gentlemen who would not avail themselves of an opportunity to speak when time was being wasted. I wish, for one, to vindicate myself from the charge which is now made. If the time that has already been wasted had been properly occupied, no such appeal would have lain. I am not for pressing this question unreasonably or unjustly upon any one; but it must be seen that, unless. we intend to waste all the summer days in the discussion of this question, we must commence urging gentlemen up to a delivery of their views.

I should not have said this if I had not been in the category of those who have spoken early. I did not speak at any unreasonable time; I did not insist on the Senate sitting for my accommodation, if it did not desire to do so; nor did I take advantage of its sitting. Other gentlemen, I know, could have spoken, if they had chosen to do it. If they did not choose to do it, I think it is too late to ask this species of courtesy.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Mr. President

The VICE PRESIDENT. There is no question before the Senate, the Senator from Missouri having withdrawn his motion. These remarks, however, may be indulged in by unanimous consent. The Senator from New Hampshire is entitled to the floor.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I did not know that the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. GREEN. I remarked that if the Senator from New Hampshire desired to proceed now, I would withdraw my motion, and hear him with pleasure, for it is not my wish to procrastinate debate, or to interfere with a fair opportunity for debate. It is my wish to expedite business, and I think that ought to be the wish of all. My motion is withdrawn.

Mr. FESSENDEN. With the indulgence of the Senate, I wish to make a remark or two in relation to this matter; and I wish to make it in a spirit of kindness and conciliation which I feel. I think there is nobody here who will accuse me, certainly, of a disposition, at any time, to make any factious opposition to anything that is in the regular order of business. The honorable Senator from Mississippi is mistaken in saying that this question has stood in the way of all other business. This report has not been made for more than a month. This bill has not been before the Senate very long.

Mr. BROWN. I know this precise bill has not been, but the Kansas question has been here all the time.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I am aware that some speeches were made on the President's message from time to time; but in the meanwhile a great deal of other business has been done, and only one speech, I think, in relation to this general matter was made on the Army bill. The Army bill was debated for a long time. We certainly could not get at this question as it is presented to the Senate until a bill was before the body. The bill was reported some four weeks ago, I think -I do not recollect the exact time-and then a future day was assigned for its consideration. It was taken up at the time designated by the honorable Senator from Missouri who has it in charge, and since that time the debate has gone steadily on-beginning sometimes at one o'clock, and sometimes at half past twelve o'clock-from day to day.

The Senate will observe that only once has there been any question in reference to adjournment over from Thursday until Monday, and that was week ago last Thursday. That is the only time when a vote was taken on that proposition. It passed at other times by common consent, and The motion always came from one of the gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber, not from us. Certainly no blame can be imputed to the genElemen on this side. Senators will recollect that when the President's message was under consideration, the Senators on this side were urged to vithhold their remarks in relation to Kansas until he question should come up before the Senate reglarly. I was urged to do so myself; but I chose o make then the remarks which I had to make. made at that time the main speech which I inended to make; and I do not know that I shall ake any other. No time was lost by that. Mr. GREEN. You are losing time now. Mr. FESSENDEN. I know that; but I wish

simply to understand the Senator, and I wish him to understand me. What I mean to say is simply this: that gentlemen on this side of the Chamber have been led by the solicitations of gentlemen on the other side, and by their own sense of the propriety of the time, to withhold the remarks they wished to make, and which they feel it to be their duty to make, until this bill came up. They have had as yet no opportunity to make those remarks. They wish to do it, and to do it at reasonable hours of the day.

Now, I am not disposed to quarrel with gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber because they want to urge this business. I will agree that they shall urge the Senate, and that the Senate shall submit, so far as I am concerned, to a little greater stress in point of time; work more hours than we ordinarily do; but what I object to is that we should be pushed to unreasonable hours in the evening. We all know that it is very fatiguing. If the Senator from New Hampshire goes on with his speech now, we shall have had three speeches to-day, and it will probably take him until seven o'clock. I wish to understand whether there is then a desire to push us into the night. ["Yes."] That being understood, I wish to assure gentlemen on the other side-I may say my friends on the other side of the Chamber, because personally I have no collision with themthat so far as I know, and I believe I understand the matter, there is no disposition here to procrastinate the time unreasonably. All we demand is, that at reasonable and proper hours of the day, when men have the strength and the vigor, (and a very considerable degree of strength is necessary to address the Senate upon this subject,) they may have time to do so.

