VOL,HIE SZ.
NEW SERIES.
TEE BEDFORD GAZETTE
tS PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY MORNING
BY MEYERS in BEN L ORD,
At the following terms, to wit:
$1.50 per annum, in advance.
$2.00 " 44 if paid within the year.
$2.50 " if not paid within the year.
K7~No subscription taken for less than six months,
paper discontinued until all arrearages are
paid, utiles at the option of the publishers. It has
heen decided by the United States Courts, that the
stoppage of a newspaper without the payment of ar
rearages, is prima facie evidence ot fraud and is a
criminal offence.
[CF'The com ts have decided that persons are ac.
countable for the subscription price of newspapers,
f they take them from the post office, whether they
iubscrihe for them, or not.
SPEECH OF
HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS,
OF GEORGIA,
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY
12, 1859.
The House having under consideration the
bill providing for the admission ot Oregon
Mr. STEPHENS, ot Georgia, said :
Mr. SPEAKER : I do not know that T can say
anything that will add force to the argument
already marie in behalf of the admission of Ore
gon. It is my purpose, However, to contribute
what I can to that end. And if I fail in my
wish, it will be because my ambition is not e
qual to my zeal. Apart from considerations ol
public duty and justice to the people claiming
this admission, there is another consideration
which enlists my entire energies for the bill ; j
that, sir, is tile opportunity it affords me, as a
southern man, and one acting with the Demo
cratic pai ty, to show tin- groundlessness of the
charge made la.-t year, that we were in favor
of putting one rule to a Slate applying with a
slave-State constitution, and anothor and a
more rigorous rule to a free-State application ; <
that we require a larger population for the ad
mission of a Slate not tolerating African sla
very, than one permitting and allowing it.—
The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. STANTON,] who
has just taken his seat, has reasserted that
charge, in substance. Sir, I repudiated it when
it was first made, and I repudiate it now.—
The position of Kansas and that "Oregon are
totally dissimilar: and whatever consideration
ol duty, looking to the peace and quiet of that
country, as well as the general welfare, may
have induced me and other?, to put the popula
tion restriction upon any further application
from Kansas, like considerations of duty, ola
higher character, acting as we now are, under
existing obligations which we cannot ignore,
forbid that the same representative ratio rule
should be extended to Oregon. As 1 stab din
my opening remarks, under existing compacts,
under existing laws affirming and extending
what all regarded as a most solemn compact,
the ordinance oi 1787, it is, in mv judgment,
a high obligation to admit Oregon so soon as she
has sixty thousand inhabitants.
Now, sir, before going into details, I wish to
reply to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. STAN- ;
TON,) who has just taken his seat, it 1 under
stand him, and the gentleman frotn Massachu
setts, [Mr. Goora.] who asked that significant
question ot the Delegate from Oregon and Sena
tor elect : how he would vote in the Senate on
the repeal of the population clause in the Kan
sas biil of last session ? both of them would be
willing to vote for the admission of Oregon,
provided tiiat representative ratio required of
Kansas should be repealed. i hey occupy this
strange position : because the Democratic par
ty did Kansas at the last session, as tlu-y assume,
a wrong, they will do Oi egon a like wrong at
this session, by vvay of retaliation.
Mr. ST A VI'ON. The gentleman misunder
stands me.
Mr. S TEPHENS, of Georgia. I cannot he
interrupted. 1 have heard the gentleman's ar
gument: so has the House ; and the gentleman
and the House will hear mine. Let them stand ,
together. I understand the minority of the;
Committee on Territories, with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gitotvs] at their tiead,
signify a like willingness.
