E .S51I Qass. Book. E4^ .0 i i >>' .^^^ >^^ '"% •%: ^4S. /^/NGTON, ^• CALIFORNIA, UNION, AND FREEDOM. SPEECH OF WILLIAM H. SEWARD, ON THE ^yOFcoA/c^. ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 11, 1850. Four years ago, California, a Mexican Province, scarcely inhabited and quite unexplored, was un- known even to our usually immoderate desires, ex- cept liy a harbor, capacious and tranquil, which only statesmen then foresaw would be useful in the ori- ental commerce of a far distant, if not merely chi- merical, future. A year ago, Chlifornia was a mere military de- pendency of our own, and we were celebrating with unanimity and enthusiasm its acquisition, with its newly-discovered but yet untold arjd untouched min- eral wealth, as the most auspicious of many and un- paralleled achievements. To-day, California is a State, more populous than the least and richer than several of the greatest of our thirty States. This same California, thus rich and populous, ,is here asking admission into the Union, and finds us debating the dissolution of the Union itself. No wonder if we are perplexed with ever-changing embarrassments ! No wonder if we are appalled by ever-increasing responsibilities ! No wonder if we are bewildered by the ever-augmenting magnitude and rapidity of national vicissitudes ! Shall California be received 7 For myself, upon my individual judgment and conscience, I an- swer. Yes. For myself, as an instructed representa- tive of one of the States, of that one even of the States which is soonest and longest to be pressed in commercial and political rivalry by the new Com- monwoahw, I answer. Yes. Let California come in. Every new State, wWothcr ahc come fium ilic East or from the West, every new State, coming from whatever part of the continent she may, is always weicome. But California, that comes from the clime where tha west dies away into the rising east ; Cali- fornia, which bounds at once the empire and the f continent ; California, the youthful queen of the Pa- cific, in her robes of freedom, gorgeously inlaid with gold — is doubly welcome. And now I inquire, first. Why should California be rejected? All the objections are founded only in the circumstances of her coming, and in the organic law which she presents for our confirmati'^n. 1st. California comes unceremoniously, without a preliminary consent of Congress, and therefore by usurpation. This allegation, I think, is not quite true; at least not quite true in spirit. California is not here of her own pure volition. We tore Califor- nia violently from her place in the Confederation of Mexican States, and stipulated by the treaty of Gua- dalupe Hidalgo, that the territory should be admitted by States into the American Union as speedily as possible. But the letter of the objection still holds. Cali- fornia does come without a preliminary consent by Congress to form a Constitution. But Michigan and other States presented themselves in the same un- authorized way, and Congress iraired the irregular- ity, and sanctioned the usurpation. California pleads these precedents. Is not the plea sufficient ? But it has been said by the honorable Senatorfrom South Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,] that the Ordinance of 1787 secured to Michigan the right to become a Stfite, when she should have sixty thousand inhabit- ants. Owing to some neglect. Congress delayed tak- ing the census. And this is said in palliation of the irregularity of Michigan. But California, as has been seen, had a treaty, and Congress, instead of giving previous consent, and instead of giving her the customary Territorial Government, as they did to Michigan, failed to do cither, and thus practically refused both, and so abandoned the new community, under most unpropitious circumstances, to anarchy. California then made a Constitution for herself, but not unnecessarily and presumptuously, as Michigan did. She made a Constitution for herself, and she comes here under the law, the paramount law of self- preservation. In that she stands justified. Indeed, California is more than jusiified. She was a colony, a military colony. All colonies, especially military colonies, are incongruous with our political system, and they are oquolly oppn to coriupdou uiid e.\posed to oppression. They are, therefore, not more unfortunate in their own proper condition than fruiti'ul of dangers to the parent Democracy. California, then, acted wisely and well in establishing self-government. She de- serves not rel)uke, but praise and approbation. Nor does this objection come with a good grace from those who ofler it. If California were now content to receive only a Territorial charier, we could not agree to grant it without an inhibition of slavery, which, in that case, being a F^ederal act, would ren- der the attitude of California, as a Territory, even more offensive to those who now repel her than she is as a State, with the same inhibition in the Consti- tution of her own voluntary choice. A second objection is, California has assigned her own boundaries u-ithout the previous authority of Con- gress. But she was left to organize herself without any boundaries fixed by previous law or by prescrip- tion. She was obliged, therefore, to assume bound- aries, since*without boundaries she