April 8, 1864

The Senator from New Hampshire says that we had better die gracefully. He comes in as a kind of amateur to give us that advice. I suppose the Senator was ferocious on the day he made that speech, and wanted us to come like lambs to the slaughter, so that he might execute the functions of chief executioner. Let me tell him that the Democracy are not dead, and by the blessing of God they will not die. They have a proud office to fill; they have a glorious mission to execute, and I think they will execute it; and that is to rescue the Union from the dangers by which it is surrounded, to save our imperiled Constitution from the stabs of domestic traitors who now assault it, and to let the eyes of men once more behold this glorious country with the Union restored, the Constitution unimpaired. That is our mission, and that by the blessing of God we will achieve.

The Senator need not mock us because we are few m numbers here. Sir, we have forces in the rear, we have the people at our backs, not only those who have heretofore been Democrats but under our glorious banner we will rally all the conservative and honest men in the country. We call beneath the folds of thatglorious flag all who are in favor of constitutional liberty, all who are opposed to public plunder and robbery, and under that sign we expect to drive the Gothland the Vandals from the capital and to execute the laws over the whole people from the cataract of Niagara to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and we will never cease until we accomplish that most desirable object.

But now let me show you what the Senator himself said some time ago. Two years ago he stood outproudiy in the list of patriots. At that epoch all his instincts were in the right direction, and I thought we should have his aid in correcting abuses and in drivmgpubhc plunderers from high places; but now, so far from continuing in that line, he wishes those who resist these encroachments, those who desire to drive the rogues from their places of plunder, to lie down and have their heads chopped off* without resistance. Listen to what the Senator said about two years ago when speaking of a little transaction of the Secretary of the Navy giving his brother in law in New York a fat contract:

f do not know but I may over c >timatc, entirely overrs Uin ito Hi* character of tihi tian .action; but I tell you, <ur3{ be i v ami I decline n upon my responsibility as a Senator of the United States that the liberties of this country are in greater danger tn duj Itom tire corruptions and fiotn the piolhgcirj practiced in the various Depaitmcntsof this GoX ft Government f Iran if is from the open enemy in the field" And about the same period anotherdistinguished Republican, a Representative in the other House from the State of .Massachusetts, [Mr. Dawes,] said:

In the first year of a Republican Administration, which earn* into pov\ f'i upon pum Hons ot n t onu am) rotrrnelimeni th re is Jiiduiutable evidence abroad in the land tlnit somebody lias plunder**'! the pabUe J ieuKnry well nigh in that t iiijilo \eara«* much as the entire cuucjit yeuily exof tie' Govei nni«nt daring tin- Administration \v which the people hurled Horn power lK because oi its corruption."

Thus spoke those two distinguished leaders; but now the few of us here who resist such things and who seek to prevent public plunder are treated by the honorable Senator as worthy of the block. I had hoped that he would adhere to his own good words: his speech from which I have just read an extract was made about two years ago; and since then the lobburics that have taken place are a hundred to one to those that had then occurred.! The transaction of which he then complained was! but earnest of what has since been done. We hear of these things every day, they are all around us. Since then almostevery vital principle of the Constitution has been overthrown, not by the rebel in arms, but by the domestic traitor at home, And yet the Senator wants to decapitate those of. us who stand up and resist these wrongs. The: Senator talked earnestly two years ago, and he! had good reason, 1 think, for making the speech he then delivered; but if he thought then the liberties of the people were iti more danger from the corruptions of the Depai tments here about Washington than they were from the public enemy,! what must he think now? Our arms have advanced since then, u is true, but public robbery and theft have increased. Where one dollar was stolen then, hundreds and thousands have been stolen since, and yet he seems quietly t<? have yielded the contest, to have left the field, and now he wishes to decapitate those of us who stand, up against rogues and usurpers!

1 regret to say that instead of continuing toex* expose those breaches of the public faith as the honorable Senator did in the report and speech he made on the occasion to which I have alluded, we find him now acting with those who try to prevent all investigation. But the other day I offered in myplacc a resolution calling for information of theSecietwy of War, asking him to send to the Senate the orders that he had issued empowering certain persons to take possession of churches and church property, and the orders issued by his major generals on the same subject. I wished that information in order to frame a bill to prevent those abuses; but the Senate hud my resolution on the table, and among those who voted thus to kill it was the Senator from New Hampshire. Would any man five years ago have supposed that the Secretary of War would, without warrant of law and in violation of the Constitution of the country, undertake to transfer a church to a minister of a different religious faith from that to which it belonged? That he would send ministers through the whole valley of the Mississippi to take possession of churches belonging to a certain denomination of Christians, and install them as ministers to preach the gospel to perhaps an unwilling people? Would it then have been supposed that the time would ever arrive when a major general of the United States would undertake to clothe provost marshals with the power to appoint ministers of the gospel and to levy taxes on congregations to pay them, all subject to the general s approval? I did not suppose that an American Senate would ever be convened which, when a resolution was offered calling for information on such a subject, most delicate to every free people, would prevent the Secretary of War from returning such public orders for their investigation. But, sir, such .is the fact. It stands on record upon the Journal, and there it will remain, in my judgment, to the discredit of those who placed it there.

Mr. President, although the Senate may npfc allow that information to be sent here officially, we all know that the fact exists. There is evidence before us that the War Office is tampering with religion taking houses of religious worship, not for the purpose of using them temporarily as hospitals for the sick and wounded—that would be proper—but for the purpose of installing ministers in them to preach to perhaps an unwilling people. That is uniting Church and State, contrary to the Constitution of the country, and I think the Senate ought not to refuse to call for information upon such a subject. If the party friends of the Administration expect to hide these things from the people they are very much mistaken. Some of these orders have already boon published. Not only have houses of public worship been taken, but I have evidence that orders have been issued appointing certain men belonging to the Baptist Home Mission Society in the city of New York to go down through the valley of the Mississippi and take possession of property belonging to the Baptist churches of that region. Everybody knows that the Baptist church is a very republican kind of institution; each church is separate and distinct in its jurisdiction, unlike* other denominations in that respcct.

1 have always been of opinion tluit ma republican Government like tbia, all the acts of our public functionaries, except those which were necessarily secret in the way of diplomatic relations, should be open to the inspection of the peopie. It is the people s Govei ument. They are in theory, and until these unfortunate times they have been in fact, the sovereigns; and through their Representatives they have a right to demand the public official orders of their servants who are in power for the tune being. Let the people see what i 3 being done, so that they can, through their Representatives, apply the corrective, if they think it is wrong, and if they think it is right, give their plaudits and their approval to faithful public servants.

I have thought that this kind of secrecy was only fit for the cabinets of princes and potentates and tyrants and ill became this country of ours. Such, however, does hoc seem to be the impression here now.

