and making for themselves beneficent and wholesome laws-laws under which they meant themselves to live-people went to Kansas for no higher purpose than to fan the flames of discord, and to make laws from which they meant themselves to flee. They went for mischief, and they got it; they sowed the whirlwind, and reaped the storm. They were sent to Kansas to make Kansas a free state, nolens volens, and the Missourians were inflamed to madness by their conduct. It was not, sir, that these men went, or the states from which they went, that stirred the blood of Missourians, but it was the purpose for which they went. When the Kansas bill passed, very few of us expected Kansas to become a slave state, and very few of us cared much whether it did or not. But when we saw an attempt made by the enemies of slavery to plant on the borders of a slave state a free-soil colony, with no higher purpose than to harass that state-when we saw an attempt made by strangers to enslave the bona fide white settlers in Kansas, by forcing on them, not a Kansas but a New England government, our people rose en masse, and swore, by the God that made them, these things should not be.

The senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] the other day paraded before the Senate a handbill-and he did it with a flourish of trumpets that would have done honor to the fat knight when he claimed the credit of killing Hotspur. The handbill spoke of Buchanan, and Breckenridge, and free Kansas. The senator evidently thought he had made a grand discovery. I certainly do not mean to approve of that handbill. It probably suggested an erroneous idea to many who saw it. It may have suggested that the Democratic party was for Kansas free, as the senator from New Hampshire understood the word "free;" and if it did, it suggested a falsehood. The Democratic party, as a party, is neither for free Kansas nor slave Kansas, as the Free-soilers understand the words "free" and "slave." The Democratic party is for leaving Kansas perfectly free, at the right time, to settle the slavery question for herself, restrained only, as we all are in our action, by the provisions of the Federal Constitution. In this sense the Democrats are for FREE Kansas. The senator's idea, if I understand him, is to make Kansas free by releasing the black man from the authority of his master, and then force a government on the white people in the territory, through the agency of New England emigrant aid societies. His free Kansas makes the negro free by enslaving the white man; but my free Kansas makes the white man free, and leaves the negro where the Constitution left him— subject to the authority of his master.

I was somewhat surprised, Mr. President, the other day, to hear the senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull], in catechising the senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Bigler], who was then addressing the Senate, raise the question as to how far, we, on the Democratic side of the house, concurred in opinion upon the mooted point of squatter sovereignty. I suppose the object of the senator in introducing that point was to make mischief--to stir up strife between senators on this side of the chamber. If that was his purpose, let me say to him that he fell, as he will continue to fall, very far short of his mark. That there may be shades of difference in our opinions is very likely; that I do not, on every point, concur with my distinguished and venerable friend from Michigan is probable; but that there is any difference between us which can by possibility prevent our acting in harmony for the accomplishment of certain

great purposes which the national Democracy have in view, I utterly deny. I should prefer to have my friend agree with me, as he may prefer to have me agree with him; but our difference is not such, as I shall presently show, that we may not, without sacrifice on either side, act together on practical issues.

But, sir, how comes it that the senator from Illinois, how comes it that other senators on his side have, all of a sudden, found something so monstrous in this doctrine of squatter sovereignty? When had we the first evidence exhibited to us of the power of squatter sovereignty on this continent? Excuse me, sir, but I undertake to say, that the first exhibition of it was in the state which you have the honor solely at this moment to represent on the floor of the Senate [Mr. Weller in the chair]. When the people of California assembled in convention, and undertook to frame a state constitution for themselves, they were all squatters; they were in the country without authority of law; there was no law authorizing them to be there. When they assembled in convention on the high mission of making a state constitution, they assembled there to perform an act of sovereignty; when they made the constitution and set up a state government in all its forms, it was an act of sovereignty performed by squatters and by nobody else.

