% f o* o V^V 'V 7 ^-'/ v-^V °* • o > :^ *° 'tiki a v «. s* «^ik- % * v •;%>';•. % ** vise ■ 4 V^> '°\^7!V^ SPEECH HON. T. L. HARRIS, OF ILLINOIS, KANSAS AND OTHER POLITICAL QUESTIONS, AND IX REPLT TO MESSRS. FOSTER, OF GEORGIA, AND NORTON, OF ILLINOIS. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 9, 1S56. WASHINGTON: PRINTED BY J. T. & LEM. TOWERS. 1856. / IpfSSS^wlrt 6111 ^ L iT lf ' (Mr - FoSTEE >) bas claimed *« to ST ,, aeraas^a bill— the sound democrats of the North on everv occa- ueiea Dy their midnight assassinations, and in their places were put those men ^c. are designated here as Republicans, and whose ascendency and poweTintht House gives the gentleman such fearful forbodings. And vet theTent eman Sends w Et c ^ witl ; °? ^(^ mh ™ numb - - «1 CSrS ill "rac Tfrom ^hi,n or f, 1S W ^ ha 7 t Utchei ' 6d them ' aild ifc C01 " e3 with an m lace hom him, or from any other of those who act or have acted with him W s r hadTnof V ***/ ^J"? ™ A ™™ numerot he^f him ' at ' i ' ?• • b ° en for the affi liation of his own party commenced in Sff; T ginning to this hour-except here and there-wi h the Republican party, the Democratic party would have been as powerful in this Sou S No trt W gl ' e n T de ? that S' eutlem ^ to show £ one instance in the whole StititT wa , s ruui ^ ng as a candidate for a seat » sz gentltrlelongs ^ "* Pei ' S18tent ° PI)osit - ° f tbe P art ? *> *«* the H^&fflWlSf the gentleman-that in the State of Ohio, Mr. T m ol . ' Day ' Mr ' Bllss - Mr - Watson, Mr. Giddines Mr Wade eTected r ' Stant0n - E0De of wh ™ »«« Americans but all anti-ASc^-wte Mr. HARRIS. That is dodging the question, Mr. Chairman. Did the gentle- man s own party run any man in opposition to these men ? Not in one Sk instance. Did his party vote for any man in opposition to these men^ Not in Slhnl^f^ But in every district in tbelhole North, ^hSe menfwho hem g J? l\'T \° f f 0wn r rt ?' COuld lie in t^ same truckle bed with *™ f ^ + , T to g. ether . and propagate their infamous party power were SSSS&^ffiSS?^' "V 1 in eyery instance wbere SS3EKE crat, supporting the Nebraska bill and supporting national principles were on- posing hem, they were as bitterly assailed to advance the in erests o 'such ml as Bidding, Wane, and he others whom the gentleman lias named who he says are not members of the American party, as though they were. Th £ Le- nient, instead of helping the gentleman, only makes the case ten time wSe because it shows that his dark lantern friends were not so muc Sent In S vancing the interests of their own organization, as in aiding the Black Repub- licans, and in striking down the national men of the North P Mr. MOORE. The only reason why, in 1854, the Democratic party did not receive the support of the American party was, that the Democratic candidates fought the American party, and left this solitary question entirely out of issue Mr. HARRIS. Worse and worse ! The gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Moore ) who is of the same party of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr Foster, idoe.not deny that the Democratic candidates were sound an! naLnal upT htques- tion, which has m its solution the very existence of the Government, am? yet upon his petty ephemeral, oath-sustained policy, he was willing to s Whir these national Democrats, and send a parcel of abolitionists and freesoilei- here m preference to such men because these abolitionists and freesoilers did not op pose, or did in fact favor, his Know Nothing doctrines. P , n^f'tf °*W\ FT thC ". ent | eman hold that Congress has power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories \ ^o'siaie « Jf? - IA S IS n + T 5 e „g en «eman jumps from one point to another so rapidly that it is difficult to follow him, and these questions put so constantly to eVer? member who rises to the floor remind me of an old aphorism-that "examina- tions are always dangerous, for the greatest fool may ask a question that the wisest man cannot answer." But I will answer him openly, and now. I deny the existence of that power, and ever expect to. And I deny also that \\i people of a territory have any power to legislate upon that subject, ox any other, except in conformity with the Constitution of the United States T* his extent they have it and no further, and there the Kansas-Nebraska bill lets it rest — as it should do. Individual opinions as to the power of the people of the Territories to legislate upon the subject of slavery are of very little consequence. Of what importance » it, that men, outside of the Territories, entertain one view or the other* DemS crate, "Whigs, Americans— men of all parties differ in opinion upon this question of power— men in the North differ, and so do men in the South. If the people of the Territory have the power under the Constitution, they can exercise it in- dependent of their organic law. If not, no law can confer it upon them. Law- yers differ as to the construction of a law, that does not weaken its force. Men differ as to the construction of the Constitution itself, but that is no reason for assailing the instrument. Divines differ as to the true import of texts of holy writ, but that does not impair our confidence in its authenticity, or its binding obligations. The gentleman is satisfied with the Kansas-Nebraska bill, so am I. Were I a citizen of a territory, if I thought proper to exercise legislative power upon the question of slavery, either one way or the other, I should do so. It others were dissatisfied with it, let them go to court, and whatever might be the result, every true Democrat would abide the decision of the highest judicial tri- bunal of the country. But, "paulo majora canimus." My colleague (Mr. Norton) commenced his remarks by saying, that Illinois had been silent upon the slavery question or the Kansas troubles, during the present session, and that it was due that, before the session closed, the voice of Illinois should be heard. "Well, sir, the voice of Illinois has been heard, at least the voiee of that portion of Illinois which my colleague represents, but who they are is somewhat difficult to say ; his course here since we assembled has been a peculiar one, satisfactory to himself no doubt, and that is something, but it seems he has not gone far enough, or else too far, in chasing the woolly phantoms "of the hour, to meet the approval even of his