Mr. GROW. No, sir; I stated distinctly
that I would never go for the clause of the con
stitution I have indicated.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Do not inter
rupt me. t state the gentleman's position as it
appears in his minority report. The only thing
he complains of in it is the discrimination, as:
he calls it, in the Kansas conference bill. The j
only amendment he proposes to this bili is a
repeal of that. Not a word in his report against
the obnoxious clause in the Oregon constitution
against negro equality. That lie passes over,
and evidently seems to rest his entire opposi
tion to this biil to the existing law in reference
to Kansas. What has brought "this change j
over the spirit of his dream" I do not know. I
am glad, however, to see that there is a number j
of the oth.pr side actuated by a more liberal, a .
juster, and a more magnanimous sentiment.—
They cannot see the logic, or the moral ot ttie j
jxisit ton ol the gentleman from Pennsylvania:
that because, in his assumption, tJus side ot the
House did wrong last session, therefore lie will
do wrong this. TQ the majority on that side,
acting with the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
I would put the question, how can two wrongs
make a right ? If it were granted that injus- j
lice was done Kansas, how can that be righted
b^vpeating it towards Oregon ? That side ot
the House will permit me to tell them, that by
their votes to-day they will spike every gun
they have fired against the Democratic party
lor their alleged injustice done to Kansas, if
the Democratic party did wrong to Kansas, (but
T shall show that the cases are totally dissimi
lar,) the Republican part}* seems disposed to
day to follow suit, and do the same wrong they
complain of to Oregon. If they are sincere in
their belief, arid not governed solely by oppo
sition and antagonism, would it not be the
wiser, the betf- Hi** nobler, and more states
manlike course ior them to come forward and
Set ut an example of doing right, as the two \
I gentlemen from Massachusetts [Mr. THAYER
and Mr. COMINS,] urged them yesterday ?
But, sir, the cases are totally dissimilar; the
clause in the Kansas compromise bill, refusing
to hear any further application for admission
j from her in case of her declining to come into
the Union under her then application, with
the modification of her land proposition, which
we submitted, until she had a population equal
to the representative ratio, may, or may not
have been right, according to the opinions' of
gentlemen. The policy of adopting such a
geneial principle in all cases where it can be
done, may, or may not be right, as gentlemen
may vary in their opinions; but that question
; cannot arise in the case ot Oregon. We a p e
foreclosed on that point, in the territorial organ
ic act; and I appeal, not only to this side ot the
House but to every side, and ask how they can
get round that obligation in the territ >rial bill
of Oregon, of 1848, which declares solemnly
that all the guarantees, privileges, arid rights
secured to the people of the Northwest Teiri
tory, should be extended to the peop!eof Ore
gon ? The words of the act are :
4t Src. 14. And it it further enacted, That
the inhabitants ot said Territory shall be enti
tled to enjoy all and singular itie rights, privi
leges, and advantages, granted and., secured to
the people of the Territory of the United States
! northwest of the river Ohio by the articles ol
compact contained in the oidmance for the
government of said Territory, on the 13th day
of July, 1787, and shall be subject to at! the
conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions, in said
articles of compact imposed upon the people of
said Territory."— Statutes at Isirge, volume 9,
page 3:29.
And what were those rights and privileges,
guarantied to the people in the Northwest Ter- .
rilory hereby secured and guarantied to the peo
ple of Oregon ? Here they are :
"And whenever any of the said States shall
have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein,
such State shall be admitted by its Delegates
into the Congress of the Uuited States on an e
quai footing with the original States, in a'l re
spects whatsoever; and shall be at liberty to
form a permanent constitution and State gov
ernment : Provided, The constitution and gov
ernment so to be formed shall be republican,
and in conformity to the principles contained j
in these articles: and so far as it can be consis- j
tent with the general interests of the Confedera
cy, such admission shall be allowed at an ear ti
er period, and when there may be a less num
ber of free inhabitants in the State than sixty
thousand."— Fifth Article Ordinance 1787,
Statutes at Large, volume 1, page 53.
No such guarantee as this was evergiv®" ,
ttie people ol me Territory ol iiansar; if there
had been, that representative-ratio teature could :
not have been put in the conference bill with- j
out a violation of plighted faith. And is there
any inconsistency on this side ot the House in ,
adopting the representative—ratio principle,
wherever it can be done, and still maintain good
faith where previous obligations prevented !