I tell Senators the people will see these orders, and they might as well agree to let them come here m proper form. Nothing, you can do will hide the truth long. We should have it in more authentic form if we got it under the sign-manual i of the parties who issued these orders; but the people will have them anyhow. If you give them to us in an authentic form it will be much better, and no objection can be made then that we misstate them. When the Senate here solemnly decree that we shall not have a view of the public acts and orders of our public officials that are not in any way secret, or ought not to be so, the world will think there is rottenness and wrong being hidden which it is desired to conceal from the public. That will be the result; and I think you will only injure your own cause by withholding the information, i give that advice gratis, and I hope it will hereafter be acted upon.

But, sir, I have said that the great conservative party of this country has a high mission to accomplish. That party consists of old Democrats, old Whigs, and Republicans who are ready to leave you, seeing that you have not fulfilled your promises. If you will give us free speech, a free press, and free ballot in November next, we will drive you from power as the hurricane sweepsafeather in its course. But will you give us them? Will you pass laws punishing your officers and those in authority for striking down free ballot? Will you pass other laws punishing by the harshest punishment those who attempt to overthrow the liberty of the press? Will your Executive strike off from his rolls those within his control who raise their hands to imprison citizens who exercise the constitutional right of free speech?

i tell you, Senators, that your only hope is to strikedown free speech, a free press, and free ballot, in order to maintain your power, Hence it is that, although we hope, we do not much expect that you will do anything in the right direction. Your past action does notconvince us that you will. Give us these threegreat conservative peaceful agencies; it is all we want. Let us freely canvass your administration of public, affair*; let us freely investigate the conduct of your men in power; let us, through tin; press and the tongue, on the stump and in every cabin, say what we think; let the newspapers go forth pointing to the fact, and showing to the people clearly and distinctly that you are overthrowing the Constitution; that you are plundei mg them of their treasure; that you are unworthy of trust, and your political days will be numbered. I tell the conservative men, the Democracy, the old Whigs, the honest Republicans, everywhere ie—and I wish to God my voice could extend to the remote parts of this country be of good cheer; and if those in power attempt to enslave them, to put chains upon their limbs, to prevent their free tongues from wagging m words of honest and burning censure against those who are striking down their liberties, if the minions of power attempt to interfere with the freedom of the press, I would advise the people throughout the length and breadth of the land to insist on freedom, and give thou lives in its defense. 1 am for law and for order; I beg, I implore, I entreat, that we may have these great constitutional agencies without blood; but before God l shall advise the people every wheie, rather than submit to the degradation of having free speech, a fiee press, and free ballot taken from them, to strike the usurpers to the ground. If a free people will not light and give their blood for theseihtee inestimable blessings they are unworthy to live as freemen, and the best thing for them would bp to die, for they will have to do that or live as slaves.

1 hope we shall have hereafter the perfect freedom of elections everywhere; that we shall have free speech a free press, and free ballot. These are all the weapons we ask. But if they are denied us, 1 shall advise the Democracy and the conservative men in every State of the Union to .fight for them; 1 do not mean to go on t of the Union, but I mean to fight for the ballot, and fight under the Constitution and laws of their country, and defend themselves by sinking to the earth those who attempt to prevent them exercising these inestimable blessings of a free people.

The Senator from New Hampshue will have to see that free speech and free press and free ballot are destroyed before he can kill the Democracy. They are not destructible at tides. Strike down one by cruel and bloody tyranny, and a thousand will spring up. You may cause some of the timid to be silent; you may cause them to be afraid to go to the polls and vote; but the love of truth and of constitutional liberty is in their breasts; the bold will speak it and they will strike for it; they will vindicate it with their blood, not in seceding, but in fighting at their own hearthstones, as it were, for the liberties given them by their fathers; and we should be unworthy descendants of the noblest sires the worideversaw, unless wo did stand thus boldly for our rights.

Mr. President, I had intended to notice in a very brief manner the most remarkable effort of the Senator from Massachusetts this morning. I have heard that Senator, ever since 1 have been in the Senate Chamber, reading his long, illogical rhapsodies upon slavery. They are all of them much alike; all speak of the barbarism and cruelty of slavery. They are filled with a good deal of encyclopedia learning, with scraps of quotation here and there. Without meaning any disiespect to the Senator, I must say that they remind me of the rhapsodies of a man who has a nightmare. They remind me of an expression of Shakspeare:

It i< a tale,

Told by an idiot, full of sound and luty,

Sigiulyaig mailing,"

In the first hour of his speech to day the Senator gave us a kind of rehash of the report he made from the committee on freedmen (I believe that is its name) touching the repeal of the fugitive slave law, in which he treated of the question of constitutional power. 1 will do the Senator the justice to say that his language was excellent; he does write good English; but I must also say that his report is the most illogical and unlawyeilike paper 1 ever lead in my life coming from a gentleman of such leai nm<> and reputation. My ft lend f; 0111 Pennsylvania. [Mr. Buckalew] put the knife of truth and logic to it; he exposed Us sophist! y, Us want of candoi, its want of luxtoi teal and constitutional truth; in a single charge he scato ned it to the four winds; but we have had a lehash of it here to day 1 shall enter into no constitutional argument for the purpose of overthrowing such kind of rhapsodies. If I had any inclination to do so, the repoitofnsy tnend from Pennsylvania has relieved me of the u trouble. His very searching, potent, though short analysis is on your table, and it disposes of the question.

The Senator horn Massachusetts to day has quoted from Patrick Henry, and he has eulogized him very much. Certainly he does not feel any more admiration for that distinguished orator than I do. Does not the Senator know that an amendment to the Constitution has been adopted since Patrick Henry made that speech, which says that private propei ty shall not be taken for public uses except on just compensation? and that is an answer to his whole quotation from Mr. Henry. I do not believe Mr. Henry was right in the position he assumed in the speech from which the Senator quoted. Mr. Henry was engaged at that time in making an assault on the Constitution in a slave State; he wished to reject it; he did not like it; but e en if what he then stated were ti ue, the amendment since adopted explodes the whole of the Senator s argument on that branch of the case, and Mr. ileniy s argument along with it. "But the Senator has said that the way to preserve the Republic is to carry it back to the principles of its baptismal font beautiful expiesbion, but what appiopiiateness is there in it in the way in which the honorable Senator uses it? What did our fatheis do when they formed the Government? What was their status' What w as their condition? When they stood around the baptismal font and proclaimed the birth of the Constitution that carried joy and gladness to the hearts of liberty loving men throughout the world, every minister at that altar, save those from one State, was a .representative of a slave State, and four fifths of them were sla eholdexs They were the men who gave us the Constitution so much vaunted to day by the honorable Senator. I would to God we could go back to those days when men were honest and had regard for property lights, when men were patriotic and exerted themselves in the cabinet and the field for the promotion of the best interests of their country, when our statesmen were wise and philanthropic, prudent and capacious, and took in their broad view the whole interests of the country. None of them were led off by this miserable one idea fanaticism in regard to negro slavery or any other "ism." They were men of extended Catholicism in all their political views. Unfortunately for us, those wise, those good, those virtuous, those great men have departed, and we now have succeeding them a set of men who are governed entirely by a single idea, and who would renounce any theory they had ever held in order to carry out that idea.