own party at home; for at their late convention at which he was a candidate for renomination, and balloted for, he was beaten by the worst abolitionist in Illinois. As he is now repudiated by the very men who sent him here, it is hardly proper to say he expresses their yoice. Whose voice then does the gentle- man express? Certainly not the voice of the party that has cast him aside. Certainly not the voice of the old line Whigs, for they bolted and put in nomi- nation a better man. Not the Democracy, for they never utter such sentiments But the voice of those whom he professes to represent has been heard, and what does it say ? My colleague says that the Missouri restriction was proposed by an Illinois Senator, and that that restriction gave peace and quiet to the country ; and he further says that the repeal of that restriction was proposed by an Illinois Senator, and that the repeal has brought division and difficulty, and he would have us believe that it has been like " Achilles wrath ; to Greeks the direful spring Of woes unnumbered." Now sir, I take issue with my colleague on both his allegations. I deny that his boasted prohibition of slavery in 1820, brought peace to the country, and 1 deny that its repeal has produced, as a legitimate result, any trouble or difficulty whatever. I assert, and challenge and defy contradiction, that until Rufus King, and his federal allies of the fifteenth Congress, attempted to contract and regu- late the domestic institutions of the people upon the subject of slavery there never was, from the adoption of the Constitution down to that hour, any difficiilty among the people of the United States upon that subject. If there was, when was it, when did it occur? No man can tell. My colleague cannot tell. The strife then arose because a set of federal politicians departing from _the uniform practice in the legislation of the country, refused admission to the State ot Mis- souri, because she would not shape her laws and constitution to suit th views of those who had no right to interfere with them. That very act was tyrannical and revolutionary. It was resisted by Mr Clay, General Harrison and Mr. Pinckney, and the whole body of national Democratic statesmen then in Con- gress. Still the opposition in the House then as now bent on party power, re- fused to yield to argument, and by their force of numbers held to their unjusti- fiable course, and tL countuy was brought then, by ^e- fa^hca gn^ power, to the verge of disunion. The advocates of this restrict £P.™J£X" became alarmed, tnd cast about for some means of escape ^om the toim the> had raised. Then it was that a member of the House ol Representatives fun New York first proposed the transfer of the restriction upon the State to a i e striction upon the territory. It at first met with no favor i^ariy t£ ' a £er. But the national men desired to get Missouri into the Union. They ^had fought he battle but were overpowered by numbers in the House. The r f tnct.on xq,on the territory was proposed to them as terms for their surrender, and they wen c 6 ;u:cepted. Tlicre never Was any of that spirit entering into the arrangement which could give it the character of a compromise. The North said, if you will surrender to us the territory north of 36° 30' we will cease our warfare upon 'he people and State of Missouri, and 6he may come into the Union without let or hinderance. The South said, you began this war without any just cause, yon 'iave prosecuted it in violation of the Constitution, you now propose, men of the North, to cease your warfare upon the people of Missouri, and take a restriction igainst slavery over an unoccupied country. The treaty of 1S03 says, youBhall •rot do it. The Constitution says you shall not do it. But if you will be con- sent with that, and let us alone, take it, we will cease our opposition, surrender .jpon your terms. We do it to save the country, and the terms must be kept vith fidelity and honor. Thus was the capitulation agreed upon. But the very next year, when Missouri came, with constitution in hand, and isked to be admitted upon the terms of the treaty, the same men who made '.t, broke their faith, violated their pledge of honor, and renewed the war. Then it was, that Mr. Clay proposed his Compromise of 1821, which has b«en con- founded with the act of 1820; and under Mr. Clay's compromise, which had no reference to slavery, Missouri was admitted into the Union. Thus was thii treaty violated the year after its ratification. It was violated when Arkansas ipplied for admission into the Union; it was broken in upon by the annexation of the northern part of Missouri to that State, and finally disregarded, over aimed, and superseded by the legislation of I860. Now look upon the agita- r.ion of this country for the last twenty-five years prior to the passage of the '^ausas-Nebraska bill, two yeaps ago, and say that there has been none upon the subject of slavery if you can. You have had mob.? and riots, and twenty- drst rules, and Wilmot provisos, and a constant succession of uproars upon slavery. It is true, that in the territory covered by the restriction of 1820, and -vest of Missouri, you have had no difficulty, because no legislation has been had concerning it ; but it is equally true, that in relation to territory about which legislation has been had, since then, in Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, 'California, and even Oregon to some extent, you have had controversy and ex- citement. I say, then, that it is not true that the Missouri restriction brought xiacc and quiet to the country. The other assertion of my colleague, that an Illinois Senator introduced tha neasure for its repeal, and that the legitimate consequence of that act has been dissension and strife, is equally unfounded. Can my colleague give one reason or one fact to sustain that assertion! Have any troubles arisen in Nebraska under the same law as exists for Kansas? And why has it not resulted in as ojreat harmony in Kansas as in Nebraska? It is because the abolitionists, seeing ill hope of further agitation gone, by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, if it should be left to work out its fair results, determined to get up a war upon f.lie borders of Missouri — enlist the sympathies of the North in war, and thus i >rolong their political lives by feeding upon the peaee and