that I have for a "Choctaw council," and about as much reverence for this sort of ermine as I have for an Indian blanket.

Well, sir, the case had progressed to this point, when Mr. Ewing determined to pay it; but with that true cunning which is a part of himself, he determined to put the Attorney-General between him and danger; so he called on him for his legal opinion. And here is the opinion of the learned gentleman, in all its length and breadth, height and depth. See it, sir, in all its vast proportions-its latitude and longitude, and be silent while I read, all ye ends of the earth! Listen!

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

WASHINGTON, January 3, 1850.

SIR: In the cases of the claim of the Chickasaw nation against the United States, and of Messrs. Corcoran and Riggs, as assignees of William M. Gwin, submitted by you to this office, I have formed an opinion, after careful consideration, which my other engagements prevent my doing more at this time than barely stating. Should it be your wish, I will avail myself of the very first leisure to assign my reasons.

1st. I am of opinion that the account of the nation is to be considered now as having been properly opened and restated, and that the balance found due by the accounting officers of $112,842, is properly chargeable to the appropriation for the subsistence

and removal of Indians.

2d. That the last contract with William M. Gwin, assigned to Corcoran and Riggs, is valid, and that out of the fund payable to the Chickasaws under the first head, whatever balance is due under that contract, should be paid to Corcoran and Riggs. With regard, your obedient servant,

REVERDY JOHNSON.

Hon. T. EWING. Shades of our fathers defend us! Was there ever such an opinion in such a case? Here is a case involving an immediate payment of $112,842, and contingently a vastly larger sum. A case which has been decided against by some of the purest officers and ablest lawyers in the Union. Its history covers a period of some twelve or fourteen years, and is written on five hundred pages of foolscap, and the Attorney-General disposes of it in two short sentences: "I am of opinion that it ought to be paid." "I think Corcoran and Riggs ought to have half the money." y." There it is, well and nobly said. This learned opinion convinced the distinguished Secretary, and he penned this important paper Veni, vidi, vici. See, sir, it is short, and exactly to the point. To use the poetic phrase of Mr. Winthrop, "it is as brief as the posy on a lady's ring." Harken! all yea of little faith!

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, January 4, 1850. The account will be stated, and the payment made in accordance with the Attor ney-General's opinion within.

T. EWING, Secretary.

This had well-nigh ended the whole matter; but the Chickasaws were importunate. They interposed Johnson's affidavit and other like documents. Ewing hesitated; the thing looked barefaced. He may for once in his life have felt that there was such a thing as conscience. Again he called the learned Attorney-General to his aid, and that distinguished functionary, with a promptitude and power which few men can master, responded in the following learned, powerful, and convincing argument:-

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

7th March, 1850. SIR: In compliance with your request of the 8th January last, I have reëxamined

the cases of the Chickasaw nation against the United States, and of Corcoran and Riggs, assignees of William M. Gwin, upon which I gave you an opinion on the third of that month, and have most carefully considered the additional evidence and the arguments of the counsel for the parties concerned, and see no reason to change the opinion referred to.

Indeed the effect of the recent evidence is to satisfy me more fully, that that opinion was right; and I therefore again advise you accordingly.

The press of business upon me still continuing, I must wait until the final adjournment of the Supreme Court before I can give in detail the reasons which have led me to the conclusion to which I have come. Should you then desire it, they will be submitted with pleasure.

I have the honor to be, with great regard, your obedient servant,

Hon. THOMAS EWING, Secretary of the Interior.

REVERDY JOHNSON.

This was conclusive; the Secretary was overcome; the attorneys stood aghast; the Indians were floored; the money was paid; Corcoran and Riggs felt comfortable; Dr. Gwin was satisfied, and the scene closed. I drop the curtain over the transaction with this single remark: Before many years shall have passed by, we will be called on to refund this money to the Chickasaws.

THE OTHER SIDE OF "THE TRUE ISSUE
STATED."

A PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY THE HON. ALBERT G. BROWN UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850.

Two pamphlets, of thirty-two pages each, have recently made their appearance in great numbers among the people. These publications are entitled "The True Issue Stated, by a Union Man," and they do me such gross injustice that I feel called upon to notice them. If the man in the mask, who styles himself "A Union Man," would throw off his disguise and appear in his real person, I should doubtless be spared the trouble of answering his gross perversions of truth. An exposure of his name and face would be the most conclusive proof that justice and fair dealing are not to be expected at his hands.

The author of these pamphlets introduces my name in various places and connections, and it shall be my purpose to show how grossly he has perverted, or attempted to pervert, my acts and words.