Mr. BIGGS. Will the Senator from Maine fix a time when he will agree to take the vote?

Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot, because I do not know how many speeches are to be made. I say that when we have got through with a fair debate on our side, we have no further objection to make; and we want time, at reasonable and proper hours, for that debate. I hope, in order to the preservation of the good feeling personally which ought to prevail among gentlemen on both sides, that will be acceded to. That is all we

desire.

SENATE.

the case will admit. If a just regard to the public business will permit me to do so, I would prefer to adjourn now and allow the Senator who has just obtained the floor to commence his speech at one o'clock to-morrow. If, however, I were to do so, I should be sacrificing my sense of the duty which I owe to my country merely to accommodate a gentleman and a friend. I claim that I have no right to do that; it is not my privilege to do that. I must keep an eye towards the great interests of this country, rather than consult the personal feelings of honorable gentlemen. I have no desire to crowd them into unseasonable hours; but I wish the public business to go forward.

Mr. FESSENDEN. When Senators talk of the time that has been taken up, I wish them to remember that about all the time that was occupied on the subject of Kansas during the first part of the session until this bill was brought in, was on the other side of the Chamber. On this side we took very little part in it.

Mr. HOUSTON. I am not involved in this controversy at all, and I wish to make a suggestion to which perhaps gentlemen will accede. I desire to see the subject disposed of so soon as it reasonably can be; and with that view, I move that we meet hereafter at eleven o'clock. I suppose the motion will lie over until to-morrow.

Mr. TOOMBS. I object to it; let it lie over. Mr. BIGGS. I would very willingly accede to a proposition that might be made on the other side, if they would fix any reasonable time for taking the vote; but I see no disposition manifested on that side to appoint a time for taking the vote. Therefore, as this discussion is entirely out of order, and there seems to be no disposition on the other side to propose a time for taking the vote, I object to any further discussion, and hope the Senator from New Hampshire, who is entitled to the floor, will proceed.

Mr. STUART. Mr. President

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Hampshire is entitled to the floor.

Mr. STUART. I ask the permission of the Senator from New Hampshire to allow me to submit a motion.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New Hampshire yield the floor to the Senator from Michigan?

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.

Mr. STUART. I move to postpone the further consideration of this subject until one o'clock to-morrow. I find myself compelled to submit a motion in order to be enabled to suggest to the Senate what I think I might with propriety have been permitted to say after the course of other gentlemen. Inasmuch, however, as that does not seem to be the disposition here, I submit this motion, and I desire to say two or three things in correction of the history which has been given of this transaction; and to submit a proposition for the consideration of the Senate which, I think, we may very well agree to.

In the first place, as to the delay, I think it will be found on an examination of the records of the Senate that a majority, my own impression is nearly all of them, but certainly a majority of the motions which have been made to adjourn over from Thursday until Monday, have been made by gentlemen favoring this bill since the session commenced. When a motion was made since this bill was reported, to adjourn from Thursday to Monday, I was here in my seat, and voted against it; and it does not become those gentlemen now, who are in favor of this measure, having absented themselves from their seats at that time, to bring that matter up as a charge against those who oppose the measure. If they had been here, as I may say I was, and voted as I did, we should not have adjourned over.

Now, sir, let us see if there has been any disposition on the part of the Senate to abuse the rules of discussion. Has it been manifested by those who oppose this bill? Have they shown a disposition to discuss it factiously to consume time? I know of no such disposition. Is there anything in the condition of the country requir

brought it about? Why, sir, it was agreed to take the question on the Army bill on a certain Wednesday or Thursday, and when that day arrived,

the majority of the Senate on this side of the body were out of their seats, not ready to vote, and the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs moved its postponement on that account. I was here and ready to vote for it.

