shoulder to shoulder with the men who, differing from us upon
other questions, will yet unite with us in opposition to the
violation of plighted faith contemplated by this bill. There are
men, and not a few, who are willing to adhere to the compromise of
1850. If the Missouri prohibition, which that compromise
incorporates and preserves among its own provisions, shall be
repealed, abrogated, broken up, thousands will say: Away with all
compromises; they are not worth the paper on which they are
printed; we will return to the old principles of the Constitution.
We will assert the ancient doctrine, that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property, by the legislation of
Congress, without due process of law. Carrying out that principle
into its practical applications, we will not cease our efforts
until slavery shall cease to exist wherever it can be reached by
the constitutional action of the government.
"Sir, I have faith in progress. I have faith in Democracy. The
planting and growth of this nation, upon this western continent,
was not an accident. The establishment of the American Government,
upon the sublime principles of the Declaration of Independence,
and the organization of the Union of these States, under our
existing Constitution, was the work of great men, inspired by
great ideas, guided by Divine Providence. These men, the fathers
of the Republic, have bequeathed to us the great duty of so
administering the government which they organized, as to protect
the rights, to guard the interests, and promote the well-being, of
all persons within its jurisdiction, and thus present to the
nations of the earth a noble example of wise and just
self-government. Sir, I have faith enough to believe that we shall
yet fulfill this high duty. Let me borrow the inspiration of
Milton, while I declare my belief, that we have yet a country 'not
degenerated, nor drooping to a fatal decay, but destined, by
casting off the old and wrinkled skin of corruption, to outlive
these pangs, and wax young again, and, entering the glorious ways
of truth and prosperous virtue, become great and honorable in
these latter ages. Methinks I see in my mind a great and puissant
nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking
her invincible locks. Methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her
mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday
beam; purging and unscaling her long-abused sight at the fountain
itself of heavenly radiance; while the whole noise of timorous and
flocking birds, with those also that love the twilight, flutter
about, amazed at what she means, and in their envious gabble would
prognosticate a year of sects and schisms.'
"Sir, we may fulfill this sublime destiny, if we will but
faithfully adhere to the great maxims of the Revolution; honestly
carrying into their legitimate practical applications the high
principles of democracy; and preserve inviolate plighted faith and
solemn compacts. Let us do this, putting our trust in the God of
our fathers, and there is no dream of national prosperity, power,
and glory, which ancient or modern builders of ideal commonwealths
ever conceived, which we may not hope to realize. But if we turn
aside from these ways of honor, to walk in the by-paths of
temporary expedients, compromising with wrong, abetting
oppression, and repudiating faith, the wisdom and devotion and
labors of our fathers will have been all--all in vain.
"Sir, I trust that the result of this discussion will show that
the American Senate will sanction no breach of compact. Let us
strike from the bill the statement which historical facts and our
personal recollections disprove, and then reject every proposition
which looks toward a violation of the plighted faith and solemn
compact which our fathers made, and which we, their sons, are
bound, by every tie of obligation, sacredly to maintain."
Mr. Chase's opinions respecting the independence of the State courts
can be gathered from his message to the Ohio Legislature, Jan. 4,
1858. We quote:
"A disposition has been manifested, within the last few years, by
some of the officials of the Federal Government, exercising their
functions within the limits of Ohio, to disregard the authority,
and to encroach upon the rights of the State, to an extent and in
a manner which demands your notice.
"In February, 1856, several colored persons were seized in
Hamilton County as fugitive slaves. One of these persons, Margaret
Garner, in the frenzy of the moment, impelled, as it seems, by the
dread of seeing her children dragged, with herself, back to
slavery, attempted to slay them on the spot, and actually
succeeded in killing one. For this act, she and her companions
were indicted by the grand jury for the crime of murder, and were
taken into custody upon a writ regularly issued from the Court of
Common Pleas.
