery doctrine " — that is to the slave code- Some days ago I addressed a public meeting in the city of Boston in regard to the position of John Bell and his supporters, upon the issues growing out of the existence of human slavery in the Republic. I see by the public press that Mr. Leverett Saltonstall flippantly and defiant- ly denies that John Bell is a " pro-slavery man." Mr. J. Thomas Stevenson exclaimed with characteristic eiiiphasis, " John Bell of Tennes.see an exponent of pro-slavery ! His rccoi-d which is open, without a blot on it, puts to shame the alienation." These emphatic sentences of Stevenson are, if not of " learned length," of " thun- dering sound." As this Mr. Leverett Saltonstall is charged with the vast respon.sibility of keeping Mr. Everett's record, it may be that he knows nothing of John Bell's record, and I acquit him of intentional misstatements, and charitably ascribe his flippant ut- terances to that zeal which is without knowledge. Let Saltonstall p:iss! But Mr. J. Thomas Stevenson vaunts his knowledge of John Bell's record, for he tells us how " he stood up with Roman firmness for a gen- eration in steady opposition to the heresies of ultra men in his own section;" — how " he stood beside John Quincy Adams through all his struggle for the right of petition," and what other heroic deeds he performed. To-Jay I propose to speak of John Bell and of his sup- porters. I mean to present the record of John Bell, run- ning through twenty-six years in the Congress of the United States, and leave these assembled thousands of the freemen of Massachusetts to determine whether Mr. J. Thomas Stevenson is a " monomaniac," to use h s own words, or whether " he means to deceive." I mean, gen- tlemen, to " put to shame his allegations;" and the pert utterances of his confederates. John Bell is a slaveholder. He works many slaves as mechanics or laborers in iron foundries in Tennessee. A few weeks after the Pre.sidential election in 1S56, a con- templated insurrection of slaves was discovered. Many were arrested, tried by vigilance committees and madden- ed and brutal mobs, inhumanly lashed and tortured, and many of them executed. Some of John ]5ell's .slaves were charged with being engaged in this attempt to rise, and were tried and executed. The soul sickens at the cruelties perpetrated upon the helpless victims, charged with in- surrectionary designs, by excited, alarmed and maddened men. John Bell's slaves may not have been engaged in that wild attempt to rebel against toiling without wages, but some of them were accused of it, tried, and put to death. Mr. J. Thomas Stevenson denies that John Bell is a pro-slavery man. His "record," he asserts, "puts to shame the allegation." If John Bell's dying slaves had agreed with Stevenson, — if they had known as Stevenson professes to know, that his "record puts to shame the al- legation that he is a pro-slavery man," they might never have joined in that conspiracy against pro-slavery men, who demand and enforce work without wages. But John Bell's record is " without a blot," exclaims the emphatic and awe-inspiring Stevenson. In a speech running through four days, in July, 1850, John Bell made one of the most elaborate defences of hu- man slavery ever uttered in the halls of the Congress of the United States. J. Thomas Stevenson repels the alle- gation that John Bell is a pro-slavery man. Listen, men of Massachusetts, you who believe slavery to be a crime against man and a sin against Almighty God, to the words not of the Stevensons and the Saltonstalls, but of John BeU,utteredon the floor of the Senate ten years ago,when the issue was whether slave masters should be permitted to carry their bondm'en into the vast territory won from Mexico, or whether it should be the home of freedom and Iree institutions for all. Standing on the floor of the American Senate, John Bell tittered these words in vindi- cation of slavery and its results in America : "As to the lawfulness or sinfulness of the institution of slavery — whatever frenzied or fanatic priests or more learned and rational divines may preach, whatever they may affirm of christian precepts or moral and religious responsibilities — whatever interpretation of the law of nature or of Almighty G od they may announce — what- ever doctrines or theories of the equalities of human rights, and of the different races of mankind, infidel philanthropists, or the disciples of a transcendental creed of any kind, may hold or teach, however they may dogmatize upon this hypothesis, and declare it to be a violation of the law ol nature, for any race, to subjugate those of an inferior graile, and make them the instni- ment of improvement and amelioration in their own con- dition, as well as in that of masters or conquerors, in carrying forward the great work of civilization until we shall be enlightened by a revelation from a higher source than themselves, 1 must claim the privilege of interpret- ing the law of nature