text: 1 1 p?' V I I*v>*i i.> *> 1 fm*' /*c,#r '. ill titt'Vfa < ,,.jlj Jj|| Vj, VJ? |. l(^|,,, a Htf lo :i'-V i ' ,..:X r. i -! n,5 5? >,.i : / ;:. a invtvtq >jfi iitnu Xhriettt'O*. uia -ffj .!... "! '.T'" - ;'" ' ,< Uif'.;? -... I.. ,..in'1'I. t;.?: ~r...iir* mil if ) i'. ; vol. i.. I II II aiwii TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION, The American is published every Saturday, on the following terms: Single copy, one year................. $6.00 Three copies, one year................. $6.00 Five copies, one year................. $15.00 Single copy, six months...... $1.00 Ten copies, six months................. $8.00 Voluntary agents are entitled to retain 60 cents commission on each yearly, and 25 cents commission on each semi-yearly, subscriber, except in the case of Clubs. A Club of the subscribers, at $8, will entitle the person making it to a copy for six months; a Club or ten, at $5.00. To copy for one year. When a Club has been forwarded, additions may be made to it, on the same terms. TERMS OF ADVERTISING. Five cents per line for the first insertion. Two and a half cents per line for each subsequent insertion. TO MAIL SUBSCRIBERS. Three weeks previous to the expiration of subscriptions, each subscriber will find his paper wafered together on the margin. Thus, each may know, that, three weeks after the receipt of a paper thus sealed, their subscriptions will run out, and be reminded that they must immediately renew. All letters, communications, and orders, must be addressed to O. W. FENTON, Washington City, D. C. PROSPECTUS OF THE WASHINGTON AMERICAN. We can hardly think it necessary to urge upon those who hold that Americans ought to rule America, the importance of having a paper at the seat of the Federal Government, which shall enunciate and advocate the doctrines of the American party. A paper issued from any of the great centers of a nation, but especially from the political Metropolis, in the present age, not in this country only, but in Great Britain, France, and wherever there is the least freedom of discussion, is a medium through which those holding similar sentiments in regard to public affairs and public policy, may make known, discuss and defend their views, and expose the impropriety of the principles, and the impolicy of the measures of their antagonists. It should be clear that the American people should give a proper direction to public opinion by enlightening the public mind. The American is the only paper published at the seat of the Federal Government which advocates American doctrines; the only sentinel of the party stationed where a near and dear view can be had of the movements and doings of their opponents at their headquarters. Here political information concentrates, and from beneath it radiates to every part of the empire; here, political measures and movements are determined, and political campaigns planned; here, stratagems are concocted and thwarted, and here at certain seasons of the year, politicians most do congregate; here, in short, is the center of the great political maelstrom in which so many thousands are constantly plunging and forever gyrating. If the American party is desirous of being a national party, it should not be without a paper here through which it can make known to all people its views, aims, and opinions, and which shall also refute the calumnies that are from time to time uttered against it through ignorance or a less excusable motive; and we, therefore, take hope that the Americans, standing, it will stand, upon the platform of the American party, advocating, as it will advocate, the paramount rights of native-born citizens, eschewing, as it will eschew, all interference with slavery as a national concern, and maintaining, as it will maintain, perfect freedom of opinion and of conscience in religion, will find favor in the eyes of all truly patriotic citizens in the land, and commend itself to their generous support. Lest we may not have been specific enough in declaring our principles, we add, that the Freedmen's Aid of the Father of his country, as illustrated by the broad light of his administration, will be our compass and chart. PLATFORM (The American Party, adopted at the session of the National Convention, June 1867.) 1st. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being, for His protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful Revolutionary struggle, and hitherto manifested to us, their descendants, in the preservation of the liberties, independence, and the unity of the American people. In the midst of these States, the perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of American Independence. 8th. American men should be selected for all Blaine, Federal, and municipal offices or governing; to employ men in preference to all others; nevertheless, 4th. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-born citizens; but 6th. No person should be selected for political recognition by allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign prince, potentate or power, Or who reinstates to recognize the Federal and State constitution (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action. 6th. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the reserved rights of the several States, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good will, between the citizens of the several States, and to this end, non-interference by Congress with queen of any other State. 