1st. Reference is made to the introduction of a bill by Mr. Preston of Virginia, to admit, as a state, into the Union, the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico (to wit, California, Utah, and New Mexico), and an attempt is made to produce the impression that I contemplated voting for this proposition. The truth is that I spoke against it, and no one can read my speech without seeing at once that I never could have voted for Mr. Preston's bill, without having it amended in its most essential features. I spoke on the 10th of February, 1849 (see page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe). In that speech I said:

"All our propositions were voted down as they were successively presented, and by that party which claims a right to undivided dominion over these territories. I

never have, and never shall assent to the justice of this claim, and hereafter I will vote to maintain the rights of the South in their broadest latitude, unless I shall plainly see that by an honorable and manly surrender of a portion of these rights, peace may be secured, and the Union rescued from its present perilous condition."

It suited the purpose of "A Union Man" to leave this out. To have included it would have been to show the true temper of my speechthat I never would consent to give up the whole of the territories to the North. Then, as ever since, and before, I was ready to occupy the territories jointly with the people of the North, and if this could not be done, to divide them fairly. The North claimed the whole. "I never have, and never will, assent to the justice of this claim."

With amendments to Mr. Preston's bill, such as would effectually have insured the South justice in the territories, I would have voted for it; without these it never could have commanded my support.

"A Union Man" entirely overlooks the important fact that Preston's bill proposed to confer on the people of California, by act of Congress, the power to erect a state. I spoke against this at length, and yet the singular inference is drawn, that I ought to have voted for the admission of California, erected as she was into a state without the authority of Congress or of any other legislative body. It may be well seen how I could have voted to confer on the people of California the right to form a state government, and yet, how, without inconsistency, I should oppose her admission when she sought it on the authority alone of irresponsible and unauthorized persons. It did not suit the jaundiced eye of "A Union Man," to see the difference between the two propositions. Suppose I had even voted for Preston's proposition, to confer on the people of California the power to erect a state government, would it thence have involved me in an inconsistency to vote against the admission of a state, erected without authority, and by persons having no more right to do so than a nation of Hottentots? But the truth is, I did not vote for the one or the other of these propositions, nor did I contemplate doing 80 at any time.

I submit the following extracts from my speech on Preston's bill. Read them, and ask yourself what was "A Union Man's" intention in suppressing them :

*

*
*

"Here is a conquered people, possessing as yet, no political rights under our laws and Constitution, because not yet admitted to the rights of citizenship, and, what is worse, possessing no practical knowledge of the workings of our system of government, and knowing nothing of our institutions. The substantial question is, shall such a people give laws to our territories, and shape and mould their institutions for the present, and possibly for all time to come. * The gentleman's bill gives to every white male inhabitant, over the age of twenty-one years, the right to vote, whether Spaniard, Mexican, Swede, Turk, or what not. I submit to my honorable friend whether it would not be respectful, to say the least of it, towards his constituents and mine, to require these people, before they pass final judgment on our rights, to make an intimation in some form that they intend to become CITIZENS, as well as inhabitants of the United States." (See page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe, 1849.)

*

* *

It will be seen from these extracts, and more clearly by reading the whole speech, what my opinion of Mr. Preston's bill was, and that without amendments, such as should have avoided my objections, and given the South a hope of justice, I never could have voted for it. I confess to have felt then, as at all times, before and since, a strong anxiety to

see the question settled upon terms fair and just to all parties, and in this spirit I said in my speech on Preston's bill: "I am prepared to go to that point where conflicting interests and opinions may meet, and adjust this dangerous issue upon terms honorable to both sides, and without any undue sacrifice by either party." Preston's bill did not go to that point. I made my speech to show that it did not. If it had been so amended as to reach the point designated, then I should have voted for it. Without this, my speech shows that my vote would have been given against it.

2d. The second point made by "A Union Man," is based on what he calls the memorial of the Senators and Representatives from California. I know nothing of this memorial, and care less. My statement was made on the authority of eye-witnesses in the country at the time the so-called California constitution was formed, and upon the better authority of General Riley's published proclamation. Upon these I stated, what is true, that thousands of foreigners were authorized to vote, and that they did vote. I make no qualification to the general declaration that the constitution of California was made by unauthorized personsthat among them were foreigners not speaking our language, knowing nothing of our laws, and caring nothing for our rights.

