Speeches of Gerrit Smith in Congress [1853-1854]

TJT

1

mf

Wffv

'

cP

^^ 0^-

'".., '.

i \ ^~ <^ .v f » / '^-

C\- s

'^V. c^^

•/'

•-^'\

.<N^'

\( ..

A

'-f

-^c

0' :

, ^'^^

.A^ ^'Jl,/^

c<. J-

^<^

<?-.

^ 0

.^^

-A

« I \

v-^^

.-i«

>.

-V

•-s^.

"^^,<^

\'

\'

■/-

'-^/

..^^'%

■^■

.-b.^

•^

o V

L>

^ .J)

^0

-^^

\

v^'

.^-

^'

.0-

^- -^ .0 V 0 ^ \V

.^^^"

V^'.

'.ng'^hy AH, Ritchie,

y.

SPEECHES

OP

G E R R I T SMI T H

IN

CONGRESS.

NEW-YOEK:
MASON BROTHERS.

1 8 5 5 .

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855,
BY MASON BROTHERS,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New- York.

JOHN A. GRAY,

PRINTER AND 8TERE0TYPER

95 and 97 Cliflf street, N. Y.

*4

* * ( \ . . V . •

The papers collected in this volume, are copied, without change,
from their original publication.

Mr. Smith was in Congress but a single Session, That Session be-
gan December 5, 1853, and ended August 7, 1854. Owing to bad
health, he did not take his seat until December 12th.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Letter to the Voters of the Counties of OsvraGo and

Madison, 9

Speech on the Reference of the President's Message, . 13

Answer to the Question of Mr. Wright, op Pennsylvania, 33

Speech on the Resolutions of Thanks to C.vptain Ingraham, 35

Resolutions on the Putjlic Lands, 41

Speech on "War, 4.5

Speech on the Distribution of Seeds ey Government, . 69

Speech on the Homestead Bill, 11

Letter explaining Vote on the Homestead Bill, . . 93
Speech on the Bill to aid the Territory of Minnesota
IN constructing a Railroad for Military, Postal,

and for other Purposes, 9t

Speech on the Second Deficiency Bill, . . . . 10 "7

Temperance, Ill

Speech on the Nebraska Bill, 113

Speech on the Meade Claims, 211

Speech against Limitintg Grants op Land to White Persons, 225

Speech on Polygamy, 229

Speech on the Pacific Railroad, 235

Speech on the Abolition of the Postal System, . . 259

VI CONTENTS.

PAGE

Speech on SuppLTiNa the City of "Washington with "Water, 283

Speech on the Mexican Treaty and "Monroe Doctrine," 281
Letter announcing his Purpose to Resign his Seat in

Congress, 305

Second Speech on the Richard "W. Meade Bill, . .307

Speech for the Harbor op Oswego, . . . . 311

Letter to Senator Hamlin on the Reciprocity Treaty, . 315

Speech on Postage Bill, 335

Speech in Favor of PRoniBifiNG all Traffic in Intoxicat-
ing Drinks in the City of "Washington, . . . 341
Speech against Providing iNtoxicATiNG Drinks for the

Navy, 363

Speech in Favor of Indemnifying Mr. Riddle and Mr.

Peabody, 367

Speech in Favor of Custom-Houses at Buffalo and Os-
wego, ... 311

Final Letter to his Constituents, 3*75

Letter to Frederick Douglass, 401

Letter to Hon. H. C. Goodwin, ...... 413

SPEECHES OF GERRIT SMITH.

LETTER.

To the Voters of the Counties of Oswego and Madison :

You nominated me for a seat in Congress, notwith-
standing I besought you not to do so. In vain was my
resistance to your persevering and unrelenting pur-
pose.

I had reached old age. I had never held office.
Nothing was more foreign to my expectations, and
nothing was more foreign to my wishes, than the hold-
ing of office. My multiphed and extensive affairs gave
me full employment. My habits, all formed in private
life, all shrank from pubhc life. My plans of useful-
ness and happiness could be carried out only in the se-
clusion, in which my years had been spent.

My nomination, as I supposed it would, has resulted
in my election — and, that too, by a very large major-
ity. And, now, I wish, that I could resign the office,

10 LETTER.

wMcli your partiality has accorded to me. But, I
must not— I cannot. To resign it would be a most un-
grateful and offensive requital of tlie rare generosity,
wHcli broke tkrougli your strong attacbuents to party,
and bestowed your votes on one, the peculiarities of
whose political creed leave him without a party. Yery
rare, indeed, is the generosity, which was not to be re-
pelled by a political creed, among the pecuharities of

which are

1st. That it acknowledges no law, and knows no law,
for slavery : — that, not only, is slavery not in the Federal
Constitution, hut that, hy no possibility, could it he brought
either into the Federal, or into a State, Constitution.

2d. That the right to the soil is as natural, absolute,
and equal, as the right to the light and the air.

3d. That political rights are not conventional, but na-
tural— inhering in all persons, the black as well as the
white, the female as well as the male.

4th. 27iat the doctrine of Free Trade is the necessary
outgrowth of the doctrine of the human brotherhood : and
that to impose restrictions on commerce is to build up un-
natural and sinful barriers across that brotherhood.

5th. That national wars are as brutal, barbarous, and
unnecessary, as are the violence and bloodshed, to which
misguided and frenzied individuals are prompted : and
that our country should, by her own Heaven-trusting and
beautiful example, hasten the day, when the nations of the
earth " shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their

LETTER. 11

spears into pruning hooks : nation shall not lift up sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war any moreP

6tli. That the province of Government is but to pro-
tect— to protect persons and property ; and thai the build-
ing of railroads and canals and the care of schools and
churches fall entirely outside of its limits, and exclusively
within the range of " the voluntary principle.^'' Narrow,
however, as are these limits, every duty within them is to
be promptly, faithfully, fully performed : — as well, for in-
stance, the duty on the part of the Federal Government to
put an end to the dramshop manufacture of paupers and
madmen in the City of Washington, as the duty on the
paH of the State Government to put an end to it in the
State.

7tli. That, as far as practicable, every officer, from
the highest to the lowest, including especially the President
and Postmaster, should be eUcted directly by the people.

I need not extend any furtlier tTie enumeration of
tlie features of mj peculiar political creed : — and I need
not enlarge upon the reason, which I gave, why I must
not, and can not, resign the office, which you have con-
ferred upon me. I will only add, that I accept it ;
that my whole heart is moved to gratitude by your be-
stowment of it ; and that, God helping me, I will so
discharge its duties, as neither to dishonor myself, nor
you. GEEKIT SMITH.

Peterboro, November 5th, 1852.

SPEECH

ON THE

REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

DECEMBER 2 0, 185 3.

Me. Houston, Chairman of the Committee on Ways
and Means, having submitted Resolutions to distribute
the President's Message among different Committees,
Mr. Smith was the first person to obtain the floor.
He spoke as follows :

It is natural, Mr. Chairman — nay, it is almost neces-
sary— ^that, from the difference in our temperament, our
education, our pursuits, and our circumstances, we
should take different views of many a subject, which
comes before us. But, if we are only kind in express-
ing these views, and patient in listening to them, no
harm, but, on the contrary, great good, will come from
our discussions.

As this is the first time I have had the floor, it mviy

14 REFEEENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

be well for me now to confess, that I am in the habit
of freely imputing errors to my fellow-men. Perhaps,
I shall fall into tliis habit on the present occasion. It
may be a bad habit. But is it not atoned for by the
fact, that I do not claim, that I am myself exempt from
errors ; that I acknowledge, that I abound in them ;
and that I am ever willing, that those whom I assail,
shall make reprisals? I trust. Sir, that so long as I
shall have the honor to hold a seat in this body, I may
be able to keep my spirit in a teachable posture, and to
throw away my errors as fast as honorable gentlemen
around me shall convince me of them.

I have risen, Mr. Chairman, to make some remarks
on that portion of the President's Message, which it
was proposed, a few moments since, to refer to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The Message endorses, fully and warmly, the conduct
of the Administration in the case of Martin Koszta.
For my own part, I cannot bestow unqualified praise
on that conduct. Scarcely upon Capt. Ingraham can I
bestow such praise. It is true, that I honor him for his
brave and just determination to rescue Koszta, but I
would have had him go a step farther than he did, and
insist on Koszta's absolute liberty. I would have had
him enter into no treaty, and hold no terms, with kid-
nappers. I would have had him leave nothing regard-
ing Koszta's Liberty to the discretion of the French
Consul or any other Consul : to the discretion of the

REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 15

Frencli Government or any other Government. Kosz-
ta was an American subject — a kidnapped American
subject — and hence the American Government was
bound to set him, immediately and unconditionally,
free. But Capt. Ingraham represented the American
Government. For that occasion he was the American
Government.

For saying what I have here said, I may appear very
inconsistent in the eyes of many, who know my oppo-
sition to all war ; for they may regard Capt. Ingraham
as having been ready to wage war upon Austria — as
having, indeed, actually threatened her with war. But,
notwithstanding my opposition to all war, I defend
Capt. Ingraham's purpose to use force, should force be-
come necessary. I believe, that such purpose is in
harmony with the true ofS.ce of Civil Government. I
hold, that an armed national police is proper, and that
here was a fit occasion for using it, had moral influ-
ences failed. But to beheve in this is not to beheve in
war. It is due to truth to add, that Capt. Ingraham should
not be charged with designing war upon Austria. Why
should he be thus charged ? He had, properly, nothing
whatever to do with Austria, nor with the Austrian Con-
sul. There was no occasion for his doing with either
of them, nor for his even thinking of either of them.
For him to have supposed that Austria, or any of her
authorities, could be guilty of kidnapping, would have
been to insult her and them. He had to do only with

10 KEFERP]NCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

the kidnappers, who were restraining Koszta of his
liberty ; and all he had to do with these kidnappers was
to compel them to an unconditional and immediate sur-
render of their prey.

I will say, by the way, that I do not condemn the
conduct of our Minister, Mr. Marsh, in relation to
Koszta, for the good reason, that I am not sure what it
was. If it was, as it is reported to have been, I trust
that both the Administration and the whole country
will condemn it.

It is denied in certain quarters, that Koszta was an
American subject. But Secretary Marcy has argued
triumphantly that, in the light of international law, he
was. I regret, that he had not proceeded to argue it in
other lights also. I regret, that he had not proceeded to
show that, even if admitted international law is to the
contrary, nevertheless, by the superior law of reason
and justice, Koszta was an American subject. I regret,
that he had not proceeded to publish to the world, that,
when a foreigner becomes an inhabitant of this land ;
abjures allegiance to the Government he has left ; and
places himself under the protection of ours ; the Ameri-
can Grovernment will protect him, and that, too, whether
with or without international law, and whether with
the world or against the world. In a word, I regret
that the Secretary did not declare, that if international
law shall not authorize the American Government to
protect such a one, then American law shall. It i?

REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 17

high tune, that America should justify herself in such
a case by something more certain and authoritative
than European codes. It is high time that she should
base her justification, in such a case, on the immutable
and everlasting principles of reason and justice.

I may be asked, whether I would allow, that the
subject of a foreign Government, who is alleged to be
charged with an offence, and who has fled to our coun-
try, can find shelter in his oath of allegiance to our
Government ? I answer, that I would not allow him
to be kidnapped ; and that, if his former Government
wants him, it must make a respectful call on our Gov-
ernment for his extradition. I add, that I would have
our Government the sole judge of the fact whether he
is charged with an offence; and also the sole judge
whether the offence with which he may be charged is a
crimen— a real and essential crime — ^for which he should
be surrendered ; or a merely conventional and nominal
crime, for which he should not be surrendered.

A few words in regard to the charge, that Capt. In-

*

graham invaded the rights of a neutral State. It is to
be regretted, that the Secretary did not positively and
pointedly deny the truth of this charge. I admit, that
no denial of it was needful to his argument with Mr.
Hulsemann. The denial would, however, have been
useful. Ko, Sir ; Capt. Ingraham did not violate the
rights of Turkey. But, although America cannot be
justly charged with violating the rights of Turkey,

18 REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

Turkey nevertlieless can be justly cliarged with violat-
ing the rights of America. She violated the rights of
America, inasmuch as she failed to afford to Koszta
the protection, which she owed him. If she is not
fairly chargeable with permitting him to be kidnapped,
she nevertheless is fairly chargeable with permitting
him to remain kidnapped, and that is virtually the
same thing. To say, that Capt. Ingraham violated the
rights of Turkey, is nonsense. It is nonsense, if for no
other reason, than that she had no rights in the case, to
be violated. She had none, for the simple reason, that
she suffered her laws to be silent. The only ground
on which a neutral State can claim respect at the
hands of belligerents is, that so far as she is concerned,
their rights are protected. If she allows injustice
to them, then they may do themselves justice. If she
refuses to use the law for them, then they may take it
into their own hands. For Turkey to suspend her laws,
as she did in the present case, is to leave to herself no
ground of wonder or complaint, if a brave Capt. Ingra-
ham supplies her lack of laws.

But I may be asked, whether I would really have
had Capt. Ingraham fire into the Austrian ship ? I an-
swer, that I would have had him set Koszta free, cost
what it might. At the same time I admit, that there
would have been blame, had it cost a single life ; and
that this blame would have rested, not upon the Turks
and Austrians only, but upon our own countrymen

REFEEENCE OF THE PEESIDENt's MESSAGE. 19

also. This is so, for the reason, that neither our own
country nor any other country is so fully identified with
justice, in the eyes of all the world, as to make its
character for justice an effectual substitute for violence —
as to make, in a word, its character for justice, its suffi-
cient power to obtain justice. "Were our country prover-
bial, the world over, for wisdom and goodness — ^were our
love to God and man known and read of all men — ^were
every nation to know that, both, at home and abroad,
our Government acts upon Christian principles — then
no nation would wrong us, and no nation would let us
be wronged. Then, if one of our people were kidnap-
ped in a foreign land, as was Koszta, the Government
of that land would promptly surrender him, at our
request. It would pass upon our title to the individual
confidingly and generously, rather than jealously and
scrutinously. And even if it entertained much doubt
of our title, it would nevertheless waive it, under the in-
fluence of its conviction, that we ask nothing, which we
do not honestly believe to be our due, and that our cha-
racter is such, as richly to entitle us to all, that is possi-
bly our due. Having such a character, our moral force
would supersede the application of our physical force.
Had physical force been needful to effect the deliverance
of Koszta, it would have been needful merely because
the American people and American Government lacked
the moral character, or, in other words, the moral force,
adequate to its deliverance. But, as I have already in-

20 KEFEEENCE OF THE PEESIDENT's MESSAGE.

timated, our nation is no more deficient in this respect
than other nations.

I said, that I could not bestow unqualified praise on
the Administration for its part in the Koszta affaii\ In
one or two of those passages of rare rhetorical beauty
in his letter to Mr. Hulsemann, Secretary Marcy insin-
uates the despotic character of Anstria. Now, I will
not say, that there was impudent hypocrisy in the in-
sinuation ; but I will say, that the insinuation was in
bad taste, and that it was bad policy. A cunning policy
would studiously avoid, in our diplomatic correspond-
ence, all allusions to desj)otism and oppression, lest
such allusions might suggest to the reader comparisons
between our conntry and other countries, that would be
quite unfavorable to ns.

I admit, that Austria is an oppressor. But is it not
equally true, and far more glaringly true, that America
is a much greater and guiltier oppressor? Indeed,
compared with our despotism, which classes millions of
men, women, and chikben, with cattle, Austrian des-
potism is but as the little finger to the loins. Surely,
surely, it will never be time for America to taunt Aus-
tria with being an oppressor, until the influence of
American example is such, as to shame Austria out of
her oppression, rather than to justify and confirm her
in it.

In this same letter to the representative of Austria,
Mr. Marcy presumes to quote, as one of the justtfi

REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 21

cations of Capt. Ingraham's conduct, the Divine law,
to do unto others as we would have others do unto us.
Now, was it not the very acme of presumption for
the American Government to quote this law, while it
surpasses every other Government in tramphng it under
foot ? Did Mr. Marcy suppose Mr. Hulsemann to be
stone-blind? Did he suppose, that Mr. Hulsemann
had lived in the city of Washington so long, and yet
had seen nothing of the buying and selling of human
beings as brutes, which is continually going on here,
under the eye, and under the authority, of Govern-
ment ? Did he suppose, that Mr. Hulsemann could be
ignorant of the fact, that the American Government is
the great slave-catcher for the American slave-holders ?
Did he suppose him to be ignorant of the fact, that the
great American slave-trade finds in the American Gov-
ernment its great patron ; and that this trade is carried
on, not only under the general protection, but under
the specific regulations of Congress ? Did he suj)pose
him to be ignorant of the fact, that many, both at the
I^orth and South, (among whom is the President him-
self,) claim, that American slavery is a national institu-
tion ? — and made such by the American Constitution ?
It is a national institution. If not made such by our
organic law, it is, nevertheless, made such by the enact-
ments of CongTcss, the decisions of the Judiciary, and
the acquiescence of the American People. And did
Mr. Marcy suppose Mr. Hulsemann to be entirely una,-

22 REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

ware, tliat the present Administration surpasses all its
predecessors in sliameless pledges and devotion to tlie
Slave Power ? Certainly, Mr. Marcy fell into a great
mistake, in presuming Mr. Hulsemann to be in total
darkness on all these points. If, indeed, a mistake, it
is a very ludicrous one. If but an affectation, it is too
wicked to be ludicrous.

I referred, a moment since, to some of the evidences
of the nationality of American slavery. It, sometimes,
suits the slaveholders to claim, that their Slavery is an
exclusively State concern; and that the North has,
therefore, nothing to do with it. But as well may you,
when urging a man up-hill with a heavy load upon his
back, and with your lash also upon his back, tell him,
that he has nothing to do either with the load or the
lash. The poor North has much to do with slavery.
It staggers under its load and smarts under its lash.

But I must do Secretary Marcy and the Administra,-
tion justice. What I have said, were I to stop here,
would convey the idea, that, in his letter to Mr. Hulse-
mann, the Secretary inculcates the duty of uncondi-
tional obedience to the law, which requires us to do
unto others, as we would have others do unto us. He
is, however, very far from doing so. He remembers,
as with paternal solicitude, American slavery, and the
Fugitive Slave Act, and provides for their safety. To
this end he qualifies the commandment of Q-od, and
makes it read, that we are to obey it, only when there

REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 23

is no commandment of man to the contrary. In a word,
he adopts the American theology — ^that pro-slavery
theology, which makes human Government paramount
to the Divine, and exalts the wisdom and authority of
man above the wisdom and authority of Grod.

I said, that I must do the Secretary justice : and I have
now done it. But in doing it, a piece of flagrant injustice
has been brought to light. For what less than flagrant
can I call his injustice to the Bible ? The Secretary says,
that this blessed volume " enjoins upon all men, every
where, when not acting under legal restraint, to do unto
others whatever they would that others should do unto
them." Now, the phrase " when not acting under
legal restraint" is a sheer interpolation. The command-
ment, as we find it in the Bible, is without quahfication
— ^is absolute. The Administration is guilty, therefore,
through its Secretary, of deliberately corrupting the
Bible. Moreover, it is guilty of dehberately corrupting
this authentic and sacred record of Christianity at the
most vital point. For this commandment to do unto
others as we would have others do unto us, is the sum
total of the requirements of Christianity. I say so on
the authority of Jesus Christ himself For when He
had given this commandment, He added : "for this is
the law and the prophets."

I am not unmindful how strong a temptation the
Administration was under, in this instance, to corrupt
the Bible. I am willing to make all due allowance on

24 REFEKENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

that accoimt. Strong, however, as was the tempta-
tion, it nevertheless should have been resisted. I am
well aware, that for the Administration to justify the
rescue of Koszta on the unqualified, naked Bible
ground, of doing unto others as we would have others
do unto us, would be to throw open the door for the
rescue of every fugitive slave. It would be to justify
the rescue of Shadrach at Boston. It would be to jus-
tify the celebrated rescue in my own neighborhood — I
mean the rescue of Jerry at Syracuse. It would be to
justify the bloody rescue at Christiana. For, not only
is it true, that all men would be rescued from slavery,
but it is also true, that very nearly all men would be
rescued from slavery, even at the expense of blood. I
add, that for the Administration to justify on naked
Bible ground the rescue of Koszta, would be, in effect,
to justify the deliverance of every slave. Now, for an
Administration, that sold itself in advance to the Slave
Power, and that is indebted for all its hopes and for
its very beiag to that Power — for such an Administra-
tion to take the position of simple Bible truth, and
thereby invite the subversion of all slavery, would be
to practise the cruellest ingTatitude. Such ingratitude
could not fail to exasperate the Slave Power — that
mighty and dominant Power, before which not only
the Administrations of the American People, but the
American People themselves, fall down as abjectly as
did Nebuchadnezzar's people before the image, which

REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 25

he had set up. Nevertheless, however important it
may be to maintain slavery, it is far more important to
maintain Christianity ; and the Administration is there-
fore to be condemned for giving up Christianity for
slavery. I add, that, if American slavery is, as the
famous John Wesley called it, "the sum of all villa-
nies," then it is certainly a very poor bargain to ex-
change Christianity for it.

Sir, this doctrine of the Administration, that himian
enactments are paramount to Divine law, and that the
Divine authority is not to be allowed to prevail against
human authority, is a doctrine as perilous to man as it
is dishonorable to God. In denying the supremacy of
God, it annihilates the rights of man. I trust, that a
better day will come, when all men shall be convinced,
that hmnan rights are not to be secured by human
cunning and human juggles, but solely by the unfal-
tering acknowledgment of the Divine Power. This
crazy world is intent on saving itself by dethroning
God. But, in that better day, to which I have refer-
red, the conviction shall be universal, that the only
safety of man consists in leaving God upon His
throne.

To illustrate the absurdity of this atheistic doctrine
of the Administration, we will suppose that, by a
statute of Turkey, any person, Hungarian-born, ought
to be kidnapped. Then, according to this atheistic
doctrine, Capt. Ingraham had no right to rescue Koszta,

26 REFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENTS MESSAGE.

for liis kidnappers, in that case, were acting " under
legal restraint."

Mr. SoLLERS, of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, what
is the question before the House ?

The Chairman, (Mr. Orr, of South Carolina.)
Does the gentlemy,n from Maryland rise to a question
of order ?

Mr. SoLLERS. I do.

The Chairman. What is the gentleman's ques-
tion?

Mr. SoLLERS. I want to know what is the sub-
ject before the House.

The Chairman. The subject is the reference oi
the President's Message.

Mr. SoLLERS. The gentleman from Kew-York is
making an abolition speech, and I do not see its rele-
vancy to the question before the House.

The Chairman. The gentleman from Kew-York
is entitled to the floor, and he is in order.

Mr. Smith. The gentleman from Maryland says,
that I am making an abolition speech. I am : and I
hope he will be patient under it. I, in my turn, will
be patient under an rm^'i-abolition speech.

But I will proceed in my illustrations of the absurd-
ity of this atheistic doctrine of the Administration.
What, too, if there were a statute of Turkey, declaring

REFERE2CCE OF THE PRESIDEIsT's MESSAGE. 27

it riglit to kidnap any person, wlio is American-born ?
Then, according to this corrupt theology of the Admin-
istration, T^e should not be at liberty to rescue an Ame-
rican citizen, who might be kidnapped in Turkey.
And what, too, if acting under human authority, or, in
the language of the Administration, "under legal
restraint," the people of one of the Barbary States
"should kidnap Secretary Marcy, and even President
Pierce himself — then, also, according to this God-de-
throning doctrine of the Administration, our hands
would be tied ; and we should have no right to reclaim
these distinguished men. The supposition, that such
distinguished men can be kidnapped, is not absurd.
The great Cervantes was a slave in one of the Barbary
States. So, too, was the great Arago. And it is not
beyond the pale of possibility, that even the great
Secretary and the great President may yet be slaves.
I am aware, that they, who stand up so stoutly for
slavery, and for the multiplication of its victims, dream
not, that they themselves can ever be its victims. They
dream not, that this chalice, which they put to the lips
of others, can ever be returned to their own. And,
yet, even this terrible retribution, or one still more
terrible than any, which this life can afford, may bo
the retribution of such stupendous treachery and en-
mity to the human brotherhood. Little did Napoleon
think, when, with perfidy unutterable, he had the noble

28 KEFEEENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

but ill-fated Toussaint L'Ouverture carried across the
waters, to perish in a prison,

"That he himself, then greatest among men,
Should, in like manner, be so soon conveyed
Athwart the deep."*

to perish, also, in a prison.

In that great day (for which, as it has been sublime-
ly said, all other days were made) when every man
shall "receive the things done in his body," let me not
be found of the number of those, who have wielded
civil ofhce to bmd and multijDly the victims of oppres-
sion. When I witness the tendency of power in
human hands, be it civil or ecclesiastical, or any other
power, to such perversion, I shrink from possessing it,
lest I, too, might be tempted to lend it to the op-
pressor instead of the oppressed. "So I returned,"
says the wise man, "and considered all the oppressions
that are done under the sun ; and behold the tears of
such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter :
and on the side of their oppressors there was power ;
but they had no comforter."

I proceed to say, that this detestable doctrine of the
Administration goes to blot all over that page of histo-
ry, of which Americans are so proud. I mean that
page, which records the famous achievement of Decatur
and his brave companions in the Mediterranean. For

* Ro.;?ors's Italy.

EEFERENCE OF THE PEESIDENT's MESSAGE. 29

it must be remembered, tliat the Algerine slaveholders,
who were so severely chastised, and that, too, notwith-
standmg, being the most ignorant, thej were the least
guilty class of slaveholders — I say, it must bq remem-
bered, that these Algerine slaveholders acted under
human Grovernment, or, in the words of the Adminis-
tration, " under legal restraint ;" and were, therefore,
according to the wisdom of the Administration, released
from all obhgation to do unto others, as they would
have others do unto them ; and were at entire hberty
to enslave Americans as well as other people.

I add, that this blasphemous doctrine of the Admin-
istration leaves unjustified, and utterly condemns, every
war, which this nation has waged ; for every such war
has been against a people acting under the authority of
their Grovernment, or, in the language of the Adminis-
tration, ''under legal restraint." What if our enemy,
in fighting against us, was guilty of fighting against
God ? — was guilty of trampling under foot the Di^dne
law? Nevertheless, according to the sage teachings
of the Administration, his guilt was overlaid with inno-
cence, from the &ct, that he was "acting under legal
restraint." Surely, it will not be pretended, that our
transgressions of the Divine law are excused by our
"legal restraint," and that the like trangressions, on
the part of others, cannot be excused by the like cause.
Surely if we may put in the plea of " legal restraint"
against Divine laws, so may others.

80 EEFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

Alas, what a disgusting spectacle does tlie Adminis-
tration present, in its deliberate corruption of the Bible,
for the guilty piu'pose of sparing so abominable and
vile a thing as slavery ! Alas, what a pitiable specta-
cle of self-degradation does this nation present, in
choosing such an Administration, and in remaining
patient under it! And how rank, and broad, and
glaring, is the hypocrisy upon the brow of this nation,
who, whilst her feet are planted on the millions she
has doomed to the horrors, and agonies, and pollutions
of slavery, holds, nevertheless, in one hand, that pre-
cious. Heaven-sent volume, which declares, that God
"hath made of one blood* all nations of men, for to
dwell on all the face of the earth ;" and in the other,
that emphatically American paper, which declares, that
" all men are created equal !" And how greatly is the
guilt of this nation, in her matchless oppressions, ag-
gravated by the fact, that she owes infinitely more than
ever did any other nation to Christianity, and liberty,
and knowledge ; and that she is, therefore, under infi-
nitely greater obligation than was ever any other nation,
to set an example, blessed in all its influences, both at.
home and abroad! Other nations began their exist-
ence in unfavorable circumstances. They laid their
foundations in despotism, and ignorance, and supersti-
tion. But Christianity, and liberty, and knowledge,
waited upon the birth of this nation, and breathed into
it the breath of life.

REFEREKCE OF THE PEESIDENT's MESSAGE. 31

My liour is nearly up, and I will bring my remarks
to a close. Affcer all, the Administration lias done us
good service, in attempting to qualify the Divine com-
mand, to do unto others as we would have others do
unto us ; for, in attempting to do this for the sake of
saving slavery, it has, by irresistible implication, ad-
mitted that the command itself requires us to " let the
oppressed go free."

This precious law of Grod contains, as they are wont
to insist, ample authority for all the demands of the
abolitionists — that despised class of men, to which T am
always ready to declare, that I belong. Hence, the
Administration, in quoting this law as the great rule of
conduct between men, has, in no unimportant sense,
joined the abolitionists. I say it has quoted this law —
this naked law. I say so, not because I forget the
words with which it attempted to qualify the law, but
because, inasmuch as the law, which God has made ab-
solute, man cannot qualify, these qualifying words fall
to the ground, and leave the naked law in all its force.
I admit, that the Administration did not quote this law
for the sake of manifesting its union with the abolition-
ists ; for, yet a wlule at least, it expects more advan-
tage from its actual union with the slaveholders than it
could expect from any possible union with the aboli-
tionists. No ; the Administration quoted this law for
the sake of serving a purpose against Austria ; and it
flattered itself that, by means of a few qualifying words,

32 EEFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

it could shelter slavery firom the force of the quotation.
But, in this, it fell into a great mistake. Its greater
mistake, however, was in presuming to quote the Bible
at all. The Administration should have been aware
that the Bible is a holy weapon, and is therefore fitted
to anti-slavery, instead of pro-slavery, hands. It should
have been aware, that it is more dangerous for pro-
slavery men to undertake to wield this weapon, than it
is for children to play with edge tools. The Bible can
never be used in behalf of a bad cause, without detri-
ment to such cause.

I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by expressing the hope,
that this egregious blunder of the Administration, in
calhng the Bible to its help — a blunder, by the way,
both as ludicrous and wicked as it is egTcgious — ^will,
now that the blunder is exposed, be not without its
good effect, in the way of admonition. I trust, that
this pro-slavery Administration, and, indeed, all pro-
slavery parties and pro-slavery persons, will be effectu-
ally admonished by this blunder to let the Bible en-
tirely alone, until they shall have some better cause
than slavery to serve by it.

ANSWER

TO THE

QUESTION OF MR. WRIGHT OF PENNSYLYANIA.

DECEMBEE 22, 1853.

In tlie course of liis reply to the speecli of Mr.
Smith, made two days previous, Mr. Wright put a
question to Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith, of ISTew-York. Will the gentleman yield
me the floor to reply to his question ?

Mr. Weight. Does the gentleman desire to make a
speech ?

Mr. Smith. I rose, not because I wish to reply to
the gentleman's question, for I do not wish to reply to
it. But, as he put the question to me, and might deem
me uncivil were I not to reply to it, I am willing to
reply to it ; and I trust that the gentleman will feel no
better after my reply.

Mr. Weight. After having called the gentleman
out, I cannot refuse him the floor.

o*

34 ANSWER TO THE QUESTIOX OF MR. WRIGHT.

Mr. Smith. Tlie gentleman lias referred me to that
clause of tlie Constitution wMcii respects fugitives from
service; and it is on this clause that his question is
based. Now, not to consume the time of the gentleman
with any other reason for my denying that the word
"service" in the Constitution refers to slavery, I will
only advert to the fact, that three days previous to the
close of the Convention which framed the Constitution,
the committee on style made their report ; and that then
it was moved to strike out the word " servitude," and
to supply its place with the word " service." This sub-
stitution was made by a unanimous vote, and for the
avowed reason that " servitude" denotes the condition
of slaves, and "service" the condition of freemen. I
hold, therefore, that the word "service" in the Consti-
tution refers to freemen, and to freemen only. To hold
that the framers of the Constitution did, after the sub-
stitution I have referred to, mean that the word should
refer to slavery, would be to stigmatize them with
hypocrisy. I add that the facts I have here given,
may be found in the Madison Popers.

Mr. Wright. That is not my recollection of the
historical proceedings of that convention which formed
the Constitution.

Mr. Smitil I refer the gentleman to the Madison
Papers.

SPEECH

ON THE

RESOLUTIONS OF THANKS TO CAPT. INGKAHAM.

JANUAET 5, 185 4.

Peehaps, Mr. Speaker, I sliould not liave presumed
to rise, liad I been duly influenced by what the gentle-
man from Alabama has just now told us of the charac-
teristics of a statesman. For, in that gentleman's esteem,
the heart does not enter into the composition of a st9,tes-
man. With him, the statesman is a creature all head,
and no heart. With me, on the contrary, the heart is
of more account than the head — and that, too, in all
the possible circumsfances of life, including even the
province of statesmanship. A higher authority than
the gentleman from Alabama makes more of the heart
than of the head. His command, as well upon the
statesman as upon every other person, is, " My son,
give me thine heart." The heart first, and the head
afterwards. The faculties of man drive on but to mis-

36 THANKS TO CAPTAIN INGEAHAM.

cMef and riiin, unless the heart be first given to the
right and the true.

I find, that gentlemen of Alabama agree in their defi-
nition of a statesman. Another gentleman from that
State, [Mr. Phillips,] when reviewing my speech, a
fortnight ago, kindly informed me that I am but a sen-
timentahst, and not a statesman. To use almost pre-
cisely his words : "Though I had attained some noto-
riety in the country as a sentimentalist, I had never
risen to the dignity of a statesman." I beg that
gentleman to be patient with me. I may yet become
the dignified, heartless, frigid, conventional sort of
being, that makes up the accepted and current idea of a
statesman. Thej^ say, that Congress is a capital place
for making a statesman of one, who is willing to come
under the process. They say so, for the reason that
Congress is a capital place for getting rid of all senti-
ment, and sympathy, and conscience. Now, I cannot
gay that I am very ambitious to have reahzed, in my
own person, the popular idea of a statesman. JSTever-
theless, I beg the gentleman to be patient with me.
When I shall have been in Congress a few weeks
longer, I may so far have lost my heart, and killed my
soul, as to be a candidate for the honors of a statesman.
And then the honorable gentleman will, no doubt, be
willing to take me by his own right hand, and install
me into that dignity which he and other statesmen so
self-complacently enjoy.

THANKS TO CAPTAIN INGKAHAM. 37

But to come to tlie resolutions. I like them exceed-
ingly; and I should rejoice to see them pass unani-
mously. I like them especially because they avoid all
questions of nationahty and citizenship ; and leave the
justification of Capt. Ingraham to rest on the naked
ground of humanity. I was much pleased to find the
distinguished gentlemen fi:om Virginia and South Caro-
lina, [Mr. Bayly and Mr. Orr,] defending the resolutions
in this fight. Delighted was I, when I heard the gen-
tleman fi:om South Carofina [Mr. Orr] declare, in such
impassioned language, that humanity is, of itself, ample
justification for Captain Ingraham's conduct.

Capt. Ingraham, according -to the impfication of the
resolutions, and according to these gentlemen's inter-
pretation and defence of the resolutions, obeyed the
simple law of humanity — that law, against which, to
use Bible language, "there is no law." Not only is it
paramount law, but against it there can be no law.
Capt. Ingraham recognized no law for kidnapping and
oppressing his feUow man. He befieved that law is for
the protection of rights, and he would not acknowledge
as law what was for the destruction of rights; and,
therefore, without pausing to inquire into any enact-
ments of Turkey or Austria, he generously and nobly
surrendered himself to the commands of the law of
humanity, and defivered Koszta.

Capt. Ingraham saw in Koszta a man — a kidnapped
and oppressed man — and, therefore, he determined to

88 THANKS TO CAPTAIN INGE AH AM.

•

set Mm free. The manhood of Koszta was all tho
■warrant that Captain Ingraham needed to demand the
liberty of Koszta. Captain Ingraham's sympathies arc
not bounded by State or National lines. They are not
controlled by questions of nationality and citizenship ;
but where he sees his brother kidnapped or outraged,
thither does he let his sympathies go out effectively for
the deliverance of such brother.

I was glad, Sir, to hear the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania, [Mr. Chandler,] in the course of his eloquent
speech, quote the maxim " Bis dat qui cito dat^'' (he
gives twice who gives quick,) to incite us to the prompt
passage of the resolutions. "Well does Captain Ingra-
ham deserve the benefit of this apposite and happy
quotation, for he acted bravely and beautifully under
the inspiration, if not of another Latin maxim, never-
theless of the sentiment of another Latin maxim : " Nil
humani a me alienum,''^ (nothing that concerns man is
foreign to me.) Yes, Captain Ingraham honored this
sublime maxim, which was coined by a slave ; for
Terence, its high-souled author, was a Eoman slave.

Pass these resolutions, Mr. Speaker — pass them
promptly and unanimously. By doing so we shall
honor humanity and honor ourselves ; by doing so we
shall rebuke our Government for having taken, three
years ago, the diabolical position, that they who rescue
their kidnapped, and oppressed, and outraged, and
crushed brethren, merit, at the hands of this Govern-

THANKS TO CAPTAIN INGRAHAM. 39

ment, fines and imprisonment. Pass tliese resolutions,
and jon will put the seal of yonr emphatic condemna-
tion on that diabolical position ; and you will cheer the
hearts of those who have rescued such poor brethren,
^nd of others who are determined to rescue them when-
ever they can get the opportunity to do so. Pass these
resolutions ; and these past and these future rescuers of
the most wronged of all men will rejoice in knowing,
that upon the principle of these resolutions, and upon
the principle by which some on this floor have advo-
cated them, they are entitled, not to suffer fines and
imprisonment, but to receive gold medals.

RESOLUTIONS

ON THE

PUBLIC LANDS.

JANUARY 16, 1854.

t

Mr. Smith, of New- York. I beg leave to offer the
following resolutions.

Tlie Clerk read tlie resolutions, as follows :

Whereas, all tke members of tlie human family, not-
withstanding all contrary enactments and arrangements,
have at all times, and in all circumstances, as equal a
right to the soil as to the light and air, because as equal
a natural need of the one as of the other ; And where-
as, this invariably equal right to the soil leaves no
room to buy, or sell, or give it away ; Therefore,

1. Resolved, That no bill or proposition should find
any favor with Congress, which implies the right of
Congress to dispose of the public lands or any part of
them, either by sale or gift.

42 RESOLUTIONS OX THE PUBLIC LAITDS.

2. Resolved^ That the datj of civil government in
regard to public lands, and indeed to all lands, is bnt
to regulate the occupation of them ; and that this regu-
lation should ever proceed upon the principle that the
right of all persons to the soil — to the great source of
human subsistence — is as equal, as inherent, and as
sacred, as the right to life itself.

3. Resolved^ That Grovernment will have done but
little toward securing the equal right to land, until it
shall have made essential to the validity of every claim
to land both the fact that it is actually possessed, and
the fact that it does not exceed in quantity the maxi-
mum which it is the duty of Grovernment to prescribe.

4. Resolved^ That it is not because land monopoly
is the most efficient cause of inordinate and tyrannical
riches on the one hand, and of dependent and abject
poverty on the other ; and that it is not because it is,
therefore, the most efficient cause of tliat inequality of
condition so well-nigh fatal to the spread of democracy
and Christianity, that Government is called upon to
abolish it ; but it is because the right which this mighty
agent of evil violates and tramples under foot is among
those clear, certain, essential, natural rights which it is
the province of Government to protect at all hazards,
and irrespective of all consequences.

Mr. HiBBARD. I move that the resolutions be laid
upon the table.

EESOLUTIOKS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS. 43

Mr. GriDDiNGS. I call for the yeas and nays on that
motion.

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The question was then pnt on the motion to lay the
resolutions on the table, and it was agreed to.

SPEECH

0 N

WAR.

JANUARY IS, 1S54.

Me. Houstoit, of Alabama. I now call up tlie bills,
wMcli were reported from the Committee of the Whole
on the State of the Union, with a recommendation, that
they do pass, and which were under consideration when
the House adjourned, last evening.

The House then took up "the bill making appro-
priation for the support of the Military Academy for
the year ending June 30, 1855.

Mr. Smith. I propose, Mr. Speaker, to make some
remarks on this bill.

Mr. Jones, of Tennessee. I think that the previous
question was called on the bill, last evening.

Mr. Smith. I think not.

Mr. Clingman, of Korth-Carolina. If the previous
question was called, I object to the gentleman's pro-
ceeding to make any remarks.

46 SPEECH ON WAR.

Mr. Speaker. The Clerk informed the Chair, that
the previous question was not called, last evening.

Mr. Jones. It was mj impression, that it was
called.

Mr. Smith. I believe, Sir, in the progress of the
human race. I delight to dwell upon the idea of
an ever-growing civilization. Hence it is, that I am
afflicted at every demonstration of the vfar spnit. For
the spirit of war, is the spirit of barbarism ; and,
notwithstanding the general impression to the contrary,
war is the mightiest of all the hindrances to the
progress of civilization. But the spirit of this bill
is the dark, barbarous, baleful spuit of war ; and,
therefore, would I use all honorable means to defeat
the bill.

It is strange — it is sad — that, in a nation, professing
faith in the Prince of Peace, the war spirit should be
so rampant. That, in such a nation, there should be
any manifestation whatever of this spirit, is gTOssly in-
consistent.

" My voice is still for war," are words ascribed to a
celebrated Eoman. But as he was a pagan, and lived
more than two thousand years ago, it is not strange,
that he was for war. But, that we, who have a more
than two thousand years' longer retrospect of the hor-
rors of war than he had — that we, who, instead of but
a pagan sense of right and wrong, have, or, at least.

SPEECH O^^" WAR. 4:7

have tlie means of ha-v-ino- a Christian sense of riolit
and wrong — that we should be for war, is, indeed, pass-
ing strange.

How vast, incomprehensibly vast, the loss of life by
war I There are various estimates of this loss.

Mr. Ore, of Soutli-Carolina. I rise to a question of
order.

Mr. Smith. I mean to keep myself strictly in or-
der.

Mr. Speaker. The gentleman will state Ms ques-
tion of order.

Mr. Ore. I understand, that the bill on which the
gentleman from New- York [Mr. Smith] is submitting
his remarks, is a bill making an appropriation to sup-
port the Military Academy. I submit that the rule of
the House requires, that the gentleman shall confine
himself to the subject-matter before the House. The
gentleman has not been confining himself tt) the sub-
ject-matter, and I require the Speaker to decide be-
tween us.

Mr. Smith. If the gentleman denies, that the Mili-
tary Academy has to do with war, then I appeal to the
Speaker what would become of the Military Academy,
were war to be abandoned ?

Mr. Speaker. The Chair understands, that the
gentleman from New- York [Mr. Smith] is opposing
the appropriation of money for the maintenance of the

48 SPEECH ON WAR.

Military Academy, on the ground, that war is to be
condemned.

Mr. S^^iiTH. Certainly, Sir ; and, therefore, beyond
all doubt, I am in order.

The Speaker. The Chair is of opinion, that the
gentleman from New- York is in order.

Mr. Smith. I presumed, that the Speaker would so
decide.

I was saying. Sir, when interrupted by the gentle-
man from South-Carolina, [Mr. Orr,] that there are
various estimates of the loss of life by war, Burke's
estimate, if my recollection is right, is, that thirty-five
thousand millions of persons have perished by war;
that is, some thirty-five times as many as the whole
present population of the earth. In Bible language :
" Who slevf all these ?" War slew them. And, when
contemplating this vast slaughter, how natural to in-
quire, in other words of that blessed book, " Shall the
sword devour for ever ?"

And how immense the loss of property by war!
The annual cost of the war system to Europe alone, in-
cluding interest on her war debt, exceeds a thousand
millions of dollars. The Government of our own nation
has expended, on account of the army and fortifications,
more than five hundred millions of dollars ; and, on ac-
count of the navy and its operations, more than half
that sum. But to ascertain the whole loss of property,
which this nation has suffered by war, we must take

SPEECH ON WAR. 49

into the reckoning many other items ; and, especially,
the cost of the mihtia. ISTow, this last item, not accord-
ing to mere conjecture, but according to the computa-
tion of those capable of making it, is fifteen hundred
millions of dollars. Add, then, to what our nation has
paid for war, and to her loss of property by war, the
interest on these payments and losses, and you have an
aggregate equalhng a large share of the whole present
wealth of the nation.

And, just here. Sir, I would say a few words on na-
tional debts. As such debts are, in the main, war
debts, there can be no assignable limit to their accumu-
lation, so long as war is thought to be necessary — for,
so long, there will be wars — and, until war is abandon-
ed, it will be held to be unjust and dishonorable to re-
pudiate war debts, no matter how crushing, and increas-
ingly crushing, from age to age, may be the burden of
such debts. So commanding is the influence of war,
and so world-wide and mighty the sentiment, which it
has been able to create in favor of itself, that no debts
are deemed more sacred and obligatory than war debts.
And yet, so far from such debts being, in truth, sacred
and obligatory, there is the most urgent and imperative
duty to repudiate them. ISTo doctrine should be more
indignantly scouted than the doctrine, that one genera-
tion may anticipate and waste the earnings and wealth
of another generation. Nothing is plainer than that
the gTcat impartial Father of us all would have every
generation enter upon its course, unmortgaged and
3

50 SPEECH ON WAE.

unloaded by prior generations. Nothing is plainer
than that in those States of Europe, where the war debt
is so great, that the very life-blood of the masses must
be squeezed out to pay the annual interest upon it, re-
pudiation must take place, ere those masses can rise
into even a tolerable existence. It is a very common
remark, at the present time, that Europe needs a revo-
lution. She does need a revolution. But she needs
repudiation more. However, there never will be a de-
cided and wholesome revolution in Europe, that does
not involve repudiation. If a people, on whom the
wars and crimes of past generations have entailed an
overwhelming burden of debt, shall achieve a revolu-
tion, of which repudiation is not a part, their labor and
sacrifice will be lost — their revolution will be spurious
and vain. To say, that the people of England and Hol-
land, where the war debt is so great, as to make the
average share of each one of them, both children and
adults, between two and three hundred dollars —

Mr. Ore, (interrupting.) I rise to a question of order,
I desire to know whether the point, which the gentle-
man is now making, about the debts of England and
Holland, is in order.

Several Members. " Certainly !" " Certainly !"
Mr. Smith. I am insisting, that, where war is car-
ried on, there will be war debts ; and that where there
are war debts, there will be the temptation, (and a tempt-
ation, which should be yielded to,) to repudiate them.

SPEECH OX WAR. 61

The Speaker. The bill before the House is to meet
the expenses of the West Point Mihtarj Academj,
The gentleman from New- York is disposed to strangle,
if I may use the expression, the supplies for that pur-
pose. The bill brings up the whole character of the
thing, as connected with war matters. The Chair de-
cides, that the gentleman's remarks are in order.

Mr. Smith, (resuming.) I was about to say, when
interrupted, that it is absurd to claim, that the people
of England and Holland are morally bound to continue
to dig from the earth, and to produce by other forms of
toil, the means for paying the interest on their enor-
mous war debt. They are morally bound to refuse to
pay both interest and principal. They are morally bound
to break loose from this load, and drag it no longer. For,
so long as they drag it, they cannot exercise the rights
of manhood, nor enjoy the blessings, nor fulfill the high
purposes, of human existence. Is it said, that the G-ov-
ernment, for whose wars they are now paying, would
have been overthrown, but for these wars ? I answer,
that the Grovernment, which involved its subjects in
those wars, was the greatest curse of those subjects,
and is the greatest curse of their successors. The main-
tenance of such a Government is loss. Its overthrow
is gain.

I do not deny, that the case is possible, in which a
generation would be morally bound to assume the debt
created by its predecessor. But, even then, such gene-

52 SPEECH ON WAR.

ration should be the sole judge of its obligation to as
snme the debt. Were the cholera raging over the whole
length and breadth of oiir land, and sweeping off mil-
lions of OUT people ; and were a foreign nation to min-
ister to our relief by lending us money ; if we could not
repay the loan, our successors should : and such a loan
they would be glad to repay.

I would incidentally remark, that Civil Government
will be neither honest nor frugal, so long as the practice
of war is continued. I say so for the reason, that the
extensive means necessary to carry on wars, or pay war
debts, cannot be obtained by direct taxation. The peo-
ple will consent to their being obtained only by indi-
rect taxation : and no Grovemment ever was, or ever
will be, either honest or frugal, whose expenses are de-
frayed by indu-ect taxation, for no Government, whose
expenses are thus defrayed, ever was or ever will be,
held to a strict responsibihty by the people ; and no
Government, not held to such responsibility, ever was,
or ever will be, either honest or frugal.

I have referred to the loss of life and property by
war — of life, that is so precious — of property, that is so
indispensable to the enjoyment and usefulness of life.
But there is an unspeakably greater loss than this, with
which war is also chargeable. I refer to the damage,
which morals and religion suffer from it. All I need
add, on this point, is, that the power of war to demo-
ralize the world, and to corrupt the purest rehgion in

SPEECH ON WAE. 53

the world, is abundantly manifest in the fact, that the
moral and rehgious sense of even good men is not
shocked by war. 'No stronger argument can be brought
against war than the fact of its power to conform the
morals and religion of the world to war.

It would, perhaps, be "wrong to ascribe the continu-
ance of war to the low and perverted state of the moral
and religious sense. It would, perhaps, be more proper
to ascribe it to the prevailing delusion, that war is una-
voidable. And, yet, it may be, that a better state of
the moral and rehgious sense would have entirely pre-
vented this delusion. But, however this delusion may
be accounted for, or whatever may be responsible for
it, it is consoling to know, that it is not so well nigh
impossible to dispel it, as is generally supposed. A
fresh baptism of wisdom and goodness may, perhaps, be
needed to that end : but no new faculties, and not a new
birth. Nay, were we to apply to the subject of war no
more than our present stock of good sense and good
feeling — no more than our mental and moral faculties,
as they now are — it is probable, that war could not
long withstand the apphcation.

The doctrine, that war is a necessity, is the greatest
of all libels on man. The confidence, which, in private
life, we manifest in each other, proves, that it is such a
libel. "We walk the streets unarmed. We go to bed
without fear, and with unlocked doors ; and we thus
prove, that we regard our fellow-men as our friends, and
not our foes — as disposed to protect, and not to harm

54 SPEECH ON WAR.

US. It is true, that there is, here and there, one, that
would rob us ; and, at very far wider intervals, one,
that would kill us. But we are at rest in the con-
sciousness, that, where there is one to assail us, there are
a hundred to defend us. Indeed, society could not be
held together, were it not true, that the generality of
men are swayed by love, and confidence, and generos-
ity, existing either in their own hearts, or accorded by
them to others. The men, who are SAvayed by distrust
and hatred, constitute the exceptional cases.

Have I, then, an evil-minded neighbor? I, never-
theless, need not fight with him. I may rely, under
God, upon the mass of my neighbors to protect me
against him. So, too, if there is, here and there, a mali-
cious American, and, here and there, a malicious
Englishman, who would be guilty of involving their
countries in a war with each other; nevertheless,
the mass of Americans and Englishmen, inasmuch as
they prefer international amity to international quar-
rels, should be relied on to preserve peace : and they
would preserve it, if so relied on. Now, it is in this
point of view, that the nation, which is determined to
keep out of war, Tvdll never find itself involved in war •
and that nothing is hazarded by adopting the peace
policy. I add, that, as it is not in human nature, under
its ordinary influences, and in its ordinary circumstances
to fall upon an unarmed and unresisting man, so the
nation, which puts its trust, not in weapons of war, but
in the fraternal affections of the himnan heart, and in

SPEECH ON WAR. 66

the God, who planted those affections there, will find
this trust an effectual shield from the horrors of war.
Such a shield did the good men, who founded Pennsyl-
vania, find this trust. During the seventy years of this
trust, there was no blood shed in their Province. These
good men subdued even the savage heart, simply by
trusting that heart. These good men, by refusing to
carry deadly weapons themselves, shamed even savages
out of carrying them. And were -America, now, to dis-
arm herself, even to the extent of abandoning the policy
and practice of war, and were she to cast herself for pro-
tection on the world's heart, she would find that heart
worthy of being so trusted. The other nations of the
earth would not only be ashamed to take advantage of
her disarmament, but they would love their confiding
sister too well to do so. ISTay, more. Instead of mak-
ing her exposed condition an occasion for their malevo-
lence, they would be moved to reciprocate the confi-
dence expressed by that condition, and to disarm them-
selves.

I have already admitted, that there are persons, who
would wrong us — who would even plunder and kill us.
I now admit, that Grovernment is bound to provide
against them. If, on the one hand, I protest against
stamping the masses with the desperate character of
these rare individuals, on the other, I admit, that we
are to guard against these rare individuals. But to
argue, that, because of the existence of these rare indi-
viduals in France, or England, or any other nation,

66 SPEECH ON WAR.

the nation itself is necessarily disposed to make war
upon us, is to make tlie exceptions to tlie rule, instead
of tke rule itself, tke basis of tke argument.

Whilst, for tlie reason, that I believe, tliat there is
no need of Y\^ar, I believe there is no need of making
preparation against it, I, nevertheless, admit, that there
is need of Government, of prisons, and of an armed
police. Whilst I hold, that a nation whose Govern-
ment is just in all its dealings with its own subjects,
and with foreigners, and which so far confides in, and
honors, human nature, as to trust, that even nations
are capable of the reciprocations of justice — ay, and
the reciprocations of love, also — I say, whilst I hold,
that such a nation needs to make no provision against
war, I still admit, that it is bound, in common with
every other nation, to have ever in readiness, both on
sea and land, a considerable armed force, to be wielded,
as occasions may require, against the hostes humani
generis — the enemies of the human race — the pirates,
that, both on land and sea, " lurk privily for the inno-
cent prey."

But what shall be the character — the intellectual and
moral character — of the men proper to compose this
armed force ? No other question in this discussion is
so imj)ortant ; and, perhaps, in the whole range of
earthly interests, there is not a more important ques-
tion. The answer, which I shall give to this question,
is a very novel one ; so novel, indeed, that, were I not

SPEECH ON WAE. 67

irresistibly impressed witli its trutli and value, I should
not venture to give it.

The punishment of its own offending citizens is, con-
fessedly, regarded as being, in all its stages, a most
solemn and responsible duty. Laws to this end are
enacted with considerateness and solemnity. It is
claimed, that none but vfise and just men are fit to en-
act them. Judges and jurors are considerate and sol-
emn in applying the laws ; and none, but the upright
and intelligent, are allowed to be suitable persons for
judges and jurors. All this is indispensable to main-
tain the moral influence and the majesty of the laws.
But how fatally would this majesty be dishonored, and
this moral influence be broken, if all this propriety and
all this consistency were, then, to be followed up with
the gross impropriety and gross inconsistency of com-
mitting the execution of the verdict, or decree, of the
court-room to the hands of the profligate and base.
Most clear is it, that the turnkey and hangman should
not fall below the lawmaker or judge, in dignity and
excellence of character. I am aware, that it was once
thought, that the vilest man in the community was the
most appropriate man for hangman. But sounder
thinking requires, that the hangman, if there must be
a hangman, should be one of the noblest and holiest of
men.

Such is my argument— and, I trust, it is a conclusive
one — in favor of a solemn and dignified execution of

58 SPEECH ON WAE.

the laws of Government against its offending subjects.
But cannot a similar, and a no less conclusive, argu-
ment be made in favor of such an execution of its laws
against foreign offenders, also ? Most certainly. It is
admitted, that the greatest wisdom and considerateness
are necessary in deciding on so solemn a measure as
war. But, just here, the amazing impropriety, the
fatal inconsistency, occurs, of intrusting the execution
of the declaration of war to those, who are, for the
most part, profligate and base — the very scum and re-
fuse of society. ISTot only so, but it is insisted, and
that, too, by good men, and by the friends of peace,
that the profligate and base are the peculiarly fit per-
sons to fill up the ranks of the armies — the peculiarly
fit persons to be "food for powder." They believe
with Napoleon, that "the worse the man, the better
the soldier;" and with Wellington, that "the men,
who have nice scruples about religion, have no business
to be soldiers." A sad mistake, however, is this, on
the part of the good men I have referred to. They
should insist, that none but the virtuous and intelli-
gent are fit to be armed men. Peace men are wont to
complain, that war is too much honored. But if there
must be war, it should be far more honored than it is ;
and, to have it so, none but the intelligent and virtuous
are to be thought worthy of fighting its battles. Of
such persons, and of such only, would I have the na-
tional pohce consist : that police, which is the fit and

SPEECH ON WAR. 59

needed substitute for war-armies and war-navies. Sure-
ly, they, wlio man the vessel, that is to go forth against
the pirates of the ocean, and the}', Vv'ho take up aims
to vindicate defied justice on the land, should be men
of virtue, and not vice — intelligent, and not ignorant.
The wicked and the vile will not fail to justify their
wickedness, if it is the wicked and the vile, who under-
take their punishment. But if wisdom and virtue are
arrayed against them, there is hope, that they may be
awed, or shamed, out of their wickedness.

The armed forces of the world are looked upon as a
mere brute power. Composed, as I would have them
composed, there would still be an ample amount of
brute "power in them; but there would, also, be in
them the far more important element of moral power.
I say far more ijnportant ; for disturbers of the peace,
and transgressors of the laws, would be far more con-
trolled by the presence of the moral than the presence
of the brute power. Indeed, the brute power itself
would then be viewed very differently from what it
now is. Now, it kindles the wrath, and, oftentimes,
the contempt of those against whom it is arrayed. But,
then, commended, honored, sanctified by the moral in-
fluence, with which it would stand associated, it would
be respected, and submitted to, by many, who, but for
that association, would despise and resist it. That men
of conscience and virtue are respected and feared by
their enemies; and that their conscience and virtue
make their hearts none the less courageous and their

60 SPEECH ON WAK.

arms none the less strong; was. well illustrated bj
Cromwell's never-defeated armies.

With my conceptions of the character proper for
those, who are to compose the armed police of a nation,
it is not strange, that I, too, would be in favor of mili-
tary and naval schools ; and that I would have them
far more numerously attended than such schools now
are. But the military and naval schools, that I vfould
be in favor of, would not be an appendage of the war
system. They would not look to the possibility of
war : and, of course, they would not train theu^ pupils
for war. ISTevertheless, they would train them for the
most effective service against the enemies of the human
race ; and to this end they would impart the highest
scientific, literary, and moral education.

