Chapter II (5)

The only other precedent adduced by the Committee is an Act bearing date May 8, 1820, providing "that the Postmaster-General be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to pay to the widow of John Heaps, late of the city of Baltimore,--who, while employed as a carrier of the mail of the United States, and having the said mail in his custody, was beset by ruffians and murdered,--out of the money belonging to the United States, arising from the postage of letters and packets, five hundred dollars in ten equal semiannual payments." On this precedent Congress will surely hesitate to establish a rule which will open a new drain upon the country.

The general laws do not award pensions or bounties for services in enforcing the revenue laws of the country; and it is not known that any special acts have ever been passed rewarding such services, though they have often been rendered at imminent danger to life, as well from shipwreck as from the violence of smugglers. The proposed bill will be an apt precedent for bounty in this large class of cases; and it may properly be opposed by all who are not ready for a new batch of claimants.

The undersigned venture to make a single comment further on the report accompanying the bill. This report, not content with assigning reasons for its proposed bounty, proceeds to take cognizance of the conduct of the people of Massachusetts, the citizens, the soldiers, the marshal and his deputies, the mayor and police of Boston, in the recent transaction, and assumes to hold the scales of judgment. In this respect it evinces an indiscreet haste, similar to that already displayed in acting on the present proposition, without authentic evidence, and during the pendency of judicial investigations. It appears from the public journals, out of which all our information on this matter is derived, that the conduct of several public functionaries, on this occasion, in Massachusetts, has been seriously drawn in question. The marshal of the district is openly charged with making the arrest of the alleged fugitive under the fraudulent pretence that he was a criminal,--a scandalous device, which no honest man can regard without reprobation. The mayor of Boston is also openly charged with violation of the primal principles of free institutions and of the law of the land, in surrendering the city for the time being into the possession of a military force, and thus establishing there that supremacy of arms under which all law is silent. But on these things the undersigned express no opinion. They desire only to withhold all assent from the blindfold ratification which the report accompanying the bill volunteers, without reason or occasion, to the conduct of public functionaries, as well as of others, who, according to some evidence, may have acted very badly.

CHARLES SUMNER.
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

JAMES OTIS AN EXAMPLE TO MASSACHUSETTS.

LETTER TO THE CAPE COD ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, JULY 30,
1854.

Here, again, is an effort against the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.

SENATE CHAMBER, July 30, 1854.

Dear Sir,--I have been honored by the Cape Cod Association with
an invitation to unite with them in their approaching festival at
Yarmouth.

Amidst these unprecedented heats it is pleasant merely to think
of the seaside; much pleasanter would it be to taste for a day
its salt, refreshing air, especially with cherished friends, and
stirred by historical memories, in these times bracing to the soul.
But my duties will keep me here.

In that part of Massachusetts to which you invite me was born
James Otis, one of our immortal names. He early saw the beauty of
Liberty, and in those struggles which preceded the Revolution gave
his eloquent tongue to her support. To the tyrannical _Writs of
Assistance_, offspring of sovereign power, and at that day regarded
as constitutional, he offered inflexible resistance, saying, "I
will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God
has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and
villany on the other. I cheerfully submit myself to every odious
name for conscience' sake. Let the consequences be what they will,
I am determined to proceed." And then again he declared of this
outrageous process, "It is a power that places the liberty of every
man in the hands of every petty officer." With this precision he
struck at an engine of tyranny, and with fervid eloquence exposed
it to mankind. Such a character should not be forgotten at your
commemoration. Were I there, I might ask leave to propose the
following sentiment.

_The memory of James Otis, of Barnstable, the early orator of
American Liberty._--Massachusetts cherishes the fame of her patriot
child. Let her also imitate his virtues.

I remain, dear Sir, very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE.

STRUGGLE FOR REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE
SLAVE ACT.

DEBATE IN THE SENATE, JULY 31, 1854.

All efforts of the friends of Freedom in Congress encountered opposition at every stage. Attempts by John Quincy Adams to present petitions were thwarted in every way that vindictive rage could prompt. Propositions for the repeal of obnoxious laws sustaining Slavery were stifled. To accomplish this result, parliamentary courtesy and parliamentary law were both set at defiance. On a former occasion,[132] when Mr. Sumner brought forward his motion for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, he was refused a hearing, and obtained it only by taking advantage of the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, and moving an amendment to it, which no parliamentary subtlety or audacity could declare to be out of order. On the presentation of petitions against the Fugitive Slave Act, from time to time, he was met by similar checks. Meanwhile anything for Slavery was always in order. An experience of a single day will show something of this.