Now, sir, there is a certain amount of labor that men can perform, and there is an amount beyond that which they cannot perform, in justice to their own health. If we can sit here six hours in the day until the fair, legitimate, and proper discussion is ended, I think it is as much as any man, in justice to himself or his country is called upon to do. I am willing to meet after to-day at twelve o'clock and remain here until six. I am willing that the Senate shall to-day or to-morrow fix. that the Senate shall be in session that number of hours, if you please; anything that those in favor of this measure desire in order to induce fair discussion. But, sir, I am unable to see a reason, I have heard no reason, why this discussion should now at this day be forced into night sessions. I have shown that the reasons which have been urged lay at the door of this side of the House. We have been adjourning over, so that that does not constitute a reason. The adjourning over is our fault, or if gentlemen please, it is theirs, for I ask no particular favors for having voted against it. If the friends of this bill, those who are now urging night sessions to complete its discussion had been here, they had the power to prevent it; and therefore, that does not constitute a reason for undertaking to force night sessions, and night

propose to discuss the policy of the admission of Kansas as a State with the Lecompton constitution.

Before I go further, I wish to ask the honorable Senator from Missouri, who seems to have the charge, in some sort, of this debate, whether he wishes to qualify the language of his report on the ninth page, where he says:

"Such are the characters, such are the objects, and the dangerous results of the opponents of the Lecompton constitution?"

Mr. GREEN. The only qualification I make is to be understood from its context. I am speaking of those in Kansas-of course not of honorable Senators who oppose it here.

Mr. CLARK. That was the very point I wanted to note. The language goes that length. That is the fair interpretation.

Mr. GREEN.

Take the context and see.

Mr. CLARK. I take it that every part of the report means something, and if the Senator had expressed what he intended by the previous paragraph in the report, he would not have added this clause. He meant something more. That is the fair rule of interpretation. The previous paragraph was confined to persons in Kansas. This goes the whole length, and applies to all opponents of the Lecompton constitution. I wanted to ask whether the language was not varied intentionally, because I desired to know whether I stood here charged as a culprit, or whether I stood here as a Senator on this floor having equal rights

subject demands, and it is as much as Senators can be called upon properly to perform. I agree most freely that whenever the time arrives that there shall appear to be a discussion here for the mere purpose of consuming time, the friends of this measure may then take any course they please, and I will not object to it. Now I withdraw my motion to postpone.

Mr. HOUSTON. I desire to remark, with the permission of the Senator from New Hampshire, that I have invariably voted against adjourning from Thursday to Monday; and I voted in favor of the motion made a little while ago to adjourn. I did so on the principle that it is more agreeable to transact business in daylight than at night. I shall never forget the memorable occasion on which this subject, with many others, was inaugurated on this floor, when I was gagged down, between the hours of three and five o'clock in the morning, on the occasion of the repeal of the Missouri compromise. I shall never forget that.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

Messrs. BROWN and GREEN called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted--yeas 18, nays 25; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Bell, Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Houston, King, Seward, Simmons, Stuart, Trumbull, and Wilson-18.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brown, Clay, Crittenden, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Johnson of Arkansas, Jolinson of Tennessee, Jones, Kennedy, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs, and Wright-25.

So the motion to adjourn was not agreed to. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I am much obliged to the honorable Senator from Missouri for the assurance that this is not to be an effort of physical exertion; that he is not disposed to crowd this debate into unseasonable hours. I have been here in my seat in the Senate since twelve o'clock, and I am not, perhaps, physically well prepared to go on at great length to-night; but if the debate is to continue, I am prepared with the materials around me to go so far as the Senate may be pleased to listen until I get through. I have refrained from mingling in this debate earlier than the present time. The question was put to me," whether I intended to speak on the subject when it was before the Senate in a different form?" My reply was, "that I did at some time, if convenient, intend to speak; but that I intended to speak on the subject when it came before the Senate in a practical form, when there was something proposed to be done, when the bill to admit Kansas with the Lecompton constitution should be here." It is here now; it is before us by a report from the Committee on Territories; and I

say a word?

Mr. CLARK. Certainly I will.

Mr. GREEN. The prior part of the report gives a historical detail drawn from official papers. That one expression is a deduction of their character from the historical facts before stated, and the connection is a necessary one. It is confined to parties in Kansas.

Mr. CLARK. That is a matter of inference and argument on the part of the Senator from Missouri. He understood undoubtedly what he meant by this expression when he put it here. He knows the force of the language, and that is the reason why I interrogate him. I can know only from the language what he did mean. The language is broad enough to cover the meaning I attributed to it; but I presume now the Senator did not mean it, and he will pardon the suggestion. I am content with the qualification he makes in regard to myself, but there are numbers of people from my State in Kansas, and if he intends to apply it to them, it is entirely false and wrong. Mr. GREEN. Do you desire any response to

that?