I said, that I would have none, but the virtuous and
intelligent, for the armed men of the nation. They
should be gentlemen : and, all the better, if Christians
and scholars also. They should be among the most
honored of men— both from their high office, as con-
servators of the public safety, and from their intrinsic
merits. But, alas, what a contrast between such men
and the vast majority of those, who compose the ar-
mies of the world ! To that vast majority Government
gives out grog, as swill is given out to hogs. From
the backs of that vast majority many statesmen are re-
luctant to hold back the lash. Of course, I refer not
to mere "sentimentalists," but to those intellectual per-
sons, who, in the esteem of the gentleman of Alabama,

SPEECH ON WAR. 61

are alone capable of rising " into the dignity of states-

men."

We, often, hear it said, that the policeman of London
is a gentleman. He should be. But if he, who is
charged with the preservation of the peace, and safety,
and order of a city, needs to be a gentleman, how much
more should he be a gentleman, whose ofS.ce is to care,
in this wise, for a nation and for the world !

But, it will be said, that men of the elevated charac-
ter with which I would fill up our armed forces, would
not be content with the present wages of the common
sailor and common soldier. It is true, that they would
not; and, that they should not. Thek wages should
be several times greater. But, it must be remembered,
on the other hand, that one of such men would be
worth fifty of the present kind of armed men for pre-
serving the world's peace. Nay, the armed men of
the world are of a kind continually to hazard the peace
of the world.

I said, that there is no need of preparing against
war. I add, that preparation against war provokes to
it, instead of preventing it. K England makes it, then
is France provoked to a counter preparation. And,
what is not less, but much more, each nation, having
made such preparation, is tempted to use it. If these
nations line their respective coasts with cannon, it is
but natural, that they should long to try the efficiency
of their cannon on each other's ships. " To what pur-
pose is all this waste ?" will be the reproachful inquiry,

62 SPEECH ON WAR,

which thej will jDut to themselves, whilst they suffer
this vastly expensive preparation to lie idle. If the
maxim : "To prepare for Vv^ar is to prevent war," were
ever true, it must have been in those remote ages, when
such preparation cost but little time and money. It,
certainly, is not true, when much time and scores of
miUions are expended in such preparation.

But, to return to the bill. I would, that it might be
defeated ; and that the bill for building vessels-of-war
miofht be defeated ; and that the President's recommen-
dations for increasing the army and navy might find
no favor. For the legitimate purposes of a national
armed police, the army and navy are already sufficiently
large. What is lacking in them is an elevation of
intellectual and moral character; and how to supply
that lack I have already indicated.

But, it is asked: " What shall we do with the sur-
plus money in the Treasury ?" I answer : " Use it in
paying our debts." We owe many honest debts — and
some of them to persons, who are suffering for the pay-
ment of them. We shall be, altogether, without ex-
cuse, if, v/hen our Treasury is overflowing, we do not
pay them. ; but, instead thereof, indulge a mad war
passion in building ships, and in making other war
preparations. Eemember, too, that the debt, which we
incurred in our superlatively mean and wicked war
with Mexico is not all paid. I hope, that we shall pay
it ; and not leave it to posterity to be obliged to pay
it, or repudiate it. But it may also be asked.: " What

SPEECH ON WAR. 63

shall we do witli tlie future surplus money in tlie Trea-
sury?" I answer: "Have none." We should have
none, either by adopting free trade, or by doing what
is the next best thing — raising the tariff to the level
of a full protection. The mixture of free trade and
protection is a miserable compound. But it may also
be asked : " What shall we then do for means to carry
on the Government ?" I answer, that, when we shall
no longer have war to support, and are weaned from
the extravagances and follies, which are cherished and
begotten by that dazzling and bewitching and befool-
ing barbarism, it will not cost more than one tenth as
much, as it now does, to defray the cost of administer-
ing Grovernment ; and that tenth the people will be
willing to be directly taxed for.

But I have consumed the most of my hour, and
must close. Do not pass any of these war bills. Do
not so cruel, so foolish, so wicked a thing. Cruel it
will be to the poor, who will have to pay these mil-
lions of fresh taxes ; for, remember. Sir, that it is they,
who have to pay them. The toiling poor are the only
creators of wealth. Such as ourselves are but the con-
duits of wealth. Foolish it will be, because the more
you expend in this wise, the more will it be felt
necessary to expend ; and because the more you seek
to protect your country in this wise, the less will she
be protected. Wicked it will be, because war, in all
its phases, is one of the most horrid crimes against God
and man.

64 SPEECH ON WAR.

I have made my appeals, Sir, in the name of reason
and religion, both of which condemn war. Let not
these appeals, which are made to our higher nature —
to all, that is pure, and holy, and sublime within ns —
be overborne bj the counter appeals, which are made
in the name of a vulgar patriotism, and which are all
addressed to our lower nature — to our passion, pride,
and prejudice — our love of conquest, and power, and
plunder.

There is, just now, an opportunity for Congress to
do a better thing than to indulge and foment the spii^it
of war. Our Government, as I am informed, is nego-
tiating a commercial treaty with England. From what
I learn of its provisions, I rejoice in it. I trust, that it
will be consummated, and go into fall effect. It will
well dispose of the fishery difficulties. It will open to
us reciprocal free trade, in natural productions, with
the British Korth American Provinces ; and so lead
the way for our reciprocal free trade with those Pro-
vinces in all productions — ^in the works of men's hands,
as well as in the fruits of God's earth ; and so lead the
way, I may add, for such unrestricted trade between
ourselves and other countries also. I regret, that our
Government has, hitherto, been so slow to embrace the
liberal overtures of our northern neighbors. I trust,
that no sectional, or other unworthy, jealousies will
avail to hold us back, any longer, from -embracing these
overtures. Let not Maine fear a new competition in
lumber and ship-building ; nor Pennsylvania in coal ;

SPEECH ON WAR. 65

nor Ohio in wlieat. These States will lose nothing in
these respects ; and, if they should lose any thing, their
loss will be inconsiderable, in comparison with their
rich gain from free trade in natural productions with a
country whose trade with us has doubled in the last
seven years, and our exports to which are double her
exports to us. Her trade with us in 1852 amounted to
nearly seventeen millions of dollars. And let not the
unworthy cavil be repeated, that these Provinces offer
us free trade in natural productions only. How could
they carry on their Governments, were they to consent
to free trade in all productions ? Is it said, that they
could by direct taxation ? But it does not lie in the
mouth of a tariff nation like ours to say so. I repeat
it — I rejoice in this treaty. To accomplish such a
blessing for our own country, for the British Provinces,
and for the world, will be an imperishable honor to
this Administration.

I am informed, that our Government is negotiating a
commercial treaty with France also. Now, how happy
if this House would use its gTeat influence to get in-
serted in both these treaties an arbitration clause — a
clause submitting international disagreements to a wise,
disinterested, peaceful arbitrament! How happy, if
this House would pass a resolution to this effect ! An
arbitration clause in our treaties with those nations
would render war between them and us well nigh mo-
rally impossible. And such a clause would prepare the
wav for the establishment of an international court—

6Q SPEECH ON WAR.

that great desideratum of the world. Would that our
country might participate most promptly and most
largely in the glory of achieving that desideratum !
We have already, the village court, and the county
court, and the district court, and the state court, and
the national court; and, were it proposed to abolish
one of these courts, and to let differences between men
take their o^vn course, and run into violence and blood-
shed, such proposition would be regarded as a proposi-
tion to return to barbarism. But, Sir, I trust, that the
day is near at hand, when it will be thought to be bar-
barous not to have an international court.

Sir, I have done. Eapidly, very rapidly, has the
world advanced in civilization, the last forty years.
The great reason why it has, is, that, during this peri-
od, it has been comparatively exempt from the curse
of war. Let the world continue to advance thus rapid-
ly in civilization ; and let our nation continue to ad-
vance with it. During these forty years, our nation
has generally gone forward in the cause of peace. In
its war Avith Mexico, it took a wide step backward.
Grod grant that it may never take another step back-
ward, in this cause ! Grod grant, that, in respect to this
dear and sacred cause, our nation may adopt the motto
on one side of the standard of the immortal Hampden :
^^ Nulla vestigia retrorsum^' — no steps backward: anl,
having done this, it will have good ground to hope for
its realization of the blessing of the motto on the other
side cf that patriot's standard : " God with us."

SPEECH ON WAR. 67

Pass these war bills, Sir, and carry out the Presi-
dent's recommendations, and you will contribute to
roll along that deep and broad stream of sin and sor-
row, which war has rolled down through every age of
the world. But defeat these bills, and frown upon
these recommendations, and there will be joy on earth,
and joy in heaven.

i

SPEECH

ON THE

DISTIIIBUTION OF SEEDS BY GOVERNMENT.

FEBRUARY 7 , 1854.

The Deficiency Bill was under discussion. Mr.
Clark, of Michigan, had moved an amendment, to ex-
pend ten thousand dollars in the purchase of seeds,
etc., and Mr. Chamberlain, of Indiana, had moved to
increase the sum to twenty thousand dollars. Mr.
Smith said :

I do not deny that the mutual exchange of the seeds
of different countries is beneficial to the farming inter-
est. Perhaps a similar exchange of specimens of cloth
might help the mercantile and manufacturing interests.
Perhaps a similar exchange of mechanical tools might
be usefal to mechanics. But the material question is,
whether individuals shall make these exchanges, or whe-
ther Grovemment shall be the agent to negotiate them ?

70 DISTEIBUTION OF SEEDS BY GOVERNMENT.

In mj opinion, Government \dolates its office, and
transcends its province, in concerning itself with sucli
things. Its sole, legitimate office is to protect the per-
sons and property of its subjects. Leave it within its
province, and it will hardly fail to do its work well.
But allow it to exceed its province, and it will hardly
fail to do all its work ill. Its usurpation of the work
of the people has done more than any thing else to
make Government a burden upon the people instead of
a blessing to the people.

It is true that the sum which is called for in this case
is a small one. But the principle to be violated by
our voting this sum is a gi^eat one.

"We need to be continually mindful of the true and
only office of civil government. It is to hold a shield
over its subjects, beneath which they may, in safety
from foreign aggressions, pursue their various callings.
It is, also, by its ever-present and strong arm, to re-
strain its subjects from aggressions upon each other.

I trust. Sir, that we shall leave the people to get their
seeds for themselves ; and that we shall vote down the
amendment to the amendment, and the amendment
also.

SPEECH

ON THE

HOMESTEAD BILL,

FEBEUAEY 21, 1854.

[The motto prefixed by Mr. Smith to this speech, when it was lirat
printed, was "Homes for AH,"]

The House being in the Committee of tlie Whole on
the State of the Union, on the Homestead Bill —
Mr. Smith, said : ♦

Mr. Chaieman : I purpose to speak on the Home-
stead Bill. I choose this bill for the subject of my re-
marks, not only because it is ''the special order," and
is, therefore, entitled to preference, but because it is, in
my judgment, second in importance to no bill, that has
come, or that shall come, before us.

I am in favor of this bill. I do not say, that there
is not a line, nor a word, in it, that T would not have

72 HOMESTEAD BILL.

altered. But I do saj, that I am in favor of the sub-
stance of it. I am in favor of the bill, not for the
reason that, by giving up a part of the public lands to
be occupied, the remainder will be more valuable to
the Government than was the whole, before such occu-
pation. Xor am I in favor of it, because the occupants
will afford new subjects for taxation. Nor, in short,
am I in favor of it for any of the current and popular
reasons for it. But I am in favor of the bill, because I
am in favor of what I interpret the bill essentially to
be — ^let others interpret it, as they will. This bill, as I
view it, is an acknowledgment, that the public lands
belong, not to the Government, but to the landless.

Whilst I hope, that the bill will prevail, I neverthe-
less can hardly hope, that a majority of the Committee
will approve my reasons for it. Indeed, if the Com-
mittee shall so much as tolerate me, in putting forth
these reasons, it is all I can expect, in the light of the
fate of the land reform resolutions, which I offered in
this Hall, the 16th January last. The storm of indig-
nation, which burst upon those resolutions, did, I con-
fess, not a little surprise me. The angry words, which
came sounding over into this part of the Hall, quite
startled me. Even the reading of the resolutions by
the Clerk was hardly borne with ; and, no sooner had
they been read, than, with hot haste, they were nailed
to the table for ever and ever.

And what are those resolutions, that they should
have excited such displeasure ? Why, their chief and

HOMESTEAD BILL. 7o

controlling doctrine is, tliat men have a natural and
equal right to the soil. And is this such a monstrous
.doctrine, as to make me guilty of a great offence — of
an outrage on propriety — for offering the resolutions ?
It cannot be said, that they were expressed in indecent
or profane language — in language offensive to purity
or piety. "Why, then, were they so treated? I am
not at liberty to supjpose, that it was from dislike to
their author. It must be because their leading doctrine
is so very wrong in the eyes of the honorable gentle-
men around me. Now I am aware, that many of the
doctrines, which I utter in this Hall, are very wrong in
their eyes. But should they not remember, that their
counter doctrines are no less wrong in my eyes ? And
yet, I appeal to all, whether I have ever evinced even
the slightest impatience or unkindness under anything
I have heard here? and whether the equal footing, on
which we find ourselves here, does not require, as well
that patience and kindness should be accorded to me,
as hy me ? However we may regard each other out of
this Hall, certain it is, that, if, in this Hall, we do not
regard each other as gentlemen entitled to mutual and
perfect respect, we shall dishonor ourselves, and our
constituency, and civil government itself

I am sure, that no member of this body would have
me disguise, or hold in abeyance, my real views on any
subject under discussion. I am sure, that none of them
would have me guilty of the self-degradation of affect-

4

74 HOMESTEAD BILL.

ing, and uttering, otlier views, and of studying an un-
principled accommodation of myself to tlie majority
around me. I am sure, tliat none of them would have
me consent to be

"A pipe for fortune's finger,
To sound what stop she please."

You would all have me be myself, and speak myself,
however wrong myself may be. You would all have
me deal honestly and honorably with yourselves. But
this I cannot do, unless I deal honestly and honorably
with mj^self If unfaithful to m}^ own convictions, if
false to myself, I shall, of necessity, be false to you :
but if' true to myself, I shall, of necessity, be true to
jou. To quote again from that great reader of the
human heart from whom I had just quoted :

" To thine own self be true ;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

I will say no more on this point than to add, that,
God helj^ing me, I shall earn the respect of every mem-
ber of this body, by respecting myself

And now, to my argument, and to my endeavor to
show, that land monopoly is wrong, and that civil gov-
ernment should neither practice, nor permit it ; and
that the duty of CongTess is to yield up all the public
land to actual settlers.

HOMESTEAD BILL. " 75

I admit, that there are things, in which a man can
liave absolute property, and which, without qnahfica-
tion or restriction, he can buy, or sell, or bequeath, at
his pleasure. But, I deny, that the soil is among these
things. What a man produces from the soil, he has
an absolute right to. He may abuse the right. It
nevertheless remains. But no such right can he have
in the soil itself. If he could, he might monopolize it.
If very rich, he might purchase a township or a county ;
and, in connection with half a dozen other monopolists,
he might come to obtain all the lands of a state or a
nation. Their occupants might be compelled to leave
them and to starve; and the lands might be con-
verted into parks and hunting-grounds, for the enjoy-
ment of the aristocracy. Moreover, if this could be
done, in the case of a state or a nation, why could it
not be done in the case of the whole earth ?

But it may be said, that a man might monopolize
the fruits of the soil, and thus become as injurious to
his fellow-men, as by monopolizing the soil itself It
is true, that he might, in this wise, produce a scarcity
of food. But the calamity would be for a few months
only, and it would serve to stimulate the sufferers to
guard against its recurrence, by a more faithful tillage,
and by more caution in parting with their crops. Hav-
ing the soil still in their hands, they would have the
remedy still in their hands. But had they suffered the
soil itself to l^o monopolized ; had they suffered the

76 HOMESTEAD BILL.

soil itself, instead of the fruits of it, to pass out of their
hands; then they would be without remedy. Then
they would lie at the mercy of him, who has it in his
power to dictate the terms on which they may again
have access to the soil, or who, in his heartless perverse-
ness, might refuse its occupation on any terms what-
ever.

What I have here supposed in my argument is
abundantly — alas! but too abundantly — justified by
facts. Land monopoly has reduced no small share of
the human family to abject and wretched dependence,
for it has shut them out from the great source of sub-
sistence, and frightfully increased the precariousness of
life. Unhappy Ireland illustrates the great power of
land monopoly for e^dl. The right to so much as a
standing place on the earth is denied to the great mass
of her people. Their great impartial Father has placed
them on the earth; and, in placing them on it, has
irresistibly imphed their right to live of it. Neverthe-
less, land monopoly tells them, that they are trespassers,
and treats them as trespassers. Even when most indul-
gent, land monopoly allows them nothing better than
to pick up the crumbs of the barest existence ; and,
when, in his most rigorous moods, the monster com-
pels them to starve and die by millions. Ireland —
poor, land-monopoly-cursed and famine-wasted Ireland
— has still a population of some six millions ; and yet
it is only six thousand persons, who have monopolized

HOMESTEAD BILL.

her soil. Scotland has some three millions of people ;
and three thousand is the number of the monopolists of
her soil. England and Wales contain some eighteen mil-
lions of people, and the total nmnber of those, who claim
exclusive right to the soil of England and Wales, is
thirty thousand. I may not be rightly informed, as to
the numbers of the land monopolists in those countries ;
but whether they are twice as great, or half as great,
as I have given them, is quite immaterial to the essence
of my argument against land monopoly. I would say
in this connection, that land monopoly, or the accumu-
lation of the land in the hands of the few, has increased
very rapidly in England. A couple of centuries ago,
there were several times as many English land-holders,

as there are now.

I need say no more to prove, that land monopoly is
a very high crime, and that it is the imperative duty
of Government to put a stop to it. Were the monopo-
ly of the light and air practicable, and were the mono-
polists of these elements (having armed themselves with
title deeds to them) to sally forth and threaten the peo-
ple of one town with a vacuum, in case they are unwill-
ing or unable to buy their supply of air ; and threaten
the people of another town with total darkness, in case
they will not or cannot buy their supply of light ; there,
confessedly, would be no higher duty on Govermnent
than to put an end to such wicked and death-deal-
ing monopolies. But these monopolies would not differ

78 HOMESTEAD BILL,

in principle from land monopoly : and they "WOiUd be
no more fatal to tlie enjoyments of linman existence,
and to Imman existence itself, than land monopoly has
proved itself capable of being. Why land monopoly
has not swept the earth of all good, is not because it
is Tinadapted and inadequate to that end, but because
it has been only ]Dartially carried out.

The right of a man to the soil, the light, and the ah,
is to so much of each of them, as he needs, and no more ;
and for so long as he lives, and no longer. In other
words, this dear mother earth, with her never-fivJliiig
nutritious bosom; and this life-preserving air, which
floats around it ; and this sweet light, which visits it,
are all owned by each present generation, and are equal-
ly owned by all the members of such generation. Hence,
whatever the papers or parchments regarding the soil,
which we may pass between ourselves, they can have
no legitimate power to impair the equal right to it,
either of the persons, who compose this generation, or
of the persons, who shall compose the next.

It is a very glaring assumption on the part of one
generation to control the distribution and enjoyment of
natural rights for another generation. We of the pre-
sent generation have no more liberty to provide, that
one person of the next generation shall have ten thou-
sand acres and another but ten acres, than we have t'v)
provide, that one person of the next generation shall live
a hundred years and another but a hundred days ; and
no more liberty to provide, that a person of the next

HOMESTEAD BILL. 79

generation shall be destitute of land, than that he shall
be destitute of light or air. They, who compose a gen-
eration, are, so far as natural rights are concerned, abso-
lutely entitled to a free and equal start in life ; and that
equahty is not to be disturbed, and that freedom is not
to be encumbered, by any arrangements of the preced-
ing generation.

I have referred to the miseries, which land monopoly
has brought upon the human family, and to the duty
of the Government to put a stop to it. But how shall
Grovernment put a stop to it ? I answer, by putting a
stop to the traffic in land, and by denying to every per-
son all right to more than his share of the land. In
other words, the remedy for land monopoly is, that Gov-
ernment shall |)rescribe the largest quantity of land,
which may be held by an individual ; and shall, at dis-
tant periods, vary the quantity, according to the increase
or diminution of the population. This maximum might,
in our own country, where the population is so sparse,
be carried as high as four or ^ve hundred acres. Never-
theless, it might be necessary to reduce it one half,
should our population be quadrupled. In a country,
as densely peopled as Ireland, this maximum should,
probably, not exceed thirty or forty acres.

What I have said concerning the land maximum ob-
viously applies but to such tracts, as are fit for hus-
bandry. To many tracts — ^to such, for instance, as are
valuable only for mining or lumbering — it can have no
application.

80 HOMESTEAD BILL.

I may be asked, wlietlier I would have the present
acknowledged claims to land disturbed. I answer,
that I would, where the needs of the people demand it.
In Ireland, for instance, there is the most urgent ne-
cessity for overriding such claims, and subdividing the
land anew. But, in our own country, there is an abun-
dance of vacant and unappropriated land for the land-
less to go to. We ought not, however, to presume upon
this abundance to delay abolishing land monopoly. The
greediness of land monopolists might, in a single gener-
ation, convert this abundance into scarcity. Moreover,
if we do not provide now for the peaceable equal dis-
tribution of the public lands, it may be too late to pro-
vide for it hereafter. Justice, so palpable and so neces-
sary, cannot be withheld but at the risk of being grasjD-
ed violently.

What I have said resj)ecting the duty of Government
to vary the land maximum at wide intervals, does, as I
have already intimated, apply to our own country, as
well as to other countries. The time may come, when, in
this country, broad as it is, it will be necessary and just
to disturb even the richest and most highly cultivated
landed possessions. Should our population become so
crowded, as to afford but fifty acres to a family, then
the farm of a hundred acres, and that, too, however ex-
pensively every acre of it may be improved, must be
divided into two equal parts ; and the possessor of it,
however old may be his possession, must be compelled
to give up one of them to his landless brother. To

HOMESTEAD BILL. 81

deny the soundness of this conclusion, is to deny, not
only the equality, but even the very fact, of the human
brotherhood.

It is in the light of the possibihty of siich a division,
that no man can sell his farm and convey it by a deed,
which shall certainly carry title to it for ever. I am
willing to admit, that a man can sell or bequeath his
farm, though, in strictness, it is but the betterments or
improvements upon the soil, and not the soil itself, which
he sells or bequeaths. But the purchaser, or inheritor,
and theu^ successors, incur the hazard of having their
possessions clipped by the nevs^ land maximum, which
it may be the duty of Government to prescribe.

It is said, however, that all talk of land monopoly m
America is impertinent and idle. It is boasted, that, in
escaping from primogeniture and entail, we have esca j)-
ed from the evils of land monopoly. But the boast is
unfounded. These evils already press hea^rily upon us ;
and they will press more and more heavily upon us,
unless the root of them is extirpated — unless land mo-
nopoly is abolished. In the old portions of the country,
the poor are oppressed and defrauded of an essential
natural right by the accumulation of farms in the hands
of wealthy families. In the new, the way of the poor,
and indeed of the whole population, to comfort and pros-
perity is blocked up by tracts of wild land, which spec-
ulators retain for the u.njust purpose of having them in-
crease in value out of the toil expended upon the con-
tipfuous land. And whv should we flatter ourselves,

82 HOMESTEAD BILL.

that land monopoly, if suffered to live among u;^, will
not, in time, get laws enacted for its extension and per-
petuity, as effective even as primogeniture and entail ?
To let alone any great wrong, in the liope, that it will
never outgrow its present limits, is very unwise — very
imsafe. But land monopoly is not onl}^ a great, but a
mighty wrong ; and, if let alone, it may stretch and for-
tify itself, until it ho-S become invincible.

Much happier vrorld will this be, when land monopo-
ly shall cease ; when his needed portion of the soil shall
be accorded to every person ; when it shall no more be
bought and sold ; when, like salvation, it shall be
"without money and without price ;" when, in a word,
it shall be free, even as God made it free. Then, v,^hen
the good time, prophetically spoken of, shall have come,
and "every man shall sit under his own vine and fig
tree," the world will be much happier, because, in the
first place, wealth will then be so much more equally dis-
tributed, and the rich and the poor vfill then be so com-
paratively rare. Riches and poverty are both abnor-
mal, false, unhappy states, and they will yet be declared
to be sinful states. They beget each other. Over
against the one is ever to be found a corresponding de-
gree of the other. So long, then, as the masses are
robbed by land monopoly, the world will be cursed
with riches and poverty. But, when the poor man is
put in possession of his portion of the goodly green earth,
and is secured by the strong arm of Government in the
enjo^Tnent of a home, from which not he, nor his wife,

HOMESTEAD BILL. 83

nor Ms children, can be driven, then is lie raised, above
poverty, not only by the possession of the soil, but still
more by the virtues, which he cultivates in his heart,
whilst he cultivates the soil. Then, too, he no longer
ministers to the undue accumulation of wealth by others,
as he did, when advantage was taken of his homeless
condition, and he was compelled to serve for what he
could get.

I would add in this place, that inasmuch as land
monopoly is the chief cause of beggary, comparatively
little beggary will remain after land monopoly is abol-
ished. Where a nation is very hv.dlj governed in other
respects, the abolition of land monopoly may be very far
from resulting in the abolition of all beggary. And
here let me say, that very little good can be promised
from any reform to any people, who allow themselves
to be oppressed and crushed by a national debt. France
has done much toward abolishing land monopoly. But,
because she is so much worse governed than England,
she is, in the extent of her beggary, not very far behind
England. I need not dwell upon, nor even describe, the
evils of beggary ; and I need not say, that it is the duty
of Government to put an end to it, so far as Government
has the power, and the right to do so. Beggary is an im-
measui-ably great evil. It is such, not only because it
is a burden upon the world, but far more, because it is
a shame to the world— a shame to the beggar, and a
shame to mankind.

I would, at this stage of my remarks, notice the cavil,

84: HOMESTEAD BILL.

that even if the equal ownership of the soil were prac-
ticallj acknowledged, nevertheless there would be per-
sons, who would get rich, and persons, who vfould get
poor. This would, doubtless, be true to a considerable
extent ; for, on the hand, there are the provident, and
on the other the improvident ; on the one hand the
cunning and craft j, and on the other the simple and un-
suspecting. But because there will be rich and poor after
the land is equally distributed, is that a reason why it
should not be equally distributed ? If, notwithstanding
such equal distribution, there are persons, who will still
be poor; if, notwithstanding Government restores to
its subjects their natural right to the soil, some of them
are incapable of rising above poverty ; then is it all the
naore clearly proved, that Government was bound to
mitigate their poverty by securing them homes. If,
notwithstanding they are put in possession of their por-
tions of the soil, they are still poor, alas, how much
poorer would they have been without those portions ?
And, again : if there are persons who get rich, notwith-
standing they are not permitted to wield land monopo-
ly in behalf of their ambition, then how manifestly im-
portant is it, that they were not allowed this means of
getting richer ?

In the next place, the world will be much happier,
when land monopoly shall cease, because manual labor
will then be so honorable, because so well nigh uni
versal.

It will be happier, too, because the wages system,

HOMESTEAD BILL. 85

with all its attendant degradation and unhappy influ-
ences, will find but little room in the new and radically
changed condition of society, which will follow the abo-
lition of land monopoly. Then, as a general thing,
each man will do his own work, and each woman hers ;
and this, too, not from choice only, but from necessity
also ; for then, few will be wealthy enough to be able
to hire, and few poor enough to consent to serve.

It will be happier, too, because of the general equal-
ity there will then be, not in property only, but in
education, and other essential respects also. How much
fewer the instances then, than now, of a haughty spirit
on the one hand, and of an abject spirit on the other !
The pride of superior circumstances, so common now,
■^dll then be rare. And rare, too, will be that abject-
ness of spirit, so common now, (though, happily, far
from universal,) in the condition of dependent poverty ;
and the difficulty of overcoming which is so well com-
pared to the difficulty of making an empty bag stand
up straight !

Again, the world will be happier, when land mono-
poly is abolished, because it will more abound in mar-
riage. Marriage, when invited by a free soil, will be
much more common and early, than when, as now, it
must be delayed, until the parties to it are able to pur-
chase a home.

Another gain to the world from abolishing land mo-
nopoly, is that war would then bo well nigh impossible.

86' HOMESTEAD BILL. '

It would be so, if only because it would be difficult to
enlist men into its ranks. For wlio would leave the
comforts and endearments of home, to enter upon the
poorlj-paid and unhonored services of a private sol-
dier. It was not " young Fortinbras" only, who, in
collecting his army,

" Shark'd up a list of landless resolutes."

But, in every age and country, war has found its re-
cruits among the homeless — among vagabonds.

And still another benefit to flow from the abolition
' of land monopoly is its happy influence upon the cause
of temperance — ^that precious cause, which both the
great and the small are, in their folly and madness, so
wont to scorn, but which is, nevertheless, none the less
essential to private happiness and prosperity, to nation-
al growth and glory. The ranks of intemperance, like
those of war, are, to a great extent, recruited from the
homeless and the vagrant.

I T\'ill glance at but one more of the good effects, that
■will result from the abolition of land monopoly. Eeli-
gion will rejoice, when the masses, now robbed of
homes by land monopoly, shall have homes to thank
Grod for — homes, in which to cultivate the home-bred
virtues, to feed upon religious truth, and to gTOW in
Christian vigor and beauty.

How numerous and precious the blessings, that would
follow the abolition of land monopoly ! By the num

HOMESTEAD BILL. 87

ber and preciousness of tliose blessings i miglit entreat
civil government, the earth over, to abolish it. But I
will not. I prefer to demand this .justice in the name
of justice. In the name of justice, I demand, that civil
government, wherever guiltj of it, shall cease to sell
and give away land — shall cease to sell and give away
what is not its own. The vacant land belongs to all,
who need it. It belongs to the landless of every clime
and condition. The extent of the legitimate concern
of Government with it is but to regulate and protect its
occupation. In the name of justice do I demand of
Government, not only, that it shall itself cease from the
land traffic, but that it shall compel its subjects to cease
from it. Government owes protection to its subjects.
It owes them nothing else. But that people are em-
phatically unprotected, who are left by their Govern-
ment to be the prey of land monopoly.

The Federal Government has sinned greatly against
human- rights in usurping the ownership of a large
share of the American soil. It can, of course, enact no
laws, and exert no influence, against land monopoly,
whilst it is itself the mammoth monopolist of land.
This Government has presumed to sell millions of
acres, and to give away millions of acres. It has
lavished land on States, and corporations, and indivi-
duals, as if it were itself the Great Maker of the land.
Our State Governments, also, have been guilty of as-
suming to own the soil. They, too, need repent.

88 HOMESTEAD BILL.

And thej will repent, if the Federal Government will
lead the way. Let this Government distinctly disclaim
all ownership of the soil ; and, everywhere within its
jurisdiction, let it forbid land monopoly, and prescribe
the maximum quantity of land, which an individual
may possess, and the State Governments will not fail
to be won by so good and so attractive an example.
And if the Governments of this great nation shall ac-
knowledge the right of every man to a spot of earth for
a home, may we not hope, that the Governments of
many other nations will speedily do likewise ? Nay,
may we not, in that case, regard the age as not distant,
when land monopoly, which numbers far more victims
than any other evil, and which is, moreover, the most
prolific parent of evil, shall disappear from the whole
earth, and shall leave the whole earth to illustrate, as it
never can, whilst under the curse of land monopoly,
the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man ?

But will this Government take this step, which we
have now called on it to take ? Will it go forward in
this work of truth and love ? Will it have a part, and
the most honorable part, in bringing all this blessedness
and glory upon the human family ? A more hnportant
question has never been addressed to it ; and the pass-
ing of this bill will be the most significant and satisfac-
tory answer, which this question could now receive.
Let this bill become a law, and, if our Government
shall be consistent with itself, land monopoly will surely

HOMESTEAD BILL. 89

cease within the limits of the exclusive jurisdiction of
that Government. But let this bill be defeated, and let
success attend the applications for scores of millions of
acres for soldiers, and for hundreds of millions of acres
for railroad and canal companies, and land monopoly
•will then be so strongly fastened upon this nation, that
violence alone will be able to throw it off. The best
hope for the poor will then perish. The most cherished
reliance for human progress will then be trodden under
foot.

Let it not be supposed, that I would not have the
soldier liberally paid. No man would go further than
myself in rewarding the armed servant of the Eepublic.
But I would not have the poor robbed ; — I would not
have a high crime committed against humanity ; — even
for the sake of doing justice to the soldier. Indeed,
justice can never be done by injustice.

Whatever is due to the soldier should be paid — ^paid
promptly — and paid, too, with large interest. But let
it be paid in money. And, I would here say, that a
little money would be worth more to the soldier than
much land. If the land market is to be glutted, as is
now proposed, his land will be worth but little to him.
It will not sell, at the present time. And with him and
his necessitous family, the present time is emphatically
aU time. They cannot wait, as can the speculator,
until the land shall become salable.

My reference to the speciilator affords me an occasiou

90 HOMESTEAD BILL.

for saying, that not only tlie lands, which you let
soldiers have, but also the lands, which you let rail-
road companies and canal companies have, will get
into the hands of land speculators. That is theii-
sure and speedy destination ; and it is in those
hands, that land monopoly works it-s mightiest mis-
chief, and develops its guiltiest character.

Nor let it be supposed, that there is no railroad nor no"
canal, that I would have Government aid in building.
Wherever it can be fairly plead in behalf of the pro-
posed canal or railroad, that it cannot be built without
the aid of Government, and that the building of it will
furnish Government with an indispensable, or, at least,
very important means for extending that protection,
which is ever due from Government ; there, I admit, is
a case, in which Government is bound to aid. Hence
is it, that whilst, on the one hand, I pronounce it to be
a gross perversion of its powers, and a wide and guilty
departure from its province, for Government to help
build canals, and railroads which are to subserve but
the ordinary purposes of commerce and travel ; I hold,
on the other, that Government is bound to offer a
liberal, though not an extravagant sum to the com-
pany, that shall build the Pacific Kailroad — that road
being greatly needed, as a facility for affording Gov-
ernmental protection. Hence it is, too, that the claim
on Government to help build the canal around the
Falls of St. Mary was a just one. And for the like

HOMESTEAD BILL. 91

reason sliould Grovernment aid in building the pro-
posed canal around the Falls of Niagara. It is
true, that the commercial interests of many of our
States call loudly for the building of this canal. In-
deed, there is no one thing for which they call so loudly.
Nevertheless, I would not, for that reason, have Gov-
ernment respond to the call. But because this canal
might prove an important means in the hands of Grov-
ernment of affording that protection, which it owes to
the persons and property of its subjects, I should feel
bound to vote the liberal aid of Government in building
i1> Moreover, Government would be grossly inconsist-
ent, if, so long as it looks to the possibility of war, it
should refuse to vote two or three millions of dollars to
the company, that might thereby be induced to furnish
Government with this means of transporting its vessels,
munitions, and provisions of war, between Lakes Erie
and Ontario.

LETTER

EXPLAINIXa

VOTE ON THE HOMESTEAD BILL,

[Mr. Douglass published it in the newspaper which he edits.]
House of Representatives, March 6, 1854.

Frederick Douglass:

My Dear Sir : An liour ago, I gave my vote against
the Homestead Bill : and, tliat too, notwithstanding I
liad made a speecli in favor of it ; and, that too, not-
withstanding I have, for so many years, loved, and ad-
vocated, and acted on, the great essential principles of
the bill.

My apparent inconsistency in this case is explained
by the fact, that, just before we were called to vote on
the bill, it was so amended, as to limit its grant of
land to ivhite persons.

If my fellow land-reformers, with whom I have, so
long, toiled for the success of our land-reform doctrines,

94 VOTE ON THE HOMESTEAD BILL.

sliall be aggrieved b}'- my vote, I sliall be sorry. Kever-
tlieless, I can never regret my vote. I was a man before
I was a land-reformer. And, for tlie sake of no gains,
however great, or liowever many, can I consent to ignore
tlie claims, and even tlie fact itself, of a common man-
hood. But the advantages, which are songht, at the
expense of trampling on human rights, are not gains.
Such gains are losses — even to those, v/ho get them.
The Homestead Bill would have been purchased at too
dear a rate had it proscribed only one negro, or only
one Indian. The curse of God is upon the bill, or there
is no Grod. There is no God, if we have liberty to in-
sult and outrage any portion of His children.

To reconcile me to the bill as amended, I was told
by one of the members of Congress, that the colored
people would not be shut out from the public lands : —
but that they could still buy them ! That is, the color-
ed people must buy their homes, whilst the white peo-
ple are to have free homes ! What a comment this on
the gTeat justifying doctrine of negro-slavery, that the
negroes are unable to take care of themselves ! What
a spectacle of merciless cruelty we present ! The most
frightful passages of history furnish no parallel to it.
Our National Legislature joins our State Legislatures
in holding out to the free colored people the hard alter-
native of returning under the yoke of slavery, or of
being shut out from our broad continent. And, then,
the excuse for this treatment is no less unreasonable and
insulting than the treatment is cruel and murdero-a«.

VOTE ON THE HOMESTEAD BILL. 95

It is, tliat the free colored people are too ignorant, and
lazy, and worthless, to deserve any better clioice than
slavery or death. And this is the excuse of those, v/ho
shut out the colored people from schools; and drive
them into negro-pews ; and banish them from society ;
and mark them as physical and moral lepers, to be
everywhere shunned, and loathed, and hated !

That our free colored brethren should in these cir-
cumstances be no more discouraged and dejected ; no
more self-despairing, and self-despising ; no lower in in-
telligence, and morals, and thrift, is to me amazing.
That the mass of them should, notwithstanding the de-
pressing, crushing influences upon them, be still rising
and bettering their condition ; and that there should be
rapidly multiplying instances among them of the ac-
quisition of wealth, and of distinction in writing, and
oratory, and general scholarship, is more than I had
supposed to be possible.

Your friend,

Gereit Smith.

SPEECH

OX TILE

BILL TO AID THE TERRITORY OF MIMESOTA

IN" CONSTRUCTING A RAILROAD FOR mLITARY, POSTAL,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

MAKOH 7, 1S54.

Mr. Chairman; As I liave but just now come into the
Hall, and as I have lost tlie former p9,rt of the discussion,
and as I have never until this moment seen a copy of this
bill, I may not know, with the necessary precision, what
are the subject-matters of the discussion. But, with
my present impressions, I am opposed to the bill. I
am opposed to this bill, not because I am opposed to
any existing railroad company that may be interested
in the bill, nor because I doubt the worthiness of any
company that may be organized to build it. I have no
reason to apprehend that such a company would be
composed of any other than honorable men. I have no
reason to apprehend that such a company would not be
5

98 RAILROAD-BUILDING, NOT

moved to build tlie road by as pure and as generous a
regard for tlie public welfare as ever prompted any, even
tlie best railroad company. Kor am I opposed to this
bill because of tlie possible fact tbat a company of gen-
tlemen may be interested in a tract of land at one of
tlie termini of tbe proposed road. Nor am I opposed
to this bill because the proposed road may liave the ef-
fect to concentrate trade and travel at this point, or to
divert trade and travel from that point.

I am opposed to this bill because it calls for Govern-
ment to do with the public lands what I hold Govern-
ment has no right to do with them. I hold that they
do not belong to Government, and that Government
has nothing to do with them but to regulate and pro-
tect the occupations which shall be made upon them.
I hold that the lands belong to the landless ; and that
both reason and religion, policy and j^rincijDle, require
that thev shall be surrendered to the landless. But, as I
had the opportunity, a week or two since, to discuss this
point somewhat extensively on this floor, I will not con-
sume the time of the committee with it any further, than
to say, that when I claim the j)ublic lands for the land-
less, I mean not only the landless of a certain complex-
ion, but all the landless. Believing, as I do, that all
the varieties of the human family are equally dear to the
great heart of their common Maker, I trust that they
will ever be equally dear to my httle heart. So do I aim
to bear myself toward all descriptions of my fellow-men
— ^toward all my equal brothers — for every man is my

THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENr. 99

equal brother — that, at the last day, I shall be able to
look into the faces of them all, "onabashed by the con-
sciousness that I have pursued any of them in this life
with unrelenting prejudice and merciless hatred.

But to the argument. And, now, for the sake of the
argument, I will admit that the public lands are proper-
ty in the hands of the Government — as much so as is
money. Nevertheless, I still deny that Government
may use them in the way contemplated by this bill. I
insist that Government shall use its property for none
other than strictly governmental purposes. It may use
its property in defraying the expenses of Government ;
it may use it in afibrding protection to the persons and
property of its subjects ; but there is nothing else for
which Government may use it.

In point of principle this bill is all the same, as would
be a bill for the Federal Government to build with
money, and nothing but money, the whole of a railroad
in Minnesota. The principle can not be affected by the
fact that the road in this case is to be built with la,nd
instead of money ; nor by the fact that the appropria-
tion of land asked for is insufficient to pay the whole
cost of the road. If the Government may build with
land it may build with money. If it may furnish one
half or one fourth of the means necessary to build the
road, then it may furnish all. But would not Congress
be startled by the grave proposition for the Federal
Government to build the whole of a long railroad in
Minnesota, and that, too, with money ? It should not

100 KAILEOAD-BUILUIXG, XOT

be, however, if it is reconciled to the passing of this
bill.

What is the argument most relied on to influence*
Government to help build this road ? It is that the
road will accelerate the settlement of Minnesota and the
development of her resources ; and greatly enhance the
value of the public lands in that Territory. I admit
that this would be the effect, and I should rejoice in it ;
for I regard the welfare of that Territory with great in-
terest. But this same effect, to a greater or less extent,
could be produced by Government's building canals in
that Territory. May Government, therefore, build
canals in it ? Again, Government might promote these
good objects by building churches and school-houses in
the Territory. But nearly or quite all of us would con-
demn it as a gross perversion of its true of&ce for Govern-
ment to help Minnesota to school-houses and churches.
And yet, so far as its right is concerned. Government
can as well do these things for Minnesota as to build
railroads for her ; ay, and so far as its right is concerned,
it can as well sprinkle Minnesota over with stores and
blacksmith-shops.

I intimated that I am not opposed to the building of
the road in question, because of its possible rivalry with
some other road. And yet, one reason why I am op-
posed to the granting of land in aid of the building of
this and other railroads is, that Government may, in
this wise, be throwing its great weipfht into the scah^of

THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT. 101

one road against another ; of one town against another ;
or of some other interest of one part of the people
against the like interest of another part of the people.
Government should avoid partiality, not only in the pur-
pose of its acts, but, as far as possible, in the effect of
its acts, also. Government is bound to be strictly and
sternly impartial. But such impartiality it v\rill best
maintaiQ, and can only maintain, by refusing to extend
special help to any classes or portions of its subjects ;
and by. simply and equally protecting all.

I rejoice in the free and extended discussion of this
bni, if it is only because I hope that we may come out
of it with juster views of the nature of the of^ce, and
juster views of the limits of the province, of Civil Gov-
ernment. It is high time that the American Congress
had settled, with more distinctness and more certainty
than it seems to have done, the legitimate boundaries
and the legitimate obj ects of Civil Government. These
boundaries and these objects thus settled, we should
not hesitate as to the true disposition to make of this
bill, and of all kindred bills. We should reject them
all promptly.

But it is said that we have abundant precedents for
such disposition of the public lands as is proposed
in this bill. Arguments drawn from precedents are of
doubtful value. An age of progress should rise above
precedents — should make precedents for itself Were
we to rely on precedents, it might be urged against us

102 KAILROAD-BUILDING, NOT

that, masmuch as there are more precedents for monar-
chies than for republics, we ought to supplant our Ke-
public with a monarchy. In this disordered and mis-
governed world there are far more precedents for the
wrong and the false than for the right and the true.
Shall we, therefore, give up the right and the true ?

The Governments of the earth have ever proved great
curses to the people, by meddling with the concerns of
the people. It is time that we had ceased from follow-
ing such precedents ; and that we had left the people to
do their own work ; and, therefore, to build their o^vn
railroads without help from Government on the one
hand, and without hindrance from it on the other.
Such hindrance there may be in the case of one road,
where Government helps build another, which may
prove its rival.

This usurpation by Government of the work of the
people, and its consequent neglect and bad performance
of its own work has everywhere, and in every age,
been the sorest evil that the people have suffered. I
would that we might teach, in the most emphatic and
unmistakable language, that, so far as the influence of
this body extends, the American Government shall
henceforth confine itself to its only and one work of
protecting the persons and property of its subjects,
and shall leave the people to do their own work of
building churches, and schools, and railroads, and
canals.

THE BUSINESS OF GOVEENMENT. ■ 108

Mr. Bayly, of Virginia. And forming their own
governments.

Mr. Smith, of New- York. Yes ; and forming their
own governments. That is right. The people should
be allowed to form their own governments.

To return. We have precedents for land monopoly,
also. Poor Ireland, and indeed, almost every other
part of the world, furnishes us with numberless such
precedents. But I hold that we should turn our backs
upon such precedents, and throw open the public lands,
without price, to the landless to wliom they belong. I
say that they belong to the landless. The bare fact that
a man is without land is title enough to his needed
sbare of the vacant land. No clearer, stronger title to it
can he possibly have. Is there a spare home in the
great common inheritance of the human family ? Wlio
should bave it if not the homeless ? I repeat it, we
should make the public lands free to the poor. If, on
the contrary, we shall do with them as is proposed in
this and similar bills, we shall make much of them cost
to the poor double, and much of tbem even quadruj)le,
the price that Grovernment puts upon tbem.

Mr. EiCHARDSON. I dislike to interrupt the gentle-
man ; but I feel it to be my duty to raise a question of
order. Three days are set apart for the consideration
of territorial business, and I submit that it is not in order

104 EAILROAD-BUILDING, NOT

for the gentleman from New- York to discuss the Home-
stead Bill imder the proposition now before us.

Mr. Smith. I would say a word in reply to the gen-
tleman, did I believe that there is any force or perti-
nence in what he has said.

The Chairman. The gentleman from Illinois raises
the question of order that the gentleman from New- York
is not confining his remarks to the discussion of the bill
now under consideration. The Chair perceives that the
gentleman is arguing that this grant of land shall not be
made, and he believes that the gentleman from New-
York is in order.

Mr. Smith. I ask no latitude, sir. I am willing
you should hold me as strictly to the subject-matter as if
I were discussing it in the House, and not in this com-
mittee. I have yet to learn (and I think I may add
that they who know me have yet to learn) that I am
addicted to wandering from the subject under discus-
sion. From having long trained myself to the most
careful confinement of myself to the subject in hand, I
hope not to be found guilty of offending against my
habit, and against confessed propriety in this respect.
But, sir, I am aware that many gentleman appear eager
to speak on this occasion ; and that there is not an hour,
nor a half-hour, for each of us. I will therefore bring
my remarks to a close ; I would be just and generous
in my use of our common time.

THE BUSINESS OF GOVEKNMENT. 105

It is said tliat railroads are necessary to enable the
poor to get to tlie public lands. Admit it. Kever-
theless, tliere Yfill be railroads enongli for this purpose
without Government's giving to the rich the lands that
belong to the poor. The poor ask no such left-handed
help as this from Government. The poor have no
faith in the maxim, that if Government will take care
of the rich, the rich will take care of the poor. In de-
manding the public lands of Government the poor
demand only what belongs to the poor ; and if Govern-
ment will yield to this demand, the poor will either
provide themselves with railroads, or they will make it
the interest of others to provide them.

5*

SPEECH

ON THE

SECOND DEFICIENCY BILL.

MAKCH 16, 18 5 4.

Mr. Prestok, of Kentucky, liad moved an amend-
ment for the completion of various custom-liouses and
marine hospitals; and Mr. Stai^ton, of Tennessee, liad
moved to amend tlie amendment by adding to tlie
appropriation.

Mr. Smith said :— Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to
this amendment to the amendment, because I am
opposed to the original amendment offered by the gen-
tleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Preston.] I am opposed
to the original amendment, not because I am opposed
to these appropriations for custom-houses and marine
hospitals, for I am in favor of them. I voted for them
all. I voted for them all because, having the recom-

108 SECOND DEFICIENCY BILL.

mendation of tlie Secretary, I tlioiiglit tliat tliey were
entitled to my vote.

I voted for these appropriations notwitlistanding I
am an absolute free-trade man. I long for the day
when there will not be a custom-house left on the face
of the earth, and when this obstruction to the free
intercourse, of the nations of the earth with each other
shall have passed away forever. But so long as the
tariff policy is among the pohcies of our nation, we
must have custom-houses ; and it is better that Govern-
ment should build them than rent them. If Govern-
ment builds them, they will be safe and suitable. If it
rents them, they will probably be unsafe and unsuit-
able.

I am opposed to embodying these appropriations in
the deficiency bill, because, where it is practicable, it is
well to have every measure left to stand on its own
merits. But I am still more opposed to it because I
fear that the deficiency bill, if loaded down with these
appropriations, will fail.

Now, I cannot consent to an attitude which may
look at aU like unreasonable or factious opposition to
the Administration. In all the views and measures of
the Administration which are reasonable, I shall gladly
concur. To defeat the deficiency bill would be to
embarrass the Administration, and would be to block
the wheels of Government. Moreover, it would be to
dishonor the Government and the nation, by -leaving
debts unpaid which should be paid, and paid now —

SECOND DEFICIENCY BILL. 109

for in many cases there is urgent need of their being
paid now.

When, a few weeks ago, the deficiency bill was lost,
through the mutual jealousies of the Whigs and Demo-
crats, I rejoiced that I stand alone upon this floor ; that
I am a party by myself, and in myself ; that I am in a
greatly and gloriously independent minority of one,
and that I was therefore unaffected by those jealousies
which defeated the bill.

I hope, sir, that the deficiency bill will be passed ;
and I hope that when it is passed, we shall pass the
appropriation bill also. When we have done justice to
the deficiency bill, we shall thereby have conciliated
the friends of that bill, who are opposed to the appro-
priation bill. They ^vill then be better able and better
disposed to view with candor the claims of these pro-
posed appropriations, and to appreciate thek force.

TEMPERANCE.

MAECH 31, 1854.

DuEiNG tlie discussion tliis day on tlie bill for build-
ing Steamships, Mr. Smith made repeated attempts to
amend it with, the words : " No intoxicating liquors
shall ever be kept in said ships ;" — ^bnt the Chairman
as repeatedly ruled the amendment to be out of order.
On Mr. Smith's appeal from the division of the Chair,
the House sustained the Chair.

SPEECH

ON THE

NEBRASKA BILL.

APRIL 6, 1S54.

[The motto which Mr Smith prefixed to this Speech, and under which
it first appeared, was : " No Slavery in Nebraska : No Slavery in the
Nation : Slavery an Outlaw/']

So, Mr. Cliairman, tlie slavery qnestion is up again !
—up again, even in Congress!! It will not keep
down. At no bidding, however authoritative, will it
keep dovfn. Tlie President of tlie United States com-
mands it to keep down. Indeed, he has, hitherto,
seemed to make the keeping down of this ques-
tion the great end of his great ofdce. Members of
Congress have so far humbled themselves, as to pledge
themselves on this floor to keep it down. National
political conventions promise to discountenance, and
even to resist, the agitation of slavery, both in and out
of Congress. Commerce and politics are as afraid of
this agitation, as Macbeth Avas of the ghost of Banquo ;

114 THE InEBRASKA BILL.

and many titled divines, taking tlieir cue from com-
merce and politics, and being no less servile than mer-
chants and demagogues, do what they can to keep the
slavery question out of sight. But all is of no avail.
The saucy slavery question mil not mind them. To
repress it in one quarter, is only to have it burst forth
more prominently in another quarter. If you hold it
back here, it will break loose there, and rush forward
with an accumulated force, that shall amply revenge
for all its detention. And this is not strange, when we
consider how great is the power of truth. It were
madness for man to bid the grass not to grow, the
waters not to run, the winds not to blow. It were
madness for him to assume the mastery of the elements
of the 23hysical world. But more emphatically were it
madness for him to attemjot to hold in his puny fist the
forces of the moral world. Canute's folly, in setting
bounds to the sea, v^as wisdom itself, compared with
the so much greater folly of attempting to subjugate
the moral forces. Now, tlie power which is, ever and
anon, throwing up the slavery question into our un-
willing and affrighted faces, is Truth. The passion-
blinded and the infatuated may not discern this mighty
agent. Nevertheless, Truth lives and reigns forever;
and she will be, continually, tossing up unsettled ques-
tions. We must bear in mind, too, that every question,
which has not been disposed of in conformity with her
requirements, and which has not been laid to repose

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 115

on her own blessed bosom, is an unsettled question.
Hence, slavery is an unsettled question; and must
continue such, until it shall have fled forever from the
presence of liberty. It must be an entirely unsettled
question, because, not only is it not in harmony with
truth, but there is not one particle of truth in it.
Slavery is the baldest and biggest lie on earth. In
reducing man to a chattel, it denies that man is man ;
and, in denying, that man is man, it denies, that God
is God— for, in His own image, made He man— the
black man and the red man, as well as the white man-
Distorted as are our minds by prejudice, and shrivelled
as are our souls by the spirit of caste, this essential
equality of the varieties of the human family may not
be apparent to us all. Were we delivered from this
prejudice, and this spirit, much of the darkness, which
now obscures our vision, would be scattered. In pro-
portion as we obey the truth, are we able to discern the
truth. And if all, that is wrong within us, were made
right, not only would our darkness give place to a
cloudless light, but, like the angel of the Apocalypse,
we should stand in the sun.

But to my argument. I am opposed to the bill for
organizing the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas,
which has come to us from the Senate, because, in the
first place, it insults colored men, and the Maker of all
men, by limiting suffrage to white men. I am opposed
to it, because, in the second place, it lunits suffrage to

116 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

persons, who have acquired citizenship. The man,
who comes to us from a foreign land, and declares his
intentions to make his home among us, and acts in har-
mony with such declaration, is well entitled to vote
with us. He has given one great evidence of possess-
ing an American heart, which our native could not
give. For, whilst our native became an American by
the accident of birth, the emigTant became one by
choice. For, whilst our native may be an American,
not from any preference for America, the emigrant has
proved, that he prefers our country to every other.

I am opposed to the bill, in the third place, because,
it is so drawn, as to convey the deceptive idea, (I do
not say intentionally deceptive,) that the bill recognizes
the doctrine of non-intervention. I call it deceptive
idea : for, in point of fact, the bill does not recognize
the doctrine of non-intervention. It dictates to the
territories the form of their government, and denies to
them the appointing of their principal officers. The
bill is, itself, therefore, the most emphatic intervention.
One hundi^edth as much intervention on the part of the
Federal Grovernment with a State Government would
be condemned as outrageous and intolerable interven-
tion.

But I must be frank, and admit, that, if the bill did
really recognize the doctrine of non-intervention, I
should still be opposed to it — ay, and for that very rea-
son. Tliis whole doctrine of Congressional non-inter-

THE NEBRASKxV BILL. 117

vention witli our territories I regard as perfectly absurd.
Congressional intervention witli them is an imperative
and unavoidable duty. Tbe reasoning to this end is
simple and irresistible. Tlie people of the United
States acquire a territory. Being theirs, they are re-
sponsible for its conduct and cbaracter :— and, bemg
thus responsible, they ^ not only have the right, but
are absolutely bound, to govern the territory. So long
as the territory is theirs, they can no more abdicate sov-
ereignty over it than a State can abdicate sovereignty
over one of its counties. But the people of the United
States govern through Congress ; and, hence, in respect
to what is the people's there must be Congressional in-
tervention. In the nature of the case, this must be so.
But the Constitution also shoves, that it must be so.
The Constitution declares the fact of the government
of the Nation by itself; and it also recognizes the fact
of the government of a State by itself But, nowhere,
does it so much, as hint at the government of a territory
by itself On the contrary, it- expressly subjects the re-
gulation or government of territories, to Congress, or,
in other words, to the whole people of the United

States.

I add, incidently, that, in the light of the fact of the
American people's responsibility for the conduct and
character of tlieir territories, it is absurd to claim, that
New-Mexico and Utah are to be exempt from slavery,
because the Mexican Government had abolished slavery.

118 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

Whether there can be legal slavery in those territories
turns solely on the chara.cter of the Constitution — turns
solely on the question, whether that paper is anti-slavery
or pro-slavery. Again, in the light of this same flict,
we see how absurd it is to claim, that there could, under
the continued force of the French or Spanish laws, be
slavery in the territory of Louisiana, after we had ac-
quired it. If, after such acquisition, there was, or could
be, legal slavery in the territory, it was solely because
the Constitution — the only law, which then attached to
the territory — authorized it. What, if when we had
acquired the territory, there had been in it, among the
creatures of French, or S23anish, or other law, the sut-
tee, or cannibalism — would it not have been held, that
these abominations were repugnant to the Constitution,
and, therefore, without legal existence ? Certainly.

I spoke of the Constitution, as the only law, which
attaches to our territories. I was justified in this, be-
cause it is the only law of the people of the United
States, when they are taken as a whole, or a unit. AYhen
regarded in sections, they have other laws also. The
people of a State have the laws of their State, as well
as the laws of their ISTation. But, I repeat it, the peo-
ple of the United States, when viewed as one, have no
other law than the Constitution. Their CongTCSs and
Judiciary can know no other law. The statutes of the
one and the decisions of the other must be but applica-
tions and interpretations of this one organic law.

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 119

Another incidental remark, is, tliat it is wrong to
charge the opponents of this bill with denying and dis-
honoring the doctrine of " popular sovereignty." Hold-
ing, as we do, that to the people — the whole people —
of the United States belong both the lands and the sove-
reignty of their territories, we insist, that to shut them
out from governing their territories, would be to deny
and dishonor the doctrine of "popular sovereignty."
It is the friends of the bill, who, provided it is, as they
claim, a bill for non-intervention, that are to be charged
with violating the doctrine of " popular sovereignty,"
and the principles and genius of democracy. I close,
under this head, with saying, that should real non-in-
tervention obtain in regard to these territories, it would
be a very great and very astonishing change from our
present policy. The inhabitants of a territory have no
vote in Congress. Nevertheless, real non-intervention
would vest them with the exclusive disposal of import-
ant affairs, which are, now, at the exclusive disposal of
Congress. It would compensate them for their present
political disabilities with an amount of political power
greatly exceeding that enjoyed by an equal handful of
the people of a State.