"While thus imprisoned under the legal process of a State court,
for the highest crime known to our code, a writ of habeas corpus
was issued by a judge of the District Court of the United States,
requiring their production before him. The writ was obeyed by the
sheriff, and, contrary to all expectations, and in disregard, as I
must think, of principle and authority, the prisoners were taken
from his custody by order of the judge, and, without allowing any
opportunity for the interposition of the State authorities,
delivered over to the Marshal of the United States, by whom they
were immediately transported beyond our limits. The alleged ground
for this action and order was that the indicted parties had been
seized as fugitive slaves upon a Federal Commissioner's warrant,
before the indictment and arrest, and that the right to their
custody, thus acquired, was superior to that of the sheriff, under
the process of the State. This doctrine must necessarily give
practical impunity to murder whenever the murderer may be seized
by a federal official as a fugitive from service before arrest for
the crime under State authority. Imputing no wrong intention to
the judge, I am constrained to add that his proceeding seems to me
an abuse, rather than an exercise, of judicial power.
"A similar case occurred more recently in the county of Champaign.
Several deputies of the federal marshal having arrested certain
citizens of this State for some alleged offence against the
Fugitive Slave act, a writ of habeas corpus was issued by the
probate judge of that county, requiring the arrested parties to be
brought before him for inquiry into the grounds of detention. The
sheriff of Clark County, while attempting to execute this writ,
was assaulted by these petty officials and seriously injured,
while his deputy was fired upon, though happily without effect. A
warrant was issued by a justice of the peace for the apprehension
of the perpetrators of these offences. This warrant was duly
executed and the prisoners committed to jail under the custody of
the sheriff of Clark County. A writ of habeas corpus was then
issued by the same district judge who had interposed in the case
of Margaret Garner, requiring the sheriff of Clark County to
produce his prisoners before him at the city of Cincinnati. This
writ was also obeyed, and the prisoners were discharged from
custody by the order of the judge, on the ground that being
federal officers, and charged with the execution of a federal
writ, they had a right to overcome, by any necessary violence, all
attempts made under the process of a State court, to detain them
or their prisoners, even for inquiry into the legality of the
custody in which those prisoners were held.
"This principle cannot be sound. It subverts effectually the
sovereignty of the State. It asserts the right of any district
judge of the United States to arrest the execution of State
process, and to nullify the functions of State courts and juries,
whenever in his opinion a person charged with crime under State
authority has acted in the matter forming the basis of the charge,
in pursuance of any federal law or warrant. No act of Congress, in
my judgment, sanctions this principle. Such an act, indeed, would
be clearly unconstitutional, because in plain violation of the
express provision which requires that the trial of all crimes
shall be by jury.
"It is deeply to be regretted that collisions of this kind should
occur. The authorities of Ohio have never failed in due
consideration for the constitutional rights of federal courts, nor
will they thus fail. But they cannot admit, without dishonor, that
State process is entitled to less respect than federal, nor can
they ever concede to federal writs or federal officials a
deference which is not conceded to those of the State.
"The true course is one of mutual respect and mutual deference.
Whenever, in any inquiry upon habeas corpus, by any court, State
or federal, it may be ascertained that the applicant for the writ
is detained under valid process in pursuance of a constitutional
law, he should be remanded at once to the custody from which he
may have been taken for trial in due course. No investigation
should take place into the guilt or innocence of the party
charged, or, what is substantially the same thing, whether the
facts were justified by the authority under which the applicant
was acting at the time. Inquiries of this character are for juries
upon a regular trial and in open court; not for a judge at
chambers. If made upon one side upon habeas corpus, they must also
be made upon the other. If federal courts are to protect federal
officials from prosecution by State courts for alleged violations
of State law, State courts in their turn must protect State
officers from prosecution in federal courts, under similar
circumstances. Hence, dangerous conflicts must arise, and imminent
peril both to liberty and union.
"If such conflicts must come, to the extent of the power vested in
me, I shall maintain the honor of the State, and support the
authority of her courts."