Oregon is the only Teriitory to which this pre
vious obligation to admit with sixty thousand
inhabitants applies. Hers must be an excep-j
tional case in any general rule that it may be
deemed advisable to adopt lor all the other 1 er
ritories for the future. Kansas stands in a po
sition to take tier place with all the others, ex
cept Oregon, without any just cause ol com
plaint. Whether such general rule be wise ar.d
proper, is not now the question; nor whether
its application to Kansas at the last session was
right or wrong: the question before us at tins
time, is si.mt>ly whether we will discharge an
existing obligation?
The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. ZOLU
COFFER,] who made one ol the minority reports,
argues that the compact of 1787, extended to
Oiegon by act of 1848, was not in the nature
of an engagement with the people of a T-rrito- 1
ry, but with a State. The languagp, he savs,
is,"whenever any ot said States," Src. Mr.
Speaker, what makes a State? Is it boundary ?
is it limits? is it livers? is it parallels of lati
tude* ? Sir, people make States. His argu
ment, to my mind, has no force. The Terri
tory was defined, and the compact entered into
with ttie people, with the inhabitants; and that
compact was, that as soon as they had sixty
thousand fiee inhabitants, they were to be enti
tled to admission as a State; and further, so far
as it can be consistent with the general interest,
such admission shall be allowed with a less
number than sixty thousand inhabitants. There
is no escape from this; nor aie we without
some lights as to a proper construction of these
words. It is the same identical guarantee that
was extended to Tennessee in 1790; and how
was this language interpreted by those wfio
made the compact ? How was it construed by
the grpat lights of the old Republican party ?
This identical question came up on the admis
sion of Tennessee, the gentleman's own State.
The debate on that question was referred to
yesterday. There is no dodging the question
no evading it. The question here, so far as pop
ulation is concerned, is the same as that on the
admission of Tennessee. The only fact in issue
now befo:e us, is the fact that was in issue then.
It is not whether ttie pioposed State has ninety
thousand or one hundred thousand, but simply
whether it has sixty thousand inhabitants. I
will not go over the argument to show that it
has. lam satisfied that there are over sixty
thousand inhabitants in Oregon. I am well
satisfied, from the evidence I cited the other
day, that there are over one hundred thousand.
There were forty-three thousand and upwards
in 1855, as shown bv an imperfect census.—
Five years before there were only ten thousand.
In five years they had increased fuur-fold.—
With a proportionate increase there would be
now one hundred and thirty thousand and up
wards. Bui even suppose the "crease has
been partially retarded: the other evidence
shows there must be over one hundred thousand.
The official report shows peisonal property to
the amount of $22,000,000. Suppose the peo
ple of Oregon to be worth S2OO per capita of
BEDFORD, PA, FRIDAY MORNING, MABCTI 25, 1859.
L ! personal property—which is more than ant
State in tlie Union; there would be one bun
> dred and ten thousand inhabitants. I think tb
; per papita estimate of personal property a
S2OO is too high for Oregon. In Georgia
i where the weath per capita is greater, as
showed the other day, than in any other S'..j
in the Union, it is, including real and pers*-,
estate together, $531 for the entire population
Theaverage in the United Statps is something
i over $350. Place it at $l5O io Oregon foi
personal property alone, (for they own no rea
estate there—no land patents have yet issued
and the population will be over one hundrer
and thirty thousand. These facts satisfy rru
tiiat there aie mere than one hundred thousam
people there. No man can doubt it seems tc
me, that there are over sixty thousand; anc
that is the question.
Then, sir in the debate i eferred to on the
admission oi Tennessee, what said .Mr. Madison
on that point ?
"The fact of population was the only necessa
ry one ; and would gentlemen be satisfied with
; no other method of ascertaining it but such us
they themselves should direct ?"
He went on :
"If there were the stipulated number of in
habitants, that Territory could not be denied
its claim of becoming a State of the Union
witout a violation of rights."
