0A1895 ^ penmAlrfe* pH8J ^ **" W^ SPEECH CopV ^ OP HOl^. LAZARUS W. POWELL, OF KENTUCKY, ON THE STATE OF THE UNION: DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 22, 1861. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1861. MR. CRITTENDEN'S JOINT RESOLUTIONS Proposing certain nmeiulnients to the Constitution of the United States. Resolved by the Senate and Home of Representa-\ lives cf Ike Llniled States of .America in Congfess' assembled, {l\voi\u\-(\sx>i'b one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by the sea. Art. 5. Thai, in addition to the provisions of the tliird paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall have power to [)rovide by law,aed il shall be its duty so to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave, in ail eases, when the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and ob- structed in the pursuit of his remedy for the re- covery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall have the power to reimburse themselves by imposing and collecting a tax on the county or city in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was commit- ted, equal in amount to the sum paid by them, with the addition of interest and the costs of collection; and the said county or city, after it has paid said amount to the United States, may, for its indem- nity, sue and recover from the wrong-doers, or rescuers, by whom the owner was j^revented from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as the owner himself might have sued and recov- ered. Art. 6. No future amendment of the Constitu- tion shall affect the five preceding articles, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the secojid section of tlie fdurtli article of said Constituiion; and no amendment shall be made to the Consliiulion which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere v/ith slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is or may be allowed or permilted. Art. 7. Sec. 1. The elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether Federal, State, terri- torial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are, in whole or in part, of the African race. AMENDMENTS Intended to be propo.sed by Mr. Puwei.i. to the certain amendments to the Const! Al llio end ol" article four, insert tin? followliig: Hut tlip Alriran slave trade uliall lie lori-ver Huppressi-d, i and it ."liall 1>'' Hie duly of Cotiynss lo riiaki' sucli laws i\n \ vliall 111- ni-ccssary and eOVctual to prrvcnl tin- iiiinratinii : or liiiportalioii ol'slaven, or pcr.-'oiis owin-; servu'cor Inlior, ] Into Hie UiiiU'd .Stiu-H from any foroipii country, pluof, or | jurlfdlrllon wlialever. | IiiKert the following at additional scctlonH to article four, | pajfc 4 : I f'KC. 2. That pcrmns roinniitlins orlinn» ag:ilii!it tlio | rlKlu- oftlio-r wlio liolil pcriioin to k.tvIc'i? or lalior in one , Stale, and fleelnj! to nnoilier. uliall l)e d>liverit arilele was nmi'iided by the Senate so as lo make it apply lo territor) lii-ri'aftcr acquired ' Koutli of parallel of latitude ;)(>" 30'. SPEECH. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having re- sumed the consideration of tlie joint resolution proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of Uie United States — Mr. POWELL said: Mr. President: From tlie commencement of this session, I have steadily advocated every measure that has been proposed wliich, in my judgment, was calculated to restore peace to this distracted country. I heartily desire the preser- vation of this system of Government, and that the constitutional Union of our fathers may be trans- mitted to those who are to come after us. It lias been well said, by more Senators than one, that the Union could not be saved by eulogies. In that, I most heartily concur. I sliail indulge in no spe- cial eulogy on the Union. The rapid growth of our' country, the prosperity, contentment, and happiness of our people; our rapid advancement in agriculture, manufactures, commerce, art, sci- ence, in all its industrial pursuits, and in all the arts of peace, must be eulogy sufficient. I do not conceive, sir, that the difficulties by which we are now surrounded arise so much from a defect in cur system of Government, as fiom a wild, fan- atical spirit that seems for a time to have over- thrown the reasons of men, and jierverted that system. The Constitution, as interpreted by the Republican party, instead of being a shield for our defense, is used as an instrument for the de- struction of our rights of property in the common, territory of the Union. For the first forty years of our Government, the rights of our people were ■everywhere maintained under the Constitutinn. Indeed, in those earlier and better days of the Hepublic, so light were the exactions the Govern- ment made on the people, and so ample the pro- tection it afforded to persons and property every- where, that we scarcely knew we had a Govern- ment, save from the benefits we enjoyed. And such now, sir, would be the happy condition of the country if all political parties would in good faith execute the Constitution as it has been ex- pounded by the Supreme Court of the United States. My distinguished and learned friend from Texas [Mr. Wigfall] the other day twitted me with being a Union-saver. I will say to that distin- guished Senator that if I could be in the slightest degree instrumental in arresting the dangers by which we are