must have re- mained unorganized. Printed and for sale by Buell & Blanchard, Sixth Street, south Pennsylvania Avenue. Price $1 per 100. cm SPEECH OF WILLIAM H. SEWARD. A third objection is, that California is too large. I answer, first, there is no common standard of States. California, although greater than many, is less than one of the States. Secondly. California, if too large, may be divided with her own consent, which is all the security we have for reducing the magnitude and averting the preponderance of Texas. Thirdly. The boundaries of California seem not at all unnatural. The territory circumscribed is altogether contiguous and compact. Fourthly. The boundaries are convenient. They embrace only inhabited portions of the country, commercially connected with the port of San Fran- cisco. No one has pretended to offer boundaries more in harmony with the physical outlines of the region concerned, or more convenient for civil ad- ministration. But to draw closer to the question, what shall be the boundaries of a new State concerns — First . The State herself, and California of course is content. Secondly. Adjacent communities. Oregon does not complain of encroachment, and there is no other adjacent community to complain. Thirdly. The other States of the Union. The larger the Pacific States, the smaller will be their relative power in the Senate. All the States now here are Atlantic States and inland States, and surely they may well indulge California in the largest liberty of boundaries. The fourth objection to the admission of Califor- nia is, that no census had been taken, and no laws prescribing the qualifications of suffrage and the apportionment of Representatives in Convention, existed before her Convention was held. I answer, California was left to act ab initio. She must begin somewhere, without a census, and with- out such laws. The Pilgrim Fathers began in the same way on board the Mayflower; and, since it has been objected that some of the electors in Cali- fornia may have been aliens, I add, that all of the Pil- grim Fathers were aliens and strangers to the Com- monwealth of Plymouth. Again, the objection may well be waived, if the Constitution of California is satisfactory, first to her- self, secondly to the United States. First. Not a murmur of discontent has followed California to this place. Second. As to ourselves, we confine our inquiries about the constitution of a new State to four things — 1st. The boundaries assumed ; and I have con- sidered that point in this case already. 2d. That the domain within the State is secured to us. And it is admitted that this has been prop- erly done. 3d That the Constitution shall be republican, and not aristocratic or monarchical. In this case the only objection is that the Constitution, inasmuch as it inhibits slavery, is altogether too republican. 4th. That the representation claimed shall be just and equal. No one denies that the population of California, is sufficient to demand two representa- tives on the federal basis ; and, secondly, a new census is at hand, and the error, if there is one, will be immediately corrected. The fifth objection is— California comes under Executive influence. 1st. In her coming as a free State. 2d. In her coming at all. The first charge rests on suspicion only, is peremp- torily denied, and the denial is not controverted by proofs. I dismiss it altogether. The second is true, to the extent that the pres- ent President advised the people of California, that, having been left without any civil government, under the military supervision of the Executive, without any authority of law whatever, the adoption of a nation now is Constitution, subject to the approval of Congress, would be regarded favorably by the President, Only a year ago, it was complained that the exercise of the military power to maintain law and order in California, was a fearful innovation. But now the wind has changed, and blows even stronger from the opposite quarter. May this Republic never have a President commit a more serious or more dangerous usurpation of power than the act of the present eminent Chief Magistrate, in endeavoring to induce legislative au- thority to relieve him from the exercise of military power, by establishing civil institutions regulated by law in distant provinces ! Rome would have been standing this day, if she had had such generals and such tribunes. 3d. But the objection, whether true in part, or even in the whole, is immaterial. The question is, not what moved California to impress any particu- lar feature on her Constitution, nor even what in- duced her to adopt a Constitution at all; but it is whether, since she has adopted a Constitution, she shall be admitted into the Union. I have now reviewed all the objections raised against the admission of California. It is seen that they have no foundation in the law of nature and of nations. Nor are they founded in the Constitution, for the Constitution prescribes no form or manner of proceeding in the admission of new States, but leaves the whole to the discretion of Congress. " Congress may admit new States."' The objections are all merely formal and technical. They rest on prece- dents which have not always, nor even generally, been observed. But it is said that we ought now to es- tabUsh a safe precedent for the future. 