7th. The recognition of the right of the native born and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently making in any Territory the act, to frame their constitutions and Lawn, and to follow their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of organization into the Union whenever they have the requisite population for one representative in Congress. From that none but those who are citizens of the United States, under the constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed population in any one Territory, ought to participate in the formation of the constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said Territory or State. 8th. An enforcement of the principle that no State or Territory ought to admit others than dissent from the United States to the right of suffrage, of holding political office. 9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twenty-one years, of all laws before provided for, in accordance with the requirements for citizenship, and excluding all persons convicted of crime, from landing upon or about the shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners. 10th. Opposition to any action between Church and State; no interference with religious faith, or any other form of government, and no test oath for office. 11th. Free and thorough instruction into any and all affected abuses of public institutions, and for economy in public expenditures. 11th. Free and open discussion of all political principles embraced in our platform. DETOTUD 1 V. I v i % i t n? \* SPEECH or HON. JOHN, A. GILMER, OF NORTH CAROLINA, On the Admission of Kansas and the Lecompton Constitution, In the House of Representatives, March 30, 1868. Mr. Chairman, I have been an attentive listener to the arguments on this Lecompton question for three months. Whilst some of the speeches have been calm and considerate, I feel constrained to say that, by far, the larger number have been violent and extremely sectional, tending directly to weaken the respect, which the North and the South should have for each other, and which is essential to the safety of the Union itself. I have heard and read speeches delivered both in this House, and in the other end of this Capitol, by gentlemen from the North and from the South, the true spirit and meaning of which is disunion. True, most, if not all, profess to love the Union and the Constitution. Their speeches are filled with expressions of high veneration for the Constitution of our fathers. They indulge in patriotic strains. Their addresses are profound in the most beautiful habiliments, overflowing with professions and assurances most imposing. The spirit of disunion is, however, the core. It is presented, and perusal and handling secured, as you would an asp, in a casket of beautiful flowers, the design is evidently to infuse the poisonous spirit of disunion, where, for it, there could be no reception, were proper labels attached. Professions of patriotism are uttered in loud and eloquent tones, for peace and harmony, whilst the evident drift is to exasperate and make wider the breach. With pain and regret am I forced to the belief, there are gentlemen on this floor, who, while they oppose the admission of Kansas with the Lecompton Constitution, do really desire the bill to pass for the sake of certain consequences, disastrous to The peace and harmony of the country, which they expect to grow out of it. On the other hand, I fear that among other gentlemen, advocating this measure, there are some, whose regret is, that the Lecompton Constitution and the manner of securing its presentation here, were not more odious to the people of Kansas and the free States, so that their ultimate object might be the sooner secured by a bloody conflict of Northern and Southern arms on the plains of Kansas, and, in case of a failure in this, such bitter sectional excitement, shall certainly ensue, as to produce a fusion of all political parties in the free States, combined as a purely social party, against a similar fusion of all parties in the slave States, by which disunion is made certain in the end. These speeches I will not particularize. They have unfortunately gone forth to the country?these of the North to be read in the South, that they there may have samples of how Northern people hate and despise Southern men; and those of the South to be read in the North, that they may know how they are roomed and detested by the citizens of the South. The designs and purposes of both sides, it is to be feared, are the same?to arouse, drill, and prepare for strife the minds of a great people now happy, with bright prospects for the future, and who, by their united energies, in advancing the industrial and literary interests of the whole country, are doing much more for the true happiness and prosperity of us all. Without intending to be offensive or personal, I must be permitted to say, I envy not the man who can look on our country as it is, and with manhood. Levered and divided. The man who can contain plate that triumph day, when, by reason of civil war, our beautiful and growing cities, towns, and villages, shall be consumed by fire—our manufactories raced to the ground—our commerce broken up—our lorely fields and gardens made the foraging grounds of ribaldry—all international trade and communication cut off—all municipal and family peace destroyed—our sons dragged from their homes—amid the eight and tears of affectionate mothers and sisters, to the bloody fields of civil strife; and all this lying out of a question as to how, when, or in what manner, forty thousand people ONLY, in Kansas, shall settle for themselves their own domestic affairs—or rather, how they shall soon get clear of a few slaves—and get two "Free-Boys" Senators