by what I see revealed in the histo- ry of mankind from the earliest period of recorded time, uncontradicted by Divine authority." "Sir, making all due allowances for American enter- prise and energies of free labor, with all the inspiring ad- vantages of our favorite system of government, / doubt whether the power and resources of the country would, have attained more than one-half their present extraordinary proportions, but for the so tnuch reviled institution of .slavery. J He declares that " the people of a Territory, when they ^ came to Jonn their State constitution, and then onlv, .; were qualified to establish their domestic institutions?'' lie also declares "that the constitution, /)ro/;r(o (v'^ore, that the flag of the Union protects the citizen in the en- joyment of his rights of property of every description re- cognized as such, in any of the States, on every sea, and in every Territory of the Union." John Bell entered Congress in 1827, and united in the cry against the administration of John Quincy Adams. Mr. J. Thomas Stevenson tells us that he stood beside John Quincy Adams in his long contest for the right of petition. Let us turn to that record. In January, 1836, Mr. Jarvis of Maine introduced a resolution, to the effect that any petition praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ought to be laid on the table, without being referred or printed. This blow, aimed at the right of petition, was promptly met by John Quincy Adams. He moved to lay the reso- lution on the table. This was the beginning of the great and memorable contest which for so many ye;irs raged in the House of Representatives and convulsed the nation, and in which Mr. Adams won unfadins laurels, which even now call forth the praises of the Hillards an<l Ste- vensons of Massachusetts, who do not fail to affirm that Mr. Adams was right. At Worcester, Mr. Stevenson sig- nified his approval of the course of Mr. Adams, and en- deavored to make capital for John Bell by asserting that he "stood by" Mr. Adams in this bitter contest. But, fellow citizens, let me tell you in what way Mr. Bell "stood by" — a thing Mr. Stevenson forgot to do — he '■'•stood by'''' Mr. Adams, and voted against his motion to lay that in- famous gag resolution on the table. Henry A. AVise, then as now a fiery champion of .slavery, moved to amend Jarvis's resolution by denying the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Chilton Allen of Kentucky moved to lay the resolution and amend- ments upon the table. Adams, Jackson, Hoar, Lincoln, Gushing, Briggs, and their associiites, true to the senti- ments and opinions of Massachusetts, voted for this gen- erous proposition of slaveholding Kentucky, while John Bell, Henry A. Wise, and the discipies of John G. Cal- houn '■'stood by" and voted in the negative. This is the manner in which John Bell '■'stood, by^^ John Quincy Adams on the right of petition. lu May , 1836, Pinckney of South Carolina introduced his resolutions ag.iinst the right of petition, and these resolutions, strangling the rights of the people, passed the House, being forced through under the pressure of the previous question. John Bell again '^stood by'''' Mr. Adams and the right of petition, by dodging the vote. In 1837, Mr. Hawes of Kentucky introduced a resolu- tion, "that all petitions, memorials, resolutions, proposi- tions or papers, relating in any way or to any exfeut whatever to the subject of slavery, shall, without bvitig printed or referred, be laid on the table, and that no fur- ther action be had thereon." John Bell, and the repre- sentatives of the Calhoun Democracy, again "stood by" and voted for this resolution. John Quincy .\dams and his ius.sociates voted against this resolution, which vio- lated one of the dejirest rights of the freemen of the nation. Tu Dec. 1837, Mr. Patton of Va., moved co 8U--'pend the rules, in order to introduce a resolution similar tu the one proposed by Mr. Hawes. John Bell and his compeers of the Calhoun Democracy again " stood by " and voted for the suspension of the rules — Mr. Adiims and friends voting in the negative. In Dec. 1837, Mr. Adams presented petitions for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and moved their reference to a committee. John Bell '■'stood by'''' Mr. Adams on this question as be- fore, and with Henry A. Wise and the ultras voted against the reference. On the; same day Mr. Adams otTered some more petitions, and made the same motion of reference ; and John Bell, true to his slaveholding instincts, again "stood by," and with the politicians of the South Caro- lina .school, voted Nay. lu 1837. John Quincy Adams presented to the House the petition of eight women of Fredericksburg, Va. Mr. P.atton of that State moved a suspension of the rules co enable him to offer a resolution to return that petition to Mr. Adams. This proposition, .so insulting to John Quincy Adams, afforded another occasion for John Bell to •'■stand by-'' the champion of the right of petition, which he did, by voting in favor of the insult. Early in Dec. 1838, a .