1 answer 1st. It is too late to seize this occasion for that purpose. The irregularities complained of being unavoidable, the caution should have been ex- ercised when, 1st, Texas was annexed; 2d, when we waged war against Mexico; or, 3d, when we rat- ified the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I answer 2d. Wc may establish precedents at pleasure. Our successors will e.xercise their pleasure about following them, just as we have done in such cases. I answer 3d. States, nations, and empires, are apt to be peculiarly cauricious, not only as to the time, but even as to the manner of their being born, and as to their subsequent political changes. They are not accustomed to conform to precedents. Califor- nia sprang from the head of the nation, not only complete in proportions and full armed, but ripe for affiliation with its members. I proceed now to state my reasons for the opinion that California ought to be admitted. . The popu- lation r,f thp ITnited States consists of natives or Cau- casian origin, and exotics of the same derivation. The natis-e mass rapidly assimilates to itself and absorbs the exotic, and thus these constitute one homogeneous people. The African race, bond and free, and the aborigines, savage and civilized, being incapable of such assimilation and absorption, ife- main distinct, and, owing to their peculiar conditiofl, they constitute inferior masses, and may be regarded as accidental if not disturbing political forces. The rulin'' homogeneous family planted at first on the Atlantic shore, and following an obvious law, is seen continually and rapidly spreading itself westward year by year, subduing the wilderness and the prairie, and thus extending this ereat political community, which, as fast as it advances, breaks in'o distinct States for municipal purposes only, while the whole constitutes one entire contiguous and compact na- tion. ,. . , • 1 Well established calculations in pohtical arithmetic enable us to say that the aggregate Popu'a'*"" ?( Ijl^ 22,000,000 r<-' CALIFORNIA, UNION, AND FREEDOM. Th-»t 10 years hence it will be - 30,000 000 " 20 do do - - 3-3,000,000 " 30 do do - - 50,000,000 " 40 do do - - 64,000,000 " 50 do do - - 80,000.000 " 100, that is, in the year 1950 - 200,000,000 equal nearly to one-fourth of the present aggregate population of the globe, and double tke population of Europe at the time of the discovery of America. But the advance of population on the Pacific will far exceed what has heretofore occurred on the At- lantic coast, while emigration even here is outstrip- ping the calculations on wfflch the estimates are ba-ed. There are silver and gold in the mountains and ravines of California. The granite of New England and New York is barren. Allowing due consideration to the increasing den- sity of our population, we are safe in assuming, that long. before this mass shall have attained the maxi- mum of numbers indicated, the entire width of our possessions from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean will be covered by it, ind be brought into social ma- turity and complete political organization. The question now arises. Shall this one great people, having a common origin, a common lan- guage, a common religion, com.mon sentiments, in- terests, sympathies, and hopes, remain one political State, one nation, one repulDiic, or shall it be broken into two conflicting and probably hostile nations or republics? There cannot ultimately be more than two. For the habit of association is already formed, as the interests of mutual intercourse arebeing formed. It is already ascertained where the centre of politi- cal power must rest. It must rest in the agricultural interests and masses, who will occupy the interior of the continent. These masses, if they cannot all command access to both oceans, will not be obstruct- ed in their approaches to that one, which offers the greatest facihties to their commerce. Shall the American people, then, be divided? Be- fore deciding on this question, let us consider our position, our power, and capabilities. The world contains no seat of emoire so magnifi- cent as this ; which, while it embraces all the vary- ing climates of the temperate zone, and is traversed by wide expanding lakes and long-branching rivers, offers supplies on the Atlantic shores to the over- crowded nations of Europe, while on the Pacific coast it intercepts the commerce of the Indies. The nation thus situated, and enjoying forest, mineral, and agricultural resources unequalled, if endowed also with moral energies adequate to the achievement of great enterprises and favored with a Government adapted to their character and condition, must com- mand the empire of the seas, which alone is real em- pire. We think, that we may claim to have inherited physical and intellectual vigor, courage, invention, and enterprise; and the systems of education pre- vailing among us open to all the stores of human science and art. The old world and the past were allotted by Prov- idence to the pupilage of mankind, under the hard discipline of arbitrary power, quelling the violence of human passions. The new world and the future seem to have been appointed for the maturity of mankind, with the development of