ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. SPEECH HON, R, C, WINTHROP, OF MASS, THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, TRANSMITTING THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA: DELIVERED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESEN. TATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 8, 1850. WASHINGTON: GIDEON & CO., PRINTERS 1850. ibrar* SPEECH. The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the President's Message transmitting the Constitution of California: Mr. WINTHROP said: When I had the honor of addressing the Com mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union some weeks ago, I intimated my purpose to take another opportunity, at no distant day, to express, some what more in detail than I was able to do on that occasion, the views which I entertain in regard to what have well been called the great questions of the day. The eager competitions for the floor which have been witnessed here al most without intermission from that time to this, have postponed the accom plishment of this purpose much longer than I could have desired. I rise now, however, at last, to fulfil it. And most heartily do I wish. Mr. Chairman, that in doing so, I could see my way clear to contribute something to the repose of the country, and to the harmony of our national councils. I yield to no one in the sincerity or the earnestness of my de sire, that every bone of contention between different portions of the Union may be broken, every root of bitterness removed, and that the American Congress may be seen again in a condition to discharge its legitimate functions of providing at once for the wants of the Government and for the interests of the people. If there be an example in history, which I would gladly emulate at such a moment as this, it is that of aw old Swiss patriot, four hundred years ago of whom I have recently read an account who, when the Confederated Cantons had become so embittered against, eacii other, by a long succession of mutual criminations and local feuds, that the disso lution of the Confederacy was openly proposed and discussed, and the liber ties of Switzerland seemed on the very verge of ruin , was suddenly found rush ing from his cherished retirement into the Assembly of Deputies, and ex claiming Ci Concord, concord, CONCORD !" and who, it is recorded, by his prudence, his patriotism, and his eloquence, brought back that Assembly, and the people whom they represented, to a sense of the inestimable bless ings which were nt stake upon the issue, and finally succeeded in restoring his distracted country to a condition of harmony, tranquillity, and assured Union ! Sir, there is no sacrifice of personal opinion, of pride of consistency, of local regard, of official position, of present havings, or of future hopes, which I would not willingly make to play such a part as this. Perhaps it may be said, that it has been played already. Perhaps it may be said, that a voice, or voices, have already been heard in the other end of this Capitol , if not in this, which have stilled the angry storm of fraternal discord, and given us the grateful assurance that all our controversies shall be peacefully settled. At any rate, sir, whether this be so or not, I am but too sensible that it is not given to me in this hour to attempt such a character. And let me add, that there is one sacrifice which I could never make, even for all the glory which might result from the successful performance of so exalted a service. I mean , the sacrifice of rny own deliberately adopted and honestly cherished principles. These I must avow, to-day and always. These I must stand to, here and everywhere. Under all circumstances, in all events, I must follow the lead of my own conscientious convictions of right and of duly. I assume then, to-day, Mr. Chairman, no character of a pacificator. I have no new plan of adjustment or reconciliation to oiler for the difficulties and dissensions in which we arc unhappily involved. Still less, sir, have I sought, the iloor for the purpose of entering into fresh controversy with any body in this House or elsewhere. Not even the gra tuitous imputations, the second-hand perversions and stale sarcasms, of the honorable member from Connecticut, [Mr. CLEVELAND,] a few days ago, can tempt me to employ another hour of this session in the mere cut and thrust of personal encounter. I pass from that honorable member with the single remark, that it required more than all his vehement and turgid de clamation against others, who, as he suggested, were shaping their course with a view to some official promotion or reward, to make me, or, as I think, to make this House, forget, that the term of one of his own Connecticut Senators was soon about to expire, that the Connecticut Legislature was just about to assemble, and that the honorable member himself was well under stood to be a prominent candidate for the vacancy ! And I shall be equally brief with the distinguished member from Penn sylvania. [Mr. WILMOT,] who honored me with another shaft fiom the self same quiver on Friday last. I will certainly not take advantage of his ab sence to deal with him at any length. But t cannot forbear saying, that as I heard him pouring forth so bitter an invective, so pitiless a philippic, against Southern arrogance and Northern recreancy, and as I observed the sleek complacency with which he seemed to congratulate himself that he alone had been proof against all the seductions of patronage, and all the blandishments of power, I could not help remembering that his name was an historical name more than a century ago, and the lines in which a cele brated poet had embalmed it for immortality, came unbidden to my lips: " Shall parts so various aim at nothing new ! He'll shine a Tully and a Wilmot too !" My object to-day, Mr. Chairman, is the simple and humble one of ex pressing my own views on matters in regard lo which I have, in some quar ters, been, either intentionally or unintentionally, misunderstood, and mis represented. The end of rny hour will find me, I fear, with even this work but half accomplished; and I must rely on being judged by what shall be printed hereafter, rather than by what I may succeed in saying now. I will not, however, make my little less, by wasting any more of my time in an empty exordium, but will proceed at once to tha business in hand. And, in the first place, sir, I desire lo explain, at the expense of some historical narrative and egotistical reference, the position which I have here tofore occupied in relation to a certain anti- slavery proviso, which has been the immediate occasion of most of those sectional dissensions by which our domestic peace has been of late so seriously disturbed. I need not say, sir, that I am no stranger to thatjorowwo, though, during the whole of the last Congress, 1 was precluded, by my position in the chair of the House, from giving any vote, or uttering any voice, in regard to it. There are those here to-day, and I might single out, in no spirit of un- kindness certainly , the present chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. BAYLY] as one of them, who have often taken pains to remind the House and the country, that this proviso was formally proposed by me to a bill for establishing a government in the Oregon territory, before the honorable member from Pennsylvania, whose name it now bears, (Mr. WILMOT,] had entered upon his Congressional career. I have never denied this allegation. I have never desired to deny it. The fact is upon record; and I would not erase or alter that record if it were in my power to do so. But, sir, I have often desired, and always intended, whenever I should again be free to take part in the discussions of this body, to recall