Again, he says that—
"He himself has no doubt on the subject :
the evidence was sufficient and satisfactory."
And again he said :
"Hut he thought, where there was a doubt,
, Congress ought to lean towards a decision which
would give equal rights to every part ol the
American people."
He said there was no doubt on his mind that
there were sixty thousand people there , and
that, under the compact, they w°re bound, bv
all the facts lie could gather, to admit the Stale.
How can tfie gentleman escape that ? Mr.
Macon, a gentleman who occupied a r.igh posi
tion in the Republican party of that day not
the parly ot modern Republicans, but ol good
old Republicans of the JefFersonian school—one
oi the shining lights of the House, whose name
will go down to history and Jive as long as the
names ot the founders of the Republic, said ;
"The question before the committee was on
admitting the Territory to be a Slate in the
I nion. I here appeared to him only two
things as necessary to be inquired into. First,
was the new government republican * It
appeared to him to be so. Secon I, were there
sixty thousand inhabitants in the Territory ?
It appealed to him tfiere were : and if so, their
- 'mission as a State shook' " Jl > ' **"
a gilt, but as a right.
Again, Mr. Gallatin said he—
"Was of opinion that the people of the
southwestern territory became ipto facto a
State, the moment they amounted to sixty thou
sand free inhabitants; and that it became the
duty of Congress, as part ol the original com
pact, to recognize them as such, and to admit
them into the Union, whenever they had
satisfactory proof of the fact."
I cannot dwell on this branch of the subject.
It is no question of ninety-three thousand here.
It is no question of what is the ratio in other
Territories. It is no question of Kansas dis
crimination. It is the simple, naked question
of fulfilling obligations. That is the whole of
it. 1 have no doubt that she has sixty thousand
and every man upon this floor so believing,
according to this authority, is bound to vote
lor tier admission. Will you do it ]
But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STANTON]
complains ol the constitution of Orecon. He
complains of that article which denies political
equality to the African iace ; to that part which
exclude;; npgroes from voting : which prevents
tiiern from exercising the lights of citizenship :
especially that which denies them the right to
maintain an action in their courts. The Tope
ka constitution of Kansas, which that gentle
man favored in I sod, excluded free negroes
entirely trona the Territory of Kansas.
Mr. GROW. I will correct the gentleman.
TheTopeka constitution did not exclude free
negroes from Kansas ; but the question was
submitted to the people, as instructions to the
Legislature, to pass an act of that cliaiacter.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. And a
majority of the gentleman's friends who adop
ted tlie constitution voted to give the instruc
tions.
Mr. Grow. 1 make no point upon that.
Mr. SI LPIIC.NS, ol Georgia. And those
who profess to be exclusive friend of negroes,
as they now do, so far as that constitution was
concerned, voted to banish them forever from
the Slae, just as Oregon has done. Whether
this banishment be right or wrong, it is no
worse in Oregon than it was in Kansas.
But, on the score of humanity, we of the South
do not believe that those who. in Kansas or
Oregon, banish this race from their limits, are
bettei friends of (he negro than we are, who
assign them that plaee amog us to which by
nature they are fitted, ana' in which they add
so much to their own happiness and comfort,
besides the common well-being of all. We
give them a receptio*. We give them shelter.
We clothe them. Wefeid them. We pro
vide for their every uant, in health and in
sickness, in infancy and old age. We leach
them to woik. VVe educate them in the arts
of civilization and the virtues of Christianity,
much more effectually and successfully titan
you can ever do on the coasts of Africa. And,
without any cost to the public, we render
them useful to themselves and to the world.—
The tiist lesson in civilization and Christianity
to be tauglit to the barbarous tribes, wherever
to be found, is the first great curse against the
human family—that in the sweat of their face
they shall eat their bread. Under our system,
our tuition, our guardianship and fostering care,
these people, exciting so much misplaced
philanthropy, have attained a higher degree of
civilization than tiieir race has attained any
where else upon the face of the earth. The
Freedom of Thought and Opinion.