Mr. CLARK. Just as the Senator pleases. Mr. GREEN. I am not giving an inference as to what my meaning was. I am stating it, and state that that itself is an inference drawn from the facts stated in the prior part of the report. I am not qualifying it or taking back one word. I stand upon the record of the country. I qualify it not. I believe it to be true; but whether it be true or not, is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence submitted. Having described these persons, having quoted from Governor Walker, I then say 66 such are the characters"the characters are given in the facts stated; "such are the objects"-the objects they aim at as announced by Governor Walker, are rebellion and revolution; " and such are the dangerous results of the opponents of the Lecompton constitution." As a matter of course, as I was speaking of those opponents in Kansas, it must necessarily be confined to them.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, it seems to me that we have so much wholesale denunciation in

this report, and otherwise, in regard to those people who oppose the Lecompton constitution, that it is perfectly legitimate and fair for me to make the inquiry how far the gentleman meant to go; and I desire to make the further inquiry of him whether he means to apply this language to citizens of my State or any portion of them in Kansas who are there now.

Mr. GREEN. I did not know that there was a citizen of the Senator's State in Kansas. If so, he has no business there and ought to go out.

Mr. CLARK. The gentleman, understands

SENATE.

what I mean, and I cannot be turned aside. He must have known that I meant citizens from New Hampshire who have gone into Kansas, and who have a right to be there.

Mr. GREEN. Very well; if the Senator means those who were once citizens of New Hampshire and are now citizens of Kansas, I say that if Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton speak of them, I speak of them. I speak of those men they describe.

Mr. CLARK. Then I understand the gentleman to have based his whole assertion on what has been said by Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton, and he goes no further. I say to him he is not warranted in making that wholesale assertion in regard to the opponents of the Lecompton constitution, because Governor Walker does not say any such thing; he does not name a man, he does not say that one citizen in Kansas who went from my State has been guilty of any rebellion or insurrection, or disorder whatever. Now I tell the Senator from Missouri there are men, acquaintances, old neighbors of mine in Kansas, men who have gone from my State-not from the purlieus of the great cities, but honorable, respectable men, tradesmen, mechanics, men who cultivate the soil. They are in Kansas now, and are opposing this constitution, but they are peaceable and orderly men. If the Senator from Missouri did not know that these men were in rebellion he ought not to have made this sweeping charge on the testimony of anybody. Sir, I am disposed to hold the honorable Senator, so far as I may, responsible for the truth of the statement he makes in his report. He presents the evidence here, and we may judge upon the evidence which he presents; but we can. not know whether that is the only evidence, or whether it is a partial statement; and hence, I ask him whether he proposes to apply that statement to the citizens of my State. I put that question because I hold, as was said by the gentleman himself, the other day, that men are not to be condemned by classes; men are to be condemned, or upheld, or praised as individuals. I agree that there is great danger of wrong when you undertake to condemn men by classes. You may go into any portion of the country, and you will find good men of one class, and bad men of the same class. You may go into almost every sect of religion, and find good men of that sect, and bad men of that sect. Why may you not find good men in Kansas, I ask the honorable Senator, opposed to the Lecompton constitution? There may have been men in that Territory who have been guilty of some indiscretion-I do not say there have not been, for I do not know, and I do not admit that there are; but what I mean to say 18 that the Senator should not, in this report, make these charges, because they go out to the country, they go on to the files of the Senate, they stand here as part of the country's record, when they are not supported by the facts.

It is no apology for the gentleman's statement in regard to these men; it brings no consolation to them, to have him get up here and state that, if Governor Walker meant to condemn them, he means to condemn them; that, if Mr. Stanton spoke of them, he means to speak of them. Who are the men that he speaks of? All the opponents of the Lecompton constitution put in a mass, put together, and condemned, in Kansas, as he says now, and as I had some reason to believe.

Now, Mr. President, before I go further, I wish to ask the Senator from Virginia who last addressed the Senate, if he will permit me to do so, a question which may facilitate the debate. I wish to ask him, on what he grounds the law of slavery, whether upon the common law or the law of nations? so that I may be prepared to discuss definitely and distinctly, point after point, directly as he makes his positions. I do not wish to ramble in the debate. I was not quite sure-if I had been I should not ask the honorable Senator -on what law he did ground it; though I understood him to ground it upon the common law and upon the law of the civilized world, that is, the law of nations; but I did not understand whether he went any further. If he will inform me that I am right in my inference, that he did ground it on the common law or on the law of nations, and did not go any further, that will answer entirely

my purpose.