quiet of the country. The ink was not dry upon the signature of the bill, before the slavery agita- hionists commenced plotting to prevent a quiet and peaceable settlement of .Cansas. Combinations of capital were formed, under the auspices of the aboli- tionists, to carry bodies of settlers of their own stripe into that territory. They passed on through the State of Missouri, and there made their threats and boasts that they intended, after shaping affairs in the territory, to run off the -slaves in that State. The people of Missouri, living upon the immediate border >f Kansas, attracted to its soil from their avocations, also pressed into the terri- tory. Still no difficulties occurred, and even the correspondents of their papers landed the kindness of the Missourians. [See Evening Post, July 15, 1854.] This would not do; strife is the subsistence of this kind of fanaticism, and strife nust be engendered. A change of tactics became necessary. The New York Tribune, the Post, and Times, and all the leading papers of that sort, began to hreaten and boast what their free State organization would do with the Mis- .•ourians and the pro-slavery men. On the 1st of August, 1854, the Post de- clared that "slavery will be overlaid and smothered by freedom, if the plana •VLKEADY FOKMKH HE UALF EXECUTED." Now, let it be borne in mind that no outbreak had occurred; everything wa§ joing on smoothly; the territory was filling up, and all were willing to leave future legislation to a fair expression of the popular will. But here came the umounccment of tlans and plots "already formed," which, if but "half execu- ted." was to overlay and smother out slavery; not by a fair expression of the people but "by plans already formed." On the 3d of August, the same print Wan article headed "When and whskl tite fust blood will bk sued? «howine that there was a determination then to have bloodshed m Kansas, and makinea prediction with the sole view to accomplish that result Then began the arming of emigrants— the organization of secret and sworn lodges— all under the general management of Robinson, who, it is stated in the Tribune of November 80, 1854, - was a Garrison abolitionist." kw, I put it tc » any can- did man to say. if with these movements so begun and so heralded, the people of Missouri would not, nay, ought not, to have become deeply interested, if not exoited, in the movements of these crusaders! They commenced a counter •migrant movement, and being near the spot, they sent in the largest number, 2nd the plans were not "half executed." Then the cry began of outragea- torder iaos-arsons-robberies-murders-all charged upon the pro-»larery men or the Missourians, while their own people were perfectly honest . pious, *nd harmless. No unprejudiced mind believes these stal emeiits ■ and whatev er Tas subscqutntly occurred, or whoever may be to blame, the ^g^^ «auseof it all is clearly traceable to the emigrant aid ™ l **"? f *£™^ setts and New York, and to the abolition organs who were acting ^J th ^ to promote disorder and outrage, and then turn it to political effect. This was the origin of all the trouble in Kansas, and it has no just or legitimate connec- tion with any particular feature of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Limy collogue makes a charge. He says, "Icharge that the Missoun Compromise was repealed by false pretences, that it was passed for the purpose ofTarAdng slavery into these territories, and that the Democratic party has Thanged front sincl its passage." To each one of these charges I respond, and "Uis^t U-ufinttthat the Nebraska bill was passed by false pretences. Mv colleague has made the assertion, but he has adduced no fact to sustain it. There wei-e no pretences made, nor was there occasion for any It became ne- cessary to organize the territory embraced by Kansas and Nebraska, and a bh wSroduced into the Senate on the 4th of January, 1850, from the Commit- tee on Territories, for that purpose, following the precise language of the terri- torial bills of 1850. On the 16th of January, Mr. Dlxon, a Senator from Ken- tucky gave notice of his intention to offer an amendment to the bill providing haShf restriction of 1820 should not apply to the territory described in tb« bill On the 17th, Mr. Sumner gave notice that he would offer »n amend- ment to continue the restriction upon the territory; and, on the 19tb, with- out one thin- being incorporated in the bill relating to slavery, except the Unguage contained^ the* Utah and New Mexico bilk the abolition con- federates of Congress, headed by Chase, Sumner, Giddings, Wade, Gerrett ?m th and DeWift, issued their manifesto, declaring that the bill propW to "cancel the Missouri compact— to violate a sacred p edge-to betrayp™ riXs-that it was part and parcel of an atrocious plot to convert a vast terri- tory into « , dreary region of despotism inhabited by masters and slaves, Th« S lTdLlaredfas my colleague now does, that it was to be passed undei fXe pretences These declarations, made at a time when not one word was in he bd about'the Missouri Compromise, were so many shameless falsehood* known to be such by their authors when made. It was not then proposed to Se to the EouJi Compromise, and vet these "false pre tonces," according to this circular, were even then set up U the friends of the t all. Did a bill following exactly the precedents of the Compromise of 1850, become a billot -fiSe pfeSSI I? " K not, how can my colleague say that the Missouri Com- promise was repealed under "false pretences? Mr NORTON. Does my colleague wish an answer? Mr! HARRIS. If my colleague desires to answer, I will give him an oppor- ^Mr^NOItTON. I never interrupt any gentleman unless specially appealed to Now sir I say that I never have sent out any circulars su^h as those to Such SaJagi refers I had ^^^^^SSS^t^tE Sy^tcS^Swk^^ ASUgagg^S- 8 ence, under the operation of the restriction of 1820. It was accompanied by an elaborate report by Judge Douglas, in which he states that he has expressly avoided any attempt to change that restriction for the purpose of preventing an excitement like that of 1S50. Afterwards, the bill was thrown aside, and the bill introduce.! by the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Dixqx.) substituted for it. which did repeal that measure. But, sir, so far as that circular was con- cerned, I repeat that I