surrounded, in restoring peace, har- mony, and unity to this distracted people, and in transmitting to those who are to come after us the constitutional Union of our fathers, I would be most happy. I would desire no honor more permanent or lasting. I would covet no brighter or more enduring fame. I announced to the Senate at the commence- ment of the session that, in my opinion, unequiv- ocal constitutional guarantees were the only rem- edies that would save this Union from speedy dissolution. Events that have transpired since that time have confirmed me in that belief. I then declared that delay in a crisis like this was equiv- alent to destruction. It now looks to me more like criminality. In the presence of the moment- ous events by which we are surrounded, we should act promptly on the various propositions for adjustment before the Senate. If we are un- able to agree upon a plan of adjustment, let the country know it. I confess that the action of Sen- ators on the committee of thirteen, and the dec- larations of Senators on this floor, have caused me to have but little iiope that Congress will do anything that will restore harmony to our dis- tracted country. Without further preface, Mr. President, I will proceed at once to the consideration of the amend- ments proposed to the Constitution by my dis- tinguished colleague. I shall endeavor briefly to meet the objections made to them, and to state to the Senate the reasons why 1 think they should be adopted by gentlemen on both sides of this Chamber. If adopted, I believe they would re- store peace to this country. The first article is the one that I apprehend will be most difiicult of solution. It is the one touching the Territories of the United States, and African slavery in those Territories. This article proposes that — In all territory of the United Stntes, now held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36° 30, slavery or invol- untary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is pro- hibited while such territory shall remain under territorial free and the slave States of this Union. When the peace of 1783 was made, the Slates north of Mason and Dixon's line had an area of one hun- dred and sixty-four thousand square miles. The States south of that line had an area of six hun- dred thousand square miles. In 1787, Virginia ceded the vast territory northwest of the Ohio to- the United States, and slavery or involuntary ser- vitude was prohibited therein. That being taken from the territory then belonging to the slave States, gave the ascendency to the free States. By the acquisition of Louisiana, of Florida, and of Texas, the area of the slave States was greatly in- I creased. The area of the free and slave Slates, as I at present organized, is about the same, each con- taining about eig;ht hundred and sixty thousand ' square miles. What is the extent of the territory about which we are now contending? I have an I accurate tabular statement furnished me by the j Commissioner of the General Land Office, show- ing the area in square miles of the part north and government. In all the territory, now held or hereafter to I ^^e part SOUth of the parallel of 36° 30' north lat- be acquired, south of said line of latitude, slavery of the | j^^j^. African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress ; but shall be protected as ! property by all the departments of the territorial government | during its continuance ; and when any territory, nortn or ] Fouth of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a mem- ber of Congress, accordinij to the then Federal ratio of rep- resentation of the people of the United States, it shall, if Its form of government he rejjublican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, witfi or Statement of the surface of each Territoi-y in the United States, shoicing the part north and the part south of the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude. Territoi^-. Whole surface. North South of parallel of parallel 36° 30'. 36° 30'. without slavery, as the constitutionof such new State may provide. In proceeding to the discussion of liiis propo- sition, I would ask if the disposition it proposes to make of the territories of the Union is not just and equitable to the free States.' It is admitted by all that the territories of the Union are the common property of the people of all the States. If acquired by purchase, they were bought out of the common fund of all the people. If acquired by conquest, every part of the country contrib- Kansas Nebraska jVIiniiesola Washington... New Mexico.. Utah Indian Sq. miles. 126.-283 342,438 81,960 193,071 256,309 220.196 67,020 So. miles. 126,283 342,4.38 81,960 193,071 40,629 220,196 16,730 Sq. miles. 215,680 50,290 1,287,277 1,021,307 265,970 We have now in the territories of the United States one million two hundred and eighty-seven thousand two hundred and .seventy-seven square miles. North of the line proposed to be estab- lished by this amendment, there are one million utedTt"3lh"are'ofthe''menand treasure that carried! twenty-one thousand three hundred and seven on the war. So far as a very large portion of these j square miles; south of that line there are only territories is concerned— that which was acquired | two hundred and sixty-five thousand nme hun- from Mexico— the gallant Slate that I have the dred and seventy square miles. Thus you see, honor in part to represent contributed three limes that under and by virtue of this article, should more men than all New England. I suppose that I it be adopted , the North will get nearly four times arose from the fact that it was nearer the seat of ] as much territory as the South; and while they |!get nearly four times in quantity, they will get "*" On the subject of the division of the territories, || more than ten limes in value;for it is well-known I will state a f..