I have heard the Senator declare in this Chamber that under the Constitution we had no power to interfere with slavery m the States. To day he tells us that it is constitutional to strike and crush slavery wherever we can find it.

The Senator swears to support tiie Constitution, and declares in his place that he would not assist in the execution of the fugitive slave law, a law made in obedience to the command of the Constitution. The Senator disregards the Constitution, his oath of office, and everything that should bind the conscience of a good and just man, to carry out his abolition schemes.

The Senatorfrom Massachusetts talks as glibly about war as if he had all his life had the harness on, as if nothing had ever delighted his eyes but hacked and bruised armor and broken blades, lie has talked about this war as being righteous and right; he has advocated it throughout; he has voted all the men and all the money they wanted, and to day he eulogizes war. Now, what do you think has heretofore been the tenet of that honorable Senator? As I before said, those who have but one predominant idea are notwise counselors. The Senator has changed the whole current of his thoughts within the last few years on this subject of war. Let me read from a most elaborate oration, very handsomely written, and replete with all the encyclopedia learning for which thatSenatoi is so eminent, made some years ago. Let us see what the Senator then said of peace; and if everybody in thus Chamber who has witnessed his conduct here does not say that he has run counter to the principles laid down by himself I will admit that 1 have not capacity to see the truth or to state it. Here is an extract from an oration, made by. Hon. Charles Sumner, entitled The Grandeur of Nations, a few years ago.

Mr. SUMNER. What is the date of it?

Mr. POWELL. The 4th of July, 1845, and I would rather have it dated back at that time than now, because it expressed the Senator s ideas when everything was cool and calm and quiet, and there was not the excitement of civil war. I have a right to use it as a weapon against him. He is using this war as an instrument to destroy slavery. That is his whole object; he has none other; and 1 think he will get up and avow that to be the case. 1 am sure he will not deny it. Now, sir, let us look to what he said on war in that address:

In em age there can be no peace that i< not honorable; tl tro c ui be no wat that is not dishonorable."

And those words are put in capital letters. According to his own tenets, the Senator is now urging on a dishonorable war. I do not say that that is what the Senator is doing; but I say that if he uttered the tiutli when he made the speech from which I have just read, he is now advocating a dishonorable war, because m that speech he said there can be no war that is not dishonorable. 1 suppose the Senator in the course of his hfe has had two ideas, a war idea and a peace idea; and when he was on the peace idea he thought nothing under heaven w as good but peace. 1 do not concur with the Senator in that sentiment, for 1 think there are times in the affairs of nations when it is r ght to go to war. I read it merely to show the Senatoi s inconsistency.

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator will allow me to say that at the time 1 made that remark 1 had very little idea of the baibansm of slavery.

Mr. POWELL. I have no doubt of that, and if the Senator would look into himself he would find that he is more barbarous than perhaps any slaveholder that ever lived. The Senator is the perfect embodiment of barbarism barbarism of fanaticism. lama slaveholder; and if I believed thi it I had about me half the barbarism the Senator has, I should be disposed to hide from the civilized world. But, sir, let me go on with the speech from which I am quoting:

War is utterly ineffectual to secure or advance the object at which it professes to aim. The misery which U excite co itiil ute to no end, helps to establish no light, and theicfoie in no respect determines between the contending nations."

Why does the Senator carry on this war? Just for the love of blood, havoc, public plunder, and the destruction of human life? He boldly and clearly and most perspicuously declared in 1845 that it never will effect its aim. Yet we find the Senator in that most ridiculous attitude, at war with himself. That is the barbarism that fanaticism teaches. It brings him into most striking contradiction. But I will read alittle further from the honorable Senator s most elaborate speech. He says:

"Christianity forbids the whole custom of war."

Is the gentleman, in order to carry out his one idea of destroying negro slavery, not only to overthrow the fixed and firm principles of his life, but is he to overthrow Christianity? The whole system of Christianity is to go by the board because the Senator wishes to effect through the instrumentality of arms one single object—the abolition of slavery. He is willing to forego notonly his former principles about human affairs, but to overthrow the religion of the blessed Saviour himself, to bring about that, to him, most desirable of all objects.

The honorable Senator from Massachusetts further says on this subject of Christianity and war: It was not until Christianity became corrupted that its followers became soldiers, and its pire fs learned to minister at the altar of the God oi battles."

I admit with the Senator that many of the clergy in his region of country have become very much corrupted, because they preach war and nothing else; but i suppose the honorable Senator is willing to see not only the church and the clergy, but everything else, corrupted to carry out this one idea, j have sometimes fallen in among; that description of preachers who deliver nothing but political essays. I never heard oru 1 of thatdesctiption but once. When I go into a church and the minister commences preaching in that way, I sit and listen out of the respect i have for the name of Christianity, i do not rise and leave because the thing is offensive to me, but 1 remain until the services are concluded. But, sir I never go back to thatchurch again; for I think the Christian minister that doeanotpieach Christand Ilim crucified pollutes the pulpit in which he stands, and is an unworthy servant of that blessed Master who is the King of peace.

But, Sir, let us go on a little further in this address of the Senator. Here is an extract upon civil war. The Senate will remember that these extracts that f lead from the honorable Senator s speech are general propositions. He says:

"The soul tremble* aplfa t as we contemplate fields drenched in fraternal pom. where the happiness of home? has been sbiveied by the unfriendly nrimof neighbor, and kinsmen have Mink beneath the steel nervetfbya kinsman'!- hand. This is civil war, which stands nceuiscd forever in the calendar ol time."

Great God! the Senator from Massachusetts says that civil war stands accuiscd in all the annals of time. Why, sir, he sometimes speaks of this as a war of Massachusetts. To continue:

But the niu e of hMury, in th" faithful record of the fntmouan aetion of nations inspired by a new and lofiter justice, and touched to finer sensibilities, shall extend to the general sorrows of universal man the sympathy still pioftisd> shed for the selfish sorrow of the country, and shall pronounce international u war to be civil war, and the paitiikeis in it a-> traitor- to God and enemies to man 5

Here the Senator declares that those who partake in the e civil wars, or in international wais, which he says are civil wars, are tiaitois to God and enemies to man. Why sir to take the Senator s own position here as true, he stands to day a traitor to God and an enemy to man. And yet that Senator is forever prating about the barbarism of slavery. Had it not been for the eternal ringing of that word m my ear i would not have put the Senator to the cruel torluieof quoting today his principles which he now stands up and i opet.ly violates.

The Senate will bear me witness that this is the first time since I have been a member of the body that I have attempted even to resist or cast back these accusations upon the section of country from which 1 came. They are distasteful to me; but, sir, there is a point beyond which forbearance ceases to be a virtue, and I think we have reached that point.

Let me read one other sentence from this address. .The Senator says:

"A man is higher than the beasts of the field; as the angel s are higher than man; as Christ is higher than Mars; u-> he that iiiletli his s puit is higher than lie that taketh a city, so are the victories of peace higher than the victories of war."