and one Representative in Congress. I say such a man has no feeling in common with me—and none, I trust, with the great body of the honest yeomanry of this country, of all sections. We have our troubles, I admit. We have had, as now, disunion threatened, but thanks to the good sense of the people, they have never yet inclined to take the prescriptions of those who boastingly decline to sing praises to the Union. England, from whom we derive our nature and many of the free principles of which we boast, had her troubles. She has had her diseases, hot White and Red rows—her land has been tinged with the blood of the North. With blood in civil strife, and once the head of Her King was brought to the block, but her people were attached to their government and their Constitution. The storm passed away. The political atmosphere again became pure and healthy; and the government was maintained and improved. And it is my honest conviction, that there is too much good sense in the people of three States to be led away with the idea of division, on account of any difficulties growing out of this question, surrounded by such prevalent grievances. I perceive that unless misled and deceived, I will bring to the block the political heads at all who shall insist on any such remedy for such complaint. Mr. Chairman, it is not to be disguised, that our Southern people are anxious about appearance for the future. They see the free States in number and in Representation, already in the majority in both Houses of Congress, and this majority soon to be largely increased; that while the South falls into this minority, they have witnessed, for the last few years, among many people of the free States, an increasing spirit of bitter hostility to the South and her institutions. But let us like statesmen be calm, briefly stating the history of this thing, and inquire why it is. Though by the census, the actual figures show that the natural increase of population in the slave States has been equal to the natural native increase of the free States, yet the free States have excelled us in the settlement of new Territories and raising up new States. In the first place, we of the Southern States have been, and now are, the advocates of free trade, and many for direct taxes. We have opposed the policy of discrimination in favor of our own domestic industry in the old States, in stimulating and raising revenue, and no more than enough to defray the expenses of the Government, economically administered. To this policy we have made in subatance, use- less opposition? It is by in a good degree cutting off much of the inducement, that would have retained the industrious and energetic population in the old States, who, in consequence, have moved to the Territories, there settled, made new and free States, and became producers instead of consumers of the earth's productions. In the second place, a majority of Southern Cultivators have uniformly favored the policy of inviting, alluring, persuading, and in fast hiring emigrants—not only the citizens of the States, but of the whole world, to move and settle in one Territories. Homesteads, by way of pre-emptions, in the Territories, are offered to all the world. The language of the whole policy is in substance, "come ye all the Earth, and settle in our Territories—here you can become citizens, and without waiting to be naturalized, according to the laws of the Union, you can become citizens, and without waiting to be naturalized, according to the laws of the Union, you can vote and hold office; the result of which has been to run from the old States, (save and free) into the Territories, much of their population, and particularly that portion, though young, industrious, and worthy, who have, or take but little interest in the institutions of the South, and besides, we find growing out of this, that hundreds of thousands of foreigners are now living in the Territories." Looking to us every year—that foreign paupers are by thousands and thousands being set upon our shores. In feet, I find from the best official statements, that the number of foreign emigrants that came to this country from June the 1st, 1860, to December 31st, 1861, was five hundred and fifty-eight thousand—for the year 1862, three hundred and seventy-five thousand—for the year 1864, nearly the same. The war in the East diminished the number, but I venture the prediction that between the years 1860 and 1880 there will have come to this country foreigners enough to place in each of twenty new million population than is now in the Territory of Kansas. The foreigners make their way mainly to the Territories, or crowd into the free States, occasioning increased emigration from them. These facts being undeniable, I submit, how important it is for our Southern politicians to turn their attention to them. While the people of the North were willing to dispense with and check this immense immigration among them, for reasons of a social character, to diminish their taxes, prosecutions and the intemests of their poor houses, jails and penitentiaries, I respectfully ask, why should not the South, to a man, for reasons as well understood as expressed, have joined in this great movement? And if in the first movements and organizations any rules were adopted too strict or stringent to be generally enforced, or "too severe on the honest immigrant, to have given their potent aid and influence in modifying the same, so as to have carried most useful results to our beloved South? But it has been their pleasure to pursue a different course, and the results thereof have, in no small