Mr. MASON. 1 understand the honorable Senator to ask me on what I ground the law of slavery? I would answer the honorable gentleman by saying, that I am not aware that there is any other law that pertains to slavery than those laws which pertain to every other species of property.

Mr. CLARK. Then I am obliged, in order to get any species of information, to ask on what law he grounds the right to other property; whether the common law, or the law of nations; because I get no information, as I understand the Senator's answer now. It is altogether too indefinite for my purpose. The Senator is under no obligation to answer. Perhaps he has not made up his mind.

Mr. MASON. I certainly did not intend to treat the Senator with the slightest discourtesy. Mr. CLARK. Not the least.

Mr. MASON. I will answer with great pleasure any question in my power. I assumed, in the course of my speech to-day, that the African slave stood to the general law of the country, meaning the common law, exactly in the relation of any other property; that it required no law to create it, it required no law to regulate it, and no law to protect it; no more than it required a law to create slavery in an ox, or to regulate or protect it. Now, if the honorable Senator asks me on what ground I place the law of slavery, I would remit him at once to the common law, which recognizes such a thing as property. The honDrable Senator from Maine referred to the first interview that took place between the Deity and The first man, and he said that was Blackstone's heory. I would not interfere with it, for that was what I understood to be the higher law. We know that cannot be administered on earth, exzept by a theologist.

Mr. CLARK. I will state my purpose in askng the question of the Senator, to show what I nean. I understood him distinctly to state that lavery was grounded on the common law, or exsted by the common law. I am prepared with uthority after authority, from 1694 down to the present time, in England; I am prepared with uthority after authority in our State courts; I m prepared with the authority of the United tates courts, that slavery does not exist by the ommon law. I am prepared to prove that it does ot exist by the law of nations, and I wanted to e prepared for any other point on which the geneman rested. That was the reason of my ques

on.

Mr. MASON. Will the gentleman allow me put a question to him?

Mr. CLARK. Certainly I will do so. Mr. MASON. Suppose a man should come ere from Liverpool, and bring with him a valuae horse worth $10,000, and that horse were to taken from him by the hand of violence, would t our courts interpose to recover his horse for m? and would it not be because it was recogzed as the property of the man who brought it re? I want to know upon what law on the conent of America you recognize the property of Englishman who brought the horse over; to at do you trace it? My position was, that the mmon law recognized property in whatever was operty coming from another nation, and when se negroes were brought from Africa, the conion of property attached to them in Africa was ognized by the common law. Precisely as the 7 of nations recognized property in the horse, common law here gave property in the horse; common law so recognized it, be it a horse or

OX.

Ir. CLARK. I understood the gentleman to rt with a question, but he wound up with some ertion and an argument. I do not know ether he wishes me to answer the question or If he does, I will say to him that the comn law recognized property in a horse, but I also state to him distinctly, and prove it beI get through, that the common law does not gnize property in man, and I think I shall te the distinction broad and clear. Ir. MASON. If you prove that, you will remy proposition.

Ir. CLARK. I do not understand all the Sen

says.

r. MASON. I say if you prove that the

common law does not recognize property in a slave, you will refute my proposition.

Mr. CLARK. Yes; I think I shall. I shall endeavor to do it. I have not a doubt of where I come to, if I succeed.

Mr. MASON. I do not fear it.

Mr. CLARK. I know the gentleman does not fear anything. I do not wish that he should fear anything I should say. It is not my purpose to say anything that would put him, myself, or anybody else in fear. We are here for the purpose of discussion; and if it be the pleasure of the Senate and of the honorable Senator, I will pursue the line of argument which I had proposed to myself here.

SENATE.

tion four, you find this provision: "Congress shall guaranty?" No, sir, Congress does not guaranty. Congress may admit new States, but Congress does not guaranty:

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

Not alone the new State which is admitted; but the United States may guaranty, and shall guaranty, a republican form of constitution to all the States.