ITopeka people exclude them ; they, like the
neighbors we read of, went round them ; we,
t like the good Samaritans, shun not their destitu
| tion or degradation—we alleviate both. But
Ilet that go.
Oregon has, in this matter, done no worse
Mhan the gentleman's friends did in Kansas. I
'hink she acted unwisely in it—that is her
| business, not mine. But the gentleman from
I Ohio [Mr. STANTON| questions me, how could
1 a negro in Oregon ever get his Ireedom under
; the constitution they have adopted? I tell
him, under their constitution a slave cannot
exist there. The fundamental law is against
it. But he asks, how could his freedom ever
oe established, as no free person of color can
Sue in her courts ? Neither can they in Geor
gia ; still our courts are open to this class oj
p-ople, who appear by prochein ami or'guardian
Nor is there any great hardship in this ; foi
married women cannot sue in their own namei
anywhere where the common law prevails.—
Minors also have to sue by guardian or nexl
friend. We have sui's continually in our
tribunals by persons claiming to be free persons
of color. They cannot sue in their own na nes,
but by next friend. They are not ; and just
so wiH they be in Oregon, if the question is
ever raised.
Mr. REAGAN. By the lawsof Texas free ne
groes are prohibited from residing in that State,
and hence have no right to sue in her courts ;
and yet the courts there have entertained
jurisdiction of suits for the liberation of free
negroes, and I have assisted in the prosecution
of such suits, ir. which they were declared free
under writs of hnh*nx corbuus.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I understand
the gentleman to say that the constitution of
Texas is similar to this, and yet that her courts
are opened just as I stated in reference to
Georgia : and that he himself has assisted free
negroes in the courts of Texas to obtain their
rights. There can be no difficulty upon that
score. Let me say to gentlemen on the other
side of the House, no* to lay the flattering
unction to their souls that they can escape- by
such a pretext as that.
But it was intimated hy the gentleman from
Ohio, that last year we voted to admit Kansas
as a slave State with a view of getting two
Democratic Senators, and that our object is the
sam n now in regard to Oregon. Sir, in this he
is mistaken. We stood tNen, as now, upon
principle. Had Kansas been admitted under
ihe L-compton constitution, all of us knew that
the probabilities were, that two Republican
Senators would have been elected. Nor was
tfey large Democratic vote in the Senate, soon
I i -' '*' tK.i ft t CV—- mtoi
based upon any such idea as he intimated. It
could not have been. When this bill passed
Ihe Senate it was not known what sort of Sena
tors would be elected there, any more than it
was as to Kansas. The election in Oregon had
been heard from. It was a hot contest. And
at the election which afterwards came offj the
member who was returned to this House was
p|ectd by only sixteen hundred majority.
I'nder these circumstances, how can the gen
tleman attribute such motives to the action of
Democratic Senators ? Where is the slightest
•vidence for such an imputation ? .May be the
gentleman attributes to others the motives by
which he himself is governed—that is, a wish
0 bring in the State under political auspices
ivorabte to his own view of public policy.—
May be he thinks, by rejecting tnis constitution,
Ilie State may come in under a Republican in
lead of a Democratic banner ; tor he said her
admission was onlv a question of time. 1 will
not say that Ihis is his object in opposing this
bill: but I do say, for myself, that I am not gov
erned by such motives a he has intimated. I
will vote, whenever a State comes here with
a constitution republican in form, and with a:i
alligation resting upon me to vote for her
iln ission, irrespective of what mav be the
political cast of her Senators anil members elect
1 frill never do wrong that right may afterv.ads
cone from it. Wrong dees not produce such
frtits. What you plant and sow. that you reap,
[will never commit an acknowledged error,
hoping that good will come of 't. Good ends
n>ier justify wrong means according to my
code of morals. Honesty is tlie best policy in
a|| ihings. Perhaps most of those on the other
siil' of the House who go against this bill, do
30 barely to le in opposition. To such ] would
sa7 what 1 race said to a gentleman in my dis
trict. When I was going to address Hie peo
ple at a particular place, meeting him on the
wjv, I a'ked him if he was going to speak :he
:aiil he redv wanted to know what side I was
;.pjn to 8* against it. I said "that istim reason
rou are 4ways in the minority : you give me
-hoice ofsides upon*all questions, and of course
I take tie bpst.'* [Laughter.] Would it not be
well for gentlemen on that side to consider the
point, baely as a matter of political or party
actios ? That gentleman was so well pleased
with the -emark that he went and heard me
an the ocasion alluded to, and from that day
to this he las never failed to vote for me. If
the oppose side will allow me, I will say to
them it isiad policy in any party to oppose
pverythinj barely for opposition sake. Let
me entret them not to oppose this bill—as
some of Him do, I fear—barely because Demo
crats vote or it. By this course, you give us
choice of sles in a great issue of right.
