April 6, 1864

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (S. No, 16) proposing amendments to the Constitution ot the United States, the pending question being on the amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President, the measure now pending proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Before this joint resolution can become effective it must be passed by a two thirds vote of each branch of Congress and receive the approval of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States. It cannot then be objected to on constitutional grounds, for the Constitution itself provides for this mode of amendment. Nor can an objection be well taken to the action of the Senate at this time on account of the rebellious condition of a majority of the people of some of the States of the Union, as has been urged from the other side of the Chamber, for it is not contemplated to exclude those States from account m estimating the majority of votes of the Legislatures of the States. There are thirty five States now in the Union, counting those that have rebelled. It is expected that three more may be introduced during the coming year, making thirtyeight in all. Three fourths of those, omitting fractions, would be twenty nine There are now twenty five States represented in Congress. Including the three new States that probably will be introduced we should have twenty eight and we learn that the State of Arkansas, the State of Louisiana, and also the State of Tennessee are preparing to resume the seats that their Senators and Representatives vacated two or three years since giving us thirty one States in all, two more than would be necessary to securea constitutional majority of all the States, counting those that have rebelled. Others may also resume their accustomed places m time to vote on this proposition; in fact, all may do so if they so decide. But if any should not they would have no just right to complain; for such as might dissent agreed in entering the Union to abide by such amendments as three fourths of the States should desire, notwithstanding the objections of a minority not greater than one fourth. Nor could they plead exemption on accountof disability to act occasioned by their own rebellion, for it is a settled principle of law that no one has a right to plead or take advantage of his own wrong. And if not, he may not plead a disability growing out of his own wrong. And it is contemplated that all shall be counted as opposing the amendment who do not vote for it. If any of the disabled States would, if the disability did not exist, support the measure, they could not complain of its adoption, and if they would m that case vote against it, ^pd are counted against it, they would have no cause of complaint. Then, as it seems to me an argument on the constitutionality of this measure would be misapplied, the simple question is presented to the Senate of the propriety of the policy suggested by the amendment contained m the joint resolution, and it is on that question that I propose briefly to address the Senate.

Ought this policy to be adopted by the United States? Ought the Constitution of the United States to be so amended as to abolish slavery or to prevent the existence of slavery in all the States of the Union?

It is insisted from some quarters, and has been suggested in discussion here on the floor of the Senate, that any provision of a Constitution which would interfere with the rights of individual members of the community to private property should be rejected; that the right to propertydoes notoriginate in the Constitution or laws, that it existed preceding the organization of society, and that the great object of the organization of society must have been to protect, among other things, the right of the individual to his private possessions. And I accede to the truth of this allegation. I have attempted to enforce it on the floor of the Senate when other questions were being discussed. I do not believe it would be good policy for the people of any State or any nation to incorporate a provision in their fundamental law that would abrogate the private rights of individuals. Concede their power to do so, I think the policy would be wrong Hence I proceed to inquire into the nature of the title to the kind of property which would be affected by the adoption of trie amendment proposed in the joint resolution —the foundation on which the claim to property in the service of others as slaves is based; and in doing so it will not be amiss, 'I trust, to stale that it is conceded, I think, by the writers on elementary law that property was originally the gift of God; that the title of the individual to property originates m the labor and skill and toil which he uses in reducing it to possession and in enhancing its value after it may have been rightfully acquired; that each member of society has the light to go to the common storehouse of ocean and field or forest, and draw from the common supplies; that all may enjoy this right alike, but that when any individual of society shall, by the applhanon of labor and skill, a< quire the possession of any of the products of the sea, fields, forest, or oi the air, so much as has been thus rightfully reduced to possession becomes his personal private property, it is also conceded, 1 think, by all that the increased value of those possessions growing out of labor and skill on the part of the possessor belongs to the person wljo has applied the labor. To assert the reverse would be equivalent to denying the title of the Almighty to the workmnn- "slup of His hands; for wh o better right can th re be to property than the right of the creator to the thing which he has made* If the individual, then. has by his labor or skill created an additional value to the thing rightfully possessed, his title ought to be considered absolute.

Now, Mr. President, this principle -may be applied to the title or right of individuals to the service of another, whether claimed under an express or an implied contract. That property may exist in the services of others will hardly be seriously questioned. The right of property in man, as such, is sometimes denied, but I think this is rather a technical than a real objection. I think all admit that title to the service of men may be acquired by contracts both express and implied. It is certainly so with the title of the parent to the services of his children during the years of their minority. All people, savage, civilized, and enlightened, admit that the parent may rightfully control the services of his own offspring fora given period; he may apply their labor for his own benefit, or he may contract for its performance for the benefit of another. But it is universally admitted that this right of the parent to control the services of his child grows out of the application of labor and skill and means on his part in providing food, raiment, and shelter, and instruction for the child during the years of the child s helplessness, and that having received this bounty from the parent the child is under obligations to return an equivalent; he is under obligations to serve the father and the mother until he shall have restored to them an equivalent for the labor and means that they have applied for his welfare during the period of his inability to serve and, protect himself. In this country it is supposed that this obligation is discharged by the offspring in from eighteen to twenty one years from the date of birth. 1 think in no civilized country is the period of minority extended beyond the age of twenty five years. When once this obligation shall have been discharged by the child tmd the period of his minority shall have been terminated, the reason for the obligation ceasing, the child acquires a right to control his own labor. The same principle, I think, is involved m the title of the community to the service of paupers and vagrants. Having provided him with shelter, food, raiment, and protection, the community acquires a right, a just title to the service of the pauper or the vagrant until it shall have received m return a just equivalent for the means thus applied for his benefit.

The same principle rs involved in express contracts. It is held, I believe, by all jurists that a contract without consideration is void; or at least it is voidable on proving the absence or failure of consideration. Then there isno difference in principle between an express and an implied contract; the validity of both depends on the existence of a consideration rendered. This leads me to inquire for the origin of th# title of the slaveholder to the services of the slave. Whence did it originate? What has he done for his slaves that places them under obligations to serve him? If you prens this question he will say that he bought his slave. Well, of whom did he buy him, and whattitle had the vender to the propertysold? He bought him of another, and so back m the chain of title until finally you will be told that he conquered him on the battle field he was a captive m war; and the conqueror on the battlefield acquired the right to control the vanquished, the prisoner; and according to the usage of civilized nations this right would continue until the prisoner thus captured is fairly exchanged, or until the end of the war, when the prisoner would have Lo abide the conditions of the terms of peace. Now, I will suppose that the prisoners thus captured are never exchanged; that no terms are ever agreed upon; that the war never ends, or that in settling the conditions of peace the freedom of the prisoner is not included; and then it will follow that the title of the victor to the vanquished would continue during his natural life; but the captor could not on any principles of justice with which we are acquainted, extend his claim beyond this period. And if not, whence his title to the services of the captive s offspring, from generation to generation? According to our ideas of justice, ltwould be wrong to punisha child for thecrimes of his father; it would be very cruel to visit on the offspring the misfortune of the parent. We are toM by the divine writer that the saying should no longer be maintained in Israel that the fathers have eaten sour grapes and that the cnildren s teeth are set on edge. Whence, then, the origin of the slaveholder s title to the services of the slave s children? Here is the only answer that can be given: Partus stquitur ventrem. This is the whole titie, the title deed the offspring follows the condition of the mother.