To prevent misapprehension of my views, I add, that
I am not opposed to making inhabitants of the territory
officers of the territory. As far as practicable, I would
have none others for its officers. But, whilst the ter-
ritory is the nation's, all its ofi&cers should be acknow-
l':deed to bo officers and servants of the nation.

120 * THE NEBRASKA BILL.

I proceed to say, that I am opposed to tliis bill, in
tlie fourth place, because it looks to the existence of
slavery in these territories, and provides safeguards for
it. In other words. Congress does, by the terms of the
bill, open the door for slavery to enter these territories.
The right of Congress to do so I deny. I deny it, how-
ever, not because the compromise of 1820 denies it.
Believing that compromise to be invalid, I cannot hon-
estly claim anything under it. I disclaim all rights
under it, for the simple reason, that a compromise con-
ceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity, can impart
no rights — for the simple reason, that a compromise,
which annihilates rights, can not create rights. I admit,
that the compromise of 1820 concedes the indestructi-
bleness of manhood north of the line of 36° 30', except-
ing in Missouri. But, on the other hand, it atones for
this concession to truth and justice by impliedly leaving
men south of that line, and in Missouri, to be classed
with brutes and things. I admit, too, that they, who
are enjoying the share of slavery under this compro-
mise, and who, now, that freedom was about to enter
into the enjoyment of her share under it — I admit, I say,
that they are estopped from joining me in pronouncing
the Missouri compromise invalid. They must first sur-
render their share under the compromise — they must
first make restitution to Freedom — ere they can, with
clean hands and unblushing faces, ask her to forego the
enjoyment of her share. " But this condition is imprac-

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 121

ticable I" will some of my hearers say. Oh, no ! nothing
is impracticable, that is right. Exclude slavery from
Missouri and Arkansas for thirty-four years ; and then
freedom and slavery will be on an equal footing, and
they can make a new bargain. [Laughter.]

Nor do I deny the right of Congress to open the door
for slavery into these territories, because the compromise
of 1850 virtually denies it. I say that compromise vir-
tually denies it, because it distinctly and approvingly
recognizes the compromise of 1820. The compromise
of 1850 is as rotten as the compromise of 1820 ; and as
incapable of imparting rights. And here let me say,
that I rejoice to see the pro-slavery party pouring ex-
press contempt on the compromise of 1820, and virtual
contempt on the compromise of 1850. And why should
not all men pour contempt upon these compromises, and
upon all other compromises, which aim '' to spht the
difference" between God and the devQ ? [Great laugh-
ter.] By the way, we have striking proof, in the in-
stance of this bill, that, in the case of such compromises,
God's share and all are, in the end, very like to be
clahned for the devil. [Renewed laughter.]

I have said on what grounds it is not, that I deny
the right of Congress to open the door for slavery into
these territories. I will now say on what groimd it is.
I deny it on the ground, that the Constitution, the only
law of the territories, is not in favor of slavery, and that
slavery cannot be setup under it. If there can be law-
6

122 THE InEBHASKA BILL.

ful slavery in tlie States, nevertheless there cannot be
in the territories.

In the fifth and last place, I am opposed to the bill,
because it allows, that there may be slavery in the
States, which shall be formed from these territories.

Hitherto, when the slavery question has been brought
up in Congress, it has been alleged, (I say not how
truly or untruly,) that the anti-slavery party has
brought it up, and for the purjDOse of checking slavery.
But now, it is, confessedly on all hands, brought up by
the pro-slavery party, and for the purpose of extending
slavery. In this instance, the pro-slavery party is,
manifestly, the instrument, which truth has wielded to
subserve her purpose of reawakening the public mind
to the demands and enormities of slavery. Most sin-
cerely do I rejoice, that the pro-slavery party is respon-
sible for the present agitation.

A Member. I do not admit, that it is.

Mr. Smith. Strange ! Here is a movement for
the immense extension of slavery. Of course, it is not
the work of the anti-slavery party. And if the honor-
able member, who has just interrupted me, is author-
ized to speak for the pro-slavery party, it is not the
work of that party either. I took it for granted, that
the pro-slavery party did it. But, it seems it did not.
It puts on the innocent air of a Macbeth, and looks me
in the face, and exclaims : '' Thou canst not say I did

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 12

<f»

it !" [Laughter.] Well, if neitlier the anti-slaver j
party, nor the pro-slaver j party, did it, who was it then
that did it ? It follows, necessarily, that it must be the
work of the Lord, or the devil. [Laughter.] But, it
cannot be the work of the Lord — for the good book
tells us : " Where the spnit of the Lord is, there is lib-
erty"— liberty, not slavery. So, this Nebraska business
must be the work of the de\dl. [Great laughter.] But
logical as is this conclusion, I am, nevertheless, too po-
lite to press it. I prefer' to repudiate the alternative,
that puts the responsibility on the Lord or the devil ;
and to return to my original assertion, that the pro-sla-
very party, and not the anti-slavery party, is responsi-
ble for the present agitation. Do not understand, that
I would not have the anti-slavery party agitate. I
would have it agitate, and agitate, and agita,te forever.
I believe, that the agitation of the elements of the
moral world is as essential to moral health, as is
the agitation of the elements of the physical world
to physical health. I believe in the beautiful motto :
" The agitation of thought is the beginning of truth."
I was very happy to hear the honorable gentleman
of Pennsylvania, [Mr. Wright,] express his faith
and pleasure in agitation. Not less happy was I to
hear the honorable gentleman of JSTorth-Carolina, [Mr.
Clingman, ] approve of the discussion of Slavery.
Such good abolition doctrine from such surprising-
sources was very grateful to me. Perhaps, these gen-

124 THE NEBKASKA BILL.

tlemen will continue to move forward in tliat blessed
upward way, on wMcL. tliej have happily entered;
and, perhaps, ere the session shall close, they will have
reached that table-land of aboHtion, on which it is my
privilege to stand. Let me assure them, for the pur-
pose of cheering them onward, that when they shall ar-
rive there, they shall not lack my warm greetings
and the cordial grasp of my hand. [Great laughter.]
Sir, you must permit me to indulge some hope of the
conversion of these gentlemen. Indeed, when I heard
the honorable gentleman of North-Carolina speak of
himself as " an independent" — as a party of one — as in
that lone condition, in which he had so recently heard
me say, that I find myself — was I not at liberty to ima-
gine, that he was throwing out a sly, dehcate hint to
my ear, that he would like to "join teams" with me, and
so make up a party of two ? [Eepeated roars of laugh-
ter.] I do not forget, that, at the close of his speech,
he said some very hard things against us naughty abo-
litionists. But how could I be sure, that he did not say
these hard things for no other purpose than to blind all
around him, save, of course, my ovv^n apprehensive, be-
cause kindred and sympathizing, spirit, to that fraternal
union with me, which I have supposed his heart was
then meditating ?

I said, a little while ago, that I rejoice, that the pro-
slavery party is responsible for the present agitation.
T add, that I am half reconciled to this attempt to extend

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 125

the dominion of slavery, because it affords us so inviting
an opportunity to inquire into tlie title of slavery. If
my neighbor tries to rob me of my farm, be, at least,
affords me an occasion for inquiring into the tenure, by
which he holds his own farm. Freedom having been
driven by slavery, until she has surrendered to her
pursuer nine new States ; and until slavery claims, as
we see in the present bill, equal right with herself to
overspread all the unorganized territory of the nation ;
it is, in my judgment, high time for her to stop, and to
turn about, and to look slavery in the face, and to push
back the war — ay, and to drive the aggressor to the
wall, provided she shall find, that slavery, in all its pro-
gress, and history, is nothing but an aggression upon
liberty and law, and upon human and divine rights ;
and that, in truth, it has no title to any existence
whatever, on any terms whatever, anywhere whatever.
This is a proper stage of my argument for saying, that
we all know enough of freedom and slavery to know,
that they cannot live together permanently. One
must conquer the other. American slavery lacks but
two things to make sure of her victory over American
hberty ; and, from present indications, she is determin-
ed to lack them no longer. One of these two things is
its conceded right to overspread all our unorganized
territory ; and the other is its conceded right to carry
slaves through the free States. Let slavery succeed in
these two respects : — ^let the bill, we are now consider-

126 THE NEBEASKA BILL.

ing, become a statute ; and let tlie final decision in the
Lemmon case'^ sustain tlie claim to carry slaves througli
tlie free States — aj, and even to drive coffles of slaves
tlirough. tliem, wliip-in-hand ; tlius breaking down tlie
public sentiment of tliose States against slavery ; and
debaucbing and wasting it by familiarizing it with, tlie
demands and exliibitions of slavery ; — and tlien, I ad-
mit, tlie way will be clear for slavery to make a quick
and easy conquest of liberty.

I, again, acknowledge my partial reconcilement to
tbis attempt of slavery to get more — ^to tbis bold push
for all, that is left, so far as unorganized territory is
concerned. We have now the best of opportunities for
trying tbe title of slavery, not only to more — but, also,
to wbat it already bad. And, now, if slavery sball
come off as badly as tbe dog, who, in opening bis
moutb to seize another piece of meat, lost, in tbe deceit-
ful and sbadow-casting stream, tbe piece be already bad,
it will have no one to blame for its folly, but its own
voracious self It should have been content with the
big share — the lion's share — which it already had.

But to return from this digression. I said, that I am

* Mr. Lemmon was emigrating, some eighteen months ago, ^dth his
slaves, from Virginia to Texas. The vessel touched at New-York ; and
a judicial decision in favor of the claim of the slaves to freedom was
promptly obtained, on the ground, that the State of New-York had
abolished slavery. The State of Yirginia is now intent on getting this
decision reversed.

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 127

opposed to the bill, because it allows, that there may be
slavery in the States, which shall be formed from these
territories. Why, however, should I be, therefore, op-
posed to it ? I will, without delay, come to the reason
for my opposition. My time, being so precious, because
so limited, I will waste none of it in apologies, circum-
locutions, or skirmishes. But I will, at once, " take the
bull by the horns," and declare, that I deny the right of
CongTcss to look to the existence of slavery in the
States, that shall be formed within these territories, be-
cause I deny, that there can be Constitutional slavery
in any of the States of the American Union — future
States, or present States — new or old. I hold, that the
Constitution, not only authorizes no slavery, but per-
mits no slavery; not only creates no slavery in any
part of the land, but abolishes slavery in every part of
the land. In other words, I hold, that there is no law
xor American slavery.

I had not intended a moment's further delay in enter-
ing upon my argument to prove, that the Constitution
calls for the suppression of all American slavery. But
I must, before entering upon it, beseech the Committee
to hold no other member of Congress responsible for it.
Let the reproach of this argument — of this foolish argu-
ment, if you please — nay, of this insane argument, if
you prefer that epithet — fall on myself only. Blame
no other member of Congress for it. I stand alone. I
am the first, and, perhaps, I shall be the last, to declare

128 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

witliiii these walls, that there is no law for slavery. I
say, that I stand alone. And, yet, I am not alone.
Truth is with me. I feel her inspirations. She glows
in my soul : and I stand in her strength,

THERE IS NO LAW FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY.

Mansfield's decision in the Somerset case estab-
lished the fact, that there was no law for slavery in
England in 1772 : — and if none in England, then none
in America. For, by the terms of their charters, the
Colonies could have no laws repugnant to the laws of
England. Alas, that this decision was not foUoAved
up by the assertion of the right of every American
slave to liberty ! Had it been, then, would our land,
this day, be bright and blessed with liberty, instead of
dark and cursed with slavery. Alas, that the earher
decision than Mansfield's was not thus followed up !
This earlier decision was of the Superior Court of Mas-
sachusetts, and was of the same character with Mans-
field's.— IJames vs. LacJimere, Washburn, 202.] We
are not at liberty to regard this decision of the Court of
Massachusetts as wrong, because Massachusetts slavery
was not abolished in consequence of it. It is no more
wrong, because of that fact, than is Mansfield's, be-
cause of the like fact. Slavery in England survived
Mansfield's decision. Even seven years after it, and
advertisements, such as this, could be found in Enghsh
newspapers :

THE KEBEASKA BILL, 129

" To be sold by auction at George Dunbar's office,
on Thursday next, tlie 20tli instant, at 1 o'clock, a black
boy, about fourteen years of age, etc. Liverpool, Oct.
15, 1779."

There was no law for American slavery, after the
Declaration of Independence was adopted. Had there
been any before, this paper swept it all away. Chief
Justice Shaw suggests, that it was this paper, which
abolished slavery in Massachusetts. — [^Commonwealth vs.
Thomas Aves.] ISTo less fatal was it, however, to the
legality of slavery in other parts of the nation. The
Declaration of Independence is the highest human
authority in American politics. It is customary to
trace back the origin of our national existence and our
American Union to the Federal Constitution, or to
the Articles of Confederation. But our national
existence and our American Union had their birth
in the Declaration of Independence. The putting
forth of this paper was the first sovereign act of the
American people — ^their first national and authoritative
utterance. The Declaration of Independence was the
declaration of the fact of the American Union : and
to that paper preeminently are we to look for the causes,
character and objects of the American Union. It was
for a present, and not for a prospective. Union — for a
Union already decided on, and not a contingent Union —
that our fathers went through a seven years' war. It is

130 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

notewortliy, that tlie object of the Constitution, as set
forth by itself, is not to originate a Union, but "to
form a more perfect Union" — that is, to improve on an
already existing Union. The Articles of Confedera-
tion and the Federal Constitution were but expedients
for promoting the perpetuity, and multiplying and
securing the happy fruits, of this Union. Not only is
it not true, that the Articles of Confederation and the
Federal Constitution are paramount to the Declaration
of Independence, but it is true, that the Congress of the
Confederation and the Convention, which framed the
Constitution, derived all their legitimacy and authority
from the Declaration of Independence. You might as
well talk of supplanting the Bible with the farthing-
Tract written to expound it, as talk of supplanting the
Declaration of Independence with any subsequent
paper. Truly did one of the eminent statesmen [Gen.
Boot] of my State say : " That the Declaration of In-
dependence is the fundamental law of the land in all
those States, which claimed or admitted, that that in-
strument was framed by their agents ;" and truly did
another of them [John C. Spencer] say, that it is
" the corner-stone of our Confederacy, and is above all
Constitutions and all Laws." Yes, the Declaration of
Independence is the very soul of every legitimate Ame-
rican Consitution — the Constitution of Constitutions —
the Law of Laws.

I repeat it — if there was legal slavery in this land

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 131

before tlie Declaration of Independence was adopted,
there, nevertlieless, could be none after. The great
truth of this paper is, that all men are created equal,
and have inalienable rights. Does this paper speak
of Civil Grovernment as necessary ? It does so, be-
cause this great truth makes it necessary. It does
so, because it is necessary to preserve these rights.
Does this paper claim the right to alter or abolish the
Government ? It claims it, for the sake of this great
truth. It claims it, in order to provide better security
for these rio^hts,

I do not forget, that the Declaration of Independence
has fallen into disrepute among the degenerate sons of
the men, who adopted it. They ridicule it, and call it
" a fanfaronade of nonsense." It will be ridiculed, in,
proportion as American slavery increases. It will be
respected, in proportion as American slavery declines.
Even members of Congress charge it with saying, that
men are born with equal strength, equal beauty, and
equal brains. For my own part, I can impute no
such folly to Thomas Jefferson and his fellow-laborers.
I understand the Declaration of Independence to say,
that men are born with an equal right to use what is
respectively theirs. To illustrate its meaning, at this
point : — if I am born with but one foot, and one eye,
and an organization capable of receiving but one idea,
I have a right to use my one foot, and one eye, and
one idea, equal with the right of my neighbor to use
liis two feet, and two eves, aud two thousnnd ideas.

132 THE NEBEASKA BILL.

The enunciation of tliis great centre trntli of the
Declaration of Independence, would have justified
every American slave, at the time of that enunciation,
in claiming his liberty. Suppose that, after the adop-
tion of the Declaration of Independence, an American
patriot had been seized by a British force, and put on
trial for rebellion against the King, would not that pa-
per have justified him in calling on his countrymen to
deliver him ? Certainly ; for that paper asserts the
right to break away from his allegiance to the King,
and pledges the "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor " of
his countrymen to maintain that right. But suppose,
that, after the adoption of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, an American slave had asserted his right to
liberty, might he not, as weU as the patriot referred to,
have called on his countrymen to acknowledge and de-
fend his right ? Certamly ; and a thousand fold more
emphatically. For the right of the patriot to dissolve
his allegiance to the Crown is but a deduction from the
great centre truth of the paper, that all men are created
equal, and have inalienable rights. But the title of the
slave to his liberty — ^that is, to one of these inahenable
rights— is this great centre truth itself The title of
the slave to his liberty is the great fountain-head right.
But the title of the patriot to be rescued from his peril
is only a derivation from that fountain-head right.

We add, as a reason, why this great centre truth of
human equality and inalienable right to liberty is en-

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 13S

titled to supremacy in all tlie shaping and interpreta-
tion of American politics, that, but for it, and for the
place it occupies in the Declaration of Independence,
there would have been no American Constitu.tion, and
no American nation, and no American liberty. But
for the commanding principle and mighty inspiration
of this gi^eat centre truth, the colonists could not have
been aroused to their glorious achievement. It was in
hoc signo — it was by this sign — that our fathers con-
quered. Again: but for this commanding principle,
and this mighty inspiration, the aid — the indispensable
aid — ^that came to us from foreign shores, would not
have come. Said Lafayette to Thomas Clarkson:
"I would never have drawn my sword in the cause of
America, if I could have conceived, that thereby I was
founding a land of slavery." And there was Kosci-
usko, at whose fall "Freedom shrieked," and who
provided by the will, written by himself, that his pro-
perty in America should be used by his anti-slavery
friend, Thomas Jefferson, in liberating and educat-
ing African slaves. Surely, he would not, with his
eyes open, have fought to create a power, that should
be wielded in behalf of African slavery! Oh, liow
cruel and mean a fraud on those, who fought for Ame-
rican liberty, to use that hberty for establishing and
extending American slavery !

But we pass on from the Declaration of Independence
to the Federal Constitution, and suppose, for the sake

184 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

of the argument, that slavery survived the Declaration
of Independence. Now, our first question is not what
is the character of the Constitution, in respect to slavery,
but what, from the circumstances of the case, might
we reasonably expect to find its character, in this re-
spect. Its reasonably expected character may be
thought by many to shed light upon its actual charac-
ter. Looking at the circumstances of the case, are we
to expect to find the Constitution pro-slavery or anti-
slavery ? — made to uphold slavery, or to leave it an
unprotected outlaw ?

It is argued, that the Constitution must be on the
side of slavery, for the reason, that it did not specific-
ally demand the instant death of slavery. There is,
however, no force in this argument, if we reflect, that
American slavery was, at that time, a dying slavery ;
and that, therefore, even those of our statesmen, who
were most opposed to it, were generally willing to
leave it to die a natural death, rather than to force it
out of existence. Were a man condemned to be hung
— nevertheless, if, when the day for hanging him had
arrived, he were on his death-bed, you would not hang
him, but you would leave him to die on his bed — to
die a natural, instead of a violent death. That our
fathers did not anticipate the long continuance of
slavery is manifest from their purpose disclosed in the
Preamble of the Constitution and elsevv^here, to set up a
government, which should maintain justice and liberty.

rill

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 135

Thej knew, that no government conld prove itself ca-
pable of this, if under the influence, especially the over-
shadowing influence, of slavery.

It is further argued, that the Constitution must be on
the side of slavery, because were it not on that side the
slaveholders would not have consented to its adoption.
But they, who argue thus, confound the slaveholders
of that day with the slaveholders of this. They forget,
that the slaveholders of that day breathed the spirit of
the Declaration of Independence, and were captivated
by the doctrine of the human brotherhood. They for-
get, that the slaveholders of that day were impatient to
emancipate their slaves, and that in Yirginia, where the
number of slaves was so much less than now, they were
emancipated, at that period, at the rate of a thousand a
year. They forget, that there were Abolition Societies
in slave States, both before and after the year 1800.
They forget, that Washington and Jefferson were prac-
tical emancipationists. They forget, that, whflst the
slaveholders of this generation are intent on perpetuat-
ing and extending slavery, the slaveholders of that gen-
eration, studied how to abolish it, and rejoiced in the
prospect of its speedy abolition. They forget, that,
whilst the slaveholders of this day are eager to everspread
our whole national territory with slavery, all the slave-
holders of that day joined with all other Americans in
denying it new territory, and excluding it from every
foot of the national territor s'. They forget, that all the

136 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

States, at that time, with the exception of South-Caro-
lina and Georgia, advocated the anti-slaverj pohcy ; and
that even these two States could hardly be said to have
opposed it. And what, more than everything else,
they should not forget, is that, over the whole length and
breadth of the land, slavery was, at that day, a confess-
ed sin — a sin, it is true, that all involved in it had not
the integrity to put away immediately — ^but a sin, nev-
ertheless, which all of them purposed to put away,
in no very distant future. How striking the contrast,
in this respect, between the circumstances of the slave-
holder of that tune and the slaveholder of this ! Now,
the Bible, both at the North and at the South, is claim-
ed to be for slavery ; and now the church and church-
ministry, at the South, do nearly all go for slavery ; and
at the North, do nearly aU apologize for it. Now,
slavery is right, and the abolition of it wrong. Now,
the slaveholder is the saint, and the abolitionist the sin-
ner. To illustrate, in stiU. another way, the absurdity
of inferring what slaveholders desired and did, sixty or
seventy years ago, from what they desire and do now :
— the pecuniary motive of the slaveholder to uphold
slavery is now very strong. Then, it was very weak.
American cane-sugar, now wet with the tears and sweat
and blood of tens of thousands of slaves, was then
scarcely known. American cotton, which now fills the
markets of the world, was then in none of the markets
of the world. Then it was not among the interests of

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 137

our country. Now, it is its dominant interest. It
sways churcli and State and commerce, and compels all
of them to go for slavery. Then the price of the slave,
that now sells for a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars,
was but two hundred dollars.

I need say no more to show how liable we are to mis-
interpret the desires and designs of our fathers, in re-
gard to the Constitution, if we look through the medium
of the pro-slavery spirit and interests of our own day,
instead of the medium of the anti-slavery spirit and in-
terests of their day. To judge what character they
would be like to give to the Constitution, in respect to
slavery, vfe must take our stand-point amidst the anti-
slavery scenes and influences of that period, and not
amidst the pro-slavery scenes and influences, which
illustrate and reign over the present.

I readily admit, that the slaveholders of the present
day would not consent to the making of any other than
a pro-slavery Constitution. I even admit, that, had the
making of the Constitution been delayed no more than
a dozen years, it would, (could it then have been made
at all,) have been pro-slavery. I make this admission,
because I remember, that, during those dozen years,
Whitney's cotton gin, (but for which invention Ameri-
can slavery would, long ago, have disappeared,) came
into operation, and fastened slavery upon our country.

In the light of what I have said, how improbable it
is, that the slaveholders were intent on having the Con-

138 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

stitution made to upliold slavery. But, in tlie light of
what I shall now say, how improbable it is that such a
Constitution was made. Mr. Madison was among the
most influential members of the Convention, that fram-
ed the Constitution ; and when he declared, in the Con-
vention, that he " thought it wrong to admit in the
Constitution the idea, that there could be property in
man," not one person objected to the declaration. In-
deed, the framers of the Constitution, not only kept it
clear of the words "slave" and "slavery," and of all words
of similar import, but they obviously determined, that,
if after ages should make the humihating discovery, that
there had been slavery in this land, there, nevertheless,
should be nothing in the pages of the Constitution to
help them to such discovery. For instance, the word
" service" occurs repeatedly in the Constitution. But
only four days before the Convention closed its labors,
the word "ser\dtude" was struck out of the Constitution,
and the word "service" unanimously adopted in its
place, for the avowed reason, that the former expresses
the condition of slaves, and the latter the obligations of
free persons. I add the incidental remark, that if the
Constitution is responsible for slavery, it is so, because
of the knavery, or ignorance, of its framers. If, on the
one hand, notwithstanding their avowed reason for the
substitution of "service" for "servitude," they still in-
tended to have the Constitution thus responsible, then
they were knaves : — and if, on the other, they honestly

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 139

intended to keep the Constitution clear of this guilty
responsibility, and yet failed to do so, then does such
failure betray their gross ignorance — their gross igno-
rance of the true meaning, and fit use, of words. Hap-
pily, for those, who give an anti-slavery construction to
the Constitution, they are under no necessity and no
temptation to interpret the motives and conduct of its
framers in the light of so odious an alternative. The
pro-slavery party alone are compelled so to interpret
them. Now, even were it true, that the framers of the
Constitution, and all of them, too, sought to smuggle
slavery into it — ^to get it into it, without its being seen
to be got into it — nevertheless, how could they accom-
phsh this object, which, by the restrictions they had im-
posed on themselves, they had rendered impracticable?
To work slavery into the Constitution, and yet preserve
for the Constitution, that anti-slavery appearance, which,
from the first, they had determined it should wear, and
which they knew it must wear, or be promptly rejected
by the people, was as impossible, as to build up a fire

in the sea.

But we will remain no longer outside of the Constitu-
tion. Indeed, there is nothing, and there can be nothing,
outside of it, which can determine, or in any wise affect,
its character on the subject of slavery. Nothing in the
history of the framing, or adoption, or operation, of the
Constitution, can be legitunately cited to prove, that it
is pro-slavery or anti-slavery. The point is to be de-

140 THE NEBEASKA BILL.

cided by the naked letter of the instrument, and by tbat
only. If tlie letter is certainly for slavery, tlien tlie
Constitution is for slavery — otherwise not. I say, if it
is certainly for slavery : I say so, because slavery real-
izes the highest possible conception of radical injustice ;
and because there is no more reasonable rule of inter-
pretation than that, which denies, that a law is to be
construed in favor of such injustice, when the law does
not in clear and express terms, embody and sanction it.
The Supreme Court of the United States have adopted
this rule in these words : " Where rights are infringed,
where fundamental principles are overthrown, where
the general system of the laws is departed from, the leg-
islative intention must be expressed with irresistible
clearness to induce a court of justice to suppose a design
to effect such objects." — 2 Cranch, 890. • The same en-
lightened and righteous pohcy, which led Mansfield to
say, that " slavery is so odious, that nothing can be suf-
fered to support it but positive law," obviously demands,
that no law shall be cited for slavery, which is not ex-
pressly and clearly for slavery.

Much stress is laid on the intentions of the framers
of the Constitution. But we are to make little more
account of their intentions than of the intentions of the
scrivener, who is employed to write the deed of the land.
It is the intentions of the adopters of the Constitution,
that we are to inquire after ; and these we are to gather
from the words of the Constitution, and not from the

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 141

words of its framers — for it is the text of the Constitu-
tion, and not the talk of the Convention, that the people
adopted. It was the Constitution itself, and not any of
the interpretations of it, nor any of the talks or writings
about it, that the people adopted.

Suppose, that the bill, now under discussion, should,
unhappily, become a statute — ^would it be necessary, in
order to understand it, to know what the honorable
gentleman of Kentucky, [Mr. Preston,] who preceded
me, said of it, or what I am saying of it ? Certainly
not. If I mean what I say, nevertheless, my words
could have no legitimate bearing on the interpretation
of the statute. But my speech may be insincere. I
may, as, doubtless, many a legislator has done, be prac-
ticing on Talleyrand's definition: " Language is the art
of concealing the thoughts :" — and pray, what help, in
that case, to the just interpretation of the statute, could
my speech afford ?

I said, that the Constitution is what its adopters un-
derstood it to be — not what the distinguished few among
them — but what the masses — understood it to be : and
what that was, the abolition petition, headed with the
name of Benjamin Franklin, and presented to the first
Congi-ess under the Constitution, striking^ indicated.
That it was not successful is another evidence, that
the views of the people often differ from the views of
ofiice-holders. Or, the failure was, perhaps, more pro-
perly to be regarded, as an evidence of the understand-

142 THE NEBKASKA BILL.

ing, wliich, doubtless, did exist among, at least, some of
the statesmen of tliat day, that slavery was not to be
killed by tlie immediate application of tlie powers of
the Constitution, but was to be allowed to linger through
that age. "Whilst I deny, that there is a word in the
Constitution to authorize the continuance of slavery,
I, nevertheless, admit that there was, outside of the
Constitution, the understanding to which I have refer- '
red— an understanding confined, however, to a few, and
for which the masses were not responsible. A sad mis-
take, as it tiu-ns out, was this suffering of slavery to
drag out its death-struck and feeble existence through
that generation, in which the Constitution was adopted I
■ — for, it was in that very generation, that, in consequence
of the invention already spoken of, slavery became
strong, and began to demand prolonged hfe and vast
powers as a right — an absolute and permanent right.
The slut, in La Fontaine's fable, on the eve of becoming
a mother, implored the brief loan of a kennel. But hav-
ing once got possession of it, she found excuse for con-
tinuing the possession, until her young dogs were grown
up. "With this reenforcement, it is not strange, that
she should be insphed by the maxim, " might makes
right," and should claim, as absolutely her own, that
which had only been lent to her — and lent to her, too,
so generously and confidingly. This fable illustrates,
but too well, the successive feebleness, and growth, and
usurpation of slavery.

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 143

We begin with, tlie Preamble of tlie Constitution,
This, at least, is anti-slavery : and th.is tells ns, that the
Constitution is anti-slaveiy — for it tells us, that one thing,
for which the Constitution was made, wa,s "to secure
the blessings of liberty" — not to inflict, or sustain, tlie
curse of slavery — but "to secure the blessings of liber-
ty." I admit, that the Preamble is not the Constitution.

I admit, that it is but the porch, of the temple. Nev-
ertheless, if, instead of th.e demon of Slavery coiled up
in that porch, we see tlie Goddess of Liberty standing
proudly there, then we may infer, that the temple itself,
instead of being polluted with. Slavery, is consecrated
to Liberty. And we are not mistaken in this inference.
As we walk through, the temple, we find, that it corre-
sponds with, the entrance. The Constitution is in har-
mony with. th.e Preamble.

The first reference, in the Constitution, to slavery, is
in the apportionment clause. There is, however, no re-
ference to it here, if the language is interpreted, accord-
ing to its legal sense, or if the framers of the Constitu-
tion were intelligent and honest. It must be remarked,
that it was from this clause, that they struck out the
word " servitude" for the avowed purpose of saving it
from being a pro-slavery clause. But, in point of fact,
if this clause does refer to slavery, it is nevertheless, a
clause not to encourage, but to discourage, slavery. The
clause diminishes the power of a State in the national
councils in proportion to the extent of its slavery. This

144 THE KEBEASKA BILL.

clanse is, in truth, a bounty on emancipation. Had it
provided, that drunkards should each count but three
fifths of a man, it, surely, would not be called a clause
to encourage drunkenness. Or, had it provided, that
they, who can neither read nor write, should each count
but three fifths of a man, it, surely, would not be called
a clause to encourage illiterateness. In the one case, it
would be a bounty on sobriety, and, in the other, on
education.

The next clause of the Constitution, which we will
examine, is that, which, confessedly, empowers Congress
to abolish the foreign slave-trade. I, of course, mean
the clause, which empowers Congress to regulate com-
merce mth foreign nations. Yes, the slave States con-
fessedly conceded to Congress the power to abolish that
trade ; and Congress did actually abolish it. But, it is
said, that the provision, respectiug ''migration or im-
portation," suspended the exercise of this power for
twenty years. Under no legal and proper sense of it,
however, does this provision refer to slaves. But, for
the sake of the argument, we will admit, that it does,
and that it had the effect to suspend, for twenty years,
the exercise of the power in question. What then ?
The suspension could not destroy, nor, to any degree,
impair, the essential anti-slavery character of the clause
under consideration. On the contrary, the suspension
itself shows, that the clause was regarded, by the makers
of the Constitution, as potentially anti-slavery — as one,

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 145

that was capable of being melded, and that, probably,
would be wielded, to suppress the slave-trade. I would
add, that this brief suspension goes to justify the posi-
tion, that American slavery was looked upon, in that
day, as a rapidly expiring practice — as a vice, that would
die out, in a few years. There is much historical evi-
dence, that the abolition of the slave-trade was looked
to by many, if not, indeed, by most, at that time, either
as equivalent to, or as sure to result in, the abolition of
slavery. The power given to Congress to abolish the
slave-trade, Mr. Dawes, in the Massachusetts Conven-
tion, that adopted the Constitution, declared to be " the
mortal wound" of slavery.

Manifestly, the clause of the Constitution, which im-
parts power to abolish the slave-trade, and not that,
which briefly suspends the exercise of tiiis power, gives
character to the Constitution. If my neighbor deeds
me his farm, only reserving to himself the possession
of it for a month, (and a week in the life of an individual
is longer than twenty years in the life of a nation,) it
would, certainly, be very absm-d to call it a transaction
for continuing him in the ownership and possession of
the farm. Or, if the bargain, which I make with my
neighbor, is, that, after a week's delay, he shall come
into my service for life, it is certainly not this little de-
lay, that is to stamp the essential and important charac-
ter of the bargain.

I have referred to only a part of the clause, which

146 THE KEBKASKA BILL,

gives power to Congress to abolish the slave-trade ; to
only that part, which respects the foreign slave-trade.
I, now, add, that this clause gives eqnal power to abolish
the inter-State slave-trade. And if it does, how idle
must it be to say, that a Constitution, which empowers
CongTCss to abolish, not only the foreign, but the do-
mestic slave-trade, is a Constitution for slavery ! To
abohsh the domestic slave-trade is to cut the very jugu-
lar of slavery.

But it is said, that the power " to regulate commerce
among the several States" is not a power to abolish the
slave-trade between them. But, if it is not, then the
power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" is
not a power to abolish the African slave-trade. Never-
theless, CongTcss held, that it was; and, in that day,
when slavery was not in the ascendant, everybody
agreed with CongTCSS.

It is farther said, that the Constitution knows human
beings only as persons ; and that, hence, the inter-State
trafi&c in slaves, being, in its eye, but migTation or travel,
Congress has no power to suppress it. Then, what
right had Congress to abolish the African slave-trade ?
The subjects of that traf&c, no less than the subjects of
the mter-State trafiic, are persons. Another reply,
which we make to the position, that all human beings
are persons in the eye of the Constitution, is that it can
not he in the mouth of those, who carry on the traf&c
in slaves, to ignore the true character of that traffic, and

THE NEBRASKA BILL, 147

to shelter its chattel-subjects under the name of persons.
And another reply, which we make to this position is,
that it is true; and that, hence, the traffic in slaves,
every slave being a person, is unconstitutional. If the
Constitution grants power to Congress over commerce,
it necessarily defines the subjects of the commerce. Such
definition is involved in such grant. But slaves can not
come within such definition — ^for slaves are persons, and
persons can not be the subjects of commerce. And still
another reply, that we have to make to those, who
would exempt the inter-State traffic in human bemgs
from the control of Congress, on the ground, that Con-
gress can know no human being as a chattel, or as other
than a person, is that they are driven by logical consist-
ency and logical necessity to the conclusion, that the
Constitution has power to sweep away the whole of
American slavery. The Constitution extends its shield
over every person in the United States ; and every per-
son in the United States has rights specified in the Con-
stitution, that are entirely incompatible with his subjec-
tion to slavery.

Ere leavmg this topic, I notice an objection, which
is frequently heard from the lips of earnest anti-slavery
men. It is, that the Constitution omits to command
Congress in terms, to abolish the African slave-trade,
even at the end of the twenty years. But why do they
fail to see, that this very omission marks the anti-slav-
ery character of the Constitution and of the day, when it

148 'J'HE NEBRASKA BILL.

was written ? Doomed slavery tlien needed an express
stipulation for its respite. But to enjoin anti-slavery
action upon those, wlio could be lield back from it only
by sucb express stipulation, was, of course, deemed su-
perfluous. The sentence of the court is, that the mother
shall not kiss her infant for twenty days. The court
need not enjoin, that she shall kiss it after the twenty
days are expired. Her love for her infant makes
such injunction qiiite superfluous. So was it unneces-
sary to enjoin upon the anti-slavery zeal of our fathers
the abohtion of the slave-trade, at the expiration of
the twenty years. Scarcely had the twenty years expired
before that zeal forbade, under the heaviest penalties,
the continuance of that accursed trade. An ancient
nation regarded parricide as too unnatural and mon-
strous a crime to need the interdiction of law. And
our fathers regarded the African slave-trade as a crime
so unnatural and monstrous, as to make their injunc-
tions on Congress to abolish it altogether superfluous.
We have, now, disposed of two of the three clauses
of the Constitution, wliich are assumed to be pro-slavery,
namely : the apportionment clause, and the migTation and
importation claiise. The third refers to fugitive servants,
but certainly not to fugitive slaves. Whether we look
at the letter or history of this clause, it can have no re-
ference to slaves. No one pretends that slaves are ex-
. pressly and clearly defined in it; and hence, according to
the rule of the Supreme Court, which I have quoted, slaves
are not referred to in it. Again, none deny that the terms

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 149

of the clause make it appHcable to apprentices, minor
children, and others. All admit, that, in the most natural
use of language, it is capable of innocent applications.

The clause, under consideration, speaks of a "person
held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof " ^w, unless these laws are for slavery, the
service or labor cannot be slavery;— and if they are for
slavery, then they cannot hold any person to slavery,
unless they are valid laws. But they are not valid laws
unless they are in harmony with the Constitution. If
the Constitution is agamst slavery, then pro-slavery
laws are but nommal laws. It will be more trniely, at
the close of my argument than now, to say, whether the
Constitution is against, or for slavery. In the nextplace,
the clause speaks of a ^person. But as we shaU more
fully see, there are rights claimed for persons by the
Constitution itself, which must all be trodden under
foot, before ^persons can be reduced to slavery. Another
reason, why the fugitives referred to in this clause are
not slaves, is, that "service or labor," is "due," to their
employer from these fugitives. But slaves, by every
American definition of slaves, are as incapable of owing
as are horses or even horse-blocks. So too, by every
English definition of slaves. Says Justice Best, in case
ofi^or^esvs. Cochran: ''A slave is incapable of compact."
And another reason, why this clause cannot refer to
slaves, is, that the fugitives m it are held by the laws
to labor. But slaves, no more than oxen, are held by
the laws to labor. The laws no more interpose to com- "

150 THE NEBKASKA BILL.

pel labor in the one case than in the other. And still
another reason, why this clause is not to be taken as re-
ferring to slaves, is the absurdity of supposing, that our
fathers consented to treat as slaves whatever persons,
white or black, high or low, virtuous or vicious, any
future laws of any State might declare to be slaves.
Shall we of the North be bound to acquiesce in the
slaver}^ of our children, who may emigrate to the South,
provided the laws of the South shall declare Northern
emigrants to be slaves ? Nay, more, shall we be bound
to replunge those children into slavery, if they escape
from it ? But all this we shall be bound to do, if the
pro-slavery interpretation of the clause in question is the
true interpretation. Ay, and in that case, we shall be
bound to justify even our own slavery, should we be
caught at the South and legislated into slavery. This
intimation, that slavery may yet take a much wider
range in supplying itself with victims, is by no means
extravagant and unauthorized. The Supreme Court
of the United States opened a wide door to this end,
in the case of Strader and others vs. Gorham^ some
three years ago. In that case, the Court claimed that
a State "has an undoubted right to determine the
status^ or domestic and social condition, of the persons
domiciled within its territory." By the way, this doc-
trine of the Supreme Court, that there are no natural
rights ; and that all rights stand but in the concessions
and uncertainties of human legislation, is a legitimate
outgroAvth of slavery. For slavery is a war upon nature,

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 151

and is the devourer of the rights of nature ; and claims
that all rights and all interests, natural and conven-
tional, shall accommodate themselves to its demands.

We need spend no more time on the letter of this
clause. We will, now, look at its history. It is a well-
nigh universal impression, that this clause is one of the
compromises of the Constitution. But there is not the
slightest foundation in truth for this impression. In
none of the numerous plans of a Constitution, submit-
ted to its framers, was the subject-matter of this clause
mentioned. Indeed it was not mentioned at all, until
tvf ent J days before the close of the Convention. This
clause, when its insertion was first moved, contained
the word '' slave." But, with that word in it, it met
with such strenuous opposition, as to compel the imme-
diate withdrawal of the motion. The next day, how-
ever, it was offered again, but with the word "slave"
struck out In this amended and harmless form, it was
adopted immediately, without debate, and unanimously.
I add, by the way, that no one believes, that a clause
providing in express terms, for the surrender of the
whole American soil to the chasing down and enslaving
of men, women and children, could ever have gained
the vote of the Convention ; or that, if it had, the Con-
stitution, with such a disgusting blot upon it, could
ever have been adopted-

Another reason for not clauning this clause to be pro-
slavery is, that the American people did, in all proba-

152 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

bility, regard the word " service" as expressing tlie con-
dition of freemen. So, as we have seen, the members
of the Constitutional convention, regarded it ; and, in-
asmuch as they came together from all parts of the
country, and represented all classes and sections of the
American people, is it not a fair inference, that they
used language in the sense approved by the American
people ?

We have, now, examined those j)arts of the Consti-
tution, which are relied on to give it a pro-slavery cha-
racter ; and we find, that they are not entitled to give it
this character. %We proceed to glance at some, and at
only some, of those parts of the Constitution, which
clearly prove its anti-slavery character ; which are ut-
terly incompatible with slavery ; and which, therefore,
demand its abolition.

1. " Congress has power to provide for the common de-
fence and general ivelfare of the United States.''^

But Congress has not this power, if the obstacles of
slavery may be put in the way of its exercise. A man
cannot be said to have law for driving his carriage
through the streets^ if another man has law for blocking
its wheels. If the States may establish the most atro-
cious wrongs within their borders, and thus create an
atmosphere in which the Federal Government cannot
"live and move and have its being ;" then within those
borders, the Federal Grovernment may be reduced to
a nullity. The power referred to in this clause Con-

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 153

gress will never have faithfully exercised, so long as it
leaves millions of foes in the bosom of our country. By
enrolling the slaves in the militia, and yielding to their
Constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" — ^which
is, in effect, to abolish slavery — Congress would convert
those foes into friends. The power in question, Patrick
Henry, who was then the orator of America, held to be
sufficient for abohshing slavery. In the Virginia Con-
vention, which passed upon the Federal Constitution, Mr.
Henry said : "May Congress not say, that every black
man must fight ? Did we not see a little of this, the
last war ? "We were not so hard pushed as to make
emancipation general. But acts of Assembly passed,
that every slave, who would go to the army should be
free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event
about. Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effects.
We deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all
these considerations, at some future period, press with
full force upon the minds of Congress. They will read
that paper, (the Constitution,) and see if they have power
of manumission. And have they not, sir ? Have they
not power to provide for the general defence and wel-
fare ? May they not think, that they call for the abo-
lition of slavery ? May they not pronounce all slaves
free ? — and will they not be warranted by that power ?
There is no ambiguous implication or illogical deduc-
tion. The 2^ciper speahs to the point They have the poioer
in clear and unequiuocal terms : and will clrarly and
certainly exercise ity

154 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

2. " Congress has jjower io impose a capitation tax^
Manifestly, Congress can pay no respect in tins case

to the distinction of bond and free. It can look for tlie
payment of the tax to none other than the subjects of
the tax. But if any of them do not own themselves,
they cannot owe the tax. This clause implies, therefore,
the self-ownership of men, and not their ownership by
others.

3. '' Congress shall have poiuer to establish a uniform,
rule of naturalization^

But this power, if faithfully exercised, is fatal to slav-
ery. For if our three millions and a half of slaves
are not already citizens. Congress can under this power
make them such, at any time. It can confer on them,
as easily as on foreigners, the rights of citizenship. I
add, that, had the slaveholders wished (as however they
did not) to perpetuate slavery, they would if they could
have qualified this absolute and unlimited power of
naturalization, which the Constitution confers on Con-
gress.

4. " The Congress shall have power to promote the pro-
gress of science and useful arts hy securing for limited times
to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respect-
ive writings and discoveries.^^

This clause clearly authorizes Congress to encourage
and reward the genius, as well of him who is called a
slave, as of any other person. One person as much
as another, is entitled to a copyright of his book and

THE NEBRASKiV BILT.. 165

to a patent for his meritorious invention. Not so, how-
ever, if there may be slavery. For the victim of slavery
has no rights ; and the productions of his mind, no less
than the productions of his hands, belong to his master.

5. " Congress sliall have 'power to declare war, grant
letters of marque and reprisal — to raise omd support armies
— to provide and maintain a navyT

It necessarily follows, from the unconditional power
of Congress to carry on war, that it can contract with
whom it pleases — white or black, employer or employed
— to fight its battles ; and can secure to each his wages,
pension, or prize money. But utterly inconsistent with
this absolute power of Congress is the claim of the slave-
holder to the time, the earnings, the will, the all, of the
sailor, or soldier, whom he calls his slave.

6. " The United States shall guaranty to every State in
this TJnion a republican form of government^

It is a common opinion, that the General Government
should not concern itself with the internal policy and
arrangements of a State. But this opinion is not justi-
fied by the Constitution. The case may occur, where
the neglect thus to concern itself would involve its own
ruin, as well as the greatest wrong and distress to the
people of a State. How could the General Government
be maintained, if in one State suffrage were universal,
and in another conditioned on the possession of land,
and in another on the possession of money, and in an-
other on the possession of slaves, and in another on the
possession of literary or scientific attainments, and in

156 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

anotlier on the possession of a prescribed religious creed,
and if in others it were conditioned on still other pos-
sessions and attainments? How little resemblance and
sympathy there would be, in that case, between the
Congressional representatives of the different States!
How great would be the discord in our National Coun-
cils! How speedy the ruin to our national and subor-
dinate interests! In such circumstances, the deneral
Government would be clearly bound to insist on an
essential uniformity in the State Governments. But
what would be due from the General Government then,
is emphatically due from it now. Our nation is already
brought into great peril by the slavocratic element in
its councils; and in not a few of the States, the white,
as well as the black, masses are crushed by that political
element. Surely the nation is entitled to liberation from
this peril; and, surely, these masses have a perfectly
constitutional, as well as most urgent, claim on the
nation for deliverance from the vv^orst of despotisms,
and for the enjoyment of a "republican form of Gov-
ernment."

7. "No State shall pass any hill of attainder ^

But what is so emphatic, and causeless, and merciless
a bill of attainder, as that, which attaints a woman with
all her posterity for no other reason than that there
is African blood in her veins ?

8. ''^ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not
he suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion,
ike pnhlic safety may require it.""

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 157

Blackstone pronounces this writ "the most celebrated
writ of England and the chief bulwark of the Constitu-
tion." One of his editors, Mr. Christian, says, that '4t is
this writ, which makes slavery impossible in England."
Equally impossible, in theory, does it make slavery
m America,. And in both countries the impossibility
springs from the fact, that the writ is entirely incompa-
tible with the claim of property in man. In the pre-
sence of such a claim, if valid, this writ is impotent, for
if property can be plead in the prisoner, (and possession
is proof of ownership,) the writ is defeated.

Slavery cannot be legalized short of suspending the
writ of habeas corpus, in the case of the slaves. But,
inasmuch as the Constitution provides for no such sus-
pension, there is no legal slavery in the nation.

I add, that the Federal Government should see to it,
that, in every part of the nation, where there are slaves,
if need be, in every county, or even town, there are
Judges who will faithfully use this writ for their deliver-
ance.

9. "No person shall he deprived of life, liberty, or pro-
perty, ivithout due process of lo.wP

Let this provision have free course, and it puts an
end to American slavery. It is claimed, however, that,
inasmuch as the slave is held by law, (which, in point of
fact, he is not,) and, therefore, "by due process of law,"
nothing can be gained for him from this provision.
But, inasmuch, as this provision is an organic and fund-
amental law, it is not subject to any other law, but is

158 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

paramount to every other law. Moreover, it is a great
mistake to confound tlie laws, so called, by wliicli per-
sons are held in slavery, with "due process of law."

Justice Bronson says [Hill's Eeports, IV. 146] of this
part of the Constitution :

''The meaning of the section then seems to he, that no
member of the State shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any
of his rights or privileges, unless the matter shall be adjudged
against him, upon trial had, according to the course of the
common laiv^

He adds:

"The words 'due process of law,' in this place can-
not mean less than a prosecution or suit, instituted and
conducted, according to the prescribed forms and solem-
nities for ascertaining guilt, or determining the title
to property,"

Lord Coke exjDlains "due process of law" to be, "by
indictment or presentment of good and lawful men,
where such deeds be done in due manner, or by suit
original of the common law."

The defenders of the constitutionality of State slavery
are driven to the position, that such specific denials
of the definition and violation of rights, as I have just
quoted from one of the amendments of the Constitution,
are limitations upon the power of the Federal Grovern-
ment only. They say, that it is to be inferred, that the
limitations are on Federal power, when the Constitution
does not point out whether they are on Federal or

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 159

State power. WTience, however, is tMs inference justi-
fied? From the fact, it is answered, that the Federal
power is the subject-matter of the Constitution — ^is that,
of which it treats — is that, which it constitutes. But
the Constitution is a paper, not merely for establishing
the Federal Grovernment, and prescribing its character
and limits. It is, also, a paper for determining the
boundaries of State authority. And the latter purpose
is no less important, or necessary, than tlie former.
Happily, however, the original Constitution left nothing
to inference in this matter. It does not need a more
frequent recurrence of the word "Congress" in them, to
make it entirely plain, that the eighth and ninth sections
of the first article of the Constitution are devoted to an
enumeration of the powers and disabilities of Congress.
Nor is it less plain, that the tenth section of this article
is taken up with the enumeration of the disabilities
of the States. I have seen an old copy of the Constitu-
tion, printed in Virginia, in which "Powers of Congress"
is at the head of the eighth section, and "Restrictions
upon Congress" is at the head of the ninth section, and
"Restrictions upon respective States" is at the head of
the tenth section. The repetition of the word "State,"
in the tenth section, would have been as unnecessary as
the repetition of the word "Congress" in the ninth sec-
tion, had the denial of State powers been preceded by
the enumeration of State powers, as is the denial of
Federal powers by the enimieration of Federal powers.

160 THE XEBKASKA BILL.

So far, then, as these sections are concerned, it is not
left to the looseness of inference to determine whether
the Constitution is applicable to a State, or to the Nation.
One of the sections contains limitations on the Federal
Government. The next contains limitations on another
Grovernment — another Government, since the latter lun-
itations are, to some extent, identical with the former,
and would, of course, not be repeated, were but one
Government in view. What, however, but a State
Government, could this other Government be ? And
yet, to avoid all necessity of inference, the word "State"
is repeated several times in connection with these latter
limitations. And, now, we ask where in the original
Constitution, either before or after the three sections,
which we have referred to, is it left to be inferred,
whether the powers granted are National or State
powers? JSTowhere is there such uncertainty.

We will now take up the amendments of the Consti-
tution. It is in them, that we find those specific denials
of the deprivation and violation of rights, which forbid
slavery — such denials, for instance, as that "No person
shall be dej)rived of life, or liberty, or property, without
due process of law."

Twelve articles of amendment were proposed by the
first Congress. The first three and the last two do,
in terms, apply to the Federal Government, and to that
only. In the case of most of the remaining seven, their
application is a matter of inference. Whilst, however,

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 161

it would be a gross violation of the laws of inference to
saj, that thej apply to the Federal Grovernment only, it
would be in perfect accordance with these laws to say,
that, inasmuch as a part of the amendments refer ex-
pressly to that Government only, the remainder refer to
both the Federal and State Governments, or to State
Governments only.

Because the first one of the adopted amendments
refers expressly to the Federal Government, and to that
only, there are, probably, many persons, who take it for
granted, that the other amendments follow this lead of
the first, and have the same reference as the first. They
would not take this for granted, however, did they know,
that this first of the adopted amendments was the third
of the proposed amendments; and that it came to be
numbered the first, only because the preceding two
were rejected. It is entitled, therefore, to give no lead
and no complexion to the amendments, which follow it.
And this conclusion is not weakened, but strengthened,
by the fact, that these two amendments both expressly
referred to the Federal Government. I would here add, •
what may not be known to all, that the eleventh and
twelfth of the ado|)ted amendments were proposed by
Congress after the other ten were adopted.

In addition to the reason we have given, why a part
of the- amendments of the Constitution refer eitlier
to the State Governments exclusively, or to both the
Federal and State Governments, is that, which arises

162 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

from the fact, that they are, in their nature and meaning,
as applicable to a State Government, as to the Federal
Government. To say, that such amendments, as the
second, third, and fourth, were not intended to apply to
the whole nation, and were intended to apply only to
the little handful of persons under the exclusive jurisdic-
tion of the Federal Government, is to say wliat cannot
be defended. Again, if there be only a reasonable
doubt, that the fifth amendment refers exclusively to
the Federal Government, it should be construed, as
referring to State Government also ; for human liberty
is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt ; and
this is a case in which human liberty is most emphatic-
ally concerned.

We have no right to go out of the Constitution for
the purpose of learning whetlier the amendments in
question are, or are not, limitations on State Govern-
ments. It is enough, that they are in their terms,
nature, and meaning, as suitably, limitations on the
Government of a State, as on the National Government.
Being such limitations, we are bound to believe, that the
people, when adopting these amendments by their Leg-
islatures, interpreted them, as having the two-fold apj)li-
cation, which we claim for them. Being such limita-
tions, we must insist, whether our fathers did, or did
not, on this two-fold application. Being prohibitions
on the Government of a State, as well as on the ISTation-
al Government, we must, in the name of religion and
reason, of God and man, protest against limiting the

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 163

proliibition to tlie National Government for the exceed-
ingly wicked purpose of continuing the bondage of
millions of our fellow-men.

Had we the right, by reason of any obscurity in the
teachings of the Constitution on the point imder con-
sideration, or from any other cause, to go into collateral
evidences of the character of these teachings, we should
find our interpretation not weakened, but confirmed.

Nearly all the amendments of the Constitution, and,
indeed, all of them, which concern our present argu-
ment, were taken from the Bill of Eights, which the
Virginia Convention proposed to have incorporated
with the Federal Constitution. But, inasmuch as this
Bill of Eights speaks neither of Congress, nor the Fed-
eral Government, its language is to be construed as no
less applicable to a State than to the Nation, as provid-
ihg security no less against the abuse of the State
power than Federal power.

Again : in the Congress, wliich submitted the amend-
ments, Mr. Madison was the first person to move in
the matter. He proposed two series of amendments,
one of tliem affecting Federal, and the other State
powers. His proposition provided to have them inter-
woven in the original Constitution. For instance, the
negations of Federal Power were to be included in the
ninth section of the first article ; and the negations of
State power in the tenth section of that article. And,
what is more, several of the amendments, which he
proposed to inchidc in this tenth section, are, not only

164 THE NEBRASKA ]JILL.

in substance, but almost precisely in letter, ideniical
with amendments wliicli became a part of tlic Consti-
tution. It was in tlie following words, that Mr. Madi-
son justified liis proposition to restrain tlie States: "I
think there is more danger of these poAvers being
abused by the State Governments than by the Govern-
ment of the United States." " It must be admitted on
all hands, tha,t the State Governments are as liable to
attack these invaluable privileges, as the General Gov-
ernment is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously
guarded against." "I should, therefore, wish to ex-
tend this interdiction, and add, that no State shall
violate," etc. If there was any reason to restrain the
Government of the United States from infringing upon
these essential rights, it was equally necessary that
they sliould be secured against the State Governments.
He thought, that if they provided against the one, it
was as necessary to provide against the other, and wa,s
satisfied, that it would be equally grateful to the
people.

The House of Kepresentatives did not adopt Mr.
Madison's plan of distributing the amendments through
the original Constitution, a,nd thus expressly appljang
one to the Federal and another to a State Government.
On the contrary, it made them a supplement to the
original Constitution, and left a part of them couched
in terms, that render them equally applicable either to
one Government or the other. It must not be forgot-
ten, that Mr. Madison's plan was embodied in the

THE NEBRASKA BILL. J 66

report of a committee, and was kept before tlie House,
for a long time. Nor must it he forgotten, tliat wliat-
ever may have been said by tliis or that speaker, in
respect to tlie application of this or that amendment,
no vote was taken declaring, that all, or, indeed, any
of the amendments apply to the General Government.
What, however, is still more memorable is, that there
was a vote taken, which shows, that the House did not
mean to have all the amendments apply to the General
Government only. The vote was on the following
proposed amendment: " ISTo person shall be subject, in
case of impeachment, to more than one trial, or one
punishment for the same offence, nor shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law," etc.
Mr. Partridge, of Massachusetts, moved to insert after
"same offence" the words : "by any law of the United
States." His motion failed: and its failure proved,
that the House would restrain a State, as well as the
Nation, from such oppression.

As the Senate sat with closed doors, we know
nothing of its proceedings in respect to the amend-
ments, except that it concurred with the House in
rcommending them.

I will say no more in regard to the meaning of the
amendments. Is it claimed, that if the original Con-
stitution is pro-slavery, and the amendments anti-slav-
ery, the original Constitution shall prevail against the
amendments? As well midit it be claimed to reverse

166 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

the rule in tlie case of a will and to have its repugnant
language prevail against the codicil. The amendment
of the Constitution, are the codicils of the Constitution ;
and if anywhere they conflict with it, the Constitution
must yield.

I have, now, done, not only mth the amendments^
but with the entire Constitution. Within the compass
of a single speech, I could, of course, comprise but an
outline of my argument. I commend to my hearers
the arguments of "Wilham Goodell and Lysander
Spooner on this subject. It must be very difficult for
an intelligent person to rise from the candid reading of
Mr. Spooner's book, entitled " The Unconstitutionality
of Slavery," without being convinced, by its unsur-
passed logic, that American slavery finds no protection
in the Constitution.

