enactment of these laws, are protected in the enjoyment of all their civil rights, but they are not placed upon an equality with the whites. They are not permitted to serve on juries, or in the militia, or to vote at elections, or to exercise any other political rights. They are recognized as inhabitants, and protected as such in all their rights of person and property. While we protect those who are there, and their posterity, we do not intend to be inundated by colonies of negroes from other states, sent to us in order to get rid of the trouble of them at home.

It is for this reason that Illinois has adopted this system of legislation, and, having adopted it, we do not desire to insist on it unless it is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. We are willing to have that question tested. We invite any gentleman who deems it right to oppose these laws to bring his suit. We will furnish him all facilities for having the question decided, and then we shall know whether the right exists or not. I would much have preferred this question should have arisen between two of the free states of the Union, when there would have been no prejudices or sectional jealousies, or other improper motives to enter into it to bias our judgment and excite our passions, than to see it arrayed here as one of the sectional questions between the North and the South."

On the 16th of September this bill was passed-yeas 33, nays 19. All these bills were acted upon favorably by the House, and were approved by the President.

Pending the question on the passage of this last bill, the following remarks were made in the debate:

Mr. Benton. I wish this morning to make a remark which is called for by what has taken place. I am one of those who insisted, both as a matter of right and as a matter of expediency, that certain bills, commonly called the Omnibus, should be separated, and treated on their own merits. I was answered by arguments of expediency, that the bills would pass sooner all together, and that thereby a better effect would be produced in settling the public mind. I disagreed with those arguments, and I then brought upon myself a great deal of censure in some parts of the country, and especially in my own state. The thing is now over; the votes have been taken, and the results tell what history will tell, that I was right in every thing that I said. We have had votes upon every subject, and, when separated, every subject passed-passed quickly, without a struggle, and by a great majority; and the effect on the public mind has been just as sedative as if the whole dose had been taken at once; and, sir, when we come to look into the yeas and nays on the four leading measures, the admission of California, the Territorial government for Utah and New Mexico, and the settlement of the Texan Boundary question, we find that the yeas who voted for all the four measures amount to just seventeen! and, counting in one who was absent (Mr. Clay), they would have been just eighteen-eighteen out of sixty. That there may be no mistake about it, I will read the names, so that, if I am wrong in any particular, I may be corrected. Those who voted for all the measures are Messrs. Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Cooper, Dodge, Dickinson, Douglas, Felch, Houston, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Shields, Spruance, Sturgeon, Wales, and Whitcomb-just seventeen, and the one absent would make eighteen. And that I hold to be the true strength of the Omnibus Bill, as proved by the result when every memberw as at liberty to vote precisely as he thought right, uninfluenced by any other consideration than what belonged to the bill itself. Then, with respect to the committee of thirteen, I find there were only five of them voting for the whole of these measures; and I will read their names,

so that, if there be any mistake, I may be corrected: they were Messrs. Bright, Cass, Cooper, Dickinson, and Dodge of Iowa. So that there were only five of the committee out of thirteen who voted for all of these bills; one of them (Mr. Webster) being absent by reason of accepting a cabinet appointment, and another for his health. Now, sir, the majority by which these bills passed severally were these: Utah by a majority of eighteen; Texas Boundary by a majority of ten; California by a majority of sixteen; and New Mexico by a majority of seventeen. I give these results for the purpose of justifying myself in standing out for what I considered to be a parliamentary law in originally wishing to separate all these bills, and I now say that the result has confirmed every thing I said upon this floor.

Mr. Dodge of Iowa. I rise for the purpose of correcting the senator from Missouri. I wish to say, as a historical fact, that I was not one of the committee of thirteen.

Mr. Benton. Ah! then that makes my position so much the stronger, and reduces the number to four out of the whole thirteen.

