President to direct the use of the money without an appropriation first made by Congress. Does the gentleman regard contributions of this character as money in the treasury, within the meaning of the Constitution? If so, he and I differ widely on that point. I regard it as property captured of the enemy, to be used, if need be, in conquering that enemy, and to be accounted for in no otherwise than as other captured property. Suppose General Scott had captured in the city of Vera Cruz a thousand barrels of flour and fifty thousand cartridges: could he not have used these articles in prosecuting the war without the special leave of Congress? Suppose his soldiers had wanted bread-suppose, in the midst of the action, his cartridges had given out: must he say to the hungry soldier, You shall not eat, Congress has not consented that you should consume this captured bread, and I have no other? or must he cease firing in the midst of the action, because he cannot shoot a captured Mexican cartridge until Congress has given its consent that it may be thus used? Gentlemen smile, and well they may, for nothing can appear more ridiculous, unless it be the proposition gravely put forth by the gentleman from North Carolina, that if General Scott had been without bread, without transports, and without munitions of war, he could not purchase them with this Mexican money in his hands until Congress had first appropriated it. The contribution was levied as a means of distressing the enemy; and, in my judgment, the levy was right. It was used, when collected, in subsisting our army; and there could have been no better disposition made of it. I am satisfied with the whole affair, and I make no doubt the country is satisfied.

The gentleman from North Carolina has led me off from the points I was discussing. I was about to show, when the gentleman interposed, that my friend from New York was wholly mistaken in the assumption that the people, at the late presidential election, had condemned the independent treasury, the revenue tariff of 1846, and other kindred Democratic measures. Let us take the independent treasury by way of illustration: the gentleman says it was condemned in the election of General Taylor. I pass by the point that General Taylor, so far as the world knows, is as much for as against this measure; and I give the gentleman the full benefit of his claim, that all the votes polled for the General have pronounced against the independent treasury--and then how stands the case? General Cass was known to be in favor of this measure. Mr. Van Buren claims to have been its father; and however he may have strangled other of his political offspring, he has ever shown an abiding parental affection for this. Now, it so turns out that the two friends of the measure have, together, polled a popular majority of one hundred and fifty-two thousand votes over General Taylor. And, sir, if it be true, as has been asserted by my honorable friend, that this great measure was an issue, and that the people voted in reference to it, then has it triumphed, and it now stands before the world endorsed by the approving voice of a popular majority of more than one hundred and fifty thousand free American electors. And what I say of this measure is equally true of all the others enumerated by the honorable gentleman.

Mr. HUNT inquired if the gentleman intended to claim the vote for Van Buren and Adams as part of the Democratic vote? If he chose to figure out a majority in that way, it was not for him to interfere.

Mr. BROWN. I claim them on the gentleman's own assumption that the independent treasury, the revenue tariff, and other Democratic measures were in issue, and that the late presidential election had been conducted in reference to those issues. This being the case, I maintain that the friends of these measures have polled the largest popular vote by one hundred and fifty thousand, and that the measures are therefore triumphant before the people, and have only been defeated in the electoral college by a division among their friends.

Just here the gentleman would, I have no doubt, be glad to interpose the Free-soil issue, and I might justly deny his right to do so, since he made a speech closing seven minutes before the expiration of his allotted hour, and wholly neglected to mention the question of Free-soil. The gentleman found time to mention almost every conceivable question that was not in issue, and closed his speech, with seven minutes of time left, without alluding, in the smallest degree, to the only question that was in issue I mean the question of Free-soil. Why was this? Has it been found difficult to unite the Whigs north and south on this issue? After running Geenral Taylor at the North as a better Free-soil man than even Van Buren himself, and at the South as the very prince of slave-holders; after obtaining the anti-war vote of the North by one story, and the votes of the war-party at the South by another story; after traversing the republic from north to south, representing General Taylor as being "all things to all men," thus obtaining for him thousands of Democratic votes, it is very convenient to forget the real points of the canvass, and claim a victory on other points not introduced, and never discussed before the people.

May I ask the gentleman whether he did not himself tell the people in his district that General Taylor would approve of the Wilmot proviso ?

Mr. HUNT. I said I had no doubt of it.