had nothing to do with it. I did not belong to the party that issued it. I was a Whig. Mr. HARRIS. My time will permit me to yield to my colleague no further. Instead of replying to the question put to him, he fizzes off into the most excited rant and declamation. He says he had no connection with the men who issued that circular. He wishes to repudiate the action of that party, to ignore the declaration wliich they made. Knowing the position into which it would bring him, he endeavours to impress us with the belief that he stood afar off and aloof from the leaders of his party. He announces a declaration that Mr. Douglas. did not wish to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1320. Will he give the reason why it is so ? He did not wish to repeal it, because the bill, by the terms in which it was introduced, ; effected the same purpose. He was disposed to let the hill follow the precedents of the Utah and New Mexico bills, which allowed the >f those Territories to legislate on all rightful subjects of legislation con- sistent with the Constitution of United States. The Kansas and Nebraska bill as first introduced, did no more and no less — it did, in the shape in which it passed, no more and no less. The amendment subsequently introduced, did not change its character; and such was the understanding of every man who voted for it. It was perhaps to avoid ambiguity, and leave nothing to construction, that it was thought proper to express in terms, what without them would have been the legal effect. The question which I put to my colleague was, how the bill was passed under "false pretenses," and that question he has not found it convenient to answer. The gentleman says the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was the cause of the present difficulty. How does he show it? Has not the party to which he is attached been agitating the public mind on the same question of slavery for the last twenty years? Has not the country, bv their machinations, been again and again driven to the same extremity in which it now is? Was not this so before there was a repeal of the Missouri Compromise? No, sir, that repeal as he call3 it, was not the cause of the difficulty. The cause is that there is a party seeking for political power, and determined to have it at any hazard. Mr. Jef- ferson, said, that those who seized on the Missouri question did it as a mere pretext for political power. So it is with those who seize on the question of its repeal It is all "false pretence" on the part of those with whom my collegue acts. Not so with the Democratic party and the friends of the Nebraska-Kan- sas bill. Their reasons are upon the record. They are clear, and easily under- stood. There are no "false pretences" about them. My colleague said the bill was passed to establish slavery; he can find noth- ing to support that declaration. It was passed neither to establish nor exclude slavery, but to carry out a just principle; and when the gentleman says that the Democratic party and the party of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, North or South, for I think I can speak for the party in the South as well as that of the North, passed the bill for the extension of slavery, he speaks what is not true. He can find no man from the North or South who will sustain him in the assertion, ('•not one," "not one," from voices all around the Hall.) Therefore, when he says that I, or anybody else, or any party, advocated the bill on the ground that it would "extend slavery," the declaration ought to stick in his throat. But to go back for a moment ; my colleague says, Judge Douglas, in his report, ex- pressed his objections to repealing in terms the Missouri restriction, because it. might produce excitement. If my colleague has read that report, he will find that it contains an express declaration that the Nebraska bill is a literal adop- tion of the enactments of 1850; and that the measures of 1S50, "rest upon the following propositions: " First: That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their ap- propriate Representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose." Now here is all there is in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, when it became a law — and this was not only contemplated in the original bill, but so avowed in the re- port mat could be more open, plain, and explicit? And yet ny eoB 'SSfSGS* 1^ SuR 5S»1*W» pa^d the »«, «*? called Abolitionists. (See Ho. journal, Illinois, p. 123, ISol.) ;: . ; Mr KQ»TON. When mv colleague says those fourwere called Ab... ..... I have to say in reply, that'the term .-as never applied to me. 1 1* a nig. a Henry Clay Whig. TTor^dnot Mr. HARRIS. That is about all I "P.ected from my coUeague^ H-£«£ C et up and fly into r*] hs dies .and callhimseh a Henrygay ^g^ ^^ hearted Henry Clav would have spurned such a Wtag J^^J^ and (Loud applause.) Any man that *£*™SJ&££fb£ S*eW claim to have done so on the ground h, w b \™£ ™™i5 have ***&& of Henry Clay pointed at hnn -^h scorn. JJr ggSSaipU him in an instant He would have fled from the P"-«m« c i by a single look. But my co }*^« ™fJ^ ff **2* £*£ Clay Whurs who Solution because he was a Henry Clay ^_2lR£rf2 olden time, voted for it: I can read then- names. They ™e W ^- 01 Some of Here is a list of them, and I want to put th«. ■ iuM- on ^ ^ record^ ^ them may have strayed off with my colleague, ^but *£™*°/ doof ^ the acting with the Democratic party, or at J***** 1 "*-£* % heir names: mongrel herd into which my colleague ha, grayed Her. a., tne *lfr»*~Uaf«rti» « popular s^rei^u" principle, in ISol, in tlu l.hno, Adams, of Whiteside ; Allan, of Henry; Arms, of Knos : Beekman, jf Breekenridge. of Sangamon; Brewer of Mo^^^.Br^^M-, Edwards. , f Madison ; Emerson, of M«on, Hangwn, jf^am . that restriction. - . . ■ 1 1 . The Democrats who voted for the resolution are as ^^""j^ . 1UC ^ „ , t, tt;^. "RUVelv of Efnneham; Breese. «">t Bailey, of Edgar: Barnett, of De Witt Blately. « ttnng ^ Clinton; Burke, of Macoupin; Ca dwell, of GaUatm Ca.ey lin, of Haneoek; Davia. °$^£?lJ^J^%*ZZ\ Gash, of Edwards, of Sangamon; Bw, <* ?gJ*fu^ U 'J A . Vima . Howard, of Jo Wayne; Hall, of Kane; Hise. of La baUe Hobb. ^-V*! Fulton : Morton. Daviess; Hnsron. of M.^^h; Lrn^ey^Fu^. L • ;; « ^ ^ of White: Murphy, of Perry : ^ J^^uieTof Monroe; Randall, Pembertc of Will; ! of Union ; ~ of Henderson ; Winters, of Greene „„-„.