Now, sir, I ask senators on the other side of the chamber, whether they did not sanction that proceeding? I pray you, gentlemen, were you not, one and all, in favor of admitting California under her squattersovereignty constitution? Was not the senator from Illinois the advocate for the admission of California under the constitution thus formed? Was not the senator from New York, and he from Massachusetts, and he from Ohio, all around the chamber, wherever they are, were they not friends of the admission of California under her squatter-sovereignty constitution? Then what right have they to complain of squatter sovereignty? And then who was the first representative of squatter sovereignty on this floor? When California was admitted, there were already at the door of the Senate two gentlemen asking for admission. One of them was John Charles Frémont. He came here as a senator, the first who presented himself from California, and he was the very embodiment of squatter sovereignty. He had no constituency but a squatter-sovereignty constituency. He came from no state but a state brought into being by squatter sovereigns. These gentlemen, to a man, advocated his admission. They not only went for the admission of the state, but for the admission of her senators. Thus they endorsed the whole proceeding up to that time. I suspect that they, and all their class of politicians, are very much like one I heard speaking lately... He said he was for squatter sovereignty if it worked out in his favor, and against it if it did not.

In my opinion, squatter sovereignty is a misnomer, and territorial sovereignty a humbug. I understand, sir, what is meant by state sovereignty, and, in my opinion, there is no other kind of sovereignty existing in this country. Squatter sovereignty, territorial sovereignty, and popular sovereignty (when applied to the territories), all belong to the same category, and they are all political absurdities in my opinion. But I am not going to bore the Senate by giving the reasons why I think so.

We agreed to let Kansas and all the other territories manage their own affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. We differed

as to what a territory might rightfully do under the Constitution. My friend from Michigan [Mr. Cass] thought, and still thinks, a territorial legislature, such as that in Kansas, has the right, under the Constitution, to exclude slavery. I think differently. He is not seeking to have his ideas enacted into a law by Congress; nor am I. He admits that if the legislature of Kansas has not the right, under the Constitution, to exclude slavery, Congress cannot confer it; and I know, if the legislature has the right Congress cannot take it away. Therefore, neither of us propose that Congress shall do anything. We voted together on the Kansas bill, and agreed then to refer all our difference of opinion to the Supreme Court of the United States-the only tribunal on earth competent to decide between us. When that decision is rendered, we both stand solemnly pledged to abide by it. I speak not now of what a sovereign state, in the exercise of her reserved rights, may do-that is a subject for future consideration and decision. Now, sir, the difference between my honorable friend and myself is precisely the difference between Democrats who believe in squatter sovereignty and Democrats who do not believe in it.

If an unorganized territory, such as California was in 1849, such as Kansas was in 1853, such as the Indian Territory outside of Arkansas now is, shall undertake to exclude slavery, the senator from Michigan and myself agree that it undertakes to do what it has no right to do. But if an organized territory, like Kansas or Nebraska, undertakes, through its legislative council, to exclude slavery, the senator thinks they have the right to do it. I do not think so. This he calls popular sovereignty. I call it the assumption of a right not conferred by the Constitution, and therefore not existing in the territory. He may be right. I think he is not. But neither of us desires or expects Congress to decide between us.

The senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull], the other day, interrogated the senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Bigler], as to what Mr. Buchanan's views were on this point. My friend from Pennsylvania declined to reply, because he had no authority to do so. The friends of Mr. Bu chanan were satisfied with his position on this point before they nominated and elected him, and they are not likely to fall out with him now on account of any suggestions coming from his enemies, secret or open. That he will hold the scales of justice in equal balance, between the North and the South, I have no doubt; and if he does, his friends North and South will adhere to him. They were strong enough to elect him; and if he fulfils their hopes, as I am sure he will, they will show themselves strong enough to carry his administration through in triumph. Mr. Buchanan may laugh his enemies to scorn. He has only to feel the inspiration that moved the hearts of his friends at Cincinnati, and stand firmly on the platform laid down by them, and they will throw over him their arms, and build around him a rampart that will defy the power of the Black Republicans and all their allies.