I said, that I have, now, done with the Constitution.
I believe, I am warranted in adding, that I have
reached the conclusion, that there is power in the Con-
stitution to abolish every part of American slavery. Is
it said, that this conclusion, notwithstanding the mani-
fest logical necessity for arriving at it, is, nevertheless,
not sound ? One of the objections to its soundness —
namely : that the slaveholders could never have consent-
ed to adopt a Constitution of such anti-slavery powers—
I have already replied to, by saying, that the slavehold-
ers of that day, being against the continuance of slavery,
and the slaveholders of this day for it, the former can-

THE NEBRASlvA BILL. 167

not be judged of in the light of the character of the
latter. To this I add, that whatever were the slave-
holders of that day, and whatever were their motives
in adopting an anti-slavery Constitution, they, never-
theless, did adopt it, just as it is — anti-slavery as it is.
The other principal objection to the soundness of my
conclusion is, that neither slaveholders nor non-slave-
holders would have consented to adopt a Constitution,
which annihilates State sovereignty. My answer to
the latter objection is, that the States are not sovereign,
and were not intended by the Constitution to be sove-
reign. The simple truth is, that our fathers refused to
repeat the experiment of a Confederacy of States ; and
that, instead of it, they devised for themselves and their
posterity a Grovernment, which is, altogether, too broad
and binding to consist with State sovereignty. The
Constitution prescribes limits to the State quite too
narrow for the play of sovereignty. It denies the
State many specific powers, each of which is vital to
sovereignty. For instance, it restrains it from entering
into a treaty ; and from coining money ; and, if the
power to deprive "of life, hberty, or property," is vital
to sovereignty, then, as we have seen, the State is not
sovereign, because it has not this power. Our fathers
would not consent, that any section of their fellow-men,
with whom they had come imder a common Govern-
ment, should outrage essential human rights. Our
fathers would not fraternize with the people of Massa-

168 THE JN'EBKASKA BILL*

cliusetts, and yet allow them to plunder eacli other ol'
property. They woTild not consent to he one people
with mnrderers, and, therefore, they would not allow
room for the Pennsylvanians to turn Thugs. And
slavery, bemg worse than murder, (for what intelligent
parent would not rather have his children dispatched
by the murderer, than chained by the slaveholder ?) —
slavery being, indeed, the greatest wrong to man, of
which we can conceive — our fathers would not come
imder the same dovernment with Virginians, if Yir-
ginians were to be allowed to enslave and buy and sell
men. Does the Constitution require us to remain
bound up with Pennsylvania, even though her policy
is to shoot all her adult subjects, whose stature fells
below five feet ? Does it require us to continue in the
same political brotherhood with Yirginia, even though
she shall enslave all her light-haired subjects, (or, what
is the same in principle,) all her dark-skinned subjects ?
So far from it, there is power in that Constitution to
hold back Pennsylvania and Yirginia from the com-
mission of these crimes.

Every person remembers one part of the tenth
amendment of the Constitution ; a,nd every person
seems to have forgotten the other. Every day do we
hear, that powers are reserved by the Constitution to
the States ; but, no day, do we hear, that powers are
** prohibited by it to the States." Now, among those

THE NEBKASKA BILL. 169

prohibited powers, is tiiat of classing men witli horses
and hogs.

Let it not be implied from what I said, a minute ago,
that I would admit the competence of a State Govern-
ment to enslave its subjects, provided the Federal Con-
stitution had not curtailed its sovereignty. No human
Government, however unhmited its sovereignty, has
authority to reduce man to a chattel — ^to transform
immortality into merchandise. And cannot I add with
truth, and without irreverence, that such authority
comes not within the limits even of the Divine Govern-
ment ?

ISTor let it be implied, that I a,m indifferent to State
rights. I am strenuous for their maintenance : and I
would go to the extreme verge of the Constitution to
swell their niunber. But there I stop. The province of
the State shall not, with my consent, encroach upon
the province of the Nation ; nor upon ground denied
to both by the law of God and the limits of Civil Gov-
ernment.

It is, sometimes, said, that the amendment, on which
I have spoken so extensively, refers to criminal prose-
cutions, only. But what if this were so ? It would,
nevertheless, cover the case of the slave. You, surely,
would not have a man stripped of his liberty, ay, and
of his manhood too, who is not charged with crime.
The Government, which says, that it will make him,
who is not a criminal, a slave, confesses itself to be
unutterably unjust and base.

170 THE NEBBASKA BILL.

Tlie Constitution, as has been seen in the course of
my argument, forbids slavery. Its pro-slavery charac-
ter has been assumed. What is there, indeed, that
will make for slavery, that slavery does not assume? No
vr:-nder ! It is itself but a mere assmuption — and the
iiiost monstrous assumption. The only wonder is —
and the sorrow is as great as the wonder — ^that the
American people should be in the miserable, servile
habit of yielding to all these bare-faced assumptions of
slavery. The speakers on both sides of this bill have
taken it for granted, that the Constitution is pro-slav-
ery : — and when the honorable gentleman of JSTorth
Carolina [Mr. Clingman] coolly said : "Every single
provision in that instrument, (the Constitution,) is pro-
slavery, that is, for the protection and defence and
increase of slavery," no one seemed to doubt the truth
of what he was saying, any more than if he had been
reading Christ's Sermon on the Mount. And, yet, the
instrument, of which the honorable gentleman affirmed
all this, refused to pollute its pages with the word
"slavery," or even with a word, (servitude,) which
might, possibly, be construed into slavery ! Moreover,
the instrument avows, that " to secure the blessings of.
liberty," is among its objects. Though administered
to uphold the curse of slavery, the Constitution was,
nevertheless, made " to secure the blessings of liberty."
Hence, the declaration, in the former part of my speech,

that THERE IS KO LAW FOR AMERICAN- SLAVERY, IS

TRUE. But I must not stop here. It would be dis-

THE isEBliASKA BILL. 171

ingenuous to do so. My stopping liere would imply,
that, if I found slavery in the Constitution, I would
admit its legaKty. But I would not — -just as I would
not admit the legality of murder, even though it were
embodied in all the organic laws of all the nations. I
proceed, therefore, to declare, and to argue the justice
of the declaration, that

Theee not only is no law foe American slav-
ery, BUT THAT THERE CAN BE NO LAW EITHER FOR

American, or any other slavery.

1. Law is, simply, the rule or demand of natural
justice. Justice is its very soul: and it is, therefore,
never to be identified with naked and confessed mjust-
ice. Law is for the protection — not for the destruction
— of rights. Well does the Declaration of Independ-
ence say, that " to secure these rights. Governments
are instituted among men." They are instituted, not
to destroy, but to secure, these rights. It is pertinent
to the case in hand, to see what are "these rights,"
which the Declaration specifies : They are " life, lib-
erty, and the -pursuit of happiness." These it declares
to be " inalienable." These are not conventional rights,
which, in its wisdom. Government may give, or take
away, at pleasure. But these are natural, inherent,
essential rights, which Government has nothing to do
with, but to protect. I am not saying, that men can-
not forfeit these rights. But I do say, that they can
lose them, only by forfeiting them. I admit, that a

172 THE NEBKASKA BILL.

11 mil may forfeit liberty by liis crimes ; and that it will
be the duty of Government to prevent his recDJoy-
ment of it. I remark, incidentally, that, though a man
may forfeit liberty, this is quite another thing from his
deserving slavery. Slavery unmans: and the worst
man, no more than the best man, deserves to be un-
manned. But to return from this digression to my
declaration, that law is for the protection of rights — I
proceed to say, that slavery annihilates all the rights of
its victim. For, in striking down the right of self-own-
ership, it strikes doAvn that great centre-right, to which
all other rights are tied ; by which all other rights are
sustained ; and, in the fall of which, all other rights
fall. Murder itself cannot ])c a more sweeping de-
stroyer of rights than is slavery — for murder itself is
but one of the elements in the infernal compound of
slavery.

Slavery being such, as I have described it, there, of
necessity, can bo no law for it. To give to it one of the
mildest of its proper and characteristic names, it is a con-
spiracy— a conspiracy of the strong against the weak.
Now all are aware, that there is law to put down a con-
spiracy— ^but who ever heard of law to uphold a conspir-
acy ? Said William Pitt, when speaking in the British
Parliament, of the African slave-trade: "Any con-
tract for the promotion of this trade must, in his opin-
ion, have been void from the beginning, being an out-
rage upon justice, and only another name for fraud,
robbery, and murder." But the slave-trade is all one

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 173

with, slavery : notliing more and nothing less than slav-
ery. Said Grranville Sharp, vfhen speaking of slavery
and the slave-trade: " Ko authority on earth can ever
render such enormous iniquities legal." Says Henry
Brougham: "Tell me not of rights; talk not of the
property of the planter in his slaves. I deny the right.
I acknowledge not the property. The principles, the
feelings, of our common nature, rise in rebellion against
it. Be the appeal made to the understanding, or the
heart, the sentence is the same that rejects it. In vain,
you tell me of laws, that sanction such a crime ! There
is a law above all the enactments of human codes — the
same throughout the world — ^the same in all times — such
as it was before the daring genius of Columbus pierced
the night of ages, and opened to one world the sources of
power, wealth, and knowledge ; to another, all unutter-
able woes, such as it is at this day. It is the law writ-
ten by the finger of God on the heart of man, and by
that law, imchangeable and eternal, while men despise
fraud, and loathe rapine, and abhor blood, they will
reject with indignation the wild and guilty fantasy, that
man can hold property in man !"

To hold that slavery, which is the crime of crunes and
abomination of abominations, is capable of legalization,
is, a preeminent confounding of injustice with justice,
and anti-law with law. Knowingly to admit into the
theory and definition of law even a single element of
wrong, is virtually to say, that there is no law. It is

174 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

virtually to say, that earth is without rule, and heaven
is without rule ; and that the light, order and harmony
of the Universe may give place to darkness, disorder,
and chaos. But if such is the effect of alloying law
with only one wrong, how emphatically must it be the
effect of regarding as law that, which is nothing but
wrong!

I am advancing no new doctrine, when I say, that
essential wrongs cannot be legalized. This was the
doctrine, until supplanted by the absurd and atheistic
maxim, that "Parliament is omnipotent." Even Black-
stone, with all his cowardice in the presence of that
maxim, repeatedly confessed, that human legislation is
void, if it conflicts with Divine legislation.- And if we
go back to the times of Lord Coke, we find him quoting
many cases, in which it was held, that the common law,
or, in other words, common sense, or common justice,
can nullify an act of Parliament. He says: "It ap-
peareth in our books, that in many cases the common
law shall control acts of Parliament, and sometimes
shall adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act
of Parhament is against common right and reason,
or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the com-
mon law shall control this, and adjudge such act to
be void." — [Dr. Bonham^s Case in Life of Lord Bacon.^

I would add, in this connection, that the province of
a human legislature does not extend even to all lawful
and innocent things. That it is commensurate with the

THE TslCERASKA BILL. 175

whole field of human interests and obligations, is a
very great, though a very common mistake. It covers
but a small portion of that field. ISTot only are crimes
incapable of being legalized, but there are numberless
relations and duties, which are ever to l3e held sacred
from the invasion and control of the human leofislature.
For instance, what we shall eat and wear is a subject
foreign to human legislation. What shall be the cha-
racter of the intercourse between parent and child is no
less so. But if there is a natural, lawful, and innocent
relation, for which the human legislature may not pre-
scribe, how much less is it authorized to create the
■i||natural, monstrous, and supremely guilty relations of
slavery !

2. Law is not an absm^dity, but is one with reason.
Hence, in point of fact, a legislature cannot make law.
It can declare what is law. It can legislate in behalf of
that only, which is already law. Legislation for liberty
may be law, because liberty itself is law. But legisla-
tion for slavery cannot possibly be law, because slavery
is not law. That cannot be law, the subject-matter of
which is not law. The great fundamental and control-
ling law in the case of a man is, that he is a man. The
great fundamental and controlling law in the case of a
horse is, that he is a horse. The great fundamental
and controlling law in the case of a stone is, that it is a
stone. All legislation, therefore, which proceeds on the
assumption, that a stone is wood, is absurd and void.

176 THE NEBRASKA BILL.*

So, too, all legislation, that proceeds on the assnmption,
that a horse is a hog, is absurd and void. And, so too,
and far more emphatically, all legislation, which pro-
ceeds on the assumption, that a man is a thing — an im-
mortal God-like being a commodity — ^is absurd and
void. But such is the legislation in behalf of slavery.
The statutes of our slave States, which, with infinite
blasphemy, as well as with infinite cruelty, authorize
the^ enslaving of men, say, that *'the slave shall be
deemed, held, taken, to be a chattel to all intents, con-
structions, and purposes whatsoever:" that "the slave
is entirely subject to the will of his master:" and that
"he can possess nothing, but what must belong to ^
master."

We are amazed at the madness of the Eoman ruler,
who claimed for his favorite horse the respect, which is
due to the dignity of manhood. But the madness of
the American ruler, who sinks the man into the horse,
is certainly no less than that of the Eoman ruler, who
exalted the horse into the man.

There can be no law against the law of nature. But
a law to repeal the law of gravitation would be no
greater absurdity than a law to repeal any part of the
everlasting moral code. The distinction of higher and
lower law is utterly untenable, and of most pernicious
influence. There is but one law for time and eter-
nity— but one law for earth and heaven.

T must not, then, know, as law, or, in other words, as

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 177

VTisdom and reason — but I must reject, as anti-law, and
nonsense, and madness — tliat, wHcli calls on me to re-
gard a stone as a stump, a liorse as a hog, a man as a
thing. I must not undertake to conform myself to sucli
ideal and impossible transformations. But I must
accord to every being, animate or inanimate, tlie nature
given to it by its Grreat Maker. I must deny, that the
being made in the image of God can, any more than
God Himself, be turned into a slave. I must deny,
that it is possible for human enactments to transmute
men into chattels, and to annihilate the essential and
everlasting distinction between immortality and pro-
perty. I must deny, that there is truth in Henry
Clay's famous declaration, that "that is property, which
the law (meaning human legislation) makes property."
I must deny, that slavery can any more furnish the
elements of law, than darkness can be changed into
light, or hell into heaven. I must deny, that the fact
of a slave is philosophically and really, a possible fact.
I must deny, that man can lose his nature, either in
time or eternity. Let slavery and slave-legislation do
their worst upon him ; let them do their utmost to un-
man him ; he is still a man. Nor, is it whilst he is in
the flesh only, that his manhood is indestructible. It is
no less so, after he has "shuffled off this mortal coil."
Wlien "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth
also, and the works, that nve therein," and nil that is, or

178 THE NEBEASKA BILL.

can be, property, ''shall be burnt np," the deatliless
spirit of man, unclianged and unchangeable, may stand
upon the ashes and exclaim: "I am still a man — I have
lost nothing of my manhood."

I have in other parts, as well as in this part of my
speech, carried the idea, that slavery, in its theory, is
the conversion of men into things. It was right for me
to do so. Such conversion is the sole essence of slavery.
This, and this alone, distinguishes it from every other
servitude. In point of fact, slavery is not necessarily,
and, indeed, is not at all, by any just definition of the
word, servitude. Let the life of the slave be all idleness ;
and let him be "clothed in purple and fine linen, and
fare sumptuously every day;" and he is still as abso-
lutely a slave, as if he were in the hardest lot of a slave.
Whatever his privileges, if he have no rights — ^however
indulgent his treatment, if he is owned by another,
instead of himself — he is still a slave, and but a slave.
I wish it to be borne in mind, that I arraign slavery, not
because it withholds wages, and marriage, and parental
control of children, and the Bible and heaven, from its
victims. I do not arraign it for denying these, or any
other rights, to a mere chattel. Such denial is perfect-
ly consistent. A chattel is entitled to no rights — can
have no rights. What I arraign slavery for, is for its
making a man a chattel. I do not arraign slavery for
the terrible enactments, which, for its security, it puts
into the statute-book; nor for the terrible advertise-

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 170

ments wliicli it puts into the newspapers. These enact-
ments are the natural and necessary outgrowth of the
blasphemous assumption, that man, with all his great
attributes and destiny, is capable of being reduced to a
thing. These advertisements, some of which are offers
of large bounties for the recovery of fugitive slaves, or
for the production of theii' dissevered heads; some of
wliich contain revolting descriptions of their slavery-
scarred and mangled persons ; and some of which con-
tain offers of trained bloodhounds to hunt them — these
advertisements are, in no wise, to be wondered at. Slav-
ery itself— not its fruits and incidents — is the wonder.
That man should be found so perverted and depraved, as
to sink his equal brother into slavery — it is this, and
nothing incidental to it, or resulting from it, that should
fill us with astonishment. In reducing a man to a thing,
v\^e have not only committed the highest crime against
him, but we have committed all crimes against him;
for we have thrown open the door — the door never
again to be shut — to the commission of all crimes
against him.

Perhaps, such language, as I have just been using,
will occasion the remark, that I am prejudiced against
the South. But I know, that I am not. I love the
South equally well with the North. My heart goes
out as strongly to Southern, as to Northern men, on
this floor. Far am I from attributing to Southern
men a peculiarly severe nature. I had rather attribute

180 THE NEBKASKA BILL.

to them a peculiarly generous nature. I believe, tliat
there is not anotlier people on the earth, in whose hands
the system of slavery would work more kindly — with
less of cruelty and horror. Nowhere can it work well
— for there is nothing in it to work well. Nowhere
can it be unattended with the most frightful and deplor-
able abuses — for it is itself the most stupendous abuse.
3. 'My argument, in the third and last place, to
prove, that there can be no law, either for Ameri-
can, OR any other slavery, is that, that is not law,
and is never, never, to be acknowledged as law, which
men cannot regard as law, and use as law, without
being dishonest. Both, heaven and earth forbid that,
which cannot be, but at the expense of integrity. JSTow,
in the conscience of universal man, slavery cannot be
law — cannot be invested with the claims and sacredness
of law. Hence, to regard it as law, and use it as law, is
to be dishonest. There may be little, or no, conscious-
ness of the dishonesty. Nevertheless, the dishonesty is
there. I said, that the consciousness, that slavery can-
not be legalized, is universal. Let me not be misun-
derstood in what I said. I did not mean, that there
are none, who believe, that the slavery of others can be
legalized. I admit, that thousands believe it. At the
same time, however, I affirm, that not one of them
all would believe slavery to be a thing of law, and enti-
tled to the respect of law, were it brought to war against
himself. The presence of an enactment for slavery would

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 181

inspire with no sense of the sacred obligations of law

with, no sense of the honor and obedience due to law —
him, who should be claimed under it. Now, how such
a person is to be regarded— Avhether as beheving the
laws for slavery to be valid or void, real and true laws,
or nominal and no laws — is to be decided, not accord-
ing to his view of them, when applied to others, but
according to his sense of them, when brought home to
himself. Self application is the testing crucible in all
such cases.

If an American gentleman is so unfortunate, as to be
brought under the yoke of slavery in one of the Bar-
bary States ; and if, notwithstanding, the slavery is de-
creed by the suj)reme power of the State, he breaks
away from it, and thus pours contempt upon the decree
and the source of it ; then, obviously, on his return to
America, he cannot acknowledge slavery to be law,
and yet be honest. If it is true, that what is law we
are no more at liberty to break in a foreign country
than in our own country, so also is it true, that what is
too abominable and wicked to be law in one part of the
world is too abominable and wicked to be law in any
other part of the world. Should this gentleman be
elected to Congress, he will be dishonest, if he legis-
lates for slavery. Should he take his seat upon the
bench, he will be dishonest, if he administers a statute
for slavery. And no less dishonest will he be, if, as a
juror, or marshal, or as President of the United States,

182 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

he sliall contribute to tlie enforcement of such statute.
But every American gentleman would, like this one,
break away from slavery if he could ; and, hence, every
American gentleman, who recognizes slavery as law,
does therein stigmatize and condemn himself Possi-
bly, however, there may be some American gentleman,
who is inspired with such a sense of the ^tness and
beauty of slavery, as to welcome its chains about his
own person. If there is such a one, " let him speak —
for him have I offended."

That no one can honestly recognize a law for slavery,
is on the same principle, that no one can honestly re-
cognize a law for murder. But there are innumerable
things, which all men hold cannot be legalized. I ven-
tm^e the remark, that, among all the Judges of this
land, who, ever and anon, are dooming their fellow-
men to the pit of slavery, there is not one, who could
be honest in administering even a sumptuary law — for
there is not one of them, who, in his own person, would
obey such a law. How gross is their hypocrisy ! They
affect to believe, that Government has power to legalize
slaver}^ — ^to turn men into things : — and yet deny, that
Grovernment may go so far, as to prescribe what men
shall wear ! Government may do what it will with the
bodies and souls of men : — but to meddle with their
clothes — oh, that is unendurable usurpation ! ! !

If, then, I am right in saying, that men cannot hon-
estly recognize legislation for slavery, as law : cannot

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 183

do SO, without palpably violating that great law of
honesty, which requires us to do unto others, as we
would have others do unto us : if, then, I am right in
declaring, that, in strict truth, there is not, in all the
broad earth, one pro-slavery man : but that every man,
when called to make his bed in the hell of slavery, be-
trays, in the agonies of his soul and the quaking of his
limbs, the fact, that he is a thorough abolitionist : — if,
I say, I am right in all this, then does it irresistibly fol-
low, that I am also right, in my position, that there

CAN" be no law, either FOR AmERICAX, OR ANT"

other slavery. I am right in this position, because,
that, by no reasonable theory, or definition, of law, can
that be called law, which is incapable of being adminis-
tered honestly. The fact, that men must necessarily
be dishonest in carrying it out, is, of itself, the most
conclusive and triumphant argument, that it is not law.
To take the opposite ground, and to claim, that to be
law, which every man, when properly tested, denies is
law, is to insult all true law, and Hhn, who is the
source of all true law. I conclude, under this head,
with the remark, that, the question, whether slavery is,
or is not to be known as law, resolves itself into a ques-
tion of simple honesty.

I must say a few words to protect what I have said
from the misapprehension, that I counsel trampling on
all wrong legislation. I am very far from giving such
counsel. No wrong legislation, that is at all endurable,

184 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

would I resist. And, I add, tliat I woiild be patient
with almost every degree of wrong legislation, provided
it is legislation in belialf of wliat is lawful, and of v\^liat
it is competent to legislate npon. Imprisonment for
debt is wrong legislation — ^very wrong and very cruel
legislation. But, inasmucli as tbe relation of debtor
and creditor comes witbin the cognizance of tbe legisla-
ture, I will not treat such legislation as void. The
legislature bas a rigbt end in view. It is to belp tbe
creditor get justice. Its error consists in selecting
wrong means to tbis end ; and in putting a wrong
remedy into tbe bands of tbe creditor. I am to treat
tbis action of tbe legislature as a mistake — and a mis-
take, wbicb I am not to go beyond tbe bmits of per-
suasion to seek to correct. Tbe paying of one's debts
is justice — is law. Enactments to enforce tbis justice
and tbis law may, some of tbem, be improper — sucb as
compelling payment by tbe terrors of imprisonment.
But, as tbey are enactments to enforce justice and wbat
is itself law, I must be very slow to denounce tbem, as
no law. So, too, if my Government declare war
against a nation — I am not to treat tbe Government,
nor tbe declaration, bowever unjust it may be, witb
contempt. I must remember, tbat Government bas
jurisdiction of national controversies, and tbat tbe re-
dress of national wrongs is justice — is law. Govern-
ment may err in its modes of redress. It may resort to
tbe sword, wben it sbould confine itself to tbe exertion

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 185

of moral influence. The cause, nevertheless, wliich it
is prosecuting, may be one of unmingled justice. Like
every good cause, it may itself be law ; and, therefore,
Government would not be chargeable with impertinence
and usurpation for taking it in hand. But, how differ-
ent from all this is it, when Government sets up slavery I
In that case, the subject-matter of its action is, most
emphatically, not law. In that case, most emphatically,
it has gone beyond its province. To Government be-
longs the adjustment of the relations between creditor
and debtor ; and it is for Government to dispose of na-
tional controversies. But, when Government under-
takes the crune and absurdity of turning men into
things — of chattellizing, instead of protecting, a portion
of its subjects — it is, then, as far out of its place, as it
can be. To such an outrage, no submission is due. It
is to be resisted at every hazard. To trample upon
such lawlessness is to be law-abiding, instead of law-
breaking. To rebel against such a Government is not
to be revolutionary and mobocratic. The Government
itself is the revolutionary and mobocratic party. If the
decree should go forth from our Govermnent, that our
Irish ]3opulation be murdered, the decree would, of
course, be trodden under foot. But who denies, that it
should be as promptly and indignantly trodden under
foot, were it a decree for their enslavement ?

My argument to show, that there not only is
NO law for American slavery, but that there

186 THE NEBEASKA BILL.

CAN" BE NO LAW EITHER FOR AMERICAN, OR AITY

OTHER SLAVERY, IS ENDED. It IS in place, liowever,
to say, that the recognition by the American people of
slavery as law, is, of itself, sufficient to account for their
loss of reverence for law. This reverence is, necessa-
rily, destroyed by the habit of confounding sham law
with true law — by the habit, of accepting, as law, the
mere forms of law, where justice, truth, reason, and
every element, wliich goes to make up the soul of law,
is lacking. This reverence must soon die out of the
heart of the j)eople, who treat, as law, that, which they
know, is not law ; who, in the holy and commanding
name of law, buy and sell, or sanction the buying and
selling, of their fellow-men ; and who, in all their life,
live out the debasing lie, that so monstrous and dia-
bolical a thing, as slavery, is entitled to the shelter and
honor of law. This reverence is little felt by those,
who yield to the absurdity, that law and nature are
opposite to each other ; and that, whilst, by nature, a
man is an immortal, by law he may be but a thing.
It is little felt by those, who regard law as a mere con-
ventionalism, which may be one thing in one place,
and another in another ; one thing at one period, and
another at another. They, and they only, have ade-
quate and adoring conceptions of law, who believe, that
it is one with nature, and that it is the same in every
part of the earth, in every period of time, and "eternal
in the heavens." They, and they only, have such con-

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 187

ceptions, wlio, instead of regarding law as synonymous
witli all the enactments of foolish and wicked men,
identify it with unchangeable and everlasting right.

How, for instance, can the American people perceive
the beauty and preciousness of law, whilst recognizing,
as law, the Fugitive Slave Act ? — and whilst stigmatiz-
ing, and persecuting the handful of men, who have the
integrity and the bravery to resist it ? Why should
not that handful fly as swift to the rescue of their
brother, who is in the peril of being reduced to slavery,
as to the rescue of their brother, who cries, " Murder?"
Ten thousand enactments for murder would not hinder
them in the latter case. Ten thousand enactments for
slavery should not hinder them, in the former. In
each case, the rescue would be not hj a mob ; hut from
a mob.

It has, now, been shown, that the American Govern-
ment has authority, both inside anel outside of the Con-
stitution— as weU in natural and universal law, as in
conventional and national low — to sweep away the
whole of American slavery. Will it avail itself of this
authority to do this work ? I ask not whether Grovern-
ment will show pity to the slave — ^for I look not to
, Government to be pitiful to the slave, or to any other
man. I look to Government for sterner qualities than
pity. My idea of a true Government is reahzed, only
in proportion, as the Government is characterized by
wisdom, integrity, strength. To hold even the scales

188 THE NEBKASKA BILL.

of justice among all its subjects, and betw.een tliem and
all other men ; and to strike down tlie hand, that would
make them uneven — ^this, and this only, is the appro-
priate work of Government.

I asked, whether the American Government will
abohsh slavery. I confess, that my hope, that it will,
is not strong. The slave-owners have the control of
this nation, and I fear, that they will keep it. It is
true, that they are a comparative handful in the vast
American population ; and that, numbering only three
hundred thousand, their calhng themselves "the South"
is an affectation as absurd and ridiculous, as it would
be for the manufacturers of the Korth to call themselves
"the North," or the rumsellers of the North to call
themselves " the North." It is true, that their interests
are alien, as well from the interests of the South, as
from the interests of the North ; and that slavery is the
deadly foe, as well of the white population of the South,
as of its black population. Nevertheless, in the present
corrupt state of the public sentiment, the slave-owners
are able to control the nation. They are mighty by
their oneness. Divided they may be in everytliing else
— ^but they are undi\dded in their support of slavery.
The State and the Church are both in their hands. A
bastard democracy, accommodated to the demands of
slavery, and tolerating the traffic in human flesh, is our
national democracy : and a bastard Christianity, which
endorses tliis bastard democracy, is the current christ-

I'HE NEBRASK^l BILL. 189

ianity of our nation. The fatherhood of Grod and the
brotherhood of man — ideas, so prominent in a true
democracy and a true Christianity — are quite foreign to
our sham democracy and om- sham Christianity. Ame-
rican religion is a huge hypocrisy. "Whilst to the im-
measurable sinfulness of that system, which forbids
marriage, and the reading of the Bible, and which
markets men as beasts, it is bhnd as a bat, it, never-
theless, draws down its stupid face, and pronounces the
shuffling of the feet to music to be a great sin. The
different States of Christendom, as they advance in
civilization and the knowledge of human rights, are,
one after another, putting away slavery. Even the
Bey of Tunis puts away this most foul and guilty thing,
and says, that he does so "for the glory of mankind,
and to distingTiish them from the brute creation." But
America, poor slavery-ridden and slavery-cursed Ame-
rica, retrogrades. Whilst other nations grow in regard
for human rights, she gTows in contempt for them.
Whilst other nations rise in the sunlight of civilization,
she sinks in the night of barbarism. Her CongTCSS
sets up slavery in her very capital. Her Congress
regulates and protects the coastwise trade in slaves.
Her Congress wages unprovoked and plundering wars
for the extension of slavery. Her Congress decrees,
that slaveholders shall have the range of all America,
in which to reduce men, women, and children, to slav-
erv. And her President, who calls slavery an " ad-

190 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

mitted riglit," Avas shameless enough to say, in his
Inaugural, that the Fugitive Slave Act, which his pre-
decessor was shameless enough to sign, should be
"cheerfully" enforced. In short, the Federal Govern-
ment is now, and long has been, at work, more to
uphold slavery than to do anything else, or even all
things else. The great slave-catcher ! the great watch-
dog of slavery ! — ^these are its most fitting names, in its
present employment and degradation. And, 3^et, not-
withstanding aU this devotion of the Federal Govern-
nent to slavery, and the iron determination of the
dave-owners, that the power of the whole nation shall
oe exerted to uphold it ; there, nevertheless, can be no
•emonstrance from the North against slavery, which is
lot immediately followed by the truthless and impudent
I jply, that the North has nothing to do with slavery !
Ti at the American people and American Government
hav.'. fallen to what they are, is not to be wondered at.
It is k^ut the natural and necessary result of their hav-
ing fostered and fed, for more than half a century, the
monster slavery. Time was, when we might have
crushed this monster. But, now, it has crushed us.
It has corriipted us to such an extent, that there is
scarcely a sound spot left in us, at which to begin to
rally opposition lo it. On no cheaper condition than
this can slavery be clung to. If we will be slaveholders
— and such are the Northern as weU as the Southern
people — for if the slave-owners are at the South, the

THE KEBKASKA BILL. 191

people of the North are, nevertheless, more emphatic-
ally, because more efficiently, the slaveholders^ than are
the people of the South — if, I say, we will be slave-
holders, we must take the evil consequences upon our
own understandings and hearts, and not be surprised at
them. Men cannot bind the degrading chain of slavery
around their brothers without at the same time binding
and degrading themselves with it.

How melancholy upon our country, and, through
her, upon the world, has been the influence of American
slavery ! In the beginning of our national existence,
we were the moral and political light-house of the world.
The nations, " which sat in darkness, saw the great
light," and rejoiced. Sad to say, we were ourselves the
first to dim that light ! The principles, which we then
enunciated, electrified the nations. Sad to say, we
were ourselves the first to dishonor those principles !
Nothing, so much as American slavery, has gathered
darkness upon that hght. Nothing, so much as Ameri-
can slavery, has brought disgrace upon those principles.
All other causes combined have not stood so effectually
in the way of the progress of republicanism, as the glar-
ing inconsistency of our deeds with our professions. In
the house of her friends. Liberty has received her deepest
stabs. All our boasts and falsehoods to the contrary
notwithstanding, there is no Government on the face of
the earth so quick as our own, to dread, and to oppose,
popular movements in behalf of liberty and repubhcan-

192 THE NEBKASKA BILL.

ism. On our government, more than on all other causes
put together, rests the responsibility of the stopping of
the Kevolution in the Spanish American States. Wo
are wont to say, that the people of those States Yf ere in-
competent to perfect that Eevolution. This is a piece
of our hj^pocrisy. The instructions of our Grovernment
and the discussions in our National Legislature, in re-
gard to the Congress of Panama ; our threat of war
against Colombia and Mexico, if those States perse-
vered in carrying forward the Kevolution ; and, above
all, our base supplication to Russia and Spain to join us
in stopping the wheels of that Revolution ; prove conclu-
sively, that though our lying lips were for liberty, our
hearts, all the time, were concerned bu.t for the protec-
tion of slavery. And, in the case of Hayti — ^how dead-
ly, from first to last, has been the enmity of our Govern-
ment to the cause of liberty and republicanism ! To
learn the extent of that enmity, we must not confine
our eye to the haughty and persevering refusal of our
Government to recognize the independence of Hayti.
We must look at other things also — and especially at
the servile compliance of our Government with the im-
pudent and arrogant demand of Napoleon to carry out
his plan of starving the Haytiens into submission.

Our Government made a display of sympathy witli
the European Revolutions of 184-8. But who is so
stupid, as to accord sincerity to that display, when he
recollects, that the verv first fruit of the verv first of

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 193

these Eevolutions was tlie uiiqualified abolition of all
French slavery — and a part of that slavery in the neigh-
borhood of our own ? So eager was onr Government
to appear to be on the side of Hungary, that it sent out
a ship for Kossuth. But, long ere he had reached our
shores; and, especially, whilst he was making his
speeches in England in behalf of the equal rights of all
men ; our Government found out, that it had got more
than it contracted for. Kossuth's principles were too
radical. Their scope vfas quite too sweeping. They
no more spared slavery than any other form of oppression.
Yet, Government could not stop Kossuth on his way.
Having started for America, he must be suffered to
come to America. But hovvr great his disappointment,
on his arrival ! " He came unto his own, and his own
received him not." The poor man was willing to com-
promise matters. A thousand pities, that he was. He
was willing to ignore slavery, and to go through the
whole length and breadth of the land, seeing, in every
man he met, nothing else than a glorious freeman.
Alas, what a mistake ! The policy of the Government
*' to give him the cold shoulder" was fixed ; and no
concessions or humiliations on his part could suf&ce to
repeal it. Kossutli left America — and he left it, no less
abundantly than painfully convinced, that America is
one thing in the Declaration of Independence, and
another in what has succeeded it ; one thing in her pro-
fessions, and another in her practice. Will Mazzini
9

194 THE KEBEASKA BILL.

need to come to America to learn this lesson ? And,
if lie comes, will lie stoop to repeat Kossuth's mistakes ?
Thank God! Mazzini has already identified himself
with the American abolitionists. May he find himself
rewarded by their cordial identification of themselves
with the oppressed of Europe !

I confessed, that my hope is not strong, that the
American Government will abolish American slavery.
Far otherwise would it be, however, did none, but slave-
owners, justify slavery. They would soon be convert-
ed, were it not, that the mass of the American people
fall in with them, and flatter them, and cry peace, when
there is no peace. This is our great discouragement in
the case. The advocates of total abstinence are not dis-
couraged. They would be, however, if they found the
mass of the sober justifying drunkards, and telling them,
that drunkenness is right.

I said, at an early stage of my remarks, that the pre-
sent attempt of slavery to clutch all the unorganized
territory of the nation affords a favorable opportunity
to freedom to push back the war into the realm of slav-
ery. I, however, did not add, that the opportunity
would be improved. Nor do I add it now: — for I am
far from certain, that it-will be. For many years, I have
had scarcely any better hope for American slavery, than
that it would come to a violent and miserable end.
Their habit of courting and worshipping the slave-power,
and of acquiescing in its demands, has corrupted and

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 195

paralyzed the American people to such a degree, as to
leave little room to hope, that they will bring slavery
to a peaceful and happy termination. I confess, some
little hope of such termination has been kindled in me
by this new, surprising, and enormous 'demand of the
slave-power. I confess, that I have thought it possible,
that this demand might arouse a spirit, which could be
appeased by nothing short of the overthrow of the whole
system of slavery. Should, however, such a spirit be
aroused, I fear it will not pervade the masses, but will
be confined to a few. It is true, that meetings are held,
all over the free States, to protest against the passage
of this bill; and that the press of those States is almost
universally aga,inst it. But neither in the meetings, nor
in the press, do I see repentance. They abound in in-
dignation toward perfidy : — but they reveal no sorrow
of the North for the crimes of the North against liberty.
On the contrary, the meetings and the press do well-
nigh universally justify the compromise of 1820, and,
in the great majority of instances, the compromise of
1850, " Fugitive Slave Act," and all. Even in sermons,
preached against the Nebraska Bill, I have seen the
Fugitive Slave Act justified. Now, the idea, that they,
who can approve of either of these compromises, and
especially that they, who can, possibly, acquiesce in the
chasing down of men, women, and children, for the pui*-
pose of casting them into the pit of slavery — the idea, I
Bay, that such persons will perseveringly and effectively

VjG the jS"ebraska bill.

resist slavery, and do faitMul battle for its overthrow,
is to my mind simply absurd. They, and tliey only, are
to be relied on for sucb service, wbo so loathe slavery,
that they would rather perish than do any of its biddings,
come those biddings from Congress, or from Courts, or
from any other sources.

Am I bid to strengthen my hope by looking at the
rapidly multiplying abolitionists ? I do look at them :
and this cheering sight is all, that, under God, keeps
my hope alive. But I fear, that they are too late. I
fear, that the disease is past cure. And I fear, too, that,
even if we are yet in time to kill the demon of Slavery,
our false and pro-slavery education makes us so hesitat-
ing and timid in his terrific presence, that we shall not
wage direct, deep, and fatal war upon him, but shall
waste our energies and our only and swiftly passing
away opportunity in ineffectual skirmishes and disgrace-
ful dodgings. A few abolitionists are consistent: and,
were they not so fev/, they would be formidable. They
know no law for any fraud; and, therefore, they will
not know it for the most stupendous fraud. They know
no law for any oppression ; and, therefore, they vriLl
know none for the most sweej)ing oppression. Such
abolitionists are Garrison and Phdlips, Goodell and
Douglass. But most abolitionists, imphedly if not di-
rectly, tacitly if not openly, acknowledge, that slavery
can have, and actually has, rights : and they are as re-
spectful to these supposed rights, as if the subject of

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 197

tliem were one of tlie greatest earthly blessings, instead
of one of the greatest earthly curses.

It is true, that there is a political party in our coun-
trj^ organized against slavery; and that it numbers
some two hundred thousand voters, among whom are
some of the noblest men in the land. And, yet, I look
with well-nigh as much sorrow, as hope, to this party.
For so long as it recognizes slavery as law, I fear, that,
notwithstanding its high and. holy purposes, it will do
scarcely less to sanction and uphold slavery than to re-
proach and cast it down. Again, so long as this party
is swayed by such words of folly and delusion, as
'^ Slavery sectional : Freedom national," its ad-
missions in favor of slavery can not fail to go far to out-
weigh all its endeavors against slavery.

A law for slavery ! "What confessed madness would
it be to claun a law for technical piracy, or a law for
murder! But what piracy is there so sweeping and
desolating as slavery ? And, as to murder — ^who would
not rather have his dearest friend in the grave^ — ay, in
the gTave of the murdered — ^than under the yoke of
slavery ?

"Slavery sectional: Freedom national!"
And, therefore, according to the friends of this motto,
the nation, as such, must not concern itself with the
great mass of slavery, because that gTcat mass, instead
of being spread over the whole nation, exists but in sec-
tions of it ISTot less foolish would it be to neglect the

i;;S THE NEBRASKA BILL.

smallpox, because it is only in sections of the city that
it prevails. Indeed, it would not be less mad to leave
the fire unextinguished, because, as yet, it rages but in
sections of the city. Slavery, if not extinguished, is as
certain to spread, as is the fire, if not extinguished.
The past attests this ; and the present exhibits very glar-
ing proof of it. If we would save the city, we must put
out the fire. If we would save the nation, we must put
out slavery — -ay, put it out in all the nation. I said,
that slavery is, now, spreading. It may not go literally
into Nebraska and Kansas, either now or ever. Never-
theless, slavery will be spreading itself over our country,
at least in its influence and power, so long as the nation
forbears to uproot it.

"Slavery sectional: Freedom national!" A
poor flag would " Murder sectional : Anti-Murder na,-
tional!" be to go forth with against murder. But not
less poor is the other to go forth with against slavery.
Yery little inspiration could be caught from either.
Nay, would not their limited toleration of the crimes
neutralize their influence against the extension of the
crimes? How unlike to these poor words would be

"No MURDER ANYWHERE I" " No SLAVERY ANY-

v^THERE !" Under such earnest and honest words, men
could do battle with all their hearts. But under the
other, they are laughed at by the enemy ; and should
be laughed at by themselves.

There is a political party at the North, called the

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 199

Liberty Party. It aims to go for every political truth ;
and to realize the idea of an every way righteons civil
Government. It is a little party. Its handful of mem-
bers are scarcely more numerous than were the primi-
tive disciples, who were gathered in the upper room, at
Jerusalem. That little party will not disown what I
have said on this occasion. Every other party will.
That little party has, already, lived some fifteen years.
It will continue to live. Perhaps, it will not grow.
Perhaps it will. The " little cloud, like a man's hand,"
may yet spread itself over the whole heavens. Of this
much, at least, do I feel certain, that no party of essen-
tially lower or other principles than those of the Liberty-
Party will suffice to bring down American slavery.
Happy country this — ^happy North — ^happy South — if
the present aggressive movement of the slave-power
shall result in bringing triumphant accessions to the
Liberty Party !

My fear, that the American Governments, State oi
National, will not abolish slavery, is, iii no degree,
abated by the fact, that several European Governments
have, in the present generation, abolished it. It must
be remembered, that those Governments were exterior
to, and independent of, the slave-power ; and that they
were not trammelled by slaveholding constituencies.
It is true that slavery in Mexico was abohshed by the
Government in Mexico; and that slavery in South-
American States was abolished by the Governments

200 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

in those States. But it is also true, tliat all this was
done to promote the success of tlieir Eevolution and
their deliverance from the Government of Spain. I
doubt not that even we, closely as we cling to slavery,
would, nevertheless, abolish it, if urged to do so by the
exigencies of war.

To hope, that, because the English Government abo-
lished slavery, our Governments will also, is unwise in
another point of view. Compa,ratively disentangled
with slavery as was England, slavery, nevertheless,
exerted well-nigh enough power over her Government
to prevent its successful action against slavery. The
party in the interest of slavery was barely defeated.

Let me not be misunderstood. Let me not be sup-
posed to fear, that American slavery will not come to
an end. My fear is, that it will not be brought to an
end by Government. I have no fear that it Vv^ill not be
abolished. It will be abolished — and at no distant day.
If the Governments fail to abolish it, it will abolish
itself. The colored people of this nation, bond and free,
number four millions, and are multiplying rapidly.
They are all victims of slavery — ^for if the free are not
in the umhro., they are, nevertheless, in the penumbra of
slavery. Hence, then, as well as b}'- identity of race,
they are bound together by the strongest sympathy.
Moreover, if not carried along, as rapidly as others,
nevertheless, they are carried along, in the general pro-
gressive knowledge of human rights. Such being the

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 201

case, it is not to be supposed, that tliey can be lield in
tlieir present condition, for ages longer. Tliey will de-
liver themselves, if they are not delivered. He must
be blind to history, to philosophy, to the nature of man,
who can suppose, that such a system, as American slav-
ery, can have a long life, even in circumstances most
favorable to its continuance. In the most benighted
portions of the earth, the victims of such a system
would, in process of time, come to such a sense of their
wrongs, and their power also, as to rise up and throw
off the system. But that, here, such a system must be
hurried to its end, is certain. For, here, it is entirely
out of harmony with all the institutions around it, and
with all the professions of those who uphold it. Here it
is continually pressed upon by ten thousand influences
adverse to its existence. ISTothing, so much as American
slavery, stands in the way of the progress of the age.
A little time longer, and it must yield to this progress,
and be numbered with the things that were. The only
question is, whether it shall die a peaceful or a violent
death — ^whether it shall quietly recede before advancing
truth, or resist nnto blood.

God forbid, that American slavery should come to a
violent end. I hold, with O'Connell, that no revolution
is worth the shedding of blood. A violent end to
American slavery would constitute one of the bloodiest
chapters in all the book of time. It would be such a
reckoning for deep and damning wrongs — such an out-

202 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

burstiug of smothered and pent-up revenge, as living
man has never seen. Can this catastrophe be averted ?
Perhaps it cannot. Perhaps God will not let off this
superlatively wicked nation on any easier terms than
a servile war — a war, we must remember, that will be
very like to bring within its wide sweep the whole
black population of this continent and the neighbor-
ing islands — a population already numbering some ten
or twelve millions. Perhaps, since we would be a
nation of oppressors, He will let the oppressed smite
the oppressors. Perhaps, since we woidd be a bloody
nation. He will give us "blood, even unto the horse-
bridles." There will be no such catastrophe, however,
if the North and South, ec[ual sinners in the matter
of slavery, shall hasten to mingle the tears of their
penitence; to say from the heart: "We are verily
guilty concerning our brother ;" and to join their
hands in putting away their joint and imsurpassed sin.
I shall be blamed for having treated my subject in
the light of so severe a morality. It will be said, that
economical views of it would have been more suitable
and statesmanlike; and that I should have dwelt upon
the gains to the slaveholder, and the gains to the country,
from the abolition of slavery. I confess, that, had horses
and oxen been the subject of my speech, the field of
economy would have been wide enough for the range
of my thoughts, and the course of my argument. But
I have been speaking of men — of millions of immortals :

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 203

and I liavc been claiming, that Government should lift
them up out of their chattelhood and their association
with brutes ; and I could not so disparage the dignity,
and so sully the glory, of their manhood, as to claim the
performance of this high and holy duty, in the name of
money. When I see my fellow-man reduced, to a slave,
I demand his deliverance, simply because he is a man.
I cannot so wrong his exalted nature and my own, and
the Great One, who made us in His own image, as to
argue, that money can be made by such deliverance.
I would as soon think of making a calculation of
pecuniary gains my argument in dissuading from
the crime of murder.

In saying, Ihat I would not suffer the duty of deliv-
ering the slave to turn upon the question of pecuniary
gains and economical advantages, I utter no peculiar
doctrine. Who would suffer it thus to turn, in any
case, where he regards such victims as men ? But with
me, all men are men. Are the skin and the mind of
my fellow men dark? "A man's a man for a' that!"
I still recognize him o,s a man. He is my brother: and
I still have a brother's heart for him. Suppose the
Government of Pennsylvania had, the last week,
reduced all the white people of Pennsylvania, who
have light hair, to slavery. Would Congress let the
present week expire, without seeking their release?
No! Would Congress stoop to ply tliat Government
with arguments drawn from political economy, and to

204 THE NEBEASKA BILL.

coax it with prospects of gain ? "No ! no ! — a thousand
times no ! It would demand their release : and it would
demand it, too, not in virtue of feeble arguments, and
humble authority ; — but, Ethan Allen-like, in the name
of God Almighty and the Congress.

I shall be blamed for not having brought out a plan
for getting rid of slavery. I confess, that I have no
other plan for getting rid of it but its abolition — its un-
conditional, entire, and immediate abolition. The slave
is robbed of his manhood, of himself, and, consequently,
of all his rights. There is no justice then — ^there is no
God then — if the restoration of his rights and his resto-
ration to himself can be innocently conditioned on any-
thing, or innocently postponed.

I shall be, esj)ecially, blamed for not having pro-
posed compensation. I do not repudiate — I never have
repudiated — the doctrine of compensation. Compensa-
tion for his services and sufferings would be dae from
the slaveholder to the slave ; but, clearly, no compensa-
tion for his restored liberty would be due from the
slave to the slaveholder. I admit, however, that a great
debt would be due, from the American people, both to
the slaveholder and the slave. The American people
are responsible for American slavery. It is the Ameri-
can people, who, in the face of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, and the Constitution, as well as of religion
and reason, God and luunanity, have made themselves
'the responsible enslavers of millions. Departed genera-

THE NEBKASKA BILL. 205

tions of slaves have gone to tlie bar of Heaven with
this accusation upon then' lips; and nothing short of
the repentance of the American people can prevent its
being carried there bj the present generation of Ameri-
can slaves. There is, then, a great debt due from the
American people to the American slaves. But they
owe one to the slaveholders also. Men become slave-
holders, and continue slaveholders, and extend their
investments in human flesh, on the faith of the pro-
fessions, legislation, and policy of the American people,
and I may add, on the faith of the Constitution and
religion of the American people, as that people do
themselves interpret their Constitution and religion.
Again, non-slaveholders, as well as slaveholders, feed
and clothe themselves upon the cheap — (cheap because
extorted and unpaid for) — products of slave labor.
They enrich their commerce with these products ; and,
in a word, they unite in making slavery the cherished
and overshadowing interest of the nation. Now, for the
American people, in these circumstances, to abohsh
slavery, and refuse to pay damages to the slaveholders,
would be a surprise upon the slaveholders full of bad
faith. For the American people to share with the
slaveholders in the policy and profits of slaveholding,
and then terminate it, and devolve the whole loss of its
termination on the slaveholders, would be well-nigh
unparalleled injustice and meanness. If I have en-
couraged and drawn men into wickedness, I am, it is

206 THE NEBRASKA BILL

true, not to stand bj them in tlieir wickedness — ^for of
that botli the J and I are to repent : — but I am to stand
by them in their loss, and to share it with them. The
English people gave to the masters of eight hundred
thousand slaves a hundred millions of dollars. I would,
that the American people, after they shall have abolish-
ed American slavery, might give to the masters of four
times that number of slaves four times the hundred mil-
lions of dollars ; and far more, would I, that they should
provide liberally for the humbler and cheaper, but infi-
nitely more sacred, needs of the emancipated, "Then"
my now dark and guilty country! "shall thy light
break forth as the morning, and thine health spring forth
speedily ; and thy righteousness shall go before thee :
the glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward."

I am well aware, that, in reply to my admission,
that the American people should thus burden them-
selves, it will be said, that slavery is a State, and not a
National concern ; and that it is for the State Govern-
ments, and not for the National Government, to dis-
pose of it. I, certainly, do not deny, that, if slavery can
be legalized in our country, it must be under the State
Governments only. Nevertheless, I hold, that every
part of American slavery is the concern of every part
of the American people, because the whole American
people and the American Government have, though in
defiance of the Constitution, made it such. And as
they have made it such, thp- denationaliziyig of slavery^

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 207

(as tlie phrase is with the Independent or Free Demo-
crats,) is not the whole duty to which we are called.
"We will not have done our whole duty, when we shall
have abolished all the slavery, which exists within the
exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. For slavery, under
the State Governments also, has been fostered and
established by the whole American people and the
American Government : — and I add, by the way, that,
had it not been so fostered and established, there
would, at this day, have been no slavery in the land.

K John Smith has built a distillery ; and if he has,
also, encouraged his neighbors to build half a dozen
more ; and, especially, if lie has patronized and jDrofited
by the half dozen distilleries ; then, his work of repent-
ance is not all done, when he has broken up his distil-
lery : — and, none the more is it all done, because it was
contrary to law, that he had a part in getting up and
sustaining the half dozen distilleries. The de-Smithing
of all this distillation, and of all the drunkenness, that
has resulted from it, obviously fails to cover the whole
ground of his duty, unless, indeed, as is proper, the de-
Smithing is interpreted to mean the breaking up of all
these distilleries and their resulting drunkenness. So,
too, the denationalizing of slavery, unless it be thus
broadly and justly interpreted, falls short of the mea-
sure of the duty of the nation. The nation, whether
constitutionally or unconstitutionally, has built up slav-

208 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

ery : and, therefore, tlie nation should end it, and pay
to end it.

I said, that I shall be blamed for speaking unwisely
on the subject of slavery. I add, that I shall be blamed
for speaking on it, at all. To speak against slaveiy
in any manner, and, especially, in the national councils,
is construed into hostility to the Union : — and hostility
to the Union is, in the eye of American patriotism, the
most odious of all offences — the most heinous of all
crimes.

I prize the Union, because I prize the wisdora, cou-
rage, philanthropy, and piety, of which it was begotten.
I prize it, because I prize the signal sufferings and
sacrifices, which it cost our fathers. I prize it, because
I prize its objects — those great and glorious objects,
that prompted to the Declaration of Independence ; that
were cherished through a seven j^ears' war ; and that
were then recited in the preamble of the Constitution,
as the objects of the Constitution. I prize it, for the
great poAver it has to honor God and bless man. I
prize it, because I believe the day will come, when this
power shall be exerted to this end.

Now, surely, opposition to slavery cannot be hostility
to such a Union. Such a Union is not assailed, and
cannot be endangered, by opposition, however strenu-
ous, to slavery, or to any other form of oppression, or
to any other system of iniquitj^. To attack what is

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 209

good, is to be hostile to sucli a Union. To attack what
is evil, is to beMend it.

Nevertheless, the position is persisted in, that to
attack slavery is to attack the Union. How are we to
account for this persistence in this absurd position ? It
is easily accounted for. The position is not absurd.
There are tivo Unions. There is the Union of early
times — that, which our fathers formed, and the most
authentic record of the formation of which,' and of the
spirit and objects of which, is to be found in the Decla-
ration of Independence and the Federal Constitution.
This is the Union openly based on the doctrine of the
equal rights of all men. This is the Union, the avowed
purpose of which is "to establish justice and secure
the blessings of liberty." Then, there is the other
Union — the Union of later times — of our times — manu-
factured, on the one hand, by Southern slaveholders,
and, on the other, by Northern merchants and Korth-
ern politicians. The professed aims of this new Union
are, of course, patriotic and beautiful. Its real, and
but thinly disguised, aims are extended and perpetual
slavery on the one hand, and political and commercial
gains on the other. The bad character of this new
Union is not more apparent in its aims, than in its fruits,
which prove these aims. Among these fruits are Union
Safety Committee Eesolutions ; Baltimore platforms ;
pro-slavery pledges of members of Congress ; Eesolu-
tions of servile Legislatures ; contemptible Inaugurals,

210 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

in wliich, now a Governor, and now a President, go all
lengths for slavery ; and, above all, or rather below all,
Union-saving and slave-catching sermons of devil-de-
luded, and devil-driven Doctors of Divinity. To this
list is, now, to be added the stupendous breach of faith
proposed in the bill before us. This Bill, which lays
open all our unorganized territory to slavery, is a legi-
timate fruit of the new Union. The consecration of all
the national territory to freedom, sixty-five years ago,
was the legitimate fruit of the old Union. "Which
is the better Union? By their fruits ye shall know
them.

Now, the matter is not explained by saying, that this
new Union is but a misinterpretation of the old. Mis-
interpretation cannot go so far, as to change the whole
nature of its subject. Oh no, it is not a misinterpreta-
tion. But it is distinctly and entirely another Union,
with which its manufacturers are endeavoring to sup-
plant the Union given to us by our fathers : — and this
supplanting Union is as unlike the precious gift, as
darkness is unhke light, as falsehood is unlike truth.

"When, then, we, who are laboring for the overthrow
of slavery, and for the practical acknowledgment of the
equal rights of all men, are charged with hostility to
the Union, it is, indeed, pretended by those, who make
the charge, and for the sake of effect, that we are hostile
to the original and true Union. Our hostility, never-
theless, is but to the conjured-up and spurious Union.

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 211

Our only offence is, tliat we Ynthstand the base appeals
and seductive influences of tlie day. The only cause,
for the abundant reproach, which has befallen us, is,
that, in our honesty and patriotism, y^e still stand by
that good old Union, which is a Union for justice and
liberty ; and that we bravely oppose ourselves to those
artful and wicked men, who would substitute for it a
Union for slavery, and place^ and gain ; and who are
evjen impudent enough to claim, that this trumped-up
Union is identical with that good old Union. Yes,
wicked, artfal, impudent, indeed, must they be, who
can claim, that this dirty work of their own dirty hands
is that veritable work of our fathers, which is the glory
of our fathers.

I have done. Methinks, were I a wise and good man,
and could have the whole American people for my
audience, I should like to speak to them, in the fitting
phrase, which such a man commands, the words of
truth and soberness, remonstrance and righteousness.
And, yet, why should I ? — for, in all probability, such
words would be of little present avail. The American
people are, as yet, in no state " to hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart " — ^for ''then- heart is
waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing." Yet,
awhile, and he, who should speak to them such words,
would, like Lot, "seem as one that mocked." This is
a nation of oppressors — from the North to the South —
from the East to the West — and, what is more, of strong

212 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

and successful oppressors; — and, hence, there is but
little room to hope that she will hsten and repent. This
nation holds, in the iron and crushing grasp of slavery,
between three and four millions, whose poor hearts
writhe and agonize no less than would ours, were their
fate our fate. And, yet, she is not content even with
these wide desolations of human rights and human hap-
piness. On the contrary, she is continually seeking to
extend the horrid realm of slavery. It is not enough,
that she purchased Louisiana, and gave up, by far, the
most valuable part of it to slavery ; nor, that she pur-
chased Florida, and gave up all of it to slavery: nor is
it enough, that there is so much reason to fear, that the
mighty and sleepless efforts to overspread with slavery
the whole • tertitory, of which she plundered Mexico,
will prove extensively, if not, indeed, entirely successful. -
JSTor, is it enough, that there is imminent danger, that
Nebraska and Kansas will be wrested from freedom,
and added to the domain of slavery and sorrow. All
this is not enough to satisfy the desire of this nation to
extend the reign of slavery. Her gloating and covet-
ous eyes are constantly upon the remainder of Mexico ;
upon Cuba; St. Domingo; and other " islands of the
sea." All these she is impatient to scourge with that
most terrible of all forms of oppression — American
slavery.

