Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

2

[blocks in formation]

again towards the people whom I represent, to go and see them. I will be bound that they will treat him kindly; I will be bound, if he will come and give them the opportunity of showing him how they live, what is their condition, and how happy they are in their homes, that they will forgive him what they might almost consider an insult, and set it down to the fact that he did not know them better.

But the gentleman says they vote; they hold your power. They do vote; and they do hold the power. They put their men into office when they are fitted for it; and I will tell the honorable gentleman that there are no class of people that can hold power more safely, no class of people who will exercise the power more securely; and if your institutions are never overturned until these laboring men overturn them, they will exist for a great length of time.

[ocr errors]

Mr. CLARK. I have read history to very little
purpose if it is so. Now, I want to tell the Sen-
ator what I do know in reference to slavery in
New Hampshire. I happened to be engaged,
some years ago, and not so long ago, in a suit in
regard to the incorporation of a town-whether
Hooksett was incorporated. It involved a great
deal of history and research. I went into the his-
tory of the town, and of the neighboring towns;
and in the town of Hooksett found a bill of sale
of a little negro girl, a good many years before the
province became a State. That is all the trace I
could find of slavery in that province. It may
have been there; I think I have heard, as the gen-
tleman says, that slavery some time existed there.
I have searched the laws of the province; I have
searched the State laws; and I cannot find any
statute law recognizing it; I cannot find any de-
cision of courts upon it; I cannot find any law
abolishing it, and I am sure it is not there now.
That is all I can say in regard to it.

Why, Mr. President, history is full of remi-
niscences on this subject of laboring men. I have
said I come from a poor State. I mean a State Mr. President, I am opposed to this constitu-
poor in resources. She has, thank God, given tion because it admits slavery. I am opposed to
the world some men. She has free hearts, free it upon another ground. I am opposed to it be-
heads, and free hands in abundance. She is poor cause it excludes the free negro from the State.
in some respects. Poor as she was, when you It says that a free negro shall not be permitted to
wanted a ninth State to adopt the Constitution, live in Kansas. Now, I want to know why? I
that poor State of New Hampshire was that ninth. want to know if the exclusion is not an invidious
These laboring men, who it is said are essentially one? We have free negroes in the United States.
slaves, were the same then as now. Those labor- The gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. KENNEDY,]
ing men are the men who enabled you to adopt whom I do not now see in his seat, yesterday told
the Constitution; and now you turn round, and us that there were forty thousand free negroes in
vilify them as slaves! Mr. President, it ought Maryland. Now, if they are a burden to Mary-
not to be so. I wish it were not so; but such island, Maryland would like to have them go out
the issue upon us, and I am disposed to meet it of her State; but if every other State should pro-
calmly, to meet it quietly, and to meet it determ-hibit a free negro from living within her border,
inedly.

Mr. GREEN. I merely wish to ask the Senator whether, at the time that the Constitution of the United States was adopted by the State of New Hampshire, they did not hold slaves in the State of New Hampshire?

Mr. CLARK. I am not aware that they did hold a single slave; but if they did, it would not make any difference at all. I am not aware that they did. I have searched our statute-books, I have searched our records, and I have not been able to find the first provision in regard to slaves. I should like to ask the honorable Senator from Missouri if he knows whether they did or not? I say I have never been able to find any provision in regard to the subject of slaves. I know that slaves have been held in the province. There is no doubt of that. I will tell the honorable Senator how I know it, but I want him to answer if he knows that there were slaves there.

Mr. GREEN. Not by personal knowledge. I only know from history that there were slaves there.

Mr. CLARK. Where is the history, and what is it?

Mr. GREEN. I think I can show it.
Mr. CLARK. I wish you would.
Mr. GREEN: At the time of the separation
from Massachusetts of the province of New
Hampshire, and at the time of the State organi-
zation, there were some slaves in the limits of its
borders.

Mr. CLARK.
Massachusetts?
Mr. GREEN. Before the adoption of the Con-

When was it separated from

stitution of the United States.

Mr. CLARK. At what time?

Mr. GREEN. I do not recollect the date.
Mr. CLARK. Nor I either.

Mr. GREEN. Then there is no difference be

tween us.

Mr. CLARK. There is a difference about the date. New Hampshire never was a part of Massachusetts. Maine was taken from Massachu

setts.

Mr. GREEN. Maine was a territory attached.

Mr. CLARK. To what?

Mr. GREEN. To Massachusetts.
Mr. CLARK. That is not New Hampshire.
New Hampshire existed as a province under the

King.
Mr. GREEN. It had a separate charter under
the King, but I can show what I state.
Mr. CHANDLER. You are mistaken.
Mr. CLARK. If you show it, I will give in.
Mr. GREEN. Very well.

SENATE.

to pass it. I wish the Senate to give me its attention. It may be that what I say may not be of much importance; but I am going to speak upon a subject which, I think, every member of the Senate will say is of importance. I know that what I have to say

Mr. GREEN. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him?

Mr. CLARK. Certainly.

Mr. GREEN. I merely wish to call his attention to the fact-it is a mere question of factthat, in 1790, in the State of New Hampshire, there were one hundred and fifty-eight slaves returned by the census.

Mr. CLARK. Where do you find it?

Mr. GREEN. In the census report, page 82. Mr. CLARK. Will you be kind enough to furnish me the report? It may give me some information.

Mr. GREEN. Certainly. It was merely to that question of fact that I wanted to call your

attention.