But why is the offspring required to follow the condition of the parent? is the question at issue. On what reason is this claim founded? To assert the existence of the custom, in law Latin, is not an answer to the inquiry. Finding the allegation in the Latin tongue, or in the old Roman code, may be satisfactory proof of the existence of the custom of enslaving the children of slave mothers among the old nations. As a historical fact this may be admitted, it may be admitted that this custom has been handed down to the Christian era and to the present times, and is even now maintained in someof theStatesof theUnion. But this does not answer the question as to the origin of the title, the reason by which it is supported, or the justice of the claim. For polygamy has had an equal antiquity; it, too, existed among the old nations, including the Hebrews, who lived under a theocracy, and it too has been handed down from them to the new era and has been tolerated by some of the nations to the present hour, and until within two or three years last past was tolerated by the local laws of a Territory within the jurisdiction of the United States. If antiquity justified the one does it not equally justify the oth6r?

But again, sir, the immolation of human victims and their sacrifice to idols made of stocks and stones and beasts and creeping things and imaginary deities, representing the basest passions known to the human mind, had great antiquity; that custom, too, has been tolerated from the beginning of history down to the present moment. If antiquity of a custom justifies it, is not this abomination as equally well sustained as slavery?

At a very early period, we are informed in history, men ate the flesh of those whom they vanquished m battle; and even that loathsome custom now exists in someof the populous islands of the southern seas. If antiquity of the custom justifies the enslavement of the children of the slave mother does it not equally well justify this horrible custom also*

But it may belaid that the slave mother, owing all the service which she can reasonably perform to her master, can have no time or means to apply in the support of her own offspring, and therefore whatever of labor or means may be applied by her in providing for her children belongs to the owner of the mother, so that the offspring in that case would not owe service m return to the mother, but to the mother s owner. Admit this to be true, and it will follow that the owner of the slave mother will acquire as good a title to the services of the children as the mother herself otherwise would have held had she not been a slave, and no better title. But we have seen a moment since that her title cannot reach beyond the period of the child s minority. Just so soon as the child shall have returned to the mother an equivalent for the care and labor applied by her m the support of the child during the years of its helplessness, her title ceases. Then if the owner of a slave mother takes the name title, and no more, the slavoiyof the children of a slave mother cannot justly extend beyond the period of the child s minority, lhon I inquire whence the claim of title to the services of the child of a slave mother after the period of its minority; after it shall have paid (he cost of us keepingdunn^- the years of its helpless infancy? To say that slaveholders treat thur slaves well is no sufficient answer. This may or may not be true, with indifference I suppose that in point of fact a good man who may become the owner of slaves would treat them well; but a bad man would treat them ill, and the slaves have no redress. The question' however, is not a question of treatment; it is a' question of title. I inquire whence the origin of the title of the slaveholder to the offspring of a slave mother after the period of its minority?

To say that the sia e is black or colored is no sufficient answer. This may 01 may not be true with porA ct indifference; and where this law Latin originated, a majority of the slaves were, in point of fact, white. Slaves of Rome were not usually colored men of African origin. They were indifferently those whom the Romans conquered in battle and compelled to pass under the yoke. Color at Rome was not even a badge of degradation. It had no application to the question of slavery. A very large majority of the slaves that have existed during the past ages have been either Asiatics or of Caucasian origin.

It cannot be claimed that the superiority of the owner of a slave is a sufficient answer; for here, too, the owner may or may not be the superior of the slave whose services he claims without affecting the question at issue. It is not a question of equality or inequality between the party claiming and the party supposed to owe service. The question is one of right, notof relative excellence. If it were a claim for a debt, payable in coin or lands, and not in labor, who would be so crazy as to allege the superiority of the plaintiff in native endowment and acquirement to the defendant? Would he not plead and prove title, or valuable consideration rendered, and there rest? So it would be m a just claim for services.

Nor is it a sufficient answer to say that the slave belongs to a pauper race, that he requires the guardianship of some one else to protect him from ill. This, too, may be true or not true, with perfect indifference. The question is not whether those thataie held to be slaves in this country have the capacity to provide for their own wants unaided by others. The question is a question of title to the services of the adult children of a slave mother. In point of fact, this incapacity does not exist. The allegation is refuted by the condition of this class of people around us here in this district in sight of the Capitol. There are here probably fifteen or twenty thousand free colored people providing for their own wants, providing for themselves food and raiment and shelter, sustaining their own schools and their own churches, paying their own medical bills, and burying their own dead. There are in Maryland to day probably between eighty and one hundred thousand of these free colored people in a like condition, not dependent upon the white race for their support or guidance as guardians. There are m the free States probably to day between five hundred thousand and a million of free colored people in a like condition, providing for their own wants in every respect, a very small percentage of them being paupers or vagrants, or in any way dependent on the support of the white race.

But again, sir, the churches a few years since planted a colony of Africans at Liberia, on the African coast. That colony gradually grew and expanded, increased m numbers and strength and wealth, until it was organized as a distinct and pel feet civil government, with its executive, its legislature, and its judiciary, since which it has been increasing still more rapidly and subjugating and bringing within its control the territory of the tribes which surround it, just as our fathers originally subjugated the continent on which we live. This State thus organized, has grown tn importance until its existence as an independent Slate has been acknowledged by the great nations of the world, including the United States.