-w historical facts, which will show that all the rich territory of Kansas, of Nebraska, how the territories have been divided between the I! and all the land embraced m the terrUories that •^f^"^ e>mf~^-'^^ are watered by the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and their tributaries, and tlie land in Washington Territory, bounded by the Pacific, goes to the North, while there is given to the South the arid, barren Territory of New Mexico, containing very little fertile land and utterly destitute of navigable rivers. By reference to the tabular statement just read, I find that forty thousand six hundred and twenty- nine square miles of the Territory of New Mexico ^ies north of latitude 36° 30'. So far, then, from increasing the area of slave territory, it is dimin- ished forty thousand six hundred and twenty-nine square miles. The North gains that much by the adoption of this article, for it is well known that slavery exists and is recognized and protected by law in New Mexico. Then, by the adoption of this article, we do not alter the status of slavery upon a foot of the territory of the United States south of the parallel 36° 30'; but we absolutely surrender forty thousand six hundred and twenty- nine square miles of slave territory — an area almost as great as the empire State of New York — to the North. It will be seen, by reference to the tabular state- ment heretofore read, that fifty thousand two hundred and ninety square miles of the Territory estimated as lying south of the parallel 36° 30' is embraced in the Indian territory. This territory has been set apart to the Indians who are becom- ing civilized. The United States have agreed, by treaty stipulations, that the land in the Indian territory shall in no future time, without the con- sent of the Indians, "be included within the ter- ritorial limitsor jurisdiction of any State or Terri- tory." Slavery, however, exists in the Indian territory, and is recognized and protected by law. When you deduct the fifty thousand two hundred and ninety square miles embraced in the Indian territory, we have only two hundred and fifteen thousand six hundred and eighty square miles south of the parallel of 36° 30' which would be subject to occupancy by the South with their prop- erty, if this amendment to the Constitution were adopted. This article has been objected to because it applies to after-acquired territory. I think it is eminently proper that it should apply to after- acquired territory. Senator^, if we settle this matter at all, let us do it in such a manner as will quiet it forever. Let us put this vexed territorial and negro question, so far as the Territories of the Confederacy are concerned, forever without these Halls. Any other adjustment would be idle, futile, and unwise. For forty years, this question has agitated and harassed the people of this country. In 1820, in the difficulties that grew out of the admission of Missouri, it deeply agitated the pub- lic mind and threatened the disruption of the Gov- ernment. Again, in 1850, we were as deeply agi- tated from the same cause. And why? Because the compromises of that day did not go to the root of the evil. If constitutional amendments, instead of statutes, had been resorted to in 1820, or in 1850, we would not now be surrounded by difficulties that threaten to disrupt and forever destroy the Government and ingulf us all in a common ruin. It has been stated that the application of this article to after-acquired territory would create a desire on the part of the southern people to iilli- buster south, and to absorb Mexico, seize the Island of Cuba, and other regions south, and bring them ultimately into the Union as slave States. Senators, allow me, with great deference, to say that that position is not well taken. How do you acquire territory .' You can only do it under our system of Government in two modes — by the admission of new States by Congress, or by treaty. I ask you if the South has the power to admit new States into this Union without the concurrence and the consent of the Representa- tives of the North ? You now have, in this Cham- ber, six majority from the free States. Ere long, perhaps in less than three days, you will have eight, by the admission of Kansas ; and soon after, Nebraska,Washington, and other Territories, will be admitted as free States, which will increase your majority. There is no Territory south out of which we could possibly form more than one or two slave States. While you have a majority here that would prevent the admission of a new State without your assent, you have, in the other branch of Congress, a majority now of over fifty from the free States; and when the apportionment shall come to be made under the census of 1860, your majority in that branch will be greatly increased. Could we acquire territory by treaty without your consent .' Why, sir, you know that every treaty must be confirmed by two thirds of the Senate. You have a majority