to (he remembrance of the House and of the country, the circumstances under which, and the views with which, that proposi tion was made. It was made, Mr. Chairman, on the 1st day of February, 1845. And what was the condiiion of the country, and of the public affairs of the coun try, on that day? Oregon was then a disputed territory. We were engaged at that time, sir, in negotiations with Great Britain, in respect to the conflicting claims of the two countries to that remote region. Those negotiations had been long pro tracted, and had engendered a spirit of restless impatience on the subject, in the minds of a great portion of the American people. The question, too, had been drawn as, I regret to say, almost every question in tins country seems destined to be drawn into the perilous vortex of party poli tics; and a Democratic Presidential triumph had just been achieved , un der a banner on which were legibly inscribed the well-remembered figures -54 40', and the well-remembered phrase, " the whole or none." Under these circumstances, sir, a bill was introduced into this House, to extend the jurisdiction of the United States over the whole territory in dis pute, and to authorize the assumption and exercise of one of the highest at tributes of exclusive sovereignty, by granting lands to settlers. The bill was in other respects highly objectionable. It provided for car rying on a government by the appointment of only two officers a governor and a judge who were to have absolute authority to promulgate and en force, throughout the territory of Oregon, any and all laws which they might see fit to select from the statutes of any State or Territory in the Union. The whole destinies of Oregon were thus to be confided to the discretion of two men, who were to make up a code of laws to suit themselves, by picking and culling at pleasure from all the statute books of the country. They were at liberty, as the bill stood although the entire Territory was above the latitude of 36 30' to adopt a slave code or a free code, as might be most agreeable to their own notions; and there was, at that very mo ment, lying upon the tables before us, a report from the Indian agent or sub-agent in that quarter, from which it appeared, that a number of the native Indians had already been captured and enslaved by the white settlers, and that they were held in a state of absolute and unjustifiable bondage. It was under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, that I moved the pro viso in question; and I now read, from a speech printed at the time, the remarks which I made on the occasion: "One limitation upon the discretion of these two irresponsible law-givers ought certainly to be imposed, if this bill is to pass. As it now stands, there is nothing to prevent them from legal izing the existence of domestic slavery in Oregon. It seems to be understood, that this institu tion is to be limited by the terms of the Missouri compromise, and is nowhere to be permitted in the American Union above the latitude of 36 30'. There is nothing, however, to enforce this understanding in the present case. The published documents prove that Indian slavery already exists in Oregon. I intend, therefore, to move, whenever it is in order to do so, the insertion of an express declaration, that ' there shall neither be slavery nor involuntary servitude in this Territory,, except for crime, whereof the party shatl have been duly convicted. ' " I did not stop here, however, sir. The whole argument of my speech on that occasion, with the exception of the single sentence which I have cited,, was against the passage of the bill in any form. " I am in hopes, Mr. Chairman, (such was my distinct avowal,) that the bill will not become a law at the present session in any shape. Everything conspires, in my judgment, to call for the postponement of any such measure to a future day"." The great and paramount objection to the bill, in my mind, was that it would jeopard the peace of the country; that it would break up the amica ble negotiations in which we were engaged, and would leave no other alter native for settling the vexed question of title between us and Great Britain, but the stern arbitrement of war. Entertaining this opinion, I aimed at defeating the measure by every means in my power; and it was well understood, at the time, that this very proviso was one of the means upon which I mainly relied for the purpose. I deliberately designed, by moving it, to unite the southern Democracy with the conservative Whigs of both tl^e North and the South, in opposition to the bill, and thus to insure its defeat. The motion prevailed. The proviso was inserted by a vote of 131 to 69. And I. for one, then carried out my opposition to the bill by voting against it, proviso and all. The southern Democracy, however, did not go with me on this vote. Not a few of them the present Speaker of the House among the number all of them, indeed, who were present, except four, voted in favor of the bill, notwithstanding the anti-slavery clause; and ac cordingly it passed the House. But there can be little doubt that this clause had its influence in arresting the bill in the other wing of the Capitol, where it remained unacted upon until the close of the session, and was thus final ly lost. Sir, a bill to create a territorial government in Oregon, containing this identical proviso, has since been passed through both Houses of Congress, and has received the sanction and signature of a southern Democratic Presi dent; and I do not suppose, therefore, that this original motion of mine will be hereafter so frequent a subject of southern Democratic censure as it hith erto has been. But I have desired to place upon record, in pcrpetvam me- moriain rei, this plain, unvarnished history of the case; and having done so, 1 willingly submit myself to whatever measure of censure or reproach such a state of facts may fairly subject me to, either from the South or from the North. If the offering of this proviso to this bill, under these circum stances, with these views, and with this result, be the unpardonable offence which it has sometimes been styled, I can only say "adsum, qui fed; in me conveitite ferrum!" Nay. sir, I will say further, that if it be fairly traceable to this movement of mine, that it is no longer an open question whether domestic slavery shall find a foothold in the Territory of Oregon, I shall feel that it has not been entirely in vain that I have been for ten years associated with the public councils of my country. 1 come next, Mr. Chairman, to the proviso, which has more legitimately received the name of the honorable member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. WIL- MOT.) And it is not less important in this case, than in the other, to recall to the remembrance of the House and of the country the circumstances un der which this proviso, also, was proposed. I think, sir, that no one who was a member of Congress at the time will soon forget the eighth day of August, 1846. The country was at war with Mexico, and Congress was within eight- and -forty hours of the appointed close of a most protracted and laborious session. We were already almost exhausted by hot weather and hot work, and all the energies which were left us were required for winding up the great mass of public business which always awaits the closing hours, whether of a longer or a shorter session. Under these circumstances, a message was received by this House from Pre sident Polk, calling for an appropriation of money to enable him to negotiate a treaty of peace, and intimating, by a distinct reference to the precedent of the purchase of Louisiana, that he designed to employ this money in the acquisition of more territory. Such a message, 1 need not say, sir, took all