We have scarcely given the reader a sample of Mr. Chase's style of
speech, or opinions on the slavery question, and it is quite possible
we have not given the most eloquent extracts which may be found in his
public speeches and messages, but we have quoted enough to show every
intelligent reader who Mr. Chase is and what his opinions are.
EDWARD BATES.
We shall only give an outline sketch of Edward Bates, of Missouri, for
though a man whose name is prominently before the public, yet he has
seen little of that congressional life which gives a man a political
record.
Mr. Bates was born in Goochland County, Virginia, on the 4th of
September, 1793, being the seventh son and twelfth child of Thomas F.
Bates. His ancestors came from the west of England to the Jamestown
settlement as early as 1625, and they were plain people of the middle
rank of English life. They were Quakers, and remained so for more than
a century--some of the descendants to this day. The ancestors of Mr.
Bates, however, forfeited membership in the Society of Friends--or we
should say, rather, Mr. Bates' _father_, Thomas F. Bates, lost his
membership with the Society for bearing arms in the war of the
Revolution. A noble cause to die for, and certainly to lose
ecclesiastical relations for! He was at the siege of York; and his
children from that day were no more Quakers.
The scholastic education of Mr. Bates was not perhaps first-class. He
entered no college and passed through with no "course," but was,
nevertheless, well taught in the elements, at home, by his father and
a kinsman, Benj. Bates, of Hanover; at school, for several years, at
Charlotte Hall Academy, Maryland; and a most excellent school it was.
The choice of the young man for a profession was the navy, and in the
winter of 1811-12, a midshipman's warrant was offered him; but in
deference to the wishes of his mother, he declined it and gave up his
choice. This fact gives a key to the man's character. He has always
been willing to do his duty, however great the personal sacrifice. In
1813, he served as a volunteer at Norfolk, Va., in a militia regiment.
In 1814, he emigrated to St. Louis, under the kind care of his elder
brother, Frederick Bates, then Secretary of Missouri Territory, and
afterward Governor of the State. He entered the law office of Rufus
Easton, an eminent lawyer, who was in his time a delegate from the
territory in Congress. In 1816, he was duly licensed to practise law,
and succeeded so well that in 1819 he was appointed Circuit Attorney.
In 1820, he was one of the eight men who represented St. Louis County
in the convention which formed the State Constitution for Missouri.
Later, he was the Attorney-General of the State; and later yet, was
elected for several times to both houses of the Missouri General
Assembly. In 1824, President Monroe appointed him U.S. Attorney-General
for the Missouri District. In 1826, he was elected to Congress, where
he served honorably for two years. In 1828, he ran again, but was
beaten by the storm of Jackson politics. This result of the
congressional campaign seemed to disgust him with public political
life, and he quietly withdrew to private life. He has since steadily
practised law to support a large family--with one exception. In 1853,
he was elected Judge of the St. Louis Land Court. After performing the
duties of the office for about three years, he resigned it and went
back to the practice of the law.
In 1847, to go back a little, Mr. Bates presided over the Internal
Improvement Convention at Chicago. In 1850, Mr. Fillmore appointed him
Secretary of War, but he declined the office. In 1856, he presided at
the Whig Convention in Baltimore; in 1858, received from Harvard
University the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. We omitted to
mention that, in 1823, Mr. Bates married Julia D. Coulter, a native of
South Carolina, by whom he has had seventeen children, eight of whom
survive.
Before we give a few of Mr. Bates' political opinions, one fact should
be stated. He, a southern man, went to Missouri and became a
slaveholder, by inheritance and otherwise; yet, a few years since, set
his slaves free, and is understood to be unequivocally in favor of
emancipation in the State of Missouri.