now of six; and is there any danger that we shall acquire future territory by a vote of two thirds of this Senate, unless it meet the approbation of our brethren of the North.' Certainly not. That objection, then, as I before said, I hold to be badly taken. It is really worth- 6 less. When properly ronsidiTcd, it amounts to nothing. It is objected to beciiiise it recognizes slavery. I conceive tlial that objection is equally untenable; for I hold that the prescntConstitution recognizes that institution. It is a fact that is indisputable, that under the law of nations, at the time of the formation of this Government, slaves were recog- nized as property throughout Christendom. All the great Powers held slave colonies, to wit: France, Spain, and England. Upon that subject I have a dccisii^n of liie High Court of Admiralty, pronounced by Sir William Scott, that I think is conclusive. I will ask my friend from Missouri to read it. Mr. SUMNER. What i.s the name of the case ? Mr. POWELL. It is the case of Le Louis, 2 Dodson. The court, speaking of slavery and the slave trade, said. Mr. GREEN read, as follows: '• It [the court] niusl look to the legal slamlard of iniiial- ity ; and upon a question ot'ihis nature, thiil standard must be found in the law of nations, as fixed and evidiTiced by general and ancient and admitted practice, hy treaties, and by llie (jeneral tenor of the laws and ordinanccr:, and the formal transactions of civilized States ; and looking to those authorities, I find aditticulty in maintaining tliat the traffic ia legally criminal. " Lei me not be misunderstood, or misrepresented, as a professed ajiologlsl for thi.s practice, when I state facts which no man can deny ; that personal slavery arising out of forcible captivity is coeval with the earliest periods of Uie history of mankind; that it is found existing — and, as far as appears, without animadversion— in the earliestand most authentic records of the human race; that it is rec- ognized by the codes of the mo.h(il nations of an- tiquity ; that, undi.'r the light of Christia»ity itself, the pos- 8ef!!iiou of persons so acquired has been in every civilized country invested with the character of property, and se- cured as such by all the protections of law ; that solemn treatiirs have been framed and national monopolies eagerly sought, to facilitate and extend the conuncrce In this as- gerted property : and all this, with all the sanctions of law, public atid municipal, and without any opposition, except the protests of a lew private moralists, little heard and less attended to, in every country, till within these very few years, in litis particular country. Jf the matter rested here, I fear It would have been deemed a ino.sl extravagant as- sumption in any court of the law of natiorm to pronounce that Uiis practice, the tolerated, the approved, the encour- aged object of law, ever since man became subject to law, was prohibited by that law, and was legally criminal. I!ul the mailer does not rest lieri'. Within these few yi'ars a considiriilile change of opinion has taken plaice, pnrtlcu larly in this country. Kormal declarations have bei-n made, and law enacted in reprobation of this practice ; and pains, ably and zealously conducted, have been taken to induce other countries to follow the example, but al present with InsufUclenl effect; for there are nations wiiich apc)sc, would object to it except those who would sanction the robbery of southern men of their property. Republican Senators have often — I believe uniliirmly — expressed iheirpondemna- tion of such infractions of our rights. Honorable gentlemen certainly do not desire to obstruct the execution of the laws against the rights of prop- erty in any State in the Union, by refusing to pro- vide a remedy to have delivered up the criminals, who have fled and taken refuge in their Slate's, for trial and punishment. I therefore trust that this amendment, so obviously just and necessary for the protection of the South against robbery and theft, may be adopted. The third amendment that I propose is, that Congress shall pass efficient laws for the punish- ment of all persons, in any of the States, who in any manner aid or abet invasion or insurrection in any other State, or do any other act tending to disturb the tranquillity of the people or Government of any other State. This provision seems to me to be eminently proper. It meets just such cases as the raid of John Brown into Virginia; and I be- lieve that that raid of John Brown was censured very generally, I do not know but unanimously, by Senators on the other side of the Chamber. If they conceive it wrong— and I dare say they are in earnest when they say so — why not pass laws to punish such crimes, and why not put this pro- vision in the Constitutio;}, and make it the im- perative duty of Congress to pass such laws ? My distinguished friend from Virginia, [Mr. Hun- ter,] who most eloquently and ably addressed the Senate a few days ago, declared that no State in the Union had passed laws to meet such a case. I find that the gallant State of New Jersey has passed a law which fully meets the case, and it afli'ords me pleasure so to announce. By an act of the Legislature of that State, approved March 21, 18G0, New Jersey declared: '• I. Beit cnavtcdhythe Scnaleand GcncTalJls-iemhlyofthe State of Sew Jersey, That it" any person or persons slmll, williiii this Sut(!, get