who were not in the Presi dent's secrets greatly by surprise. The idea of bringing money to the aid of our armies for the purpose of buying a peace from a nation like Mexico, could not fail to inflict a severe wound upon our national pride; while the Just of teriitorial acquisition and aggrandizement, which was thus plainly betrayed, gave a deeper dye of injustice and rapine to the war into which we had been so recklessly plunged. No time was afforded us, however, for reflections or deliberations of any sort. The message was referred at once to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and a bill was forthwith originated in that commit tee, under the lead of General McKAY, of North Carolina, for placing two millions of dollars at the unlimited discretion of the President. For the debate upon this bill, two or three hours of a hot summer after noon were grudgingly allowed by the Democratic majority in this House, and these two or three hours were divided off into homoeopathic portions of five minutes each. My honorable friend from New York, (Mr. HUGH WHITE,) the senior member of the New York delegation, and who, I hope, will long remain here to enjoy the dignity of that position obtained the floor for the first five minutes, and I was fortunate or unfortunate enough to follow him. No amendment to the bill had then been adopted, and no proviso moved. But here is what 1 said on that occasion, as reported in the National Intelligencer nt the time: ^ " Mr. WINTHROP said that he should follow the example of his friend from New York, (Mr. WHITE,) and confine himself to a brief statement of his views, reserving to himself the privilege of amplifying and enforcing them hereafter. The Administration and its friends had thought fit during the present session tojrame mere than one of their most important measures, so as to leave their opponents in a false position whichever way they voted. There were two thing? which he had not imagined, in advance, that any circumstances could have constrained him to do, and from which he would gladly have been spared. One of them was to give a vote which might appear to lend an approving sanction to a war which had been caused by the annexation of Texas; the oiher was to give a vote which might appear like an opposition to the earliest restoration of peace, either with Mexico or any other Power on earth. But he must let appear ances take care of themselves. He was not here to pronounce opinions either upon the preamble of a bill or the phrases of a President's message, lie was here to vote on substantial provisions of law, proposed with a view to their practical interpretation and execution. One of these votes he had given already, under circumstances which were familiar to the House and to the country. He believed it then, and he believed it now, upon the most deliberate reflection, to be the best vote of which the case admitted. And now, he greatly feared, that he was about to be compelled to give the other of these abhorrent votes. He could not and would not vote for this bill as it now stood. " What was the bill A bill to place two millions of dollars at the disposal of the President ' for any extraordinary emergencies which might arise out of our intercourse with foreign na tions.' Not a word about peace. Not a word about Mexico. Not a syllable about the dis puted boundaries on the Rio Grande. It was a vote of unlimited confidence in an Administra- 8 tion in which, he was sorry to say, there was very little confidence to be placed. They might employ this money towards buying California, or buying Cuba, or buying Yucatan, or buying the Sandwich Islands, or buying any other territory they might fancy in either hemisphere. If we turned to the message of the President, it was hardly more satisfactory. Nothing could be more evident than that this appropriation was asked for as the earnest money for a purchase of more territory. The message expressly stated that it was to be used in part payment for any concessions which Mexico might make to us. The President already had the claims of our citi zens to deal with, to the amount of three millions or more. Here were two millions more to be placed in his hand, in cash. What was to be the whole payment, for which five millions of dol lars was wanted as an advance? And where was this territory to be? The message, as if not willing to leave us wholly in the dark, had pointed expressly to the example of 1803 to the pur chase of Louisiana and this very bill (as Mr. W. understood) had been copied verbatim from the act by which that purchase was indirectly sanctioned. The President has thus called upon us, in language not to be misunderstood, to sanction, in advance, a new and indefinite acquisition of southern territory. To such an acquisition he (Mr. W.) was opposed. He had said heretofore, and he repeated now, that he was uncompromisingly opposed to extending the slaveholding ter ritory of the Union. He wanted no more territory of any sort; but of this we had more than enough already. " He cordially responded to the President's desires to bring about a just and honorable peace at the earliest moment. Nothing would give him more real satisfaction than to join in a mea sure honestly proposed for that purpose. He did not grudge the payment of the two millions. He would appropriate twenty millions for the legitimate purposes of a treaty of peace without a moment's hesitation. And he still hoped that this measure might assume a shape in which he could give it his support. Limit the discretion of the President to a settlement of those boundaries which have been the subject of dispute. Hold him to his solemn pledges, twice re peated, that he would be ready at all times to settle the existing differences between die two coun tries on the most liberal terms. Give him no countenance in his design to take advantage of the present war to force Mexico into the surrender, or even the sale, of any of her provinces. If any body wants a better harbor on the Pacific, let him wait till it can be acquired with less of national dishonor. But whatever you do or omit, give us at least to be assured that this appro priation is not to be applied to the annexation of another Texas, or even to the purchase of another Louisiana." [Here the hammer fell.] This, Mr. Chairman, was my five minutes' speech on that memorable occasion. It was " brief as the posy of a lady's ring;" but it contained quite as much substance as some that are longer. It embraced three distinct ideas ', first, that I was opposed to the continuance, as 1 had been to the commencement, of the war with Mexico, and that I was ready to vote for any amount of money which might, be demanded for the legitimate pur poses of negotiating a treaty of peace; second, that I desired no further ac quisition of territory on any side or of any sort; and third, that I was un compromisingly opposed to extending the slaveholding territory of the Union. And in conformity with this last view, when the honorable member from Pennsylvania [Mr. WILMOT] offered his celebrated proviso not long after wards, I unhesitatingly voted for it. Sir, I have never regretted that vote; nor have I ever changed, in any degree, the opinions and the principles upon which it'was founded. Again and again, I have reiterated those opinions and vindicated those principles; and as my consistency and steadfastness on this point have been artfully drawn into question in some quarters, I must be pardoned for a few cita tions from speeches of my own, in which I have had occasion to allude to the subject , both in this House and elsewhere. Here, sir, in the first place, is an extract from a speech delivered by me in Faneuil Hall on the 23d day of September, 1846, hardly more than six weeks after the occasion which I have