That is very handsomely said, and in the main it is very true. The Senator then goes on to inveigh against standing armies. He speaks of the vast expense of maintaining them, and quotes a table of expenses of other countries; and yet that Senator is engaged here in a war. When I say he is engaged in a war I will do the Senator the justice to say that he only advocates it on his lips; he advocates it here by word, by speech, by letter. He attempts to fire the hearts of the people everywhere to join in this crusade. The honorable Senator does not go where he would hear the rattle of small arms or smell gun powder. Were I for this war as ferociously as that Senator is, I think* would take up a musket and go into the field. But 1 am opposed to the war (though I do not intend to discuss that) for the reasons! have so often stated here.

I have not much faith ki the sincerity of those who always preach war and ne verfight It would be better for them to fight a little, and then people will think they are in earnest. The Senator is willing that other people s blood shall be shed. He is willing that a million of the young men of the country shall be sacrificed. He is willing that the whole land shall be laid in mourning, that the weeds of the widow and the tears of the orphan shall everywhere be seen. He is willing that the hard earnings of the laboi ing man, though his wife and children may be starving, shall be wrenched from him by the ruthless hand of the tax-gatherer in order to defray the expenses of this war, raid to pay the interest on the immense debt that is accruing. All these things he is willing to see for the purpose of carrying out a fanatical idea. That he boasts of; that he gloats over; but, sir, he never seeketh the battle even afar off. He does not go within sound of the dium and life; nor is he like the wat horse that smelltth the battle afar off. I repeat I have not much confidence in the sincerity of that description of patriots.

Mr. President, 1 have said all I intend to say on this matter. It was not my purpose to open ray mouth on this amendment. 1 had determined to content myself with the very elaborate speeches made by my colleague, the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Saulsbury,] and the Senator from Indiana, [Mr Hendricks;] but, sir, such wctelhe inconsistencies of the Senator s fi om New England to whom I have referred, such wric their assaults upon the Democratic party, such wen1 their assaults upon my own State that I felt called upon to say a word in their vindication. In doing that f thought it but i right tliot I should allow the Senator from Massachusetts to look into his own mirror, and hence 1 have held up the speech he made some tune ago to his vision.

Mr. "HARLAN. Before the Senator s mind is diverted from this subject, I ilesiic him to reconcile a vote that he gave not long since, with the very remai kable passage of his present speech in which he denounced very severely, if 1 understand the purport of his language, supposed infringements of the freedom of speech. In the Congressional Globe for the first session of the Thirty Sixth Congress, pai t three, page 1937, 1 find the follow- '•Mr. Harlan. Willi the con cut of the Senator from! Mis n Mjipi i propose to offer a,! amendment to ibe second r< --ol ;uurn of the series, by msei tin? at the end ot it the ml-! lowing:

Ijiir the fieo di cu sion ot the morality and expediency! of slavery t iiall novci be mteifcred with by The ImvhOi any State or of the United States; and tin; freedom of speech and of the pre s on this and every other abject of domestic and national policy, should bo maintained inviolate in ali the States.''

On page 2301 of the spmc volume of the Globe I find the following: c TIie rjues tion bring taken on the amendment of Mr, Harlan by yeas mid nays, resulted—yeas 50j nays 3d; as follows.:"

I will read the negative vote: li na ys—Messrs Benjamin, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Brown, Chesnuu Clay, Cliritmm, Crittenden, Davis, Fitzpatrick, G: etn Gwrii Hammond. Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Ai kan afi Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mallorv Mason Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, iUce, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson, Toombs? Wigfall, and Yulee—36."

The language is as I have read:-*

But the free discussion of the morality and expediency of siaveiy shall never be interfered with by the laws of any State or of the United States; and the" freedom of i peeeh and ofthe press, on this and eveiy other subject of domestic and national policy, &hould be maintained inviolate in ali the States."

And theSenator voted "nay." EveryDemocrat in the Senate, including the Senator from Kentucky, voted in the negative.

Mr. POWELL. There is a very striking difference between the object of that resolution and the free discussion of political acts. The scope of that resolution would have been to send persons down into the slave States to preach insurrection to their slaves. I suppose that actuated every man who voted against it. i would vote nay" again on that resolution. I voted right.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I wish toofferan amendment to the proposed amendment of the Constitution as a substitute.

The ViCE PRESIDENT. The question before the Senate is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SUMNER. I merely wish to have Senators understand that amendment, and, as I have said, I make il rather in the form of suggestion than proposition, if 1 understand from my friend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that he is strongly inclined against it, I certainly have no desire to press it. If the Chair will be good enough, 1 should like to have it read for the information of the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It will he read.

The Secretary read the amendment, to strike out the first and second sections of article thirteen as reported by the committee, and to insert:

Spr. I. article persons are free [equal] before the law, so that no pen on can hold another a s a t slave and the Congress may make all laws necessary and proper to carry this article into effect everywhere within the United States and the jurisdiction thereof.

Mr. SUMNER. Now, Mr. President, the state of the question is this. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Henderson] offered a proposition in this form:

Art. 1. Slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for enure, shall not exist in the United States. Aivr. 'i. The Congress, whenever a majority ot the members elected to each flou e shall deem it necessary, maj purpose amendments to the Constitution, or, on the application oi the Legislatures of a majority ofthe several States, shall call a convention for piopo in amendments, which in either case shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as putt ofthe Constitution, when ratified by the Legislature^ oi two thirds of the several States, or by conventions iu two thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed r l by Congress

It will be observed that this proposition of the Senator from Missouri is twofold: the first article applies to the matter which has been under discussion in this debate, the prohibition of slavery; the second, to a proposition which is not necessarily associated with it. I believe, from what has occurred, the Senate is agreed in confining: what we do now to the first proposition. I must say I accept that idea completely. 1 think the first proposition should be acted upon absolutely by itself alone, and therefore howevermuch I may be tempted by other propositions, as I must confess I was by one or two of the propositions of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Powell] the other day, yet I was not disposed to be diverted or turned aside from that great original proposition which it should be now our object to introduce into the Constitution.

I make this comment on the first proposition which we have before us, that of the Senator from Missouri, in order to explain why I should be against that in the form in which it stands; but if we .should go to the first article of the proposition of the Senator from Missouri, I am free to say that in some respects I think it better than the article proposed by the committee. It is as follows:

Slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishme it foi eiimt, shall not exist in the United States.

it is simpler than the proposition of the committee, to which I now come. That lsas follows;

ART. 13, SEC. 1,—

It will be observed that it is in two sections— Neither slavery norinvoiuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof tiie party shall have been duly convicted—

Which I must say I think here is verbiage entirely. -There is no need of having it in a constitutional proposition— shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Sec. 2. Congress shall have c power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

On the face of that article I object to it, first, inasmuch as it is in two sections when I think it ought to be in one. I have already before mentioned that in this respect it goes against the precedent ofthe Constitution itself. Inarticlefourof the Constitution we have section one as follows: Full faith and creditshall be given in each State to the public acts, records, ami judicial proceedings of every •State, and the Congiesss"—

It will be observed that the Constitution speaks of Congress as" the Congress," putting the article before it—

"and the Congress? may by gencm! laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect tlicieof."