Mr. CLARK. I see it so set down, and I do not
know but that it may be correct. I can only state,
as I have stated, that I have not examined the
census returns, but I have examined its legisla-
tion, its history, and its laws, to see if there was
any provision in regard to slaves in New Hamp-
shire, and I have not found any. If there were
slaves there, they were there by sufferance, with-
out any law regulating the subject that I am aware
of, and without any provision on the statute-
book, or any decisions of a court allowing them
to be there.

But, sir, if they were there I can only rejoice
that they are not there now. I hope the time will
come when every State that has them will find
some way to be relieved of them if they choose,
and I could wish that they should be relieved of
them; that is, those who wish to be. I want it to
be understood distinctly, in all that I have said,
that I do not claim the right to go into Maryland,
Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, or any other
of the slave States, and meddle with slavery there.
I only claim that when we inaugurate a new State,
when it comes into the Union, and when I think
that we have some power in this matter, we
should be permitted to use it for the good of the
country. I do not know but that I might appeal
to the Senator from Missouri to answer me, if he
does not think that Missouri would be better
without slaves if she could get rid of them. I
will not ask the question. It may be unpleasant.
Mr. GREEN. Not in the least. Ask me?
Mr. CLARK. No, no. I will now take my
tea, as it has just come in. I am sorry to have
to be obliged to do it, but I cannot help it.

then they could not go out of Maryland. Why
should one State be compelled to bear the burden,
if free negroes are a burden, and Kansas not take
her share? I hold that the free negro is as much
entitled to live in one part of the country as an-
other. I hold that it is not proper for the Con-
gress of the United States, breathing life into this
Lecompton constitution, to say it is not proper, it
is not desirable, it is not an exercise of sound dis-
cretion, for the Congress of the United States to
say that the free negro shall not live in Kansas.
I object to this provision in the constitution of
Kansas, which excludes from it the free negro. I
say that the negro has a right to a portion of this
common earth. You have no right to exclude
him from his portion of the common earth. Do
you tell him that be came from Africa, and if he
wants his portion of the common earth to go back
to Africa? Then I tell you, you came from Eng-
land, or your ancestors did, and if you want your
portion of the common earth go back to England.
It is the law of the strongest that enables you to
control. It is not the law of justice; it is not the
law of equality; and I say it is the insolence and
arrogance of slavery that demands that you should
exclude the free negro.

Mr. President, I wish some gentleman on the
other side of the House to answer me this ques-
tion: By the provision of the constitution of
Kansas a free negro cannot live in the State.
Suppose that the sovereign people of Kansas (and
you say they may alter their constitution and
may emancipate their slaves under certain con-
ditions) should say that after 1870 every negro
child born should be free; suppose that at the very
session of the Legislature after they were admit-
ted as a State they should declare that after the
year 1870 every negro child born there should be
free, with a view to emancipation; your consti-
tution stands, and a negro child is born free;
what are you going to do with it? What can you
do with it? Carry it out of the Territory? But
its mother lives in the Territory. If you carry
out you endanger its life; you sunder the ties
between mother and child; you are driven to the
necessity of taking the infant child and hastening
it out of the Territory, or else you cannot carry
on the work of gradual emancipation. Such a
plan as this perhaps may be the easiest way in
which emancipation can be done. Mr. President,
do you think that is desirable? Does anybody
think that it is desirable that there should be such
a provision forced upon that State?

If Senators will allow me, I wish now to touch
upon another topic in this Chamber, all unused
as Senators may be to hear it; but I am not going

it

[The honorable Senator had been furnished with tea and sandwiches, of which he proceeded to make a fitting disposition.]

Mr. GREEN. While the Senator is at tea, I will answer that question if he desires it.

Mr. CLARK. I will yield the floor, while I take my tea, to the Senator.

Mr. GREEN. I wish to make a remark in regard to the question which the Senator proposed

to me.

Mr. CLARK. Very well. Get up a little social chat, while at tea. [Laughter.]

It

Mr. GREEN. This will be a tea-chat. I do not believe the interests of Missouri would be promoted by prohibiting or abolishing slavery in that State. That is my opinion. The Senator asked me for my opinion. I give it. I believe very serious injury to the blacks would result from it. They are not Africans now. They are decendants of Africans. It would seriously harm them. It would seriously harm the owners. would seriously harm the production of the State. Their laboris employed in the production of hemp and tobacco, and it yields a profit almost equal, in my opinion, to the profit on the production of cotton and sugar. They are well cared for and well provided for in youth, in middle age, and old age. They have a guardian and protector from the cradle to the grave. Their labor in the intermediate period well remunerates the master, whose powerful intellect controls and directs the muscular energy of the black, who has not the intellect and the forecast to provide for himself. That is my answer to the question. If the Senlator has not finished his tea, I will speak again.

:

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CLARK. I should be very glad if you would.

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

Mr. BROWN and Mr. GREEN called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 14, nays 24; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Seward, Trumbull, and Wade-14.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Brown, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, Kennedy, Mallory, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs, and Wright-24.

A pause ensued, the Senator from New Hampshire not having finished his repast.

Mr. TRUMBULL. As there seems to be nothing going on, I move to lay the whole bill and amendments on the table.

Mr. PUGH. Permit me one moment. I desire to know whether the Senator from New Hampshire yields the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. FITCH in the chair.) There is nobody on the floor. Mr. PUGH. The Senator from New Hampshire has not concluded his remarks. If he does not yield the floor, I object to the motion of the Senator from Illinois, and I say it was out of order.

Mr. GREEN. The Senator is out of order, and I submit that the motion and debate is out of order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire suspended his remarks some time ago. The Chair thought he had finished his remarks, and entertained the motion of the Senator from Illinois, and will put it to the Senate. The question is on the motion to lay the bill and amendments on the table.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not desire to press the motion. I will withdraw it.