In the face of these facts, is it proper for an American Senator to assert as a reason for the continuation of slavery in this country that these people are incapable of providing for their own wants? The allegation is refuted by the condition of multiplied thousands of colored men right! around the steps of the Capitol. It is refuted by the condition of tens of thousands of colored poo-\ pie in the State of Maryland, of which this Dis-! triet was originally a part. It is refuted by the existing condition of between half a million and a million of this class of people in the free States' of the North. It is refuted by the present condition of an independent nation on the shores of Africa.[

But, Mr. President, if the allegation were true: in pointof fact, it does not give title to the claim-' ant to the services of the adult offspring of a slave, nor does it impose on the claimant or master as an individual any obligation to provide for the i slave's necessities, to become the voluntary guard-! lan of his person or property. The question of; capacity is a question for the community to de-' ciae and not for the creditor who claims the services of the adult slave as a debtor. Whether the party be compos or non compos is a question fit for a judicial tribunal to settle. If settled against the slave a guardian should be appointed for his person and property, just as you do when the party thus found to be non compos belongs to a different race. And here I may be pardoned for diverting far enough from the train of my argument to state that 1 do not apprehend any interruption in society which could possibly flow from the immediate liberation of all the slaves in the United States. A vast majority of them are capable of taking care of themselves. It is a fact that needs no proof. They have demonstrated it before our eyes, they have satisfied your Army of this truth.

Nearly every soldier and officer that is now serving, or who has been heretofore serving in the rebel territory, has become convinced that a vast majority of the colored people are capable of providing for their own wants. This fact has long since been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the great nations of the world, who have accordingly abolished slavery within their several dominions. But if this were not true, it any considerable portion of them would probably become paupers or vagrants, society can protect itself from danger from this source by applying to them the same laws which are applied to paupers and vagrants of the white race. There is not in the Union probably a single State that has not at this time welldigested laws on the subject, making itthe duty of the appropriate judicial officers to try the question of incapacity and vagrancy whenever it arises, and when found to be necessary, to appoint guardians, requiring bond and approved security for the faithful execution of the trust, to secure the application of the proceeds of the pauper or vagrant s labor for the promotion of his welfare or the support of those legally dependent on him. This could not possibly occasion any shock to societyyor endangerits peace and prosperity. All will be made secure by applying to paupers and vagrants of African descent the same principles and laws now m force and applied in every State of the Union to paupers and vagrants of Caucasian origin. All that can be necessary will be the application of just laws precisely as these laws are applied to members of the white lace.

If then there is no sufficient title to the service of the adult children of a slave mother existing in the considerations that I have cited, I repeat the inquiry again, whence the origin of the title; on what sufficient reason is it based? It is not found at common law. This is admitted by all jurists, all elementary writers on the subject. I will not consume the time of the Senate with the argument of this position. This is deemed useless where the authorities are uniform. I will content myself with making two or three citations only. In giving the opinion of the Court of King s Bench in Sommersett s case Lord Mansfield said:

"The state of .slavery is of Mich a nature tbnt it is incapable of being in trod need on any reasons, moral or poFitical, but only by po ittve law, winch pte serves its force long alter tlx* u asons, occasion, and time itself, from whence it was created, from the memory; it k of a nature that nothing can be miOci od to support it but positive law." In the Died Scott case, Mr. Justice McLean said:

For near a century the decision in Sommersett s case has lenuuned the law ot England.- The case of the slave Grace, decided by Lord Htowell in 1827, does nor, as has been supposed, overrule the judgment of Lord Mansfield. Lord Stoweii field that, during the le idence of the slave m England, 'no dominion, authority, or coercion can be exeicisivi ovei linn."1'******

There is no oihei description of property which was riot pioteeted m England, bioii2ht from one of its slave islands. not !hi> show that property in a human being does not an e lioni naune or from the common law, hat. in the language of this court, it is a m ie municipal regulation, founded upon and limited to the range 01 the leintorial laws." Tl it decision i* not a meieaigumcnt, but it H the end of the law. in legai d to the extc nt or slavery. Until it shall be overturned, it is not a point for argument. It is obligatory on myself and my hieUiren, and on all judicial tribunals over which this court exercises an appellate power."

And Mr. Justice Curtis, in the same case, said: Slavery, being contrary to natural right, iscieatedonly by mumeipal law. This is not only plain m itself, and agreed bv all writers on the subject, but it i* infeiahle limn the C on titution and has been explicitly declared by thiscoutt. The Constitution refer* to «5 slaves as' per ons held to semen in one State under the laws thereof.' 7 Nothing can more clearly des ciibe a status created by municipal In Piigg vs. Pennsylvania, (10 Pet., 611,) this court said:

The state of slavery is deemed to be a mere municipal regulation, founded on and limited to the range ol territorial law?."********

But we view this as aright existing by positive law of a municipal character, without foundation in the law of nature or the unwritten common law."

Justice Curtis remarks, after citing a list of authorities on this point:

an* acquainted with no case or writer questioning the correctness of tin^ doctrine."

The opinions of the courts of England and of this country, State and national, in the slave States as well as the free States, seem to have been uniform throughout. It is not a legal or judicial question, therefore, to be settled by the weight of authorities, but it is maintained by all alike. Hence slavery cannot have any supportat common law. I inquire in the next place if it has a legal existence by virtue of any municipal or statute regulation. On that point I will content myself by reading from a speech delivered in 1850 on the floor of the Senate by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, then a member of this body, in reply to a speech made by Mr. Dayton, then a Senator from the State of New Jersey, when the bill to enact the fugitive slave law of 1850 was pending. Mr. Mason said:

"Then, again, it ts proposed as pnrtof the proof to he adduced at the hearing alter the fugitive has been recaptured, that evidence shall be brought by the claimant to show that slavery is established m the State from which ihe fugitive lias absconded."**** "rtueh proof is required in the Senator s amendment; and if he means by tin* that proof shall he brought that slavery is established by existing laws, it is impossible to comply with the requisition, for no t iuh -proof can beprodmcd* 1 appiollend. in any o/ thr daoc $1 tales. I am not aware tll lt there. is a single State in which the institution is established by law 1

If it does not and cannot exist at common law and does not exist by virtue of any municipal or statute law, and cannot be justified by human reason, pray whence the origin of the title of the master to the services of the adult offspring of a slave mother? The only remaining law that can be cited for its support is the Levitical code. This code is sometimes cited for this purpose. These are the words usually quoted: u Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaid which thoushalt have, shall be of the heathen that ate round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Moi cover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall c buy, and of their l.iiiuliea that are with you, which they begat in your land: and tliev shall be your possession.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for yourchildren after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever."

1 remark in this connection that the Levitical code or the Hebrew law eontpins a provision for the naturalization of foreigneis whether captives of war or voluntary emigiants. By compliance with the requirements of this law they became citizens, entitled to all the rights and privileges andimmunities of native Hebrews. The Hebrew slave code applicable to enslaved Hebrews is in these words:

".And if thy brothei, an llcbicw man, oi an Hebrew woman, he sold unto thee, and serve thee six year", then in the seventh year thoushalt let him go free from thee."