It seems to me, in point of form, that it is better that these two sections should be molded into But then my objection to it is, further, if this amendment in this first particular, which is comparatively unimportant, be secured, it seems to me the language is not happy. I do not know that I shall have the concurrence of other Senators in the criticism which I make upon it; but I understand that it starts with the idea of reproducing the Jeffersonian ordinance. I doubt the expediency of reproducing that ordinance. It performed an excellent work in its day; butthere are words in it which are entirely inapplicable to our time. That ordinance I will read, it is as follows;

"There shall neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Ten itory otherwise than in the punishment of enmes whereof the party bUnll have been duly convicted."

This ordinance, in precisely these words, was reproduced at a later day, in the very important act by which Missouri was admitted into the Union, containing the well known prohibition which afterwards caused such debate.

There are words here, 1 have said, which are entirely inapplicable to our tune. They are the limitation," otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." Now, unless i err, there is an implication from those words that men may be enslaved as a punishment of crimes whereof they shall have been duly convicted. There was a reason, I have said, for that at the time, for I understand that it was the habit in certain parts ofthe country to convict persons or to doom them as slaves for life as a punishment for crime, and it was not proposed to prohibit this habit. But slavery in ourday is something distinct, perfectly well known, requiring no words of distinction outside of itself. Why, therefore, add "nor involuntary servitude otherwise than in the punishmentof crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted?" To my mind they are entirely surplusage. They do no good there, but they absolutely introduce a doubt.

In placing a new and important text into our Constitution, u seems to me we cannot be too careful in the language we adopt. We should consider well that the language that we adopt here in this Chamber to day will m all probability be adopted in the other House, and it must be adopted, also, by three fourths of the Legislatures of the States. Once having passed this body, it is substantially beyond correction. Therefore, it seems to me, we have every motive, the strongest inducement in the world, to make that language as perfect as possible.

I say[,' therefore, that I object to the Jeffersonian ordinance even if it were presented here in its original text. But now I am brought to the point that the proposition of the committee is not the Jefiersonian ordinance except m its bad feature. In othi r lt spcc s it discards the language of the JefFeisontan ordinance and also its collocation of words. The language of the committee is as follows:

Neither sla eir nor involuntary servitude, except as a pHrtiatomem for whereof ihe Tr y s b UI have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The Senate will observe what to my ear is a discord, the introduction of those two "shalls" so near together; but that is not of great importance.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. They are both in theJeffersonian ordinance.

Mr. SUMiNER. But they are further apart, and the whole effect is entirely different. As I have said already, the language of the ordinance is, "There shall be." Mark the beginning as compared with that of the committee. The committee say, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude," &c. The ordinance says, "There shall be —the word of prohibition coming first, at the outset— neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereofthe party shall have been duly convicted;" whereas the committee say, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

If Senators desire the Jeffersonian ordinance, I say let us take it in its original form as it appears in that ordinance, and was subsequently reproduced in the Missouri statute; do not let us take itin this modified form, which, while pretending to be the JeiFersonian ordinance, is not the Jeffcrsonian ordinance except in that feature which I think, if Senators apply their minds to it, they •will see is clearly objectionable. I refer to the ■words "except as a punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." I have already said thatfor myself I should prefer the form which I have sent to the Chair, and on which the question is now to he taken; but I offer it as a suggestion, and jf Senators do not incline to it, 1 have no desire to press it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President atan early stage of the session, the Senator from Missouri introduced a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States so as forever to prohibit slavery. That resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. At a jaterday, a month or two afterwards, the Senator from Massachusetts also introduced a proposition to prohibit slavery. The committee had both those propositions before them. They considered them. There was some difference of opinion in the committee as to the language to be used; and it was upon discussion and an examination of both these propositions, the one originally introduced by the Senator from Missouri, and subsequently by the Senator from Massachusetts, that the committee came to the conclusion to adopt the form which is reported here. I do not know that I should have adopted these precise words, but a mnjni i:y of the committee thought they were tin* best words; they accomplish the object; and I cannot see why the (Senator from Massachusetts should be so pertinacious about particular words. The words that we have adopted will accomplish the object. If every member of the Senate is to select the precise words in which a law shall be clothed, and will be satisfied with none other, we shall have very little legislation.

Mr. SUMNER. i have already said I shall be perfectly satisfied with what the Senate do. I am making a sincere effort now to contribute as much as I can to improve the proposition in form.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly in the opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts it would improve the proposition. if I had had my precise way in the committee, very likely it would have improved the proposition to have had the language as I wanted it; but a majority of the committee agreed upon these words; and although the Senator from Massachusetts may satisfy himself that the words he has suggested, copied from the French Revolution, are the best words for us to adopt, I am not at all sure of it. I think there is nothing historical about them, nothing in the source from whence they come to commend them particularly to us. I would not go to the French Revolution to find the proper words for a constitution. We all know that their constitutions were failures, while ours, we trust, will be permanent. I therefore am not inclined to accept the gentleman s suggestions, and I hope he will withdraw them and fei the Senate come to a vote upon this subject.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the Senator from Illinois will allow me for a single moment, it is said that men s first impressions are sometimes the best, and it seems that the Senator from Massachusetts when he introduced his proposition used in it the very words of which he now makes such complaint," otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator s pardon. The first proposition I introduced was a month or six weeks before that; buUafter the committee made their report, when I examined it and found that they had undertaken to give us the JeiFersonian ordinance, and I saw that it was not the Jeffersonian ordinance, I then prepared that proposition with a view to embody the Jeffersonian ordinance precisely.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I was very much tempted to reply to some of the remarks that have been made m opposition to this proposed amendment, and am strongly tempted also to reply to some of the remarks which have fallen from the Senator from Massachusetts, who in an elaborate argument has attempted to show that no amendment of the Constitution is necessary; but, sir, if we can have a vote on this subject 1 will forego making any reply to what has been said, and will content myself with the passage of the resolution, which is the object 1 have in view, to abolish slavery and prevent its existence hereafter. The language as reported by the committee will accomplish these objects; and although it may not be the best possible form to the mind of every Senator here, 1 wish him to reflect that it is impossible for us all to agree upon the language. We have discussed this matter in committee. As to its being now embodied in two sections that is a matter of taste; there is no importance in it. Perhaps it wou d be just as well in one.

Mr. SUMNER. Why not alter u in that way?

Mr. TRUMBULL. No, sir, I will not alter it. I cannot alter it. The committee considered this subject and deliberately agreed upon this form. I have no authority to consent to an alteration of it. The Senate can alter it. If each Senator thinks he can find better wordsaud proceeds to offer other words, it will be for the Senate to determine what words they will adopt.

Mr HOWARD 1 believe the proposition now before the Senate is the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, and on that question 1 have one word to say.

Mr. SUMNER. TheSenator will allow me to make a remark. I cannot resist the appeal of my friend, the chairman! of the committee and therefore .shall not pursue any of the propositions and 1 wish to withdraw them. I merely wish to put myself right with my friends. I offered them sincerely with a desire to make a contribution to perfect the measure, i now withdraw them.