Mr.PUGH. Will the Senator from New Hampshire give me the floor a moment?

Mr. CLARK. I yield.

Mr. PUGH. I am extremely disinclined to press the Senator to a conclusion of his argument to-night. I have felt that he has not had the treatment at our hands that Senators newly coming amongst us receive.

Mr. GREEN. A motion to adjourn is not in order.

Mr. PUGH. I have not made any motion. Mr. GREEN. What is your proposition? Mr. PUGH. I was going to suggest that a general agreement be made upon the floor of the Senate, by Senators on each side, to name some early day when the vote can be taken, which would be much more agreeable than to go on now during the night.

Mr. GREEN. Everything of that sort has been refused.

Mr. PUGH. I was told by some Senators on this side that they would agree to take the vote on Monday.

Mr. GREEN. We will not agree to it. The friends of the bill will not agree to it. We will agree to any day this week, if it be made final; but to no other day.

Mr. PUGH. There would not be much difference between taking the vote on Saturday and Monday. I was in hopes that some agreement of the sort might be made.

Mr. BRODERICK. Imove that there be a call of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is not aware of any such motion ever being entertained or heard of in the Senate. He does not know of any rule on the subject, except in the absence of a quorum.

Several SENATORS. It can only be done when there is less than a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A call of the Senate can be entertained only under the 8th rule, which says that no member shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave of the Senate first obtained. There is no other rule under which a call of the Senate can be entertained.

Mr. BRODERICK. According to the last vote there were very few more than a quorum present and I find that several Senators have absented themselves since that time. My object is to as

certain whether there is a quorum of Senators on
the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
is disposed to concede this matter to older Sena-
tors. His understanding is, that unless some vote
shows that there is not a quorum present, such a
motion would be out of order.

Mr. BRODERICK. Is it in order to move an adjournment?

Mr. GREEN. No, sir; the Senate has just refused to adjourn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No business has intervened since the vote was taken on an adjournment.

Mr. BRODERICK. The Senator from Ohio addressed the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. But the Senator from Ohio made no proposition to the Senate. Mr. BRODERICK. Then I hope the Senator from New Hampshire will proceed with his remarks.

||

Mr. TOOMBS. Yes.

SENATE.

Mr. CAMERON. We have had no intimation of anything of the sort. To-morrow morning we can meet and decide on our course, and then, if we do not agree to meet them on some day, we cannot complain of the course of debate; but we should have an opportunity to confer.

Mr. CHANDLER. Will the Senator from Missouri give way to me for a moment?

Mr. GREEN. I cannot until I answer this. After I have done so, I shall be willing to have any interrogatory propounded to me. The first statement of the Senator from Pennsylvania was, that they were willing to take the final vote on next Monday. It now turns out that he was not authorized, as they assured me, to make any agreement without a caucus consultation; and what have we to hope for or expect? We have been trifled with, and the time of the Senate has been whiled away day after day. When this bill had been made the special order, when we had taken it up for Mr. CAMERON. I would ask whether it is consideration on Thursday, contrary to the wish right to press us in this way. It does seem of the side which I represent, all on the other side strange to me that gentlemen should refuse to ap-united to postpone the subject and to adjourn from point a reasonable time fixing the termination of Thursday to Monday, throwing away Friday and the debate. They have had it all their own way Saturday. Two or three Senators on that side for a long while. They have made their speeches, having had the floor, and after having spoken from voted for adjournments, controlled the Senate, one to two hours, gave way for such motions. and now on the last day desire to gag gentlemen They have not been treated with discourtesy. on this side of the Chamber. Is that fair? Is that the way honorable gentlemen expect to be dealt with? The gentlemen on this side said that they thought they could get the vote by next Monday; why not agree to it?

Mr. GREEN, I will answer.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield the floor?

Mr. CAMERON. I do not yield yet, for a moment. There are a number of gentlemen desirous to make speeches. I had some slight intention myself to make a speech; but I will not do so now, as I have agreed to pair off with a gentleman who has been called away from the Senate by a misfortune in his family-an act of God, over which he could have no control-the severe illness of his son, nearly arrived at manhood. I received a letter from him this evening, stating that he would not be back for a day or two, and for that reason I cannot act in this matter. Other gentlemen are similarly situated. I think great Courtesy has been extended on this side. Whenever gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber desired to be away, some of us agreed to pair off with them; but if we were to go on pairing off, you could control us to the end of time. On the other hand, if we thought proper to come here and depend upon our muscle, we could stand it as well, and perhaps better, and as long as they could; and longer, because they have sick members and ours are all well. I ask Senators, is it fair, under these circumstances, at this time of night, that the Senator from New Hampshire, who is unable to proceed with his speech, should be compelled to go on? This is not the sort of courtesy that used to prevail here in past times. I do not want to be a Senator here, if we are to be gagged as members are in the other House, and in the Legislatures of our States. I thought that all men aspired to be here because there was a degree of kindness, liberality, and generosity prevailing here, which could be found in no other body under heaven. I do not want to come here if it is to be changed from that rule. If I had the majority, I would give the other side time to go on in this matter.

Mr. GREEN. I beg leave to respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania. He first says his friends on that side of the Chamber were willing to take the final vote on Monday. I answer, that his friends on that side of the Chamber told me, not five minutes ago, that they were not authorized to make an agreement for Saturday, or any other day, without consulting their friends, and they refused. The Senator from Pennsylvania, then, is in conflict with the assurance given by Senators on that side of the Chamber.