Mr. Davis of Mississippi. While gentlemen are dividing the honors that result from the passage of these bills, either in a joint or separate form, I have only to say that, so far as I am concerned, they are welcome to the whole. I do not represent that public opinion which required the passage of them, either jointly or separately. If any man has a right to be proud of the success of these measures, it is the senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas). They were brought before the Senate by the committee, which it is claimed has done so much for the honor of the Senate and the peace of the country, merely stuck together-the work of other men, save and except the little bill to suppress the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. I merely wish to say that, so far as the public opinion of the community which I represent has been shadowed forth in public meetings and in the public press, it has been wholly adverse to the great body of these measures. I voted for one-that which the senator from Virginia originated, and which was modified in the Senate till I thought, as far as we could make it so, it became efficient for the protection of our rights. That was the only one which met my approval.

MR. DOUGLAS ON THE COMPROMISE AFTER ITS ADOPTION.

During the summer and fall of 1851 an animated contest for governor had taken place in Mississippi; Mr. Foote had been the candidate of those who in that state approved those measures, and he had been elected. His duties as governor did not commence until January; he therefore appeared in the Senate at the opening of the session in 1851-'2, and on the 4th of that month submitted a resolution declaring that, in the opinion of Congress, the measures of adjustment adopted in 1850 were a settlement of the questions embraced in them, and which ought to be respected and acquiesced in, etc.

Immediately after the adjournment of Congress after the passage of the compromise measures in 1850, Mr. Douglas returned to Illinois. The Northern country had been greatly agitated and excited by the misrepresentations of the terms, character, and requirements of the Fugitive Slave Act. It was

vehemently denounced, and had but few willing or competent defenders. When he arrived in Chicago, that city was in a tempest of abolition fury. The excitement was general, and the vast majority of the people had been led to believe that the act was really and truly of the infamous character that was represented by the abolitionists. The city council, yielding to the storm, had passed resolutions denouncing the act as a violation of the Constitution of the United States and of the law of God, and those senators and representatives who voted for it, and also those who were absent, and, consequently, did not vote against it, as traitors, Benedict Arnolds, and Judas Iscariots. The council also released the "citizens, officers, and police of the city" from all obligation to assist or participate in the execution of the law, and declared that "it ought not to be respected by any intelligent community." On the next night a mass meeting of the citizens was held for the purpose of approving and sanctioning the action of the Common Council, and organizing violent and successful resistance to the execution of the law. A committee reported to this meeting a series of resolutions more revolutionary in their character, and going to a greater extent in resisting the authority of the federal government than even those of the Common Council. Numerous speeches in support of the resolutions were received with boisterous and furious applause, pledging their authors to resist even unto "the dungeon and the grave."

Mr. Douglas appeared upon the stand, and stated that, in consequence of the action of the Common Council and the phrensied excitement which seemed to rage all around him, he desired to be heard before the assembled people of the city in vindication of all the measures of adjustment, and especially of the Fugitive Slave Law. He said he would not make a speech that night, because the call for the meeting was not sufficiently broad to authorize a speech in defense of those measures; but he would avail himself of that opportunity to give notice that on the next night he would address the people of Chicago upon these subjects. He invited men of all parties and shades of opinion to attend and participate in the proceedings, and assured them that he would answer every objection made, and every question which should be propounded, touching the measures of adjustment, and especially the Fugitive Bill. After farther discussion, and much confusion

and opposition, the meeting was induced to adjourn, and hear Mr. Douglas's defense before they would condemn him. In the mean time, the excitement continued to increase, and the next night (October 23) a tremendous concourse of people assembled by far the largest meeting ever held in the city-and Mr. Douglas delivered a speech in defense of the Fugitive Slave Act and other measures. The meeting then resolved unanimously to faithfully carry into effect the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law, and to perform every other duty and obligation under the Constitution of the United States. The meeting also adopted, with only eight or ten dissenting voices, a resolution repudiating the action of the Common Council, and then adjourned with nine cheers-three for Douglas, three for the Constitution, and three for the Union.

In the debate on the resolution of Mr. Foote, Judge Douglas entered into an explanation of the causes which produced his absence at the time when the vote was taken on the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law, and also of his votes for the Wilmot Proviso. Although these explanations were made more than a year subsequent to his speech before the Chicago meeting, it is deemed appropriate to include them here, and to follow them up by the speech which is so frequently referred to in them. This speech embraces a concise history of his previous action upon the subject of slavery.

On the 23d of December, 1851, Mr. Foote's resolution being under consideration, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate as follows:

WHY HE DID NOT VOTE FOR THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.