just described: " Sir, upon all the great points of this question, there is no difference of opinion whatever. All agree, that this war ought never to have been commenced. All agree, that it ought to be brought to a close at the earliest practicable moment. No man present denies that it originated, primari ly, in the annexation of Texas ; and secondarily, in the marching of the American army into the disputed territory beyond the Nueces. And no man present fails to deplore and to con demn both of these measures. Nor is there a Whig in this assembly, nor, in my opinion, a Whiff throughout the Union, who does not deprecate, from the bottom of his heart, any prose cution of this war, for the purpose of aggression, invasion, or conquest. "This, this is the matter, gentlemen, in which we take the deepest concern this day. Where, when, is this war to end, and what are to be its fruits? Unquestionably, we are not to forget that it takes two to make a bargain. Unquestionably, we are not to forget, that Mexico must be will ing to negotiate, before our own Government can be held wholly responsible for the failure of a treaty of peace. I rejoice, for one, that the Administration have shown what little readiness they have shown, for bringing the war to a conclusion. I have given them credit, elsewhere, for their original overtures last autumn; and I shall not deny them whatever credit they deserve for their renewed overtures now. But, Mr- President, it is not everything which takes the name or the form of an overture of peace, which is entitled to respect as such. If it proposes unjust and unreasonable terms ; if it manifests an overbearing and oppressive spirit ; if it presumes on the power of those who make it, or on the weakness of those to whom it is offered, to exact hard and heartless conditions; if, especially, it be of a character at once offensive and injurious to the rights of one of the nations concerned, and to the principles of a large majority of the other ; then it prostitutes the name of peace, and its authors are only entitled to the contempt which belongs to those who add hypocrisy to injustice. " Mr. President, when the President of the United States, on a sudden and serious emergen cy, demanded of Congress the means of meeting a war, into which he had already plunged the country, he pledged himself, in thrice repeated terms, to be ready at all times to settle the ex isting disputes between us and Mexico, whenever Mexico should be willing either to make or to receive propositions to that end. To that pledge he stands solemnly recorded, in the sight of God and of men. Now, sir, it was no part of our existing disputes, at that time, whether we should have possession of California, or of any other territory beyond the Rio Grande. And the President, in prosecuting plans of invasion and conquest, which look to the permanent ac quisition of any such territories, will be as false to his own pledges, as he is to the honor and interests of his country. " I believe that I speak the sentiments of the whole people of Massachusetts I know [ speak my own in saying that we want no more territorial possessions, to become the nurseries of new slave States. It goes hard enough with us, that the men and money of the nation should be employed for the defence of such acquisitions, already made ; but to originate new enter prises for extending the area of slavery by force of arms, is revolting to the moral sense of -every American freeman. " Sir, I trust there is no man here who is not ready to stand by the Constitution of the coun try. I trust there is no man here who is not willing to hold fast to the union of the States, be its limits ultimately fixed a little on one side, or a little on the other side, of the line of his own choice. For myself, I will not contemplate the idea of the dissolution of the Union, in any conceivable event. There are no boundaries of sea or land, of rock or river, of desert or moun tain, to which I will not try, at least, to carry out my lo ve of country, whenever they shall really be the boundaries of my country. If the day of dissolution ever comes, it shall bring the evidence of its own irresistible necessity with it. I avert my eyes from all recognition of such a necessity in the distance. Nor am I ready for any political organizations or platforms less broad and com prehensive than those which may include and uphold the whole Whig party of the United States. But all this is consistent, and shall, in my own case, practically consist, with a just sense of the evils of slavery; with an earnest opposition to everything designed to prolong or extend it; with a firm resistance to all its encroachments on northern rights ; and above all, with an uncompro mising hostility to all measures for introducing new slave States and new slave Territories into our Union." 1 come next, Mr. Chairman, to a speech delivered in this House on the Slh of January, 1847, when I found it necessary to oppose the passage of a bill for raising an additional military force. I think the bill was called, the Ten Regiment bill. On that occasion, after alluding to the probable influence of the measure under consideration on the chances of a peace with Mexico, I proceeded to say, as follows: "And where, too, is to be our domestic peace, if this policy is to be pursued ? According to the President's plan of obtaining 'ample indemnity for the expenses of the war,' the longer the war lasts, and the more expensive it is made, the more territory we shall require to indemnify us. Every dollar of appropriation for this war is thus the purchase-money of more acres of Mexican soil. Who knows how much of Chihuahua, and Coahuila, and New Leon, and Du- rango, it will take to remunerate us for the expenses of these ten regiments of regulars, who .are to be enlisted for five years? And to what end are we thus about to add acre to acre and 10 field to field? To furnish the subject of that great domestic struggle, which lias already been fore shadowed in this debate! Mr. Chairman, I have no time to discuss the subject of slavery on this occasion, nor should 1 I desire to discuss it in this connection, if I had more time. But 1 must not omit a few plain words on the momentous issue which has now been raised. I speak for Massachusetts I be lieve I speak the sentiments of all New England, and of many other States out of New England,, when I say, that upon this question our minds are made up. So far as we have power constitutional or moral power to control political events, we are resolved that there shall be no further extension of the territory of this Union, subject to the institutions of slavery. *=** * * * # # "I believe the North is ready to stand by the Constitution, with all its compromises, as it now is. I do not intend, moreover, to throw out nny threats of disunion, whatever may be the result. I do not intend, now or ever, to contemplate disunion as a cure for any imaginable evil. At the same time I do not intend to be driven from a firm expression of purpose, and ^ steadfast adherence to principle, by any threats of disunion from any other quarter. The peo ple of New England, whom I have any privilege to speak for, do not desire, as 1 understand their views I know my own heart and my own principles, and can at least speak for them to gain one foot of territory by conquest, and as the result of the prosecution of the war with Mexico. I do not believe that even the abolitionists of the North though I am one of the last persons who would be entitled to speak their sentiments would be unwilling to be found in combination with southern gentlemen, who may see fit to espouse this doctrine. We desire peace. We believe that this v r ar ought never to have been commenced, and we do not wish to have it made the