Here I request the attention of those who claim compensation for emancipated slaves to the text: "And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou Shalt not let him go away emptj:

Thou Mialt tumifth him liberally out of tny flock, and out of thy floor"—

Which means granaries—

"and out of thy wine pi ess: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shaltgive unto hun 1

<lIt shall notsc in hard unto thee, when thou «end est linn away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to time, in serving thee six years."

These Hebrcwstatutcsprovide that the heathen might be purchased and held as slaves, and their posterity after them; that under their naturalization laws all strangers and sojourners, bond and free, have the privilege of acquiring the rights of citizenship; that all Hebrew**, natives or naturalized, might assert and maintain their right to freedom.

At the end of six years a Hebrew slave thus demanding his liberty was not to he sent away empty; the owner, so far from claiming compensation from his neighbors or from the public treasury forsettinghimfree, was bound to divide with thefreedman of hisown posse.ssions, to give him of his flocks, of his herds, of his granary, and of his winepress, of everything with which the Lord Almighty had blessed the masterduung the years of his servitude; and then the owner was admonished that lie was not to regard it as a hardship to be required to liberate the slave, and to divide with him of his substance. The Almightyplae es thcliberated slave s claim to a division of his former master s property on thceternal principles of justice, the duty to render an equivalent for an equivalent. The slave having served six years must be paid for his service, must be paid liberally because he had been worth even more than& hired servant during the period ofhis enslavement.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator from Iowa allow me in this connection to ask him a question? What interpretation does he give to that passage of Scripture in which the Jews are authorized to buy servants of the heathen round about, with their money, and that they should become an inheritance to their children?

Mr. HARLAN. I think the Senator was not in his seat when I discussed that point. I would prefer not to lestate that pai t of my argument now.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I did not hear the Senatorallude to that. I do not wish to interrupthim.

Mr. HARLAN. If the justice of this claim cannot be found either in reason, natural justice, or the principles of the common law, or in any positive municipal or statute regulation of any State, or in the Hebrew code written by the finger of God protruded from the flame of fire on the summit of Sinai, I ask whence the origin of the title to the services of the adult offspring of the slave mother? Or is it not manifest that there is no just title? Is it not a mere usurpation without any known mode of justification, under any existing code of laws, human or divine?

If it cannot be thus justified, is it a desirable institution? if the supposed owner has no title, is it the duty of the nation to maintain the usurped claim of the master to the services of his slaves? Are the incidents of slavery sufficiently desirable to justify such policy? Some of the iucidentsof slavery may be stated as follows: it necessarily abolishes the conjugal relation. This, 1 take it, needs no argument for its support on the floor of the Senate. We have the result of the fruits of the accumulated experience and wisdom of the people of the slave States for a period of three fourths of a century before us in the character of their laws. Here may be found the culmination of their wisdom, the fruits of their ripened judgment. The honorable Senator from Maryland, [Mr. Johnson,] a few days since, when discussing this subject, stated that in none of the slave States was this relation tolerated in opposition to the will of the slave owner and that in many of them, 1 think he said a majority of them, it was prohibited absolutely by theirstatute laws. This, 1 take it then, is the matured, ripened opinion of the people of those States. In their opinion the prohibition of the conjugal relation is a necessary incident of slavery, and that slavery cannot or would not be maintained in the absence of such a legulation.

The existence of this institution therefore requires the existence of a law that annuls the law of God establishing the relation of man and wife, which is taught by the churches to be a sacrament as holy m its nature and. its designs as the eucharist itself. If informed thatin these Christian States of the Union men were prohibited by positive statute law from partaking of the emblems of the broken body and slu d blood of the Saviour, what Senator could hesitate to vote for their repeal and future inhibition? And yet here one of these holy sacraments that we are taught to regard with the most sacred feelings, equally holy, instituted by the Author of our being, deemed to be necessary for the preservation of virtue m civil society, is absolutely inhibited by the statute laws of the States where slavery exists. The conjugal relation is abrogated among four million human beings, who are thus driven to heterogeneous intercourse like the beasts of the field, the most of whomaro natives of these Christian States. If you continue slavery you must continue this necessary incident of its existence.

Another incident is the abolition practically of the paiental relation, robbing the offsprmgof the care and attention of his parents, severing a relation which is universally cited as the emblem of the relation sustained by the Creator to the human family. And yet, according to the matured judgment of these slave States, this guardianship of the parent over his own children must be abrogated to secure the perpetuity of slavery.

But again, it abolishes necessarily the relation of person to property. It declares the slave to be incapable of acquiring and holding property, and that this disability shall extend fo his offspring from generation to generation throughout the coming ages. We sometimes shed tears over the misfortunes of men, and when by flood or storm or fire they are robbed of their earthly possessions contributions are made to enable them to start again in their accustomed business pursuits; but the Senator who votes* to perpetuate slavery votes not only to sweep away every shred of property that four million people can possibly hold, but he votes to destroy theircapacity to acquire and hold it and to impose this disability on their posterity forever. If successful in perpetuating it he becomes more disastrous to this multitude of people than storm and flood and fire; more disastrous than the sirocco ormonsoon of the desert or the unchained pestilence.

But it also necessarily, as an incidentof its continuance, deprives all those held to be slaves of a status in court. Having no rights to maintain and no legal wrongs to redress, they are held to be incapable of bringing a suit in the courts of the United States; a disability as it seems to me that ought to shock the moral sensibilities of any Christian statesman. Robbed of all their rights, and then robbed of their capacity to complain of wrong; robbed of the power to appear before impartial tribunals forthe redress of any grievances, however severe 1

As an incident of this condition, they are robbed of the right to testify; and, as if to put the cap on this climax of gigantic iniquity, they are denied the right to human sympathy. Yes, sir, denied the right to receive the common sympathiesof the human race! How frequently have some of us who have occupied seats on this floor for several years been jeered by brother Senators representing slave States for an expression of sympathy for the oppressed, as if it were a crime to feel for another s degradation; and even yesterday the a learned and able Senator from Maryland coupled a citation of sympathy in the North for a downtrodden race with the conduct of rebels in the South, as if philanthropy Manifested for the African were equally guilty with treason. How does this accord with our ideas of the character of those emotions when manifested toward any other helpless class of our fellow men You find children in the community without parents, without natural guardians of person or property; you at once provide by lawfor their protection. You secure the appointment of guardians and the establishment of orphan asylums. You find those who are idiotic and insane, or deaf and dumb and blind, and immediately the treasure and the wisdom of the State are taxed for the establishment of schools for their instruction and hospitals for their treatment. You find a feeble people along your frontier, and at once you take them under your guardianship as a nation, and pour out the public treasure by the million to provide for their welfare. And the churches take up collections all over this land to enable them to send teachers and books and apparatus for schools and churches in all heathen lands in every quarter of the globe, including the ancestors and brothers of the Africans held here at slaves. Their fathers and brothers on the shores of Africa are fit objects for human sympathy, for human commiseration, and Christian and philanthropic effort. How is it then a crime to express for them the same compassion in this country in the bosom of Christian States?