degree, contributed to the embarrassing circumstances that now seem to gather around us and swallow up our influence in the National Council. The argument has been, "settle and populate the Territories," forgetting the fact that in the last seventy-five years our population has increased from three to some twenty-seven millions—nine old—and if the same ratio of increase shall obtain for the next seventy-five years, the result will be nine times twenty-seven millions—showing how important these Territories may be (sold at reasonable prices paid into the treasury,) for the homes of our own posterity, and of honest worthy foreigners, who come to us as they did in former days, from a love of our free government, and who are willing to settle among us, sure of being protected in all their rights. Of religion and property, and who are willing to wait until they have understood and become familiar with our people and their institutions before claiming the right to participate in their government. These suggestions I have made to Southern gentlemen here, and throughout the slave States, that on reflection they may determine whether they have not been remiss in failing to come to the aid of a cause quite material to Southern influence and Southern interests. I was very much entertained, Mr. Chairman, by the speech of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Sandoval] and, if I had time, I should like to incorporate at least half of it in mine, to show, in addition to the millions that have already come, how many more millions of paupers are to come under our present system of inviting them to come here. But, Mr. Chairman, what is it that we have been discussing here for the last ninety days? This discussion has been either intentionally or accidentally conducted so as to bring out the extreme sectional views of gentlemen from the South and from the North. It is only within the last eight or ten days that any conservative man has been permitted to address the House on this agitated question. It is said that this is a question whether any more slave States shall come into this Union, and speech after speech is made and sent to the South to tell the Southern people that we are solemnly debating in the House of Representatives the naked question whether any more slave States shall come into the Union. Why, Mr. Chairman, if that were true, if that were the only question here, it might have been settled within twenty-four hours after this debate commenced. If that were the only question, I take it that all our American friends would vote for it, every man from the South would vote for it, and I am inclined to think that the Free Soil wing of the Democracy—these Buffalo-platform men—could be got to vote for it, with a single amendment. That is my opinion. But, Iff. Chairman, is that the question? On what has this debate arisen? On the special message of the President. Does he say that whether there shall be any more slave States is the question? No sir; that means, as I understand it, means these two things? and it means nothing more and nothing less? to the South, "come in Leoompton," and to Northern gentlemen, "it is the surest and readiest way, and the only certain way, in which you can confiscate Southern property and get clear of negroes in Kansas. I have listened to gentlemen here professing great regard for the interests of the South, and, whilst all of them have been eloquent on the first part of the picture, they have all, save and except a gentleman from the chivalrous State of South Carolina, passed over that portion as tenderly as sucking dove. [Laughter.] I will read from the President's message, in order that there may be no mistake about: As a question of expediency, after the right has been maintained, it may be wise to reflect upon the benefits to Kansas and the whole country which would result from its immediate admission into the Union, as well as the disasters which may follow its report. Domestic peace will be the happy consequence of its admission; and that fine Territory, which has hitherto been torn by dissensions, will rapidly increase in population and wealth, and soothe and realize the blessings and the comfort which follow in the train of agricultural and mechanical industry. . The people will then be sovereign, and can regulate their own affairs in their own way. If a majority of them desire to abolish domestic slavery within the State, there is no other possible mode by which this can be effected so speedily as by prompt admission. The will of the majority is supreme and irresistible when expressed in an orderly and lawful manner. They can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure. It would be absurd to say that they can impose fetters upon their own power which they cannot afterwards remove. If they could do this, they might be their own hands for a hundred as well as for ten years. These are fundamental principles of American freedom, and are recognized, I believe, in some form or other, by every State constitution; and if Congress, in the act of admission, should think proper to recognize them, I can perceive no objection to such a course. This has been done emphatically in the constitution of Kansas. It declares in the bill of rights that "all political power is inherence the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit, and therefore they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think proper." The great State of New York is at this moment governed under a constitution framed and established in direct opposition to the mode prescribed by the previous constitution. Therefore, the