up or enter into any ronibinaiioii, or?nnir,:uion, or conspiracy, with tlie intent iind purpose of making or iiileiiiplin^to niakea liostile invasion ol'any ottier State or 'JVrritory ol" llie L/'nitod Slates, or sliall enpaje in pioiiins or oontrivin!; any sucli invasion, or slinll know- ingly furnish any money, arms, ammunition, or oUier means In aid of sucli olijccl, or shall, in any way, knowingly and willtully aid, abet, or c(mnsel any such comliinntion, or- gnl/.ation, or conspiracy, or any sucli liostile invasion, such person or persons shall be dec mod guilty of a liigli mis- dfuK-anor, and sliall, on conviction, be punished by line or I imprisonmi'nt at lianl labor, or botli ; the tine not to exceed .51,000, and the imprisonment not to e.vcceU the term of ten I yi-ars." ! There are other provisions of this law that strike ; ine as very }>roper; and it seems to me that if this aini'ndment lo iht; Constitution were passed, we could not do much b(,'tter than to copy this law of New JfTisey. The fifth article proposed by my colleague pro- vides that, in the event of a fugitive slave being rescued from the proper officer, tlie United States 11 shall pay to the owner the value of the slave; and then, that the United States shall have indemnity against tiie county or town in which the rescue took place; and that the county or city, for its in- demnity, may sue and recover the amount paid from the wrong-doer. There is no new principle involved in this. By an ancient statute of Eng- land, passed in the time of Edward I, the hundred was responsible for all robberies committed there- in, unless they arrested the felon. Corporate cities in this country have often been held responsible by law for property destroyed by mobs, upon the principle that it is the duty of a Government to give protection to property. My venerable friend from Rhode Island [Mr. Simmons] objected to this clause, because, he said, it could not be practically executed in Rhode Island , for the reason that they had no county officers there against whom the law could be enforced, so as to reach the county. If that be the fact, the honorable Senator should not object. If the people of Rhode Island should vio- late this provision, and there be no mode of exe- cuting the law against the counties and corpora- tions of that Slate, the people of his State would be exempt from the penalty. Mr. SIMMONS. We do not want any ex- emption. I merely made the suggestion because we want to obey the laws, like all other States. Mr. POWELL. I felt very confident that the venerable Senator did not want an exemption for his gallant little Slate of Rhode Island, for I do not believe the Senator would countenance for a moment, byword or act, any violation of the con- stitutional rights of the people of any parlor por- tion of this great country. The sixth article proposed by my colleague de- clares that no future amendment to the preceding articles shall be made, nor to the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph to the sec- ond section of the fourth article of the Constitu- tion; and that no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Con- gress any power to abolish or interfere with sla- very in any of the Statfes by whose laws it may be allowed or permitted. One of the paragraphs of the present Constitution, which it is declared shall not be repealed or altered, is the one relating to representation and direct taxes; and the other to the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The latter clause of this article, I suppose, will meet the coneurrence of gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber. The distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. Sewaud] not only proposed and voted for a similar proposition in the committee of thirteen, but he has since de- clared in the Senate that he was willing to vote for such an amendment to the Constitution; and I take it that the distinguished Senator's declara- tion is a clear index to what the gentlemen on that side of the Chamber will do. All the Republicans of the committee of thirteen voted in that com- mittee for the proposition of the Senator from New York, to which I have just alluded. There is a seventh article that I will notice very briefly. It is, that the elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether Federal, Slate, terri- torial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by per- sons who are in whole or in part of the African race. I have heard it announced more than once from distinguished gentlemen on the other side, that they are opposed to negro equality. If they are, why object to voting for this provision as a clause of the Constitution? This Government, is a Government of white men, made by white men for white men; and negroes should not be per- mitted to vote or hold office under it. If you are opposed. Senators, to negro equality, why not come up and vote for this article as an amendment to the Constitution? There certainly can be no impropriety in it, if you are opposed to negro equality; and I suppose you are, as you have so often declared it. We have been asked by many gentlemen, and especially by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] what we v/ant. He said he could see no cause of complaint; and he asked what they had done to alarm us. It is not my purpose to enter into any crimination and recrimination about the past; but I will btiefly