Now for Mr. Bates' political opinions--and we shall quote from his
late letter. He says, speaking of slavery:
"As to the negro question, I have always thought, and often
declared, in speech and in print, that it is a pestilent question,
the agitation of which has never done good to any party, section,
or class, and never can do good, unless it be accounted good to
stir up the angry passions of men, and exasperate the unreasoning
jealousies of sections, and by these bad means foist some unfit
men into office, and keep some fit men out. It is a sensitive
question, into whose dangerous vortex it is quite possible for
good men to be drawn unawares. But when I see a man, at the South
or the North, of mature age and some experience, persist in urging
the question, after the successful experience of the last few
years, I can attribute his conduct to no higher motive than
personal ambition or sectional prejudice."
This is all Mr. Bates says on the slavery question. He then goes on to
speak in favor of internal improvements to advance the interests and
protect the rights and industry of the country.
"Protection, if not the sole, is the chief end of government. It
is for the governing power to judge, in every instance, what kind
and what degree of protection is needful--whether a navy to guard
our commerce all around the world, or an army to defend the
country against armed invasion from without, or domestic
insurrection from within; or a tariff to protect our home industry
against the dangerous obtrusion of foreign labor and capital."
As to our foreign policy generally, he says he is willing to leave it
where Washington placed it, on the sage maxim, "Peace with all
nations; entangling alliances with none." The greedy appetite for
foreign acquisition which makes us covet our neighbor's lands, and
devise cunning schemes to get them, has little of his sympathy. He
argues this point briefly, but forcibly, opposing the acquisition of
Cuba, and the other islands and Central American countries which would
then be demanded. As to buying them, we had better wait till we cease
borrowing money to pay current expenses; and before conquering, pause
and estimate the cost of rushing into war with all maritime Europe,
and half of America. Cuba has much more to fear from us than we have
to fear from Cuba. Mr. Bates continues:
"But suppose we could get, honestly and peaceably, the whole
country, continental and insular, from the Rio Grande to the
Orinoco, and from Trinidad to Cuba, and thus establish our _mare
clausum_, and shut the gate of the world across the Isthmus, can
we govern them wisely and well? For the last few years, in the
attempt to govern our home territories of Kansas and Utah, we have
not very well maintained the dignity and justice of the nation,
nor secured the peace and prosperity of the subject people....
"For my part, I should grieve to have my country become, like
Rome, a conquering and dominant nation; for I think there are few
or no examples in history, of governments whose chief objects were
glory and power, which did ever secure the happiness and
prosperity of their own people. Such governments may grow great
and famous, and advance a few of their citizens to wealth and
nobility, but the price of their grandeur is the personal
independence and individual freedom of their people. Still less am
I inclined to see absorbed into our system, "on an equal footing
with the original States," the various and mixed races (amounting
to I know not how many millions) which inhabit the continent and
isthmus south of our present border. I am not willing to inoculate
our body politic with the virus of their diseases, political and
social--diseases which, with them, are chronic and hereditary, and
with us could hardly fail to produce corruption in the mind and
weakness in the members."
The letter concludes as follows:
"It seems to me that an efficient, home-loving government,
moderate and economical in its administration, peaceful in its
objects, and just to all nations, need have no fear of invasion at
home, or serious aggressions abroad. The nations of Europe have to
stand continually in defence of their existence, but the conquest
of our country by a foreign power is simply impossible, and no
nation is so absurd as to entertain the thought. We may conquer
ourselves by local strifes and sectional animosities, and when, by
our folly and wickedness, we have accomplished that great
calamity, there will be none to pity us for the consequences of so
great a crime.
"If our government would devote all its energies to the promotion
of peace and friendship with all foreign countries; the
advancement of commerce; the increase of agriculture; the growth
and stability of manufactures, and the cheapening, quickening, and
securing the internal trade and travel of our country; in short,
if it would devote itself in earnest to the establishment of a
wise and steady policy of internal government, I think we should
witness a growth and consolidation of wealth and comfort, and
power for good, which cannot be reasonably hoped for from a
fluctuating policy, always watching for the turns of good fortune,
or from a grasping ambition to seize new territories, which are
hard to get and harder to govern.