3d. "A Union Man" next takes issue with me on my statement that "the fugitive slave bill," the same that is now the law of the land, is not, and never was, one of the " compromise bills." I repeat now, that it was not, and that it never was, a part of Mr. Clay's omnibus, or general compromise bill. "A Union Man" knows perfectly well, if he knows anything at all on the subject, that the fugitive slave bill, the one that passed, did not come from the hands of Mr. Clay, or the hands of any other compromise man. He knows that Mr. Mason of Virginia, a friend of southern rights, and a bitter opponent of the compromise, introduced this bill, and that it was supported and carried through the Senate and House of Representatives, by Southern votes, and that without the votes of Southern Rights Democrats, it never could have been passed through either House of Congress. He knows that the Fugitive Slave Bill got but thirty-three Northern votes, three in the Senate, and thirty in the House. All the rest, one hundred and forty-four in number, either voted against it, or fled from their seats to avoid the responsibility of voting. All these things "A Union Man" knows perfectly well. Why conceal the facts if he did not mean to deceive the people?

The Fugitive Slave Bill is not a gift from the North, either as a part of the Compromise or otherwise. It was introduced by an Anti-compromise Southern Rights Democrat, and it was carried through both Houses of Congress by Southern votes, and without the aid of the ENEMIES of the Compromise it never would have passed.

4th. The fourth point made against me is that I was a member of a committee in Congress that reported a bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia, in 1849. It is true that I was a member of the committee, made so by the Speaker, without my consent; but it is not true that I reported the bill, or even consented to its being reported. It is not true that I voted for it after it was reported, or ever consented or promised to vote for it.

In this, as in other cases, a "A Union Man" publishes what he calls

extracts from my speeches, taking care to suppress every word that does not suit his purpose. Why were paragraphs like these left out:

Mr. Brown said, "he had always believed that in his representative character, he was called upon to represent the expressed will and wishes of the people of the District of Columbia, having, at the same time, due regard to the rights of the people of the several states, and to the restrictions of the Constitution of the United States." And again, he did not believe that the strong party in Congress had a right to pass any law for the District without respect to the wishes of the people of the District, and without respect to the Constitution and the rights of the people outside of the District, but that in all this branch of their public charge they should have an eye strictly to the Constitution and to the rights of the whole people." And then again: "In acting upon a petition from the people of this District, his first object was to inquire how far he might go and still remain within the limits of the Constitution, and then how far he might go without infringing upon the deed of cession from Maryland and Virginia. These limits being ascertained, he should be prepared to go for any law desired by the people of the District, which did not require these fixed limits to be transcended."

These passages have been omitted by a "A Union Man." He could not show them, without disclosing the fact that then, as now, I insisted upon an observance of the constitutional rights of the whole people. Were these rights respected when Congress enacted that the master's slave "should become liberated and free," if he took him to the District, "for the purpose of selling him?"

I extract again from the same speech:

Mr. Brown said: "If gentlemen desire it of him, he would now tell them that he felt the necessity, on the part of the South, of standing together upon every question involving the right of property in slaves, the slave trade, and Abolition in all its forms. He knew that they must stand together for defence: therefore, as the South vote so he should vote, till the pressure from without should be withdrawn. The South acted together upon the principle of self-protection and self-preservation. They stood for protection against destruction and annihilation. He knew not the motive which prompted this outward pressure; he felt its existence, and he knew that the South acted purely on the defensive; they merely warded off the blow directed against their peace-their lives. Such were his motives for voting with the South. And he now said to all who were opposed to him or his country, Withdraw your pressure; cease to to agitate this question; let us alone; do whatsoever you think be right without endangering us, and you will find that we, too, are ready to do right." Mr. Brown trusted he had not been misunderstood; for it was known that, to a Southern member, this was a delicate question. He had expressed his honest viewsviews which he desired to carry out in good faith. He did very well know, that if the South were let alone-if they were not positively ill-treated, the North might be assured they would come up and do what was right. They stood together now for their own preservation, and nothing less than unity in their councils could be expected of them in the present crisis. If individual members did not always vote exactly according to their views of right upon these questions, it was because of this known, and now universally acknowledged, necessity of unity and concert among ourselves. When a sleepless and dangerous enemy stood at our doors, we felt the necessity of acting together. Let that enemy withdraw-let us out into the open sunshine, where we could look upon the same sun that you look upon-where the air, the land, the water, everything could be seen in common, and enjoyed in common-and we should be ready to meet you as brethren, and legislate with you as brethren. But so long as you keep up this pressure, these endless, ceaseless, ruthless assaults upon us, we must stand together for defence. In this position we must regard you as our enemies, and we are yours.

These, and other kindred expressions, were meanly suppressed, because it would not do to disclose the fact, that then, as now, I stood by the South, and with the South, in the defence of Southern interests, Southern rights, and Southern honor.