The senator from Texas (Mr. Houston), in the course of his speech, took occasion to say that he was the only senator now holding a seat upon this floor who voted for all the measures of compromise. That may be so, for aught I know to the contrary. But the inference drawn from that remark, and the distinct idea conveyed by it, do great injustice to me, and perhaps to other senators. I voted, sir, for all the measures of the compromise but one; and I undertake to say, in regard to that one, that it was well known to the Senate before the measure passed, and at the time it passed, and has been distinctly proclaimed to the country since, that I would have voted for the Fugitive Slave Law if I could have been in the Senate at the time, and that I was anxious to be here for the purpose of casting that vote. I say it was distinctly known, because I had so declared in debate prior to the passage of that act; because every senator on both sides of the chamber who conversed with me knew that I was friendly to the measure; and because, when I returned home, before my own constituents, I assumed the responsibility of an affirmative vote upon the bill. Yes, sir, the imputation has been repeatedly made by implication on this floor, and in express terms by the partisan jour

nals, that all those whose names are not recorded on the passage of the bill dodged the question! Whatever political sins I may at any time have coinmitted, I think I may safely assert that no senator ever doubted my willingness to assume the full measure of responsibility resulting from my official position. The dodging of votes-the attempt to avoid responsibility-is no part of my system of political tactics. And yet, sir, the special organ of the administration has on several occasions accused me, in connection with the distinguished senator from Michigan, with having dodged the vote on this bill. In order to put this accusation to rest, once for all, now and forever, I have concluded to give a detailed account of the circumstances which occasioned my absence at the time the bill passed, although it may subject me to the mortification of exposing my private and pecuniary affairs to the public view. I had a pecuniary obligation maturing in New York for near four thousand dollars, in payment of property which I had purchased in Chicago. Apprehending that my public duties with reference to these very compromise questions might render it improper to leave the city when the day of payment arrived, I made an arrangement with Mr. Maury, President of the Bank of the Metropolis, to arrange the matter for me temporarily until my official duties would enable me to give it my personal attention. Feeling entirely secure under this arrangement, I thought no more of it until, on the day the debt became due, I received a note from Mr. Maury, expressing his deep regret and mortification that, in consequence of the unexpected absence of a majority of the directors of his bank on that day, he was unable to carry out the arrangement. I thus found myself suddenly placed in the position in which I was compelled to go to New York instantly, or to suffer my note to be protested, and the commercial credit of my endorser to be greatly impaired. I immediately passed around the chamber, and inquired of several senators on each side friendly to the Fugitive Bill whether I could venture to be absent three or four days for the purpose of attending to this item of business, and I received from them the uniform answer that the discussion would continue at least a week, and probably two weeks longer, before the voting could begin. Relying implicitly upon this assurance, I went from the Senate Chamber directly to the cars, and, riding all night, arrived in New York the next day. Meeting several Illinois friends there, I was enabled to meet the obligation, and avoid a protest during the three days' grace allowed me by law. While dining with these friends at the Astor House on the day I had concluded my business, one of them alluded to the fact that the Fugitive Bill had been ordered to be engrossed for a third reading in the Senate. I expressed my surprise, and doubted the correctness of the statement. He then showed me the paper containing the telegraphic announcement, when I immediately rose from the table, and told my friends that I must leave for Washington that afternoon, in order to be able to vote for the bill on its final passage the next day. I left New York in the five o'clock train that afternoon, and, after riding all night, on my arrival here the next day, I found that the final vote had been taken the day previous. I immediately consulted with my colleague, now present (Mr. Shields), who authorizes me to say that he distinctly recollects the conversation in which I expressed my deep regret that I could not have arrived here in time to vote for the bill, and that I intended then to ask of the Senate permission to explain the cause of my absence; in reply to which my colleague suggested that such an explanation would be entirely unnecessay, for the reason that it was well known to the Senate and the country that I was in favor of the bill; and for the further reason that in all probability the bill would undergo some amendment in the House of Representatives, which would require its being returned to the Senate for concurrence, when I would have an opportunity not only of speaking, but of voting for the bill. I acquiesced in this suggestion of my col