Mr. BROWN. Now, Mr. Chairman, if I should ask you or any other southern representative what you told your constituents, I should be assured that you told them General Taylor never would approve the proviso. Mr. HUNT interposed, to say he would like to know what the gentleman from Mississippi told the people on that subject.

Mr. BROWN. I told them General Cass would never approve of the Wilmot proviso, and it was my opinion that General Taylor would. Now, let me ask the gentleman whether he did not assure the people of New York that we should have a Free-soil administration if General Taylor was elected?

Mr. HUNT. We expressed our willingness to leave that question to the representatives of the people.

Mr. BROWN. And you, Mr. Chairman, and your southern colleagues, told your constituents that General Taylor would stand by the South on that question.

What I maintain is, that you have no right, after obtaining a victory by such means as were employed in the late presidential election, to come into this House, in six short weeks after closing the drama, and claim a victory on points notoriously not in issue, and omit all mention of the great point on which the election notoriously turned, north, south, east and west. I say again, that on this slavery question, you made General Taylor all things to all men; and it has been by such means

that your boasted victory has been won. And now, sir, let me ask the gentleman from New York, if I was not right in the beginning, when I said it was fortunate for the truth of history, and for the correct instruction of mankind, that political tricksters were not the most accredited historians of their own lives, times, and tricks?

A word in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as to what the people have not decided in the late presidential race. Rely upon it, sir, they have not decided in favor of Whig measures-they have not decided against Democratic measures. Thousands and tens of thousands of voters in the North have been brought to General Taylor's support on the Freesoil issue. Other thousands of honest, upright Democrats have voted for him as a no-party man. Whilst, by the glare of his military fame, he has carried captive the enthusiastic and ardent youth of the country. You and I, Mr. Chairman, know very well what means were employed in the South to commend the General to Democratic voters: how General Cass was denounced as an Abolitionist-a political weathercock-a man of no fixed principles-a very political Judas, standing ready to betray the South with a kiss: how General Taylor was set down as the exact counterpart of all this-a patriot, with nothing to serve but his country-no party ties to bind him-no party wrongs to vindicate-no fixed political prejudices to gratify-a man like Washington, who had filled the measure of his country's glory, and was best deserving his country's highest honors. Banks, tariffs, distributions, were all repudiated -party lines were wiped out-a political millennium was at hand-General Taylor would scorn all party rules, and be the president alone of a great, happy, united nation of brothers-and above all things, his warm southern affections would bind him to the South and to southern institutions as with hooks of steel. It was by means like these you carried to his support thousands of Democratic voters. Whether all of these, or any considerable portion of them, will continue to follow his political fortunes, remains to be seen, and must, I think, depend on circum

stances.

As a Democrat, I could wish General Taylor no worse fortune than to follow the counsels of his friend from New York. If he undertakes to uproot all the wise measures of the Democratic party, and to substitute Whig follies in their place, I take it for granted his Democratic supporters will abandon him; and this done, your boasted triumph will turn out a barren victory. The gentleman from New York seems to have his misgivings, for he dare not go so far as to commit his party for a bank, though he has no doubt, I suppose, it ought and will be established.

The people are now, have been, and always will be, in favor of Democratic measures, because these measures proclaim equality among men— not social, but political equality; not equality in mental or physical proportions, but equality in the possession and enjoyment of every right under the laws and Constitution. Democracy proclaims no moral, social, intellectual, or religious equality. In all these we admit that one man rises above another as do the stars in the firmament rise above the clods of the valley. But our code recognises no political distinctions among men. Equal and exact justice to all, special privileges to none, is our motto. It is because in practice the Whig leaders repudiate this doctrine, that the masses always have and always will repudiate the Whig

leaders. What is your doctrine of protection but a cunningly-devised scheme to build up a privileged order in the country-to grant immunities and political rights to the favored few, which must of necessity be denied to the toiling millions? What your banking system but a system to plunder the many for the benefit of the few? And so of all your measures, of all your policy. What right has the manufacturer to demand the passage of laws for his special protection? And how dare you, in this land of equal laws, sanction such demands? Shall the banker have laws to legalize his frauds? Shall he be allowed to loan his credit at usury, whilst the honest laborer may only take lawful interest for his hard-earned dollars? Your whole system is a system of favoritism. Your motto has always been, Let the government take care of the rich, and the rich will take care of the poor. Well may Whiggery rejoice in this the hour of its triumph, for a day of reckoning will come. Let Democracy be of good cheer, for the day will be when the people shall winnow the harvest and separate the false from the good seed. In that day Democracy will be stored in their heart of hearts, but Whiggery will be scattered as chaff before the winds.