And then another incident of this institution is the suppression of the freedom of speech and of the press, not only among these down-trodden people themselves but among the white race. Slavery cannot exist where its merits can be freely discussed; hence m the slave States it becomes a crime to discuss its claims for protection or the wisdom of its continuance. Its continuance also requires the perpetuity of the ignorance of its victims. It is therefore made a felony to teach slaves to read and write.

It also precludes the practical possibility of maintaining schools for the education of those of the white race who have not the means to provide for their own mental culture. It consequently degrades the white as well as African race. It also impoverishes the State, as is manifest by a comparison of the relative wealth, population, and prosperity of the free and slave States of the Union.

If, then, none of these necessary incidents of slavery hre desirable, how can an iVnieiic3 ii Senator cast a vote to justify us continuance for a single hour, or withhold a vote necessary for its prohibition? The passage of the joint resolution, its adoption by the States of the Union, would not be injurious to slaveholders themselves. A careful examination of this subject as it seems to me proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the wealth and prosperity of slaveholders would be augmented by a change of their system of labor from compulsory to voluntary. t{

Its adoption will also increase the military strength of the nation, securing harmony and unity of purpose here at home and furnishing the means to fill up our wasting armies and the crews of our ships of war.

It will also secure the sympathy and support of the nations of the Old World that seem now to be waiting forafavorable opportunity to intervene against our future unity. No one, I think, conversant with our diplomatic history for the last three years can doubt that when in the most imminent peril interposition was prevented by the President s proclamation of freedom.

If, therefore, by the adoption of this amendment to the Constitution of the United States you prohibit slavery and the possibility of its existence hereafter forever, you will secure the sympathy of the masses of the people of the Old World, and thus place it out of the power of despots to endanger the restoration of the Union.

If I am right in my conclusions that slavery as it exists in this country cannot be justified by human reason, has no foundation at common law, and is not supported by the positive municipal laws of the States nor by thedivine law and that none of its incidents are desirable, and that its abolition would injure no one and will do no wrong, but will secure unity of purpose, unity of action, and military strength here at homeland the support of the strong nations of the world, as it seems to me, the Senate of the United States ought not to hesitate to take the action necessary to enable the people of the States to terminate its existence forever, and I shall thus vote.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, it is not my intention to enter into any elaborate discussion of thissubject. I have already spoken upon it. My purpose in rising is simply to respond to an interrogatory propounded to me by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Johnson] yesterday. I shall occupy the attention of the Senate but for a few moments. I shall not undertake to answer the argument of the honorable Senator from Maryland at length, nor shall I attempt to make any extended argument in reply to the speech of the honorable Senator from Iowa.

The Senator from Iowa, as I understand him, denies the right of the slaveholder to his slave as property. He referred in the course of his lem rks to the condition of the slaves and the title to slaves among the Jews, and, as I understood him, denied that slavery existed among that people for a longer period than a term of years*, and he cited the passage from the Bible where the Hebrews were commanded, after their servants had served them six years, to let them go free.! The honorable Senator from Iowa is well read in the Scriptures, and is presumed to know what he is talking about; but I submit to his consideration and ask him if this is not true, that among those people there existed different kinds of servants? They had their hired servants, and their bondmaids and bondmen answering to our slaves, When I propounded the question to the honor-: able Senator what interpretation he gave to that passage of Scripture which told the Jews that of the heathen round about them they might buy slaves, and they should be an inheritance unto their children after them, I received no response, except th t he had already referred to that passage. As an answer to the honorable Senator I will simply cite a passage from the most learned commentator of his own church, showing that his' views are not correct; that slavery, slavery for life, and slaves as an inheritance to their children, existed among that people. If I show this 1 show! that the proposition of the honorable Scnatorthat| there can be no title, no right to this species of property, is in con Iict with the command of the Almighty and with the practice of His chosen people. It is no answer to me to say that times have changed, and that what was allowable according to the express commands of the Almighty at a former period is not to be allowed now. Iknow that in these modern days it has been said by some that we musthave an anti-slavery Constitution, an anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery God. I trust that my honorable friend from Iowa, the greater portion of whose life, as I understand, has been devoted to the study and exposition of the sacred Scriptures, has not found since he has become a Senator that it is necessary to discard the old Bible and the God that his fathers worshiped. But, sir, I do not intend to enter into this argument further than to cite a passage from the Commentaries ofDr. Clarke, a most learned commentator of the Senator s own church, upon this subject. Speaking of Hagar, Dr. Clarke makes this ivmark:

It must not bo forgotten that female slaves constituted a part of the private patrimony or possession of a wife; and that she had a right, according to the usage of those time*, to dis pof e of thorn as she pleased. The slave being the absolute property of the mistress, not only her person, but the fruits of iier labor, with all her children, were her owner s property also. The children, therefore, that were born of the slave, were considered as the children of the mistress. It was on this ground that Sarai gave lier maid to Abram."

Why, sir, the passage of Scripture since preachers have become politicians, I presume there is no impropriety in politicians becoming preachers, and I may be allowed to refer to the Scriptures, and to the expositions which have been given by learned commentators on this subject which the learned Senator referred, that tire servant should serve six years, and on the seventh should be allowed to go free, refers, and refers exclusively as the honorable Senotormustknow, if he has studied that Book of books as he should have studied it, to those servants who were of Hebrew origin. It is true that by the command of the Almighty a Hebrew was not allowed to hold one of his own race in bondage for a longer period than six years; in the seventh he was commamk d to let him go free.

Mr. HARLAN. Perhaps the Senator will prefer that I should explain now the point that he raised while I was speaking. 1 perceive that he did not hear my remarks, and consequently is firing a little wide of the mark. I cited the passage of Scripture to which he alludes, and read it in extenso. It is in these words: u Both thy bondmen, and tiiy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about >uu; ot them shall ybuy bondmen and bondmaids."