-eries of pro-slavery resolutions were prepared by Mr. Rhett of S. 0., and adopted by a caucus which assembled at his instance. Charles (i. Ath- erton of Now Hampshire, in the House, moved a suspen- sion of the rules to enable him to offer these resolutions. As it required a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules, the triends of the right of petition could kill the resolutions only by preventing the rules from being suspended, and on this test vote, John Bell again "stood by^^ and voted to suspend — Mr. Adams, with Mr. Fillmore and his frienis voting No. The rules were suspended, and the resolutions of the caucus were introduced. For the four first resolutions John Bell voted, and for a part of the fifth ; to the effect. that all attempts to abolish slavery in the District or Territories, or to prevent the removal of slaves from State to State would be a violation of the constitution and destructive of the fundamental princi- ple on which the Union rests. The portion rel.ating to the right of petition Mr. Bell voted against. These reso lufious of Atherton were deemed so extraordinary that a few days after their introduction, Mr. Caleb Cvishing of Massachusetts met them by offering a series of counter resolutions, most carefully prepared, in which the propo- sitions of Atherjpn were cpntroverted with great clear- ness and ability. On the 13th of December, 1838, Mr. Slade of Vermont moved to suspend the rules to enable him to introduce a resolution to the effect that so much of the Atherton resolutions as relates to " the removal of slaves from State to State," and prohibits the action of this House on every petition, memorial, resolution, proposition, or pa- per touching " the same be, and hereby is rescinded. John Quincy Adams voted for this motion — John Bell voted against it. Under the despotic course of these southern fire-eaters in Congress who had trampled in the dust the sacred right of petition, the anti-slavery sentiment of the north- ern States grew with fearful rapidity and bid fair to sweep everything before it, and it was found necessary in the year 1840 to change the tactics hitherto positively adhered to. AV'e accordingly find Mr Bell and some others this year taking a moderate course, and recording their votes against the obnoxious 21st rule. Mr. J. Thomas Stevenson oracularly proclaimed at Wor- cester th.at the " record of John Bell, which is open with- out a blot on it, puts to shame the allegation that he is an exponent of pro-slavery," that he " stood up with Ro- man firmness, for a generation, in steady opposition to the heresies of ultra men of his own section." Men of Mas- sachusetts I I now give you that "record without a blot" on the great question whether the Territories shall be polluted with slavery or consecrated to freedom, to free labor and to free laboring men. As you examine this dark "record " for slavery, you will instinctively exclaim, " Mr. J. Thomas Stevenson is a monomaniac, or he means to deceive the people of Massachusetts." John Bell entered the Senate in the year 1847. At this time the nation was profoundly agitated with the Territo- rial questions growing out of the annexation of Texas, and the contemplated acquisitions from Mexico. This Mexican territory would come to our hands free; and the people of the North demanded that it should be kept free, and not be suffered by us to rel.apse into a condition which would not be tolerat^ed by semi-b.arbarous Mexico. The slave propagandists and perpstualists demanded the right to take their slaves into this free territory and keep them there under the protection of the national flag. John C. Calhoun, the great champion of the slave interests, pro- claimrtl, in the words of Mr. Benton, " the supreme dog- ma of the transmigratory function of the constitution." He denied that " the laws of Mexico could keep slavery out of the acquired territory." He declared that the con.stitution with its "■ overriding control ''^ would carry into and protect in the new Territories slaves as property. These assumptions of Mr. Calhoun, which were entirely contrary to all the previous opinions ot the eminent ju- rists and statesmen who framed the constitution and ear- ly administered it, -were resisted by Mr. Webster, Mr. .John Davis, Mr. Hamlin, Mr. John A. Dix ot New York, Roger S. Baldwin ot Connecticut, Mr. Benton and others, then acknowledged to be the leading etntesmen of the \Vljig and of the Democratic parties. But these perni- cious theories were sustained by Jefferson Ilavis, Senators Mason and Hunter, Henry S . Foote, and with them co-ope- rated John Bell. They have now become the doc- trines of the slave code Democracy, and of most of Mr. Bell's supporters in the slaveholding States. Early in 1848 John Bell voted with the " ultra men of his section," to lay on the table resolutions introduced by Mr. Baldwin of Connecticut, in