But some things are taken for granted that seem to have been passed in silence, which I am going to controvert. One of them was the position taken by the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] and it was also taken by the Senator from Virginia, [Mr. HUNTER,] in his speech yesterday, that we have no right, in discussing this matter, to look into the Lecompton constitution any further than to see that it is republican. I deny it entirely.

claim the right to look that constitution in the face, to look at it from the top of its head to the sole of its foot, to examine it thoroughly, to pass my judgment upon it deliberately as a Senator of the United States, and to say whether, upon an examination of that constitution-not alone, but with other things, (or alone, if I please)—I will admit Kansas under that constitution, or not. I start in the proof of what I have to say, with the Constitution of the United States. Here is the article, and here is the point of my departure:

"SEC. 3, article 4. New States may be adimitted by the Congress into this Union."

New States may be admitted, Mr. President. That implies, if Congress pleases. They may be admitted by Congress, and they may not be admitted by Congress, where Congress pleases not to admit them. That is a matter left to the sound' discretion of Congress to judge of it when a State proposes to come in, not only with reference to the new States, but with reference to the old States; to examine the constitution which she brings; to examine the institutions under which she comes; and if they find anything in the constitution of the new State which is derogatory or injurious to the old States, which is derogatory to the institutions under which we live, which mars the prosperity of the new State even, then we have the right to look into that constitution and reject her if we choose. If this were not so, our discretion would be limited; but in the Constitution there are only two or three limits, and then the whole matter is left in the sound discretion of Congress. In this very section we find, first:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;"

What next:

"but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State ;"

There is one limitation. Congress may admit

new States, but shall not make a new State out of another State. That fixes that point. It then goes on:

"nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress."

Here are two limitations. Congress may admit new States, or may not; but they shall not erect a new State within the jurisdiction of another State; nor form a new State out of two or more States, without the consent of the Legislatures of those States as well as of Congress. Is there anything further? When you get a little further on, to sec

"It is acquired to become a State, and not to be held as a colony and governed by Congress with absolute authority; and as the propriety of admitting a new State is committed to the sound discretion of Congress"

Mark the language. The propriety of admitting a new State is committed to the sound discretion of Congress.

Here it is laid down, in this very Dred Scott decision, that Congress have the power, that Congress have the authority committed to their sound discretion, with three limitations placed upon it by the Constitution, and no others: first, that they shall not erect a new State within an old State; second, that they shall not form a new State out of two or more States without the consent of the Legislatures of the States as well as of Congress; third, that the United States shall guaranty a republican constitution. Now, I desire to speak for a few moments upon this clause of the Constitution, that Congress shall guaranty-no, sir, I use the phrase incorrectly-that the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I will state to the Senator that the form of government and the constitution are two things. The Constitution of the United States guaranties that the form of government shall be republican. It does not speak of the constitution of the State.

Mr. CLARK. I know that it does not say anything in regard to the States having a republican constitution. I use the two terms as synonymous, but the phraseology is peculiar:

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

I contend that a State might come into the Union without a constitution, [Mr. BENJAMIN. Certainly.] and have a republican form of government. Then look at the history of that provision of the Constitution. It was a provision adopted by the convention which framed this Constitution, as well for the old as for the new States. It was for the security of those old States as well as for the admission of the new, because it was seen by those wise men who framed this Constitution that there might be intestine division; the constitution of a State might be overthrown, its form of government overthrown, and a form not republican might be established. In order to prevent the mischief which would flow to the several States from such a state of things, a provision was inserted that the Constitution should guaranty a republican form of government to the States. Now, if, in Virginia, it could happen that the constitution or form of government, which is republican, should be overthrown in that old State, the United States would be pledged to interfere, and guaranty to them a republican form of government; because it is not according to the theory of our Government, nor the genius of our institutions, to have a monarchical government, or any other form of government than a republican government, in any of the States. Mr. President, I draw another inference, that such is the conclusion on a fair interpretation of this article from the position in which it is placed. Section four is in these words

"The United States shall guaranty to every State in the

Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them from invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence."