stale some things that have been done. There have been bands organized in the free States for the purpose of robbing our people of their property. Mr. WADE. I wish the Senator would give us some proof of that. I should like to hear the proof of it. I have heard the general charge often enough. Mr. POWELL. Well, sir, I will give you a little proof from an Ohio man. It is a fact which I did not suppose the honorable Senator doubted, that such bands have been organized. Mr. WA DE. I do not believe a word of it. Mr. POWELL. Why, sir, it is a matter of daily announcement in the papers in the northern part of the gentleman 's Slate, that so many slaves arrived the night before by the way of the under- 12 ground railway. I am astonished that the Senator sliouid be ignorantof the facts that are announced almost daily in the political journals that advocate the doctrines of himself and his party. Thatsuch bands are organized we who live upon the border well know. I hold in my hand a letter, dated Washington, December 31, 1860, written by an honorable member of the other House, from Ohio, [Mr. Cox,] to a Mr. Converse, in which he says: " Kentucky is so unfortunate as to liave in lier midst $170,000,000 in slave property. Her Governor says she is losing at the rate of $200,000 per annum. I think if he could keep a conductor of the under-ground railroad for a year even, through my district, he would perhaps double tlie estimate. I was told last fall, by a respectable Repub- lican above Columbus, tliat they averaged through his neighborhood at least six runaway slaves per week, helped along by combinations of men, making a loss alone of some §30,000 per annum to somebody." " Organized bodies exist in the North to resist the en- forcement of the fugitive slave law ; and I am informed, by one who knows, that at Iberia there are seventy muskets in store for such purposes, with United Slates brands on Ihem.-' There is a distinct declaration of one of the gentleman's honorable colleagues in the House of Representatives, making the statement on the authority of a Republican whom he vouches to be highly respectable. I believe there are annually taken from Kentucky by this means some $400,000 worth of our property. If the northern States were foreign States, this would be good cause of war, for there is no principle of international law better established than that every State is responsible for the acts of its people. If there were organized bands of men in the slave States going into the free States to abduct one, two, three, or four hundred thousand dollars' worth of their property a year, I would ask the honorable Senator if he would not think legislation was re- quired upon the part of the Government to pro- tect the property of the people of the free'States ? Would he not think, if these States were foreign, and not connected together by a common bond of union, thatsuch an infraction of their rights would be good cause of war.' It certainly would. But, Senators, that is not all the complaint we have. We know that the State Legislatures in many of the free States have passed laws aiding and abetting those persons who commit depreda- tions upon our property. They have passed laws in the shape of personal liberty bills by which they declare that our property, after it gets into their Stales, is no longer property. They have denounced harsh penalties of fine and imprison- ment upon our people who go there for the pur- pose of rcca|)turing their property. They have obstructed the execution of the fugitive slave law, : and have passed laws imposing harsh penalties of fine and imprisonment upon their magistrates and citizens who assist in the execution of the fugitive slave law — a law made in pursuance of the Federal Constitution. j Mr. WADE. Will the Senator tell me what [ State it is which has passed such laws as those i he now speaks of.' 1 Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir. The State of Ver- mont, and some seven or eight other States of the [North, have passed such laws. Mr. WADE. That is indefinite. I want to know particularly. Mr. POWELL. Seven or eight northern States have passed such laws as I have indicated. The law of Vermont, passed in 1858, provides that — " Every person who may have been held as a slave, who shall come, or be brought, or be, in this State with the con- sent of his or her alleged master or mistress, or who shall come or be brought, or be in this State, shall be free.'" The Federal Constitiition says that such per- sons shall not be free, but shall be given up on [ demand of the owner-, the lawof Vermontdeclares they shall be free. j This law of Vermont further provides: " Sec. 7. Every person who shall hold, or attempt to hold, in this State, in slavery, or as a slave, any free person, in any form or for any time, however short, under the pretense that such person is or has been a slave, shall, on conviction thereot", be imprisoned in tlie State prison for a term not less than five years nor more than twenty years, and be fined not less ihan §1,000 nor more than $10,000." If a man pass through Vermont with bis slave, or should he go into that State and arrest his fugi- tive slave, he is subject, under this law, to con- finement in the penitentiary not less than five nor more than twenty years, and to a fine of not less than §1,000 nor more than $10,000. These laws have been read and commented on here at great length. I am astonished that the Senatorshould question theircxistence. It is a fact well known to the Senator that when evil-disposed persons from his own State have gone into Ken- tucky and committed these crimes, his Governor has refused to give them up. In that, the Con- stitution has been clearly violated. In some of the northern States they declare that when a fu- gitive gets there he is free, no longer a slave. I was pleased to find that the honorable Senator from New York the other day declared that those I persons, by fleeing hilo another State, did not cease to be bondmen, and that they ought to be delivered up. Wc know, however, that the fugi- tive slave law is not faithfully executed; we know that many of those Slates have passed laws to I hinder, nay, to prevent its execution. 