Said I not truly, then, that there is but little ground
to hope for the repentance of this nation ? Must she

THE NEBRASKA BILL. 213

not be "well-nigli dead to every conceivable attempt to
bring lier to repentance? But she will not be so
always. The voices of truthful, tender, faithful admoni-
tion, now unheard or despised by her, will yet reach
her heart. She may, it is true, (Heaven spare her from
the need of such discipline !) have, first, to pass through
foreign wars, and servile wars, and 3^ill other horrors.
But the day of her redemption — or, in other words, of
her broken-hearted sorrow for her crimes — (for such
sorrow is redemption, whether in the case of an indivi-
dual or a nation) — ^will, sooner or later, come. And
when that day shall come, the nroral soil of America,
wate]»ed with the tears of penitence, shall bring forth
fruits for the glory of God and the welfa,re of man,
rivalling in abundance, and infinitely surpassing in pre-
' ciousness, the rich harvests of her literal soil. In that
day, our nation shall be worthy of all, that God and
sood men have done for her. Her material wealth,
surpassing that of any other nation, shall be no greater
than her moral wealth : and her gigantic and unmatch-
ed power shall be only a power to bless.

What I have just said, is, indeed, but prophecy — and
the prophecy, too, of an ignorant and short-sighted
man: — and it may, therefore, never be fulfilled. My
anticipations of a beautiful and blessed renovation for
my beloved country may never be realized. She may
be left to perish, and to perish for ever. What then ?
Must I cease my efforts for her salvation ? Happily, I

214 THE NEBRASKA BILL.

am not dependent on propliecy for the interpretation of
my duty, nor to sustain my fidelity, nor to encourage
the ojDening of my lips. I am cast upon no such un-
certainty. I am to continue to plead for my country ;
and to feel assured, that I do not plead in vain. If
prophecy is all uncertain — nevertheless, there are cer-
tainties, gracious certainties, on which it is my privilege
to rely. I linoio that in the Divine Economy, no honest
discharge of the conscience, and no faithful testimony
of the heart, shall be suffered to go unrewarded. I
know, that, in this perfect and blessed Economy, no sin-
cere words in behalf of the right are lost. Time and
truth will save them from falling ineffectual. To- time
and truth, therefore, do I cordially commit all, that I
have said on this occasion ; and patiently will I wait
to see what uses time and truth shall make of it.

pSTotwithstanding the foregoing speech and his re-
corded votes against the Nebraska bill, in all its
stages, it is still extensively believed that Mr. Smith
was not earnestly opposed to it, and that he did
not even vote against it. It was obvious that de-
linquency, at this point, could not fail to stamp so
radical an abolitionist as ]\Ir. Smith had passed for,
with very gross and very guilty inconsistency. Hence
the temptation to charge such delinquency on him

THE NEBEASKA BILL. 215

was felt to be very strong, by those who desired,
at whatever expense to truth and justice, to increase
the public distrust and dislike of that class of aboli-
tionists to which Mr. Smith belongs. The tempt-
ation was yielded to ; the point was gained ; and the
superiority of Whig anti-slavery to technical anti-slav-
ery was estabhshed. On the great test question of anti-
slavery integrity, which the Whigs so strenuously,
and yet so ludicrously, claimed the Nebraska Bill to
be, they had proved themselves sound and rehable;
whilst the technical and ultra abolitionists had, so far
as they could be judged of in the light of Grerrit Smith's
treachery, proved their kind of anti-slavery to be but
pretending and spurious !

It is proper to add, that, as the final vote on the Ne-
braska Bill was not completed until after eleven o'clock
at night, Mr. Smith's habit of retuing and rising very
early, helped to give currency to the charge, that he
had no part in it. Had it been a vote on a subject of
but ordinary importance, he would have had no part
in it. In the present instance he felt himself authorized
and bound to depart from his good habit.]

SPEECH

ON THE

MEADE CLAIMS.

APRIL 21, 1S54.

The bill for settling the claims of the legal repre-
sentatives of Eicliard W. Meade being under discussion,
Mr. Smitb said :

I have risen, Mr. Chairman, to reply briefly to what
the gentleman, who has just taken his seat, [Mr. Jones,
of Tennessee,] said on one of the ]3oints, which he
raised. This I can do most effectually by turning
against himself his most material witness — ^the v/itness,
among all he has summoned to his aid, on whom he
most relies. This witness is John Quincy Adams.

By our treaty with Spain, we exonerated her from
the payment of the claims of our citizens upon her, and
assumed to pay them ourselves, so far as they were
valid, and so far as $5,000,000 would be sufficient to
pay them. Tlie honorable gentleman denies that the
10

218 THE MEADE CLAIMS.

claim of Eichard "W. Meade has a place among tliese
claims. I maintain that it lias. This is the issue be-
tween ns. To sustain himself he has quoted largely
from Mr. Adams. But the gentleman has, surely, in
this instance, allowed clouds to come into his very clear
brain, and hence he has seen one thing for another.
What has he proved by Mr. Adams ? Why, that we
are not held by the Spanish liquidation of this claim —
a liquidation subsequent to the signing of the treaty.
I admit that we are not held by it. But I insist that
we are bound to recognize the claim in spite of that
liquidation. So insisted Mr. Adams, as I shall prove •
by his words, quoted from the same letter from which
the honorable gentleman quoted :

" It was intended by the Government of the United States, that
Mr. Meade's claims, as then exhibited to them, unsettled, disputed
claims, a mixed character, for contracts, for losses upon exchange,
for depreciation of Spanish Government paper, for interest, and for
damages, all, except the first, of most uncertain amount and valid-
ity, should, in common with the other claims provided for, have the
benefit of the treaty. But no stipulation of special favor to the
claims of Mr. Meade, at the expense of other claimants, was, or
would be intended by the Government of the United States. The
claim presented by Mr. Meade to the Commissioners is for an
acknowledged debt from the Spanish Government to him, dated
May, 1820, and directed to be paid out of the funds of the Royal
Finance Department, with interest. To say that this is not the
claim which, in February, 1819, the United States had renounced
and agreed to compound, would be to say that daylight is not dark-

THE MEADE CLAIMS. 219

Now, wlietlier the claim in question comes within
the scope of the treaty, I am willing to leave to the
decision of Mr. Adams — to the decision of the gentle-
man's own witness. I am glad that it was the honor-
able gentleman himseK who called Mr. Adams to the
stand; for he has thereby rendered himself incompe-
tent to impeach him.

I might pause here. But I will add a few special
reasons why the soundness of Mr. Adams's conclusion
in this case is to be relied on. It is to be relied on,
not only because Mr. Adams, in addition to being an
honest man, was a preeminently able one ; nor because,
also, that he gave to this «eubject, as the paper from
which we have quoted shows, the most patient and
laborious investigation; but because, also, that Mr.
Adams disliked Mr. Meade; nay, well-nigh abhorred
him. Mr. A. was a man of very strong feelings. He
did not like and dislike so much as he loved and hated.
He scouted the pretensions of Meade to a peculiar
sacredness for his claim ; and seemed well-nigh to hate
Meade for those pretensions. He was willing to admit
that the treaty provided for this claim ; nay, he insist-
ed, as we have seen, in the strongest terms, that the
treaty did provide for it. But, so far from admitting
that it was a stronger claim than all others, he argued
to show that it was weaker than some others. Now,
I hold, that because of Mr. Adams's strong disappro-
bation of the course of Mr. Meade, all the greater value

220 THE MEADE CLAIMS.

is to be ascribed to wbat be felt constrained to say in
favor of Mr. Meade's claim — in favor of our Govern-
ment's recognizing it among tbe claims from wbicb it
released Spain, and wbicb it took upon itself

We are not tben at liberty to reject tbis claim,
because Mr. Meade was so foolisb as to arrogate pecu-
liar favor for it. He did not forfeit bis claim by reason
of tbis folly. If I claim tbat my neigbbor sball give
to my debt a preference over a dozen otber equally
just debts, I am not to lose my debt because of my
arrogance. Tbe debt is none tbe less obbgatory for
my folly and impudence.

Nor are we at liberty tQ reject tbis claim because
Spain liquidated it after tbe signing of tbe treaty.
My neigbbors may, very impertinently, undertake to
liquidate or determine tbe true amoimt of tbe debts
I owe, but sucb impertinence does not cancel my obli-
gation to pay tbem.

I bave not time to see all, or even mucb, of v/bat
tbe commissioners said upon tbis claim. My eye falls
upon tbe closing words of one of tbem. Judge Wbite ;
and I will read tbem :

" Believing, as I do, from tlie other testimony, that Mr. Meade
has a well-founded claim, or at least a claim, which the Spanish
Government considered well-founded, I am perfectly willing to
require any document from that Government which there is reason
to think they possess, which will elucidate those transactions ; and
for that purpose am willing to continue the cause. If we can pro-

THE MEADE CLAIMS. 22]

cure more evidence, it is well ; we shall have greater certainty in
our Ultimate decision. If we cannot procure more, we must come
to the best conclusion in our power, from the proofs, as they now
exist, as to the validity of the claims and the extent of allow-
ance."

Now, surely, these words do not favor the idea that
the Meade claim did not fall among the claims which
the commissioners were to investigate. These words
show, on the contrary, that what the commissioners
required was the establishing of the claim — ^the prov-
ing of the debt.

But, it is said that Mr. Meade failed to prove his
claim. I admit that he did. I admit that the commis-
sioners were right in exacting the kind of proof which
they did exact. But was it the fault of Mr. Meade
that he did not produce it ? Far from it. The proof
exacted was in the hands, and among the archives,
of the Spanish Grovernment; and that Government,
because of its foohsh pride, refused to give up the
proof The Eoyal certificate of the amount of the
debt due to Mr. Meade was, as that Government
haughtily held, all we needed and all we were enti-
tled to.

In these circumstances, what could Mr. Meade do
more? I answer, that he had nothing more to do.
The matter then lay between the two Governments.
Our Government had discharged the Spanish Govern-
ment from all obligation to pay the claims of our

222 THE MEADE CLAIMS.

citizens, and that Government had, in turn, bound
itself to put our Government in possession, so far as
it could, of all vouchers and papers which could serve
to establish the character of those claims. Our Gov-
ernment was bound to enforce this provision of the
treaty against Spain.

Shall our Government pay the whole amount of this
claim ? Perhaps it should not do so. I have no doubt,
however, that in the liquidation of the claim by the
Spanish Government, the amoimt was made small
enough. Unprecedented pains were taken to bring
the amount within the limits of strict justice. More-
over, it was then expected that the Spanish Govern-
ment, not ours, would have to pay it. Hence, that
Government is not to be supposed to have been as easy
in making up the amount, as it might have been, were
it making it up for another Government to pay. And,
again, Spain at that time felt herself to be poor. This
was another reason why she was concerned to reduce
the amount as low as justice could possibly allow. The
scholarly gentleman of Pennsylvania, [Mr. Chandler,]
spoke of the "res angusim domi^^ the straitened home
circumstances of the Meade family. His classical words
are no less applicable to illustrate the condition of poor
Spain, at the time we refer to.

I fally beheve that the claim of Mr. Meade was, in
no degree, exaggerated; and that the amount fixed
upon by the Spanish Government was due, justly and

THE MEADE CLAIMS. 223

religiously due, to that unfortunate and cruelly wronged
gentleman. Nevertheless, as I said, perhaps our Gov-
ernment should not pay the whole amount. Our Grov-
ernment had but $5,000,000 with which to pay all
these claims. So far as that sum would pay them, and
no farther, were they to be paid. All I ask for the
present claim is, that as great a per centage be paid on
it, as was paid on the established claims — ^be that per
centage three fourths of the amount of the claim or
only one half of the amount of the claim — ^be it in other
words, $300,000 or $200,000.

The honorable gentleman from Tennessee admits
that the amount fixed upon by the Spanish Gk)vern-
ment was justly due, and is now justly due, from
Spain. Would he send the wronged and impoverished
children of Mr. Meade to that Government ? What,
however, if there were technicalities in the case of which
we could avail ourselves to escape the payment of this
debt, and to burden Spain with it. Would we consent
to avail ourselves of them ? Forbid it justice ! forbid
it honor ! Even if we pay this debt, still shall we not
have made a sufficiently good bargain out of Spain ?
It was well understood that the treaty exonerated her
from all claims of our citizens. Spain so understood it,
as she has repeatedly declared. Oh ! we should hang
our heads in shame, at the thought of being unkind
enough and small enough to require poor and unhappy
Spain to pay this debt.

224 THE MEADE CLAIMS.

Sir, I am a believer in a strong Grovernment ; and 1
would liave Civil Government strong, tlie earth, over.
It is wortMess wherever it is weak. But, sir, a Grov-
ernment is not necessarily strong tliat clings, with,
miserly grasp, to its dollars ; that rejoices in an over-
flowing Treasury ; that multiplies its battle-ships, and
swells its armies. A Government may do all this, and
still be essentially weak, because essentially unjust.
But that Government is strong, emphatically strong,
which aims to be the impersonation of justice. Such
a Government is strong, because it is respected and
bonored abroad, and beloved at liome. Be ours, sir, a
strong,»because a just Government. But let us remem-
ber that the first claim on justice is, that she pay her
debts. Let us then, sir, pay this sacred debt, that we
should have paid thirty years ago ; and our cruel ne-
glect to pay which, has been followed with so much
suffering and sorrow. I am sad for the creditors, and
deeply mortified for my country, in this instance. In
the case of the no less sacred French claims, which
should bave been j)aid more than half a centmy ago,
my pity for the suffering creditors is gTeater, because
they are so very numerous ; and my mortification at the
disgrace of my Government and country amounts to
anguisb of spirit. Let us pay these debts, sir, now —
now, when we so easily can — and, in such ways let us
make ourselves a strong Government and a strong
nation.

SPEECH

AGAINST

LIMITmG GRANTS OF LAND TO WHITE PERSONS

BIAY 3,1854,

The bill for making donations of land to actual
settlers in New-Mexico was nnder consideration. A
motion liad been made to strike out from the bill tlie
word "wMte."

Mr. Smith said : I have not risen to make a, speech.
There are several subjects coming before us on which I
wish to speak at considerable length. A mono- them
are the Post Office and the Pacific railroad. Hence I
do not feel at liberty to consume more than a few
minutes on this occasion.

I have risen, sir, to say that I must vote against the
bill in its present shape ; and I wish my constituents to
have my explanation for my vote. I cannot vote for
the bill if the word '' white" is retained in it.

226 AGAINST LIMITING GRANTS OP

I believe tliat every person is bound to esteem his
religion above everything else. Be Ms religion, true
or superstitious, rational or spurious, he must give it
this preference. My own religion is very simple. It
consists in the aim to deal impartially and justly with
all men. On the authority of the Saviour, the com-
mandment to do unto others as we would have others
do unto us comprises the whole sum and substance of
Christianity.

I hold, sir, that we should regard the whole world as
before every man, and every man entitled to seek his
home in any part of it. If I wish to make my home
in Africa, I am to be allowed to do so ; and if I am
there shut out from benefits and blessings made com-
mon to others, I am wronged, deeply wronged. So if
a black man goes to New-Mexico, and is there shut out
from such common benefits and blessings, he is deeply
wronged. Under the Jewish economy, even the fugi-
tive servant (fugitive slave^ as many render it) was to
be allowed his choice of a home anywhere within the
gates of Israel.

There is but one true standard of conduct, and that
is the Divine conduct. "We are to make our own
moral character resemble that of our Maker as nearly
as we can. But, surely, no one believes thot our
Maker can approve of the odious and guilty distinction
under consideration. No one believes that the incar-
nate Son of God, were he among us, would vote for

LAND TO WHITE PEESONS. 227

tliis distinction. Says the Apostle Peter — and I am
sure that my learned snd Catliolic friend from Penn-
sylvania, [Mr. Chandler,] will not disparage the author-
ity of that Apostle, on whom his church is built — "God
is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation, he that
feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted
with him." "/??. every natM^ — in nations of red and
black men as well as white men.

I often meet with gentlemen who ajDpear to believe
that black men have not the same nature, the same
wants, the same sensibihties as white men. On such
occasions, I am wont to recall the words of Shylock,
the Jew: "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew
hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?
Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons,
subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same summer and winter as
a Christian is. If you prick us, do we not bleed ? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh ? K you poison us, do
we not die ? If you wrong us, shall we not revenge ?"
How careful, sir, should we be, not to commit wrongs ;
seeing that revenge so naturally follows wrongs ! And
if we have committed them, how careful should we be
to prevent revenge by repentance ! Let it not be said,
sir, that Shylock is poor authority, because he loved
money. His having loved money is one proof that he
belonged to the human brotherhood, and had expe-
rience of our common nature.

228 STRIKE OUT " WHITE " !

I would, sir, tliat some black Sliylock miglit be
8,llowed to enter this Hall, and to plead for tlie striking
out of tliis word " wMte." He migbt be more success-
ful in his plea than was the white Shjlock. I would,
sir, that that noble man, Frederick Douglass, could be
allowed to stand up here, and pour out the feelings of
his great heart in his rich, and mellow, and deep voice.
I refer to him, su', because I regard him as the man of
America. He was held in cruel bondage until he was
twenty-one years old. Then he escaped from his tor-
mentors. He was never at school a day in his life ;
and now he is confessedly one of the ablest pubhc
speakers and writers in this country. I feel sure, sir,
that, could he be heard, he would be able to bring the
committee to repent of its purpose (if such is its pur-
pose) to retain the word "white."

Shall we never cease from this prejudice? Born and
bred, as I was, among negroes and Indians as well as
whites, and respecting and loving all equally well, this
insane prejudice is well-nigh incomprehensible to me.
I am happy to recognize in every man my brother —
ay, another self; and I would that I could infuse my
education at this point into every one who is with-
out it.

But, sir, I promised not to make a speech. When
on this prolific theme of our wrongs against the colored
man, I hardly know when to stop.

SPEECH

ON

POLYGAMY.

MAT 4, 1854.

DuEii^G tlie discussion of tlie motion to strike out
from tlie bill for granting lands to actual settlers in
Utali, tlie proviso " That the benefit of this Act shall
not extend to any person who shall now, or at any time
hereafter, be the husband of inore than one wife," Mr.
Smith said :

Sir, I believe that no subject has come before us in-
volving more important principles than this subject. I
wish it might be discussed temperately and patiently,
and passed upon deliberately and wisely.

I am in favor of retaining the proviso under consider-
ation, and I have risen to say a few words in reply to
the gentlemen from Alabama and Georgia, [Mr. Phil-
lips, and Mr. Stephens.] Before doing so, however, I
will notice what Avas said bv the Q^entleman from Yir-

230 SPEECH ON POLYGAMY.

ginia, [Mr. Smitli.] That gentleman says that tlie mar-
riage tie among tlie southern slaves is held sacred. I
believe that it is held sacred to a considerable extent ;
and therefore I am willing to saj so. But, sir, no
thanks to the laws for this. Thanks for it to the faith-
ful affections of the parties to the marriage, and to the
kindness of masters and mistresses who permit the in-
dulgence of these affections. But, sir, we are legisla,tors,
and we are to look at the legal character of things. We
are not to accept concessions and privileges in the place
of legal rights. We are to inquire whether marriage
among the slaves is legal. Now, sir, there is no legal
marriage among them. I go so far as to say that I am
ready to stipulate in advance, that if the gentleman
fi-om Yirginia can show that there is a legally married
slave in all the South, I will give up all my opposition
to slavery. The slave is incapable of any contract —
even that of matrimony. The slaves after they have
passed under the ceremony called marriage, can as well
as before it, be sold from each other, and separated
forever.

Mr. Jones, of Tennessee. If the gentleman will
yield to me for a moment, I will tell him of one case.

Mr. Smith. I will yield, certainly, for that purpose.

Mr. Jones. Some two years ago, in this city, I
was speaking to a gentleman from Maryland about buy-
ing some slaves. He said his negroes had been mar-

SPEECH ON POLYGAMY. 231

ried hj a Catliolic priest, that lie himself was of the
same religion, and that he would not sell them unless
the priest was to go along with them. They were mar-
ried by a Catholic priest, which I presume the gentle-
man would call legal. I have seen them legally mar-
ried.

Mr. Smith. I have no doubt of what the gentleman
states in regard to the Maryland gentleman. But never
mind what the Catholic said to the gentleman of
Tennessee. I ask that gentleman whether he, himself,
believes that there is legal marriage among the slaves ?
Sir, the gentleman has carried us into Maryland. I will
follow him there, and I will say to him, that the Mary-
land books (1 Maryland Reports, 561, 563) show that
a slave cannot be prosecuted for bigamy. He cannot
be guilty of bigamy, for he never was a legal husband.
He never had ability to contract legal marriage.

But, sir, to the subject before us. I agree with the
gentlemen from Alabama and Greorgia, that we are not
to concern ourselves with the morals of the Territories.
I make the province of Civil Government quite as nar-
row as those gentlemen do. I do not include in that
narrow province the duty of promoting morals, nor even
of protecting morals. All I would receive at the hands
of Government is protection of persons and property.
The office of Government is to hold a shield over
the great essential natural rights of its subjects. Now,

232 SPEECH ON POLYGAMY.

sir, I hold that polygamy invades a great natural right,
and that it is, therefore, the duty of Civil Government
to suppress it.

I suj^pose it will not be denied that polygamy pre-
vails in Utah. But it is said that polygamy is a part of
the rehgion of the Mormons ; and that, as we would
keep clear of the offence of invading the religion of our
subjects, we must not strike at polygamy. I admit,
sir, that the reformation of religion cannot be a legiti-
mate object of legislation. But, sir, that legislation
may be sound and justifiable which incidentally affects
rehgious systems. If a religious system tramples on
any of those great rights which it is the of&ce of
Government to protect, then, at just those points where
such system offends. Government is to meet it and
overcome it.

I argue the duty of Government to suppress polyga-
my on just the principles that I argue the duty of Gov-
ernment to suppress land monopoly. I believe that all
persons have an equal right to the soil. The Maker of
the earth has provided one home, not two homes, for
each person : not two farms, but one farm, for each far-
mer. The right to the soil is natm-al and equal. So,
sir, the right of each man to one wife, and each woman
to one husband, is a natural right : and for one man to
get more than one wife, or for one woman to get more
than one husband, is to violate this natural right, which
it is the duty of Government to protect.

SPEECH ON POLYGAMY. 233

The word of God shows that nature provides but one
wife for one man, and one husband for one woman.
That word teaches us that He "made them male and
female" — :not male and females, nor female and males.
And if there are any present who do not bow to the
autliority of that word, I would point such to the cen-
sus. The census in every country, and in every age,
shows that the sexes are numerically equal, and that the
arrangements of Providence forbid polygamy.

I have proceeded in my argument for sustaining this
proviso on the ground that this Government has as full
power and authority over the people and institutions of
its Territories as a State Government has over the peo-
ple and institutions within its jurisdiction. ISTow, I ask
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] whether
the Government of his State should or would permit the
dark-haired men of his State to press and practice upon
tlieir claun to a hundred wives each, and thus to shut
out the light-haired men from marriage ? But I will
consume no more of the time, as so many are eager to
speak.

SPEECH

ON THE

PACIFIC RAILROAD.

MAY 3 0, 1854.

[The motto which Mr. Smith prefixed to this Speech when it was
first prmted was: " Keep Government within its Hmits."]

The Bill to provide for building a railroad from the
Atlantic States to tlie Pacific Ocean was under consi-
deration. Mr. Smith said :

Whatever appearances to the contrary, nevertheless,
Mr. Chairman, the Government itself is, 8,ccording to
the provisions of the bill, to be the virtual builder of
the road. And the Government is to be, also, the
owner of the road ; — the literal owner, so far as it shall
lie within our National Territories — and, in no unim-
portant sense, the owner of it, even so far, as it shall lie
within the States ; its non-intervention, in the latter case,
being another signal instance of intervention non-inter-

236 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC KAILEOAD.

vention. In all cases, tlie Grovermnent retains the right
to regulate the charges for transportation on the road ;
and, sTirelj, it is not extravagant to say that it must be
ownership — and not merely ownership, but paramount
ownership — ^which can properly assert such a right.

Such, sir, is to be the essential and controlhng con-
nection of Government with the road : and because it
is to be such a connection, I have risen to oppose the
bill.

I need not say, that I desire to see a railroad to the
Pacific. What American does not desire it? Com-
merce, travel, the love of country, the love of each
part of it for every other part of it, and the deep hope
in every true American breast, that we shall ever re-
main one country ; — ^these, and countless other consid-
erations, all unite in calhng for such a useful and plea-
sant connection — such an iron bond between the Atlan-
tic and the Pacific, the East and the West. ISTeverthe-
less, I would not have Government either own, or build
the road. Great as is the good to come from the road,
it would, nevertheless, be largely overbalanced by the
evil of having such a connection of Government with
it, as the bill proposes. Indeed, I am free to say, that,
much as I desire the road, I had far rather, that it would
never be built, than built upon the terms of this bill.
But the road will be built. Private enterprise is abim-
dantly adequate to the undertaking.

It is our frequent boast, that this Eepublic has

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILEOAD. 237

solved the great problem of self-government. I admit,
tliat it has, if we take the problem in its ordinary
sense — that is, in a very limited sense. For the sake
of the argument, if for no more, I admit, that, in this
sense, our Eepublic has solved it fully, honorably,
triumphantly.

But what is meant by this solution ? Is it meant,
that the people have shown their capacity and their
wilhngness to plan and to do for themselves in their
own matters, and that they need not, and desire not, the
paternal counsels and guiding hand of Grovernment?
Oh, no ! something immeasurably short of this is meant
by it. JSTothing more is meant by it than that the peo-
ple have shown themselves capable of choosing both
the form and the administrators of their Government.
Nothing more is meant by this solution than that it
shows the doctrine to be false, which teaches that, in
order to escape anarchy and ruin, the people must be
denied all part in choosing either the structure or the
of&cers of their Government.

Far am I from saying, that this solution, which we
have achieved, is unimportant. I admit, that the human
race has been honored, and carried a wide step upward
by it. We have afforded abundant proof, that the masses
are not so wanting in capacity, as to be obliged to leave
it to a single despot, or to an oligarchy, to say how they
shall be governed : — ^but that they are capable of saying
it for themselves. I own, that this is much. Never-

238 SPEECH ox THE PACIFIC RAILROAD.

theless, it is not, as most persons seem to suppose, tTie
whole realization of tlie whole idea of democracy. It is
but a very partial realization of that beautiful, precious,
and grand idea. For a people to learn, that thej are
entitled to choose their own Government is only the first
and lowest lesson in democracy. But for a people to
learn, that it is their duty to grow into the government
of themselves, and not to suffer Civil Government to
mingle itself with their affairs — this is the ultimate
and highest lesson in democracy.

The impressive authority of Washington is often
quoted against the evil of mixing up the concerns of
one Government with the concerns of another Govern-
ment. This is a great evil ; and it should be carefully
guarded against. But a far greater evil, and to be far
more carefully guarded against, is the mixing up of
Government with the concerns of its people. Every
nation has more to fear from its own Government than
from any, or even all, other Governments; and, I add,
that every nation has actually been far more injured by
its own Government, than by any, and even all, other
Governments.

Is the day never to come, when Government shall be
confined to its proper limits ; to its sole of&ce of pro-
tecting its subjects from aggressions upon each other,
and from foreign aggressions ? Is the day never to
come, when the people shall resist the intrusions of
Government, and claim the right, ay, and have the dis-

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC EAILEOAD. 239

position, to attend to their own affairs in their own way ?
Until that day shall come, the proper work of each
party — that is of the Government and of the people —
will be badly done ; for until that day, Government
will be so much engi'ossed with its usurpations of the
people's work, as to misdo or neglect its own work ; and,
until that day, the people's own work, so far as it is
taken out of their own hands, and done by wrong hands,
will be badly done.

How false and ruinous are the present relations be-
tween Government and people ! Government, instead
of being the servant of the people, and of being wielded
by the people for the good of the people, is the master
and disposer of the people. Kussia does not own the
Russian Government, but the Russian Government
owns Russia. England does not own the English Gov-
ernment, but the English Government owns England.
And how degraded is the position toward Government
of the people of France ! Instead of aspiring to be,
every one his own master, the supplier of his own wants,
and the creator of liis own fortunes, they are, every few
years, clamoring for a new Government — ^not for a Gov-
ernment, which shall leave more room for the indivi-
dual to grow in independence and dignity, but for a
Government, which shall reduce its subjects to still
greater dependence, and meddle, still more than the pre-
sent one, with their callings and concerns. Indeed, it
would seem, as if the Frenchman's definition of the most

240 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILEOAD.

republican Goyernment (for it is for such lie clamors)
is the Goyernment, on which, its subjects can hang most
helplessly and ignominiousl j. What wonder, then, that
France should be a frequent and an easy prey to flatter-
ing and plausible despotisms !

And what shall we say of our own countrymen in
this connection? Do they suffer, do they court, the
agency and presence of Goyernment in the affairs of the
people to the extent, that the inhabitants of other coun-
tries do ? I admit, that they do not. I admit, that in
this respect, they haye learned more than others. And
yet, considering how much better school they haye had
to learn in, they haye proyed themselyes to be but dull
scholars. The American people are well-nigh as ready
as other people to haye Goyernment regulate trade, and
build asylums, and railroads, and canals. It is true, that
they do, in terms, deny to Goyernment the right of
meddling with the Church. But this is their inconsist-
ency. For, so long as they let Goyernment into their
school-houses, why, in the name of consistency, should
they shut it out of their meeting-houses? Is not the
school, as well as the church, a place for religious in-
struction ? But they will not continue this inconsist-
ency much longer. Yery soon, they will either shut
Goyernment out of the school, as well as the church, or
let Goyernment into the church, as well as the school,
unless, indeed, religious instruction shall (as it neyer

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC KAILROAD. 241

should) be banished from the school. At no less price
can this alternative be avoided.

Why is it, that the American people and other en-
lightened people are so reluctant to shake off their de-
pendence on Government, and to try, and trust in, the
strength of their own feet ? It is because they are, in
this respect, the victims of habit. Having always been
in the leading-strings of Government, they are very
slow to learn to go alone. They are even unconscious,
that they can go alone. Indeed, it must be confessed,
that they are so enfeebled and dwarfed by their habit of
dependence, as to have lost much of their ability to go
alone. Having leaned so long and so heavily on Gov-
ernment, it is not easy for them to straighten up.

I referred to the preference of Frenchmen for the
Government, which meddles most with matters of the
people, and, I might have added, which expends most
money upon those matters. But is there not danger,
that this will be the preference of the Americans also ;
and that the Administration, that will be most popular
with them, will be the one, which will be most profuse
in its expenditures on roads and canals, and on those
other ol)jects, on v/hich, whatever is expended, should
be expended by the people, and the people only ?

The protection of the persons and property of its sub-
jects, is the whole legitimate province of Government.
Is it said, that, if confined to this narrow province, it

will have but little to do ? It is true, that it will ; and
11

242 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD,

that is one reason, and a great reason, why it will do
tliat little well. Is it said, that, in sucli case, it will
have little to do, except to carry on wars for its ]Deople ?
But, even of that it will have little or nothing to do.
"Wars come from the fact, that Government is so big,
and the jDeople so little. Reduce hloated Government
to its proper dimensions, and thus make room for the
shrivelled people to swell into theirs, and war will be a
very rare occurrence. Wars come from the fact, that
Government is made the master, and the people the
servant. Reverse this relation, and war would, indeed,
be a rare occurrence ; for, then. Government, would re-
flect the mind of the people, and the mind of the people
is not for war. It is Government, that gets up wars.
Kot one in five of our people was originally in favor of
our mcked war with Mexico, the reckoning-day for
which will surely come, in eternity, and, most proba-
bly, in tune, also. I have not characterized this war as
wicked, because I regard some wars as innocent. It is
true, that oiir war upon poor Mexico was superlatively
wicked ; but all wars are wicked, and no truer saying
fell from Dr. Franklin's lips, than that there never was
a good war, nor a bad peace.

I have ascribed wars to the undue proportions and
undue influence of Government. In vain, will it be,
that Peace Societies labor to prevent wars, if Govern-
ment shall be allowed such proportions and influence.
The Government, that shall be allowed to overshadow

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILKOAD. 243

and control tlie |)eople) will be in favor of wars ; for
sucb. a Government will find its enjoyment and glory
in wars.

I said, substantially, tbat Government wonld keep
out of war, if it reflected tbe mind of the people. But
I sball be told, tbat, in a Republic, it does reflect tbe
mind of tbe people. Tbis would be true, if it bore tbe
relation of servant. But, unliappily, it is tbe master ;
and, wbat is worse, it is tbe master vfitb tbe approba-
tion of tbe people. Tbe people cboose tbeir ruler not
only, nor even mainly, for tbe purpose of baving bim
protect tbem. Tbeir leading object, in cboosing bim,
is to bave bim direct in tbeir affairs — ^in tbeir affairs
witb wbicb Government bas legitimately notbing to do.
Hence be becomes tbeir master. Before be became
sucb, be may bave been like tbem ; but it is unreason-
able to count on bis continuing to be like tbem. Tbe
new relation between tbem bas made tbem unbke eacb
otber. And, yet, I admit, tbat tbey may come to be
alike, and tbat tbey not unfrequently do come to be
alike. I admit tbat, even wbere tbe Government is
tbe master, tbe Government and tbe people may, and
often do, grow into a resemblance to eacb otber. Even
sucb a Government may study to be somewbat like tbe
people ; but tbe mutual likeness will be cbiefly owing
to tbe fact, tbat Government bas succeeded in corrupt-
ing tbe people into an assimilation to itself Tbe

244 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD.

servant is more like to follow the master than the
master the servant.

The meddling of our Government with the affairs of
our people, is sometimes justified on the ground, that,
in a republic, the Grovernment and the people are one.
But the assumption of this identity is fatal to the as-
sumption, that Government needs to undertake or su-
perintend any part of the proper work of the people. If
the Government and the people are one, and so entirely
.one, that the people would dispose of their affairs in
just the same way, that the Government would, pray,
why is it, then, that the Government needs concern
itself with those affairs ? The very fact, that Govern-
ment usurps the work of the people, proves that Gov-
ernment and the people would not do this work in the
same way. If Government knew, that all sections of
the people would regulate and conduct their trade just
as Government would have it regulated and conducted,
then, obvioush^, there would be no tariffs. K Govern-
ment knew, that all sections of the people would man-
age their schools just as it would have them managed,
then, ob^dously, Government would not meddle with
schools. So, too. Government would have no occasion
to build railroads and canals for the people, did it know,
that aU sections of the people would build them when,
where, and as it would build them. Admit, if you
please, that our Government represents the average
interests and the average wishes of the various sections

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC KAILROAD. 245

of the American people : admit, if jou please, that a
line of policy pursued by our Grovernment is the diag-
onal or compromise line between the planting interest
of South-Carolina, and the opposite manufacturing
interest of New-England : admit all this, and, never-
theless, it is preposterous to say, that our Government,
in its various meddhngs with the work of the people,
does just what each and all the sections of that people
would have it do, and just as they would do it them-
selves.

I have said enough to expose the falsity of the argu-
ment in favor of governmental assumption of the work
of the people, so far as that argument is founded, either
on the assumed likeness, or on the assumed identity,
between Grovernment and people.

I said, that Government, if confined within its proper
limits, would have but little to do. Our Federal Gov-
ernment does enough to run up its annual expenditures
into the neighborhood of $50,000,000. Drive it back,
however, from its excesses, and from its usurpations, to
its own and its only, proper work, and its annual ex-
penditures would fall down as low as $5, 000, 000. Yes,
$5,000,000 are more than this Government needs to
expend in time of peace ; and a just Government — a
Christian Government — will never be involved in war.
Such a Government, I admit, the world has never seen
— no, nor any approximation to it ; not, however, be-
cause no people couU have it, but, solely, because no

246 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC EAILEOAD.

people would have it. Tlie American people can, at
any time, speak such a Government into being ; and
great is their sin for not availing themselves of their
power. Confine our Grovernment to its legitimate work,
and the length of a Congressional session would be lit-
tle more than a week, where it is now a month. Thus
confine it, and we should not be wasting our time, or
rather the people's time, since they pay for it, on the
bill before us.

But I must delay no longer to look at the arguments,
which are employed in behalf of building by Govern-
ment, a railroad to the Pacific.

1. It icill facilitate the protection of the vjhites from the
Indians. But whether it be, that the whites need pro-
tection from the Indians, or, what is more probable, that
the Indians need protection from the whites, it can be
afforded, in either case, far cheaper, and more effectual,
than by putting Government to the vast expense of
buildino^ this road.

2. The road would he an important facility in the event
ofivar with a Poioer, that could hring an army and navy
to our Western coast. But we must be so just and wise,
as not to be involved in war with any Power. If, how-
ever, we shall find ourselves involved in such war, as is
here apprehended, is it not probable, that private enter-
prise will have built the road by the time of such war ;
or, at least, have carried it as far toward completion, as
it would haA'e been carried by the Government ?

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC EAILROAD. 247

Let it not be thoTight, that I undervalue tlie road, as
a means of protection. I cheerfullj admit tliat, in tliis
■respect, it would have no small value ; and that I would,
therefore, be willing to have Government give five or
ten millions of dollars to the association, that shall build
it. Mark, that I say Mlars^ not acres. I still deny, as
I have repeatedly done on this floor, that the public
lands belong to Government. Government no more
owns them than it does ^q sunlight, which falls upon
them, or the atmosphere, which floats over them. All
that Government has to do with them, is but to protect
and regulate the occupation of them. It is not for
Government to sell them; and it is not for Government
to give them away, any more than it was for Satan to
give away to the Saviour "all the kingdoms of the
world." I have said it in this Hall, more than once,
perhaps more than twice; I am so full of it, that I could
well-nigh consent to say, in all my speeches, as did Cato
his ''Carthago delenda esf hi all his— that the vacant
land belongs to the landless. The simple fact, that the
one is vacant, and the other landless, is of itself the high-
est proof, that they should be allowed to come together.
Alas, what a crime against nature, that they should be
kept apart, and that, in the surpassingly touching words
of the poet :

•' Millions of liands their acres want,
And millions of acres want hands."

Oh, when will statesmen be men! — and consent to

248 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD.

feel and act like men? How much, better that, than for
men to struggle to become statesmen ; and to consent to
desert their noble nature and theu" glorious manhood
for that poor conventional thing called statesmanship ?
I said, that I should be willing to have Government
give five or ten millions of dollars to the association,
that shall build this road. I add, that I should be will-
ing to have it give an equal sum to the association, that
shall build another raiboad to the Pacific; and, also, to
the association, that shall build still another. All this
is, of course, with the understanding, that the roads
shall be built within a few years, and on widely differ-
ent routes. I would take this occasion to say, tha,t
I have no sympathy with that jealousy of a southern
route, which is felt in some quarters. I need not say,
that I would have slaveholders put away slavery.
ISTevertheless, however closely they may cling to it, I
would not, for that reason, deny them a road, any more
than I would deny bread and meat to such, as differ
with me on a gi^eat moral or political question. But let
me here say to the honorable gentleman from "Virginia,
[Governor Smith,] that, whilst I would give roads, and
bread and meat to all, I would give to none those expen-
sive California "stiff drinks," of which he spoke, a week
or two since. Alcoholic drinks, whether stiff or slender,
are poisons — ^poisons to the body and the soul ; and to
no one will I give poisons for a beverage.

N"o, let the south, as well as the centre and the north,

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC EAILPOAD. 249

have its railroad to tlie Pa(?ific; and if the south lacks
Mexican territory, in order to perfect its route, and it can
be obtained on reasonable and honorable terms, then let
our Government, prompted by the spirit of wisdom and
justice, obtain it for her.

8. The road luill he a great — a ivell-mgh indispensable —
commercial and travelling facility. I admit it. But,
though Government may build roads, that are abso-
lutely necessary for protection, and that will not be
built, unless Government builds them ; it, nevertheless,
has no right to build roads either for the advantage of
merchants, or the accommodation of travellers.

4. Another argument in favor of huilding the road hy
Government is, that, if it is not so built, it will not be built
at all But I would turn this argument against the
building of the road by Government: and I would say,
that if it cannot be built, unless Government build it,
then it manifestly should not be built. For if sharp-
sighted individual enterprise cannot be tempted to
undertake it, then it certainly would be a most un-
profitable and unwise undertaking for Government.

5. The only other argument I shall notice is, that private
means are insufficient to build the road. This argument,
if somewhat like the one I last considered, is, neverthe-
less, clearly distinguishable from it.

Mr. McDouGALL, of California. Does the gentleman
from New-York, [Mr. Smith,] uuderstand the bill,

250 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD.

reported by tlic committee, to provide for a road to
be constructed and owned bj the Government?

Mr. Smith. I do ; and I have based my argmnent
on that interpretation of the bill.

Mr. McDouGALL. I do not know whether the gentle-
man from Kew-York has read the bill.

Mr. Smith. The gentleman from California may
depend upon it, that I do not rise to make a speech
upon a bill, without having first read the bill.

Mr. McDouGALL. I contend, that the bill does not
provide for any connection between the Government
and the road. The Government are neither to own
nor control the road.

Mr. Smith. All that I need say in reply is, that the
gentleman and I put different interpretations on the bill.

When the honorable gentleman interrupted me, (the
interruption was entirely kind and acceptable,) I Avas
proceeding to examine the argument, that the road
must be built by Government, for the reason, that
private means are insujQficient to build it. But whether
private means a,re, or are not, suflicicnt to this end,
certain it is, that Government cannot have legitimate
means for building roads, the main object of which is
the benefit of trade and travel. Certain it is, that if
Government gets the means for building such roads,
it gets them by plundering the people.

HaviiiG" fflnnccd at the arG-umonts for bnildinp^ the

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD. 251

road by Goyernment, I will now glance at those against
it. My time is too limited to allow me to do more tlian
glance at tliem :

1. The building ^ repairing, and working, or using ^ of
the road, if done hy Government^ will cost at hast fifty per
cent, more than if done hy an association.

2. Tliat there zuill he more than one railroad to the
Pacific is an argument against Government's huilding one
of them.

It is highly probable that, at no distant day, there
will be three railroads from the Mississippi to the Pa-
cific. Now, if one of them shall belong to Government,
money will be lavished upon it, without stint, to sustain
it against the competition of the others. But this will
be wrong, not only because it will be injurious and
oppressive to the individuals, who shall own the other
roads, but because such gross partiality to the section,
through which the Government road passes, will be
injurious and oppressive to the sections, through which
the other roads pass. In that case. Government would
be arraying its great power against the meritorious
enterprises of portions of its citizens; and it would
also be putting the whole country under contribution
for the purpose of benefiting one section of it, and with
the effect of damaging other sections of it. A similar
argument I employed against Government's helping to
build the Minnesota railroad, and a shnilar argument
was among the argnments, which influenced me to

1>52 SPEECH OX THE PACIFIC RAILEOAD.

vote against granting such lielp to tlie Wisconsin rail-
road.

This is a good occasion for me to say, that Govern-
ment should have the confidence of all its subjects ;
and that, in order to have this confidence, it must be
impartial with them all ; and that, in order to be impar-
tial with them all, it must not mix itself up with the
particular concerns of any.

I would add, under this head, that I do not forget,
that, by the provisions of this bill, the whole road may,
ultunately, be owned by State Governments. But my
objections to such ownership are as decided as to the
ownership of the road by the Federal Government. I
hold, that not the Federal Government only, but the
State Government also, is unfit for such ownership;
and that Civil Government is perverted, when brought
into such connections.

3. Another ohjection to the huiMing of this road hy Gov-
ernment is, that the patronage and power of Government
ivoidd he greatly increased thereby.

The present amount of Government patronage and
power is deeply corrupting both to Government and
people. But for Government to have the projDosed
connection with the road to the Pacific, would greatly
increase this patronage, this power, and this corruption.
What I have here said regarding patronage is not
intended to apply to the present any more than to
other Administrations. I know not, that the present

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILEOAD. 253

Administration is more faulty tlian others, in this
respect.

4. Let Government build this road^ and there loill he no
assignable limits to its future departure from its own
province, arid to its future invasion of the province of
the people.

The building of this road by Government would be
an irresistible precedent for every other gigantic work,
and every other profuse expenditure, at the hands of
Government. What railroad, what canal, would Gov-
ernment then shrink from building? "What conquest
would it feel itself to be too feeble to achieve? ISTay,
what conception of national glory would be too vast
or visionary for Government then to undertake to
realize? Perhaps, by that time, a hundred millions
of dollars would not be regarded as an extravagant
endowment for a national school with a branch in each
State. And, after such an endowment, what would be
thought more fit than to invest so great and glorious a
Government, as ours would then be, with the care of
the Church ? And, surely, the national church of great
America should not be eclipsed by the national church
of little Judea. A tithe of the products of our broad
land would no more than suffice for the splendors of our
national church. Let not the idea be scouted, that the
American Government can ever run into such extrava-
gance and ursurpation. If our people are so foohsh, as
to let Government run at all bevond its legitimate

254 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD.

limits, thej may soon find, tliat it will run indefinitely
beyond tliem ; and that, in tLe end, it will be impossi-
ble to erect an insurmountable barrier against tbe
usurper.

5. Tlie vast expenditure of Government in huilding this
road, and in doing what else that expenditure would lead
to, would fasten upon the nation the cruel and oppressive
tariff system.

This result accomplished, and then farewell to all our
hopes of a frugal and honest Government: — ^for no
Government will be either frugal or honest, that is not
held closely responsible for its exjDcnditui'es ; and no
Government will be so held, until the burden of its
expenditures shall rest upon the people, in the form of
direct taxation. And when the tariff system is fastened
upon us, then farewell also to all oui- hopes of a Gov-
ernment, that shall bear lightly on the poor; for the
efiect of the tariff system is to burden the poor — the
masses of the consumers — with the support of Govern-
ment, and to let the riches of the rich escape taxation.
I am far from saying, that this is the policy of the sys-
tem and the intent of its advocates. On the contrary,
I am free to admit, that its advocates are as upright
and as kind-hearted as its opponents. E'evertheless,
the wrong, which they inflict, is none the less grievous
because of their honesty and benevolence.

I do not say, that the instance, can never occur in
vfhich Government wo^ild be justified in helping to

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC EAILKOAD. 255

sastain some of the pursuits of its subjects, and in pro-
tecting from overwhelming foreign competition some
of the modes of their industry. Such an instance
might possibly occur, under an impending war. But
the end should be attained, not by tariffs, but by boun-
ties— by bounties produced by assessments on property
or ability, rather than by tariffs, which tax consumption
and poverty.

6. The last objection to huilding the road hy Govern-
ment with ivhich I shall iveary the Committee, is, that it
would prepare the loay for rolling up a debt against
the nation so great, as to make the Government strong
beyond the control of the nation.

The doctrine may be paradoxical, that a great debt
against a nation makes its Government strong. It is,
nevertheless, true, that whilst the nation is weak in
proportion to its debt, its Government is strong in that
proportion. It is not even the owners of the debt, that
constitute the strongest party. It is the power, that
collects the debt — the principal and interest, or either —
that is the strongest. But Government is this power,
and therefore its fearful strength, where the national
debt is great. The debt, which a nation owes, is a
mortgage on the whole of its wealth and industry.
All the persons employed in collecting it are servants
of the Government, and all the power wielded to col-
lect it is power of the Government ; as fully so, as if
Government jvere the creditor of the nation, as well as

256 SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC EAILEOAD.

tlie collector of tlie debt. Our own nation, in order to
fall under tlie tyranny of its Government, as extensively
as tlie nations of Euroj^e have fallen under tlieirs,
miglit, indeed, need to undergo several other changes ;
but the principal change would consist in its coming
under as great a bui^den of debt, as presses upon those
nations.

I must bring my remarks to a close. The passion of
every people has been for a great and glorious Grovern-
ment. Their pride has been in their Government, and
hence theu' ruin. Would that the American people
might become so wise, as to see, that it is to the
reproach of human nature, or rather of perverted and
fallen human nature, that any ci\dl government is
necessary. Would that, instead of feeling pride in
even the best civil government, they might feel shame
in the necessity, which exists for any.

Think not, because I spoke as I did, a minute since,
against the undue streng-th of Government, that I am
in favor of a weak Government. That was a strength
acquired in the perverted uses of Government. I
would have Government strong — ^far stronger than the
world has ever seen it. But the strength, with which I
would clothe it, would be all acquired in its right uses.
In a word, I would have Government strong in the
never-failing principle of justice — strong in the devotion
of both itself and its subjects to that principle. And,
althono'li I would not have it meddle with the work of

SPEECH ON THE PACIFIC RAILKOAD. 257

its subjects, I vfould, nevertheless have it, hke the gov-
ernment of Heaven, continually round about them.
Its sleepless care and its effectual shield should be ever
over them — over them, when they go to their fields
and to their shops, and over them when they go to their
tables and to their beds. I would have ci^dl gov-
ernment go with its subjects where they go, and lodge
with them where they lodge.

I had hoped, that my countrymen would never sink
down into so degrading a relation to Government, as
that, which is sustained by the people of other nations.
I had hoped, that the wardship, tutelage, and bondage
to Government, which characterize others, would never
characterize them. But, perhaps, I shall find, that I
was mistaken. Certain it is, that I shall strongly
suspect that I was, if I find them in favor of having
Government build, or ovv''n, this road. For the build-
ing, or owning, of this road by Government cannot fail
to contribute mightily toward creating and fixing as
false and ruinous a relation between people and Gov-
ernment in this country, as exists between people and
Government in other countries.

Here, then, on the brink of so great peril, let us
pause to survey the peril. And more than that, let us
here take our stand against it. Here, as the friends of
popular rights against the encroachments of Govern-
ment, let us firmly resolve, that, God helping us, these
rights shall be fully maintained, and these encroacli-

258 SPEECH ox THE PACIFIC KAILEOAD.

ments successfully resisted. Here let us firmly resolve,
tliat, God lielping us, Grovernment shall not build nor
own this road, neither absolutely nor conditionally,
neither entirely nor partly. Here let us firmly resolve,
that Government shall not pass this Eu.bicon. And
here let the fervent prayer of all our hearts be, that the
attempt to involve Government with this road shall be
the effectual signal to rally the friends of popular rights,
the whole country over, in defence of the people against
the usurpations of Government.

S PEEOH

FOE. THE

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

JUNE 15, 185 4.

The bill and substitute (both, of whicL. were intro-
duced by Mr. Olds, Chairman of tbe Committee on tlie
Post-Of&ce and Post-Eoads) being under consideration,

Mr. Smith presented tlie following amendment:

And bs it further enacted^ That this act shall continue
in force two years ; and that, at the expiration of that
time, the Post-Office Department shall be abolished,
and individuals and associations shall thereafter be as
free to carry letters, as to carry any thing else.

Mr. S]^riTH, then said —

I wish, Mr. Speaker, to make an argument in sup-
port of my amendment. I have read the bill, which
the Chairman of the Committee on the Post-Ofl&ce and

2 (JO ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

Post-Koads introduced ; and, also, the substitute, whicli
lie introduced, and I am constrained to say, that I do
not like either of them. I dislike both of them — and
I do so, if for no other reason than that they both
bear so much resemblance to the existing post-office
laws.

The Speaker. Will the gentleman from ISTew-York
inform the Chair, whether he proposes to amend the
original bill or the substitute ?

Mr. Smith. I have no choice. Whichever the
Chair shall think most proper, I shall be satisfied
with.

A Member. Apply it to each.

Mr. Smith. Let my amendment be first to the
original bill ; and then, if it fail in that mode, be to the
substitute. [Laughter.]

My first objection to these papers — for such I shall
call the bill and substitute — ^is, that they both propose
to retain the franking privilege. It is true, tha,t the
substitute does not propose to retain it to the discredit
of the Post-Office Department — or, in other words, as
a charge uj)on that Department ; but, what is the same
thing to the people, it proposes to retain it at the
expense of the common Treasury.

I am free to admit, that most members of Congress
have to write more letters than they would have to,

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 261

were they not members of Congress. The difference
would not be great, however, if the persons, who write
to them, were compelled, as such persons should be, to
pay postage on their letters ; and this difference would
be still less, if such persons should, as all true gentle-
men do, inclose stamps to pay the postage on the
answers, in every case, where the correspondence is on
the business of those, who originate it. Most of the
letters, with which we are deluged, are too unimport-
ant, and even frivolous, to have been written, had
their writers been obliged to pay postage on them.
And then, as to the speeches we send — the country
would not perish, if they were not sent. Perhaps,
indeed, it would not be essentially less enlightened.
I apprehend, that, in the flood of speeches, which we
pour over the land, there is quite as much of darkness,
as of light. Of course, I would not speak disparagingly
of my own speeches. [Laughter.] Every member
will so far provide for his self-complacency, as to make,
if not an express, at least a tacit exception, in behalf
of his own speeches, whenever he is tempted to speak
slightingijr of the mass of speeches. [Laughter.] But,
I am willing to admit, that it may be proper to send
off a limited number of our speeches, at the expense
of Government, so far as the transportation is concern-
ed. Hence, I am willing to have Government furnish
each member of Congress with stamps, during his term,
to the amount of, say, $300 or S400. These stamps

262 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM,

should be peculiar. They should be made to be used
bj members of Congress only; and only in franking
printed matter. Let the value of each frank be one
cent, and let a single frank be sufficient to frank two
ounces. The member of Congress, who should not
wish to use all his stamps, would take pleasure in letting
a fellow-member have the balance.

Another objection, which I have to these papers, is
not that they propose more than one rate of postage —
but rather, that they do not propose more than two.
Moreover, the higher of the two is of comparatively
very little consequence. For ten years to come, forty-
nine fiftieths of the letters would not be affected by
the higher rate. In other words, not one letter in
fifty would be charged with the ten cents rate of post-
age. Then, these papers are unreasonable, in making
distance the sole ground of difference in the rates of
postage. Distance is but one, and it is far from being
the most important one, of the grounds for such differ-
ence. Density and sparseness of popula.tion ; facilities
and non-facilities of carriage ; are much more import-
ant considerations in authorizing and measuring such
difference. Hence, then, although the existing post
office laws provide for but one rate of joostage, and
although there evidently should be more than one,
nevertheless the papers before us are, even in this
respect, hardly an appreciable improvement on those

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 263

laws, so ill-grounded and faulty is the liiglier rate of
postage, which thej propose.

To illustrate the error of these papers, in making
mere distance the ground of difference, in rates of post-
age : — they provide, that a letter from Boston to San
Francisco shall be charged with ten cents ; and a letter
from San Francisco to any post-office in the region of
the Eocky Mountains with only five cents, according
to one of the papers, and with only three cents, accord-
ing to the other. But it may be worth three times as
much to carry this letter Jfrom San Francisco, as that
letter to San Francisco.

Both, then, becaiise this higher rate of postage is to
affect so small a proportion of the letters ; and because
a rate of postage, founded on so insufficient a reason,
must, if adopted, be very short-lived ; and, because,
too, it seems well-nigh impossible, that it should be
adopted ; I shall regard these papers, in the argument
I am now making against them, as virtually proposing
but one rate of postage.

I have still another objection to these papers. It is
my chief one. They would have Grovernment continue
to be the mail-carrier. But I would have Government
separated from such work, entirely and forever. I am
in favor of breaking up the Post Office Department. I
would have the people left as free to choose their own
modes of carrying their letters, as to clioose their own
modes of carrying their other property. Why should

264 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

Government carry the letters any more than the other
property of the people? Again, if Grovernment may
carry the property of the people, why not the persons
of the people also ? — why not passengers as well as
property ?

Is it said, that letters, especially some of them, are
very precious and im]30rtant, and that therefore the
carrier of them should be highly trnst-worthy and
responsible ? I admit it all ; and I hold, that this is a
reason why the people should not be confined to one
carrier, but should have a choice of carriers — ay, the
widest range of selection.

Happily for the people, they are not forbidden by
Government to transmit money by express. They
may choose between the express and the mail. And
what does the choice, which they actually make,
prove ? It proves that they prefer the express to the
mail ; in other words, that the express is a more safe
and suitable conveyance for money than the mail. It
proves, too, that, in all probabiHty, the people would,
were they not restricted to the mail, extensively adopt
other modes of transmitting letters, as well as money.
This monopoly of Government is aggravated by the
fact, that Government disclaims all liability for dam-
ages, arising from either the bad performance, or non-
performance, of the work it has monopolized.

Is it said, that speed and punctuahty are necessary
m t!;e transmission of letters? They are. But this,

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 265

instead of being an argument against abolishing the
Post Office Department, and against throwing open its
work to the freest and widest competition, is a very
strong argument for doing so. The motive for attain-
ing speed and punctuality, in the case of such compe-
tition, must be unspeakably stronger, and more effect-
ual, than when, as now, there is no competition. It
would be strange, indeed, if, under the pressure of
unlimited rivalry, a greater than the present degi^ee
of speed and punctuahty should not be attained. It
would be strange, indeed, if the enterprise, sharp sight,
and intense interest of individuals, and small associa-
tions, should not accomplish the work with far greater
speed and punctuality than characterize it in the hands
of Government. It would be strange, indeed, if Gov-
ernment— Government, that is so corpulent, so un-
wieldy, so lazy, so blundering — should be found to be
fitted to the work of carrying the mail. But, we are
not left to mere theory in the case. The actual fact,
that, here the mail is several hours, and, there
several days, behind the express, is as glaring as the
sun.

Is it said, that it is important to have the rates of
postage low? I admit it is. I admit, that, as in tlie
case of commerce itself, so the more nearly commercial
correspondence can be free, the better. And more
eao-er am I to admit, that the commerce of the affec-
tions, which is carried on in letters of friendship and
12

266 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAIi SYSTEM.

love sliould be but ligiitly taxed. These admissions,
however, make nothing against my doctrine, that Gov-
ernment is not fit to be the carrier of letters. On the
contrary, Government must cease to be the carrier, ere
we can have, or, to speak more safely, ere we can be
entitled to have, cheap postage either on land or sea —
either "ocean penny postage," (two cents;) or any
other demanded reduction of postage. We are not
entitled to cheap postage, at the expense of the common
Treasury. There is not one good reason, why the
carrying of letters should be a charge on the common
Treasury — a charge on the whole people. There is
not one good reason why they, who have but little to
do with letters should be taxed to make the transmis-
sion of them cheap to those, who have much to do with
letters. Again, there is not one good reason why they,
whose letters can be carried at half the cost, at which
the letters of others are carried, should be compelled to
pay as high rates of postage, as others.