♦* »£ SBS :?.feSKSSS-S o? S Upon the passage of this resolution mv colleague voted "no" and vet be pretends that he was a good Clay Whig! 'Heave? save the mark! J Black KSSSS ^ ' V P t0 1 ! 54 ' the democratic platform was like that of tbe Ss and upon W. ^ e & T U T f baSGleSS; Jt haS not on * P aiticle of &«* ttemJS «n^?» it ? *7 M the P latform erected bj those with whom the gen- fsr^ea?^ The first State Convention of the Black Republican party in Illinois adopted w a part of their platform the following resolution : »uopi*u anl^prevKam-^^'S^^^ 17 deni ^ d £f ^-organization of parties, and repudi*. £X 8 &£ e ZTZ V T cV crTit0 Z a ; ^ M the O^SSSS ^tSrSw SSS4S «y more t?rrZ^?e m T m ha8 f . e "^« Jurisdiction: and to £d£ tie acq" mnentTf «oy more territories unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited? ,«i tlfe'ZV^f 01 ? 1 ? \ M VaS ^ W ° rd f0r Word ' b ^ tbe AllTOra Convention, Sor7*rlhi« ™ P f m » er ' J,? 54 '' aDd Similar solutions were everywhere adopted by these Black Republicans, with a further resolution "to support no man tor office under the General or State Government who was cot positively wd fully committed to the support of these principles, and whose personal . haiacter and conduct was a guarantee that he was reliable, and who shall not have abjured all party allegiance and ties." And does my colleague dare assert t?!i J D fl en \ ocratlc organization ever held such doctrines as these ? He spoke without reflection or without information, surely. Mr. NOETON. Does my colleague wish an answer? Mr. HARRIS. I did not ask my colleague a question. My colleague is ex- .wdingly uneasy m his seat. 6 Mr. NORTON. "Will my colleague allow me to reply ? Mr. HARRIS. My colleague is excited and uneasy, and I am not all btw- prised at it, after making such assertions. Mr. NORTON". I understood my colleague to ask me a question, and I de- are to answer it. . . . . , 11 Mr. HARRIS. I have asked him various questions, and when he has under- Taken to answer them, has flown off upon other matters having nothing to do with the questions, and I am tired of indulging him in that sort of way. But the gentleman says, if the Missouri Compromise was repealed in 1850, *hy repeal it a^ain ! The gentleman will bear in mind that, in the Kansas- Nebraska bill, it is not "repealed." There is therein only a legislative declara- tion, that by the Compromise of 1850, the Missouri Compromise was superceded, and was, therefore, inoperative and void. It meets the exact question, and presents upon the face of the bill, what we declare outside of it. Th- 3 gentle- man went into an argument to show that it ought not to have been repealed in order to make it in conformity to the act of 1850. The gentleman will see that the two Territories could not be placed upon the same footing unless it was re- pealed, either by positive declaration, or by legislation which superceeded it. It is said that when we acquired the territory included in New Mexico and Utah it was free territory. I shall not discuss that point, but certain it is that the bills of 1850 provided "that the legislative power of the Territories (Utah «md New Mexico) shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United States,'' slavery not excluded. That bill fur- ther provided, "that when admitted as States, the said Territories should be re- ceived into the Union with or without slavery as their constitutions should pro- scribe at the time of their admission." What more full and complete power frould the people of these territories have over the matter of slavery than i» conferred in this bilk subject to the Constitution! and yet, if the Missouri restric- tion, as my collegue contends, was in force in Kansas, will he sav that the peo- ple of Kansas could have had equal power, unless it was repealed or declared void? Certainly not; then it clearly follows, that in order to put Kansas and Nebraska upon the same footing with Utah and New Mexico, and to make the J legislation of 1854, conform to that of 1850, it was necessary to repeal, expressly or implication, the restriction of 1820 — if indeed that restriction had any vitality. If the territories were to be all placed upon the same footing, the restriction must have been taken off from them, if it had not been previously done. The gentleman quotes Mr. Richardson's speech to show that the Mexican law wa3 enforced in Utah a::d New Mexicio. He alludes also to the speech of Mr. Douglass. But these were simply expressions of legal opinions advanced upon the subject. But what do they say, and what have they said, all the time? That if these territories were free, if the laws of Mexico were enforced upon them, then it v>as uimeecessary to put on another restriction. It was simply for the purpose of predicating an argument against those who were acting with my colleague in advocating the "VTilmot proviso. It was one of the reasons which they advanced against a partial restriction in the legislation of the coun- try. Nothing more, and nothing less. The gentleman indulges in quite a ridiculous train of remarks in regard to squatter sovereigenty, and says there is no squatter soveringenty in the bill, taeause the President of the United States has power to appoint the Governor, *nd that some of the officers of the territory are not elected by the people. What does that argument amount to? The objection of my colleague to the bill is, not that the people have not popular sovereignity enough, but he objects that they have any at all. He is opposed to giving them any power whatever over their own affairs. It does not lie in his mouth to object that only a portion of power is given to the people of these territories, because he objects to then? having any pover. My colleague goes on to another point, and enlarges upon the mobs in Kansas, Sir, there have been mobs in Kansas ; but if there have been difficulties there, the blame lies at the door of those who act with my colleague. If blood has been shed upon the soil of Kansas, it lies upon the skirts and garments of him and his coadjutors, as I have already shown. Let them remember now, and in ail future time, that, when reason shall have resumed her throne, and excitement (ui d fanaticism shall have passed away, that judgment will be pronounced upon them, as the responsible parties for all these difficulties. My colleague