pretext for plundering Mexico of one foot of h^r lands. But if the war is to be prosecuted, and if territories are to be conquered and annexed, we shall .stand fast and for ever to the principle that, so far as we are concerned, these territories shall be the exclusive abode of freemen. "Mr. Chairman, peace, peace is the grand compromise of this question between the North* and the South. Let the President abandon all schemes of further conquest. Let him abandon his plans of pushing his forces to the heart of Mexico. Now, before any reverses have been experienced by the American arms, he can do so with the highest honor. Let him exhibit a spirit of magnamity towards a weak and distracted neighbor. Let him make distinct pro clamation of the terms on which he is ready to negotiate ; and let those terms be such as shall involve no injustice towards Mexico, and engender no sectional strife among ourselves. But,, at all events, let him tell us what those terms are to-be. A proclamation of Executive purposes is essential to any legislative or any national harmony. The North ought to know them the South ought to know them ; the whole country ought to understand for what ends its blood and treasure are to be expended. It is high time that some specific terms of accommodation were proclaimed to Congress, to Mexico, and to the world. If they be reasonable, no man will hesitate to unite in supplying whatever means may be necessary for enforcing them." I come lastly, Mr. Chairman, to a speech which I made in this House on the 22d of February, 1847, and from which I shall venture (o quote a still longer extract. It was on this occasion, sir, and in connection with these remarks, that I offered to (he hill (hen pending which was a bill making an appropriation of nearly thirty-five millions of dollars for ihe sin gle item of supporting the army a proviso in ihe following words: ' ; Provided, further, That these appropriations are made with no view of sanctioning any pro secution of the existing war with Mexico for the acquisition of territory to form new States to be added to the Union, or for the dismemberment in any way of the Republic of Mexico. 1 ' That, sir, was my proviso. And if anybody shall ever deem my name worthy of being associated with any legislative proposition, 1 hope ihis one will not be forgotten. I am willing that it should be known in all time to* come as the Winthr op proviso. It was indeed almost identical with a resolution proposed in the other branch of Congress, by an honorable Senator from Georgia, ( Mr. BERRIEN,} and it shared the same fate with his resolution. Every Whig member pre sent at the time, except one, voted in favor of its adoption. There were seventy-six Whigs in all, from all parts of the country, North and South> East and West, whose names are inscribed on the journals in favor of this proviso. But no Democrat voted foi it; not one. And among the names of the one'hundred and twenty-four Democrats who defeated it, may be 11 seen those of the honorable member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. WILMOT,] and of the honorable member from New York, [Mr. PRESTON KING,] side by side with those of the present Speaker of this House, [Mr. COBB J of the present chairman of this committee. [Mr. BOYD.] and of all the other Southern Democrats of (he day. It was on this occasion, sir, that 1 expressed myself as follows: "Mr. Chairman, I have intimated on another occasion that I do not go so far as some of my friends in regard to the propriety or expediency of withholding all supplies from the Executive. While a foreign nation is still in arms against us, I would limit the supplies to some reasonable scale of defence, and not withhold therrfaitogether. I would pay for all services of regulars or volunteers already contracted for. I would provide ample means to prevent our army from suffering, whether from the foe or from famine, as long as they are in the field under constitu tional authority. Heaven forbid that our gallant troops should be left to perish for want of sup plies because they are on a foreign soil, while they are liable to be shot down by the command of their own officers if they refuse to remain there! But I cannot regard it as consistent with constitutional or republican principles to pass this bill as it now stands. Even if I approved the war, 1 should regard such a course of legislation as unwarrantable. Disapproving it, as I une quivocally and unqualifiedly do, I am the more induced to interpose these objections to its adop tion. "Sir, this whole Executive policy of overrunning Mexico to obtain territorial indemnities for pecuniary claims and the expenses of the war, is abhorrent to every idea of humanity and of honor. For one, I do not desire the acquisition of one inch of territory by conquest. I desire to see no fields of blood annexed to this Union, whether the price of the treachery by which they have been procured shall be three million pieces of silver or only thirty! I want no more areas of freedom, Area, if I remember right, signified thrashing-floor* in my old school diction ary. We have had enough of these areas, whether of freedom or slavery; and I trust this war \vill be brought to a close without multiplying or extending them. "I repeat this the more emphatically, lest my vote in favor of the Three Million bill should be misinterpreted. Nothing was further from my intention, in giving that vote, than to sanction the policy of the Executive in regard to the territories of Mexico. If he insists, indeed, on pur suing that policy, and if a majority of Congress insist on giving him the means, I prefer pur chase to conquest; and had rather authorize the expenditure of three millions to pay Mexico, than of thirty millions to whip her. But everybody must have understood that the proviso was a virtual nullification of the bill, for any purpose of acquiring territory, in the hands of a south ern administration. " It was for that proviso that 1 voted. I wished to get the great principle which it embodied fairly on the statute-book. I believe it to be a perfectly constitutional principle, and an emi nently conservative principle. "Sir, those who undertake'to dispute the constitutionality of that principle must rule out of existence something more than the immortal ordinance of 1787. My honorable friend from South Carolina (Mr. BURT) reminded us the other day, that Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, liad cast some doubt on the authority of the Confederation Congress to pass that ordinance. He -did so; but with what view, sir? Not to bring that act into discredit, but to enforce upon the people of the United States the importance of adopting a new system of government, under which such acts might henceforth be rightfully done. This new system of government was adopted. The Constitution was established. In the very terms of that Constitution is found a provision recognising the authority of Congress to prevent the extension of slavery after a cer tain number of years "in the existing States," and to prevent its introduction into the territories immediately. What more ? During the first session of the first Congress of the United States, under this new Constitution, this same Northwestern ordinance, with its anti-slavery clause, was solemnly recognised and reenacted. This is a fact never before noticed to my knowledge, and one to which I be? the attention of the House. Here is the eighth act of the first session of the first Congiess. Listen to the preamble : " 'Whereas in order that the ordinance of the United States, in Congress assembled, for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, may continue to have full effect, it is requi site that certain provisions should be made, so as to adapt the same to the present