Mr. CAMERON. Will the Senator suffer me
to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. GREEN. Certainly.
Mr. CAMERON. I understand the gentlemen
on the other side have had a caucus, and determ-
ined on their proceedings.

[ocr errors]

Mr. TOOMBS. I rise to a question of order. I am very desirous of getting on with the public business. I make the question of order that this discussion has nothing to do with the debate on the bill under consideration. I want that to go on. Mr. GREEN. I know it is out of order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the opinion of the Chair.

Mr. GREEN. I felt compelled to say something in response to the Senator from Pennsyl

vania.

Mr. BRODERICK. If a motion for adjournment is in order, I move that the Senate adjourn. Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

Several SENATORS. We can vote it down without the yeas and nays.

Mr. BRODERICK. I call for the yeas and nays, if the Senator from Mississippi does not call for them.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 15, nays 23; as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-15.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Brown, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, Kennedy, Mallory, Mason, Polk, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs, and Wright-23.

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. CLARK. When this interregnum occurred, I was about to make some remarks upon a matter which is not, I think, usually touched upon in the Senate of the United States. I would not do it, were it not for some remarks which fell from the Senator from Virginia [Mr. HUNTER] on Friday last, and also some remarks which fell from the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. KENNEDY.] I stand here to rebuke no one, to censure no one, to find fault with no one, but it did seem to me that some remarks that were made a few days since by those gentlemen were extraordinary. They were such remarks as, with all due deference and kindness to these Senators, I was sorry to hear. I do not know but that I might say, in charity, that I do not think the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Maryland would have made them, if they had bestowed upon them a little more consideration. I certainly was pained to hear them. I stand here to avow it, however unusual, it may be in the Senate of the United States, I stand here proud to say-no, sir, not proud, I do not feel proud-I stand here acknowledging the "higher law" as the true rule for the guide of men in their human affairs. I did not like to sit here in my seat, and hear the Senator from Virginia, and the Senator from Maryland, say they were opposed to the principles of the higher law. Now let them tell me what they of the God who governs us, then I am sorry to mean by the higher law? If they mean the law hear, in the United States Senate, any man say he is opposed to the principles of that law. I do not

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

mean to say, as was said by the Senator from Virginia, that we are here to administer the higher law. That is not what I mean; but I do not like to hear the higher law-I will speak of the law of eternal justice and right in that term-spoken of in that way. I stand here as a Senator, I hope we all do, to acknowledge that law. Sir, it would be a bitter mockery to put a clergyman in your seat to pray in the morning, and then stand up before night and deride the Giver of the law, by which we all ought to be regulated. It is the law of eternal right. I tell you, sir, in your place, I tell honorable Senators in their places, whatever they may think of it, whatever may be said in regard to it, that when the Senate and the Government of the United States forsake the principle of that law; when they disregard it, and cast it away, we are on the road to ruin. Our fathers did not so. They acknowledged the hand that ruled them, and why should not we?

Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Clark.

tution. I understand it, as I think I have shown,
to exist by the force of law. I know the report
in 9 Georgia Reports traces it back beyond the
constitution in the State, outside of the United
States, to the capture in Africa, to the slave
trader, who brings him here and sells him to a
person here; but still I hold it to be entirely under
the control of the Constitution and the law, and

I do not want to sanction anything of this kind.
It is a doctrine which is new, I think, in the Con-
stitution of the United States, and I do not want
to vote to admit a State with that provision in its
constitution, and I do not intend to do so.
You tell me that the people may alter this con-
stitution after they are admitted. I know they
may within the forms prescribed by it. There
are gentlemen who say they may alter it beyond
the form prescribed. I am not going to stop to
argue that point now, although I am prepared to
do so by-and-by. The point is, this provision is
in the constitution now. I have got to vote for the
admission of Kansas with this constitution as it is,
or not vote for it, leaving it to be altered afterwards;
and I do not choose to vote for the constitution as
it is. I prefer that the alteration should be made
first; I propose to say to the people of Kansas,
"stand outside; we do not choose to admit you
under that constitution," and to tell the people
of Kansas why. Let them see if they can form
another constitution, but say to them that we will
not give them that constitution. I do not propose
to sit down and form a constitution for them; I do
not claim that right; I propose to say to them we
do not assent to that constitution; there are things
in that constitution which we think should not
be there; we will not admit you under that con-
stitution; take the constitution to your people; let
them amend it if it be agreeable to them to amend
it, and form another, and we will see if you can
form a constitution under which we should be
come Union. This

Now, sir, I acknowledge those principles. I do not ask you; I do not ask the Senate of the United States; I do not ask the House of Representatives; I do not ask the Government of the United States; I ask nobody to administer that law. The author of that law will administer it, whether we are opposed to it or not; but I do ask Senators, if they do not choose to recognize it, not to stand here in the Senate and scoff at it, if I may use the expression. I do not censure anybody, Mr. President; but I do believe that the safety of the nation, the safety and salvation of man here, as well as hereafter, depend upon recognizing those great rules of right which that law prescribes. That is all I do mean. I do not ask you; I do not ask anybody; to go into their own hearts and take their own conscientious notions, and administer them as the law. I have no such idea. But I ask here, in the Senate of the United States, that we should not ignore those great principles of right ident, we have all got to be governed by it, and is my opinion in regard to it; and I do not choose all our actions have got to be conformed to it or to vote for a constitution having that provision in punished by it, whatever we may say, and what-it. I deny entirely that the right to a slave, and ever we may do, and however much we may op- its increase, is above and beyond the Constitupose it. Why should men recognize it in almost tion; I think it is under the control of the Constievery department of business, and here in the tution, and under the control of law, and should Government of the United States, where we need be under the control of the Constitution and law. as much wisdom as anywhere else, entirely ig nore it? I read no lesson to any Senator; I read no lesson to the Government; but I do ask that, if we do not choose to follow it, that such allusions should not be made to it.

to

say

Now, Mr. President, I will pursue what I have in regard to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. I said I was opposed to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution because it carried slavery into that State, and because it excluded the free negro from that State. I now say that I am opposed to it because it places the right of property in the slave above and beyond the constitution, and for aught that I see, beyond the control of the constitution. Such is, in substance, the language of the constitution, in the article regulating slavery. It is section first, article seventh:

"The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same, and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever."