The argument for carrying the mail, at the expense
of the common Treasury, founded on the fact, that our
naval and mihtary operations are also at such expense,
is as superficial and fallacious, as it is plausible and
current. It is absolutely astonishing, that so many
wise men use this argument. In turning mail-carrier,
Government goes entirely out of the province of Gov-
ernment; goes out of it to perform an unnecessary
service ; find to perform it for but a portion of its sub-

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 267

jects. On the other hand, the preparation and employ-
ment of force are strictly within the province of Gov-
ernment ; are not only a legitimate, but a necessary
work ; are for the protection of all, and not a part only,
of its subjects ; and are for that protection equally in
the case of all.

I have, virtually, said, that, so long as Government
is the mail-carrier, the rates of postage must be high,
in order, that they may cover the whole cost of carry-
ing the mail. Indeed, the papers before us do, in the
changes which they propose, admit, that a self-support-
ing mail, if carried by Government, must be a dear
mail. Just here, however, the c[uestion very properly
arises, whether, if the transmission of letters is thrown
open to the enterprise and rivalry of individuals and
associations, the rates of postage will be lower. That
they will be much lower, in the case of the great ma-
jority of letters, is as certain, as that the cost of the
transmission will, in that event, be much less. Who,
that has marked the difference between the carelessness
and clumsiness of Government on the one hand, and
the vigilance and alertness of individuals and small
associations on the other ; between, for instance, the
slow and dear jDrocess of building railroads and canals,
and ships, by Government, and the speed and cheap-
ness with which private enterprise builds them ; can,
for a moment, doubt, that the cost of carrying letters,
is twice as great, when Government is the carrier, as it

268 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

would be, were tliey carried by individuals and small
associations ? But if this work is tliro\Yn open to un-
limited competition, then, as all experience, in like
cases, proves, the cost of the work will regulate the pay
exacted for it : or, in other words, the rates of postage
on letters will be according to the expense of carrying
them. It is safe to say, that, in such event, the rate of
postage on half the single letters would not exceed one
cent. On a portion of the remaining half, it would be
two cents : on a much smaller portion, two or three
tirdes two cents : and on a comparative few, a part of
whom, it must be remembered, are not reached by the
present Post-Office accommodations, three or four, or
ever five or six times two cents.

It is argued, that the rates of postage should be uni-
form, throughout the whole length and breadth of the
nation. But, why should they be ? They cannot be,
but at the expense of great and glaring injustice. Two
brothers reside in New-England. One of them says :
" I will continue to reside in New-England. It is true,
that my rent, and fuel, and bread, are dear ; but my
merchandise is cheap, because it is subjected to so light
a charge of transportation, and, ere long, the postage
on letters, through every part of railroad-laced JSTew-
Bngland, will be very small." The other brother says :
'' I will remove to Nebraska. It is true, that a home,
in a new country, has its disadvantages and trials.
But land and fuel are cheap there ; and my bread there

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 269

will soon be cheap, because I shall soon grow it. As
to merchandise, too — who knows but G-overnment will,
ere long, be so consistent with itself, as to carry tliat,
as well as letters, all over the countrj^ ? and at the same
charge for all distances, short or long ?" Now, would
it be right for Grovernment to realize this anticipation
of the Nebraska brother, and to turn carrier of mer-
chandise, as well as letters ? and on such absurd terms,
too? No — all admit, that it would be wrong, very
wrong, very oppressive. It is worth, say, ten cents, to
carry a barrel of rice from Baltimore to Washington ;
fifty cents from Baltimore to Pittsburgh ; one dollar
from Baltimore to Chicago ; and three dollars from
Baltimore to Nebraska. Now, it would be bad enough
for Government to monopolize the carrying of rice ;
but, far worse, to have only one price — a mean or
average price ; and to charge, ssij, one dollar for carry-
ing the barrel to Washington and Pittsburgh, as well
as to Chicago, and only one dollar for carrying it to
Nebraska. Such a bringing of prices to one level
would be oppressive to the people of Pittsburgh ; far
more so to the people of Washing1;on ; and it would be
doing a favor to the people of Nebraska, at the expense
of all equity and justice. And, yet, if Government
requires the Nebraska brother to pay no higher rates
of postage on Nebraska letters than it requires the
New-England brother to pay on New-England letters,
why, in the name of consistency, should it not make

270 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

the transportation of other property as cheap to the
Nebraska as to the New-England brother ? Can any
tell me, why ?

Is it said, that the Nebroska brother should be favor-
ed, because he has to encounter the hardships of mak-
ing a home in the \Vilderness ? I anticijDated and
replied to this objection, in my reference to the advan-
tages, as well as disadvantages, of such a home ; and in
my reference to the disadvantages, as well as advan-
tages, of a home in a long-settled section of the country.
Moreover, it was because he saw, that the disadvan-
tages of his new home would be overbalanced by its
advantages, that he concluded to emigi-ate. Hence, he
is not an object for partiality to expend itself upon —
certainly, not for the partiality of Government. Grov-
ernment is to be impartial, always, and with all. Gov-
ernment has no gifts to make — even to the most needy :
no favors to show — even to the most deserving. I do
not deny, that help is often due from the rich and
densely-peopled East to the poor and thinly-peopled
West. But it is not due from Government. It is due
from men to their feUow-men ; and is to be paid, with-
out the intervention of Government. The deep sense
of such obligation has been already expressed in the
bestowment of millions upon schools and churches.

I would add, under this head, that it is far from
certain, that, were the carrying of the mails left to
private enterprise, the people of our new settlements

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 271

would have to pay higher rates of postage, than they
will have to pay, if Government contniues to be the
mail-carrier. For, first, if we are to continue to have
so unfit, and so expensive a carrier of the mail, the
rates of postage must necessarily be increased, and
greatly increased. Second, the constantly and rapidly
swelling deficit in the Post-Office Department is abeady
so great, as to make it necessary to refuse to establish
post-oflaces, which will not, in all probability, be self-
supporting. Third, if the delivery of a letter, mailed
to, or from, our most inaccessible settlements, should
cost so unsuitable a carrier, as Government, twenty
cents, it, nevertheless, would not cost a suitable carrier

ten cents.

There is another objection to my argument against
uniform rates of postage. It is, that such uniformity
operates as much in favor of the densely-peopled East,
as of the sparsely-peopled West ;— as much, for in-
stance, in favor of the New-England as the Nebraska
brother. It will be said, that if the Nebraska brother
pays but three cents on the letter he receives from his
New-England brother, the New-England brother, in
turn, has to pay but three cents on the letter he re-
ceives from his Nebraska brother. It is true, that if
his only correspondence were with his Nebraska broth-
er, the New-England brother would not be so much
wronged by uniform rates of postage. But, as a gene-

272 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

ral thing, more tlian three fourths of the correspondence
of a N^ew-England man is with persons of New-Eng-
land : and, hence, the charges on the great mass of his
letters should be regulated, not bj what it may cost to
carry letters through the wilderness, and u]3on the bad
roads of Nebraska, but upon the good roads of culti-
vated New-England.

Is it honest to compel one man to pay another man's
postage ? Is it honest to compel one State to pay
another State's postage ? The Northern States do, to a
great extent, pay the postage of the Southern States.
Slavery is said to be the cause of this wrong. I am
aware that slavery is fruitful of wrongs. Perhaps, this
is one of them. I will pass no opinion on this point,
just now. I will leave each one to make up his own
opinion upon it, in the light of the facts of the case.
Indeed, there is an especial reason why it does not
become me to be finding fault with slavery. For, if we
may beheve the newspapers, (and we all know; that
newspaper is only another name for truth,) I am now
a pro-slavery man. My going to bed, as calm as usual,
that night, when the final vote on the Nebraska bill
was to be staved off by a ceaseless round of cunningly-
devised yeas and nays, was fatal to all my Abolition
fame. My former honors are now worn by others — by
others, who kept awake for liberty, during all the long
and weary hours of that memorable night. Surely,

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

273

surely, if I liave, as the newspapers say, become '' a
good national," and am on the eve of embarking in
"the purcbase of negroes," I ougbt to be cbary of my
words against slavery. [Laughter.] Yery unseemly,
very unnatural, would it be for a young convert to
speak reproacbfally of the idol of bis new faitb. But,
to return from tbis digression. I was saying, tbat tbe
JSTortbern States have to pay mucb of tbe postage of
tbe Southern. While, in the free portion of tbe nation,
tbe postage exceeds the expenditure, in tbe slave por-
tion tbe expenditure exceeds the postage ; and that, too,
by tbe great sum of $1,811,907.*

FREE.

* Postage collected
in year ending
June 30, 1853.

EonpenditnTe
in year ending
June 30, 1S53.

Maine $125,194

$112,654

New-Hampshire

81,703

67,310

Vermont .

78,638

96,860

Massachusetts .

453,966

294,366

Ehocle-Island

47,377

30,817

Connecticut

146,364

121,365

New-Tork

1,175,516

829,421 .

New-Jersey

89,074

109,913

Pennsylvania

488,308

414,043

Ohio

375,759

531,392

Michigan .

96,757

182,872

Indiana

137,339

174,351

IlHnois

175,346

264,223

Iowa

40,980

55,335

Wisconsin

73,570

78,606

California .

123,152

242,043

Oregon

9,797

52,282

Minnesota

3,529

3,848

$3,722,369

$3,661,701

Surplus. $00. f

.GS.
1 .,■'•■

[o;v/-.]

274

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

Most heartily, Mr. Chairman, do I rejoice, tliat our
post-office sliip has run ashore. As mj amendment
shows, I am willing to have it so far patched up, that
it may be kept at sea a couple of years longer, whilst
other and fit craft is made ready to take its place.
After that, let the poor broken thing be left to lie on

. Postage collected

Expenditure

in year ending

in year ending

SLA"VT:. June 30, 1S53.

J ice 30, 1S53.

Delaware .... $16,310

$16,357

Maryland

152,158

239,953

District of Columbia

37,832

33,006

Yirginia ....

183,472

398,769

North-Carolina

60,751

204,806

South-Carolina

82,985

157,573

Georgia

142,800

279,441

Florida

16,878

45,950

Alabama .

96,091

223,620

Mississippi

73,108

151,422

Arkansas

25,105

103,692

Texas

47,164

161,149

Tennessee

85.701

134,909

Kevitucky

112,542

191,114

Missouri

98,781

188,041

Louisiana

128,170

141,953

$1,359,848

$2,671,755

Deficiency, 1,311,907.

rNCERTAIN -WHETHER TO BE FREE OR SLATE.

New-Mexico

Utah

Nebraska

$517
955

$1,472
Deficiency, $22,323.
Total of deficiency in Post-Office Department, for year ending June
30. 1853. nsid:^ from ocean mail service, $1,27.3.562.

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 275

shore — a wreck to admonish the people, so long as it
shall lie rotting there, of the folly of permitting Gov-
ernment to be the carrier of their letters and papers.
"Now is the time for the people to determine to take
into their own hands their own work of carrying their
own letters and papers. Am I asked, how — ^by what
means — ^the people can do this work ? I answer, that
is none of onr business. It is no more our business —
the business of Government — to make this inquiry,
than it would be to inquh'e, how the people could build
their roads and" canals, and manage their schools and
churches, without the intervention of Government.
Government is to leave the people to do their own
work, in their own way — ^be that way the best or the
worst. That the people's way for carrying their own
letters and papers would, however good or bad, be far
better than the way, in which meddling, usurping
Government has done it, there is not the least reason
to doubt.

Perhaps, I shall be told, that the people will not con-
sent to pay, in any cases, higher rates of postage than
they now pay — no, not even if they are recompensed
fourfold for it by less rates of postage in the great ma-
jority of cases. Perhaps, I shall be told, that, rather
than have the rates of postage different for different
distances, or for any other cause, the people will prefer
to have the Government continue to be the mail-carrier,
and that, too, even though the Post-Ofiice Department

276 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

shall continTie to sink deeper and deeper in debt. But
the people are not so blind to tlieir own interests, as
not to see, tliat tlie losses of tbe Post-Of6.ce Department
are the losses of the Treasury ; and that the losses of
the Treasury are the losses of themselves. Nor are
the people so perverse and suicidal as to array them-
selves, dehberately and perseveringly, against their
own interests.

Thrice welcome to my whole heart would be the
breaking up of the Post-Ofl&ce Department! Not
merely, however, nor even mainly, however, because I
desire a reform in the Government, at that point. It is
true, that I do deeply desire this particular reform, for
its own sake. Nevertheless, my deep desire for it is
chiefly because it would lead the way to numerous
wise, and wide, and radical reforms in the theories and
practices of Civil Government ; and, thereby, do much
toward bringing forward the day, when Civil Govern-
ment shall be confined to its sole, legitimate province of
protecting persons and property.

The Post-Of&ce Department broken up — and there
would, then, be no frankiag privilege. In this wise,
the people would be saved much more than a million
of dollars a year. According to some estimates, more
than even two millions, a year. It may be well for me
to say here, that, even were the mail taken out of the
hands of Government, I would still be willing to have
Government go to the expense of sending a limited

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 277

amount of printed matter, at tlie liands of members of
Congress. Of course, it could not, in that event, be
done in tlie way suggested at tlie beginning of my re-
marks. But wbat tlie franking privilege costs would
not be tbe wbole amount, that tbe people would save
by the breaking up of tbe Post-Office Department.
Including wbat was paid to ocean mail steamers, tbe
Post-Office Department cost the people for the year
ending last June, nearly $3,000,000. The cost for the
year ending the present June, will exceed the sum of
$3,500,000; and it is estimated, that the Post-Office
Department will, in the year ending next June, load
the people with the loss of $4,000,000. Will the peo-
ple be patient imder these enormous, and rapidly in-
creasing, losses? They will not be. And they will
not be patient with the present Congress, if we do not,
and that, too, before the close of the present session,
provide for the speedy termination of these losses.

To protect myself from misapprehension, I would
disclaim all imputation of mismanagement in the Post-
Office Department. I presume, that it is as well man-
aged, at the present time, as it ever was. I beheve,
that they, who have the control of it, are upright and
able men. But the Post-Office Department is itself
a wrong: — and, therefore, every administration of it
must, necessarily, be a wrong — ^because every adminis-
tration of it, however able or well-intended, must par-

278 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

take of the inlierent wrong of that, which is adminis-
tered.

Again, the Post-Office Department broken up — and
there would be no more making of books bj Govern-
ment. In this wise, too, the people would be relieved
of another great tax. There is no danger, that there
will not be books enough. There will still be enough
books made, even if Government should make none.
Let Government throw open the Patent Office, and the
Coast Survey Office, and other offices, to persons who
collect materials for book-making ; and such books, as
Government, now, loads the mail with, and scatters
among those who do not, one in three, read them, will
be pubhshed at half to three fourths of the expense, at
which they are now published : and, moreover, they
will get into the hands of those who will read them —
for, it may be presumed, that they, who go to the ex-
pense of buying their books, will read them.

But the saving of money to the people by the break-
ing up of the Post-Office Department will be of little
account, compared with the saving, by that means, of
both Government and people from no small amount of
corruption. There are more than twenty-three thous-
and post-offices. The postmasters, their deputies and
clerks, must altogether number more than fifty thou-
sand. It is, of course, expected, that they shall all wear
the livery of the Administration ; and, alas, too large

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 279

a share of them feel themselves irresistibly tempted to
falfil the expectation! Then, connect with this patron-
age the negotiations for mail contracts, and all the
powers and influences incidental to the Post-Office
Department, and it will be strange, indeed — nay, inex-
pressibly honorable to human nature — if an immense
and ever-swelling tide of corruption should not attend
upon the organization and operations of that Depart
ment.

But it will be said, that the individuals and associa-
tions, that would take the place of Government, in
carrying the mail, would be as corrupt and corrupting
in the work, as Government is. Admit, that they
would be as corrupt — nevertheless they could not be as
corrupting. The corrupting power of individuals and
associations is as nothing, compared with that of Gov-
ernment. For, whilst Government remains pure, it will
be both disposed and able to control guilty individuals
and associations. But when Government itself has
yielded to corruption, the restraining barriers are bro-
ken down, and all is in danger of being lost.

I must close. I have not said all, that I intended to
say. But, as the remainder of our session may be
very short, so we must make our speeches short. K
this Congress would do a better thing than any Con-
gress has ever done, let it declare, that the Post-Office
Department shall, at the end of two years, cease to
exist; and shall then give place to such machinery, ai?

280 ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

the people shall select and employ ; and to as perfect
freedom, on tlie pa-rt of the people, to carry their let-
ters in what way they ^yill, as they now exercise in
carrying their beef, and pork, and flour, and them-
selves.

What I have said is in harmony with the amendment,
which I sent to the Clerk's desk. I cannot be ignorant,
that many, who hear me, will believe that my amend-
ment will be unpopular in some quarters, especially in
the new and scantily peopled portions of the country.
But I am, yet, to be convinced, that it will be unpopular,
even there. I am, yet, to be convinced, that so just and
wise a measure, as the abolition of the Post-Of&ce De-
partment, will work loss to any portion of the country.
A monopoly in the hands of a Democratic Govern-
ment ! — copied, in the ignorant infancy of that Govern-
ment, from monarchy and despotism ! at war with the
whole genius and framework of that Government ! — tell
it not, that any section, or any worthy interests, of our
people can be injured by the abolition of a so entirely
misplaced usurpation !

I will admit, however, for the sake of the argument,
that my proposition is unpopular. Hai^pily for me, I
have no popularity to jeopard. I belong, as I said, in
this place, a few months ago, to a sohtary party ; or, if
the honorable gentleman from JSTorth-Carolina [Mr.
Clingman] will permit me to say so, to that dual party,
composed of himself and myself [Laughter.] But,

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM. 281

thougli I have no popularity to jeopard, nevertlieless,
many wlio hear me have. I hope, however, that they
T\all not allow themselves to be trammeled by it, on
this occasion. I hope, that they will remember, that
justice is more important than popularity, and that he,
who honors the demands of justice, will acquire an in-
creasing and enduring respect, which is infinitely more
valuable than any popularity, and especially, than that
vulgar and mushroom popularity, which is the poor
pay for trampling on justice.

SPEECH

ON

SUPPLYING THE CITY OF WASHINGTON

WITH WATER.
JUNE 2 4, 185 4.

Me. Chandler, of Pennyslvania, liad offered an
amendment to tlie Civil and Diplomatic Bill, providing
for an expenditure of five Imndred thousand dollars to
continue tlie aqueduct for bringing water into tlie City
of "Wasliington. Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, moved
and advocated an increase of one liundred thousand
dollars. Mr. Smith replied as follows :

The honorable gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Ste-
phens] said, "Go on!" I say, stop! I have not risen
to oppose this plan, or to advocate any other. I have
nothing to say in disparagement of deri\dng the water
from the Potomac; and nothing to say in praise of
deriving it from Eock Creek. I am opposed to the

284 SPEECH ON SUPPLYING THE CITY

execution by the Government of any plan, whatever,
for supplying this city with water.

In my judgment, sir, we are on the threshold of a
vast expenditure of money. Government had better
retrace its steps than go forward. K it goes for-
ward, it will find itself involved, not. only in a great loss
of money, but in difficulties that will call for legislation,
and that will consume much of the costly time of Con-
gress. And that it will find its execution of the work
the occasion of no little corruption to itself and to
others, is what all experience in such matters teaches us
to expect.

This work can be done, and be kept in repair, by
individual enterprise, at one half the expense it would
be to Government. Why, then, should it not be
intrusted to individual enterprise? Let Government
offer half a million, or, if proper, a million of dollars, to
the responsible association that shall undertake to sup-
ply the city with water, and the offer will be promptly
accepted. But it is said, that there is not enterprise
enough among the people of this city to get up such an
association — not wealth enough to accomplish the object
of it. I think better, however, than this of both the
enterprise and abihty of the people of Washington.
But if they either will not, or cannot, do the work,
there are Yankees enough who will ; and not only Yan-
kees enough, but people enough in every part of the
country, who will do it.

OF WASHINGTON WITH WATER. 285

Of course, I would liave Government requii'e, in
return for its grant to the proposed association, the
fullest liberty to use the water for all possible govern-
mental purposes. And I would have Government
prescribe the general plan of the work— at least, some
of its main features.

I hardly need say that I am willing, more than will-
ing, to have Government pay for the water in full pro-
portion to the value of its buildings and their precious
contents, and to the value of its various great interests
here, among which is the importance of preserving the
health of its numerous servants collected here. Indeed,
I would have Government bear rhore than such pro-
portion of the expenses for the common welfare of the
city. It is the misfortune of our nation that its capital
is in the midst of a people who cannot be a self-subsist-
ing people. To a great extent Government must ever
carry and sustain the people of this city.

I am not of the number of those who think it would
have been unwise to estabhsh the capital in one of our
great seats of commerce. A people who support them-
selves arc quite as virtuous and intelhgent and safe
a people as are they who lean largely upon others for
their living.

But it is said, that if Government does this work
it will derive a great income from it. I do not beheve
that it will derive any income from it. It will be too
much out of harmony with its dignity for Government

286 SUPPLYING WASHINGTON WITH WATEFv.

to be peddling water. If Government does tlie work,
tlie people of tliis city will never be taxed for tbeir
water. The wliole tax, in tliat case, will rest npon tlie
vfliole people of tlie country. You might as well
expect that Government should erect toll-gates on the
bridges it owns around this city, and stop passengers
for their pennies, as expect that it will descend to the
little business of selling or leasing water.

This city should be supplied with water, both abun-
dantly and speedily ; and, as I have said, I am willing
to have Government contribute liberally toward the
expense of it; but its contribution must be in a way
consistent with the of&ce of Government. Kot for
the sake of doing any good may Government exceed
its province. Government may do nothing that its
citizens can do; least of all may it do anythmg that
they can do better than it can.

I love the city of Washington. I love it, because it
was founded by the gTcatest of all great names. I love
it, because it does itself wear that greatest name. I
love it, because it is the capital of our nation — the
seat of Government of our beloved country. I love
it for its great natural beauty, that marks every part
of this broad and magnificent amphitheater ; and all
the more do I love it because this beauty is heightened
by the embellishments of art. It is true there are two
plague-spots upon its health — ^two blemishes and blots
upon its beauty —

[Here the hammer fell.]

SPEECH

ON THE

MEXICAN TREATY AND "MOMOE DOCTRffiE."

JUNE 2 7, 185 4.

The bill to enable the President to fulfil the third
article of the Treaty between the United States and
the Mexican EepubUc, being under consideration,

Mr. Smith said:

Mr. Chairman: Until yesterday, when I heard the
distinguished gentlemen from Missouri and Virginia,
[Mr. Benton and Mr. Bayly,] I had not intended to
say one word on the subject before the Committee. I
listened with great interest to their noble speeches, and
was instructed by them. Nevertheless, my own views
did not entirely harmonize with the coui'se of argu-
ment pursued by either of those gentlemen. I am
happy, Mr. Chairman, in the opportunity, which you
have now kindly afforded me, to express these views,

288 MEXICAN TEEATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE."

in the liglit of wliicli the vote, wliicli I am to give,
will be judged.

"The papers!" — "the papers!" have been, more or
less, the burden of some of the speeches, which we
have heard. Now, I do not sympathize with this con-
cern, nor join in this call for the papers. I do not see,
that we have any right to them, or anything to do with
them. Had we undertaken to impeach the President
for his connection with this treaty, then our interest
in the papers respecting it would be pertinent. But
that is what we have not, as yet, undertaken.

This treaty, when approvingly and fully acted upon
by the competent Mexican authorities and the Presi-
dent and Senate of the United States, (and, for the
sake of the argument, I will assume, that it has already
been so acted upon,) becomes, by the admission of the
Constitution itself, a "supreme law of the land," bind-
ing upon our nation, and capable of being enforced
against our nation by Mexico. It is equally such,
whether it has our approbation, or disapprobation.
Our approbation cannot give it legality. Our disap-
probation cannot take away its legahty. The treaty
is not a law, upon condition, that we assent to it. It
is, already, a law — an u.nconditional, absolute law.
All, that we have to do with the treaty, is either to obey
its call upon us to vote money to Mexico ; or to dis-
obey the call, and incur the great and fearful responsi-
bility of treaty breakers — of law breakers. For one,

MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." 289

I hold, that we may incur such responsibility, provided
the amount of the money is grossly excessive — say
several times as much, as it should be. Before I close,
I will express my opinion on the reasonableness of the
amount. Commanding as is a treaty between nations
— solemn as is a "supreme law of the land," it may,
nevertheless, be possible, that it is our duty to disobey
this treaty, and to break this law. For we can suppose
a case, in which it would be right to disobey, and set at
naught, the most imposing and solemn enactment. I
will suppose an extreme .case — since it is, after all, an
extreme case, which best serves the purpose of establish-
ing the fact, that there may be exceptions to the
general rule. "What, if there were a congTessional
statute, which, rivalling the wickedness of the mem-
orable decree of Herod, requires all the children in
this District, two years old and under, to be slain?
Must the President obey, and enforce it? No! All
admit, that, notwithstanding he is a coordinate branch
of the law-making power, he must not obey, and
enforce it. Commanding, as is the source of this stat-
ute, and perfect as are its forms, he must refuse to
honor it. High and authoritative, as is the statute,
humanity is infinitely higher and more authoritative :
and, hence, if he has to trample either one, or the other,
under foot, it must be the statute, and not humanity.

I said, that the treaty calls on us to vote money to
Mexico. Now, I am not of the number of those, who

290 MEXICAN TEEATY AND '' MONBOE DOCTKINE."

hold, tliat we are to disobey the call, because the Presi-
dent had not apprised us of it, before the treaty was
concluded. The Constitution does not require such,
previous notice. Moreover, such previous notice might
be the means of pubhcity, and thereby of defeat, to the
negotiations. ISTor would I disobey the call, because of
the pro\ision in the Constitution, which requires all
bills for raising revenue, to originate in the House.
For I do not believe, that this provision was intended
to restrict, or qualify, the treaty-making power, lodged
by the Constitution ia the President and Senate. To
understand our duty, we must see what we get in
exchange for the money we vote. If we find, that we
get the worth of our money, or anywhere near the
worth of our money, we are not to hesitate to vote the
money.

There are but two material things, that we get.
One of these is our release from the eleventh article
of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo — the article which,
although so lightly spoken of by the honorable gentle-
man from Missouri, [Mr. Benton,] does, nevertheless,
make us liable, in some sense, and in some degTce,
for Indian depredations upon the Mexicans. It is said,
that our habilities in this article are too indefinite to
create any obligations upon us. But I hold, that the
more indefinite they are, the worse they are, and the
more eager should we be to escape from them. To
say, that they create no obhgations whatever upon us,

MEXICAN TKEATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." 29i

strikes me as very extravagant. For one, I sliould
be wilKng, ay glad, to see our Government pay a con-
siderable, tbongb not an unreasonable, smn to liberate
"QS from tbe obligations of tbis article, whatever tbose
obligations are.

The other material thing, that we get by this treaty,
is territory. This territory is valuable to us, because it
is essential to the best railroad rou.te from the southern
portion of our country to the Pacific. But though I
would have our Grovernment do what it reasonably
can to provide the South, as well as the centre, and
the North, with the best railroad route to the Pacific,
which the Maker of the earth has afforded, I must,
nevertheless, insist, that Mexico, so far as she can fur-
nish the ground, should be glad to furnish it, without
price, if others will build the roads.

But this territory is much more than we need for the
routes of railroads. The more, however, the worse,
said the honorable gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Ben-
ton,] and by a good story, told in his own happy way
of telhng his good stories, he illustrated his position,
that there are lands so poor, that to own them is to be
impoverished, rather than enriched. But with all
deference to that distinguished gentleman, who is even
more full of learning and experience than he is of years,
I am willing to admit, that the more land we get from
Mexico, (by righteous means,) the better. I would.

292 MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE.

that the treaty gave us whole provinces ; yes, and
even all Mexico.

Poor Mexico needs to be brought under radically
transforming influences. Indeed, she is perishing for
the lack of them. It is for her life, that she cease to be
an independent nation; and not only so, but, also, that
she become a j)^^t of our nation. For, say what we
will of its faults and crunes, (and I look with very great
sadness of heart upon some of them,) our nation is the
mightiest of all the civilizing and renovating agencies,
that are at work in the world.

And, again, is there not some danger, that Mexico, if
not annexed to us, will pass under the wing of Spain,
or of some other European nation? But, gentlemen
will tell us, that the "Monroe doctrine" is an effectual
shield from that danger.

Suppose, Mr. Chairman, since we have, thus inci-
dentally, stumbled upon the "Monroe doctrine," that
we spend a few minutes upon it, and, therefore, a few
minutes less upon the treaty.

I am well aware, sir, in what admiration this doc-
trine is held. It is glorified in this House, and glori-
fied throughout the land. There is no greater pohti-
cal heresy than to doubt its soundness. It is com-
mended to us by the authority of the greatest names.
ISTevertheless, it is not to authority that I would bow,
but to truth; and, as I look upon the Monroe doctrine,
it is utterly empty of truth, and full of arrogance and

MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." '29o

bravado. This doctrine is very palatable to our
patriotism, inasmucli as it arrogates a very exalted
1 1 place and mission for our nation. It invests ns with
the right of regulating the relations between the people
of this hemisphere and the people of the other. It
makes us, in a word, dictator of the whole earth.

This doctrine is brave and defiant ; and it, therefore,
gratifies our conceit of our courage and power.

And, yet, sir, warmly as this doctrine is cherished
by us, it seems to me, that we should be the last
people on earth to admit the truth of any such doctrine.
This doctrine is at fatal war with our corner-stone
doctrine, that every people is at liberty to choose its
own form of Government. For us to set up "the
Monroe doctrine," is to turn our back upon the Decla-
ration of Independence. It is to deny ; to live down;
to lie down; our own fundamental principles. For
us to refuse to other peoples and nations the right to
separate from each other, as they please ; or unite with
each other, as they please ; or change their forms of
G-overnment, as they please ; is to be guilty of repeal-
ing the principles, on which our own nation dehbe-
rately founded itself. For us to restrict other Govern-
ments, as "the Mom'oe doctrine" would restrict them,
is, virtually, to ignore and deny the foundation and
legitimacy of our own Government.

But, sir, we are either ignorant of ourselves, or insin-
cere. We would not approve — nay, we would not

29-i MEXiaVN TREATY AND " MOXROE DOCTRINE.

abide — 'Hlie Monroe doctrine," were it applied to our-
selves. Suppose our nation should, for any reasons
wliatever, wish to blend itself with Great Britain,
would it be restrained from doing so by its committal
to " the Monroe doctrine?" Oh, no ! And yet, that
wish would be directly in the face of " the Monroe doc-
trine." Suppose Mexico and Brazil, hearing of this
wish, should put their veto upon its indulgence. How
quick would we scout the veto, and bid them mind
their own business, whilst we minded ours? But if
they have no right to forbid our fusion with Great
Britain, pray, what right should we have to forbid the
proposition of Hayti to join France, or Chili to join
China, or, (most terrific of all terrific things, in the
eyes of an AineTicaTL fiUhuster /) Cuba to join England?

The truth is, that our rapid progress in population,
wealth, and power, has made us forgetful of the equal
rights of the nations of the earth. We are disposed to
measure our rights by our prosperity ; and to dispa-
rage the rights of others, in the degree, that their pros-
perity falls short of our own. In our boundless self-
conceit, our might, either already is, or is very soon to
be, boundless. And, as is to be expected hi such a
case, we are already acting on, if not in terms avowing,
the maxim, that might makes right.

It was in the proud and arrogant sphit of our coun-
try— ^it was under the influence of the extravagant pre-
tensions, with which she is bloated, that the Squier

MEXICAN TREATY AND " MONROE DOCTRINE." 295

treaty was so mucli condemned, and tlie Hise treaty so
mncli extolled, in tlie otlier wing of tlie Capitol, a year
or two since. The Sqnier treaty admitted, that other
nations of the earth might participate with ours in con-
trolling the ship-canal between the Atlantic and the
Pacific. But the Hise treaty claimed, that our nation,
alone, is worthy of controlling it; that the nation,
whose office is sole dictator of the whole earth, should
be the sole keeper of that great gateway of all the
nations, and should decide when, and on what terms,
the ships of those nations might pass through it. It
was, of course, taken for granted, that all the nations
of the earth would be tame enough to acquiesce
promptly in this, as well as all other claims of our
assumed dictatorship.

" I fix the chain to great Olympus' height,
And the vast world hangs trembhng m my sight,"

are words quite too swollen for a nation — for any col-
lection of mere men to use — however fitted they may
be to the lips of a god.

"The pride of thy heart," saith the prophet, "hath
deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the
rock, whose habitation is high ; that saith in his heart,
' who shall bring me down to the ground? ' Though
thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set
thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down,
saith the Lord."

296 MEXICAN TEEATY AND " MONEOE DOCTEINE."

Is not sucli the pride, that we are nurturing ? — the
" pride," may we not fear, that "goeth before destruc-
tion ? " — the " haughty spirit before a fall ? "

Never has there been so self-deceived a nation, as
our own. That we are a nation for liberty is among
our wildest conceits. We are not a nation for liberty.
I refer not, now, to the terrible blot of slavery upon our
country. I refer to our pride. No proud man is for
liberty. Ko proud nation is for liberty. Liberty —
precious boon of Heaven — is meek and reasonable.
She admits, that she belongs to all — to the high and
the low; the rich and the poor; the black and the
white — and, that she belongs to them all equally. The
liberty, for which a proud man contends, is a spurious
liberty ; and such is the liberty, for which a proud
nation contends. It is tyranny; for it invades and
strikes down equal rights. But true liberty acknow-
ledges and defends the equal rights of all men, and all
nations. There is not time for me to expatiate upon
the merits of true liberty. They will be known to all;
who bow themselves, gratefully and lovingly, to her
claims. There is not time for me to prove, that it is
her true character, which I have given to true liberty.
Suffice it to say, that all will see it to be such, who are
so happy, as to escape from the hard dominion of pas-
sion and prejudice, to the welcome control of reason
and rehgion.

If this nation is to prosper, it must be by adhering

MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE.'' 297

to the great and precious principles avowed at its birth.
One of these principles is, that every people may choose
its own form of government, and vary it, as it pleases.
We chose ours; and we write "hjrpocrite," with our
own finger, upon our own foreheads, if we deny to the
Haytiens or Cubans, or any other people, the liberty to
choose theirs. K Cuba proposes to remain a part of
Spain, or to become a part of France, or England, we
cannot condemn the proposition, but at the expense of
condemning our own, deliberately adopted and solemnly
uttered, principles.

It is not for this nation to deny the right of one peo-
ple to blend themselves with another people ; nor the
right of any people to break up their existing national
relations. In other words, it is not for this nation to
deny the right either of annexation or secession. I
claim the right of the British provinces, north of us,
to annex themselves to our nation, if we are wilhng to
receive them ; and that, too, whether England does, or
does not consent to it. I claim the right of those pro-
vinces and New-England to form a nation by them-
selves; and that, too, whether mth or without the
approbation of the Enghsh and American Governments.
I hold, that the Northern States have the right to go
off into a nation by themselves; and the Western
States ; and the Southern States. If they will go, let
them go ; and we, though loving the Union, and every
part of it, and willing to lose no part of it, Avill let them

298 MEXICAN TEEATY AND " MONEOE DOCTRINE."

go in peace, and will follow tliem with our blessing, and
with our warm prayer, that they may return to us ; and
with our firm belief, that they will return to us, after
they shall have spent a few miserable years, or perhaps,
no more than a few miserable months, in their miser-
able experiment of separating themselves from their
brethren. Of course, I cannot forget, that many — alas
that they are so many! — ^would prefer following the
seceders with curses and guns. Oh, how slow are men
to emerge from the brutehood, into which their passions
and their false education have sunk them ! I say brute-
hood; for rage and violence and war belong to it, while
love and gentleness and peace are the adornments of
i_true manhood.

I trust, that I shall not be regarded as holding that
a single State in our Union may set up for itself It
may not any more than a single county. Such an im-
perium in imperio would be too full of inconvenience
and objection to entitle itself to the approbation of any
reasonable man. My doctrine of annexation and seces-
sion is not to be stretched over every folly, that may lay
claim to countenance from the doctrine.

I spoke of the right of the British Provinces to annex
themselves to our nation. I hope, that, in due time,
the right will be exercised ; and that England will feel,
that she cannot justly resist the exercise of it. But, I
hope, for more than such annexation. I hope for the
annexation to us of every other part of I^orth- America.

MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." 299

To bring the various peoples of North- America into a
nation with ourselves, would be to bring them under a
rapid process of enhghtenment, civilization, and homo-
geneousness with each other and with us. I trust, tha,t
we shall "be a better people, by that day. But bad, as
we now are, even in that case, few of our neighbors
would become worse, and most of them would become
better, by becoming like us. Were all North- America
to become one nation, it might not long remain such.
But the various nations, into which it would divide,
would be more intelligent, useful, and happy, than if
they had never constituted one nation.

Let Cuba come to us, if she wishes to come. She
belongs to us, by force of her geographical position.
Let her come, even if she shall not previously abolish
her slavery. I am willing to risk the subjection of her
slavery to a common fate with our own. Slavery
must be a short-lived thing in this land. Under our
laws, rightly interpreted, and under the various mighty
influences at work for liberty in this land, slavery is to
come to a speedy termination. God grant, that it may
be a peaceful one !

I would not force Cuba into oiu- nation, nor pay
$250,000,000 for her, nor $200,00a,000— no, nor even
$100,000,000. But when she wishes to come, I would
have her come ; and that I may be more clearly under-
stood on this point, I add, that I would not have her
wait, always, for the consent of the Spanish Govern-

300 MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE."

ment. Now, if tliis is filibusterism^ then all I have to
say is " make the most of it ! " [Great laughter.]

I do not subscribe to the doctrine, that the people are
the slaves and property of their Government. I believe,
that Government is for the use of the people, and not
the people for the use of Government. Moreover, I do
not acknowledge, that any nation, or province, or people,
is amenable to any other human Government than that,
which they have themselves chosen.

But, to return from my filibustering [laughter] to the
treaty. The treaty calls on us to vote money to Mexico,
in exchange for what we get from her. Is the sum no
greater than it should be? Then, I must cheerfully
vote it. Kay, it may be even much greater than it
should be, and my obligation to vote it remain unbroken.
For, I must not, for any shght cause, disobey the law —
"the supreme law of the land." But, if I believe the
sum to be several times greater than it should be, then
it is better, that I disobey than obey the law. I do
thus believe ; and, therefore, I elect to disobey the law.
I refase to vote the required sum. I am conscious of
my resjDonsibilities for the refusal. I confess myself to
be a law-breaker ; and I appeal to common sense and
the public conscience for my justification. Start not a,t
my admission, that I am a law-breaker. Even you,
who believe with me, that this treaty is a law, would
consent to break it on the same principle, that I do.
That is, you would consent to break it, if you thought.

MEXICAI^T TREATY AND " MONROE DOCTRINE." 301

as I think, that the sum demanded by the treaty is
several tunes as great, as it should be.

The truth is, that our statesmen have, under the
influence of the vast resources of our nation, and of
the overflowing Treasury, which is the consequence of
our tariff system, become mad on the subject of figures.
With them millions are but httle more than thousands.
"Were our Treasury well-nigh empty, as it always
should be;<Cand were our statesmen to study the value
of money, in the light of the toils of the poor, who
earn it, these statesmen would not make so light of
immense sums, as they now do.>

Ten millions for what this treaty gives us ! In my
esteem, it is not only a very excessive, but an outrage
ously excessive, remuneration. I do not say, that I
would not vote five millions. Perhaps, I would, but
not because I would believe five millions to be no more
than a reasonable sum. It would, in my judgment,
be much too large a sum.

Mr. Washburn, of Mame, (interrupting.) K I
understand the gentleman correctly, he said, a short
time since, that he considered this House under abso-
lute, unquestionable obhgation to vote this money. Or
he stated, rather, that the treaty was perfect in its obli-
gation, without the action of this House, that it was the
law of the land, absolute and complete in its obhgation.
But I understand the gentleman to say, now, that he
will exercise his discretion, and that he will not vote
tlie ten millions. Also, that ho will not c.nll for the

802 MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE."

information, because the President is not bound to give
any information in relation to tbe treaty. I ask him
wbetlier, if lie should call upon the President for the
information necessary to enhghten him upon the sub-
ject, in this exercise of his discretion, which he now
claims the right to use, he might not see therein, rea-
sons why he should not vote for the ten millions ?

Mr. Smith. I need no such erJightenment. It has
been intimated, that corruption attends the treaty. I
know not, and, for present purposes, care not, whether
this is so. The question of corruption is not before us,
and for what else could I wish to see "the papers? "
The actual provisions of the treaty constitute all, tha,t
is legitimately before us ; and the only question for us
to decide, in governing our votes on this occasion, is
whether $10,000,000 is not so excessively large a sum,
that we had better disobey the treat}^, and break a
" supreme law of the land," than vote it. As I have
already said, I think it our duty to break the law ; or,
to use the less startling phrase of the day, to render the
law, at this ten million point, "inoperative and void."
[Laughter.]

Happily, I shall not need to regard as criminals,
those, whose votes, on this occasion, shall differ from
my own. The difference between us may be but an
honest difference of judgment. Happily, too, it is only
money, that we lose by voting too large a sum to
Mexico. Whereas, should there be war between u,s
and her, in consequence of leaving unsettled what tliis

MEXICAN TREATY AND "MONROE DOCTRINE." 303

treaty settles, tlie loss to both nations would be infi-
nitely greater tbaji a loss of money. I liad ra,tlier we
should make an absolute gift of ten millions to Mexico
than that we should fire one gun at her — and even, too,
if that one gun shoiild hit nobody.

LETTER

ANNOUNCING

HIS PURPOSE TO RESIGN HIS SEAT IN CONGRESS.

"Washington, June 21, 1854.

To My Constituents :

Mj nomination to Congress alarmed me greatly, be-
cause I believed, that it would result in my election.
To separate myself from my large private business, for
so long a time ; and to war for so long a time, against
the strong liabits formed in my deeply secluded life,
seemed to be well-nigb impossible.

My election liaving taken place, I concluded, that I

must serve you, during the first session of my term.

Not to speak of other reasons for such service, there

was, at least, so much due to you, in requital for your

generous forgetfulness of party obligations, in electing

me. I could not do less, and, yet, make a decent

retui-n for the respect and partiality you had shown

me.

I did not, until within a few weeks, fully decide not

to return to Congress, at the next session. I could not

S06 PURPOSE TO RESIGN HIS SEAT IN CONGRESS.

know, but tliat sometliing imforeseen miglit demand
such return. I, now, feel at liberty to announce my
purpose to resign my seat in Congress, at tbe close of
the present session. Why I make the annunciation so
early is, that you may have ample time to look around
you for my successor.

I resign my seat the more freely, because I do not
thereby impose any tax upon your time. You will fill
the vacancy, at the General Election. Indeed, I should
have been entirely unwilhng to put you to the pains
of holding a special election.

GrERRiT Smith.

SECOND SPEECH

ON THE

RICHARD W. MEADE BILL.

JULY 1, 1854.

Mk. Jones, of Tennessee. I will witlidraw the mo-
tion to strike out tlie enacting clause of the bill.

Mr. Smith, having moved to strike out all after the
enacting clause, and supply its place with the provision
to pay $250,000 in full satisfaction of the claim, said,
that the speech of the honorable gentleman from Ten-
nessee, [Mr. Jones,] brought to his mind a passage of
the Bible : "He that is first in his own cause, seemeth
just, but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him."
Kow, I am the neighbor of this gentleman, (Mr. Jones
and Mr. Smith sit near each other,) and I have come
to search him. (Laughter.)

The gentleman from Tennessee finds fault with my
speech on this subject a couple of months ago. I con-
fess, that I did say he had read from one paper, when

808 SPEECH ON THE RICHAKD W. MEADE BILL.

it turned out, that lie had read from another. But my
mistake was of no consequence to the argument
Another of my faults was, that I did not read to the
end of the paragraph, of which I read a part. The
closing lines of the paragraph upset, as he holds, the
interpretation which I put upon the lines preceding
them. Let us look into this. In those preceding lines
Mr. Adams scouts the idea, that the Meade debt is not
among the claims which our Government had assumed
and "agreed to compound:" and in these immediately
following and closing lines, he scouts the idea, that a
certain "order" is a claim on our Government.

And yet the gentleman from Tennessee regards the
debt and the order as identical, the one with the other!
and concludes, that, although Mr. Adams said, in one
breath, that the debt is among the claims against Gov-
ernment, he said in the next, that it is not ! I offer a
simple explanation to the gentleman's mind. It is the
same that I offered before. There was an unliquidated
claim of Meade, and also a liquidated one. The former,
I held, was binding upon our Government. The latter,
I admitted, was not. This is the distinction insisted on
by Mr. Adams. We did not agree, certainly not in
the treaty of 1819, to pay whatever sum Spain might
admit she owed Meade, but the sum (or a pro rata
allowance thereon) which she actually owed Meade.

The gentleman from Oliio [Mr. Giddings] who re-
plied to my former speech on this subject, said, that

SPEECH ON THE RICHARD W. MEADE BILL. 309

our Government was under no obligation to tielp
Meade get from tlie Spanish Government tlie proofs of
his claim. But what right had that gentleman to say
so, in the face of the treaty obhgation of Spain to fur-
nish the proofs ?

That obligation was as sacred as any other in the
treaty ; and our Government was as much bound to
enforce it, as to enforce any other. What, if, in the
case -of half of the claims, the vouchers and documents
had been in the possession of the Spanish Government,
and their production had been refused? Our Govern-
ment would, surely, have enforced the provision in ques-
tion, and would have done so, before paying any of
the clauns.

The true state of the case is this : Our Government
absolutely released the Spanish Government from the
Meade claim. It, simultaneously, bound the Spanish
Government to give up the proofs of that claim.
When called on to do so, it refused. And, now, our
Government sits still, and says, that Meade has lost his
claim! Monstrous injustice! And a deep shame to
our country is such injustice !

Mr. Forsyth has been referred to. He, like Mr.
Adams, believed with Judge White, of the Commission^
that Meade had " a well-founded claim."

Not only was Meade entitled to a pro rata allowance
from the five millions, on his claim, provided he had
been able to establish it, by means of the bounden help

810 SPEECH ON THE EICHARD W. MEADE BILL.

of our Grovernment ; but a strong argument can be
made to sliow, that our Government was bound to pay
Meade the wliole sum, wliicli the Spanish Government
acknowledged to be due hun. There is not the least
reason to believe, that the Cortes would have agreed to
the second treaty, which, in addition to what the first
treaty gave us, annulled three Spanish grants of land,
had not that body supposed, that our Govermnent
would pay the Meade debt, as it had been liquidated.
The history of the transactions makes this well-nigh
certain.

But, if there are any technicahties, by which we may
escape the payment of this claim, I pray that we may
not avail ourselves of them. We all admit, that Spain
owed a debt to Meade. I say not how much. We all
admit, that Spain believed, that in the bargain she
made with us, we assumed to pay or compound this
claim. We all know, that we made a good bargain
out of Spain, in getting Florida for five millions of dol-
lars. Can we, in such circumstances, consent to turn
over the Meade claim to Spain for payment ? Can we,
in such circumstances, refuse to pay it ourselves ?

SPEECH

FOR THE

HARBOR OF OSWEGO.

JULY 12, 185 4.

The Eiver and Harbor bill being under considera-
tion, Mr. Smith, having moved to amend it by adding
fifty thousand dollars to tbe appropriation for the har-
bor of Oswego, said :

Oswego does a niucb larger custom-house business
than any other town in the nation, where the Govern-
ment has not authorized the building of a custom-house.
And, yet, the harbor, ia which all this business is done,
is a miserably contracted and half-finished one. The
people of Oswego have been compelled to tax them-
selves, for many years, very heavily, in order to pre-
serve their harbor, and to maintain, against the ele-
ments, the cheap and frail piers built by Government.
And were they, now, to call on Government for re-pay-

312 SPEECH FOR THE HARBOR OF OSWEGO.

ment, tliej would be as unjustly dealt witli as was
Wilmington day before yesterday, Avhen the section,
making like re-payment, was struck out of tlie Cape
Fear Eiver bill. For Grovernment to draw revenue from
our harbors, and, yet, to refuse to keep tliem in repair,
and to compel the people, who live where the harbors
are, to keep them in repair, is what I cannot see to be
honest. Thus to benefit the Treasury, or, in other
words, the whole nation, at the expense of particular
localities and small communities, is, in my eye, nothing
short of downright fraud.

But I have been asked, during the discussion of this
bill, with what consistency I can advocate the improve-
ment of rivers and harbors, at the hands of the Federal
Government, seeing that I have for years advocated,
both with my lips and pen, that they be improved by
States and smaller communities, and not by the Federal
Government ? It is true that I would have such work
done by other and more suitable agents than the Fede-
ral Government. It has never been economically and
well done by that Government : and it never will be
economically and well done by that Government. It
is a work that cannot be properly performed at arms-
length. It LS a work that can be properly performed
by those only, who, to use another famihar phrase, are
on the spot. The Federal Government, because so great,
is too unwieldy for such a work : and, because it is so
remote from the work, an adequate sense of responsi-

SPEECH FOK THE HAKBOR OF OSWEGO. 813

bilitj cannot be brouglit home to it. I object to such
work in the hands of the Grovernment, if only because
such work tends to centrahzation, and to undue Federal
power. I object to it, if only because it affords im-
mense room for corrupting both Government and
people.

Gladly would I vote, this day, to have the Federal
Government, provided it would surrender all claims to
revenue from our harbors, stand entirely aside fi'om the
whole work of improving them. But, just so long, as
that Government will tax us for using our own har-
bors, just so long, I can do no less than insist, that
Government shall put, and keep, them in proper con-
dition. I am no more inconsistent here than I am in
the case of custom-houses. So long as Government
shall adhere to the injustice of supporting itself by cus-
toms ; and so long as the people shall be foohsh enough
to let Government do so, so long I shall be in favor of
having Government erect safe and suitable buildings
for custom-houses, instead of having it lease such as
are unsafe and unsuitable. Hence, although if I could
have my will, and if my theories of Government could
prevail, there would not be a custom-house on the
earth ; I, nevertheless, feel myself to be guilty of no
inconsistency in calling upon Government to erect cus-
tom-houses. So, too, in the case of rivers and harbors,
whilst Government claims, and with the acquiescence
of the people, the exclusive control, and the exclusive

U

814 SPEECH FOE THE HARBOR OF OSWEGO.

revenues, of them ; I feel, that Government is, not only
to be permitted, bnt to be required to improve them.

I moved an increase of $50,000. That smn, together
with the $21,000, which the bill provides for, would be
none too much to put the harbor of Oswego in such a
state, as its very great and very rapidly growing busi-
ness demands.

I desire the success of this bill. The security of life
and property requires it. Instead of the total sum
appropriated- by this bill being too large, I would have
Government, another year, expend a much larger sum
on these and similar objects, providing it shall not do
the far juster and better thing of surrendering the work
into the hands of the proper agents — ^the States and
smaller communities.

I did not offer my amendment, with the view of its
adoption. Indeed, I am persuaded that the success of
the bill would be greatly endangered by amending it.
It is safer and wiser to follow the estimates, and to
walk in the track of the Department. I withdraw my
amendment.

L E T T E E

TO

SENATOR HAMLIN,

ON THE RECIPROCITY TREATY.

[The Session, that Mr. Smith was in Congress, the Reciprocity Treaty-
was confirmed by the Senate, and tlae Bill for giving eSect to it became
a law. His deep desire for the success of this great measure led him to
write the following Letter, and to have a copy of it laid on the desk of
every Member of Congress,]

Hon. H. Hamlin, U. S. Senate :

Dear Sir: I learn, with surprise and regret, that
yon are not decidedly in favor of the " Keciprocity
Treaty ;" and that, possibly, yon may oppose its adop-
tion. Believing, as I do, that the people of Maine are
to benefit more by the treaty than an equal number of
people in any other of the States, I had supposed, that
the Senators of Maine would be especially favorable to
it. But I am informed, that it is, as an inhabitant of
Maine, that you hesitate to support it.

Perhaps, as I have never seen the treaty, and have
no precise knowledge of its character, and am too much
occupied with various urgent matters to learn more of
it now, I ought not to make this communication.

316 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIN.

Nevertheless, my interest in the treaty is so deep, that
I jQiist express it, although at the risk of betraying
great ignorance of its provisions.

I am in favor of free trade between onr country and
the British North- American Provinces. I am in favor
of it for the general reason, that all parts of the world
should obey the laws of nature, and enjoy free trade
with each other. I am in favor of it for the particular
reason, also, that, these Provinces, being our neighbors,
restrictions on their trade with us, are especially incon-
venient and injurious. If we must be strangers to any
portion of our fellow-men, let it not be to our neigh-
bors. To multi|)ly ties, and extend intercourse, and
grow into homogeneousness, with our neighbors, is
especially important. And all this we shall not fail to
do, if we have free trade with them. We may never
be one in name with our British neighbors. But free
trade with them and its resulting social connections,
and ever-growing assimilations, would make us one
with them in reality. And if we are one with them
in reality^ it is comparatively unimportant, whether we
shall ever become one with them in name. The free
trade of Canada with the United States, will be the
virtual annexation of Canada to the United States.
Many suppose, that it will lead to its literal annexation.
I am more inclined to believe, that commercial annex-
ation will, at least for the present age, supersede the
desire for political annexation. And if, in the end,
^•^^"•ada shall become a part of this nation, the greater

o:n the eecipeocity treaty. 317

tlie likeness between lier people and ours, tlie greater
tlie prospect of harmony and prosperity, in sucli union.
In this respect, therefore, as well as in others, the
assimilating influences of free trade constitute an argu-
ment in favor of our establishing free trade with Canada.
It" is on these, its assimilating influences, that I base
my opinion, that free trade will supersede the present
desire for annexation. When free trade, combined
with other causes, shall have reached the effect, the
world over, of making the man of one nation like the
man of another, the tendencj^, in my judg-ment, will be
not so much to the uniting as to the su.bdividing of
nations. National pride and jealousy will then have
abated ; and then men will peacefully apportion them-
selves into smaller nations, for the sake of greater con-
venience.

But it is said, that the treaty under consideration
does not provide for free trade in all property. I am
aware, that it does not, and I add, that I am sorry it
does not.

The argument for free trade in all property I regard
as imanswerable. Nevertheless, I do not claim, that
the argmnent for free trade in manufactures is as strong
as the argument for free trade in natural productions.
Witli some plausibility may Government say, that it
must protect the labor of its subjects against the over-
whelming competition of foreign labor ; and with more
plausibility it may say, that there are many foreign

318 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIN,

fabrics, wMcL. minister to luxury, and immoralitj, and
ruin ; and tlie importation of wMcli sliould, tlierefore,
be discouraged, if not, indeed, forbidden. But wliat-
ever may be said, in regard to tbe " many inventions,
wMcb man hath, sought out," nevertlieless to the free
exchange, among all nations, of what God bath, made,
no objections can be raised but what are palpably at
war with divine ordinations — ^but what, in a word, are
palpably atheistic.

The first and highest duty, then, of a nation, in
respect to the freedom of trade, is to admit into the list
of free articles all natural productions. To perform
this duty is to acknowledge and honor the Deity. To
refuse to perform it, is glaringly to deny and dishonor
Him. Moreover, to perform this duty, and to allow
the free exchange of the products of God's hands is to
open the way for performing the other duty of allow-
ing the free exchange of the products of man's hands.
Now, the plainest and most sacred of these two duties
our Provincial neighbors stand ready to perform.
They propose a free exchange with us of natural pro-
ductions. We cannot refuse their proposition and be
innocent. To say, that we will not consent to an
exchange of natural productions, unless it be accom-
panied by an exchange of manufactures, is to prove
ourselves to be most unreasonable ; as unreasonable as
the man who should refuse to deal with his neighbor
in wood and water, unless he is, also, permitted to deal

OK THE EECIPROCITY TREATY. 319

■witb. him in pins and penknives. It is, also, to prove
ourselves to be most lijrpocritical ; for, in claiming, that
these provinces shonld allow free trade with ns in man-
ufactures, we must, if honest, claim, that thej should
allow it with Great Britain also. But are we ourselves
willing to have free trade with Great Britain? We
are not. / am ; but we are not. Are we ourselves
willing to defray the cost of Government by direct
taxes ? We are not. / am ; but we are not. We are
hypocrites then — ^palpable hypocrites — ^if we would lay
upon these provinces the necessity of supporting their
Governments by direct taxation, and yet shrink from
supporting our own in the same way.

Our complaints of the illiberality of these Provinces
are very blameworthy, not only in the light of what
I have already said, but also in the light of the fact,
that, more than seven years ago, they abolished aU
differential duties between their mother country and
ourselves ; and placed themselves in the same commer-
cial relations toward us both. By reason of this gen-
erous treatment of us, and of our contiguity to them,
we enjoy the monopoly of supplying them with iron
castings, agricultural implements, and, in short, with
nearly all coarse manufactures. How valuable to us is
this abolition of differential duties, is manifest from the
fact, that our trade with those Provinces has doubled
since 1846, the year of the abolition ; and that the
exports are double the imports. The effect of this

520 LETTER TO SENATOE HAMLIN".

abolition on the trade of the Provinces with Greai;
Britain, though not correspondently great, is still very
great. This trade has fallen off from one fourth to one
half.

I referred to our inconsistency in urging the Pro-
vinces to adopt universal free trade with us, and there-
by virtually urging them to adopt universal free trade
with Great Britain, also. I proceed to inquire — what
would be the effect upon ourselves of the success of
this inconsistency ? In other words — what would be the
effect upon ourselves of free trade between these Pro-
vinces and Great Britain, whilst the present restrictions
upon the trade between ourselves and Great Britain
are continued ? The effect would be a serious diminu-
tion of our revenue, and a serious damage to our man-
ufactures, and a serious damage to our morals, also : —
as in that case, goods to an immense amount would be
brought from Great Britain into these Provinces for
the purpose of being smuggled into the United States.