13 Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I wish now spe- cifically to answer any charge The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Polk in the chair.) Does the Senator from Kentucky give way to the Senator from Ohio ? Mr. POWELL. With great pleasure. Mr. WADE. I want to answer any charge which is made specifically against Ohio; and I want it specifically made, so that I can answer; because these general charges I have heard so long and so often that I am entirely sick of them. I want something that I can put my finger upon. If my State is delinquent in any of her duties, I want to know it; and I do not want it to rest in generalities, nor in hearsay. I do not want it to rest upon astatement that some Republican , whose name has not been given, said so to somebody else, making it come through two or three differ- ent sources before it comes to the Senator, and then proclaimed as a fact. I do not regard it as a fact at all. I know that such kind of evidence and such kind of rumors are totally unworthy to predicate any charge against a State or an individ- ual upon. Now, sir, when it is charged that we in the State of Ohio are delinquent in our duty, and are violating the Constitution of the United States, I want the Senator to point out wherein we do it, and to give us the evidence on which the charge is predicated. Mr. POWELL. I have given the Senator the evidence. It is a written statement of one of his own colleagues, made a few days ago. I gave to the Senator, not long since, a specific charge against the Governor of Ohio, that he had refused to deliver up a man indicted for slave-stealing in Kentucky, on the ground that it was not an of- fense in Ohio, or under the common law, to steal a slave. If that is not specific, I despair of making anything specific. An organized armed body of anti-slavery fanatics from the North, evidently aided and abetted by abolition societies, invaded the soil of Virginia, and in the dead hour of night assaulted and murdered the peaceful citizens of an interior village. Abolitionists from the free States have invaded and laid waste the border of Texas; burned the houses of the people; stolen and destroyed their property ; poisoned their wells ; and destroyed by fire villages and towns. These are not the only grounds of apprehen- sion that we have; for we find that the Republi- can party have elected a President upon a plat- form that virtually outlaws our property, and places our institutions under the ban of the em- pire. I will read one of the clauses in that plat- form: "That the normal condition of the territory of tlie Uni- ted Slates is tliat of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in our national tfirritory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty, by congressional legislation, whenever such legisla- tion becomes necessary, to maintaui this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it ; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States." That is an explicit declaration that we shall not enjoy any portion of the common territory with our property. There you declare the treaty made with France in 1803, by which Louisiana was acquired, the treaty made with Spain in 1819, by which Florida i^as acquired, by which treaties property was protected in those Territories, and the congressional and territorial laws by which slavery was allowed and protected in those and other Territories, were null, void, and no law. You place the Chicago platform above treaties and the laws of the United States, and the laws of the Territories, and the decisions of the Su- preme Court of the United States. You have elected a gentleman President of the United States by a purely sectional vote, who has declared that this Union cannot exist half slave and half free-, and who has declared that, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court, he would vote to prohibit slavery in a new Territory. Mr. Lin- coln, in a speech made at Chicago, on the 10th of July, 1858, said: " If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up whether slavery should "be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the bred Scott decision, I would vote that it should." The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that under the Constitution of the Uni- ted States we have a common right of property in the Territories, and have a right to go there with our slaves; and that it is the duty of the Govern- ment to guard and protect us in our rights. Mr. Lincoln says that, notwithstanding that decision, he would, if in Congress, vote against allowing us to go to the Territories