One wot further, upon another subject, and
I call the epecial attention of the House to ir.
Tt is the objctiin raised to the constitution of
Oregon on ccainl of the alien suffrage feature
in it. The gentleman from Tennessee, |Mr.
Zo^LicorFE.] it his report, quotes a part o<
the decision of he Supreme Court, bearing
upon the coistituional power of a State so to
regulate suftagewithiri her own limits, but
stops right ia Ve middle of a sentence. I
wiil read firt tb?cvi rac t quoted by the gentle
man— italics hn-and then read the whole
sentence, as it snds in Chief Justice Taney's
decision in the led Scott case :
"The Constitibri has conferred on Congress
the fight to establish a uniform rule of naturali
zation, and this right is evidently exclusive, and
has always been held by this court to be so.—
Consequently, no State, since the adoption ot
the Constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien,
invest him with the rights and privileges secu
red to a citizen of a State under Hie Federal
Government ," &c.
There the gentleman stops, with the sentence
unfinished, at comma. The Chief Justice goes
right on with these words
"although, so far as the State alone was concern
ed, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the
rights of a citizen, a clothed with ail the rights
and immunities which the constitution and laws
of the State attached to that character."
. In this the Supreme Court says, and says tru
ly, that no State can make an alien by birth a
citizen of the United States—that is the exclu
sive right of Congress; but that each State may
clothe an alien with ail the privileges and rights
they see fit, within their own jurisdiction and
limits. The right of suffrage, the right to de
clare who shall vote at elections, is expressly
reserved in the Constitution of the United States
to each Slate. This (rover irnent cannot inter
fere with that power. It is the last right I
would have the States surrender; for upon it
rest] ail the great bulwarks of State rights; and,
should it ever be surrendered, no vestige of
State rights would remain.
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The comments of
the gentleman l-ora Georgia upon that point of
my report would produce tne impression that 1
have acted unfairly.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Ido not say i
lhat. 1 cannot, however, be interrupted. 1 i
have barely time sufficient
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. But let me make this I
statement. I will not be two miuutes.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, Be brief, ij
will give you two minutes, but no more.
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I was enforcing the j
position, as asserted by the conrt, that a State
:ould not confer upon unnatnralized foreigners
he rights of citizenship, so far as the Federal
Government was concerned ; and, therefore, 1
quoted only that portion of the sentence found !
in ihe decision, which showed that to be the po
sition of the Court. Thatpoition of the sen
tence is this.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. 1 cannot yield
any further. I have already read it.
Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Let me add the sin
gle remark that, in my report, I distinctly con
curred with the court in the re tnaining por
tion of that sentence : that, so far as "the State
alone was concerned," the State had the right
to confer rights of citizenship upon unnaturali
"ife'SffeffllßN'S , of Georgia. It woul I have |
been much better understood, if the gentleman
had quoted ttie whole of it, and given his con
currence in the whole as it stands. And I
must be permitted to say, that in concurring in
the whole of that decision as it stands, he yields
the whole question. It a State has the right
to confer upon aliens all the rights of its own i
citizens, so far as siie is concerned, certainly the
right of suffrage is included.
