[ON the 8th of 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. CLAY rose 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 final passage, 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 new state 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 admitted ♦at all, 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 be procured,
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 the 1st of 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 the 1st of January, 1850, to the 27th of 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: 1st January, 1849,
26,000――8,000 Americans, 13,000 Californians, and 5,000 foreigners;
on the 1st of January, 1850, the population was 107,069――making a total
number on the 27th of 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 is _people_ and _number_. 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 relinquish their 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 36 deg. 30 min. A member of the committee,
however, was not satisfied with that, and proposed 35 deg. 30 min.
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 36 deg.
30 min., or 35 deg. 30 min., 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 35 deg. 30 min. 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 35 deg. 30 min., 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 of the 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 36 deg. 30 min.,
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 the ♦settlement
of 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 upon the 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 is _in transitu_ between 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 question of 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 totally misunderstands 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 thing as 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,
of _The United States Statutes at Large_, in which I find ‘An act
to regulate and fix compensation for clerks, and _to 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 said territory,
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 the _Statutes 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 schooner Gen. 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 the 3d of 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 July 1st, 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 the navy 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 June 30th, 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; and Mr. Bell proposed an
amendment to the amendment of Mr. Walker, which was disagreed to:
yeas 4, nays 39.――_Senate Journal, second session, Thirtieth Cong._
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 the _Statutes 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 the _Statutes 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’――a
most 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 to
admit 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 trifling to 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 the _onus probandi_
of freedom is thrown on the persons claiming it, as every person in
the slaveholding states is regarded _prima facie_ as 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 production of 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――in some
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. That is 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 heard that 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 subjects of 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.