Mr. HOWARD. I must object to the withdrawal of the amendment, as I have the floor. I desire, as I said before, to say one word on the subject of the amendment offeied by the Senator from Massachusetts. The language of it is this, that all persons are free before the law.

Mr. SUMNER. "All persons are equal."

Mr. HOWARD. Y iIl the Secretary be good enough to read it?

The Secretary icad, as follows:

Sec. 1. All pei op are free before the law, so that no person can hold miotliei a? a slave. &.c,

Mr SUMNER. That is a mistake. It is equal."

Mr. HOWARD. It is written in the handwriting of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. SUMNER, it is" equal and not" free."

Mr. HOWARD. 1 regard it as very immaterial whether the word" free" or" equal" is used in that connection. What I insist upon is this, that in a legal and technical sense that language is utterly insignificant and meaningless as a clause of the Constitution. I should like the Senator from Massachusetts, if he is able, to state what effect this would have in law in a court of justice. W hatsignificancc is given to the phrase equal" or" free" before the law in a commonlaw court? It is not known at all.

Besides, the proposition speaks of all men being equal. 1 suppose before the law a woman would be equal to a man, a woman would be as free as a man. A wife would be equal to her husband and us free as her husband before the law.

The learned Senator from Massachusetts, i apprehend, has made a very radical mistake in regard to the application of this language of the French constitution. The purpose for which this language was used in the original constitution of the French republic of 3791, was to abolish nobility and privileged classes. It was a mere political reformation relating to the political rights of Frenchmen, and nothing else. It was to enable all Frenchmen to reach positions of eminence and honor in the French Government, and was intended for no other purpose whatever. It was never intended there as a means of abolishing slavery at all. The Convention of 1794abolished slavery by anotherand separate decree expressly putting an end to slavery within the dominions of the French republic and all its colonies.

Now, sir, I wish as much as the Senator from Massachusetts in making this amendment to use significant language, language that can not be mistaken or misunderstood; but I prefer to dismiss all reference to French constitutions or French codes, and go back to the good old Anglo Saxon language employed by our fathers in the ordinance of 1787, an expression which has been adjudicated upon repeatedly, which is perfectly well understood both by the public and by judicial tribunals, a phrase, I may say further, which is peculiarly near and dear to the people of the Northwestern Territory, from whose soil slavery wasexcluded by it. I think itis well understood, well comprehended by the people of the United States, and that no court of justice, no magistrate, no person, old or young, can misapprehend the meaning and effect of that clear, brief, and comprehensive clause. 1 hope we shall stand by the report of the committee.

Mr. SUMNER. Aly proposition is withdrawn, the Chair understands.

Mr. DAVIS. I was going to make one remark in relation to the proposed verbiage of the Senator from Massachusetts. I think that that Senator and all Senators ought to be very guarded in the terms they adopt when they take 500 000 000 of property from other people, in which they have no interest themselves, and propose to give them no compensation for it. When the Parliament of England liberated the slaves in the West indies they appropriated £20 000 000 as condensation to their owners.

Sir, the owners of no property of that value ever voluntarily dispossessed themselves of it. Whenever any such legislation as that has taken place in the world the legislation has been of a power and by a people that did not own the property. If at the commencement of the war of 1812 a proposition had been made, by legislation or by a change of the Constitution, to take all the shipping interest ofNew England, and the other States had been strong enough to carry such a measure in the form of legislation or amendment of the Constitution, there did not live a man within the States of New England at that time but what would have been in open revolt against it.

Here are these gentlemen, uninterested in slave property, and, with the exception of one or two in this body, having no interest whatever in it, who actually come up and propose to amend the Constitution and take that property from a great number of people more loyal than themselves, more true to their Government, more true to the true principles of the Constitution and the Union, without making them one cent s worth of compensation for that property. Everything is as smooth as a marriage bell when men who do not own the property propose to take ft from those who do own it. It makes no odd?} what the amount of it is, or in what manner it is to bo done, if itis just in accordance with their will. Whatever may be the origin of that will it is all fair, all proper, all politic. Mr. President, the proposition that I assume 1 believe to be irrefragably true, that the power of amending the Constitution does not authorize the abolition of slavery. I deny that the power of amendment is illimitable. I deny that it carries •every power which the amending power may Choose to exercise, I deny that the power of amendment carries the power of revolution. It is an absurdity to say that this power of amendment will impart the power to change the Government and to establish a monarchy if the different departments and authorities authorized to enact the amendment choose to adopt it. Itcannot be done legitimately at any rate.

Mr. President, if the men who are to pass this amendment were as much interested in this property as those who are opposing it here and elsewhere, there is not one of them but would be found in opposition to it. It is a very beautiful operation, to be sine. They say to us, "We will take from you your property; we will make you no compensation for it; and we will do it under the power to amend the. Constitution." Sir, property is a matter of State or domestic institution. The General Government have not legitimately, and were never intended to have, any jurisdiction or authority over the subject of property. What subjects should constitute property, how it should be regulated, whether it should exist and continue in one subject or be discontinued in another subject, are questions which were never intended to be intrusted to the General Government. That is a great and fundamental feature of our Federal and State system of governments. The proposed amendment takes that principle to be true in relation to but one subject of property; but if it strikes at it in relation to one subject of property, it may in relation to all. The power of amendment as now proposed to be exercised imports a power that would revolutionize the whole Government, and that would invest the amending power with a faculty of destroying and revolutionizing the whole Government. In my judgment, it is absurd to say that the power of amendment, which is simply a power to reform, a power to improve, imports and authorizes the exercise of a power to destroy.

I think, if gentlemen are determined to abolish the property in slaves, they have as much right so to amend the Constitution as to make compensation to the uwncis of* the property as they have to deprive the owners of that properly of them. If they think the abolition of wlaveryand the depriving of so many loyal owiipip of such a large amount of properly is such an exercise of authority as that the permanent good of the nation requires it to be done, they ought to have the grace, the justice, the magnanimity to make provision for a reasonable compensation to the owners of that property which they take from the owners. They have as much power to make the compensation ay they have to take the property from them.

But, sir, in a closing word, l make my protest against men who have no interest in such alaige amount of property as the slave property owned by the loyal people of the United States, undertaking to seize this property without any compensation, ruthlessly, unjustly, and in defiance of the guai an tee of property and of justice that the Constitution and Government of the United States gave to all its people. Although I know that the protest of an angel would not be heard, much less the protest of as feeble a worm as I am, 1 make my last protest against a class of gentlemen, against a portion of the people of the United States, against the great preponderating sectional power of the United States, depriving loyal owners of millions of property, without having the justice, the magnanimity, or the grace to make the least provision for compensation, as the English Parliament did to the slaveholders in the West India islands.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I should be glad if I had the time to reply to some of the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky; but I will forbear doing so, hoping that shall now come to a vote. On some future occasion 1 may answer him,

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Massachusetts may withdraw his amendment if there be no objection.

Mr. SUMN fcR. It is entirely within my power, as the yeas and nays have not been ordered.