The next verse is as follows, and refers to a different class of persons:

Moreo\ ci, of the children of the sti mfreis that do .sojourn anmi e you, ol them shall ye buy, and of their families that :m e with you, which they brcjat m) our land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an mhi iit uice for \otir children aliei you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall he your bondmen forever."

This whole passage refers to slaves made of the heathen round about, the captives taken in war, or those that may have sold themselves into slavery. I next stated that in the Levitical or Hebrew code there was a naturalization law that provided for the incorporation of all strangers, slaves and freemen into the nation as Hebrews and that when they became Hebrews by naturalization they acquired there, as they do here under our naturalization laws, all the rights of citizenship. They must thenceforward be treated as Hebrews, members of that nationality, controlled .by the Hebrew code and entitled to all its rights and privileges.

I next cited the law of slavery in relation to Hebrews or slaves that were made such of the Hebrew nation itself. That part of the law is in these words:

"And if thy brother, Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, arid serve thee six years, then in the seventh year thou shall let lmn go free from thee'." Then the lawgiver takes up the subjeetof compensation, a point of vital moment to the Senator from Delaware, and her« it is:

And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:

Thou shalt furnish him liberally out ofthy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto ''ft shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendesthim away het- from thee; ft" he hath been worth a double lured servant to thee, m seivmgthee six years."

Here is the whole code on the subject of slavery: first, the heathen reduced to slavery might be held for life, unless he became a Hebrew under the naturalization laws, and his posterity might be held also according to the Roman code; but if he became a Hebrew by conforming to the naturalization laws, the ceremonies of which were a little different from those applied in this country, yet were really effective in incorporating him into that nationality, then he became entitled to all the rights of a Hebrew, and as a Hebrew he must necessarily be discharged at the end of the sixth year without compensation to the master; and, still more, the master must pay him for his services; he must not think it a hardship that he is required not only to set him free, but to pay him for the labor he has performed.

This is the whole of the Hebrew code on that subject, not cited in extenso, but fairly cited. I stated that the custom of holding the offspring of a slave mother, and its operation from generation to generation, did maintain in the Hebrew nation as well as in the other old nations; but I was inquiring for the title by which they were held and the reasonableness of the claim, and the law on which it was founded.

Mr. SAULSBURY. 1 am gratified at the explanation of the honorable Senator, although I do not agree to the correctness of any position he has assumed in his remarks. The honorable Senator has been studying the Bible all his life. I ought to have done the same thing. When 1 was young I did so, though not perhaps as well as the honorable Senator. But the explanation of the honorable Senator affords me all the basis of an argument that I want, and that is this: he admits that the Almighty did allow, did command the Hebrews to make slaves of the heathen round about them and that those heathens should bean inheritance to their children. I shall not stop to inquire into the naturalization of the Hebrews according to their law; but the Senator himself admits the principle forwhich I contend, and denies the principle asserted as I understood m the speech of the honorable Senator from Maryland yesterday, that slavery was a sin. He admits that according to the Mosaic law a certain species of slaves might be held as slaves and be an inheritance to the children of the master. By whose authority were they so held? That people derived their law from the Almighty, for He was their great Lawgiver. Then we find, even as admitted by the honorable Senator himself, that according to the law which God gave to His chosen people itwas not a sin under all circumstances at least to hold slaves, but they might be held not only during the lifetime of the master, but as property they might be transmitted to the children of the master.

And yet, sir, in these days wc hear it said everywhere that slavery, under any and all circumstances, is a sin; and the passions of the people of the entire North (who I do not know are any more pious than people elsewhere, who I have not been taught to believe are more orthodox in Christian faith than people elsewhere) have been inflamed with the idea that away off from them, not in their midst but in other States, there exists an institution called slavery, sinful in itself, and a crusade is invoked for the liberation of the captives in bondage.

Now, sir, I will show from the same learned commentator of the church to which the honorable Senator belongs that his interpretation even of the law of the Jews is not correct. I will show that it is not correct even under the Christian dispensation, and that the right to property in the slave is recognized in the Christian dispensation. I will show that, too, by the most learned commentator of the church to which the honorable Senator belongs.

Upon that passage where Paul is said to have returned Onesimus to Philemon, Dr. Clarke comments thus:

"The OlniaUan religion never cancels any civil relations; a slave, on being converted, and becoming a nee man of Christ, has no right to claim on that ground emancipation from the service of his master. Justice, therefore, required St. Paul to send back Onesimus to his master, and conscience obliged Onesimus to agree m the propriety of the measure."

Dr. Scott, whose commentaries perhaps circulate more extensively m this country than any other, and whose commentaries were written after the inauguration of abolitionism in England refer now to the edition published in this country in 1822—admits that according to the Jewish law there were not only servants for the period of seven years, who were Hebrews, but that there were slaves for life, slaves that descended as an inheritance; and upon this very passage in the New Testament showing that that law under the old dispensation was not abrogated by the introduction of the new dispensation, he holds that Paul was bound in justice and right to return Onesimus to Philemon. Whom did he return? He returned a slave. Onesimus was Philemon s slave. He had escaped from his master; he had become converted, had become a believer in the Christian religion, and in that epistle of Paul to Philemon Paul expresses a great desire to have Onesimus with him on account of the comfort it would be to him; but he returned him to Philemon because it wasa matter of duty and of right; he was his property.

But, sir, i do not propose to enter into this theological argument, and I have only referred to it to show to the honorable Senatorthateven by the standard authority of his own church his positions are not tenable. Why, sir, there was such a thing as the year of jubilee among the Jews, when all that were held in bondage mean of Hebrew origin—returned to their own tribes and to their own inheritance; so that if a man had wasted his property, even if he had become a slave voluntarily, when the year of jubilee came, he returned to his own tribe and to his own inheritance. Was it ever heard, was it ever contended by any commentator on the Scriptures, will it be said by the honorable Senator, whom I take to be well versed in theological lore, and for whose candor and whose honesty and whose characteras a Christian gentleman 1 have the most profound respect, that a slave held under the Hebrew code was admitted to the privilege, upon the return of the year of jubilee, ofcntuiing into the possession of any lands? Not at all. Such an idea has never been advanced so far as I have known—and while 1 am not very well acquainted with these things, I have sometimes looked into them—no such idea has ever been advanced by any Christian writer, unless it has been done in these late days, and the books now published upon such subjects I now never look into, because the children have become so much wiser than the fathers, and the modern Christians so much better than Paul, that I do not trouble myself very much with theirtcachings or their opinions upon such subjects.