self-trovernment operating in obedience to reason and judgment. We have thoroughly tried our novel system of Democratic Federal Government, with its complex, yet harmonious and efiective combination of distinct local elective agencies, for the conduct of domestic affairs, and its common central elective agencies, for the regulation of internal interests and of intercourse with foreign nations ; and we know, that it is a sys- tem equally cohesive in its parts, and capable of all desirable expansion ; and that it is a system, more- over, perfectly adapted to secure domestic tranquillity, while it brings into activity all the elements of national aggrandizement. The Atlantic States, through their commercial, social, and political affin- ities and sympathies, are steadily renovating the Governments and the social constitutions of Europe and of Africa. The Pacific States must necessarily perform the same sublime and beneficent functions in Asia. If, then, the American people shall remain an undivided nation, the ripening civilization of the West, after a separation growing wider and wider for four thousand years, will, in its circuit of the world, meet again and mingle with the declining civilization of the East on our own free soil, and a new and more perfect civilization will arise to bless the earth, under the sway of our own cherished and beneficent democratic institutions. We may then reasonably hope for greatness, felici- ty, and renown, excelling any hitherto attained by any nation, if, standing firmly on the continent, we loose not our grasp on the shore of either ocean. Whether a destiny so magnificent would oe only par- tially defeated, or whether it would be altogether lost by a relaxation of that grasp, surpasses our wisdom to determine, and happily it is not important tobede- termined. It is enough, if we agree that expectations so grand, yet so reasonable and so just, ought not to be in any degree disappointed. And now it seems to me, that the perpetual unity of our empire hangs on the decision of this day and of this hour. California is already a State, a complete and fully appointed Sta'e. She never again can be less than that. She can never again be a province or a colo- ny ; nor can she be made to shrink and shrivel into the proportions of a federal dependent Terrritory. California, then, henceforth and forever, must be, what she is now, a State. The question whether she shall be one of the United States of America has depended on her and on us. Hor election has been made. Our consent alone re- mainssuspended; and that consent mustbe pronounc- ed now or never. I say now or never. Nothing pre- ventsit now, butwant ofagreement among ourselves. Our harmony cannot increase while this question re- mains open. We shall never agree to admit Califor- nia, unless we agree now. Nor will California abide delay. 1 do not say that she contemplates indepen- dence ; but, if she does not, it is because she does not anticipate rejection. Do you say that she can have no motive ? Consider, then, her attitude if re- jected. She needs a constitution, a legislature, and magistrates ; she needs titles to that golden domain of ours within her borders ; good titles, too ; and you must give them on your own terms, or she must take them without your leave. She needs a mint, a custom-house, wharves, hospitals, and institutions of learning'; she needs fortifications, and roads, and railroads; she needs the protection of an army and a navy ; either your stars and stripes must wave over her ports and her fleets, or she must raise aloft a standard for herself; she needs, at least, to know whether you are friends or enemies; and, finally, she needs what no American community can live with- out, sovereignty and independence — either a just and equal share of yours, or sovereignty and independence of her own. Will you say that California could not aggrandize herself "by separation? Would it, then, be a mean ambition to set up within fifty years, on the Pacific coast, monuments like those which we think two hundred years have been well spent in establishing on the Atlantic coast? Will you say that California has no ability to be- come independent ? She has the same moral abil- ity for enterprise that inheres in us, and that ability implies command of all physical means. She has SPEECH OF WILLIAM H. SEWARD. advantages of position. She is practically further removed from you than England. You cannot reach her by railroad, nor by unbroken steam navi- gation. You can send no armies over the prairie, the mountain, and the desert, nor across the remote and narrow Isthmus within a foreign jurisdiction, nor around the Cape of Storms. You may send a navy there, but she has only to open her mines, and she can seduce your navies and appropriate vour floating bulwarks to her own defence. Let her only seize your domain within her borders, and your commerce in her ports, and she will have at once revenues and credit adequate to all her necessi- ties. Besides, are we so moderate, and has the world become so just, that we have no rivals and no enemies to lend their sympathies and aid to com- pass the dismemberment of our empire? Try not the temper and fidelitv of California— at least not now, not yet. Cherish her and indulge her until you have extended