The VICE PRESIDENT, it io within the province of the Senator to withdraw it without the consent of the Senate, as no vote has been, had upon it, and the yeas and nays havenotbeen ordered. The amendment is withdrawn.

Mr. SAULSBURY. 1 wish to know whether the amendment I sent up some time since is now in order.

The VICE PRESIDENT. That will be in order as a substitute; but all the other amendments are first in order.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I offer mine as a substitute for the whole.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair so understood the Senator. If no otherameodment be offered the Senator from Delaware proposes to strike outall of the words reported by the committee, and to insert what will be read.

The Secretary read, as follows:

Article XIII.

Sec. 3. All persons shall have the right peaceably to assemble and worship God according to the dictates of their own con cienee

Sec. The use of the public pr#^ shall not be obstructed; but criminal publications made in one Stateagainstthe lawful institutions of another State shall not he allowed.

Set. 3. The right of citizens to free and lawful speech in public assemblies shall uotbe denied. Access of citizens to the ballot box shall not be obstructed either by civil or military power. The military shall always be subordinate to the existing judicial authority over citizens. The privilege of the writ of habeas corjius shall never be suspended in the presence ol the judicial authority.

Sec. 4. The militia of a State or of the United States shall not be employed to invade the lawful rights ofthe people ol any of the several States; but the United States shall not be hereby deprived of the right and power to defend and protect its property and lights within the limits of any of the States.

Sec. 5. Persons held to service or labor for life, in any State under the laws thereof, may be taken into any Territory of the United States south of north latitude 36° 30', and the right to such service or labor shall not be impaired thereby, and the territorial Legislature thereof shall have the exclusive right to make and shall make nil needful rules and regulations for the protection ot such right, and also for the protection of such persons; but Congress or any territorial Legislature shall not have power to unpairor nhohsh such right of service in the said Territory while In a territorial condition without the consent of all the State# south of said latitude which maintain Mich seivice.

Sec. 6. involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall not be permanently established within the District set apart for the seat of Government of the United States; but the right offcojouru in such DL uict with persons; held to service oi labor for life shall not be denied.

Sec. 7. When any Territory of the United States south ofnoith latitude 36° 30 shall have a population equal to the ratio of representation for one member of Congress, and the people thereof shall have formed a constitution for a republican fonn of government, it shall be admitted as a State into the Union, on an equal footing with the other States; and the people may in such constitution either prohibit oi sustain the right to involuntary labor or service, and alter or amend the constitution at their will.

Sec. 8. The present right ol representation in section two, article one, of this Constitution, shall not be altered without the consent of all the States maintaining the right to involuntary service or labor south of latitude 30® 30', but nothing in this Constitution or its amendments shall be construed to deprive any State south ol said latitude 38° 30' of the right of abolishing involuntary servitude at its will. Sec. 9. The regulation and control of the right to labor or service in any of the States south of latitude 36° 30' is hereby recognized to be exclusively the right oi each State within its own limits; and this Constitution shall not be altered or amended to impair this rightof each State without its consent: Provided, This article shall not be consumed to absolve the United States from rendering assistance to suppress insurrections ordomestic violence, when called upon by any State, as provided in section four, article four, of this Constitution.

Sfcc. 10. No State shall pass any law in any way interfering with or obstructing the recovery of fugitives from justice, or from labor or service, or any law of Congress made under article four, section two ot this Constitution; and all laws in violation of this section may, on complaint made by any person or State, be declared void by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Sec. 11. As a right of comity between the several States south of latitude 36® 30' the right r f transit with persons held to involuntary labor or service from one State to another shall not be obstructed, but *>ueh persons shall not be brought into the States north of said latitude.

Sec. "12. The traffic m slaves with At u ca is hereby forever prohibited on pain of death and the forfeiture of all the nghls and property of persons engaged therein; and the descendants of Africans shall not!• citizens.

Sec. 13. Alleged fugitives from labor or service, oa request, shall have a trial bv jury before being returned.

Sec. 14. All alleged fugitives ohaiaed with crime committed in violation of the laws of a State shall have the right of trial by jury, arid if such person claims to he a citizen of another State, shall have a right of appeal or of a wrU of errorto tU jap ome onrt of the waited States,

J Jin" EC. 15. to inritr AH acts persons of any held inhabitant to sen ice of the oi Iahoi United to State* insurrection or acts or' domestic violence, or to abscond, are hereby prohibited and decii ud to be ;i jx na ofF nse and all iho couite of the United Suites shall be open to suppress tind puni h ueli offenses at the t uitot any citizen oftiio United .-States or the ;-uit ofnny State.

Sfic. 16. AM conspiracies in any State to interfere with lawful lights m any other State or against the United States shall be suppressed; and no State or the people thereofshall withdraw hom this Union without the consent of tlnee fourths ofall the States, expressed by an amendment proposed and ratified in the manner provided in article five of the Constitution.

Rkc. 17. Whenever any State wherein involuntary servitude^ recognizcd or allowed shall piopose toabohsh such servitude and Khali apply lor pecuniary assistance therein, the Coii"i i)ss may in its discretion giant tuch relief not exceeding one hundred dollais for eachpei ou libeiated. But Congtess shall not ptopose such abolishment or reiief to any otate.

Congress rnav assist free poisons of Afiican descent to emigrate and colonize Afuca.

Sec. IS. Dutieson imports maybe imposed forrcvenue; but shall not be excessive or prohibitory in amount.

Sec. ID. When all of the several States shall have abolished slavery, then and thereafter slavery or involuntary servitude except as a punishment foi ei nne shall never be established or tolerated in any of the tate s or Tcintoncs of the United States, and they t iuil be forever fice.

Sec. 20. The provisions of this article leJatm^ to involuntary labor or sei vmide shall not be altered without the consent of all the Slates maintaining such servitude.

Mr. SAULSBURY. In offering those proposed amendments to thy Constitution of the United States, I wish to say that there are embodied in them some things which, as a private citizen,! would not approve; some things that do not meet my personal approbation; but considering (he situation in which wo are placed and the state of the country, I have been willing to meet the great questions involved in the controversy in the spirit of compromise and concession. For instance, as an original question I would not have agreed to any prohibition with reference to slavery in the Disti ict where the capital of the United States is situated; but knowing the feelings engendered and excited on that question, I have waived my personal opinions, and offer this simply as a compromise. I shall make no speech in behalf of those proportions. They were matured by men more learned in the law than myself, mid submitted to mo for my approval. I lmvc consented to offer them to the Senate of the United Statoy as a peace olTenng. I offer them in thatspnit. Without attempting toentermto any argument to enforce them upon the consideration «'f .Senntoi s, I will content myself simply with their pieoenuuion and let the Senate vote upon them.

The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to; there being, on a division—ayes 2, i:oca not counted.

The amendment made as in Committee of the Whole was coneunod in.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third tune.

Mr. POWELL. The Constitution tequiresus, I believe to take the question on the passage of such a resolution as this by yeas and nays.