The whole section was framed for the purpose of suppressing violence or irregularities leading to the overthrow of a republican form of government in any State of this Union. Such, it is evident, was its design, from the history of the provision. I have here the Madison Papers. They are the history, as you, sir, and honorable Senators well know, of the debates which took place in the convention which adopted the Constitution. I find here the provision guarantying a republican form of Government to all the States by the United States, in the original draft which was presented by Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, to the convention. It may be useful, Mr. President, to look at the history of these matters. You can get the meaning, the force, and the application of these various provisions of the Constitution better by studying their history and their alteration from time to time, as they passed through the convention, than in almost any other way. You see the source from which they came, you see the object for which they were offered, you see the various modifications which took place as they went along; and then it enables you to judge of the precise bearing they may have. I have before me the second volume of the Madison Papers; and I find in this volume that Mr. Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, opened the main business of the convention. He came forward with a plan of government, which had in it especially these two provisions of the Constitution: That the Congress may admit new States; and that the United States shall guaranty to every State of this Union a republican form of government. They were in his original plan. They were, I think, in the plan of Mr. Charles Pinckney, presented afterwards; but I wish only to call your attention, Mr. President, to the original form, that you may see what was the draft, what was the object, and what was the intention of those who brought it into the convention. It stood then, not as it stands now; but it was the eleventh provision of Mr. Randolph's plan:

"Resolved, That a republican form of government, and the Territory of cach State, except in the instance of a voluntary junction of government and territory, ought to be guarantied by the United States to each State."

Here was the object. There was then a controversy going on in regard to the boundaries of States. Virginia made large claims to territory; New York made large claims to territory; other States made large claims to territory. The object of this resolution was not entirely to procure a guaranty of its form of government to each State, but it was to procure the guaranty of its territory as well, to bring in the United States to defend and maintain all the boundaries which Virginia had a lawful right to. But before the debate on this proposition got through, it was suggested in convention that Congress ought not to be committed to a quarrel about territory, and hence that provision was struck out. It then went on further to say:

"That Congress shall guaranty a republican form of government."

Then, a little further, it was changed to read in this way:

"Resolved, That a republican constitution, and its existing laws, ought to be guarantied to each State by the United States."

That was the form it once assumed. It was said by some member of the convention, that he would not like to guaranty the laws of Rhode Island, which held a charter under the crown. Some further objection was made, and they struck it out. It was for the protection, safety, and tranquillity of the old States, that it was put in here, and not with a direct reference to the new States. I think Senators go beyond the warranty of the Constitution, they go too far, when they say that this provision was adopted with reference to the new States alone, if they do say So. I am not certain that anybody has said that distinctly, but everybody who has spoken seems to construe it as peculiarly applicable to the new States, and that Congress have no further discretion than to say, that every form of government is republican. I contend that we have a right to go much further, and I propose to go much fur

ther in this debate. I propose to look at the Lecompton constitution from its beginning to its end. I propose to discuss its provisions. propersuade Senators that my objections are well pose to say why I object to them, and if I can founded, to do so. I have, I think, a clear right

to do so.

It will appear further, Mr. President, that this provision that Congress may admit new States, was not intended to cramp the discretion of Congress, but to leave the whole matter to the sound discretion of the Congress of the United States, as is evident from the history of this provision: Congress may admit new States into the Union. Keep the language, Mr. President, if you please, in your mind. That was a part of Mr. Randolph's plan, not precisely as it stands there, but in these words:

"Resolved, That provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States."

provision was brought into the convention, nor It was not contemplated by anybody, when this when it was adopted, as far as I have been able to trace, that we were to take territory beyond the then territory of the United States, and make proposition said, in the original draft, that— new States. It was not proposed; and hence this

"Provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States"— -not out of it—

-"whether from voluntary junction of government and terrory, or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the National Legislature less than the whole."

Senators to the history of this provision. It shows Now I want to call the attention of honorable distinctly what was its meaning, and what was intended by it. Congress may admit new States. The original proposition was that they should admit them out of the then territory of the United States. Then it went further: there was a proposition before the convention that Congress should admit new States out of the territory of the United States upon an equality with the old States. Does anybody pretend, will anybody say, that Congress has the right to admit a new State on a different footing from the old States? I do not say that; yet I will prove to you, from the history of these debates, and from the various modifications that were made to this provision of the constitution, that that provision for putting new States on an equality with the old States was struck out of that provision upon deliberation and upon motion for the very purpose of bringing in new States if they chose, not upon an equality with the old States. I will not go through all the various forms this provision assumed as it traveled through the convention. I will call your attention directly to the point I have in mind. At one time in the progress of this debate, the proposition in regard to new States assumed this form, that Congress may admit new States into the Union:

If the admission be consented to, the new States shall be admitted on the same terms with the original States."