Air. ZOLLICOFFRR. That is,so far as the
State alone is concerned.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. Exactly.—
The State has the control of the right ol suffrage
within her limits and under her laws, accor
ding to the decision of the Supreme Court.—
She can say who may vote for all her otHcers ;
who for Governor and who lor her State Sen
ate and who for her H >use of Representatives ;
and then the Constitution of the United States
expressly provides that the members of this
House shall be chosen or voted for by those in
each Stafe who, by the constitution and laws of
eech State are entitled to vote lor the most nu
merous branch of the State Legislature. In ad
mitting that each State may allow an alien to
vote for members of the most numerous branch
of their own Legislature, the gentleman yields
this entire question. The language in Ctftet
Justice Taney's decision immediately preceed
ing that quoted by the gentleman in his report,
is in these words :
"Nor have the several States surrendered the
power of conferring these rights and pri
vileges, by adopting the constitution of the
United States. Each State may still confer
them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper
or upon any class or description ol persons ;
yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in
which that word is used in the constitution of
the United States, nor entitled to sue as such
in one of itsjcourls, nor to the privileges and
immunities of a citzen in the other States. The
rights which lie would acquire would be re
stricted to the State which gave thein."
Then comes the gentleman's quotation. And
from the whole the principle is clear, that
each State may, if she chooses, confer the right
ol citizenship within her own limits and juris
diction, upon an alien. But, without natural
ization under the laws of the United States, this
will not give him the right ot citizenship in
any respect outside of that State. In it, his
rights of citizenship maybe as full and com
plete as those of the native born.
But 1 did not intend to argue this point. I
did that at the last session, on the Minnesota
bill. In that argument, 1 gave the history ol
this question ot alien suffrage in the Territories.
I have nothing to add to what I then said.—
1 barely refer to it now, that it may be consid
ered as part and parcel of what I would say
on the same points, if my time allowed, to-day.
Of the Presidents who, in some form or shape,
had given the principle their sanction, either in
the Territories or Slates, on their admission,!
named Washington, the elder Adams, Jefferson,
Madison; Jackson, Polk, Fillmore, ana Pierce ;
and to this list may now be added that of Bu
chanan, who signed the Alinnesota bill.
My colleague [Mr. HILL] yesterday alluded
to what Air. Calhoun said on Ihe. subject in
lS3ti. 1 commented upon tiiat last year. 1
could not dnd lhat speech of Mr. Calhoun in the
Globe, or any parliamentary record in the coun
try. Ido not mean to say he did not make it
WHOM: M MHIII 2812.
! ft was not made upon the admission of Michi
gan. ft was made, if at all, when a measure
was tip involving the question of suffrage in
the Territory, while Michigan was still in a ter
ritorial condition. The speech is said to have
i been made in 1836. Michigan was
! no ' admitted until 1837. Her coostitutidn was
I similar in this respect to that of Oregon. Mr.
Calhoun was then in the Senate ; he did not
rai-e his voice against that feature in it, as far
|as I have been able to find. Not a word fell
from him, at that time, on the subject of alien
suffrage, that I am aware of.
Mil. ZOLLICOFT ER. Allow me one sen
i lence.
j MR. STEPHEN'S, of Georgia. 1 cannot
| yield.
[ Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Allow me but a
single sentence that sentence is : that I should
labor under great disadvantage, if the gentleman
were even disposed to extend to me the courte
sy of allowing me to reply to his points while
he holds the floor. Therefore, I will not at
present ask to do so.
Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia That I under
stand very well. The gentleman can reply
hereafter. My time will not allow me to in
dulge him now. f made the speech I have re
ferred to last year, expecting that it would be
replied to ; but it remains yet without replv.
And f cannot permit my time to-day to be ta
ken up with matters there disposed of.
Mr. HILL. Let me ask mv colleague a
question. Is he not aware ot the votes givm
by Mr. Calhoun, on the Michigan bill, against
permitting alien suffrage in that state I ft was
on the motion ot Mr. Clay.