favor of excluding slavery by fundamental law, from the territory about to be acquired from New Mexico. Was this standing up with " Roman firmness " against the " ultra men of his section?" }.n 1848 Mr. Clayton reported a bill to establish Territorial Governments in Oregon, New Mexico and Cali- tornia. This bill proposed to refer all questions of sla- very in the Territories, to the Supreme Court. This was a most dangerous proposition, as the dogmas in the Dred Scott decision demonstrate ; and John Bell steadily sup- ported this insidious measure, which was intended to ob- tain a Dred Scott decision. Mr. Clark of Khode Island moved to add to the sixth section that "no law, regulation or act of the government of said Territory, permitting slavery, shall be valid un- less the i^ame shall be approved by Congress." Bell voted against this amendment with the pro-slavei-y champions of the 8outh. JMr. Baldwin of Connecticut moved to amend Mr. Clayton's bill by making it the duty of the Attorneys of the Territories to sue out the writ of habeas corpus on the complaint of any person that he is held as a slave and to test his cause in the Territorial courts, and in case the de- cision is against him, to take the cause to the Supreme Court of the United States, and to notify the Attorney General to appear therein and defend the S!vme. The ul- tra men of the riouth and John Bell voted against this measure in lavur of humanity and personal freedom. Mr. Davis of Massachusetts moved to junend Mr. Clay- ton's bili by adding that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the Territory. John Bell vot- ed — No. VVUen he voted with Davis, Foote, llunter. Mason and their ultra associates against the proposition of Honest John Davis, was he not "an exponent of pro-slavery"? or was John Davis an exponent of slavery ? Mr. Walker of Wisconsin moved to amend the Civil and Diplomaio bill by extendiug the constitution and laws of the United States over the Territories. This proposition, Mr. Beutou ,says, was prompted by Mr. Calhoun, and "was nothing but a new scheme for the extension of slavery." Denying the power of Congress to legislate upon slavery in the Territories— fiujing slavery actually excluded from the ceded Teri-itories, and desirous to get it there — "Mr. Cal- houn, the real author of Mr. Walker's amendment, took the new conception of carrying the constitution into them, which arriving there, and recognizing slavery, and being the supreme law of the land, it would override the anti-slavery laws of the Territory, and plant the institu- tion of slavery under its segis, and above the reach of any Territorial laws or law of Congress to abolish it." This " new scheme for the extension of slavery," which came from the fertile brain of the great champion of slavery in America, was resisted by Daniel Webster with all his power. Calhoun came to the support of his device to override the anti-slavery laws of the Territories, and avowed, says Mr. Benton, "his intent to carry slavery into these Territories under the wing of the constitution, and openly treated as enemies of the South all that op- posed it." This scheme, the boldest and most aggressive movement ever made in Congress for the extension of slavery, was supported by the ultra men of the South, and opposed with determined resolution by Webster, Davis, Hamlin, Baldwin, Dayton, Benton and their asso- ciates. John Bell voted against the House amendment which pre- served the anti-slavery laws of the acquired Territories,for twenty -eight months ; thus giving Congress or the people of the Territories an opportunity to keep slavery out for- ever ; and when the passage of the Civil and Diplomatic bill was endangered by this Walker amendment, John Bell vot- ed against receding. To the last John Bell adhered to this device of John C. Calhoun for the extension of slavery over the Territories won from Mexico. In this bitter and prolonged contest was Daniel Webster — was John Davis ' 'an exponent of pro-slavery ? " or was John Bell ' "an expo- nent of pro-slavery?" Men of Massachusetts, would you blot out this "record" of Webster and Davis? or would you not rather enise this pro-slavery "record" of John Bell, which Steventon boasts is "without a blot?" Shame on such a "record," and shame on the Massachusetts man who win pronounce such a "record"'"without a blot I" Mr. Douglas moved in 1849 that the Missouri Compro- mise line be extended to t:ie Pacific Ocean. This propo- sition Wiis made in the interests of slavery. It was not a proposition like thu original compromise to extend the line through slave territory, but it was a proposition to extend that line through free territory, and to give to slavery tens of thousands of square miles of free soil. Did John Bell stand up with Roman firmness against this pro-slaverv proposition? Did he stand with Webster, Davis, Hale, HamUn, Baldwin, Dayton, Corwin and their associates who stood with Roman firmness as the expo- nents of