provision changing the Kansas constitution after the year 1884, could by possibility be construed into a prohibition to make a change in revisions to that period, this prohibition would be wholly unavailing. The Legislature already elected may, at its very first session, submit the question to a vote of the people whether they will or will not have a convention to amend their constitution, and adopt all necessary means for giving effect to the popular will. It has been solemnly adjudged, by the highest judicial tribunal known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the United States. Kansas is therefore, at this moment, as much a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina. Without this, the equality of the sovereign States composing the Union would be violated, and the use and enjoyment of a Territory acquired by the common treasure of all the States, would be closed against the people and the property of nearly half the members of the confederacy. And then he concludes with this very cheering doctrine for Southern men and Southern interests: "Slavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas, except by means of a constitutional provision, and in no other manner can this be obtained so promptly, if a majority of the people desire it, as by admitting it into the Union under its present constitution." The President points out the way in advance. He stimulates the Free-Soilers in Kansas to dislike the constitution. He requests this. Prompt means of getting slavery out of Kansas to be recognized in the bill of admission. Here is the message. I submit it to the Chsirnian, to the Committee, and to Southornineu?suppose, that instead of having tho name of James Buchanan attached to it, It nad had the name of the distinguished gentleman fiom Ohio, Joshox R. Giddihus at the end of it, 1 ask, if that name had been attached, whether it would not have been an entirely different case f We would pronounce it a rank abolition document. And yet, sir, our Southern friends come up here and talk about associating witli Abolitionists, and of hugging Abolition doctrines as a sweet morsel! Why, Mr. Chairman, the whole thing in that message is, 44 in xeitk Kan*a*?out withtlavery ire Kama*"? ? j xli i- *1 o lm1 wu aviuubii>?ijjr wuu siuiio timig ia 111 i,ue ornate oill, that the South is called upon to rally as one man to the support of. I have aaked many of our Lecompton friends if this Grkkn amendment, which they have got in tho bill, speaks the language of this message ? Some say no, others s <y it does; and there is another class who lie answer the girl gave to her mother, w' d, if a certain gentleman was courting he plied, "it is a sorter so, and a sorter not f , and rather more a sorter so than a sorter not so." [daughter.] Now, that amendment is a very little thing?only a few lines. There 1b not much of it, but I tell you I never read it over but it reminds me very much of the boy .who was scolded for not making the potatoe hills on a wet moruing large enough. "Well, dad," said he, "It is a fact that they are small, but I tell you they have got a darned sight of dirt in them." [Laughter.] Sir, if this is a pill gilded over to make it acceptable to some old men, Southern men ought to be ashamed of it. I know that this peculiar policy is practised in our little electioneering scuffles in our country, and I suppose everywhere else, but I never supposed it ought to obtain in the Congress of our nation. Once when I charged a friend of mine with having said some foolish things in a speech which he had made, and told him that I thought he had hurt our cause, he said: "Ah, Gilmer, you do not know the folks as well as I do." A great many people are like a nest of young birds, if you tap the side of the tree, they'll open their mouths, and swallow the worm down." [Laughter.] Southern men supposed that we had got something by the Dred Scott decision. I, for one, as a Southern man thought we had obtained something; I thought that we had got upon safe ground; that we had perfect equality in the Territories; that we could go there with our institutions and our property, and be just as safe there as the men who go there from any other section with any other species of property. But if this is the meaning, if this is the result of the Dred Scott decision, then those of us who go into the Territories with our slave property, have to run two chances?first that the people may exclude us when they come to form their constitution, and if they do not run us out at first, then whenever the majority of the people desire it, they may run us and their negroes out. And this is the doctrine upon which the South is to stand? This is the doctrine, mark you, which Alabama and other States are to go out of the Union on, if they cannot get it is not from any objection to the constitution of Kansas that I, as a Southern man, oppose her admission. I would be pleased that we could fairly and properly get slavery permanently in Kansas. But I object to this doctrine, that we can be protected in our property while in partnership, during the Territorial state, but the moment we become an incorporation—a State—every man that owns a joint stock is instantly liable by constitutional provision to have his property confiscated. And this is the doctrine which we have been told here, month after month, and day, after day, that every Southern man must stand upon, otherwise he is an Abolitionist and opposed to the interests of the South. Mr. Chairman, what is the question which has agitated the country for the last four years? It is one that has taken up the