SENATE.

footing. I will show you, because the debate shows it, that he also moved to strike out the further provision:

"But the Legislature may make conditions with the new States concerning the public debt which shall then be subsisting."

This is the reason he gave for his motion: "He did not wish to bind down the Legislature to admit western States on the terms here stated."

That is, on equal terms. He did not want to bind Congress to do it. They should have a discretion.

"Mr. Madison opposed the motion; insisting that the western States neither would nor ought to submit to a union which degraded them from an equal rank with the other States."

I think there is force in the objection. The old States were fearful that the new States formed in the western Territories would grow into a large representation; and it might be they would be able to out-vote the old States by and by, as they are very likely to do, if they have not already He was fearful of that.

done so.

"Mr. Madison opposed the motion; insisting that the western States neither would nor ought to submit to a union which degraded them from an equal rank with the other States."

"Colonel Mason. If it were possible, by just means, to prevent emigration to the western country, it might be good policy."

It was not designed then to fill up the western country with emigrant people from the old States, and make States so fast. There was no idea of having them control the thirteen old States. If you would prevent emigration, said Colonel Mason, it would be good policy:

"But go the people will, as they find it for their interest; and the best policy is to treat them with that equality which will make them friends, not enemies.

"Mr. Gouverneur Morris did not mean to discourage the growth of the western country. He knew that to be impossible. He did not wish, however, to throw the power into their hands.

"Mr. Sherman was against the motion, and for fixing an equality of privileges by the constitution."

He was in favor of striking out, but he was for fixing an equality in the constitution:

"Mr. Langdon was in favor of the motion,"

The President of the Senate of the First Congress, from New Hampshire, Mr. Langdon, was in favor of the motion:

"He did not know but circumstances might arise, which would render it inconvenient to admit new States on terms of equality.

"Mr. Williamson was for leaving the Legislature free. The existing small States enjoy an equality now, and for that reason are admitted to it in the Senate. This reason is not applicable to new western States."

On Gouverneur Morris's motion, the question being fairly put: Shall that provision confining them to an equality with the old States be stricken out? New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecti cut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, all voted "ay" to strike it out. We do not want new States upon an equality. We want them under control, so that we can fix them as we please. If their representation is going to overshadow ours we want to limit it. But when they came to adopt a constitution afterwards, they fixed the equality of representa tion, which, it seems to me, controlled the whole matter on that point. On the motion to strike out, there were nine in favor of it, and two against it, from Maryland and Virginia.

Here was a proposition distinctly made to tie down the discretion of Congress to the footing of the old States; that they should not have the power to admit a new State, unless it came in on the footing of the old States. I am not contending, and do not let me be so understood, that it would be wise; I will not even contend here that Congress has the power, for that is not my purpose, that is not what I am after; I will not contend that it would be wise, neither will I contend that Congress has power, to admit a new State ex-ity with the old States, was left to the sound cept on an equal footing with the old States. What I am after, is to show that there was a provision in the original draft of the Constitution, and upon deliberation, upon motion, upon argument pro and con., the convention struck it out, for the very purpose of bringing the western States into the government on a different footing. Let me read from these debates. They are very instructive:

"Article seventeenth being then taken up"

which is this in regard to the new States

"Mr. Gouverneur Morris moved to strike out the two last sentences, to wit: if the admission be consented to, the new States shall be admitted on the same terms with the original States." "

Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out that provision. He did not like it; he did not want new States to come in on an equal

It seems to me conclusively shown, by this history of the provision, that the whole matter, whether we should admit new States on an equal discretion of Congress. Congress was to say whether it would admit them. Congress was the Legislature for the thirteen old States. It could examine the situation of those old States; it knew their wants; it knew their requirements, and could say whether new States should come in better than any other body. The whole matter was left in the discretion of Congress. I do not say that that is to be an arbitrary discretion; I do, not say that it is to be just as this or that man sup poses; but I do say it is to be an exercise of sound discretion-such a discretion as honorable Senators and honorable members of the House of Rep resentatives might be supposed to exercise, gove erned by all the considerations that enter into so momentous a question; governed by those Va rious considerations as to the position,

as to the