makes a long harrangue about Lawrence being sacked. Talk about sacking a town because a house was burned by a mob! That is 'sacking a townl In nine cases out of ten where difficulties have occurred, they have not grown out of aggressive acts upon the part of the people of Missouri, but ■nit of the acts committed by those who act under the auspices of the leaders of 12 the party to which my colleague belongs. Language has been strained to find terms to excite the public mind, and to mislead public opinion, and the terms which my colleague uses are part and parcel of that vocabulary which has been brought into requisition by those acting with him, to operate upon the public credulity. He refers to the report of the committee which was sent to Kansas. I would not give a snap of my finger for that testimony, so far as it ought to operate upon any unbiased mind. I had no confidence in the committee when it was raised, no confidence when they started, and less when they made their report. The gentleman says that emigrants had a right to go into Kansas to make it a free State. Well, sir, if they had a right to go there for that purpose, and that purpose alone, then he must not deny that emigrants had the right to go there for the purpose of making it a slave State. But, sir, emigrants ought to have gone to that territory as they have gone to Nebraska or to any other territory, and not for the purpose of effecting legislation, one way or another. But they not only went there for the purpose of controlling the legislation of the territory, but they have organized forces, and marched into the territory for the exclusive purpose of shaping the institutions. This is proof sufficient that all these difficulties have arisen from the actions of those who act with my col- league in the settlement of that territory. My colleague, if I understood him, made allusion to my own position in refer- ence to this question of slavery. Did my colleague refer to me ? Mr. NORTON. Does the gentleman desire an answer to that question, and does he yield me the floor for that purpose ? Mr. HARRIS. I only wish to know if the gentleman alluded to me. Mr. NORTON. I will state that I did allude to the gentleman. Mr. HARRIS. I heard only the closing part of the remark which a gentle- man sitting side of me said my colleague intended to apply to me. I will re- ply to it. He stated, if I heard aright, that I said in this House six years ago, that the passage of the Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise were Southern measures. Mr. NORTON. The gentleman has asked me a question, but he allows me to answer only a part of it. I will say to him, that whatever I have said I have treated him with all due courtesy, as I do every one. Mr. HARRIS. I ask the gentleman if he alluded to me. Mr. NORTON. I shall not allow my colleague to put to me questions re- quiring categorical answers, unless he allows me to state — Mr. HARRIS. Then I shall not allow him to state. Mr. NORTON. The gentleman had commenced to say that — Mr. HARRIS. My question was a simple one. I simply asked him if he al- luded to me. Mr. NORTON. I merely made a quotation from my colleague's speech, in which he said that the Missouri Compromise measures received a majority of Southern votes. Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir, my colleague made a "simple quotation," and I have asked him a simple question, and he has simply answered it ; and now I will respond. He undertook to say — and I suppose the report of his speech will contain what he said — that in the remarks which I made in the House six years ago, I stated that the Missouri Compromise was a Southern measure, and that the ordinance of 1787 received a majority of Southern votes. Mr. NORTON. No ; I did not speak of the ordinance of 1787 at all. I made a quotation which I requested Mr. Cumback to read, and which I will have in- serted in my printed speech ; and the force of your remarks was, that a majority of the Southern men voted for the Compromise of 1820. Mr. HARRIS. That is simply a matter of historical truth. I stated that such was the case. I did not, in that argument, either assail or justify the act I stated that such was a historical fact. That fact has been stated on this floor from all quarters, because it is a matter that everybody knows. I believed then that the passage of the Missouri restriction was wrong. I believe that it was the cause of all the trouble which the country has witnessed from the 13 slavery agitation since that day; and I defy any gentleman to show that any difficulty ever did exist, on the question of slavery, until this measure was sprung upon the country in 1818; and sir.ce that time, with but a short inter- val, it has been constant. I want to see an end of it. I want to go back to the early days of the Government — to the day3 when the fathers of the Re- public were in power — when they refused to incorporate any such principle into the legislation of the country. We have to go back to that ; we have gone back to it by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and there, I hope, we shall re- main ; and I am sure that there we will remain. And when the excitement shall have passed away, when the whole country becomes settled down — as certainly it will settle down — receiving, confirming, and vindicating the prin- ciples of that bill, we will then have no more of this agitation about slavery in the territories. My colleague made an allusion here to a speech made by Judge Douglas in 1849, in Springfield, Illinois. It has been quoted by every abolition stump- orator, from Maine to Iowa. It has been quoted by almost every speaker on this floor who has opposed the Nebraska bill. It has been published in italics, in Roman, and in capitals, and in every other type. In that speech it is alleged that he declared, " that the Missouri Compromise had an origin akin to that of the Constitution of the United States, and that it had become canonized in the hearts of the American people as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb." Now, sir, what are the facts? That dis- tinguished Senator entered Congress in 1843. He found the line of 36° 30' agreed upon as the dividing line between slave territory and non-slaveholding territory; and viewing it, as every candid and just mind then did, as a means of settlement whose whole value would depend