your settlements to her borders, and bound her last by railroads, and canals, and telegraphs, to your interests— until her affinities of intercourse are established, and habits of loyalty are fixed— and then she can never be disengaged. California would not go alone. Oregon, so inti- mately allied to her, and as yet so loosely attached to us, would go also; and then at least the entire Pa- cific coast, with the western declivity of the Sierra Nevada, would be lost. It would not depend at all upon us, nor even on the mere forbearance of Cali- fornia, l>ow far eastward the long line across the temperate zone should be drawn, which should sep- arate (he Republic of the Pacific from the Republic of the Atlantic. Terminus has passed awav with all the deiiies of the ancient Pantheon, but hi's scep- tre remains. Commerce is the god of boundaries, and no man now living can foretell his ultimate de- cree. But it is insisted that the admission of California shall be attended by a compromise of questions which have arisen out of slavery ! I AM OPPOSED TO ANY SUCH COMPROMISE, IN ANY AND ALL THE FORMS IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED. Because.whileadmitting the purity and the patriotism of all from whom it is my misfortune to differ, I think all legislative compromises radically wrong and essentially vicious. They involve the surrender of the exercise of judgment and conscience on distinct and separate questions, at distinct and separate times, with the indispensable advantages it affords for ascertaining truth. They involve a relinquish- ment of the right to reconsider in future the decis- ions of the present, on questions prematurely an- ticipated. And they are a usurpation as lo future questions of the province of future legislators. Sir, it seems to me, as if slavery had laid its par- alyzing hand upon myself, and the blood were cours- ing less freely than its wont through my veins, when I endeavor to suppose that such a compro- mise has been effected, and my utiernnce forever is arrested upon all the great questions, social, moral, and political, arising out of a subject so important, and as yet so incomprehensible. What nm I to receive in this compromise 7 Freedom in California. It is well; it is a noble acquisition; it is worth a sacri- fice. But what am 1 to give as an equivalent 1 A recognition of the claim to perpetuate slavery in the District of Columbia; forbearance towards more stringent laws concerning the arrest of persons sus- pected of being slaves found in the free States ; for- bearance from the Proviso of freedom in the char- ters of new Territories. None of the plans of com- promise offered demand less than two, and most of them insist on all of these conditions. The equiv- alent tliun is, some portion of lib:rty, some portion of human rights in one region for liberty in another region. But California brings gold and commerce as well as freedom. I am, then, to surrendei ■^•ome portion of human freedom in the District of Colum- bia, and in East California and New Mexico, for the mixed consideration of liberty, gold, and power, on the Pacific coast. This view of legislative compromises is not neit. It has widely prevailed, and many of the State Con- stitutions interdict the introduction of more than one subject into one bill submitted for legislative ac- tion. It was of such compromises that Burke said, in one of the loftiest bufsts of even his majestic par- liamentary eloquence : " Far, far from the Commons of Great Britain be all man- ner of real vice ; but ten thousand times farther from them, as far as from pole to pole, be tlic whole tribe of spurious, affected, counterfeit and hypocritical virtues ! These are the things which are ten thousand times more at war with real virtue; these are the Ihin£;s which are ten thousand times more at war with real duty, than any vice known iiy its name and distinguished by its proper character. " Far, far from us be that lalse and affected candor that is eternally in treaty w.th crime— that half virtue, which, like the ambiguous animal tliat liies about in the twilight of a compromise between day and night, is, to a just man's eye, an odious and disgusting thing. There is no middle point, my Lords, in which the Commons of Great Britain can meet tyranny and oppression." But, sir, if I could overcome my repugnance to compromises in general, I should object to this one, on the ground of tlie inequality and incongruity of the interests to be compromised. Why, sir, ac- cording to the views I have submitted, California ought to come in, and must come in, whether sla very stands or falls in the District of Columbia; whether slavery stands or falls in New Mexico and Eastern California ; and even whether slavery stands or falls in the slave States. California ought to come in, being a free State ; and, under the cir- cumstances of her conquest, her compact, her aban- donment, her justifiable and necessary establishment of a Constitution, and the inevitable dismemberment of the empire consequent upon her rejection, I should have voted for her admission even if she had come as a slave State. California ought to come in, and must come in at all events. It is, then, an independent, a paramount question. What, then, are these questions arising out of slavery, thus