Mr. STEPH EN'S, of Georgia. What year 1
Mr. MILL, fa 1836.
Mr. STEPHEN'S,of Georgia. Ves ; I know
of his votes alluded to in 1836. Michigan
was then a Territory. I repeat again, that on
the admission of Michigan as a Slate next year
Mr. Calhoun said nothing against the alien-sul
rage feature in her stateconstitution,that 1 know
of. He may have voted on it in 1536, yet in
ISIS, he was on the committee that reported
the celebrated Clayton compromise, which pro
vided a government for this very Territory of
Oregon, and that bill contained this very alien
suffrage clause in it. Mr. Calhoun voted for
the bill with this clause in it, in the Senate.—
I have the record by me. It is not of so much
importance what he said or how he voted in
ISU6, when the question was fiast started, as how he
voted twelve years afterward, and after mature in
vestigation. Here is his vote in ISIS. I put that
against his speech and his vote in IS-'KI, and let all
go to the country with my colleague's comments.—
I t> content.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on another and entirely differ
ent aspect of this question, i have something special
to say to another side of the House—a distinct class
in it. 1 mean the members coming from slavehoi
ding Stales. There is evidently a feeling of oppo
sition in that quarter to the admission of Oregon
from a reluctant and manifest indisposition to in
crease the number of what are called free States.
This arises from an apprehension that, with the loss
of the balance of power, the rights of our section u
pon constitutional questions will be less secure. This
may be so. It does not however necessarily follow.
But that balance is already gone—list by causes be
yond your or my control. There is no prospect of
its ever being regained ; and, in taking that ground
vou do but reverse theposit.cn of our sectional oppo
nents in the other sine of the House. 1 know it is
the tendency of power to enroach ; but let us look to
the security which rests upon principle, rather than
upon numbers. The citadel of our defense is prin
ciple sustained by reason truth, honor andjustice.-
Letus therefore, do justice t Lough heaven fall.
Let us not do an indirect wrong, for fear that
the recipient from our hands of what is proper
ly due will turn upon us and injure us. Slates
men in the linn ol duty should never consult
their fears. Where duty leads, there we mav
never tear to tread. In the political world,
great events and changes are rapidiy crowding
upon us. To these we should not be insensible.
As wise men, we should not attempt to ignore
them. We need not close our eyes, and sup
pose the sun will cease to shine because we see
not the light. Let us rather, with eyes and
minds wide awake, look around us and see
where we are, whence we have come, and
where veshall soon be, borne along by the
rapid, swift, and irrestibie care of time. This
immense territory to the west has to be peopled.
It is now peopling. New States are last grow
ing up: and others, not yet in embryo, will soon
spring into existence. Progress and develop
ment mark everything in nature—human socie
ties, as well as everything else. Nothing in
the physical world is still; life and motion are
in everything; so in the mental, moral, and po
litical. Trie earth is never still. The great
central orb is ever moving. Progress is the
universal Jaw governing ail things—animate as
well as inanimate. Death itselfis but the be
ginning ofa new life in a new form. Our Gov
ernment and institutions are subject to all-per
vading power. The past wonderfully exem
plifies its influence, and gives us some shadows
ol the future.
This is the sixteenth session that I have been
here, and within that brief space of fifteen
years, we have added six States to the Union
lacking but one of being moie than halfot
the original thirteen. Upwards of twelve
hundred thousand square miles of territory—
a much larger ar a than was possessed by th"
whole United States at the time of the treaty of
peace in 17S3—have been added to our domain.
At this time the area of our Republic is greater
than any five of the greatest Powers in Europe
all combined ; greater than that of the Roman
Empire in the brightest days of her glory
more extensive than were Alexander's domin
ions when he stood on the Indus, and wept that
he had no more worlds to conquer. Such is
our present position ; nor are we yet at the end
of our acquisitions.
Our internal movements, within the same
time, have not been less active in progress and
VOL 2, NO. 34