upon its continued application to new territory as fast as acquired, until it should reach the Pacific ocean, he had favored its application to the territory of Texas. He had even acquiesced in its application to Oregon; and yet, in the winter of 1848-49, the legislature of Illinois passed instructions requiring him to abandon that line, and vote to pro- hibit slavery in all the Territories acquired from Mexico. He had looked upon the adoption of that parallel of latitude not as a mere imaginary line running over a waste of wild prairie, and a mere expedient for the use of a moment of peril ; he had supposed that it had been agreed upon as a principle for future appli- cation. It was true it had been disregarded by the people of the North already, on several occasions; but it seemed impossible that it should be spurned and spit upon, when it offered a means of settlement acceptable to the South and en- tirelyjust to the North. I think it was a great error ever to have agreed upon a geographical line to divide upon a principle; but if acquiesced in, it might, in 1848, have been extended to the Pacific ocean, and settled at once and forever the whole territorial difficulty about slavery. But the North refused. They rejected their own measure again, and determined to prohibit slaveiy by Con- gressional intervention in all the vast regions of California and New Mexico lying south as well as north of 36° 30.' The Legislature of Illinois followed the example of most of the other North- ern States, and instructed for that measure. It was in the fall of 1849 that Judge Douglas addressed the people of Illinois, in Springfield, in opposition to these resolutions. He vindicated his then former support of the Missouri line, and criticised the policy of those in the Legislature who proposed to abandon it for the policy of universal prohibition. He was then calling in question such men as my colleague — who had abandoned, rejected, and stricken down the Missouri line. Yours were the ruthless hands that had been reckless enough to disturb it — not his. You freesoilers, you abolitionists of the North, had un- canonized that act — your ruthless and unhallowed hands had stricken it down — you were the men that he then accused of that disgraceful perfidy — and yet after you had done it, you turn round, and with that dissimulation, hypocracy, and falsehood that characterizes all your acts and all your speeches, you accuse him of being guilty of doing that for which he then stamped you upon the forehead with the mark of Cain. You had murdered the peace of your coun- try. He was then and there making that very charge upon you, and you felt its force — the people felt it, and the next legislature turned round and repealed the obnoxious instructions, against the vote of my colleague — the vote stand- ing in the House fifty ayes and fifteen noes— my colleague being in the nega- tive, and for disapproving the line of the Missouri restriction. 14 fcofnt?* T??^ Wil1 ? J collea g™ Mow rae to ask him one question at thi« ftft^aftSS^ 1 U ° derstand tha * ver y **"• My colleague ie simply wrong T-ed ISlSotf SiPF other ' The rcsolutioiis of ?*wr « Mr. NORTON. That is my recollection. offn^wS" 1^4 f 7 C0 J lea S ue is ™ n g «g to the date of the resolution ol instiuction as in all his other statesments. The resolutions of instruM?,^ were passed in the winter of 1848-49. In the fall of 1849 JuXe Do u las ^n there and made that speech; and the speech, showing the Serin whSS slavery restrictiomsts had stricken doW that line SkESS such conviction to the people, that the next legislature, elected Si follow im yea, turned round and rescinded them by the vote I have stated. ^ But my colleague says that Judge Douglas, in that speech, declared that the Missouri restriction had "its origin in the hearts of a 1 patriotic rnen-th a had an origin akin to the Constitution; and that it was a sacred tE that Vo ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb." j££ Ski SSSrS"* Th L G r ?°A er > & V™*™ — fc of tlmt speech ??Lgeht mingled up the remarks of Judge Douglas upon the restriction of 1 R2n 3 Compromise of Mr. CUy, of 1821. But, ^taS^TK^Sfilfc on that occasion was, substantially, that it was an error to cSh n for Mr ru the authorship of the line of restriction of 1S20 ; that the onpon nts of Mr CH- had asserted that that honor (if honor it was) was due to otl e?"aTwell as to §£ that it was urged by opponents of Mr. Clay "that it had its origin akin ■ o hat of the Constitu ion." He asserted „o such thing himself, and no reptrt of ha difate'tW « 1' ri ? Y l^T ° f pubhc °P inion a ' * Aa * <% seemed to in- dicate that this Compromise had become canonized in the hearts of the Ameri can people as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would e-er be reckS thaTIu " t2 He Wa f r* ld ^. of «" "evidences of public opLfon a that day. He made no such declaration as expressive of his own sentiments and no man can show it from that speech, or any other he ever uttfered 2d de'nce", ien i r r aS ° Uln ? ^V^ *fa> ■**»•«•* had SS^dSL 4v deuces of public opinion"-because the Legislature of his State had indicated that tt was not "canonized in the hearts of the American people and became thnr ruthless hands had been reckless enough to disturb it." He mad, no? uc h declarations for himself. He was quoting the arguments of others, and show™. fr»JT Ql ? S teUd Z Cy °{ th - eir acte And y^t this speech of his has Ten garbled, and perverted, and misstated and falsined-liklevery thing eli that he has said, for the purpose of creating prejudice against him and iif princi^ he has supported. But the attempt has failed. You might as well Vxpect a fSirlr™ 1 '? to fr^ dow f a mi ^ ° ak > ™ men iike »* Sia?Kd linnets character, principles, and position of the Senator C Now sir, my colleague has made some general declarations as to the views heldt D hTsrni;n. imn016 ' ^ ^ ## "J*** *-* * * ^SR Mr. NORTON. The Convention of my Congressional district Mr. HARRIS Very well; I do not care what it was. It was a convention that occurred there six years ago, and under the auspices of that i enegad and demagogue and scoundrel, John Wentworth-rotten himself and co^untS every one who goes about him. Sir, the Democratic party of a StatTof if country, is not to be judged by the resolutions of a precinct, town or count convention. The State Conventions of the