entire attention of Congress. We have been figuring about it until, I believe, not only the country but the Government itself is upon the verge of bankruptcy. This question commenced with two faces—one for the Free Soil Democrats of the North, and one for the South; and the same identical double face is in this bill, and I will detain the Committee only for a moment, while I refer them to some history of it. We had our troubles some years ago, growing out of the discussion of the compromise measures. In January, 1651, the venerable fathers of the land, Whigs and Democrats, gathered together, with Henry Clay at their head, and drew up a pledge to the country that from and after that day their influence would be exerted against every man for office, State or Federal, who would refuse to stand upon the platform of the adjustment measures of 1860. The people rallied to that standard. The Democratic convention met in Baltimore, in 1862; the Whig convention met at the same place, and they both bowed down at the same altar of peace upon this agitating question. They reaffirmed in substance what Mr. Fillmore said in December, 1851, that this compromise of 1860 should be a finality, and there should be no more agitation of the slavery question in or out of Congress. To that both of the great leading parties were pledged to the country. They put their candidates upon that platform. General Pierce was elected. He was installed. Unfortunately, however, he in a short time made some judicious appointments; he turned out the true Democrats or the North, men who I am proud to find standing in the same ranks they did then. Van Ruren, Dix, Cochrane & Co., the Buffalo platform men, were then coming in, and the party was about to break up. Something had to be done. The Administration was going down. A prescription was given, and on the principle that you prescribe to one choked with a turnip, get him to swallow a pumpkin, and it would relieve him. [Laughter.] They went upon this Cincinnati platform. I am not going to detain the Committee to show how our friends viewed it in the Booth. That is well known. I desire to show how the matter stands with the Administration, to show what the Democratic Prec-Soilers said before, afterward, and all the time. A few months before the Cincinnati convention met, a distinguished Free-Soiler wrote to the North. Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Woodbury, and all these noisy men of the Buffalo convention, began to give evidence that they wanted to return to their friends. Here is one; I give it as a fair specimen of their Letters and speeches. It is the letter of Hon. C. C. Cambreling: "Hewington, December 8, 1885. With a view to a solution, even Southern men in Kansas acknowledge that it will inevitably be a free State. This is a significant step towards resolving the question of slavery, for the half-dared Territories remaining are already free and will remain so. There would not have been half the trouble about Kansas, but for Atchison's struggle to get back into the Senate. As the question now stands, there ought to be no difficulty whatever in using the Democratic party, for the principle of merit. General Miles, in his message to the Nebraska and Kansas bill, says: "Whatever its origin, gives us every Territory belonging to the United States, and all we have now to insist upon is, that it shall be honestly enforced, that Kansas shall have fair play. Practically there is no difference worth quarreling about. It appears to me to be perfectly absurd for us to be grumbling about squatter sovereignty at the present time, when squatter Sovereignty will make free every inch of territory now belonging to the United States." After the acquisition of California, with the prospect of the addition of more Mexican territory, when Texas proposed the doctrine of non-intervention, it was an important question, as it might have led to the introduction of many slave States; but after the South had been completely checked by California's declaration in favor of freedom, they had no reason to object to the doctrine of non-intervention, or squatter sovereignty. We have now, besides Kansas and Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington, making seven Territories, which will give us seven free States. Some think the fate of Kansas doubtful, but the invasion of the Missouri rowdies, independent of natural causes, will make it a free State. These borderers came over first to vote for pro-slavery men—the second time to vote against them in the location of the Capital—and the third time to make a blue flag under the Stars and Stripes. Under such circumstances, I cannot conceive what we can possibly gain by resisting a principle which has been to excluded slavery from our Territories. "The slaveholders will not get Kansas, and they are now deprived of the pretext or going into the Territories south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, under that compromise. They generally opposed non-intervention on that ground, and contended for carrying the compromise line to the Pacific ocean. It is certainly not for our interest now to have that compromise line restored. Why the South should have voted for its repeal is a question for themselves to settle. They all, at the time, admitted that Kansas would never be a slave State. I hope our friends will meet the issue boldly, and leave the question of State organization to the people of the Territory, who have the natural and best right to decide for themselves." Let the squatters settle? But insist that that principle of the Nebraska act shall be honestly