interposed, but collateral questions ? They are unnecessary and incongruous, and therefore false issues, not introduced designedly, indeed, to defeat that great policy, yet unavoidably tending to that end. Mr. FOOTE. Will the honorable Senator allow me to ask him, if the Senate is lo understand him as saying tliat he would vote for the admission of California if she came here seeking admission as a slave State. Mr. SEWARD. I reply, as I said before, that even if California had come as a slave State, yet coming under the extraordinary ciicums'ances I have described, and in view of the consequences of a dis- memberment of the empire, consequent upon her rejection, I should have voted for her admission, even though she had come as a slave State. But I should not have voted for her admission otherwise. I remark in the next place, that consent on my part would be disingenuous and fraudulent, because the compromise would be unavailing. It is now avowed by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,] that nothing will satisfy the slave States but a compromise thai will convince them that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. And what are the concessions which will have that effect ? Here they are, in the words of that Senator : " The North must do justice by conceding to the S'.^uth an equal right in the acquired territory, and do her duty CALIFORNIA, UNION, AND FREEDOM by causing the stipulations relative to fusitive slaves to be faitiifully fulfilled — cease the agitation of the slave ques- tion, anil provide for the insertion of a provision in tre Constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South in substance the power she possessed of protec\ing herself, before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this Government.-' These terms amount to this, that the free States having already, or although they may hereafter have, majorities of Slates, majorities of population, and majorities in both Houses of Congress, shall con- cede to the slave States, being in a niinority in both, the unequal advantage of an equality. That is, that we shall alter the Constitution so as to convert the GoverniTient from a national democracy, operating by a constitutional majority of voices, into a federal alliance, in which the minority shall have a veto against the majority. And this is to return to the original articles of confederation. I will not stop to protest against the injustice or the inexpediency of an innovation which, if it was practicable, would be so entirely subversive of the principle of democratic institutions. It is enough to say that it is totally impracticable. The free States, Northern and Western, acquiesced in the long and nearly unbroken ascendancy of the slave States under the Constitution, because the result hap- pened under the Constitution. But they have honor and interests to preserve, and there is nothing in the nature of mankind or in the character of that peo- ple to induce an expectation that they, loyal as they are, are insensible to the duty of defending them. But the scheme would still be impracticable, even if this difnculty were overcome. What is proposed is apolitkat equilibrium. Every political equilibrium requires a physical equilibrium to rest upon, and is valueless without it. To constitute a physical equi- librium between the slave States and the free States, requires first, an equality of territory, or some near approximation. And this is already lost. But it re- quires much more than this. It requires an equality or a proximate equality in the number of slaves and freemen. And this must be perpetual. But the census of 1840 gives a slave basis of only 2,500,000, and a free basis of 14,500,000. And the population on the slave basis increases in the ratio of 25 per cent, for ten years, while that on the free basis advances at the rate of 38 per cent. The ac- celerating movement of the free population, now complained of, will occupy the new Territories with piorieers, and every day increases the difficulty of forcing or insinuating slavery into regions which freemen have pre-occupied. And if this were possi- ble, the African slave trade is prohibited, and the do- mestic increase is not sufRcient to supply the new slave States which are expected to jnaintain the equilibrium. The theory of a new political equi- librium claims that it once existed, and has been lost_^ When lost, and how ? It began to be lost in 1787, when preliininary arrangements were made to admit five new free States in the Northwest Terri- tory, two years before the Constitution was finally adopted ; that is, it began to be lost two years be- fore it began to exist ! Sir, theequilibrium, if restored, would 1 e lost again, and lost more rapidly than it was before. The progress of the free population is to be accelerated by increased emiofration from Europe and Asia, while that of the slaves is to be checked and retarded by inevitable partial emancipation. "Nothing," says Montes- quieu, " reduces a man so low as always to see free- men, and yet not be free. Persons in that condition are natural enemies of the State, and their number.