Illinois Democracy, m "'of the na tional Democracy, have never adopted a resolution which they would wit] o recall, or which conflicts with their present position-nothing of which anv 15 patriot in the Union, South or North, could complain. Their principles sr* grounded upon the Constitution, and are as unshaken as the rock of eternal truth. Their opponents may dash themselves against these immutable princi- ples, but it will result only in their own destruction. They are like the set birds, as Holmes describes them, dashing themselves against the stony sides of & light-house : " The little eea birds, blinded by the storms, On some tall light-house dash their little forms ; And the rude granite scatters, for their pains, The small deposits that were meant Car brains ; Yet the proud fabric, in the morning sun, Stands all unconscious of the mischief done. Still the red beacon pours its evening rays For the lo3t traveller with as bright a blaze ; Nay, shines all radiance o'er the scattered fleet Of gulls and boobies brainless at its feet." But, sir, my colleague has formally announced to the country that he is for Fremont for the Presidency. He has given us no reasons for casting the immense weight of his name and influence and oratory in favor of the great "court mar- tialed" and the "little cashiered." But the world will doubtless hear them in due time. It is a fortunate thing that all men can vote for whom they please. But let me tell my colleague that his candidate will be rejected by the people & thousand times more indignantly than my colleague was by his own party a few weeks ago. And let me say to him, that if Mr. Fillmore remains in the field, Mr. Buchanan will heat his Mariposa Marquis 50,000 votes in Bliuois. Mr. NORTON. Your hand upon that Mr. HARRIS. My colleague can have my hand upon that, and he can hav* money too, if he wants it (Laughter.) "Why, sir, my colleague seems to know nothing of Illinois, outside of his own Congressional district, where his own party have beaten him for renoraination, with the foulest abolitionist in the State, But, I can tell my colleague, that there are parts even in northern Illinois, wher* Mr. Fillmore, if he remains in the field, will receive more votes than his candi- date; and in central and southern Illinois, the masses utterly repudiate his Phila- delphia hybrid nominee. A portion of the old line Whigs there will, if Mr. Fillmore remains in the field, support him. If he withdraws they will be with us. Mr Fillmore is a citizen of large and long experience in public affairs. J am utterly opposed to his views of "Americanism," and many of his doctrine? of public policy. But he is open in these views and doctrines, and we know where he stands; while Fremont, without any experience, except in robbing others of their well-earned laurels, and appropriating them to himself, and in plundering the Government by false accounts and false vouchers ; and while he and his friends are courting the vote of the foreign-born citizens, he and they are in secret affiliation with the whole Northern Know Nothing organization, whose lodges and councils have endorsed his nomination, and pledged themselves to his support. Down with such truckling tricksters. But I will not pursue this subject If my colleague prefers to vote for this Know Nothing, Abolition, Indian-beef, Government plundering Marquis of Mariposa, so be it. His company in Illinois will be small, if not select ; and let me tell my colleague, that the $100,000 which the purse-holders of the Fremoni corruption fund have appropriated to carry Illinois will fail of its object ; and were it swelled to $100,000,000 it would fad to corrupt the people of that nobl« State into the support of his candidate. Mr. NORTON. I understood my colleague to say that I had invested $100,000 in the coming election in Illinois. I beg to say to my colleague, that if I had that amount of money, I should not not be fool enough to invest it is any political matter. Mr. HARRIS. I have no doubt my colleague would not in any such foolish attempt as this. He is too keen a yankee to invest his own money for any such hopeless object. Mr. NORTON. I understood my colleague to say that I had invested $100,000 in the Illinois election. Mr. HARRIS. Oh, no, my colleague is too smart for that, by far. Mr. NORTON.> Did I understand the gentleman correctly! \ 16 MY HARRIS No sir, I did not say that. I said that I understood $100,000 bad kS Illinois 'by tbe party to which my colleague belongs to carry the election in that State for Fremont. But, sir, I can tell my colleague and those Sting with him, that it will be in vain. The Abolition party » not yet rich enoueh to buy the independent voters of Illinois. Sir mv time is "exhausted but before I close let me ask, what good has the elave^V iitS which has convulsed the country for the last thirty years, ao- comShS? It has brought the North and the South into collision, by attempts toTuWere' with it in the States and Territories. And if any gentleman can coin out onT particle of good intermixed with the world of evil that it has Srodueed I wil concede it an excuse for its continuance. But there is none- none whatever. And now, for the first time in the history of our nation, has a Snal T geographical party, arisen-stauding upon a sectional p.atfom ^ and appeXVto sectional pride, passion, and prejudice, to, elect a sectional Pres - dent To brim? about this state of things, you have stimulated passion by as- iults upon your Southern brethren; you have proclaimed your higher law do ctrinc* P uJ have instigated and countenanced resistance to the laws and con« SS^uSorities of the country, acting in obedience to the Constitution ; un- der he Xe of freedom of speech, you have indu ged in licentiousness and mobbed g and put down those who uttered opinions m conflict with vourown. You have thus instigated and stimulated a spirit of insubordination, bordering noon rebel ion which has emended itself until it has arrayed a sectional party ?nthe North pledged to make war^unending and mortal war-not only upon \l t-S of one-half of the country, but upon the Constitution— the bond * e ^™™£iZm™?\xo***™ C ™Vi n l ^ ^^ ^ TION." Jit. God grant that we may heed these solemn warnings, and thua preserve our Union and independence forever. 146 A • "•" :- V , c .c^«-. v,/ ^>^;^ V.< r '° -ask. °- <** .^ \ c»* .^it *°. \ • o ^x>