freedom? or did he stand with the "ulrra men of his section" — Atchinson, Butler, Calhoun, Davis, Hunter and the "exponents of pro-slavery?" John Bell voted with the Borlands and the Footes for the extension of the Missouri Compromise line through free territory to the Pacific ; and when the representatives of the people rejected this unhallowed proposition, John Bell, the con- sistent "exponent of pro-slavery," voted against receding. In the winter of 1850 John Bell introduced nine resolu- tious concerning the Territories; among these resolutions was one to the effect that "• all the territory ceded to the United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, lying west of said Territory of New Mexico, and east of the contemplated new State of California, for the present continue one Territory wiTnoni any restriction as to SLAVERY." Another of these resolutions referred to California. Foote of Mississippi moved to refer these resolutions, with others, to a special committee of thirteen. Mr. Hamlin, anxious to admit the free State of California into the Union without associating it with the questions con- nected with New Mexico, Utah, the Texas boundary and the Fugitive Slave bill, moved " that nothing in this res- olution shall be construed to authorixe the said commit- tee to take into consideration anything that relates to the admission of California into the Union." Benton, Webster, and their associates voted for Hamlin's mo- tion ; John Bell voted with the " ultra men of his section," against the motion. He and his pro-slavery friends .wanted to keep free California in their hands to win concessions to slavery. Walker moved to exceiit so much of the resolutions proposed to be referred to the committee by Foote's resolution as relates to the recap- ture of fugitives from labor, and John Bell voted with the ultra southern men against the motion; Hamlin, Davis and others voted for it. The Committee of Thirteen, of which John Bell was a member, reported a series of measures kuown as the Compromise .Measures yf 1850; the admission of Califor- nia — the suppression of the slave trade — the Texas Bound- ary bill — the organization of the Territories of Utah and New Mexico without the exclusion of slavery, and the Fu- gitive Slave biU. When these bills were under consideration, amend- ments were proposed involving issues between freedom and slavery. Where stood John Bell on these questions? Was he with the slave propagandists, or with the friends of freedom? The " record" will^show whether he stood with " Roman firmness" " in opposition to the ultra men of his section," or whether he enrolled his name with the exponents of the sentiments and opinions of the friends of freedom. Mr. Turney of Tennessee moved to limit the southern boundary of California to 36 deg. 30 min., and to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific. This was a mo- tion aimed at California, and in the interests of slavery, and John Bell voted for it. Mr. Turney again moved the limitation of the southern boundary of California to 36 deg. 30 min, ; his object be- ing to get slavery into southern California, and this proposition received the vote of John Bell. Mr. Davis of Mississippi moved that all laws and usa- ges existing in said Territories, interfering with any spe- cies of property, be declared null and void. This was a motion to abrogate the laws of Mexico, prohibiting slave- ry, and to faciUte the introduction of slaves into the vast territory acquired of that power; and it received the vote of John Bell, Atchison, Foote, Soule, Mason, and their pro-slavery compeers, while Benton, Cass, Hamlin, Chase, and our own Davis voted ag.iinst it. Mr. Davis of Miss, moved "that nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to prevent said Territorial Legisla- ture from passing such laws as may be necessary tor the pro- tection of the rights of the property of every kind which may have been or may be hereafter conformably to the constitution and laws of the I'nited States, held in, or introduced into, said Territory." Mr. Davis prefaced this proviso with some remarks, declaring his object to be to assert the duty of the government to protect slavery. Mr. Chase moved " that nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing or permittins tlie introduc- tion of slavery," and Mr. Bell voted No. WTiile this amendment of Mr. Davis's wa.s pending, Mr. Bell advocated it, in order " that the principles of the constitution " might b'' left •■ to rheir full and tair opera- tion " and that "the South might look with some confi- dence to the protection of sliive property in this Territory through the Courts of the United States." John Bell voted Hgaiust an aujendment offered to the bill hy Mr. Baldwin, declaring that "the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery should be and remain in force in said Territory until they should be altered or repealed by Con- gress.' He voted against the amendment offered by