I do not say, I do not mean to say, that in a State where slavery exists by law and is made soby positive law, that that may not be true. I do not say that by the mere force of law in a State which tolerates and establishes slavery, that laws may not be passed which may not give, by the force of law, the same right to a slave and its increase that it gives to any other property; but I do say that I am opposed to admitting any State with a constitution containing provisions like that, for this reason: this constitution, though adopted in form by the people of Kansas, though they have molded it, and sent it here, and when admitted as a State it will be declared to be the constitution of Kansas, and of the people of Kansas, yet it cannot exist except by the passage of this act, and unless we give it vitality. So if this constitution goes into operation with this provision in it, the Congress of the United States, in fte, passes the provision giving it force, giving it vitality, and it may be said to be their act. dissent from it; I do not understand that the right to property in a slave is higher than the Consti

But, Mr. President, I object to this constitution for another reason. I object to it because it takes from the people, no matter now whether by fraud or otherwise, (that is not what I am going to assume,) the power to alter the constitution until 1864. I do not know but that I ought here to allude to an amendment which I shall propose; I do not know that I shall get another opportunity of speaking, as it seems to be the determination to force the vote. It may be, perhaps, somewhat out of order to speak of it now; but here in this constitution we find this remarkable provision:

"SEC. 14. After the year 1864, whenever the Legislature shall think it necessary to amend, alter, or change this constitution, they shall recommend to the electors at the next general election, two thirds of the members of each Ilouse concurring, to vote for or against calling a convention, and if it shall appear that a majority of all citizens of the State have voted for a convention, the Legislature shall, at its next regular session, call a convention, to consist of as many members as there may be in the House of Representatives at the time, to be chosen in the same manner, at the same places, and by the same electors that choose the Representatives; said delegates so elected, shall meet within three months after said election, for the purpose of revising, amending, or changing, the constitution; but no alteration shall be made to affect the rights of property in the ownership of slaves."

Here is an attempt by a provision of the constitution-I do not say whether it can be successful, or whether the people have or have not power to alter it-on the part of the people who framed this constitution to perpetuate slavery in that Territory forever.

They may alter their constitution, according to this provision, after the year 1864; but any alteration made shall not affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves. What is the result, if this is so? You have slavery in the constitution when the State comes in; you have a provision that after 1864 you may alter that constitution; but you shall not in any way affect the ownership of slaves Whether that attempt to fasten slavery upon the State may be successful or not, leaving out of the case the power of the people to alter this constitution, if you please, I object to voting for the admission of a State with any such con

SENATE.

stitution. I object to voting for the admission of a State which makes the pretense even by its constitution to fasten slavery upon the people in that way, because it leaves the whole question open There is to be discussion about it; there is to be division about it, and quarrel over it, which is to agitate that State; and I would have them have a constitution by which they would have it under their control. I would not have a constitution which ties up any subject from the people.

But, Mr. President, I differ entirely from some gentlemen who say that the people can alter their constitution any time they please after it is made. I do not agree with them. I do not think it is so. I do not know but that a State may be admitted in a way which shall give the people power of amendment. The amendment I propose, that the State should come in on that condition, is with that view. I do not know but that we have the power to impose a condition on the admission of a State. I see by the bill for the admission of Kansas which has been framed by the Committee on Territories, that they say that the State shall be admitted upon condition that they shall not interfero with the public lands. If you can impose one condition, or a condition of that kind, cannot you impose a condition that the constitution shall not be construed in a particular way? But they will say this is an alteration of the constitution. It may be some check upon the constitution; but I believe the people have the right and the power, that we have the right and the power, to so admit a State upon express condition that nothing in that constitution shall be construed to impair the right or take away the right of the people to alter that constitution as they may please.

I would like to call the attention of the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. PUGH] to this point. I would like to call his attention to his amendment, if it be in order, or allowable in the latpre

cisely under consideration before the Senate. I understand the amendment of the honorable Senator from Ohio to be to this effect: that nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the people from construing it. I have not the amendment

before me.

Mr. WADE. Will the Senator give way for a motion to adjourn?

Mr. CLARK. If the gentleman desires to make a motion to adjourn, I will give way, and call for the yeas and nays on it.

At nine o'clock the yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 6, nays 24; no quorum voting:

YEAS-Messrs. Broderick, Clark, Hamlin, King, Stuart, and Wilson-5.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Brown, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, Kennedy, Mallory, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs, and Wright-24.

The VICE PRESIDENT. There is not a quorum voting.

Mr. BIGGS. There is evidently a quorum in the Chamber.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks it is evident that there is a quorum in the Senate. Many Senators did not vote.

Mr. TOOMBS. I take it the vote is sufficient. Less than a quorum can refuse to adjourn just as well as forty. The Senate have determined that they will not adjourn.