But, sir, this was not my object in rising to submit a few remarks to the Senate on the present occasion. The honorable Senator from Maryland [Mr. Johnson] yesterdaypropounded a question to me. I had stated in some remarks that I had previously made to the Senate that in my opinion it was not competent for three fourths of the States by ratification to make the proposed amendment to the Constitution obligatory upon a dissenting State whose interests were affected by the amendment. If I had doubted the correctness of the position which f then assumed, before the speech of the honorable Senator from Maryland, 1 should not doubt it now, for the simple reason that when no more has been said against the soundness of that position than was said by him, I have a right to infer that all that could be said against it was said; and I know that no Senator is more able lo show its unsoundness than the honorable Senator from Maryland.

The honorable Senator s question was this: was it not competent for all the States, when they formed the Constitution, to provide in that Constitution that slavery should not exist anywhere in the United States? My answer is, that it was perfectly competent for all States agreeing to the ratification of that Constitution to provide that slavery should not exist within the limits of any State agreeing Lo that ratification; it was competent for them to provide that no State should be admitted into their Union unless they also would agree to that as a condition of union; but it was llot competent for them to say that any other State, as North Carolina, Rhode island, New York, and Virginia, should still be members of the Union with such ..a prohibition, against the protest of either one of those States against the abolition of slavery in their midst.

The idea which the honorable Senator from Maryland seemed to entertain was, that because it was perfectly competent for the original thirteen States to provide in the Constitution, if they had chosen to do so, that slavery should not, after its adoption, exist anywhere within the limits of the thirteen States, therefore it is competent for three fourths of the States, by ratification, now to do whatever the original parties lo the compact might have originally done. I deny the soundness of that proposition. While 1 admit that it would have been perfectly competent for the original States to bind every party that came into their Union by such an agreement, I deny that that provision of the Constitution which empowers two thirds of the States to propose amendments, and three fourths of the States to ratify those amendments, gives to such two thirds or three fourths the power claimed for them by the honorable Senator.

Let me illustrate. The members of this Senate are engaged in different pursuits in life. They live, if you please, in the same neighborhood. One is possessed of a farm adapted to grazing, and to grazing alone; another s property consists entirely of water power another s property is land adapted to a vineyard and tohothingclse; another s to growing grain, &c. For purposes common to themselves, regulating their intercourse and trade with the outside world, they agree to enter into written articles of agreement for a common purpose, to promote their common interests. They do enter into such an agreement as that. They agree also in those articles that whenever two thii ds of their number think a change of those articles ofagreoment would be advantageous to them all they may propose such amendments, which amendments, if ratified by three fourths of the whole number, shall become binding and constitute a portion of the articles of agreement. Suppose, sir, under those circumstances, that three fourths of the number should propose for the common benefit of the whole that your pasture land should be overflowed by my water power so that your possession is rendered worthless to you, and that the vineyard of your neighbor should he destroyed orgreatly damaged. Suppose that this amendment proposed by two thirds should afterwards be ratified by three fourths of the whole number. I ask you, sir, would you, whose entire possession has been destroyed, or so affected ns to become worthless to you, and would the owner of the vineyard whose possession has been rendered wot thless to him, be bound against your and his protest to submit to any such conditionsas those simply because m the articles of agreement, and by force of the ratification of three fourths of the number, it had been so provided?

Sir, I submit it to you, to the Senate, and to the country as a question of law, whether, in the case I have supposed, if there was any attempt by the owner of the water power to overflow your pasture lands, there ever did sit in this or in any other country a court of equity that would not grant an injunction against the exercise of such a power, on the ground that it was a fraud upon the contract, a thing not contemplated by the parties when they entered into the original ai tides of agreement, a thing foreign to the common purpose prompting the parties to enter into such an agreement? I take it there can be butone answer to that question: that as a question of right, arising too upon plain written articles of agreement, he who administers the law would say that such an attempt by three fourths wasa fraud upon the contract and not binding upon the protesting party.

It was upon that principle I stated that a ratification by three fourths of the States of the proposed amendment would not give it the force and validity of constitutional obligation because it was in fraud and in violation of the purposes and objects for which the Constitution was framed and the Union formed. 1 know of no rules of interpretation in' reference to the Constitution of th& united States except those rules of interpretation* which arise out of the nature of a contract; fhr interpreting that Constitution, the terms of -thisinstrument, the circumstances surrounding the parties to it, and the common purposes taif liob« jects which they .had in view in- its' formation must all be taken into consideration in order to arrive at a just conclusion in reference# to the powers which it confers upon the Federal Government and which it denies to the States, or which it confers upon a convention called under its own provisions.

Then I ask in this connection whether the proposed amendment would not be in .fraud of the original agreement between tl e parties to the Constitution; whether it would not be contrary to the common pui poses and objects which the parties had in view in entering into it. If it would be, then 1 hold that the attempt to incorporate it into the Constitution would not be bind* mg upon a protesting State. Otherwise the Constitution would be nothing but a trap and a snare;- It w U be admitted that before the Constitution was formed you could not have compelled anyof the four States that were out to enter into it*, but you formed a contract, an agreement acompact a Constitution for certain avowed purposes, and provided a way to amend it, in order to get jntd your Union certain States who would not otherwise have come in, and now you turn around, because numerically you have the power and without placing those States in the position they were in before they entered into the Union, giving them an entire disconnection from that Union with the free liberty to act, you say," We will bind you, because you have entered in." My answer is, Per fraud;" and although 1 am no secessionist —1 do not care what people think on that subject, though: in thesedays I do notcourt the opinion of the populace in reference to the honesty of my course or purposes, or the sincerity of the views 1 express—yet 1 do hold that such art amendment would be the clearest cause of secession that could possibly be furnished, or that ever has been furnished to any Stale in this Union.

The honorable Senator from Maryland seemed to think that thismightbe done because" we, the people," made this Constitution. In one sense we, the people," did make it. The people of the States united, acting separately, however did make it. In the language of Mr. Madison, the States are the parties, and the only parties, to the Constitution of the United States, it was the States that made the (Jmon. it never was submitted to the people en masse, or even to a convention of delegates from all the States, or to a Congress composed of representatives from all the States; but it was proposed to the States separately, and it required the separate ratification of the States before it became binding as a covenant of union between the States.