carried out; that the squatters shall have fair play, and shall not be controlled by invaders from Missouri, or any military power whatever. As to more slave States, there are none in prospect; and it is useless to embarrass ourselves by anticipating questions which may or may not arise. Now, sir, these two wings are standing today exactly where they stood before. Tell me, if you please, why these men you are hugging to your bosom on the other side, stand with you? These men who were, and sow are, rank Free-Soilers? Tell us why the Green amendment is admitted? Which would you rather have for your bedfellows? I tell you the difference is very much like the slave's reply when asked whether Jim and Muse were not very much alike? He said, "Yes, very much indeed; and particularly Afoae." [Laughter.] Is not so much, I fear, that they care about getting negroes into Kansas, or getting them out? It is not any principle of this kind. It is, I apprehend, a mere contrivance by which jobbing has been carried on in this country to keep certain men in power. In fact, this whole management and shuffling reminds me of what occurred in one of our North Carolina towns some years ago. A silly fellow declared himself a candidate for town constable. The boys had a circular printed for him. It was printed on both sides like this—with the exception, on one side, and Green upon the other. On one side, he addressed himself to the debtors: "Fellow citizens, vote for me, and if I am elected constable, I will never force you to pay soent, even at any extremity." On the other side was an address to the creditors: "If you will come up and vote for me, and I shall be elected, I promise, upon my honor, I will have your money paid, in every instance, at the drop of a hat." Mr. Chairman, I am not disposed to detain this Committee with a review of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. All I have to say is this: that my views upon the constitutionality of the Missouri compromise were known long before that decision was made; and I thought that the compromise was not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. Although my opinion inclines to that of the Supreme Court, and did I before the decision was made, yet, from the length of time it had been a compromise, I was disposed to look upon it as a compromise which had better be abided by. As in the case of two neighbors whose boundary lines is in dispute—a boundary which can only be settled by the provisions of a deed, and no agreement they might make by parol would change the line fixed by the deed, any more than any agreement between two sections of the country by Congress, could be changed. But when the neighbors have established a line by parol agreement, staked and chopped it off. and have lived in peace, harmony, and prosperity under it for more than thirty years, if they should come to me and ask my advice, whether they should break up this. Oh! landmark? Now the true line being ascertained by the deed? and go back to their rights according to law, I should say, as a man, a neighbor, and as a Christian, also, that they had better let the old landmarks stand and abide by them; and by no means revive old disputes and quarrels. So with the case of this Missouri compromise. But it is said that the only way to pacify the country is to admit no amendments to this bill; that it cannot be bettered; that in no way can it be improved; that it has got to be passed in the shape of which it is presented, even though a proposition should be presented, which, if carried out, would more effectively pacify and quiet the country and settle the whole question. Why, say they, it would be intervention. Now, let me detain the Committee a moment to show ridiculous that it is. What is this thing of no intervention? Why, in intervention to leave the people of a Territory perfectly free and unmixed to settle this, with all other questions, in their own way, fairly and properly, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. Now, sir, do we consider it any intervention, in the case of a trial by jury, after the verdict is announced, to act the same aside, and grant a new trial upon affidavits which clearly prove and maintain the right of prosecution? Is it any intervention for an honest and conscientious judge, after being satisfied of the facts by reliable affidavits, to say that he doubted whether the verdict had been fairly obtained, and in the exercise of the discretion which has vested in him, decide to grant a new trial, in order that justice might be done? Is that an interference with the right of trial by jury? And suppose a jury is empanelled to settle the question, and they come back to the judge, and one of the jury gets up and says the verdict is so and so, and another says it is not so, and the judge tells them, "gentlemen, you had better retire, get together again and consult, and agree upon your verdict, and, when you come in, it will be recorded." In that any interference? I wanted to show how ridiculous this idea is. Is that intervention? What are Oars and Perkins's amendments? Let our Northern States be represented. Anti-slavery men, of all parties, understand that the President of the United States has given a true construction to the Freedmen's Convention, and you will never have any more fuss about this matter from them. The President says it means that when the people of any State see proper to get together in a legal way, to get up a convention sanctioned by law, a mere majority vote of their assembly. Soil, they may form a constitution and the negroes will all step. That an , L A N Y. 