Mr. HAMLIN. That is very true. It does not require a majority to adjourn or to refuse to adjourn, but it requires a quorum to proceed with the business of the Senate.

Mr. PUGH. If that be the case, I move that the Sergeant-at-Arms bring in the absentees. Mr. TOOMBS. They are here.

Mr. PUGH. Let them be brought to the bar of the Senate.

Mr. TOOMBS. I move that the gentlemen present who did not vote be called to the bar of the Senate. The question may as well be decided at this time as any other.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will call the attention of the Senate, for a moment, to one of the rules of the body. The 16th rule of the Senate provides that

"When the yeas and nays shall be called for by one fifth of the members present, each member called upon shall, unless for special reason he be excused by the Senate, de

35TH CONG....1ST SESS.

Kansas-Lecompton Constitution-Mr. Mason, and others.

clare openly, and without debate, his assent or dissent to the question."

There is a quorum in the House evidently, or was a moment ago. A number of Senators did not vote. It will be for the Senate to say whether the Senators who did not vote shall be called upon to do so, or what steps shall be taken in regard to it.

Mr. MASON. The usage always has been, as I recollect, since my entrance here several years ago, when there was really not a quorum of the Senate present, and those present desired to proceed with business, to direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to request the absentees to attend. There has been no instance within my knowledge, where the Sergeant-at-Arms has been directed to bring them here. I think it desirable to have the usual courtesies preserved. It is manifest that on the last call of the yeas and nays, the want of a quorum was on account of Senators present declining to vote. A Senator does that on his responsibility, and it will be for the Senate to say whether they will take any order to. require the rules of the Senate to be observed. I would suggest, therefore, that the vote be again taken, so that it may be seen whether there are any Senators present who declined to vote, and if that be the fact, let the Senate decide whether it will take any order to see that the rule be enforced. I move that the roll be called again on the same motion.

Mr. BIGGS. I wish to inquire whether it would be in order to call the names of the absentees, to ascertain what Senators are present who declined to vote?

The VICE PRESIDENT. That is most strictly in order.

Mr. BIGGS. I shall then call on them by name to request them to vote, if I can ascertain who declined.

Mr. CAMERON. I will make a suggestion; I can hardly make a motion at this stage of the question. I suggest to gentlemen on the other side to adjourn, so as to give Senators on this side an opportunity to consult, in the morning; and if, after being in caucus to-morrow morning, we fail to meet you with a proposition to fix some reasonable time to close this debate, I, for one, will give up; but I think for the present we had better adjourn.

Mr. GREEN. I rise to a question of order. Mr. CAMERON. Oh, there is no order about it. There is no order in what was done before. Without a quorum we can know of no order. Mr. GREEN. I demand order. Mr. CAMERON. I cannot be put down by

that man.

Mr. GREEN. There is no question pending. Mr. CAMERON. I have the floor.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri has a right to raise his question of order. The Chair will hear it.

Mr. GREEN. My question of order is that there is nothing debatable before the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. That point of order, if insisted on, is well taken, and the Chair must so rule.

Mr. CAMERON. There can be no question before the Senate when there is not a quorum here. How can you decide a question of order without a quorum?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will suspend for a moment. The Chair desires, of course, to act with perfect propriety in the premises. The Chair is satisfied that there is a quorum of the body present. The 16th rule, which has already been read, says that upon a call of the yeas and nays," each member called upon shall, unless for special reason he be excused by the Senate, declare openly, and without debate, his assent or dissent." The Senator from North Carolina desires that the Senators present not voting shall be ascertained, in order that the Senate may determine whether it will excuse them from voting. Under these circumstances the Chair will direct the Secretary to call the names of the Senators who did not vote, so that the Chair may ascertain the Senators who did not vote, and then the Senate can take such course as it deems proper. The Secretary will therefore report the names.

The Secretary called the names of the following Senators: Mr. BELL, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. CAM

ERON

Mr. CAMERON. I did not vote, because, as I have stated several times to-night, I have paired off with a gentleman who is compelled to be ab

sent.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I move that the gentleman from Pennsylvania be excused from voting. Mr. CAMERON. If I am to be counted as being present, I shall walk out.

The VICE PRESIDENT put the question on the motion to excuse Mr. CAMERON; and it was agreed to.

Mr. FITCH. I think I heard my colleague's [Mr. BRIGHT's] name mentioned. I announced once before this evening that he had paired off with the Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL.] I understood it was to be a temporary pair; but I do not see Mr. BELL in his seat.

Mr. SEWARD. I move that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BRIGHT] be excused from voting. Mr. WADE. On that motion I call for the

yeas and nays. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Indiana is not present.

The Secretary called the name of Mr. CHAND

LER.

Mr. WADE. I demanded the yeas and nays before that name was called, on the motion to excuse the Senator from Indiana.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair doubts the propriety of a motion to excuse a Senator from voting when he is not present.

Mr. STUART. How does the Chair know that fact, sir? The Chair cannot know who is here and who is not here, unless by the vote.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will suggest to the Senator that he thinks there is a quorum present.

Mr. STUART. But the Chair is now deciding points of order. My point is, that the Chair cannot officially take notice whether a Senator is here or not. There is a motion to excuse a member from voting. If he manifests that he is here by a vote, or by a remark, or by anything else that the Chair can take notice of officially, that is proper; but the Chair cannot decide whether he shall be excused from voting by saying that he is not here.

Mr. GREEN. Yes he can.
Mr. STUART. Not at all.