* would he dangerous if increased too high." Sir, the fugitive slave colonies and the emancipated slave colonies in the free States, in Canada, and in Liberia, are the best guaranties South Carolina has for the perpetuity of slavery. Nor would success attend any of the details ef the compromise. And, first, 1 advert to the pro- posed alteration of the law concerning fugitives from service or labor.- I shall speak on this as on all subjects, with due respect, but yet frankly and with- eut reservation. The Constitution contains only a compact, which rests for its execution on the States. Not content with this, the slave States induced legislation by Congress ; and the Supreme Court of the United States have virtually decided that the whole subject is within the province of Congress ; and exclusive of State authority. Nay, they have decided that slaves are to be regarded not merely as persons to be claimed, but as property and chattels, to be seized without any legal authority or claim whatever. The compact is thus subverted by the pr Jcurement of the slave States. Vt ith what reason, then, can they expect the States ex gratia to reas- sume the obligations from which they caused those States to be discharged 7 I say, then, to the slave States, you are entitled to no more stringent laws ; and that such laws would be useless. The cause of the inefficiency of the present statute is not at all the leniency of its provisions. It is a law that deprives the alleged refugee from a legal obligation not assu- med by him, but imposed upon him by laws enacted before he was born, of the writ of habeas corpus, and of any certain judicial process of examination of the claim set up ly his pursuer, and finally degrades him into a chattel which may be seized and carried away peaceably wherever found, even although exer- cising the rights and responsibilities of a free citizen of the Commonwealth in which he resides, and of the United States — a law which denies to the citi- zen all the safeguards of personal liberty, to render less frequent the escape of the bondman. And since complaints are so freely made against the one side, I shall not hesitate to declare that there have beeii even greater faults on the other side. Relying on the perversion of the Constitution which makes slaves mere chattels, the slave States have applied to them the principles of the criminal law, and have held that he who aided the escape of his fellow-man from bondage was guilty of a larceny in stealing him. I speak of what I know. Two instances came within my own knowledge, in which Govern- ors of slave States, under the provision of the Con- stitution relating to lusitives from justice, demanded from the Governor of "a free State the surrender of persons as thieves whose alleged offences consisted in constructive larceny of the rags that covered the persons of female slaves, whose attempt at es- cape thev permitted or assisted. We deem the principle of the law for the recapture of fugitives, therefore, unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral: and thus while patriotism wi hholds Us approbation, the consciences of our people con- demn it. . . r- You will =ay that these convictions of ours are disloyal. Grant it for the sake of argument. They are. nevertheless, honest; and the law is to be e.xe- cuted among us. not among you ; not by u=, but by the Federal authoritv. Has any Government ever succeeded in chancing the moral convictions of its subjects by force"^? But these convictions imply no disloyalty We reverence the Constitution, a - though we perceive this defect, just as we acknowl- edge the splendor and the power of the sun, although its surface is tarnished with here and there an opaque spot. , . ,.. . Vour Constitution r.nd laws convert hospitality to the refugee from the most degrading oppression on earth into a crime, but all mankind except you es- teem that hospitalitv a virtue. The right of extra- dition of a fugitive from justiie is not adtiiitted by the law of naUire and of nations, but rests in volun- i tary compacts. I know of only two compacts 6 SPEECH OF WILLIAM H. SEWARD. found in diplomatic history tiiat adipitted extradi- tion OF SLAVES. Here is one of them. It is found in a treaty of peace made between Alexander Corn- nenus and Leontine, Greek Emperors at Constanti- nople, ;ind Oleg, King of Russia, in the year 902, and is in these words : "If a Russian slave take flight, or even if he is carried away by any one untler pretence of havins been bongUt, his master shall have the rijcht and power to pursue him, and hunt for and capture him wherever he shall be found ; and any person who shall oppose the master in the execu- tion of this right shall be deemed guilty of violating this treaty, and be punished accordingly.'' This was in the year of Grace 902, in the period called the " Dark Ages," and the contracting Pow- ers were despotisms. And here is the other : " No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in conse- quence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up. on claim of the party to whom such service or labor is due." This is from the Constitution of the United States in 1787, and the parties were the republican States of this Union. The law of nations disavows such com- pacts; the law of nature, written on the hearts and consciences of freemen, repudiates them. Armed power could not enforce them, because there is no public conscience t