Mr. McDOUGALL. IVfore the final vote is taken I think it due to myself to make a few remarks, bo that my exact position in regard to this whole question can be understood.

It may be known to at least one or twogentlcmc n upon this floor that for more than a quarter ot a century i have been the friend of freedom and fr e insutuiions m the Republic of which I am a citizen. 11 does not become any mum to boast; but I have the right to say that in the far West, when to favor free institutions was regarded by the populace as ci iminal, in the very year in which Lovrjoy was killed at Alton, I, a stranger to all those consequences, entertaining the opinions 1 now entertain, and which opinions I have not changed, d d myself march upon fifty lifles of East Tennesseeans and Kentuckians, mad with wine, who were undertaking to mob a few young gentlemen fiom Alassachusetts and New Hampshire because they had signed a petition to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and I quelled that mob. I did it alone.

1 was bom in the North; I early went to the West, and became acquainted with these controversies, maintaining the opinions of my youth. I maintain them now, and have done so since 1 came into this Senate Chamber. It is convenient for men who seek to run with the current of the stream, or to float with the tide, to espouse doctrines when they may become convenient to them. That has not been my course of policy or my habit of conduct from my youth upward in the various States in which I have lived. I say this much and there are men of the Republican party high in office to day who might nothave been well in health at this time had it not been for my maintaining them in their young manhood when it happened to bo my opportunity. Therefore I shall not be set down in any place by any man as a person who does not love freedom in all its forms.

I have protested, as I did a few days since, against these controversies that are not germane to the business of the Federal Congress or to the Government as it is to day with the legitimate offices on its hands. I do not believe that from Maine, or Vermont, or New Hampshire or Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or Rhode Island, or from any northern or eastern State there comes a man who is more attached to the establishment and maintenance of free institutions than I am myself. But I was told in my youth that it was the duty of a lad to speak the truth, and it grew into my manhood, and i dare maintain it here as I have maintained it always, as far as my best judgment and my highest conscience permitted. i think with regard to these movements that we are by them doing our country a great wrong. I say it not because I please to say it, for I say it with a sense ofpain. We are doing our country and our people agreat wrong, and then we are doing to anotherpeoplea great wrong. Theevening alter we passed the bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, I went to my lodgings, quite late in the evening. A colored man who was the dining ioom servant, and a very polite man, waited upon me alone at the dinner table, lie was evidently enjoying what he seemed to regard a triumph for his people. I said to him," Fiedenok, do not be rejoiced; it may happen as a consequence of this act and other things that will follow this present action that they might as well take you to the Potomac and drown you." I look upon this policy as being a policy for sacrificing the whole of the colored people now occupying parts of this Republic. It has fallen within my own experience to see a beautiful valley, I think the most beautiful in the world, the valley of Napa. II j s from ten to tlnec miles in width; it is about thirty miles long. In the valley of Napa grow up the tallest oaks that I have ever seen or witnessed in my tunc, beautiful groves, a country such as is not in my judgment (and 1 am so told by men who ha e traveled throughout the world, which I have not done) paralleled m Spain, or Italy, or France. About the time that I first found myself on the western shores of this continent, there were twenty five thousand native population; they may be called in one sense free American citizens. When I left my home to come here into the Federal Senate, there were not two hundred of them. They had been destroyed by our own people, by our vices, our luxuries, and our violence.

1 have no doubt the Senator from Indiana was correct when he stated yesterday that two hundred and fifty thousand of the people of African dt scent m this country had been prematurely destroyed. This policy will ingulf them, it isas simple a truth as has ever been taught by any history. The &la\ cs of ancient time were not the a slaves of a different race. The Romans compelled the Gaul and the Celt, brought them to their own country, and some of them became great poets, and some eloquent orators, and some accomplished wits, and they became citizens of the republic of Greece, and of the republic of Rome, and of the empire. This is not the condition of these persons with whom we are now associated and about whose affairs we undertake to establish administration. They can never commingle with us. It may not be within the reading of some learned Senators, and yet it belongs to demonstrated science, that the African race and the Europeans are different, and 1 here now say it as ix fact established by science that the eighth generation of the mixed race formed by the union of the African and European cannot continue their spec lea Quadroons have few children; with octoroons repioduction is impossible. It establishes as a law of nature that the African has no proper relation to the European, Caucasian blood. I would have them kindly treated. In the experience of my life and in my practices, I will not allow any person to say that he has been more kind to the people of that race than have I been myself, and I have seen much of them.

But we are undertaking now here to antagonize them, and with what? To antagonize them with immediately the ascendant white race of the South where they belong; and what must be the result? We hear what is said now with regard to their present position. It comes from those persons who go as missionaries and who go as agents by the employment of the Government into the South for the purpose of taking care of these people. Along the shores of the Mississippi they are wanderers without a roof under which to rest, without food to supporttheiranimal system lost people, men, women, and infants. These are facts that have thrust themselves upon thecountry, and with which every man in the Senate is conversant. It may be within our pleasure to make these evilsmore complete. It may be within the pleasure of our ignorance to say these things are true and just and right; but nature revolts at the affirmation; truth gives it a firm denial. I will not admit that I am less the friend of the people of the African race than any other gentleman on this floor, even the champion from Massachusetts. I would be their friend, I would protect and preserve them, as I would the men who occupied our groves and fields and hills before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock; but it must be done by just and wise policy, and not by any of these extravagant measures not asked for or demanded by the day, but sought for by a greedy appetite which, maddened with a present sense of power, seeks to accomplish to day what they fear may not be within their grasp to-morrow. Against all such policy and all such conduct I shall protest as a man, in the name of humanity ami of law and of truth and of religion.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the passage of thejomtresolution, upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HENDRICKS, (when Mr. Buckalew s name was called.) I desire to say that M r. Buckalew is not able to be in his seat to day and he expressed a wish that I should say that if he were present he would vote against the proposition.

The call of the roll having concluded, the result was announced—yeas 38, nays 6; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Conn ess, Cowan, Dixon, Doohttle Fesseiiden Foot Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harding, dm Harlan, Man is, Henderson, Howard, Howe. Johnson, Lane ot Indiana Lane ol Kansas, Morgan, Monill, Xe mitli Ponifrny, Uum py Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten E ck Tuimbull, "Van Winkle, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, and Wilson—

NAYS— Messrs Davi«, Hemlocks, McDougall, Powell, Riddle, and Saulsbury

The VICE PRESIDENT announced that the joint resolution, having received the concurrence of two thirds of the Senators present, was passed. Its title was amended to read: A joint resolution submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. SAULSBURY. I rise simply to say that I now bid farewell to any hope of the Reconstruction of the American Union.

Mr. McDOUGALL. I desire to ask a question for the purpose of understanding a ruling of the Chair. The ruling, 1 understand, is that the vote as it stands now has no relation to the States not represented on the floor. I think our vote now being a final vote should have relation to all the States as recognized under the Constitution.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair rules that a majority of all the Senators is a quorum, and two thirds of the number voting, provided a quorum votes, is sufficient to pass any resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr, McDOUGALL. I only desire the privilege of saying that such is not the opinion I entertain.