But the honorable Senator from Maryland derived the power to incorporate this provision into the Constitution by way of amendment from the preamble of the Constitution. He citcd that preamble m these words:

"Wc, the people of the United States, in Older to fbna sft. more perfect union, e tahhsli justice, injure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, piomniethtf general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty"—

The Senator stopped there. Certainly i do not wish to misrepresent the argument of the honorable Senator, and I will not do so; but the inference which i drew was, that full and plenary power for the enactment of this measure by th^ Congress of the United States and a justification for its submission to the States arose from these words of the preamble to the Constitution. -I uhall not enter into any discussion of the question how fai the preamble to a written constitution can govern its terms. It may be used, perhaps, in cases of doubt and uncertainty, as explanatory of what the parties meant; but where the terms of the agreement or the constitution are clear as in themselves, the preamble can have no more effect upon the legal interpretation of the instrument than can a pnwnMo in a statute in controlling the express, unequivocal language of the statute itself, where the language is clear and unequivocal.

But, sir, for whose benefit did the framers of this instrument make it? For the whole world.' Did they make it for all the nations of the earth? Had they in contemplation all the people that inhabit the continent of Africa, of Asia, or even of Europe? Had they in contemplation that the abject of its establishment was for that servile race which was in their own midst? Not at all. I know it may be said that they may have had, to some extent, the people of Europe in their mind because they provided for naturalization. That is true and so far as they come into consideration in view of the power of naturalization itwas established for their benefit. But, sir, what says the preamble to the Constitution on that point?

We, the people of tlif United tftatfs, in order t>> form a moie peifect union. justice, mguie tomf insure tranquillity, provide (or tlie common iteteiisf, promote the general welfare, and secure the bfiis nigs 01 hhcity to ourselves and our posterity* do ordain and Establish this Constitution for the United States ot America 5

Then; sir, I submit, with all due deference to the honorable Senator, that because this Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty," it does not follow that any such amendment as this can be made, because the instrument itself shows for whom these blessings were intended to be preserved—tous and toour posterity. "What connection had the slave population of the United States with the formation of this Constitution? Did they constitute any part of" usand our posterity" in the contemplation of the fi amers of this instrument? Not at all. Without elaborating this idea, I submit t it no just or legitimate argument can be drawn from the preamble of the Constitution that the Congress of the United States have authority to propose this amendment, or that it would become binding in consideration of the ratification of three fourths of the Stales. Neither is it necessary, aside tVom the question of constitutional power, for subse rvi ng any of the purposes contemplated in the preamble of the Constitution. The honorable Senator asked, is there no justice m itr Is it not necessary for tranquillity? Is it necessary for the common prosperity? My answer is," no." Whence were we taught make this remark, however, not in reference to anything the honorable Senator from Maryland has said, but 111 leterenee to that popular delusion which seems now at its height, and which,! hope, will very soon hasten to its setting— whence do we derive the idea that m this abolition movement there is this great and godlike principle of justice? I profess not to be wiser than the Almighty, or better than the servants He has chosen to proclaim His word and ilia purpose to men——

Mr. MALE. Thru is modest.

Mr SAULSFlURY As i am reminded by a kind friend on the other side of the Chamber that that is modest, I will say J wish my Republican friends were just as modest.

I find that almost since the flood this relation has existed upon earth. I have been taught that a just God governs this world; and I choose to consider this relation ot life, which takes 1 its origin back to the denunciation of the Most Hi rh through the patriarch Noah as in the order of God s providence, without being committed to any of the fallacies that might arise out of the argument of some who dtscusx the question of the "divine institution. I accept it as a fact in animal life, in the life of human beings with immortal spirits, just m Iaccept the facts in physical nature, where I sse inequality and diversity.

The theory now common seems to be that the law of God fa providenceis equality and uniformity. Such h law never did pervade or regulate the works of God s providence to man; but the' law of His providence is inequality and diversity, i treat ot this inequality of races, of human beings, precisely as I treat of the inequality which i m p in inanimate and physical nature all around me. Why is it' it may be o d ed M y answer is plain: <b> not know; nor do you know. And who art tnou. O man, ways the sacred book, that thou shouid i ask Pitch a question? Shall the clay Bay to the potter Why luut thou made me p?

Sir, there is a God who rules over this world. He made it. He had a right to make it as to His own wisdom seemed best, and we finite creatures are not presumptuously toairaign the order of His creation and say this thing is right and that thing is wrong ami we could have made it better. In due time it will all perhaps be made manifest. I ask you, sir, instead of asking the Supreme Maker and Ruler over all, why is it that everything that has life is not created with immortal spirits and with the loftiest order of intellect? Why do you see the little ant? Why do you see the crawling reptile? Why do you see the least m the chain of being? From the lowest to the highest, the great God could have made them all alike. Had He been disposed to do so He could have made every member of this Senate a Clay, a Calhoun, or a Webster, and He could have given them minds infinitely superior. For purposes of His own He chose not to do so. He could have made the infant as a burning seraph and the most humble being on earth as the mightiest archangel. He did not do so.

My object in making these remarks is simply to call the attention of the Senate and the country to the great practical question. It is time forus to quit theorizing on this subject and look at things as they are.

Mr. President,! stated the other day asl have stated again to day that the parties to this compact of Union, form of Government, or Constitution, whatever you please to call it, were the States, i did not state it simply because it was my opinion, but 1 cited the express declaration ot him who is frequently called the father of the Constitution Mr Madison himself. 1 understood the honoi able Senator to deny, yesterday, that the States ever were mdependent. That, pei haps, was stud incautiously, although the honoiable Senator in not in the habit of saying things incautiously. The present Chief Magistrate, I believe, when he came into power, announced the same principle and said that the Union made the States. I shall not combat this idea, for I nc er heard anybody give in their adhesion to it.

But, sir, wme these States never separate and independent r What were they before the Revolution? They were separate and distinct colonies. .They were notunited colonies. The Revolution cmiK'. What did theydeclaie m the Declaration of 1 Independence r They sent delegates, itis true, to a common Congress, just as the allied Powers in Europe would send delegates to a common congress. Have the allied Powers of Europe ever io st their separate existence because they have sent delegates to a common congress' Not at all. So the colonies sent delegates to a Congress to consult together for common interests and to secure common benefits.

What (ltd those colonies, through their delegates in Congress, declare on the 4th of July, 177(5? Did they declare that they were united, and as united entitled to be one nation? No, sir; but they declared" that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent States 4 not an independent State, but independent States, separate and distinct. They thus continued as independent States until they adopted the Articlesof Confederation in 1777. Being free and independent States, did the fact that they entered into those common articlesof confederation or agreement, as the allied Powers of Europe would do now in ease of common interests, deprive them of their separate independent existence? Not at all.