Mr. PUGH. I think that point of order will bring us just to the suggestion I made before. A Senator is either present or absent. That is a clear case. If the Senator from Michigan is right, that those who do not vote are absent, then I think the Sergeant-at-Arms ought to bring them here. Whether they are inside of the Chamber or not, he ought to bring them into the Senate, and to the notice of the Senate. If they are here present and do not vote, and the Chair can take notice of them, then there is no propriety, of course, in sending the Sergeant-at-Arms after them. I will do what I have tried all night long, to make some compromise, so as to effect an adjournment. The majority will not adjourn unless that is done, and I shall vote against all factious proceedings on either side.

Mr. STUART. I certainly have no desire to introduce anything here of a novel character. I have a great desire, however

Mr. GREEN. I rise to a question of order. The VICE PRESIDENT. Will the Senator state his point of order?

Mr. GREEN. It is this: that while the Secretary is calling the names of the absentees, to see whether there is a quorum present, no question,

of order is debatable, and a Senator cannot even make a motion until the call is gone through with. Mr. STUART. I think the Senator will have to look into books that nobody else has seen to find any such principle as that.

Mr. GREEN. I expect to do it.

Mr. STUART. Well, we shall see. Now, sir

Mr. GREEN. I have not yielded the floor; I have made my question of order, and I submit it to the Chair.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will remind the Senate

Mr. SEWARD. One moment, if the Chair pleases. I wish to be heard on the question of order.

Mr. GREEN. I call the Senator from New

SENATE.

York to order, until my point is either sustained or overruled.

Mr. SEWARD. I shall object to any point being sustained or overruled by the Chair in my presence here until I am heard about it.

Mr. GREEN. You have no right to be heard until he either sustains it or overrules it. Mr. SEWARD. You will see.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Senators will be good enough to pause for a moment. Will the Senator from Missouri restate his point of order?

Mr. GREEN. My point is this: that under a rule of the Senate, the President of the Senate has ordered the names of those who did not answer on the last vote to be called, and during the progress of that call no matter of debate is in order. The Senator from Michigan is undertaking to make an argument in excuse, and to avoid the effect of the call. I say that is not in order until the call is through.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair begs leave to suggest that the proceedings of the last fifteen minutes are new to him; but he will state his opinion on the points of order raised, with the leave of the Senate.

Mr. SEWARD. I must insist that the Senator raising the point of order shall take his seat.

Mr. GREEN. I call the Senator from New York to order.

Mr. SEWARD. I call the Senator from Mis-. souri to order, and my point of order is this: that he has not the floor while the Chair is explaining.

Mr. GREEN. He has no right to call me to order.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Missouri has stated his point of order. The Chair will hear the suggestion of the Senator from New York.

Mr. GREEN, (to Mr. SEWARD.) Make your suggestion.

Mr. SEWARD. I wish to know whether I must make my suggestions under the permission of the Chair, or by the command of the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. GREEN. Either is equally obligatory. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New York has the floor.

Mr. SEWARD. The point of order made by the Senator from Missouri is that a call of mem bers is being made by the Secretary, and that while that call is proceeding, no Senator can speak to any question whatever. I answer that the Secretary is without authority to make the call. Then the Senator from Missouri says that he is ordered by the President of the Senate to make it. I answer that when there is not a quorum of the Senate present, the President of the Senate cannot direct that call to be made.

Mr. GREEN. It is too late for that point. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New York comes to the precise point.

Mr. SEWARD. I say that without authority of a majority of the body, no proceedings can be

had.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will state that on the last call of the yeas and nays there was nota quorum voting. It was quite apparent to the Chair, however, that there was a quorum in the Chamber. The Chair supposes it to be usual in all deliberative bodies to ascertain whether a quorum be present, and that power would exist in the Chair, as the organ of the body, to ascertain the fact whether a quorum be present, of necessity. The Chair assumed at the moment that there was a quorum present, and he might take this mode of ascertaining whether a quorum was really present, by directing the Secretary to call the names of those Senators, who did not vote, and if they are present in the Chamber and respond to their names or are obviously present, the Chair will be able to announce to the Senate that there is a quorum of the body here.

Mr. TOOMBS. Certainly; that is the proper

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

DENATE

Ler sustai

any pa

Chair E

[ocr errors]

to be hear

[ocr errors]

tors w

WAR

Ent of orde

bat sed
Secate te

g the

[ocr errors]

Dand

order

Chair be

of th

[ocr errors]

The Sen

from No

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

called, with a view to ascertain whether there be a quorum present.

Mr. STUART. I should like to call the attention of the Chair especially to the point of order which was made upon me, and to show the Chair that the Senator from Missouri has not recollected the facts. There was a motion made to excuse a Senator from voting. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE] demanded the yeas and nays upon that motion. The Chair remarked that he doubted the propriety of moving to excuse a member who was not present. Now, sir, that is a debatable motion, to excuse a member, and I have the floor on that subject.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair has no hesitation in retracting an opinion expressed by him when he believes that he was in error. Mr. GREEN. Mr. President

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will pause; the Chair is speaking to the point of order. The Chair doubts the propriety now of the motion which he put to excuse the Senator from Pennsylvania, because the object he had in having the roll called was to ascertain whether there be a quorum present; and he was wrong in putting the question on the motion to excuse the Senator from Pennsylvania before the preceding question was determined-whether there was a quorum present? If the case were before him again, with his present opinions, the Chair would not entertain the motion to excuse the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STUART. But the motion now before the Senate is to excuse the Senator from Indiana; and to that motion I rose.

The VICE PRESIDENT. There is no motion before the Senate; and no question can be now before the Senate except to ascertain the presence of a quorum.

Mr. GREEN. That is it.