"The present position of the administration is a sorrowful
commentary upon the broad democracy of its professions. In theory,
the people have the right and ability to do anything--in practice,
we are verging rapidly to the one man power.
"The President, the ostensible head of the national Democrats, is
eagerly striving to concentrate power in his own hands, and thus
exclude both the people and their representatives from the actual
affairs of government. Having emptied the treasury, which he found
full, and living precariously upon the borrowed money, he now
demands of Congress to intrust to his unchecked discretion the war
power, the purse, and the sword.
"First, he asks Congress to authorize him, by statute, to use the
army to take _military_ possession of northern Mexico, and hold it
under his _protectorate_, and as a security for debts due to our
citizens. _Civil_ possession would not answer, for that exposes
him, as in the case of Kansas, to be annoyed by a factious
Congress, and a rebellious territorial legislature.
"Second, not content with this, he demands discretionary power to
use the army and navy in the South also, in blockading the coast
and marching his troops into the interior of Mexico and New
Granada, to protect our citizens against all evil doers along the
transit route of Tehuantepec and Panama, and he and his supporters
claim this enormous power upon the ground that, in this particular
at least, he ought to be the equal of the greatest monarch of
Europe. They forget that our fathers limited the power of the
President by design, and for the reason that they had found out,
by sad experience, that the monarchs of Europe were too strong for
freedom.
"Third, in strict pursuance of his doctrine, first publicly
announced from Ostend, he demands of Congress to hand over to him
thirty millions of dollars, to be used at his discretion, to
facilitate his acquisition of Cuba. Facilitate--how? Perhaps it
would be imprudent to tell.
"Add to all this the fact (as yet unexplained) that one of the
largest naval armaments which sailed from our coasts is now
operating in South America, ostensibly against a poor little
republic far up the Plata River, to settle some little quarrel
between the two Presidents. If Congress had been polite enough to
grant the President's demand of the sword and the purse against
Mexico, Central America and Cuba, this navy, its duty done at the
South, might be made, on its way home, to arrive in the Gulf very
opportunely, to aid the 'Commander-in-Chief' in the acquisition of
some very valuable territory.
"I allude to these facts with no malice against Mr. Buchanan, but
as evidences of the dangerous change which is now obviously sought
to be made in the practical working of the Government--the
concentration of power in the hands of the President--and the
dangerous policy, now almost established, of looking abroad for
temporary glory and aggrandizement, instead of looking at home for
all the purposes of good government--peaceable, moderate,
economical--protecting all interests, and by a fixed policy
calling into safe exercise all the talents and industry of our
people, and thus steadily advancing our country in everything
which can make a nation great, happy, and permanent.
"The rapid increase of the public expenditures (and that, too,
under the management of statesmen professing to be peculiarly
economical) is an alarming sign of corruption and decay.
"The increase bears no fair proportion to the growth and expansion
of the country, but looks rather like wanton waste and criminal
negligence. The ordinary objects are not materially augmented--the
army and navy remained on a low peace establishment--the military
defences are little, if at all enlarged--the improvement of
harbors, lakes and rivers is abandoned, and the Pacific railway is
not only not begun, but its very location is scrambled for by
hungry sections, which succeed in nothing but mutual defeat. In
short, the money, to an enormous amount (I am told at the rate of
from eighty to one hundred millions a year), is gone, and we have
little or nothing to show for it.
"In profound peace with foreign nations, and surrounded by the
proofs of national growth and individual prosperity, the treasury,
by less than two years of mismanagement, is made bankrupt, and the
government itself is living from hand to mouth on bills of credit
and borrowed money! This humiliating state of things could hardly
happen, if the men in power were both honest and wise. The
democratic economists in Congress confess that they have
recklessly wasted the public revenue; they confess it by refusing
to raise the tariff to meet the present exigency, and by insisting
that they can replenish the exhausted treasury and support the
government, in credit and efficiency, by simply striking off their
former extravagances.