Mr. steward, that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwi.se than for conviction of crime, shall ever be al- lowed in either of said Territories of Utah and New Mexi- co." He voted also in favor of an amendment offered by Mr Berrien of Georgia providing again- 1 the passage of any Territorial law "establishing or prohibing slavery." Mr. Chase moved that there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the Terriiori^s of Utah anil Mew Mexico, and John Bell voted against that amend- ment. In giving these votes on the organization of the Territo- ries, John Bell accepted all the doctrines of the Calhoun school, and linked his name indissolubly with the cham- pions of slavery propagandism. When the Fugitive Slave bill was pending, Mr. Dayton moved an amendment prepared by .Mr. Webster before he left the Sena'e, granting to captured fugitives the right of Ti'ial by Jury, and John Bell voted against giving the bondmen a jury tris"!. vVebster drew this amendment and Winthrop voied for it, but John Bell, whose record Stevens;^ tells us is without a blot, enrolled his name ivirh the ultra men of his section against this measure of justice and humanity Our own Senator, Mr. Winthrop, nioved to grant to fugitive slaves the right to the writ of habeas corpus, and John Bell voted against that. Will J. Thomas Stevenson tell the people of Massachusetts there is no "blot" on that "record" of John Bell's against allowing to a fellow being claimed as a bondman the grea. writ of right? Mr. Dav's of Mass.-ichusetts moved to amend the Fugi tive Slave bill by making it the duty of District Attor- neys, whenever any mariner or free (colored person shall be imprisoned without any alleged crime, to bring such per.son by a. writ of /wieas corp«s before any Judge of the District Courts of the United States, who shall inquire whether he is legally held, and, if not, to dis- charge him, the expenses to be paid by the United States. Davis, Winthrop and Dayton voted for the amendment; John Bell voted with Butier. Soule and Jefferson Davis, against it. Yes, John Bell, of "Koman firmness," had no vote to give for this amendment moved by John Davis for the protection of the free colored men of Massachusetts pining in South Carolina prisons, charged with no offence but the crime of having "a skin not colored like our own." Is there no " blot upon that record"? VVid the emphatic Stevenson, the solemn Saltonstall, the plaintive Hillard, answer? John Bell voted to hold the Marshal, for the es- cape of any fugitive held in his custody, whether with or without his consent, for the full value of said fugitive. Uamlin, Dayton and Winthrop voted against this strin- gent proposition; but .lohn Bell would darken even the Fugitive Slave act of 850, for which he voted, after hav- ing voted against every humane effort to make it less ab- horrent to mankind. On the bill to suppress the slave trade, which had long darkened and polluted the national Capitol, John Bell united with the ultra slaveholders of the South — with itutler, Soule, Jefferson Davis, and their confederates, and voted against it. John Davis, Winthrop, Benton and others voted for that act of humanity. llunianity, the iiatiooal character, common decency, liemaiided the sup- pression of that intamnvis traffic in the District of Colum- bia, but John Bell, the statesman whom, the christian peo- ple of Massachusetts are vauntingly told, has a "recoril without a blot," and for whom they are asked to vote, to •'beat Lincoln," had no vote to give for a measure which would suppress that revolting traffic in the souls and bodies of men. In 1850 John Bell voted for Pratt's motion to consider the bill for enticing slaves to escape from the District of Columbia. Benton, Cass, Davis, Uamlin and others voted against it. John Bell voted to imprison any free person wh" should harbor any s.ave or slaves with the in- tent to assist him, her or them to escape from service in the District of Columbia, in the penitentiary fora term not exceeding five years. Benton, Davis, Fremont. Uamliir and Winthrop voted against it, and defeated the inhuman prop- ouitioa. Jolm Bell voted that the Corporation of Washing- ton and Georgetown shall be invested with power to prohib- it the coming of free negroes to reside in the District, and to enforce their removal bj' imprisonment at labor for six months. Hamlin, Fremont, Benton, Davis, Seward and Wintbrop voted against it, and that inhuman proposition was defeated, and defeated hy votes of southern men. Yet Stevenson gives him a clear "record >vithout a blot!" If there is no blot upon this record of John Bell, pray tell us, Mr. Stevenson, if you think the record of Davis and Wiothrop is blotted or blurred by voting against that measure for wh'ch Bell voted. In 1849 Mr Hale presented a petition from female inhabitants of the United States for the suppression of the slave trade and against Che extension of slav- ery. John Bell then voted to lay it on the table. 