LOUIS KOSSUTH.

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 2, 1850, ON THE RECEPTION OF LOUIS KOSSUTH.

I WILL change the resolution so that it will read in this manner :

Be it understood, that the House of Representatives declines at this time to express any opinion as to whether this government will or will not be indifferent to the doctrines of Kossuth.

I offer this amendment in good faith. When, a little more than twelve months ago, I voted to send a national ship to bear this distinguished man to our shores, I did it, sir, that he might come here in the character of an emigrant. I never dreamed-as I am sure no member of the last Congress ever dreamed-that he was coming here as a propagandist of new doctrines. I appeal to every member of this Congress, who was a member of the last House of Representatives, if any member supposed he was coming here upon any such mission? The first we hear of his intentions was in one of his English speeches-I think in his Southampton speech-when for the first time he made it known that he was coming to procure the intervention of this government in the struggles that were going on in the Old World. I do not desire that our action here, either in inviting this distinguished man to this country, or inviting him to come to take a seat within the bar of this House, shall be construed into any expression of opinion upon the subject of his doctrine of intervention. And why? I can very readily imagine that in the progress of human events a case may arise in which it may become important for this government to interfere. No such case has, in my judgment, arisen yet. But I would not, by saying that we never would interfere, cut ourselves off from the possibility of doing so if a case should arise. So much has been said upon this subject, not only by that

distinguished man himself, but by his friends in Congress and out of it, that the inference may be drawn that we either intend to endorse his doctrines upon the one side, or that we do not upon the other, that, in my judgment, it is imperative upon us to say whether, in our action here, we do intend to express a judgment pro or con. Surely this cannot wound the sentiment of the distinguished Governor of Hungary. But whether it does or does not, we are here the representatives of the American people, not responsible to Kossuth, but to the people of this country-responsible for the exercise of an important trust, and the manner in which we shall exercise it will have an important bearing upon the present and future peace and prosperity of the country. have done nothing, and I shall do nothing captiously. I am willing to do all proper honors to this distinguished man, but I am not prepared to show him such honors as never have been shown to any living man. If it is the will of his friends to vote him an invitation within the bar of this House, when we have sufficiently discussed the question to show to the American people that we do not intend to endorse his doctrine, then I am willing to withdraw opposition and invite him in. But you cannot separate this distinguished man from the great principles he avows. What does he tell you every day? He says, I am not here to be complimented. I am here to procure the recognition of a great national principle. And this is the shield which he bears between himself and the American people, from day to day. No man, I undertake to say, can approach him except through this shield. You must endorse his doctrines, or he seeks no intercourse with you. I am for saying, in the language of that amendment, that we neither endorse nor refuse to enforce his doctrines at this time, reserving any such question until a proper case shall arise.

THE SLAVE QUESTION.

In the House of Representatives, January 30, 1850, on the subject of Slavery, and on the action of the Administration in relation to California and New Mexico, Mr. BROWN said:

GENTLEMEN say they deprecate discussion on the subject of slavery. My judgment approves it. We have gone too far to recede without an adjustment of our difficulties. Better far that this agitation should never have commenced. But when wrong has been perpetrated on one side and resented on the other, an adjustment in some form is indispensable. It is better so than to leave the thorn of discord thus planted, to rankle and fester, and finally to produce a never-healing sore. We need attempt no such useless task as that of disguising from ourselves, our constituents, and in truth the world at large, that ill blood has been. engendered, that we are losing our mutual attachment, that we are daily becoming more and more estranged, that the fibres of the great cord which unites us as one people are giving way, and that we are fast verging to ultimate and final disruption. I hold no communion with the spurious patriotism which closes its eyes to the dangers which visit us,