with our slaves. It is the avowed policy of the Republican party to re- strict slavery to its present limits. Their object is to use the Federal Government to carry out a line of policy the ultimate object of which is the extinction of slavery in the States south as well as north. This policy was unequivocally announced by Mr. Lincoln, in a speech delivered at Jones- boro, on the 15th of September', 1858. Mr. Lin- coln, speaking of slavery, said: "All r have asked or desired anywhere is, that it should be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of the 14 Government nrizinally pinc-od it upon. I have no doubt tlint it would bncoiiii' extinct, Pir nil time to cnnir, if we but ri-,idi>pti'd tlic policy ol" the lathers l>y n-striclin'; it Hi the limit;; it hasalready covered— restricting it 1'roni the new Territories." The policy is to prohibit shivery in all the Territories, atitl to surround the slave Slates with " abolition Slates, and thu.s confine the institution within siicii narrow limits that, when the nuinber increases beyond the capacity of the soil to raise food for their subsistence, the institution must end in starvation, colonization, or servile insur- rection." Senators, are not these sufficient causes why the southern people should be seized with alarm for their domestic peace and security.' The peo- ple of the southern States have gfe, 000, 000, 000 of slave property. The institution is indissi.lubiy interwoven with their social sy.stem. The people of the South would be stupid indeed if they did not see in all tliis a fixed design and purpose ulti- mately to overthrow and destroy their domestic institutions upon which their very existence de- pends. Should it, then, be a matter of surprise or astonishment that they should promptly meet the danger by which they are threatened, by de- manding explicit constitutional guarantees as a security for the future.' Mr. President, it is a fact, now very clear, that if this Government and Union be saved by anything that is done here, it must be done by Senators on the other side of the Chamber. They have had it in their power from the beginning of the session, by adopting amendments to the Consti- tution, to save this Union from dissolution. By an examinalionof the votes given in the committee I of thirteen, it will be found that all the other mem- bers of the coinmittee, save the Republicans, could at any time have made a unanimous report, rec- 1 ommending constitutional amendments for the | consideration of the Senate. Indeed, the entire' committee, except the Republicans, voted for all the propositions of my colleague, with the ex- ception of two Senators, who voted against the first article; but it was well known in the com- mittee that the first article would have been ac- cepted by those two gentlemen, had the Repub- lican members of the committee chosen to take it. It was declared by the distinguished Senator from Georgia, now absent, [Mr. Toombs,] on this floor, that he would have taken it; and he believed it would be satisfactory to nine tenths of thir peo- ple of Georgfa. So then, if we do anything to save this Government, it must come from that Bide of the Chamber. It has been declared by Senators representing every party and section on this side, that they are ready and willing to go for amendments that will be satisfactory to the south- ern people. And you alone. Senators on the other side of the Chamber, oppose them. If this Union should be destroyed, in conse- quenceofconstitutioiial guarantees not being given that would be just and satisfactory to the people of the South, you alone will be responsible to the country and to the world; for it is manifest that there has been no contrariety of opinion on this side of the Chamber, that could not have been at any time reconciled. I have said,Senators,as much as I designed to say upon the propositions of my colleague. There is one other subject about which I will say a few words, and that is this question of coercion, about which so much has been said. I shall not attempt to discuss the right of a State to secede. That proposition has been elaborately discussed, pro and con., in this Chamber. I see no necessity now for discussing that abstract question. We are surrounded by facts that are eminently pi-actical. Hold wiiat you will in theory, we know that five of the States of this Union have foriTially passed oi-dinances withdrawing from it, and that they are prepared to maintain by arms, if the issue should be forced upon them, the position they have as- sumed; and we know that other States, at least two, will quickly follow them. We must deal with the fact as it is. I do not believe thai, uiider the Constitution of the United States, we have any right to make war upon a State. We find, by reference to the proceedings of the convention that framed the Constitution, that it was proposed to give that power, and it was denied. In the debates on the Federal Constitution, (Madison Papers, volume five, page 1.39:) '•The last cl;iu'sc of the .sixth resolution,' aulliorizingan exertion of the lorce ol" the whole ai;aiM>t a de|lnqui-nt State.' came next in consideration. '• Mr. Madison observed, lliai the more he reflected on the use of force, till! more he tlmilitid the praclicaliiliiy, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to people col- lectively, and not individually. A uiiUui ol the Slates con- taining such an ln