On the one hand, it is objected to the treaty, that
its Hst of productions is not full enough ; and, on the
other, that it is too full. I admit, that it is not fall
enough. Consistency demands, that it should include
all natural productions. And when I speak here of
natural productions, I mean them, not only as they
come from the earth, but, also, in that next stage of
forms, which human labor gives to them, for the pur-
pose of making them more portable — such as wood in

ON THE EECIPEOCITY TEE AT Y. 821

the board, as well as in tlie log, and wlieat ground, as
well as unground. Iron in tlie pig, as well as in tlie
ore, should be included in tlie treaty ; and if it is not,
it is, probably, because of tlie fear on the part of the
Provinces of thereby letting in Scotch and other pigs,
duty free. So, too, unrefined sugar, if not included in
the treaty, should have been. But, I trust, that they,
whose natural productions are not included in it, will,
nevertheless, not condemn the treaty. I trust, that
they will, magnanimously, allow its justice in the main
to outweigh its particular injustice ; its justice to others
to outweigh its injustice to themselves. At the same
time, however, that they cannot but feel themselves to
be wronged by the treaty in this respect ; they Yvdll
be consoled by the reflection, that the adoption of it
will be the adoption of the principle of the free
exchange of natural productions ; and, therefore, that
the productions, in which they are especially interested,
cannot remain, for a long time, excepted from the scope
of this principle.

It is held, in some quarters, that wheat and flour
should not be in the list of free articles. But why
should they not be? Because our flour and wheat
will, as is alleged, sink in price under the free compe-
tition of Canada wheat and flour. But, were this
apprehended depreciation really to take place, never-
theless, free trade in the productions of ISTature is an
brdinatim-! of Nature, which cannot bo innopontlv w)-

822 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIK,

lated. But -woiild tliere be sucli depreciation ? I see
not, tliat tlie treaty is to be credited with sucli a bene-
ficent operation. Our country and Canada do eacb.
grow a surplus of wbeat; and, hence, in the case of
each, the foreign market regulates the price. The
surplus of each country goes to foreign markets ; and
whether the Canada surplus goes upon the St. Law-
rence, or across our country, cannot affect the price of
OUT wheat. The competition for that surplus and ours
being in foreign markets exclusively, must be the
same, whatever the route to them. I say, that the
competition is there only. This is virtually, if not
literally, true. For what if a little of the Canada sur-
plus should come into our country for consumption,
it could only have the effect to displace the like quan-
tity of our surplus, and to liberate it for foreign mar-
kets. Were any proof needed, beyond what is afforded
by the reason of the case, that foreign markets rule
the price of the surplus production, we might instance
the fact, that, for eleven twelfths of the year, v/heat
in bond in the city of New- York bears as high a price,
as wheat, that is not in bond. Indeed, it is sometimes
higher, since the repeal of duties between the British
North- American Provinces, for now it can go duty free
from our ports to the lower of those Provinces.

I said, that, whether the Canada surj)lus wheat shall
find its way to foreign markets upon the St. Lawrence,
or across our country, cannot affect the price of our

ON THE RECIPROCITY TREATY. 323

wlieat. Nevertheless, we are deeply interested to have
it take the latter route, and so add immensely to the
business of our canals, and railroads, and storehouses,
and shipping, both on our lakes and on the ocean. It
may not add immensely to it, just now. But it will
soon. There is no assignable limit to the production
of wheat in that best of all wheat countries, Canada
West.

It is true, that, if, in a year of famine in our land,
there should be a free admission of Canada food into
it, such free admission would reduce the price of Ame-
rican food. But what right-minded man would not
have the price of it reduced, in such cu'cumstances ?
With what right-minded man would not this contin-
gent benefit of the treaty be an argument for the
treaty ?

It is said, though I do not believe truly, that Penn-
sylvania would not have coal come into the list of free
articles. But, why should it not ? Who believes, that
the Maker of the coal did not make it free for every
part of the world, that wants it? Who, then, can set
up an honest argmnent against its free transmission ?
Moreover, free trade in coal between us and the British
Provinces is obviously of great importance, not to
those Provinces only, but to our nation also : and much,
therefore, as Pennsylvania may be disposed to go for
herself, she should be still more disposed to go for the
nation. She should be more patriotic and benevolent

824 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIN,

than sectional and selfisli ; and, I trust, tliat what she
shonld be, she will be. But, is Pennsylvania to be
harmed by free trade in coal ? She is not. All the
British Provinces need her anthracite; and Canada
West would take from Erie immense quantities of her
bituminous coal. She, already, takes much, notwith-
standing the duty.

But, I prefer to take a wider view, and to look at
the effect of this free trade in coal upon larger portions
of our country than a single State. The consumption,
in that part of our country east of the Alleghany ridge,
of the bituminous coal of the British Provinces, would,
were it free of duty, be very large. I would here
remark, that this coal cannot properly be regarded as
coming into competition with anthracite. It is highly
bituminous. I have heard, perhaps not correctly, that
the volatile parts in some of it are sixty per cent. To
illustrate the dissimilarity between this and anthracite
— ^whilst the one is wholly worthless for making gas,
the other is so inferior to it for steamships, that the
Cunard line, notwithstanding it touches at Halifax,
supphes itself with anthracite.

We desire to supply the lower British Pro^dnces
with wheat, flour, corn, rice, pork, and many kinds of
merchandise. But, in order to do so, the charges of
transportation must be very small. How can they bo
made so ? I answer, by our consenting to receive from
those Provinces that great amount of tonnage, which

ON THE RECIPEOCITY TEEATY. 825

thej will be able to f ornisli ns, providing we allow
them to send ns coal, as well as such, other coarse com-
modities, as fish, plaster, and grindstones. Their cargo
to ns will, in that case, pay, or nearly pay, fi^eight, both
ways, inasmuch as their cargo to ns will be fall, and
our return cargo to them light, and inasmuch as one
of the laws, which govern the carrying of property, is
that it is carried cheapest in that direction, in which
there is the least to carry. Indeed, in this case, the
return cargo would be so light, as, probably, to be no
more than would be needed for ballast.

I close under this head with the remark, that if the
treaty should have the effect to cheapen wheat and coal,
such effect would be no argument against it. As we
care more for the whole human brotherhood than for
a part of it ; and as we are more concerned to have
fuel and food accessible to the poor than to have them
bring great prices to their owners, so the lower the
prices of coal and wheat, the more we are to rejoice.
I said, under the head before this, that the law of free
trade in natural productions, cannot be innocently
violated. I add, that it cannot in any wide and just
view of the case, be profitably violated. For every
such view must include not the wheat-growers and the
coal owners only, but all other classes also ; and who
is there, that, in the light of the wants and interests
of the great whole, does not see cheap bread and cheap
coal to be among the greatest of human blessings ?

S26 LETTER TO SZXaTOR HaMT.LS'.

There are complaints from tout State, tliat tbe
treaty includes lumber in the list of free articles.
But, snrelT, this should not be complained of Even
if it is so. that the firee competition of ProTincial lumber
^c'lld create Ic^s anywhere, such loss would fall rather
on the comparative handftil of persons, who own the
lumber lands of Maine, than on the mass of her people.
The trees of these owners might not advance as fast in
piic-e, as they had done. But the working of them
into lumber would, probably, be as amply remunerated
as ever. But, a^ain. when a srreat beneficent national
measure is proposed. Maine should not, and Maine will
not, shrivel herself up into a merely selfish view cf
that measure.

Even if the treaty were so hberal and so just, as
to provide, that ships, built in the Provinces, may
receive our registers, and have every right of ships
built in OUT own country, Maine, although our great
ship-builder, and having, in such case, a new and
powerfol competitor, should, nevertheless, not object to
the treatv. Even if she mav possiblv lose somewhat
by the provisions of the treaty, iu regard to lumber ;
and even if the treaty had gone so &r, as to bring her
a new competitor in ship-building, Maine nevertheless
should rememb-er that, on ac<!Ount of her geographical
position, she is to be an especial gainer from its general
provisions. The millions of new customers, that the
treatv mves her, are at her door : and. in this respect.

ox THE EECIPROCITY TREATY. 327

she can serye them clieaper than the other States can.
The proposed free trade, together with the freedom of
the St. Lawrence, would add immensely to the business
of the Montreal and Portland Eailroad — immensely to
the business of a State, which is emphatically a State
of navigators.

I confess, that if it would not endanger the adoption
of the treaty, I should be glad to see a pro^dsion in it
for the free exchange of registers. The poor objection,
that it would afford us ships at a cheaper rate than we
can build them, would be overruled by the considera-
tion, that the American people are preeminently a
commercial people, and that, in their eye, therefore,
such an objection would constitute the most winning
argument in favor of the treaty. The American ipeo
ple prefer cheap ships to dear ones, even though all the
cheap ships were built in foreign lands, and all the
dear ones in their own land. They care more to have
a ship navigated by Americans than to know where it
originally came from. Their concern with its business
is far greater than with its building. Surely, America
will not long continue to hinder her navigators from
getting their ships where they can best get them.

But I pass on to other matters. In my judgment,
we would be bound to approve and embrace this trea-
ty, even if it were silent in regard to the fisheries and
the St. Lawrence; for it would, even then, be a just
and impartial treaty — a benefit to both parties — a
blessed influence upon the world. But, providing, as

328 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIN,

it does, for our free enjoyment of both the fisheries
and the St. Lawrence, how eager should we be for its
operation! I do not say, that we should be eager to
thank England for allowing us this free enjoyment.
She should long ago — she should always — ^have ac-
knowledged our right to it. It is true, that we would
not go to Avar with her, for the sake of establishing this
right. The right, however, is none the less clear.
The right of our nation to navigate the St. Lawrence
to its mouth, grows out of the fact, that we dwell upon
its bank. This doctrine, in the case of other rivers,
England has herself repeatedly urged. Then, as to the
fisheries — they either belong to the whole world, or
there is no God. England should be ashamed of her
heathenish selfishness, in withholding from the world
this food, which the bounty of Heaven has provided so
abundantly for the world. A true Christianity will
yet bring on the day when one man shall look upon
another as a brother — ay, and even as another self. It
will be no grateful recollection to Englishmen, in that
day, that Englishmen were, once, so selfish, mean, and
wicked, as to refuse to let a hungry feUow-man catch
fish by their side.

But, notwithstanding our right to the fisheries and
to the St. Lawrence is as clear as England's, I shall,
nevertheless, rejoice in our permission to use them.
Eor two reasons, especially, I shall rejoice in it. First,
England will never be disposed to recall the permis-
sion; for England, along with the rest of the world,

ON THE EECIPEOCITY TEEATY. 329

is becoming more, and not less, enlightened and liberal.
Second, use and time will turn this permission into
prescrijotion ; this privilege into right ; this conditional
gTant into absolute and unending enjoyment. I do
not forget, that Yattel says, that title to sea-fisheries
cannot be gained by prescription ; nor do I forget, that
his reason for saying so is, that such title cannot be
lost by disuse. Of course, I am willing to waive all
claim to the possibility of prescription, if it is conceded
on the other hand, that I do not need prescription,
because my title is perfect already. I will here
remark, that it would be idle for England to acknovf-
ledge the common right of all nations to the fisheries
of the sea, so long as she should deny to those nations
that access to the shore, which is essential to the enjoy-
ment of the fisheries. The simple truth is, that our
right to the fisheries involves our right to the shore, to
just the extent, to which the latter right is needed to
make the former right available. To deny us such
right to the shore, is to deny our right to the fisheries.

The value, to this nation, of its free participation in
the fisheries, would be great, and ever increasingly
great. They already furnish a very considerable item
in our food, notwithstanding the restrictions ujDon our
use of them. These restrictions removed, and our con-
sumption of fish would be indefinitely extended.

I have heard it objected to the treaty, that it
requires our Government to abolish the bounty od
codfish. I am glad, if it does abolisli it, or in any waj

830 LETTEK TO SENATOR HAMLIN,

provide for its abolition. There is plausibility in tbe
call for our patience under duties on foreign manu-
factures, or, in otlier words, under bounties on our own
manufactures. Tliere is plausibility in it, because tlie
promise is made to us, tliat, ere long, our manufactures
will be well establislied, and self-sustaining; and tbat
then we shall be relieved of paying bounties on them.
But, it is not pretended, that the skill of American fish-
ermen is ever to outgrow the need of a bounty. On
the contrary, if there is need of a bounty now, there
will be the same need of it a hundred years hence. It
comes to this, then, that the objector to such a provi-
sion of the treaty would have us go on forever, pay-
ing bounty on codfish (already several hundred thou-
sand dollars a year) — and all this, not for the purpose
of our getting, either now or ever, cheaper or better
codfish, but solely for the purpose of having Ameri-
cans, instead of foreigners, catch the codfish, that we
eat.

The objection, under consideration, is unreasonable.
I add, that it reflects disgTace upon our country. It
does so, because it imphes, that, with the fisheries and
all needed facilities therewith thrown wide open to us,
we are, nevertheless, to be distanced in our fishing
competition with our neighbors. I had supposed, that
the boast of the Yankees is, that they can beat the
British, in everything. Must fishing be excepted from
the boast ?

I spoke of the St Lawrence. Our free use of that

ON THE RECIPEOCITY TREATY. 331

noble river would be an invaluable benefit to us.
Together with its lakes, it drains an extent of country,
scarcely less than that drained by the Mississippi.
Much of our craft upon those lakes is capable of ocean
navigation ; and during the five months in the year, in
which it is locked up in ice, it would be upon the
ocean, could it get there. Kow, this addition to the
ser^dce of this craft, would, of itself, render very
important the opening of the St. La^vrence to us.

I am aware, that the reputation of the mouth of the
St. Lawrence for safe navigation is bad. But it is such,
only because it is navigated, at improper seasons of the
year. Let it be navigated in no other than the proper
season ; and let our canals and railroads be allowed to
serve in its stead, the remainder of the year, and it will
no longer have this bad reputation. Not only is the
St. Lawrence the shortest route to England; but the
fact, that it is the coldest route is, in regard to much
important lading, an argument in its favor, instead of
an objection to it. There is no assignable limit to the
productiveness in Indian corn of our Western States
and Territories. The time may not be distant, when,
if the St. Lawrence is made free to us, tens of millions
of bushels of this grain will go down this river annu-
ally for the European markets. And I would here
inquire, why, if even this cold route should not prove
cold enough to preserve shelled corn, corn might not
be taken in the ear, were Ihc heavy lading of lead
and copper and copper ore combined with it? Per-

332 LETTER TO SENATOR HAMLIN,

haps, however, corn in the ear is too bulky to be trans-
ported far, in any circnmstances.

What interest is to be damaged by the adoption and
operation of this treaty? Do onr manufacturers say,
that it will not help them ? But will it harm them ?
That is the more pertinent question. If it will not
harm them, then, surely, they should not complain of
it. They should rather rejoice in the benefit it will
yield to other interests. But it will help our manufac-
turers also. Its immediate influence upon their inter-
ests will be good. Its prospective better.

Among the natural productions of the British North-
American Provinces, are not a few, that our manufac-
turers need, and will more and more need. Lumber,
for instance. Our. forests, which, by the way, it is
very desirable to preserve to a considerable extent^ are
rapidly disappearing. What an invaluable advantage
to our manufactm'ers, if they shall be allowed to draw
freely on the immense forests of these Provinces?
The more plentiful is lumber, the less will be the cost
of building their manufactories, and of building the
dwellings of their laborers. Besides, there are many
manufactures, into which lumber enters more or less
largely ; and not a few into which scarcely anything
but lumber does enter.

There is another way, in which the treaty will help
our manufacturers. The proceeds of the sales in our
country of the natural productions of these Provinces
will be chiefly expended in our country : and such

ON THE RECIPEOCITY TREATY. 838

expenditures will be quite as much to the benefit of
our manufacturers, as of our merchants.

I spoke of the prospective beneficial influence of the
treaty upon our manufactures. I referred not only
to the vast territory, and to the rapidly increasing pop-
ulation of the British North- American Provinces.
There was a still more important reference, in my mind.
It is an adage, that revolutions do not go backward.
The exchange between this country and the British
North- American Provinces in natural productions,
once made free, will remain free. And not only will
the revolution never go backward, but it will go for-
ward. Free exchange in natural productions will, as I
have already intimated, beget free exchange in manu-
factui^es and merchandise. A trade half free will soon
ripen into a trade all free. Half an acquaintance with
our Provincial neighbors will be impatient for the
other half.

I will close my too long letter. For several years,
our British neighbors have been tendering us free trade
in the productions of nature. But we have requited
their great liberahty with great ilhberality. Profess-
ing to be the most progressive of all nations, we have,
in this instance, clung, with the most obstinate conserv-
atism, to a miserable old order of things. I wonder,
that the patience of our British neighbors has not long-
ago been exhausted. Let us tax this patience no
longer. Let us rise into an attitude worthy of the
enlightened age, in v/hich we live. Let us say to the

334 LETTEK TO SENATOli HAMLIN,

Britisli Provinces, that we are ready for free trade with
them, and with Great Britain too, and with the whole
world too ; — and not only in the productions of nature,
but in the productions of art also. Let the high and
honorable position of commercial America be, that she
shrinks not from competition with any nation, but
courts the competition of every nation.
Yery respectfully, yours,

Geeeit Smith.

Washington, July 1*7, 1854.

SPEECH

ON

POSTAGE BILL,

JULY 18, 1854

Me. Washbuen", of Maine, had moved to refer to tlie
Committee of the Wliole on tlie State of the Union the
bill to amend an act entitled "An act to reduce and
niodify the rates of postage in the United States,"
passed August 80, 1852.

Mr. Smith said :

I have risen to reply to the question put by the
honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Smith,]
when this bill was under discussion, a few days ago ;
and when I had no opportunity to reply to it. That
question was put to the opponents of the bill ; and its
words were: "Are you not willing to have the Post-
Office Department sustained?" For one, I answer,
that I am not.

336 SPEECH ON POSTAGE BILL.

G-overnment establislies a Post-Office Department;
and arrogates the exclusive right to carry our letters.
It establislies its prices for the work ; and then, if we
hesitate to pay, it scolds us with the inquiry: "But
are you not willing to have the Post-Oihce Depart-
ment sustained ?" "We tliink it wrong to be compelled
to pay these prices — first, because Government cannot
do the work economically, and for reasonable prices —
second, because Government has no right to under-
take the work ; and is guilty of usurpation in under-
taking It. I hold that Government is a usurper,
whenever it assumes a work which the people can do.

Suppose Government should establish a " Clothes
Department;" and should undertake to clothe all the
people, young and old, male and female ; and should
claim the exclusive right to do so ? Along with the
dresses it sends the bills. The people grumble at both
the bills and the usurpation ; — at the bills because they
are twice as great as would be the cost, were the work
done by themselves ; and at the usurpation, because it
is so flagrant. But Government insultingly replies:
" Are you not mlhng to have the ' Clothes Depart-
ment' sustained?" Would this be borne with? It
would not : — nor should the Post-Office usurpation and
extravagance.

I ask the gentleman from "Virginia, if he beheves
that Government can carry our letters and newspapers
at as small expense as the work can be done for by

SPEECH ON POSTAGE BILL. 387

private enterprise ? If lie does, wliy then, in tlie name
of consistency, is lie not in favor of our making Gov-
ernment tiie carrier of onr mercliandise and provisions
and persons ? — of passengers and property ? But that
gentleman is a practical man. He is not, as in the
public esteem I am — a mere theorist. He knows,
better than I can tell him, that it would not cost pri-
vate associations one half as much to carry the mail as
it costs Governnaent.

But, he may say, that private associations would,
nevertheless, charge higher rates of postage than would
Government. Again, I would say, that the gentleman
from Virginia is a practical man ; a man, too, of many
ideas ; and not laboring under the reproach, as does my
own unhappy reputation, of being a man of one idea.
The gentleman must, therefore, know that when a
work is thrown open to unlimited competition, the
charge for it will be brought down to the neighborhood
of the cost of it. But, the gentleman will perhaps
say, that if Government gives up the Post-Office Depart-
ment, individuals who hve in remote and inaccessible
porticfns of the country will not be able to get their
letters and newspapers, save at great cost. But pray,
what has Government to do with such a fact ? Sup-
pose a man should perch himself on the top of the
Kocky Mountains, and should complain to the Govern-
ment, that it costs him ten dollars to get a letter to his
mountain home ; and should call on Government to

IT)

388 SPEECH ox POSTAGE BILL.

deliver liis letters at ten cents apiece. Would Govern-
ment be bound to listen to his call? Certainly not.
If lie will receive Ms letters under a ten cents rate of
postage, let him come down from his eyrie, and live
among the comforts and accommodations of civilized
life. Grovernment is no more bound to indemnify him
for the disadvantages of his home, in respect to postage,
than in respect to other things. Nay, I insist that
Grovernment is no more bound to csmj letters cheap
for its citizens, than it is to make a poor man rich, a sick
man well, or an old man young. If people are tempt-
ed, by the advantages of it, to take up their home in
the wilderness, let them bear its disadvantages patient-
ly, as well as enjoy its advantages gratefully.

The gentleman from Virginia professed his willing-
ness to encourage private enterprise to come into com-
petition with the Post-Office Department. He told us
that the bill provides for a virtual increase of news-
paper postage : and that, hence, private enterprise could
sustain an easier competition with the Post-Of&ce
Department. But the competition, which he would
encourage, is in carrying newspapers only. News-
papers, the price for carrying which is but a few
pennies a pound, private associations may carry. But
letters, the price for carrying which is a dollar a
pound. Government alone shall have the right to
carry. Surely the gentleman was not in earnest.
He was but joking. He was making experiments upon

SPEECH ON POSTAGE BILL. 339

our stupidity for the amusement of himself and of
others, who love to see what easy dupes we are. Were
two gentlemen to sit down to a turkey ; and were one
of them to tell the other that he might have part of the
bone — nay, that he might run his chance for even all
the bone — but that all the meat he must reserve to him-
self—the air of affected liberality, with which he would
make this proposition, would be very like that, which
chaxacterized the gentleman's similar proposition.

Had the gentleman from Virginia been candid on
this point, and really in earnest to let individual enter-
prise into competition with the Post-Oface Department,
he would have permitted the competition to extend to
the carrying of letters, as well as newspapers. Make
the competition thus comprehensive ; and it would not
endure long. In less than six months the Grovernment
would fly from it, forever. So far as the carrying of
letters and papers is concerned, the occupation of the
Grovernment would soon be gone.

"How long halt ye between two opinions?" But
this is not a pertinent quotation. We are not divided
in opinions. We are agreed, that this work can be
cheaper done, and, every way, better done, by priva,te
enterprise than by Government. But most of us shrink
from openly favoring so radical and important an
innovation, as the breaking up of the Post-Office
Department. Unless it be a person of a one-man
party like myself, or a person like the honorable gen-

340 SPEECH ON POSTAGE BILL.

tleman from Kortli-Carolina, [Mr. Olingman,] wlio is
also of a one-man party, I scarcely know any on tins
floor, wlio have so little to win or lose, as to venture
to identify themselves with this innovation.

But, Mr. Speaker, the people will ere long, demand
this innovation — this breaking np of the Post-Office
Department — ^in tones that cannot be resisted.

The Post-Office Department is doomed, from its own
inherent falsity and folly. It must sink from its own
weight, if not sooner overthrown and displaced by
a rational and economical postal system. It is a sys-
tem, too directly and glaringly in the face of reason,
common sense, justice, economy, to hve much longer.
But I will not consume more of the time of thfi
House.

I

SPEECH

IN FAVOR OF PROHIBITING

ALL TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

IN THE CITY OP WASHINGTON".

JULY 22, 1854.

[The motto which Mr. Smith prefixed to this Speech when it was
first printed, was: "Governm-ent bound to protect from the Dramshop."}

Me. May, of Maryland. I am instructed, by tlie
Committee on the Judiciary, to report adversely on tlie
prayer of tlie New- York Temperance Alliance, in
reference to tlie prohibition of tlie sale of intoxicating
liquors in Waslnngton, and to move, tbat tlie report be
ordered to be printed.

Mr. Smith. I move, that this report be recommit-
ted, with instructions to report a bill, which shall clothe
the city of Washington with express and ample powers
to prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks, in all places

842 TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

witliin its limits ; and on this motion I propose to make
some remarks.

It so happened, Mr. Speaker, tliat mj first act on
this floor, after taking the oath of ofiice, was to present
the memorial of the Temperance Alliance of the city of
New- York. That memorial prays Congress to empow-
er the city of "Washington to prohibit the sale of intoxi-
cating drinks. I moved its reference to a select com-
mittee. This was objected to. It slept upon your
table from that day, imtil the day last week on which
I succeeded, thongh with much diffi.culty, in waking it
up. "With no less difficulty have I kept it awake,
until this hour, when I am so fortunate, as to obtain
the floor.

It may be thought, that the adverse report before us
has proceeded from enmity to the cause of temperance,
and it is, therefore, due from me to say, tha.t I know
this is not so. The gentlemen of the Judiciary Com-
mittee, who are responsible for this report, sincerely
desire the prosperity of the cause of temperance. For
one, I cannot blame them for their interpretation of
the charter of this city. I think it the only just inter-
pretation. It is the same, that I would myself have
put upon it, had I been of their committee. I hold,
that the liberty to license, irresistibly imphes the hb-
erty not to license; and that the word "regulate"
covers the right to prohibit.

As you are aware, sir, I make the limits of Govern-

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 348

ment very narrow. And, yet, I find ample room
between tliem for tlie doctrine of my motion. I admit,
that Government is not tlie custodian of the people's
morals : and that it is never to be called on to protect,
still less to promote, the people's morals.

Government, according to my theory of Government,
is not to do the work of the people. It is, simply, to
protect the people in doing it. Government is but the
great watch-dog of the people's house. It is ever to
keep watch outside of that house : but it is never to
come into it. It is never to mix itself up with the
affairs of the people ; but, whatever relation it may
have to any of those affairs, is to be purely external.
All that Government can legitimately do for its people,
is to protect their persons and property. If it tries to
do more for them, it will but harm, instead of helping,
them. Moreover, wherever there is a, people, who,
notwithstanding they are under the ample and effectual
shield of a faithful Government, either cannot, or will
not, do their own work, and take care of their own
interests, both material and moral, there is a people
that Government cannot save ; there is a people, that
must perish.

Were this the place for the usual style and topics of
a temperance speech, I would dwell upon the horrors
of drunkenness. I would begin my proofs and illus-
trations of these horrors, by summoning the drunkard
himself I would ask that unhappy Toeing, in the Ian

344 TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

guage m wMcli God asks him : " Who' hath woe ? who
hath sorrow ? who hath contentions ? who hath bab-
bhng? who hath wounds without cause? who hath
redness of eyes ?" I would, then, turn to the wife of
the drunkard, to inqiiire what is a drunkard ; and to
hear from her the answer : "Would that my husband
were anything — nay, everything — ^but a drunkard!"
And, then, to the mother of the drunkard, to hear her
say : " Oh, that my child had grown up into any other
monster of vice and wickedness than a drunkard!"
And, then, I would appeal to the family, only one
member of which is a drunkard, to hear that family
reply: "Only one drunkard in a family is enough to
make the whole family miserable!" I would, then,
give opportunity to jails and penitentiaries to tell me,
that a very large proportion of their inmates are drunk-
ards ; and then to the gallows, to tell me, that nearly
every one of its victims is a drunkard. Finally, I
wou.ld go to the Bible, to inquire what is a drunkard ;
and to listen to its awful res23onse : " 'No drunkard shall
inherit the kingdom of God."

Were this the place for the u^ual style and topics of
a temperance speech, I would enlarge on the fact, that
there are in our beloved country more than half a mil-
lion of drunkards ; and I would group along with them
their wives, and children, and parents, and brothers,
and sisters, to show, that drunkenness makes millions
of the American people miserable.

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 345

"Were this tlie place for it, I would make mucli use
of tlie fact, tliat tlie annual expense to our nation, from
tlie vice of drinking intoxicating liquors, largely ex-
ceeds one hundred millions of dollars ; and I would
add, that, instead of doubting whether we have means
adequate to the building of a railroad to the Pacific, we
would, were the American people to abstain, for only
two or three years, from drinking intoxicating liquors,
save enough, by such abstinence, to build two or three
railroads to the Pacific.

Were this the place for it, I would refer to the
mighty hindrance, which this vice puts in the way of
education, order, and every form of comfort, and of
pure and true enjoyment. I would insist, that intoxi-
cating drinks have much to do with the frequency of
national wars, and, what is more than all else, that
there is no other agency so mighty to block up the way
of religion, and render it powerless, as the practice of
drinking intoxicating liquors. There is no antagonism
more decided and deadly than that between the spirit
of Heaven, which alone can save the soul, and the
spirit of the bottle, which is more effective than a,ny
other power to kill it.

Were this the place for it, I would endeavor to
make it apparent, that total abstinence from intoxicatino-
drinks is the only remedy for drunkenness, and the
only sure protection from it. I would, in that case,
expose the fallacy of the doctrine, that temperate drink-

846 TKAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

ing is friendly to sobriety, and is the cure and prevent-
ive of drunkenness, or is either.

Temperate drinkers claim great merit for tlieir prac-
tice— great merit in it to serve the cause of temperance.
These temperate drinkers are, by the way, a very self-
complacent class of persons. They pride themselves on
being the in medio tutissimus ibis — \hQ juste milieu — class
of persons ; equally removed, on the one hand, from
the vulgarity of drunkenness, and, on the other, from
the cold-water fanaticism. Nevertheless, at the hazard
of rufiling their self-complacency, I must tell them, that
they are more injurious than drunkards themselves to
the cause of temperance. In point of fact, drunkards
are helps to the cause of tempera.nce, instead of being
obstacles in its way. Why, our half million of drunkards
are our half million strongest arguments for the neces-
sity of total abstinence ! Indeed, I would, that no per-
son were able to drink intoxicating liquors, without
immediately becoming a drunkard. For who, then,
would drink it, any sooner than he would drink the
poison, that always kills, or jump into the fire, that
always burns? It is because so many, who drink
intoxicating liquor, escape drunkenness, that so many
are emboldened to drink it. I said, that drunkards
serve the cause of temperance. I appeal to mothers
for the truth of it. Mothers ! when you would most
effectually admonish your children not to drink intoxi-
cating liquors, do you not point them to this, that, and

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 347

fclie otlier drunkard ? And so long as your cMldren
keep their eyes on these beacons, tliey take not one
step in the pathway, which leads to the drunkard's
grave and the drunkard's hell. But the danger is,
that they will avert their eyes from these beacons, and
fasten them on the long and attractive train of sober,
respectable temperate drinkers, and follow them. There
is not one youth in this city, whose habits are perilled
by the presence and influence of drunkards — for the
example of the drunkard is too bad to be contagious.
On the contrary, there is not one youth in this city,
whose habits are not in peril from the example of tem-
perate drinkers. Alas, how many a temj)erate father
has made drunkards of his sons, at his own table ! — at
his own table, adorned with decanters of wine — if,
indeed, that can be called wine, which is, so generally,
a vile mixture, containing little, or no wine ! Alas,
how seductive is the way to drunkenness in fashionable
life ! And why, therefore, do we wonder, that fashion-
able life is filled with drunkards ? To the confidino-
and unwary youth, who is just entering on his career
of liquor drinking, how polite, attractive, and altogeth-
er unalarming, are the drinking usages of fashionable
life! These usages are commended by the brilliant
wit and fascinating song, that are so often associated
with them : and, more pernicious than all, are the
smiles of beauty, with which they are too often gar-
landed. Surely, it is not strange, that, in these circum-

348 TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

Stances, tliis youth sliould sip a little wine. Nevertlie-
less, tMs little sipping is the beginning of his drunk-
enness. Surely, it is not strange, that what is so
apparently harmless should wake no fear in him.
Nevertheless, it is at the fountain-head of all his woe
and all his ruin, that this hopefal, happy youth has,
now, taken his stand. He, very soon, learns to
drink his full glass. He, very soon, learns to quaff
his wine, like a gentleman. "Like a gentleman!"
Oh, what variety of ruin is covered over by this win-
ning phrase ! These, however, are but the first steps
in the vf ay of drunkenness, which our tempted youth
has taken. His drunkenness is, as yet, but the little
rill, which meanders through pleasant fields and flow-
ery gardens. By and by, he drinks several glasses at
his dinner ; and, a little way further on, he hkes bran-
dy, as well as wine. That rill, of which we spoke, has
now become a river, that is bearing him to his ruin : —
so gently, however, that he is scarcely sensible of the
motion. jSJ'evertheless, he is still nmnbered with tem-
perate drinkers. He is still safe in his own eyes, and
in the eyes of others. But time passes on. His appe-
tite grows every year, and every month, and every
day. His potations become stronger and deeper, and
more frequent. All now see, that he is a drunkard.
The gentle river is swollen into a raging torrent, that
is hurrying its freight — ^its still precious, though tern-

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 349

porally and eternally ruined freiglit — into tlie abyss,
from wliicli there is no return.

Such, is the end of this youth, whom we chose as
the type of innumerable millions. How easily he
might have been saved from all these transformations
and all this ruin of the Circean cup, had a friendly
hand led him, whilst yet he could be led, to the
immovable rock of total abstinence ! There, and there
only, he would have been safe from all the woes, which
threaten every liquor-drinker. So long, as his feet
remained planted upon that rock, he might have
exclaimed : *' A thousand shall fall at my side and ten
thousand at my right hand ; but it -shall not come nigh
me. I am safe."

But some, who hear me, may be ready to ask :
" What has Congress to do with all this, which I have
been saying ? " We will pass on, then, without any
further delay, to a question, with which Congress cer-
tainly has to do. This question is not, whether Grovern-
ment may undertake to promote the cause of temper-
ance— for I have, virtually, admitted it may not. But
it is, whether Government must not do its duty, at
every point, and even at that point, where the doing
of its duty helps incidentally the cause of temperance ?
To explain myself, I hold, that the suppression of the
sale of intoxicating drinks is indispensable to the pro-
tection of person and property ; and is, therefore, the
manifest duty of Government. At the same time, I

850 TEAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

admit, that tlie suppression is important, yes, indispen-
sable, to the success of the cause of temperance. Now,
must Government forbear the suppression, in order to
avoid rendering an incidental benefit to the cause of
temperance ? Surely, not for that reason, all will say.
But I shall be called on to prove, that such suppres-
sion is needful to the protection of person and property.
I hold, that it is, because the sale of intoxicating drinks
is, by far, the most fruitful source of pauperism and
madness— nay, more fruitful of these evils than all
other sources put together. Indeed, I cannot better
define a dramshop than to call it a manufactory of pau-
pers and madmen: and this is a just definition, whether
we have reference to the filthy, noisy hole, where
the poor and humble slaves of appetite congregate, or
to the elegant apartment, which is made attractive to
the circles of wealth and fashion. Moreover, I charge
the same character on the stores and distilleries, which
stand back of the dramshop, and supply it. These
stores and distilleries are virtual dramshops ; and, in
all my argument, they are undistinguishable, in respou-
sibihty, from the literal dramshop.

I certainly need not go into proofs of the fact, that
the industry of the sober is heavily loaded by the pau-
perism, which the dramshop unposes on it. That fact
is as plain, as the sun. And so is the fact, that the
madmen of the land are, to a great extent, the manu-
facture of the dramshop. How frightfully insecure are

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 851

both property and life, in tlie presence of these mad-
men ? How know we, wlien we step into tlie stage-
coacli, the car, the steamboat, especially on the fourth
of July, or some other holyday, but that the driver, or
the engineer, has indulged in the maddening draught,
and that our lives will be required to pay for the indul-
gence ? How know we, when we walk the streets,
that we shall not meet these madmen flourishing their
deadly weapons ? How know we, when we leave our
dwellings, that these madmen will not, in our absence,
fire those dwellings, and murder their beloved inmates?

But, still, the right of Government to suppress the
dramshop is denied. Why should it be ? Is it claimed,
that there is an overbalance of good in it ? There is
no good at all in it. It is " only evil continually." I
admit that there are nuisances, which the Courts should
be slow to abate. The mill-pond, for instance, which
generates disease. The Courts should pause, ere sac-
rificing the costly and much-needed mill, which the
pond supplies with water. But the dramshop does not
fall in this class of nuisances. It has not one redeem-
ing feature. There is nothing in it to mitigate its
immitigable wickedness : — nothing to set over against
its unmixed mischief In the case of the former nui-
sance, there are two sides to be looked at, before
deciding to abate it. In the case of the latter, but one.

So far from true is it, that Government exceeds its pro-
vince, in laying its suppressing hand upon the dram-

852 TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

shop, tliere is no duty of Government, tliat falls more
clearly witliin its province. In truth, sir, among all
the duties of Government, this stands preeminent.
Indeed, I am prepared to say again, as I have often
said, that, rather than have things remain, as thej now
are, I would compromise with Government, and sur-
render all mj claims upon its protection from other
burdens and perils, provided it would stipulate, in turn,
to protect me from the burdens and perils of the dram-
shojD. It is idle to saj, that a people are protected by
Government, who are left exposed to these perils and
burdens. Such a people are emphatically unprotected ;
and their Government is emphatically faithless.

But why, I ask again, is the right of Government
to shield its people from the burdens and perils of the
dramshop denied ? One reason is, because this service,
not having been rendered hitherto, it would be un-
popular and odious to render it, now. Another and
stronger reason is, because there are so many interested
in continuing these burdens and perils.

Suppose a shop should be opened in this city, for the
sale of a very pleasant and exhilarating gas. It infu-
riates a portion of those, who inhale it, and disposes
them to burn and kill : and the obvious tendency, in
the case of most of them, is to make them more or less
reckless of their own rights and interests, and of the
rights and interests of others. Nevertheless, the gas
is so palatable and attractive, that as many as fifty

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 353

persons frequent tlie sliop, to pay a liberal price for it.
Would Government hesitate to shut up this shop?
Certainly not. The number interested in keeping it
open would be too small for Government to fear.
And, again, there could be no plea of custom or prescrip-
tion in * its behalf, as in behalf of the dramshop. ISTo —
Government would destroy this work; and, yet, (oh,
mad inconsistency !) it spares, and even patronizes, this
dram-shop work, which is ten thousand fold more inju-
rious and destructive.

Suppose, too, that an establishment for cutting off
hands should be opened in this city. A score of per-
sons, debased by rum, weary of work, and eager to
oast themselves and their families, more entirely, on
the public charity, hasten to this new estabhshment,
and pay their dollar each, for having their hands cut
off smoothly, and a speedily healing ointment applied
to the bleeding stumps. Who would doubt the power,
or disposition, of Government to put an end to this new
business? ISTo one. For, as in the case of the gas
shop, there would be comparatively few persons, and
no plea of usage, on the side of continuing it. And,
yet, where the establishment in question would cut off
one pair of hands, the dramshop virtually cuts off a
hundred pairs. " Far worse than that," said a friend,
in whose hearing I employed this same illustration.
"The dramshop cuts off their heads!" "You are
wrong," I rejoined, " The dramshop would be com-

854 TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

i3araxively bearable, if it but cut off the heads of its
victims. Its unspeakably greater \vrong to the com-
munitj is to cut off the hands only, and. to leave the
head on, with the hungry mouth in it, to consume the
earnings of the industrious and sober."

Still another reason is given, why Government
should not legislate to stop the sale of intoxicating
drinks. It is claimed, that such legislation would be a
sumptuary law. In no just sense, however, would it
be such a law. If such legislation is called for, in
order to protect persons and property, then, even if it
should incidentally have, in some respects and in some
directions, the operation of a sumptuary law, it, never-
thelesss, is not fair to look upon it as a sumptuary law,
and to treat it with the hostility and contempt due to
such a law. Suppose, that a certain kind of cloth were
imported into this country from China ; and that, every-
where, on opening the bales, a deadly and sweeping
disease should ensue ; would it not be the perfectly
plain duty of Grovernment to forbid the further import-
ation of such cloth? Nevertheless, many might still
be eager to wear it, as, in the face of whatever prohibi-
tion, many might still be eager to purchase intoxicating
drinks. And the one class would be as ready, as the
other, to stigmatize, as a sumptuary law, the legal pro-
hibition upon their indulgence.

But the loudest and longest objection to the suppres-
sion of the sale of intoxicating drinks by law, is to the

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 855

suppression of it by means of the " Maine law." Now,
as I admit, that such sale cannot be suppressed by any
other law than the " Maine law," or a law of its leading
characteristics, I am bound to vindicate the "Maine
law." There is not time to examine all its features.
But the law will be justified in your sight, if I succeed
in justifying its great distinctive feature; — that fea-
ture, which authorizes the s'eizure and destruction of
the Kquor, when it is ascertained, that it is to be dis-
posed of for a drink.

There is no occasion for discussing the question,
whether Government may take and dispose of, as it
will, the property of its citizen, without compensating
him therefor : nor is there occasion for discussing the
question, whether, in any circumstances, it may take
and control his property, without his consent. All I
need do, at this point, is to prove, that Government
may take, and treat, as it will, that, which is no longer
property ; but all rights of property in which are for-
feited by the guilty and pernicious misuse, to which
its owner had perverted it. My proof to this end need
not be a train of formal arguments. A few simple
illustrations instead will answer the purpose, and will
save time.

I will suppose, that there is a loaded pistol in the
pocket of my friend, who sits at my right hand, [Mr.
Morgan, of New- York.]

356 TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

Mr. Morgan. Not a supposable case.

Mr. Smith. I admit, that it is hardly fair to sup-
pose it of one, who so trusts in the shielding care of his
God, and in the good will of his fellow-men, as to be
above the bad habit of going armed. Nevertheless,
I trust that, as I have begun mth the supposition,
he will allow me to proceed in it.

Now, were I to take this pistol from my friend's
pocket, and to break it in pieces, I should, of course,
be legally liable to him for the value of it. But were
he to take it from his pocket, and to ahn it at the gen-
tleman, who adorns the Speaker's chair— nay, who
from his preeminent judgment, impartiahty, self-pos-
session, dignity, seems to have been made purposely
for the Speaker's chair— then might I wrest it from his
hand, and dash it in fragments on the floor, and be
under no legal liability whatever. All the legal liabil-
ity in the case would be on him, who was guilty of
putting the weapon to so unprovoked and deadly a
misuse ; and who, thereby, forfeited all rights of pro-
perty in it.

Suppose that Mr. Corcora.n, of this city, should, in
his love to do things on a large scale, purchase a
barrel of rattlesnakes, for a thousand dollars. He puts
them in boxes, with glass covers. He and his friends
are in the habit of standing over these boxes, a few
minutes, every day, to inspect the serpents, and to

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 357

study the laws, habits, and phenomenaj of their being.
All this is innocent and praiseworthy. But suppose
Mr. Corcoran wakes up some morning, "troubled," as
was Saul, with "an evil spirit" — for, in these days
when rapping, and tipping, and all sorts of spirits,
good and bad, stand so thick around us, even Mr.
Corcoran and other good men are liable to the invasion
of evil spirits. Mr. Corcoran, now, says: "I am tired
of looking at these snakes, in their boxes. I wish to
see them running about, and biting people." So he
takes the boxes to the door, and lets out the snakes
upon the ground. In a few hours, they are coursing
through the city, and biting whom they can. The
alarm is sounded. Members of Congress, and all, go
forth to slay the snakes. Had we slain them, when in
their boxes, Mr. Corcoran could have recovered his
thousand dollars from us. But, now, he cannot recover
it — for he lost all property in the snakes by his reck-
less and wicked liberation of them, and exposed him-
self, in so doing, to the gravest penalties.

Suppose, that, some pleasant morning, I take into
my hand, my gold-headed cane, (if I have such an one,)
studded with diamonds, that cost ten thousand dollars.
I go strutting up and down Pennsylvania avenue,
swollen with the self-consequence of a member of Con-
gress. I use my cane in knocking down children, on
the right hand and on the left. A gentleman witnesses
my pranks ; hastens to me ; and breaks the cane in

358 TEAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS

pieces across Ms knee. Can I make him pay me any-
tliing ? Oil, no ! not even if he had broken it in
pieces across my head. I lost all property in the cane,
by my wrong, and outrageous, use of it : and the sole
question now is, not what penalty this gentleman shall
suffer ; but what penalty I shall suffer, in addition to
the loss of my cane.

These supposed cases illustrate the actual case of the
liquor-owner. Whilst his liquors are put to their
proper and innocent uses, Government has no right to
meddle with them. But just as soon as he brings them
forth to use them in manufacturing paupers and mad-
men, he loses all property in them : G-overnment may
destroy them ; and punish the offender, at its discre-
tion.

Let it not be inferred, that I would have Govern-
ment declare all property forfeited, which is misused.
It is only an extreme case, which can justify such
declaration. Of such case Government must be the
sole judge. Upon its sole responsibility. Government
is to select the case, as upon their sole responsibility the
people are to decide, whether to submit to the selection,
or to rebel against it. The murderous torpedo-box
Government would not hesitate to choose as such an
extreme case ; and the people would not hesitate to
acquiesce in the choice. Such an extreme case, in my
own judgment, is alcoholic liquor, also, when on sale
for a drink. Our patience under the sale of intoxicating

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTOK. 369

beverages, with all its burdens, and perils, and woes,
would be most wonderful and inexplicable, did we not
know tlie power of education. We are educated to
witness all this, in patience ; and we are educated to it
by Government itself. Civil Government is mighty to
educate the people, upward or downward, either in a
right or wrong dii-ection. So long, as it licenses or
protects the dramshop, so long it is a mighty influence
to reconcile the people to the dramsho^D. The people
will follow Government, even in its grossest inconsist-
encies. Government may declare horses, that are
brought out for racing, to be forfeited. Government
may declare the gambling apparatus, that is brought
into public places, to be without the protection of law ;
and in all this the people will acquiesce, as they ac-
quiesce in the gross inconsistency with all this of ex-
tending the shield of Government over the dramshop.
Gross inconsistency, indeed ! — for the evils of horse-
racing and gambling are not to be compared with the
evils of dramshops. Another inconsistency, of which
Government is guilty in this case, is that, in frowning
upon horse-racing and gambliag, it but seeks to pro-
tect the people from demoralization — a work, which,
to say the least, is, when in its hands, of very doubtful
legitimacy. But when Government lets the dramshop
stand, it neglects to protect person and proj)erty, at a
point, where they are far more fearfully exposed than
at any other point: and, in neglecting such protection,

360 TRAFFIC IX INTOXICATING DRINKS

it neglects wliat all admit to be tlie cliief duty in the
province of GrOYernment; and what many, beside
myself, believe to constitute the sole province of Gov-
ernment.

Time forbids, that I should extend my argument, any
further. Would that Congress might pass such a bill,
as I have now called for ; and as the people of this
city did themselves virtually call for, a year ago, by a
vote of two to one ! For Government to break up the
sale of intoxicating drinks is, as I trust, I have conclu-
sively shown, no stretching of its functions. I again
admit, that the sole legitimate work of Government is
to minister protection to person and property. But, if
to abate a nuisance, which yields no possible good, and
which, more than all things else, perils and destroys
both person and property, is not a part of that work,
pray what is ? I again admit, that for Government to
protect person and property from the dramshops of
this city, as it could do, only by shuttiag them up,
would be to render an immense service to the cause of
temperance in this city, in this nation, in this world.
I admit, too, that I cannot, consistently, make a direct
claim for this service, at its hands. ISTevertheless, I can
claim at its hands, the protection of person and pro-
perty : and, happily, the service in question is neces-
sarily incidental to such protection. The service can-
not fail to follow the protection. And who is there,
that should not rejoice, that so great a direct good and

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 361

SO great an incideDtal good are brought together, and
are inseparable ?

The city of Washington is, in sacred language,
^'beautiful for situation." Than that it wears, there is
no greater human name. It is, too, the capital of a
great nation ; — so great, as to need only to be as good,
as it is great. Its population is increasing rapidly ; and
buildings are going up in, and art is embellishing, every
part of its broad and beautiful amphitheatre. Fifty
years hence, if our children shall be so wise and vir-
tuous, as to constitute one nation, here will be two
hundred thousand people; and here will then be a
city unsurpassed in intelligence, and in all the refine-
ments and elegancies, which adorn the highest style of
social life. Upon all this beauty — upon all this glory
— shall the blot of the dramshop remain ? Nay, will
it be possible to attain to this beauty and glory, if this
broad and deep blot is suffered to remain ?

Why, then, should we not, in the clearest terms,
authorize the suppression of the sale of intoxicating
drinks, in this city ? Who would be harmed by the
suppression? What mother, what wife, would shed
one tear the more, because of it ? What sister would
heave one sigh the more, because of it ? And who of
us would be the worse for it ? Nay, who of us would
be the worse for never again using any alcoholic liquors
for a drink ? And who of our successors, on coming
to this city, would suffer any injury by not meeting the

ooz

TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING DRINKS.

temptation of the dramsliop? I have spoken of out
successors in these seats. But for the egotism of it, I
would add, much in the language of Paul before king
Agrippa: "I would to Grod, that not only the j, (our
successors,) but also all that hear me, this day, were
both almost and altogether such as I am," in respect to
intoxicating liquors ! — for it is more than a quarter of
a century, since I drank any of them ; and, as to my
children and children's children, they are ignorant of
the taste of them. Happy ignorance ! — may it last as
long, as they shall last ! Happy ignorance ! — may it
become universal !

Let, then, this city be purged of Hquor-selling ! And
when that is done, it will be, not only "beautiful for
situation ; " but, in further sacred language, it will be
"the joy of the whole earth." The good of every
land will rejoice in the sight ; and the evil of every
land will be profitably impressed by it. Moreover, to
the Government of every land this authorized and
indispensable exercise of governmental powers will be
an influential and blessed examiole.

SPEECH

AGAIJS'ST

PROVIDING INTOXICATING DRINKS

FOR THE NAYY.
JULY 2 5, 1854.

The Bill, making appropriations for tlie naval serv-
ice being under consideration, Mr. Smith said:

I move to amend tlie bill by adding, after the follow-
ing paragraph. :

" For provisions for commission, warrant, and petty
of&cers and seamen, including engineers and marines
attached to vessels for sea-service, §686,200,"

tliese words :

" But no intoxicating liquors shall be provided for a
beverage."

I hope, sir, that the committee will bear with me in

364 SPEECH AGAINST PKOVIDING

my folly — mj characteristic folly — of endeavoring to
make tilings better tlian we find tliem. The most com-
mon objection to reforms is, that we should take things
as we find them. I admit, that we should. But, I add,
that we should labor to leave them better than we find
them.

The armies and navies of the world are nurseries of
drunkenness : and drunkenness is the cause, more than
all other causes put together, of the insubordinations,
troubles, crimes, which abound in armies and navies.
To this appalling fact the American army and navy
constitute no exception. ISTow, the bill before us pro-
poses no change in this respect. On the contrary, it
would have this evil go on, after the old fashion. But
the amendment, which I have offered, proposes a
radical change in this respect; and a change no
less blessed than radical.

All are aware that, in every department and employ-
ment, sober men are more to be relied on than drunken
men, and are better and hap|)ier men. This is as true
of sailors and soldiers, as of any other men. How
carefully, then, should Government refrain from what-
ever might encourage intemperate habits in their
sailors and soldiers ! Hov/ steadfastly should we refuse
the folly and the sin of putting the cup of woe and
ruin and death to their lips !

Would we have our armed vessel carry, wherever
she may go, high evidence of the strength and wisdom

INTOXICATING DEINKS FOE THE NAVY. 365

of America? Then let it be a temperance vessel.
"Were the world to know, that the American army
and navy are divorced from rmn, the world wonld be
impressed with the strength and wisdom of America,
as it never yet has been. "Would we make onr army
and navy a far greater terror to our enemies than they
otherwise can be? Then let us make them a cold
water army and navy.

But, sir, we do not wish our navy to harm the world.
We wish it to bless the world. We would rather have
it exert a redeeming moral influence than find occasion
to wield its physical force. Then, sir, let our ships of
war, whatever lands they may visit, be to those lands
temperance lecturers. Such temperance lecturers would
move the world, and bless the world. Would that our
ships of war might undergo this transformation !
Little occasion would there then be for the ordinary
of&cers of a navy.

Adopt my amendment, su-, and let it become a law,
and five years will not pass away, before liquor rations
will cease from the army, as well as from the navy :
and ten years will not pass away, before both the army
and navy will be purged of drunkards. For by that
time, we shall, in that case, refuse to enlist drunkards
either into the army or navy. And then, sir, thou-
sands of fathers and mothers will bless God, and bless
you for the precious reform, which you shall this day
have begun. They will remember you with gratitude

366 INTOXICATING DRINKS FOR THE NAVY.

and love. For they will tlien hope, that if their sons
shall enter the army or navy, they will, nevertheless,
escape drunkenness. And the hope that their children
will not be drunkards, is a precious hope to every right-
hearted parent — as precious to every good parental
heart, as the apprehension, that they will be drunkards,
is withering to such a heart.

And should it be so, sir, that our army and navy
shall be freed from the curse of rum-drinking, our hope
will then be quickened, that the whole country will be
freed from this curse. Judges and law-makers will be
ashamed to drink rum, when our sailors and soldiers
have ceased to drink it ; and who else will not, then,
be ashamed to drink it? If only for the happy reflex
influence upon ourselves of our attempts to introduce
this reform into the army and navy, these attempts
would be well paid for.

SPEECH

DT PAYOR OF

mDEMOTFYING MR. RIDDLE Al^D MR. PEABODY.

AU a U S T 1, 1854.

The Civil and Diplomatic Bill was under considera-
tion, and Mr. Bayly, of Yirginia, liad moved to strike
out the following Senate amendment, namely:

'' To enable the Secretary of State to reimburse to
Edward Kiddle such, sums, as shall be satisfactorily
shown to have been expended by him, or which said
Eiddle may have obligated himself to pay, on account
of his ofiicial position at the Industrial Exhibition a,t
London, England, or so much thereof as shall be neces-
sary, $26,000 : provided that no portion of the payments
made 'pro rata by contributors at said Exhibition shall
be regarded as within this appropriation."

Mr. Smith moved to increase the sum one dollar,
and said :

3^^ INDEMNIFYING MR. RIDDLE.

The honorable gentleman from Yirginia, [Mr. Bayly,]
spoke of a misoliievous precedent in this case. There
is such a precedent. But it is not to be found where
that gentleman finds it. It will not be found in our
adoption of the Senate amendment. That mischievous
precedent came into being when the Government
embarked in this affau^ ; and put one of its vessels at
the service of its citizens. Had the Government kept
clear of this affair, and confined itself to its sole legiti-
mate of&ce of protecting persons and property, we
should not have been annoyed by this amendment of
the Senate. But the Government mixed itself up with
the proper business of its citizens. Therein was the mis-
chievous precedent; and in that precedent hes our
obligation to meet the consequences which we are now
called on to meet ; and to repay the money which Avas
advanced, because we gave a governmental aspect and
character to the enterprise.

When our ingenious citizens were tempted by the
liberality of the Government to put their inventions
on board this vessel, they did not foresee, that a great
expense must be incurred between the arrival of their
fabrics on the English coast and the getting of them
upon exhibition. This expense they were not able to
meet. Indeed, they were not there to meet it. The
question now was what to do with the fabrics. Should
they be left at Southampton, where they were, or be
returned to America ? Either would have been deeply

INDEMNIFYING ME. RIDDLE. 369

disgraceful to our Government and nation ; for either
of them would have been attributed to niggardly con-
duct, on the part of the Government. The represent-
atives of the various nations of the earth, assembled
at the Crystal Palace, would have thus attributed it.
They would have held our Government responsible for
the failure of these inventions of our citizens to reach
the Palace— for they would, of coiu^se, have held the
importation of these inventions to be a governmental
enterprise. Surely, if the appearances in the case led
both Mr. Peabody and Mr. Lawrence to regard the
importation of the' inventions as an enterprise of the
Government, these strangers and the whole British pub-
lic, would have been justified in so regarding it. In
the eyes of all these, then, our Government and nation
would have been disgraced, if the fabrics had not
reached the Palace. Honor, therefore, great honor, is
due to Mr. Peabody for having come forward so gene-
rously to shield his native land and her Government
from impending disgrace ; and dishonor, deep dishonor,
will follow the refusal to enable Mr. Eiddle to repay the
$26,000, which Mr. Peabody's strong American feel-
ings prompted him to lend Mr. Riddle.

I cannot believe, that we are willing to let Mr. Pea-
body, or Mr. Riddle, lose this money. Sure I am, that
our country will not be found willing to have either of
them lose it.

SPEECH

m FAVOR OP

CUSTOM-HOUSES AT BUFFALO AND OSWEGO.

AUGUST 1, 185 4.

The Civil and Diplomatic Bill was under considera-
tion, and Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, had said, tliat
the Committee non-concurred in tlie Senate's amend-
ment for constructing several custom-houses. Mr.
Smith moved to add one dollar to each sum mentioned
in the Senate's amendment, and said :

In making this motion I signify that I am in favor
of building these custom-houses. On what ground it
is that the building of them is objected to, I do not
know. Is it on the ground that the tariff system should
be abandoned; and that, therefore, all custom-houses,
both existing and x^rospective, must Ml vnth it ? K
on that ground, then I welcome the objection, for I
am an absolute free-trade man, would have Govern-
ment supported by direct taxe?, and d<-> not expect to

372 CUSTOM-HOUSES AT BUFJ?ALO AND OSWEGO.

see Government riglit until it is so supported. But it
is not on tliat ground tliat tlie building of tliese custom-
houses is objected to. ISTone of the objectors propose
free trade. All are in favor of continuing to defray
the expenses of Government by duties. Hence all of
them are to be regarded as in favor of safe and suit-
able buildings for custom-house business, wherever
there is enough of such business to make such build-
ings necessary* I take it for granted that the only
question in the case, which these objectors allow to be
pertinent and influential with them, is, whether there
is business to warrant the erection of the proposed
custom-houses. Others must speak for the custom-
houses recommended in other States. I will confine
myself to the advocacy of the two recommended to be
built in my own. Both are needed, by the fact that,
in each of the towns, (Buffalo and Oswego,) there is a
vast amount of custom-house business. That of Oswe-
go, I feel safe in saying, exceeds that of any other town in
the nation above tide- water. Indeed, there are scarcely
more than half a dozen towns in the whole nation that
exceed Oswego in custom-house business. The duties
payable on bonded and unbonded property passing
through Oswego in the year 1853, exceeded $696,000.
This year they will probably exceed $1,000,000. I
learn from the collector of that port that they amounted,
up to the 30th June, to $518,276.