Constitution of the United States : " 'Beit enacted,' &c. " Then follow a few formal changes in regard to the governor and other officers. The sixth article of the ordinance remains untouched. Mr. Madison was a member of this first Congress, as were many others of those most distinguished in- framing the new Constitution. And this bill passed both branches without objection and without any division, except upon some imma terial amendments. , " Here, then, we find the very framers of the Constitution themselves, in the first year of its, .adoption, applying the principle of the Wilmot proviso to all the territories which the General 12 Government then possessed, without compromise as to latitude or longitude. These territo ries were as much the fruit of the common sacrifices, common toils, and common blood of a!T the States, as any which can be conquered from Mexico. They were the joint and common property of the several States. The ordinance was unanimously adopted in 1787, and was reenacted unanimously in 1789. Madison, who had questioned the authority of the Congress of the Confederation to pass it originally, voted for it himself in the Congress of the Constitu tion, and all his colleagues from the slaveholding States voted for it with him. Sir, if the con stitutionality of such an act can now be disputed, I know not what principle of the Constitution can be considered as settled. " I have said that I regarded this principle as eminently conservative, as well as entirely con stitutional. I do believe, sir, that whenever the principle of this proviso shall be irrevocably established, shall be considered as unchangeable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, then v and not till then, we shall have permanent peace with other countries, end fixed boundaries for our own country. It is plain that there are two parties in the free States. Both of them are opposed uncompromisingly opposed, as I hope and believe to the extension of slavery. One of them, however, and that the party of the present Administration, are for the wides't exten sion of territory, subject to the anti-slavery proviso. The other of them, and that the party to which I have the honor to belong, are, as I believe, content with the Union as it is, desire no- annexation of new States, and are utterly opposed to the prosecution of this war for any pur pose of dismembering Mexico. Between these two parties in the free States the South holds the balance of power. It may always hold it. If now, therefore, it will join in putting an end to this war, and in arresting the march of conquest upon which our armies have entered, the limits of the Republic as well as the limits of slavery may be finally established. " It is in this view that I believe the principle of the Wilmot proviso to be the great conserva tive principle of the day; and it is in this view that I desire to place it immutably upon our sta tute books. The South has no cause to be jealous of such a movement from our side of the House. The South should rather welcome it the whole country should welcome it as an overture of domestic peace. "Sir, much as I deplore the war in which we are involved deeply as I regret the whole policy of annexation if the result of these measures should be to ingraft the policy of this pro viso permanently and ineradicably upon our American system, 1 should regard it as a blessing cheaply purchased. Good would, indeed, have been brought out of evil; and we should be almost ready to say with the great dramatist of old England " ' If after every tetnpest comes such calm, Let the winds blow till they have wakened death.' " Yes, sir, in that event, instead of indulging in any more jeers and taunts upon the Lone Star of Texas, we might rather hail it as the star of hope, and promise, and peace; and might be moved to apply to it the language of another great English poet " ' Fairest of stars ! last in the train of night, If rather thou belong'st not to the dawn.' " If we could at last lay down permanently the boundary of our Republic if we could feel that we had extinguished forever the lust of extended dominion in the bosoms of the American people if we could present that old god Terminus, of whom we have heard such eloquent men tion elsewhere, not with out-stretched arm still pointing to new territories in the distance, but with limbs lopped off, as the Romans sometimes represented him, betokening that he had reached his very furthest goal if we could be assured that our limits were to be no further advanced, either by purchase or conquest, by fraud or by force then, then we might feel that we had taken a bond of fate for the perpetuation of our Union. " It is in this spirit that I voted for the proviso in the Three Million bill. It is in this spirit that I offer the third proviso to the Thirty Millio^i bill before us. Pass them both cut off, by one and the same stroke, all idea both of the extension of slavery and the extension of terri tory and we shall neither need the three millions, nor the thirty millions, for securing peace and harmony, both at home and abroad." Mr. Chairman, I know not but that 1 might be induced to abate some thing of the ambitious rhetoric of these remarks, if I were making the speech over again; but I do not desire to change one jot or tittle of their substantial matter. I adhere, this day, to all the sentiments and all the principles of that speech; and, so far as the) 7 are applicable to the present moment and to existing circumstances, and so far as may consist with the paramount duty which I o\ve to the. peace and the union of my country, I intend to shape my course with a view of carrying them out to their prac tical fulfilment. 13 I have long ago made up my mind, that, whatever prospect there may be of adjusting and reconciling the conflicting interests and claims of differ ent portions of the Union, there is no prospect, and no possibility, of har monizing their discordant opinions. Certainly, sir, neither labored argu ments, nor heated appeals, nor angry menaces; neither threats of disorgani zation here, nor of conventions elsewhere, have done anything towards ac complishing such a result, so far as I am concerned. I hold now, as I held three years ago, that it is entirely constitutional for Congi ess lo apply the principles of the ordinance of 1T87 to any territory which may be added to the Union. I hold now, as I held then, that the South have no right to complain of such an application of these principles by those of us who have declared this doctrine in advance, and who have steadily opposed all acquisition of territory. I hold now, as I held then, that their reproaches and fulminations ought to be exclusively reserved for those among themselves, and for (heir allies in other parts of (he country, who have persisted in bringing this territory into the Union, with the distinct understanding that it was "to furnish the subject of this great domestic struggle." 