But, to return to the territories: We of the Democratic faith all agree that they may, at the proper time, settle the slavery question for themselves. Some think it may be done sooner; but we all agree that when the people of a territory meet in convention to frame a state constitution, they may, in that constitution, admit or exclude slavery, as they please; and we agree, further, that their decision is final. If Kansas

comes here with a constitution made by her bona fide people, free from all outside influences, excluding slavery, there is not a Democrat in either House of Congress who will not vote for her admission; and if, on the other hand, she comes with a constitution similarly made tolerating slavery, there is not a Democrat who will not vote for her admission. Break up your emigrant aid societies at the North, and all interference from the South will cease. Then Kansas, being left perfectly free to regulate her domestic affairs in her own way, may assemble her people in convention, frame her constitution to suit herself, admit or exclude slavery as she pleases, and she will be welcomed into the Union with open arms by every friend of free institutions, from the Aroostook to the to the Rio Grande, and from the Atlantic to the far-off Pacific. Sir, the Democracy has stood for fifty years, like our own ocean-bound republic. The waves of faction have beaten upon it, and they have broken, in harmless ripples, at its feet. It stands to-day a fit type of our glorious country-the hope of the oppressed in every land, and a beacon-light to the sons of freedom throughout the world It will uphold the Constitution. It will preserve the Union. It will disappoint the tyrants of the Old World, and the enemies of liberty in the New. Democracy will go on conquering and to conquer, until all parties shall confess its dominion, and the whole world be converted to the sublime truths which it teaches. This is its mission.

We mean, Mr. President, to settle this slavery question on a firm and lasting, because on a just, liberal, and constitutional basis. We mean to stop agitation; we mean to give repose to the South, and quiet to the whole country; we mean to rout the Abolitionists and bury Black Republicanism so low that the sound of Gabriel's trumpet will not reach it on the day of judgment! This is our hope; this our prayer; this our confident expectation; but if we shall be deceived in this-if it shall please God to pròsper our enemies-if there shall be no settlement-if agitation is kept up-if the South can have no peace-if our enemies have the power, and are resolved to use it in breaking up the Union, and trampling the Constitution under foot-then we will turn to the senator from New York, the great chieftain of his party, and the author of all our woes, and we will say to him and his infatuated allies, as Abram said to Lot: "Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left." If this appeal shall fail to reach the heart of the senator and his allies, there will be but one alternative left us, and that an appeal to the God of battles. May Heaven, in its mercy, avert such a calamity!

THE RHODE ISLAND RESOLUTIONS ON THE SUMNER ASSAULT.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 16, 1856, ON THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF RHODE ISLAND,

RELATIVE TO THE ASSAULT ON MR. SUMNER.

MR. BROWN. I object to the printing of these resolutions; and I know the responsibility which I assume in objecting to printing resolutions coming from a sovereign state of this Union. I make the objection without expecting to succeed in it.

Mr. WELLER. I believe the rule of the Senate requires the printing of resolutions coming from state legislatures. I present the point of order, that the rule requires the printing of memorials and resolutions of state legislatures, and you cannot abrogate or change that rule without presenting a proposition for that purpose, which requires one day's notice.

Mr. BROWN. I suppose it at least admits of debate, whether we shall print the resolutions or not.

Mr. SEWARD. Freedom of debate requires that.

Mr. BROWN. As I have already said, I do not expect to succeed in my opposition. I am aware of the rule to which the senator from California alludes. When the legislature of Massachusetts thought proper to send us resolutions in reference to what she conceived to be an outrage on one of her senators, I thought it well enough to let the matter pass without discussion; but when another state conceives it to be her duty to take up the question, and come in with her resolves, denouncing the transaction which took place here as a cowardly and brutal outrage, and as an attempt to stifle debate, it strikes me as presenting the subject altogether in a new light.

I have seen nothing in this matter which struck me as an attempt, on the part of any one, to stifle or check the utmost freedom of debate, here or elsewhere. A senator from Massachusetts, in the exercise of his privilege, delivered himself, with the utmost freedom, of his opinions upon certain very delicate questions; and in the progress of his remarks, took occasion to reflect severely upon the historic character of one of the states of this Union, and to reprobate, in strong and pointed personal terms, the conduct and bearing of one of the senators from that state, who was then absent. A representative from South Carolina felt it to be his privilege to call that senator to personal account for what he said on that occasion.

Now, sir, I know what are the guarantees of the Constitution; but in the wildest flights of my imagination, I never dreamt that the Constitution guarantied, or undertook to guaranty, to me, or to any other member of the American Senate, the unrestrained privilege of denouncing states, and senators, and private citizens, in such terms as I might think proper to employ, and yet of claiming under the Constitution immunity from all account, out of doors, for what I might say. I had supposed, and I do yet suppose, that if, in the exercise of my privilege as a sena