To enforce my claim for a. cnstom-house in Oswego,

CUSTOM-HOUSES AT BUFFALO AND OSWEGO. 373

I will read to the committee an extract from a letter
wliicli I received a fortniglit since from tlie collector :

" You will see that our business is constantly and largely increas-
ing. The bonded property received here from Canada this year to
the end of June, is nearly equal to the total of last year ; and the
last year showed a very large increase on any former year."

Speaking of tlie contracted and unfit building wHch
Government leases, the collector says :

" The custom-house building here is eighteen feet by fifty feet, and
contains no vault or place of deposit for the public moneys collected
here except a common iron safe. My clerks and assistants when
fully employed, as is the case the greater part of the business season,
are about as closely stowed as children at the desks of a well-filled
country school-house."

I would add that the collector has also informed me,
as a further illustration of the large amount of business
in his office, that the number of persons employed in
it is thirty-five.

I have, now, ended my plea for a custom-house in
Oswego. Confident I am that the facts in this plea
cannot be resisted. But if, by possibility, they shall
be resisted, and Government shall refuse to build a
custom-house in Oswego, what shall I say to reconcile
my constituents to such refusal? What pacifying
explanations will you enable me to make to them?
What shall I be able to say to them in vindication of
the justice, impartiality, consistency of Government ?

[Here tl-e hammer foll.1

FINAL LETTER

TO ins

CONSTITUENTS.

Washington, xIugust 7, 1854.
To My CGnstituents :

To tlie end, that you miglit have ample time to look
around you for my successor, I apprised you, some
■weeks ago, of my intention to resign my seat in Con-
gress, at the close of the present session. I now in-
form you, that I have fulfilled this intention. The
session ended, to-day ; and, to-day, I have sent to the
Secretary of State, at Albany, the necessary evidence
of my actual resignation.

I take this occasion for sajmig, that I am happy to
learn of your favorable regard for my general course
in Congress ; and that I am sorry, though not surpris-
ed, to learn, that there are some things in it, with
which a few — perhaps, more than a few — of you are
dissatisfied.

And, now, since I have adverted to this dissatisfac-

376 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTIT TENTS.

tion, it seems proper to saj more. How much more ?
Sliall I but add the simple declaration, that, concern-
ing the things with which you are dissatisfied, I did
what I thought to be right ? To stop there would not
be sufficiently respectful to you. You are entitled to
my reasons — to, at least, the principal of them — for
this part of my official conduct : and, I add, that I am
not to be impatient with you, if they shall fail to satisfy
you. Kay, I am not to be so vain, as to suppose, that
it is possible to render sound and satisfying reasons for
all the numerous things, which I have said and done,
in Congress. That a life, alvv^ays so full of errors,
before my coming to Congress, -was to be entirely
empty of them, whilst in Congress, was not to be
expected, either by my constituents, or by myself.

I have, always, suffered, very greatly and very un-
justly, in the world's esteem, because the world has,
always, persisted in judging me, by the light of its
own, instead of my own, creeds and practices. To try
a man's consistency, he must be tried by himself: and
to try his integrity even, he must, to no small extent,
be tried by himself— by his own behefs and deeds —
by his own life, both speculative and practical.

I noticed strictures upon almost the very first sen-
tence of my very first speech in Congress, which taught
me, that my official, no more than my private, life, was
to be exempt from the injustice to which I have, here,
alluded. It so happened, that I began that speech

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 377

with, expressions of civility toward tliose around me,
and with kind and charitable interpretations of the
differences between them and myself. No sooner was
the speech in print than many abolitionists complained
of my courtesy to slaveholders ; and insisted, that I
had been guilty of making light of the radical differ-
ences between slavery and abolition — ^between slave-
holders and abolitionists. Assuming, as they did, that
I was but " a one-idea abolitionist," they farther, and
very naturally, assumed, that I stood up to make that
speech, with nothing, but slavery and slaveholders, in
my eye. Two things, which they should have remem-
bered, they seemed entirely to have forgotten. One
of these is, that I entered Congress with such peculiar
tbeories of Civil Government — matured and cherished,
however visionary and false — as, I foresaw, must be,
continually, bringing out differences between my asso-
ciates and myself, not on the question of slavery only,
but on innumerable other questions also. The other
is, that among these theories, is the duty, resting im-
peratively on the inmates of a legislative hall, to know
nothing, whilst in such hall, of each other's private
character and private relations ; and to recognize, and
treat, each, other as gentlemen. This much, at least
then, can be said in vindication of the opening of the
speech, in question— that, however little it correspond-
ed with the views of others, it faithfully reflected my
own : and that, so far as it is the duty of every man

378 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

to be, in all circumstances himself, and tlie duty of all
others to judge him hj himself, I was not obnoxious to
criticism.

The first complaint of my conduct in Congress, save
that, which. I have, just now, incidentally referred to,
was, that I voted against the " Homestead Bill" — and,
that, too, after having made a speech in its favor.
This apparent inconsistency is disposed of by the
single remark, that it was not, until after the speech,
that the bill was so amended, as to confine its benefits
to white persons. But to relieve myself of this
apparent inconsistency falls very far short of settiag me
wholly right, in the eyes of my critics. None the less
will they continue to say, that, notwithstanding the
amendment debarred me from doing justice to tbe
blacks, I should still have been ready to do justice to
the whites, and, therefore, to vote for the biQ. But
what if they should come to believe, as, I hold, all
persons should believe, that it is not the Grovernment,
but the people — and the people equally — that own the
land? — ^then, they would promptly acquit me of all
blame in the case. If, for the sake of illustration, the
light-eyed man and the dark-eyed man do each, really
own eighty acres of the public land ; then, beyond all
doubt, it is not justice, which is done to the light-eyed
man, in voting him one hundred and sixty acres, and
in leaving none for the dark-eyed man. That can not
be justice, which is made up, so essentially, of injust-

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 379

ice. That can not be justice, wliicli robs one man to
add tlie spoils of robbery to the already full share of
another. It is true, that this is only a supposed case,
which I have, here, presented. But, manifestly, the
principle, in the actual case before us, is the same as in
this supposed case. Manifestly, the argument could, in
no wise, be affected by substituting a light-skinned
man for the light-eyed one, and a darked-skinned
man for the dark-eyed one. Manifestly, the rights of
men can no more turn on the color of the skin than on
the color of the eye.

I trust, that nothing I have here said will be con-
strued into an impeachment of the integrity of those,
who voted for the " Homestead Bill." Among them
are some, whom I know to be good, as well as wise,
men. They surveyed the subject in the hght of their
own philosophy, and not in the light of mine: and,
hence, they saw not, that their vote went to involve
both themselves and the recipients of the land in the
guilt of robbery.

The next complaint, which came to my ears, was,
that I refused to become a party to the plan for pre-
venting the taking of the vote on the Nebraska bill.
This refusal was a great giief to the abolitionists in
both Houses of Congress : and I scarcely need say, that
I love them too well not to grieve in their grief :N"ev-
ertheless, I had to persist in the refusal, and in stand-
ino- alone. The wisest of men and the best of men,

880 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

.entreated me, oyer and over again, by my regard for
my reputation, and by all, tliat is precious in the cause
of freedom, not to persevere in this singularity. Nev-
ertheless— and, that, too, notwithstanding obstinacy
had never been imputed to me — I was immovable.
How could I be moved, when it was my convictions,
that fastened me to my position ? Years before, in the
calm studies of my secluded home, I had adopted the
democratic theory — not nominally and coldly and par-
tially— ^but really and earnestly and fully: and the
conclusions, which I had arrived at, in circumstances
so favorable for arriving at just conclusions, I was
entirely unwilling to repeal, in a season of excitement
and temptation. I spoke of the democratic theory.
But the soul of that theory is the majority principle.
Hence, to violate this principle is to abandon that
theory. I was, frequently, told, that those rules of the
House, in the expert use of which the taking of the
vote on the Nebraska bill could be staved off indefi-
nitely, were made for the very purpose of enabhng the
minority to hold the majority at bay, whenever it
might please to do so. But this did not influence me.
For, in the first place, I could not believe, that they
were made for so wrongful — ^for so anti-democratic — a
purpose: and, in the second place, even had I thus
believed, I, nevertheless, could not have consented to
use them for that purpose. There is no rule — nay,
there is no enactment, however solemn or commanding,

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 381

that I can consent to wield against the all-vital and
sacred majoritj principle ; or, in other words, against
democracy itself.

When I complained, that the plan in question was
revolution, I was charged with inconsistency; — incon-
sistency with my well-known readiness to rescue a fugi-
tive slave. It is true, that I would rescue a fugitive
slave. Nevertheless, I felt not the pertinence of the
charge of inconsistency.. In rescuing him, I take my
stand outside of the Government, and am a confessed
revolutionist. Let it be remembered, that it is only,
whilst and where, I am inside of the Grovernment, that
I acknowledge myself bound to bow to the will of the
majority. I bow to it in th^ legislative hall and in the
court-room; and everywhere and always do I bow to
it; until the purposed execution of the decree, that is
intolerable. Then I rebel. They are guilty of antici-
pating the only proper time for rebellion, who resort to
it, during the process of legislation. I sit in the House
of Eepresentatives, and hear my fellow members dis-
cuss, and see them vote upon, a bill, which wrongs me
greatly. Argument and persuasion and my vote are
all, that I can, legitimately, oppose to its passage. K it
pass, and its enforcement be contemplated, it will be.
then, for me to decide whether to rebel against the
Government, and to resist the enforcement.

I need say no more, in explanation, or defence, of
my gTOunds for refusing to go into the scheme to pre-

382 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

vent the majority from bringing tlie House to a vote
on the Nebraska bill. I will, however, before leaving
this subject, advert to the fact, that for refusing to go
into this scheme — ^into this physical struggle, which
continued through thirty-five successive hours — into
this strife to see which party could go the longer, with-
out sleeping, and eating, and, I would that I could add,
without drinking also — ^my reputation for fidelity to the
anti-slavery cause has suffered not a little, in some
quarters. Moreover, it is not only in this wise, that I
suffered loss by refusing to foUoYf the multitude on
that occasion. My reputation for a sound understand-
ing, poor as it was before — and poor as that of every
radical and earnest abolitionist must continue to be,
until abolition shall be in the ascendant — is far poorer
now. It is, I suppose, for my singularity on that
memorable occasion, that a very distinguished and
much-esteemed editor tells the world, that I am "defi-
cient in common sense." I am happy to believe, how-
ever, that this editor will readily admit, that it is far
better to be "deficient in common sense" than in com-
mon honesty: and that, when he shall have read this
letter, he will clearly see, that, with my views of the
comprehensive and sacred claims of the majority prin-
ciple, I could not have gone into the combination in
question, and yet have retained common honesty. I
was a fool in this editor's esteem not to go into it. But
he will now perceive, that I would have been a rogue,

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 388

bad I gone into it. He will, now, be glad, that I did
not go into it. For mncli as he values knowledge, he
values integrity more. And were he, now, to meet
me, he would press mj hand, and thank me, that I
played the fool in preference to playing the rogue.

By the way, will not this editor allow me to remind
hun, that when, a little more than three short years
ago, I went into different parts of our State to speak
agamst certain Senators for their daring to prevent the
necessary majority of the Senate from passing the Canal
bill, he had no censures, but rather praises, to bestow
on me ? It is true, that he and I both desired the suc-
cess of the Canal bill; and that we both desired the
defeat of the Nebraska bill. And it is true, therefore,
that, whilst my principles worked for his and my inter-
ests and wishes, in the former case, they worked, (at
least, as some thought,) against them, in the latter.
Was this, however, a good reason why I should not
allow them to work in the latter, as well as in the
former, case? I ask this editor — I ask the world —
how it was possible for me to fall in with this policy of
preventing the vote on the Nebraska bill, unless I was,
also, prepared to revoke my condemnation of the like
policy on the part of the Senators, to whom I have
referred.

Let it not be thought, that I call in question either
the wisdom or integrity of the members of Congress,
who went into this combination. Wiser and better men

384 FINAL LETTEK TO HI6 CONSTITUENTS.

than myself went into it. ISTevertlieless, they could
not have gone into it, had they entertained my views,
be those views sonnd or false, of the rights of the
majority.

Ere lea™g the Nebraska bill, I will briefly refer to
the censures, which have been cast on one of my private
letters. The whole, or none, of that letter should have
been printed. I was sorry to see disjointed parts of it
in print. The letter is not before me. But, I remem-
ber, that I spoke in it against night-sessions of Congress,
and declared, that, had the hour of three in the morn-
ing been appointed for taking the vote on the Nebraska
bill, I should not have been present. This declaration
has been seized on, to show my low estimate of the value
of the anti-slavery cause. Now, I have not one word
to offer in proof, that I do, really and greatly, love this
cause. If proof to this end is still lacking, even aft^er
more than a quarter of a century's profession of such
love, then, most certainly, no proof can be found, that
can supply the lack.

It is contended, that I would have been as much
bound, in the supposed case, to have been present, at
the taking of the vote, as the editor of a daily newspa-
per is to be often at his desk, until a late hour of the
night; and (it might have been added, with as much
propriety) as the physician is, to pass the whole night
often, at the bedside of his patient. Now, not to say,
tha,t this night-labor, on the part of the editor and phy-

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 385

sician, is a foreseen and voluntarily incurred one, and
is, therefore, in this respect, most widely distinguisb.-
able from the three o'clock appointment ; it is enough
to say, that this night-labor is a necessity, and that this
three o'clock appointment is not ; and that, hence, it is
absurd to refer to the labor to justify the appointment.
Had I taken the ground not to obey any summons to
appear in Congress, at three o'clock in the morning —
not even that, which was prompted by the sudden
landing of a mighty enemy, or by any other necessity
— then, I confess, it would have been proper to rebuke
me for resisting a necessity; and proper to put me to
shame by pointing me to the faithful editor and
physician, who yield a prompt obedience to the neces-
sities, which come upon them.

I denied, that the three o'clock appointment would
have been a necessity. This denial is abundantly just-
ified by the fact, that there is nothing in the ISTebraska
bill to make the taking of the vote on it necessary, at
any time ; and by the further fact, that if there is, there,
nevertheless, remained months before the close of the
session, and abundant opportunity for the transaction
of all the possible business of Congress by dayhght.

I might dwell on many objections to giving my
countenance to this three o'clock appointment. I will
detain you with only a few of them; and with but
glances at these. 1. Some members of Congress are,
either from age or other causes, too feeble to be com-
17

386 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

pelled, unless in a case of absolute necessity, to leave
their beds, at sucli an unusual liour for leaving tbem.

2. At this sleepy hour, few persons are in a state
for tlie wise and safe transaction of important business.

3. As tlie friend of temperance, both my lips and
example shall ever testify against any night-session of
Congress, that is not called for by the clearest necessity.
What if the majority had appointed the taking of
the vote on the ISTebraska question, in a dramshop ?
Would you have had me present? I trust not. But
are you, yet, to learn, that the scenes of a night-session
of Congress do not, always, differ, in all respects, from
the scenes of a dramshop ? I was present, a part of the
night-session, in which the final vote on the Nebraska
bill was taken; and I was well convinced, that Con-
gress should avoid all unnecessary night-sessions, until
Congress loves temperance more, and rum less. Never
did I witness more gross drunkenness, than I witnessed
on that occasion. I had to remain until eleven o'clock
— ^for I had to remain, until I could record my vote
against the pro-slavery bill. After that, I hurried
away, full of shame and sorrow.

It so happened, that Lord Elgin, the Governor of
Canada, sat by my side, for an hour or more, during
that evening of sad recollections. The drunkenness
was perceived by him, as well as by myself I might
rather say, it glared upon his observation, as well as
upon my own. It was, certainly, very polite and kind

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 887

in Hm to tell me, as lie did, in the coTirse of our con-
versation respecting tMs disgraceful scene, tliat he had
witnessed shameful disorder in the British Parliament.
ISTevertheless, his politeness and kindness did not
relieve me of my deep mortification.

But, Jl shall, perhaps, be told, that were it, once,
understood, that the friends of temperance, and
decency, and good hours, refuse to appear in Con-
gress, the latter part of the night ; advantage would
be taken of the refusal, and that part of the night
would be chosen for mischievous and wicked legisla-
tion. This supposes two things, however, neither of
which, I trust, is supposable. It supposes, 1st, that
a majority of the members of Congress would be
guilty of such an outrage ; and, 2d, that the people
would be patient under it. Had the Nebraska bill
been passed by calling us from our beds at three
o'clock, the people would have seen, in this disgrace-
ful fact, another and a strong reason for condemning
this bill and its supporters.

I proceed to notice another, and, so far as I know,
the only other, passage in my Congressional history,
that has provoked the public censure. I spoke in
favor of annexing Cuba to the United States: — and
this, too, even though the slavery of that island were
not previously abohshed. For having so spoken, I
have seen myself held up in the newspapers as a filt-
busier. But I had supposed the filibuster to be one,

388 FIJSIAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

wlio would get Cuba either by violence or by money ,
and, in the speecli referred to, I expressly discarded
both these means. The union between Cuba and the
United States, which I approved, is peaceful, and with-
out purchase. It is to take place, on the sole condition
of the choice of the two parties — ^the people of Cuba and
the people of the United States. Their choice of the
union authorizes the union : and, that too, even though
all other peoples, Spain herself included, forbid it.
Indeed, it was only to illustrate the leading doctrine
of that part of my speech — ^the doctrine, that peoples
may unite and divide, as themselves, not as others,
please — that I made my reference to Cuba.

But whom do I mean by the people of Cuba ? The
public suppose, that I of course, mean little else than
the handful of slaveholders, aristocrats, and tyrants,
upon that island. But, I do not consent to be conclud-
ed by their supposition. I do not consent to wear their
spectacles, nor to be measured by their measuring-line,
nor to be interpreted by their laws of interpretation.

It is now more than a dozen years, since I stood up
to read, in a very large assembly, my " Address to the
Slaves of the United States." This Address acknow-
ledges slaves to be of the people, and of equal rights
with any other portion of the people ; and, I add, that
it, therefore, made me more enemies than any other
paper I had ever written. I stop not now to justify
anything in that paper. All my reason for referring

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 889

to it is, to say, that, whetlier its doctrines are true or
false, tliej should, at least, serve to sMeld me from the
imputation of ignoring slaves, when I speak of the
people. Whomsoever others mean, when thej speak
of the people of Cuba, I mean, when I speak of
them, the black, as well as the white— the bond, as
well as the free. If the poor, outraged slaves of that
island prefer to be identified with the institutions, for-
tunes, and prospects, of our country, such preference
should be allowed to weigh as much, as the like pre-
ference of any other equal portion of her people. To
say, that their ^'poor, poor, dumb mouths" are to be
unheeded, and that they are to be denied annexation
to the people of the United States, unless their slavery
is previously abolished, is as imreasonable, as to say,
that the Canadians shall not be annexed tons, until
the land-monopoly, which oppresses so many of them,
is abolished. The calamities of neither the one, nor
the other, are to be allowed to work a forfeiture of
their rights.

Now, are the people of Cuba, in my sense of the
word people, in favor of uniting Cuba with our na-
tion? If they are, then, and only then, so far as Cuba
is concerned, am I in favor of it. Are the people of
the United States in favor of it ? I can answer for but
one of them : and my answer is, that I am. Why am
I ? I need not explain why, aside from the existence
of slavery in Cuba, I am in favor of the union— for,

890 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

aside from tliat, wlio are not in favor of it ? It is from
my conclusion, tliat tTie people of the United States
should be wilhng to unite with the people of Cuba,
even though Cuban slavery be not previously abolish-
ed, that so many dissent.

It is not because geographical, and commercial, and
various kindred considerations do so loudly call for the
blending of Cuba with our country, that, in spite of
my being an abolitionist, I go for it. It is because I
am an abohtionist, more than because I am anything
else, that I desire this blending.

With the slaves of no part of the world have I sym-
pathized more deeply than with the slaves of Cuba —
for theirs is the cruellest and most brutifying of all the
types of bondage. Practically, American slavery is
not so bad as Spanish ; though, in theory, it is more
absolute and abominable than any other. Happily for
its victuns, American slavery encounters, and is modi-
fied by, a higher civilization than that, which pervades
the dominions of Spain, and rejoices in bull-fights. As
an abohtionist then, and as one, who feels pity for
every slave, I should be glad to see the condition of
the slaves of Cuba bettered by the substitution of
American usages and American influences for Spanish
usages and Spanish influences. And who knows but
American laws, in regard to slavery, will, ere long, be
" rightly interpreted ?" The hope, (though not strong,)
that they may be, and the fact, that thereby American

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 891

slavery would be "■ short-lived," did somewliat encour-
age me, as the reader of the speech in question has
seen, "to risk the subjection of Cuban slavery to a
common fate with our own."

Again, as an abolitionist, I desire the annexation of
Cuba to our country, because that would end the con-
nection of Cuba with the Afi-ican slave trade; and
would, also, go far to end that trade, everywhere. I
do not forget the charge, that American slaveholders
are in favor of reopening that trade with this country.
But, I know, that the charge is nonsensical. Not only
does their interest forbid it : but. I do them no more
than justice when I say, that their civilization forbids
it. They have outgrown the barbarism of the African
slave trade. May they speedily outgrow other barbar-
isms, which fall but httle short of it !

I said, that, for having made the speech referred to
— I mean my speech on the Mexican Treaty — ^the
newspapers have called me a " filibuster." They have
called me " pro-slavery" also. But if to be in favor of
annexing Cuba to our nation makes me " pro-slavery"
then I have been "pro-slavery" for years, as those of
you know, who, for years, have heard me speak in
favor of it. I readily admit, that if I stood on the
platform, occupied by many anti-slavery men, and had
a creed made up of nothing else than " no more slave
territory," I should deserve to be stigmatized as " pro-
slavery" for consentmg to have Cuba come with her

392 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

slavery into our nation — for then, according to my own
creed, I slionld be " pro-slavery." But, I thank God,
that he has not left me to take my stand on that nar-
row platform, nor on any other like it. My anti-slav-
ery creed recognizes no law, anywhere, for the highest
possible crime against the interests, and rights, and
nature of man. In other words, I know no law for the
slavery, which exists in any of the present, or which
shall exist, in any of the future, territory of this
nation — no law for the enslavement of any one,
either in Cuba or America. I care not what Statute-
books, or even Constitutions, may say to the contrary.
To every man, who has a soul in him — ^to every man,
that is a man — ^truth and honesty are infinitely more
authoritative than Statute-books and Constitutions : —
and, by all, that is precious in truth and honesty, I will
never enforce as law, nor even know as law, against
another, that which, if apphed to myself, all, that is
within me, would scorn and scout as law.

The apprehension, that American slavery would be
made strong and enduring by the accession of Cuban
slavery, is not well founded. Such a new element in
our slavery might, for various reasons, contribute very
effectively to work the ruin of the whole. But, how-
ever this may be, who, that desires the overthrow of
American slavery, does not rejoice, that France and
England and other nations have, in our day, rid them-
selves of slavery, and arrayed their influence, if not

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 393

designedlj, nevertheless none the less effectually,
against American slavery ? And who of them should
not rejoice to see Spain also quit the pro-slavery party
— the party of pro-slavery nations — to join the anti-
slavery party, and the party of anti-slavery nations ?
But to rid her of Cuba is thus to change her relations
and influence. Let all the other nations of the earth
shake themselves of slavery — even though it be into
the lap of America. For were the whole of the foul
thing gathered there, no sympathy with it could be
found elsewhere ; and, hence, its years would be few;

I trust, that, in the hght of what I have said, the
injustice of calling me " pro-slavery "will be apparent.
Whilst he is "pro-slavery," who would extend slavery
over lands, where it does not exist, it does not follow,
that he is "pro-slavery," either in the aims, or in the
effect, of his policy, who would collect more of exist-
ing slavery under the same Government. The wish of
Caligula, that all the necks of the Eomans were brought
into one neck, that so he might have the pleasure of
decapitating his subjects at a single blow, was certainly
not a very amiable wish. But we would all excuse the
wish to have all the necks of slavery brought into one
neck, if that would facilitate the kilHng of the monster.

With this question of the annexation of Cuba our
patriotism has much to do, and in both directions.
Under its promptings, there are many, who would add
to the honor of our country, by adding to her territory ;

1 -r-x-

394 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

and, -ander its promptings, tliere are qnite as many,
wlio are unwilling to add to her dishonor, by adding
to her slavery. But neither in the one case, nor in the
other, are the promptings of patriotism to be trusted.
For patriotism is not a virtue, but a vice. Least of all,
is it a Christian grace. In all that compound of affec-
tions and interests, called patriotism, there is not one
element, which finds sanction in the lips or life of Jesus
Christ. Admit, if you please, that patriotism does not
exhibit the most revolting forms of selfishness. Never-
theless, it is nothing, even in its most attractive phases,
but modifications of selfishness. Philanthropy, and
not patriotism, should be permitted to decide the ques-
tion, whether we are at liberty to receive Cuba. No
pride of country, and no shame, that stands in connec-
tion with such pride, should be allowed any part, or
influence, in the decision. Our equal love to our bro-
ther, whoever he may be, and wherever he may be ;
whatever his comj)lexion or condition ; and whether
his home be on this side, or on that, of whatever
national boundary ; — ^it is this fraternal love, ever indis-
solubly connected with true fihal love toward his and
our common Father, which should, alone, be allowed
to decide the question whether, if Cuba wishes to come
to us, we will open our arms to receive her.

I close my letter with saying, that it is not the great
amount of slavery, that should most concern us. It is
rather the weakness of the force, arrayed against it.

FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS. 395

Did tlie anti-slavery men of our country occupy the
only true ground — ^th.8 ground, that there cannot, pos-
sibl}^, be any Constitutional, or other legal, shelter for
slavery — the ground, that the piratical system, which
robs its victims of every right, and exposes them to
every wrong, is, necessarily, an outlaw — it would be
comparatively unimportant, whether they had much,
or little, slavery to contend with. They would, surely
and speedily, triumph, in either case. However small
the amount of slavery, it will last forever, so far as
anti-slavery men are concerned, provided they continue
to acknowledge its legahty, and to busy themselves in
the folly of setting limits to this rampant, vaulting,
matchless crime. On the other hand, however large
the amount of slavery, it would quickly disappear
before the influences, which the anti-slavery men would
muster against itj were they to take the position, that,
within no limits, not even the narrowest, has slavery
any rights, or can it have any ; and that within no
limits, not even the narrowest, does it deserve anything
better than the sentence of outlawry and death, at the
hands of all mankind.

Let the anti-slavery men of om- country take this
position, and they will be no more afraid, than I am,
to have Cuban slavery come to us. Kay, they will
then bid it come : for they will then know, that if it
do come, it will come, not to be wedded to our slavery.

896 FINAL LETTER TO HIS CONSTITUENTS.

but to die with it : that it will come, not to a bridal;
but a burial.

Yery respectfully, yours,

Gereit Smith.

The following extract from a letter of Mr. Smith to
Wendell PhilLips, dated February 20, 1855, is a further
defence of his position in regard to the annexation of
Cuba to the United States.

*' The type of slavery in Cuba is, in some respects,
more terrible than in any other part of the world.
The family relation, which, elsewhere, softens the
horrors of slavery, is to a great extent, unknown
among the slaves of Cuba. The breeding of our own
slaves is an alleviating feature ta our slavery: and
slavery is light in the breeding States, compared with
what it is in the other States. Plantation after planta-
tion m Cuba has hundreds of males, and scarcely one
female. The condition and character of the laborers
on such plantations are, therefore, as brutal, as they
well can be. Agaia, so severe is the treatment of the
Cuban slaves, that they die under it, in a few years.
The slaves of our own country live, on an average,
more than thirtv vears. The slaves of Cuba much less

LETTEK TO WENDELL PHILLIPS. 897

than half tliat time : and, hence, as I pitj them, I wonld
have Cuba annexed. I would have her annexed too,
as I pity Africa, who is, every year, robbed of thou-
sands of her children to supply the murderous waste
of life in Cuba. But, more than all, do I desire the
annexation, because I believe it will contribute, mighti-
ly, to the overthrow of the whole system of American
slavery.

"1. It will change Spain into an anti-slavery nation:
and, then, not only will she be arrayed against Ameri-
can slavery, but other nations— especially France and
England — disembarrassed by her change, will be far
more cordially and effectively arrayed against it than
they have hitherto been.

"2. The Spanish troops, that, now, uphold slavery in
Cuba, will, then, be recalled ; and the Creole population
of more than half a million will, then, be the depend-
ence for maintaining slavery. But that population,
never having possessed political power, and, therefore,
ignorant how to use it ; having strong sympathies with
the quarter of a million of free blacks, both from being
legally intermarried with them to a considerable extent,
and from having but little more intelligence, (for the
free blacks have schools,) and also from other causes ;
would be but a poor dependence for maintaining slavery.
Indeed, where have Spanish Creoles proved their readi-
ness and ability to uphold slavery ? Certainly not in
Mexico and the South-American States. There they

898 LETTER TO WENDELL PHILLIPS.

proved tliemselves to be abolitionists, after they bad
escaped fi^om tbe control of tbe Spaniards. The truth
is, that the Spanish Creoles are too nearly on a level
with the free blacks, in point of circumstances and in-
telhgence, and, therefore, of power, to be rehed on to
uphold slavery. There must, in some important re-
spects, be a wide space between masters and slaves, or
the slaves cannot be kept in subjection.

"3. Cuban slavery is so different a thing from Amer-
ican slavery, that it cannot coexist with it, unless
brought into conformity with it. But to attempt the
conformity would be most strongly to invite an insur-
rection. The Cuban slave has the legal right to go,
every year, in quest of a new master. Moreover, it
rests with an of6.cer of the Government to fix his price,
in case of disagreement on that point. He has the legal
right to buy himself — ^to buy himself, all at once, or, in
parts — a quarter at one time, and a half at another —
as is most convenient for him. Then, again, if the
slave-mother shall pay a small sum (I believe but
twenty-five dollars,) before the birth of her child, the
child shall be free. Now, will the slaves — ^will the free
blacks — ^will the Creoles — suffer these merciful features
to be expunged from the system of Cuban slavery?
Certainly not, until much blood has been spilt. I add,
will the free blacks suffer their schools to be closed ? —
for the closing of them will be an indispensable part of
tlie conformity of Cuban slavery to American slavery.

LETTER TO WENDELL PHILLIPS. 899

"4. Bnt it will be said, that if a standing army of
twenty or tliirty thousand Spanish troops can maintain
slavery in Cuba, so, also, can a no greater standing
American army maintain it there. A several times
greater army than this will be required to sustain the
attempt to impart to Cuban slavery the absolute cha-
racter of our slavery. Arouse the hostility of the free
blacks, among whom are men of genius and educa-
tion ; combine with them the nearly half million of
slaves, the very large majority of whom are from Africa,
and are as barbarous, as when they left her shores;
and the victory to be achieved by our standing army
would be no easy one. A bloody grave for slavery
did these classes of men dig in St. Domingo : and a no
less bloody one may they dig for slavery in Cuba.
Moreover, that grave may be capacious enough for the
whole of American slavery. Let our infatuated slave
power get Cuba, if it can. I gTcatly mistake, if when
she shall have added these new elements to our popula-
tion, she does not find, that she has got more than she
contracted for. Ere leaving this head, I will say, that,
to propose, in the event of the annexation of Cuba, a
standing army for the maintenance of her slavery, is
sheer nonsense. The days of our slavery, if not, in-
deed, of our republic will be numbered, whenever we
shall adopt the policy of a standing army for uphold-
ing slavery.

"5. Havana is Cuba, as emphatically as Paris is

400 LETTER TO WENDELL PHILLIPS

France. Admit, that quietness — altliouglL, by tlie
way, it is an ever fearful and anxious quietness — is
maintained there. We should, nevertheless, remember,
that it is maiatained only by means of such a strict
and stern police, and such an iron despotism, as would
be impossible, amidst the institutions and influence of
our repubhc. Impose only republican restraints upon
Havana, and anarchy would quick spread through her,
and through the island.

"6. Let it not be said, that, because the slaves of
Louisiana and Florida passed quietly into our pohtical
jurisdiction, the slaves of Cuba will, also. Not to
speak of essential differences in their circumstances, the
former slaves were but a handfal, compared with the
latter.

"I say no more of the annexation of Cuba. Whilst I
hope, that it would help work the overthrow of slavery,
without violence ; I am confident, that it would help
work it, in some way."

L B T T E E

TO

FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

[This letter -was published by Mr. Douglass in his newspaper.]

Peterboro, August 28, 1854.

Fredeeick Douglass :

My Dear Friend: — I see, in jour last paper, your
letter to myself. I sliall take great pleasure in answer-
ing your questions, since you are of tlie number of
those, wliose wishes I am especially glad to gratify.

1. As you are aware, I went to Congress with
very little hope of the peaceful termination of Ameri-
can slavery. I have returned with less. I still see no
evidence, that the North will act effectually for such
termination — for I still see no evidence, that it will act
honestly for it. It is true, that I learn of anti-lSTebras-
ka indignation meetings, all over the North. But this
does not greatly encourage me. It is repentance, not
indignation, which the North needs to feel, and to

402 LETTER TO FEEDEEICK DOUGLASS.

manifest. It becomes not the Nortli to be angry with
the South about the Nebraska bill, or about any other
pro-slavery thing. Her duty is to confess her shame
and sorrow, that her political, ecclesiastical, and com-
mercial influence has gone to uphold slavery, and to
deceive the but-too-willing-to-be-deceived South into
the belief, that slavery is right, or, at least, excusable.
Had there been such confession, there would- have been
no Nebraska bill to get angry about, or to make party
capital of. Had there been such confession, the South
would have no heart to.extend slavery. All her con-
cern would have been to abolish it.

Now, for the North to be honest in the matter of
slavery, is to treat it as they would any other great
crime ;■ and, therefore, to deny, that there can be a law
for it. It is, in a word, to do unto others, in that
matter, as they would have others do unto them, in
it. Do the people of the North believe, that they
would honor and obey slavery, as law, should it ever
lay claim to their own necks? If they do not, then
they are dishonest, in acknowledging it to be law, when
others are its victims.

Is it said, that the honesty, which I here commend,
would exasperate the South? I answer, that it would
go far to conquer the South. Let the North say: ''We
have sinned against our enslaved brother, in acknow-
ledging, that the immeasurable crime against him is
capable of the obligations and sacredness of law.

LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 403

We will do so no more — ^whatever Constitutions and
Statutes may require of us, and however great tlie
losses we may suffer in our trade, and in our political
and religious party connexions." Let the North speak
such words of penitence and principle — and the South
will listen. <'When the JSTorthern heart begins to melt,
the Southern heart, also, will begin to melt^^

It is demonstrations of our honesty, not of our cun-
ning, which are needed to influence and convert the
South. The tricks, which Northern Legislatures have
resorted to, or threatened to resort to, for the purpose of
evading, or nullifying, the fugitive servant clause of the
Constitution and the fugitive servant statutes of Con-
gress, can have no tendency to inspire the South either
with the fear of us, or the love of us. I need not say it
for the ten thousandth time — ^that my eyes detect no
slavery in the Constitution, and that I utterly deny,
that the attempt to smuggle slavery into it was, at all,
successful. But the gTcat mass of the Northern people
widely disagree with me, at this point; and, hence,
Yfhat is required of them by the spirit of truth and the
God of truth is, not to practice indirection and fraud,
but frankly to acknowledge, that the South has their
bond, and that so wicked is the bond, that conscience
constrains them to refuse, at whatever hazard, to fulfil
it.

I referred to the fact, that my hope of the bloodless
termination of American slavery is less now than it

404 LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

was, wlien I went to Congress. I confess, tliat I did
liope to find some Southern men there, who are wilhng
to aid in bringing about such a termination. But I
found none of them, who are wilhng to hfb so much, as
a finger, to this end. A few Southern members of
Congress seek, by means of nonsensical and wicked
speculations on the nature of the African and on the
Divine.purposes, to persuade themselves, that slavery is
right in itself As a matter of course, such contend,
that slavery should endure forever. But even with the
mass of them, the case is very little more hopeful. It is
true, that they admit, that slavery is, in itself, an evil.
But they will do nothing to put an end to it. They
had rather amuse themselves with the notion, that
Colonization will drain it off, or with some other equal-
ly great absurdity — if, indeed, there is, or can be, any
other as great. The more, however, that I know of
this class of Southern men, the more satisfied I am,
that even those of them, who are the most deeply con-
vinced of the wrongfulness of slavery, regard the evil
as too formidable for their little courage to grapple
with. They are cowed in the presence of its magni-
tude : and they prefer to let it roll on to an indefinite
future, and to a posterity, which, they hope, will have
more advantages than now exist, for happily disposing
of it.

2. You ask, if the anti-slavery cause has anything
to hope for from the present Congress. It has not.

LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 405

What can Liberty hope from a Congress, that commits
so heinous a crime against her, as to pass the Nebraska
bill ? "What from a House of Eepresentatives, not fifty-
members of which dared to say, that they were in favor
of repealing the Fugitive Slave Act ?

8. You -wish my opinions of the influence of the
anti-slavery members of Congress. I had rather give
you my opinions of the members; and, then, you can
judge for yourself what must be the character and""
extent of the influence, which they exert. I take it
for granted, that you mean by anti-slavery members
those only, who are known as abolitionists, and who
accept the reproach of being abolitionists.

Chase is wise, learned, upright. He is an able
lawyer and an able statesman. His range of thought
and information is wide ; and, even without special
preparation, he can speak well on the subjects, that
come before him.

Sumner is not so read}^ and versatile, as Chase.
But put into his hands a subject, which interests his
heart — Peace or Freedom, for instance — and give him
time to elaborate it — and where is the man, who can
speak or write better? Sumner is as guileless and
ingenuous as a child: and, hence, my astonishment
at the base and ferocious feeling manifested toward
him, at one period of the session. Chase and Sumner
are gentlemen — Christian gentlemen. Great is my love
of them: and were I to add, "passing the love of

406 LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

women," I sliould not be guilty of great extrava-
gance.

Gillette lias been in the Senate but a short time: —
long enoTigli, however, to give evidence, that he has
a sound head and a sound heart. He loves the anti-
slaver j cause, as well as Chase and Sumner; and sur-
passes them in zeal for the no less precious cause of
temperance.

To come to the abolitionists in the House. All
know "Old Giddings." An able man is he. His
rough, strong, common sense is worth infinitely more
than the refinement and polish of which so many light-
minded men are vain. He is ready and powerful in
debate. An honest and fearless man, too, is he. I
shall never forget the many proofs which I witnessed
of his unflinching devotion to the right and the true.
If his severity upon slaveholders is, sometimes, excess-
ive, nevertheless it is not for them to complain of it-
He learned it of them. Or, to say the least, it is a
very natural retaliation for the wrongs and outrages,
which, for a dozen or fifteen years, they have been
industriously heaping upon him. Greatly do I rejoice
to see that the friends of freedom have taken him up
for another election to Congress. They honor them-
selves in honoring him. There should not be one vote
against him.

I must not fail to advert, in this connexion, to my
great obligations to Mr. Giddings for the assistance,

LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 407

wliich he so kindly and generously afforded me, in my
ignorance of tlie rules of tlie House.

We turn, next, to Edward Wade, of Ohio. A stranger,
looking over the House, would make no account of
that black little fellow, who sits in one corner of it.
But let him read Edward Wade's remarkably strong
speech on the Nebraska bill, or hear one of his pithy
five minutes speeches, and he will find that he has
another occasion for applying the Saviour's injunction :
"Judge not according to the appearance." Wade is an
eminently conscientious and rehgious man. I am glad
to see, that he, too, is nominated for another election to
Congress.- He should be, as often as he is willing
to take the nomination.

Colonel DeWitt of Massachusetts was sick much
of the session. All, who were so fortunate, as to
become acquainted with him, were impressed with his
good sense, generous disposition, and agTceable man-
ners.

As Davis of Ehode Island was chosen by the Demo-
cratic party, that party may not thank me for calling
him an abohtionist. Nevertheless, he is one. He has
a brother's heart for every human being, and that
makes him an abohtionist. I sat next to him, dm-ing
the whole session : and I esteemed it no small privilege
to sit, for so long a time, by the side of one, who is so
sincere, so affectionate, so philanthropic. Davis is a
plain, but forcible, speaker. The city of Providence

408 LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

owes Mm mucL. for his effective speeclies in behalf of a
large (perhaps, too large) appropriation for building
her custom-house.

I have, now, spoken of all the abolitionists in
Congress, save myself: and, since, in the judgment of
many, I have fallen from abolition grace, I had better
not speak of myself. Do not exult over my apostacy.
Even you, though a literally " died in the wool" aboli-
tionist, should rather be admonished by my apostacy to
take heed lest you yourself fall.

4. In answer to your fourth question, I would
say, that all the members of Congress, who belong to
the Whig or Democratic party, are necessarily " sup-
porters of slavery." Every national party in this coun-
try must be pro-slavery. The South will come into no
party, and abide in no party, that is anti-slavery. I
cheerfully admit, that there is many a Whig, and that
there is many a Democrat, earnestly anti-slavery.
ISTevertheless, their individual influence against slavery
is as nothing compared with their party influence /?r it.
As well may a man, with a mill-stone tied to his neck,
try to save his drowning fellows, as a Whig or a Demo-
crat try, under his heavy pro-slavery load, to promote
the anti-slavery cause. His anti-slavery endeavors,
however sincere, are all frustrated by his pro-slavery
party connexion: and that connexion must be dis-
solved ere he can give effect to those endeavors.
Our national parties, ecclesiastical, as well as political,

LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 409

once abolislied and the peaceful death, of slavery would
be a speedy event. But the great reason, why we are
denied the prospect of this happy event, is that the
members of these parties love them too well, and are
too far under their infatuating influence, to consent
to their abolition.

5. I proceed to answer your last inquiry. There
are in the House a number of gentlemen of remarkable
capacity and training for the transaction of business.
Conspicuously among them are Haven of New- York
and Orr of South-Carolina, and Phelps of Missouri —
all three of whom are not only judicious, and clear-
headed, but swift, in business. Breckenridge of Ken-
tucky is, perhaps, behind none of them. He gave us
but few specimens of his powers. They were suffi-
cient, however, to prove, that his very keen and vigor-
ous intellect is habituated to business. Judging from
the admirable discharge of his duties, as Speaker, Boyd
of Kentucky must be, in all respects, one of the best
business men in the House. Letcher of Yirginia,
and Jones of Tennessee, are as expert in stopping
business, as any members of the House are in doing it :
and to stop business is, oftentimes, more meritorious
and useful than to do it.

Chandler of Pennsylvania, is prominent among the
scholars of the House. Judge Perkins of Louisiana,
struck me ai? a gentleman of very great refinement,
both in mind and manner. F. P. Stanton has a rich
and beautiful mind. Its turn is as speculative, as
18

410 LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

K. H. Stanton's is practical. The former of these bro-
thers lives in Tennessee. The latter in Kentucky.
AVith the single exception of Eichard, who is all facts
nnd figures, the whole Stanton family, in several of its
generations, is highly poetical.

The House can boast of wits, also. E^ving of Ken-
tucky, is inferior to none of them.

I could name several members of the House who are
decidedly eloquent. Grov. Smith of Virginia, with his
lively mind, smooth and ready utterance, and various
other qualities, must be very effective " on the stump."
I wish Banks of Massachusetts, would lay hold of
themes worthy of his fine powers of oratory. He would
find it easier to be eloquent on them than on inferior
subjects. Indeed, a great cause is itself eloquence ; and
the most, which he, who speaks for it, needs to do, is to
stand out of its way, and let it speak for itself

Benton in respect to his remarkable fulness of poHti-
cal knowledge, and, in some other respects also, is, of
course, the great man of the House. But he is not the
only strong man there. There are more than twenty
in that body, who deserve to be called strong men.
There is no lack of talent in it. I wish I could add,
that there is no lack of morals and manners in it. But,
whilst some of the members are emphatically gentle-
men, in their spirit and in their personal habits, there
are more of them who use profane language, or defile
themselves with tobacco, or poison themselves Avith
mm. I trust, that tlie dav has alreadv dawned, in

LETTER TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS. 411

which, it will not be allowed, that gentlemen can be
guilty of such coarse and insulting wickedness, of such
sheer nastiness, and of such low and mad sensuality.
You were a slave, until you had reached manhood.
Hence, the world is surprised, that you have risen into
the highest class of pubhc writers and public speakers.
It is no less cause of surprise, however, that you are
a dignified and refined gentleman. Nevertheless,
gentleman, and scholar, and orator, as you are, there
are strenuous objections to your taking your seat in
Congress. How ludicrous a figure, in the eye of rea-
son, is that member of Congress (and there are more
than fifty such !) who, in one breath, swears, that he
would not so disgrace himself, as to sit by the side of
" Fred. Douglass ; " and who, in the next breath, squirts
his tobacco juice upon the carpet !

I became pretty well acquainted with nearly all the
members of the House. In very many of them there
was much to please me — much, indeed, to win my
affectionate regards. Nevertheless, I could not be blind
to the glaring fact, that Congress preeminently needs
to witness the achievements of the Temperance reform-
ation, and the Tobacco reformation, and the religion
of Jesus Christ. Your friend,

Gerrit Smith.

LETTER

TO

HON. H. C. GOODWIN.

The session that Mr. Smitli was in Congress, a bill
was reported in favor of tlie sufferers from Frencli
spoliations. Mr. Smitli took a deep interest ia it, and
hoped that it might be acted upon before the close of
the Session. But he hoped in yaia. The protracted
discussion on the Nebraska bill shut out many other
discussions. The following letter indicates Mr. Smith's
opinion of the merits of the French spoliation biQ.

* Peterboro, January 5, 1855.

Hon. H. C. Goodwik, M. C. :

Bear Sir : — I am happy to see, in the proceedings of
the House of Kepresentatives, the proposition to take
up the bni for the relief of the sufferers by French
spoliations. I am not among these sufferers: and, I
do not know, that I have a relative among them.
Nevertheless, I deeply desire the s\iccess of the bill.

414 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN.

Pardon me for asking you, to inquire into tlie merits
of tlie bill, if you have not done so already. I confess,
that I am all the more free to take this hberty, not
only from the fact, that you represent my Congressional
District, but from the fact, that you occupy the seat,
which the pressure of my far too extensive private
business compelled me to resign.

We must remember the condition of our country in
1778, in order to estimate rightly the value to her of
the treaties, which she made with France^ in that year.
The American cause was then strugghng through its
darkest period ; and, unless help should come, it could
never emerge. Help did come — ^timely and abundant
help. Those treaties brought it. France joined hands
with us. Our liberty was achieved : — and the Ameri-
cans, like the delivered Jews, " had light and gladness
and joy and honor."

But the deliverance of our country did not suffice to
fulfill all the obligations of those treaties. We were
bound to France, as strongly as France was bound to
us. France had served us : and it was, now, oui- turn
to serve her. But to serve her, as the treaties requir-
ed us to serve her, could only be at vast expense to
ourselves.

France stood faithfally by us, and expended, in our
cause, much blood, and some two or three hundred
millions of dollars. But when the hour of her necessi-
ties came, we did not stand by lier, as our Treaties re-

LETTEK TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. 415

quired us to do. She had abundant cause to complain
of us. But I adixiit, that she, soon after, afforded us
as abundant cause to complain of her. She pirated
upon our ships, and plundered our commerce. Not
ten milHons — ^perhaps not tvventy millions — could mea-
sure the damage, which she thus did us. It is true,
that she committed this crime, under great urgency —
under temptations not easily resisted. Europe was
combined against her : and she robbed our sliips to
save herself from starving. It is true, too, that she,
always, confessed the crime ; and, always, promised re-
paration, when she should be in circumstances to make
it. It is, also, true, that she did provide for it. She
provided for it, by releasing us from our obhgations to
herself, in consideration of our releasing her from the
claims of our citizens, whom she had plundered. She
ceased to be the debtor of those citizens : and our na-
tion became such debtor, in her stead. Our nation
came into this relation, by virtually taking private pro-
perty to pay a national debt — her debt to France. I
do not complain of her for doing so. I complain of
her dishonesty, in never paying for this private proper-
ty. Eepeatedly, has she been called on for pajonent,
both by those, who lost the property, _ and by their
children and children's children. Oftentimes, they
have come near success. Once, the bill for their relief
passed both Houses of Congress : and the chief reason,
if I recollect, why the President vetoed it, was, that

416 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN.

we needed all the money in tlie Treasury for prosecut-
ing our war with Mexico. I trust, that the time has
now come, when these petitioners for so long delayed,
so obvious, and so needed, justice will succeed in ob-
taining it.

But there are objections to the payment of the claims
in question. The first is, that were the claims valid,
they would have been paid, half a century ago. But
we must bear in mind the poverty, indebtedness, and
various embarrassments of our new-born nation, during
the first part of the present century. It was as difficult
to pay our debts then, as it is now easy. Moreover, it
must not be forgotten, that the principal proofs of the
validity of these claims lay undiscovered among the
files of the State Department, for some twenty-five
years. Had these proofs been brought to light, when
we had a fresh and strong sense of the much, which
France had yielded to us, in return for our exoneration
of her from the demands of our injured citizens, we
would have paid these claims, notwithstanding our
small ability, at that time, to pay them. In connexion
with my reference to the long concealment of the chief
proofs of the validity of these claims, I would state, that
of the twenty-five Congressional Eeports on these
claims, all, that were adverse to them, were three made
during that concealment.

The second objection to the payment of these claims
is, that, even if thev were valid, they are now quite too

LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. 417

old to be acknowledged and paid. Snch. was tlie ob-
jection, as long ago, as wlien tbe chief proofs in ques-
tion were discovered. Even tlien the sense of the im-
measurable value of what we had received from France
had, to a great extent, died out of the pubhc mind.
Even then, it was felt to be cheaper to turn the back
on these claims than to acknowledge and pay them.
But if the age of the claims was so influential an argu-
ment against them then, much more influential wfll it
be like to be now, when that age is doubled. But the
argument was not then, nor is it now, entitled to any
influence. At the bar of a sound conscience a just
claim is never outlawed — ^never obsolete — ^never stale.
We have been guilty of a very deep wrong, in not pay-
ing these claims, long ago. Shall we also be guilty of
taking advantage of our own deep wrong, and of making
our unjust delay to pay these claims an excuse for dis-
owning them, and casting them aside ?

Another objection to the paying of these claims is,
that they were provided for under treaties, subsequent
to the Convention of 1800 — namely, the Louisiana
Treaty ; the Florida Treaty ; and Eives' Treaty. My
answer to this objection is 1st that it is not true : 2d
that, if true, nevertheless the bill provides against pay-
ing any of these claims, so far as they are provided for
in those treaties: and 8d that, whether the objection
is true or false, the claims have not been paid.

Another objection ip, that the claims ore in the hands
18^- •

418 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN.

of speculators, wlio purcliased them at a great discount,
and, in many instances, for a mere trifle. To tliis ob-
jection I reply 1st that wherever the claims are, "we
should pay them : 2d that they are not in the hands of
speculators, but in the hands of the original claimants,
and their descendants, and the Insurance Companies,
which lost by the spoliations, and, also, to a small ex-
tent, in the hands of those, to whom they were trans-
ferred by the operation of bankrupt and insolvent laws :
3d that the bill provides, that the purchasers of any of
these claims shall be allowed no more than they paid
for them and the interest on what they paid.

Another objection is, that our treaties with France
were annulled by an Act of Congress in 1798 ; and
that, therefore, at the time of the Convention 'of 1800,
there were no treaties left to set off against our surren-
der of the claims of our wronged citizens upon France,
But that act did not have, and did not pretend to have,
a retrospective operation. Its language im^^lied the full
force of the treaties up to the time of the enactment,
and during most of the spoliations. Again, the act
could have no power to annul the treaties. It takes
as many to unmake a bargain, as it does to make it.
I>rothing is better settled than that one of the parties to
a treaty is incapable of rescinding it.

I pass on to consider the most relied on objection to
paying these claims. It is, that we were at war with
France, at, and after, the time, when they accrued ; that

LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN- 419

our treaties with lier were thereby annulled ; and that,
hence, Ve had not to purchase satisfaction of the treaties
by imdertaking to pay the debts of France, nor by
yielding any other consideration. But, in answer to
this objection, we say, 1st that Ave do not admit, that
these treaties could be annulled by war : 2d that we
were never at war with France — war never having been
declared — general reprisals never having been authoriz-
ed— the provisions of Congress being expressly opera-
tive, only "in case war should break out" — ^the Courts
of the two nations recognizing no war between them,
but both holding themselves open to the citizens of
both nations : 8d that if the Convention of 1800 did
not recognize, and abrogate, the treaties ; nevertheless,
as amended by the additional article, in which "the two
States renounce the respective pretensions, etc.," our
Government clearly became responsible to satisfy the
claims in question : 4th that, even if the treaties were
not in fact binding upon us, nevertheless we certainly
did discharge France from those claims, in order, that
we might be released from the treaties ; and that, hence,
it is not competent for us to devolve on the claimants
the loss of our bad bargain. "Whether the bargain was
good or bad, but for it the claims would liave continued
to exist against France, and would have been paid by
France.

Only one more objection to the payment of these

420 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN.

claims remains to be noticed. It is, that tlie claimants
were prosecuting tlieir business — were engaged in their
commercial pursuits — at tlieir own risk. But, if it was
at their own risk, nevertheless our Government was
bound to seek redress for the wrongs and losses, which
the claimants suffered. The Government did seek such
redress ; and it did obtain it. But it proved a faithless
agent. Instead of pa3dng over to its principals the in-
demnity, which it obtained for them, it put that indem-
nity into its own pocket, and kept it there. Moreover,
is it right to say, that the commerce in question was
carried on, at the sole risk of the claimants? By no.
means. There was not only the general obligation of
Government to protect, in all such cases ; — ^but in this
case our Government had especially bound itself to en-
deavor to get indemnity, for losses. At the time it did
so, our Government was so poor, as to be vitally inter-
ested in the continuance and extension of our foreign
commerce. Its empty Treasury was in the most urgent
need of the duties on imports. Accordingly, the Secre-
tary of State, Mr. Jefferson, upon the order of Presi-
dent Washington, issued a paper, as early as the year
1793, encouraging our merchants, who had embarked
in this business, to face its risks ; by promising them
the interposition of Government for their safety.

But I will bring my, perhaps, too long letter to a
close. We have seen, that the objections to these claims

•%

" LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. 421

are unreasonable, and, altogetlier, imwortlij of admis-
sion. We liaye seen, that, by every just consideration
they should be paid. Does the bill provide too large a
sum for their payment ? The sum is far too small. It
provides but five milhons of dollars, though the claims
amount, including interest, to probably thirty or forty
jnilhons of dollars. In the year 1800, our Ministers of-
fered a million and a half of dollars to purchase our re-
lease from tm) of the articles in our treaties with France.
But France would not have sold the release for treble
tha ' sum. She did, however, discharge us, from all our
treaty obhgations to her, in consideration of our dis-
charging her from these claims of our plundered citizens.
It is noteworthy, that the miUion and a half of dollars
amount, with the interest thereon, to far more than the
bill proposes we shall pay.

I must not omit to remind you, that the authority of
many of the greatest names in our early history — ^names
both of jurists and statesmen — even Marshall and
Madison and Jefferson — ^is on the side of the undoubted
justice of these claims.

In the name of justice, of humanity, of decency, let
not Congress again turn away these meritorious claim-
ants. If we are not willing to pay them ten millions,
let us, at least, be wiUing to pay them five. Let us
pay something on these claims, whilst, as yet, there are
gi'andchildren of the original sufferers to receive it.

422 LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN.

Most of those sufferers and tlieir immediate descend-
ants liave gone down to tlie grave : and, in many
instances, tlieir last years were years of bitter pov-
erty, because of our injustice. I repeat it, let us pay
them something, ere not only the original claimants,
and their children, but their grandchildren also, shall
have passed beyond the reach of our returning sense of
justice. Let me here remark, that our Government
has provided indemnity, to the amount of many mil-
lions, for other French spoliations on our commerce,
and for British, and Spanish, and Danish, and other yet
spoliations on it. But no provision has it made to re-
lieve the sufferers in this instance. Cruel discrimina-
tion ! — and as causeless as cruel ! I said causeless. It
is worse than this — ^for the claims before us are espe-
cially obhgatory — are peculiarly sacred.

But it is not alone from regard to the claimants, that
we should pay these claims. It is also due to the honor
and the heart of France. She inflicted a deep wrong
upon many of our citizens. It is true, that, at a great
price, she purchased reparation for this deep wrong.
But the reparation was never made : — and, until it is,
not only will her sense of humanity be pained, but her
merit, in purchasing the reparation, will lack its crown-
ing glory. I scarcely need add, that our own nation
wiU be dishonored in the eyes of other nations, until
we shall have performed this duty, which France

LETTER TO HON. H. C. GOODWIN. 423

boTiglit US to perform ; wliich, now, whilst our Trea-
sury is overflowing, it is so easy to perform ; and wliicli
cannot be postponed again, without manifesting a
stranger insensibihty than ever to the calls of justice
and humanity.

Respectfully yours,

Gerrit Smith.

627

^M

.^^'

X ^

.0 'O ' 0 ^ x

-^

I'

/'

o"^'

^^.

.'^*

'

~'J'

,<;-

c-

V'

^'

a=

v^'

%■

-

^

v ,

'^ _

' .V

<, s

<^^

-^H

y

>'^

/■

■^A

0^

,-0

^>^

0^

^

.^^

^r.

■-. \

>

n-

■!i

rt^

'o_^ '

0'

■7-

s ' '

^N.

c-

^^'

^^.

<^'

■^^

^^

Vx-'

,^^-^"%

^N'

•>%- v'

^^

- '-P

V V

.- \ 1 «

V 1

':%*'-^^-'

.1.^'%

-^-0^

<=^^ - -y

■"-. ' , -^

^'-■^

*

3

^ V-

.%

% 4^

r^ -a

^ V?

.-^

^<-, -^

.•<

^^

^A ^

'^^' -'

''^,

ci-.

^.

^- ^

-Ta

o\

'

^

w

^;- ^

^^.

^

1 ^"

\> s ^ '

*■ r

X

>*

'%

\^.'

\

"^^

.^^^

"^^>

<^^

aV<5-.

.-■J.^

>

i

'j! !ifif i?Vi^;