1 hold now, too, as I held then, that one of the greatest advantages of engrafting these principles unchangeably upon our national policy, would be to extinguish the spirit of annexation and conquest in the region where we all must acknowledge that it has ever been most rife, and thus to secure for us ^permanent peace with other countries, and fixed boundaries for our own country ." Do you remember, Mr. Chairman, that old classical dialogue between Pyrrhus, the King of Bpirus, and his eloquent counsellor, Cineas? Pyr- rhus, we are told, in disclosing his plans of government, had stated his purpose of subjecling Italy to his sway; when Cineas asked, "And having overcome the Romans, what will your majesty do next?" " vVhy, Sicily ,' : said the King, "is next door to Italy, and it will be easy to subdue that." "And having got possession of Sicily," said the counsellor, "what next will be your royal pleasure?" "I have a mind, then," said Pyrrhus, "tc pass over into Africa." "And what after that?" said Cineas. "Why then, at last, we will give ourselves up to quiet, and enjoy a delightful peace." "But what," rejoined the wise and sagacious counsellor, " what prevents you from enjoying that quiet and that delightful peace now?" I can conceive such a dialogue passing between one of our late American Presidents and some confidential friend or Cabinet adviser. " I have a mind to annex Texas." "And what will you do next?" "Why, Mexico is next door to Texas, and it will be easy to subject her to our arms." "'And having conquered Mexico, and taken possession of such of her provinces as you desire, what next does your excellency propose?" "I think we shall then be ready for passing over to Cuba." "And what after that?" Why then, we will devote ourselves to peace, and enjoy a quiet life." "And why, why it might well have been asked should you not enjoy that peace and quiet now? Why will you persist in disturbing the quiet, and perilling the peace, and putting in jeopardy the glorious Union, you now enjoy, by rushing into so wild, so wanton, and, I had almost said, so wicked a policy?" Sir, it is not to be denied that it is this spirit of annexation and conquest- 14 growing by what it feeds on. which has involved us in all our present trou bles, and which threatens us with still greater troubles in future. We are reaping the natural and just results of the annexation of Texas, and of the war which inevitably followed that annexation. We have almost realized, (as I believe I have somewhere else said,) the fate of the greedy and rave nous bird in the old fable. .^Esop tells us of an eagle, which, in one of its towering flights, seeing a bit of tempting flesh upon an altar, pounced upon it, and bore it away in triumph to its nest. But, by chance, he adds, a coal of fire from the altar was sticking to it at the time, which set fire to the nest and consumed it in a trice. And our American eagle, sir, has been seen stooping from its pride of place, and hovering over the altars of a weak neighboring power. It has at last pounced upon her provinces, and borne them away from her in triumph. But burning coals have clung to them! Discord and confusion have come with them! And our own American homestead is now threatened with conflagration! This, Mr. Chairman, is the brief history of our condition. I trust in heaven that the lesson will not be lost upon us. Gentlemen talk of settling the whole controversy which has been kindled between the North and the South by some sweeping compromise, or some comprehensive plan of re conciliation. I hope that the controversy will be settled; sir; but I most earnestly hope and pray, that it will not so be settled, that we shall ever be in danger of forgetting its origin. I hope and pray that it will not so be settled, that we shall ever again imagine, that we can enter with impunity on a career of aggression, spoliation, and conquest! This embittered strife, this protracted suspense, these tedious days and weeks and months of anx iety and agitation, will have had their full compensation and reward, if they shall teach us never again to forget the curse which has been pronounced upon those "who remove their neighbors' land-marks;" if they shall teach us to realize, in all time to come, that a policy of peace and justice towards others, is the very law and condition of our own domestic harmony and our own national Union! And now, Mr. Chairman, how is the great controversy by which our country is agitated, to be settled? In the first place, sir, I do not believe that it is to be settled by multiply ing and accumulating issues. I have no faith in the plan of raking open alj the subjects of disagreement and difference which have existed at anjf time between different sections of the country, with a view of attempting to bring them within the influence of some single panacea . Certainly, sir, if such a plan is to be attempted, we are not to forget that there are two sides to the question of aggression. The Southern States complain, on the one side, that some of their runaway slaves have not been delivered up by the free States, agreeably to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. The Northern States complain, on the other side, that some of their freemen have been seized and imprisoned in the slave States, contrary to the provisions of the same Constitution. I was, myself, called upon some years ago, by the merchants and ship-owners of Boston as patriotic a body of men as can be found on the face of this continent, and whose zeal for liberty is not less conspicuous than their devotion to Union to bring this latter subject to the attention of Congress. I made a report upon it to this House in 1843, in which, among other remarks, I used the following lan guage : 15 "That American or foreign seamen, charged with no crime, and infected with no contagion, should be searched for on board the vessels to which they belong; should be seized while in the discharge of their duties, or, it may be, while asleep in their berths; should be dragged on shore and incarcerated without any other examination than an examination of their skins; and should be rendered liable, in certain contingencies, over which they may have no possible con trol, to be subjected to the ignominy and agony of the lash, and even to the infinitely more .ig nominious and agonizing fate of being sold into slavery for life, and all for purposes of police is an idea too monstrous to be entertained for a moment." Now, sir, I will not undertake to compare the two grievances to which I have thus alluded. But this I do say, that if the one is to be insisted on as a subject for immediate redress and reparation, I see not why the other should not be also. For myself, I acknowledge my allegiance to the whole Constitution of the United States, and I am willing to unite in fulfilling and enforcing, in all reasonable and proper modes, every one of its provis ions. I recognise, indeed, a Power above all human law-makers, and a Code above all earthly constitutions! And whenever I perceive a plain con flict of jurisdiction and authority between the Constitution of my country and the laws of my God, my course is clear. I shall resign my office, what ever it may be, and renounce all connection with public service of any sort. Never, never, sir, will 1 put myself under the necessity of calling upon God to witness my promise to support a. constitution, any part of which I consider to be inconsistent with his commands. But it is a libel upon the Constitution of the United States and, what is worse, sir, it is a libel upon the great and good men who framed, adopted, and ratified it; it is a libel upon Washington, and Franklin, and Hamilton, and Madison, upon John Adams, and John Jay , oncl Rufus King; it is a libel upon them all, and upon the whole American people of 1789, who sustained them in their noble work; and upon all who, from that time to this, generation after generation, in any capacity, National, Municipal, or State, have lifted their hands to heaven, in attestation of their allegiance to the Government of their country it is a gross libel upon every one of them, to assert or insinuate that there is any such inconsistency! Let us not do such dishonor to the Fathers of the Republic, and to the Framers of the Constitution. It is a favorite policy, I know, of some of the ultraists in my own part of the country, to stigmatize the Constitution of the United States as a pro-slavery compact. I deny it, sir. I hold, on the other hand, that it is a pro-liberty compact the most effective pro-liberty compact which the World has ever seen, Magna Charta not excepted and one which every friend to liberty human liberty, or political liberty ought steadfastly to maintain and support. "To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," this was the grand climax in that enumeration of its objects which constitutes its well-remembered preamble. This was the object for which it was avow edly , and for which it was really framed ; and this is the object which it has, in fact, beyond all other instruments, advanced and promoted. The Convention which framed that instrument found African slavery, in deed, a fixed fact upon our soil; and some of the provisions which they adopted, had undoubted and admitted reference to that fact. But what is the legitimate interpretation of these provisions? It is a remark, I think ? as old as Epictetus,that everything has two handles; and it is as true of these provisions as of everything else, that \ve must take hold of them by the right handle, in order to understand their true design. 