Mr. STUART. Will the Chair inform me what has become of the motion that the Senator from Indiana be excused from voting?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair does not entertain the motion, because he does not know that there is a quorum to vote upon it. Mr. STUART. Very well; what next? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will do his best, in justice to all sides, to conduct the proceedings with regularity and propriety. The Secretary will continue to call the names of absentees. Mr. WADE. What is the question? The VICE PRESIDENT. There is no question before the Senate. The Chair is trying to ascertain whether a quorum of this body is present. The Secretary will continue to call the list of absentees.

The Secretary called the names of

Mr. HOUSTON. No response.
Mr. HUNTER. No response.
Mr. PEARCE. No response.
Mr. REID. No response.
Mr. SEWARD. "Here."
Mr. SIMMONS. No response.
Mr. SUMNER. No response.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Kentucky. No response.
Mr. TRUMBull. "Here."
Mr. WADE. "Here."

Mr. YULEE. No response.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Upon the call of the yeas and nays, the yeas were 6, and the nays 24-less than a quorum. The Chair being satisfied that there was a quorum present in the Chamber, and on the suggestion also of Senators, directed the vote to be called. Nine Senators who did not vote, have answered to their names, which, added to those who did vote, makes a quorum. The names of those nine Senators are at the service of the body.

Mr. MASON. Mr. President, we have attained a new stage in the deliberations of the Senate. The rule of this body requires that each Senator present shall vote when his name is called. Mr. STUART. I rise to a question of order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair was about to say to the Senator from Virginia, that his next duty is to have the names of those Senators called in their order, that they may vote, unless they be excused by the Senate.

Mr. MÁSON. I intended to make a motion. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary will call the names of those Senators who responded to their names on the last calling of the roll, but who did not vote when the question was put. The Secretary called the name of Mr. CHAND

LER.

Mr. CHANDLER. What is the question? I was not present when it was put.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question was
on adjournment.

Mr. CHANDLER. I vote to adjourn.
The Secretary called the name of Mr. DIXON,

[ocr errors]

and he answered "
nay.
Mr. PUGH. I hope we shall not pass the first
case. We may as well make a stand there.
Mr. BROWN. The Senator voted; that is all
you can ask.

The Secretary called the name of Mr. FESSEN

[blocks in formation]

The VICE PRESIDENT. What rule does the Senator desire to hear read?

Mr. FESSENDEN. The rule with reference to voting on a call of the yeas and nays. Mr. BROWN. The Senator has shown his presence.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will read the sixteenth rule:

"When the yeas and nays shall be called for by one-fifth of the members present, each member called upon, shall, unless for special reason he be excused by the Senate, declare openly and without debate, his assent or dissent to

[blocks in formation]

"When the yeas and nays shall be called for by one fifth of the members present, each member called upon shall, unless for special reason he be excused by the Senate, declare openly, and without debate, his assent or dissent to the question."

The Senator from Maine is now called upon to vote for the first time. He asks to be excused, but has assigned no reason. The Chair, however, will entertain the motion.

Mr. FESSENDEN. At the suggestion of the Senator near me, under the circumstances of the case, I withdraw my request to be excused, and vote yea.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

SENATE.

[blocks in formation]

The VICE PRESIDENT then announced the result-yeas 15, nays 24; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Broderick, Chandler, Clark, Dixon, Fessenden, Foot, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Seward, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-15.

NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Brown, Fitch, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Jones, Kennedy, Mallory, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs, and Wright-24.

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. WILSON addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New Hampshire yield the floor to the Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. CLARK. Certainly.

Mr. WILSON. I move that the further consideration of this question be postponed until half past twelve o'clock to-morrow.

Mr. SEWARD. On that motion I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HALE. I rise to what I believe is a privileged question; but I do not know that it is. I understand that there has been a call upon the members who were not here when the question was put on the last motion; and it appears by the call that there were a good many absent members. I move that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to procure the attendance of absent members.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair was in the act of addressing the Senate, and the Senator did not obtain the floor. The Chair will hear him in a moment, as soon as the Senate determines whether it will take the question by yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. HALE. My proposition is to procure the attendance of absent members. I think it is the privilege of the body to have the Senate full. I move, therefore, that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to procure the attendance of the absent members. I have not had an opportunity to look at the rules; but I take it this order is in the power of every House.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair is inclined to think that the motion is in order.

Mr. GREEN. If the Senator has made a motion, I should like to know what it is.

Mr. HALE. That the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to procure the attendance of absent members.

Mr. GREEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. STUART. I submit that that cannot be done. To lay a simple motion on the table is not parliamentary.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair inclines to think that the motion to lay on the table is in order. If that is carried, it is an expression of the sentiment of the Senate, that they will not at this time call for absent members.

Mr. SEWARD. On that motion I ask for the
yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STUART. Mr. President-

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Hampshire moves that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to bring in the absent Senators. The Senator from Missouri moves to lay that motion upon the table. Upon this the yeas and nays have been ordered. Senators who are for laying the subject on the table, will, when their names are called, answer "yea;" those opposed to it will answer "nay."

Mr. STUART and Mr. HAMLIN addressed the Chair.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. HAMLIN. With the permission of the Senator from Michigan, I desire to say that in my opinion, the Chair, in stating the motion, does not state it in the language in which it was made by the Senator from New Hampshire. I think there is a great deal of force in the suggestion made by the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. PUGH. I call the Senator to order. The motion to lie on the table is not debatable.

Mr. HAMLIN. I am making a suggestion to the Chair in relation to the manner of proceeding. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair is will

« ZurückWeiter »