16 We are told that the Constitution encouraged slavery by providing for the toleration of the African slave-trade for twenty years. In my judgment, sir, it should rather be said, that the Constitution struck a strong, and, as its framers undoubtedly believed , a fatal blow at slavery, by securing to the Federal Government the power, which it never before possessed, to prohibit that trade at the end of twenty years. We are told, that it encouraged slavery, by making it the basis of repre sentation in this House. In my judgment, it should rather be said, that it discouraged slavery, by taking away two-fifths of that representation to which the southern States would have been entitled on their black population, if that population had been a wholly free population. We are told that it encouraged slavery, by providing for the suppression of insurrections. But every body knows, that this provision had as much reference to insurrections in the free States as in the slave States; and that, in point of fact, it was Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts, which, being in progress at the very period when the Constitution was under considera tion, gave an immediate impulse to the movement by which the power of interfering in such cases was conferred on the Federal Government. " Among the ripening incidents," said Mr. Madison, in his account of the circumstances which led to the adoption of the Constitution, "was the in surrection of Shay, in Massachusetts, against her government, which was with difficulty suppressed, notwithstanding the influence on the insurgents of an apprehended interposition of the Federal troops." We are told, finally, that the Constitution encouraged slavery, by a pro vision for the surrender of persons "held to service or labor." Now, sir, even this provision fulfils the suggestion which was made by Mr. Madi son at the time the Constitution was framed, and "avoids the idea that there can be property in man." It demands of us only a recognition of the admitted and familiar fact, that that there may be property in "the service or labor" of man. It provides for the restoration of all runaways alike, white or black, who may be "held to service or labor" for life or for years, as indented apprentices or otherwise, in any part of the country, precluding all right on the part of any of the States to inquire., for any purpose of dis crimination, in regard to fugitives from other States, by what tenure, of tem porary contract or of hereditary bondage, they are held to such "service or labor." If by some emancipation act, like that which was adopted many- years ago by Great Britain in reference to her West India colonies, the slaves in our southern States should be converted into apprentices for a term of years, this article of the Constitution would be as applicable to that state of things, as it is to the state of things now existing. It has no neces sary or exclusive relation to the existence of slavery. But taking it, as it was unquestionably intended, as a provision for the restoration of slaves, as long as slavery shall exist, is there enough in this clause of the Consti tution to justify any one in branding that instrument with the abhorrent title of a pro- slavery compact*? Sir, the Constitution is to be considered and judged of as a whole. The provisions which relate to the same subject-matter, certainly, are to be ex amined together, and compared with each other, in order to obtain a just interpretation of its real character and intent. Let this clause, then, be taken in connection with that which has authorized and effected the anni- 17 hilation of the African slave trade, as a lawful trade , from any part of this vast American Union. Let the few cases in which individual fugitives may be remanded to their captivity, in conformity with one of these provisions, be compared with the countless instances in which whole shiploads of free men would have been torn from their native soil and transported into sla very, but for the other; and then tell me what is the just designation of the compact which contains them both! Suppose, sir, for a moment, that the framers of the Constitution had resolved to ignore the existence of slavery altogether; suppose that the idea, which I have sometimes heard suggested as a desirable one, had been adopted by them at the outset, and that all the pre-existing rights of the States in regard to slavery and all its incidents had been left unrestricted and unaltered; would that have better subserved the great cause of human liberty? We should have had, indeed, no fugitive slave clause. But for every slave who made his escape, we should have had a hundred slaves, freshly brought over from Africa, Brazil, or the West Indies, as long as there was a foot of soil on which they could be profitably employed; and every one of them must have been counted, not as three- fifths, but as a whole man, to swell the basis of that representation by which the slave interest would have been rendered predominant forever in our land ! Undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman, there are provisions in the Constitution which involve us in painful obligations, and from which some of us would rejoice to be relieved, and this is one of them. But there is none, none, in my judgment, which involves any conscientious or religious difficulty. I know no reservation, equivocation, or evasion, in the oath which I have so often taken to support that Constitution; and whenever any measure is proposed to me for fulfilling or enforcing any one of its clear obligations or express stipulations, I shall give to it every degree of attention, considera tion, and support, which the justice, the wisdom, the propriety, and the practicability of its peculiar provisions may demand or warrant. In legis lating, however, for the restoration of Southern slaves,! shall not t forget the security of Northern freemen. Nor, in testifying rny allegiance to what has been termed the Extradition clause of the Constitution, shall I overlook those great fundamental principles of all free governments the Habeas Corpus and the Trial by Jury. But I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I am for giving a separate and inde pendent consideration to separate and independent measures. I am for dealing with present and pressing difficulties by themselves, and for acting upon others afterwards as they arise. The great questions, which demand oui consideration at this moment, are these which relate to our new territorial acquisitions; and to them, and them alone, I am now for devoting myself. And the first of these questions is that which relates to California. What is California? But yesterday, sir, it was a colony in embryo. But yesterday to use the language which Mr. Burke once applied to Amer ica it was -