* * * * *

On the 31st of July, 1854, Mr. Seward, of New York, under instructions from the Committee on Pensions, reported a bill, which had already passed the House of Representatives, for the relief of Betsey Nash, a poor and aged woman, whose husband had died of wounds received in the war of 1812, and asked for its immediate consideration. This simple measure, demanded by obvious justice, was at once embarrassed by an incongruous proposition for the support of Slavery. Mr. Adams, of Mississippi, moved, as an amendment, another bill, for the relief of Mrs. Batchelder, widow of a person killed in Boston, while aiding as a volunteer in the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. In the face of various objections this amendment was adopted. Mr. Sumner at once followed by a proposition in the following words:--

"_Provided_, That the Act of Congress, approved September 18, 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, be, and the same is hereby, repealed."

This was ruled out of order, as "not germane to the bill under consideration"; and the two bills, hitched together,--one for a military pension, and the other for contribution to the widow of a Slave-Hunter,--were put on their passage. Mr. Sumner then sprang for the floor, when a struggle ensued, which is minutely reported in the _Congressional Globe_. The careful reader will observe, that in order to cut off an effort to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, at least two unquestionable rules of parliamentary law were overturned.

[132] See _ante_, p. 80.

MR. SUMNER. In pursuance of notice, I now ask leave to introduce a bill.

MR. STUART (of Michigan). I object to it, and move to take up the River and Harbor Bill.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (MR. COOPER, of Pennsylvania). The other bill is not disposed of. The third reading of a Bill for the relief of Betsey Nash.

The bill was then read a third time and passed.

MR. SUMNER. In pursuance of notice, I ask leave to introduce a bill, which I now send to the table.

MR. STUART. Is that in order?

MR. SUMNER. Why not?

MR. BENJAMIN (of Louisiana). There is a pending motion of the Senator from Michigan to take up the River and Harbor Bill.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion was not entertained, because the Senator from Massachusetts had and has the floor.

MR. STUART. I make the motion now.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thinks it is in order to give the notice.

MR. SUMNER. Notice has been given, and I now, in pursuance of notice, introduce the bill. The question is on its first reading.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The first reading of a bill.

MR. NORRIS (of New Hampshire). I rise to a question of order.

MR. SUMNER. I believe I have the floor.

MR. NORRIS. But I rise to a question of order. I submit that that is not the question. The Senator from Massachusetts has given notice that he would ask leave to introduce a bill. He now asks that leave. If there be objection, the question must be decided by the Senate whether he shall have leave or not. Objection is made, and the bill cannot be read.

MR. SUMNER. Very well; the first question, then, is on granting leave, and the title of the bill will be read.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (to the Secretary). Read the title.

The Secretary read it as follows: "A Bill to repeal the Act of Congress approved September 18, 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor."

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on granting leave to introduce the bill.

MR. SUMNER. And I have the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor.

MR. SUMNER. I shall not occupy much time, nor shall I debate the bill. Some time ago, Mr. President, after the presentation of the Memorial from Boston, signed by twenty-nine hundred citizens without distinction of party, I gave notice that I should, at a day thereafter, ask leave to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. Desirous, however, not to proceed prematurely, I awaited the action of the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the Memorial, and others of a similar character, were referred. At length an adverse report was made, and accepted by the Senate. From the time of that report down to this moment, I have sought an opportunity to introduce this bill. Now, at last, I have it. At a former session, Sir, in introducing a similar proposition, I considered it at length, in an argument which I fearlessly assert----

MR. GWIN (of California). I rise to a point of order. Has the Senator a right to debate the question, or say anything on it, until leave be granted?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. My impression is that the question is not debatable.[133]

MR. SUMNER. I propose simply to explain my bill,--to make a statement, not an argument.

MR. GWIN. I make the point of order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I am not aware precisely what the rule of order on the subject is; but I have the impression that the Senator cannot debate----

MR. SUMNER. The distinction is this----

MR. GWIN. I insist upon the application of the decision of the Chair.

MR. MASON (of Virginia). Mr. President, there is one rule of order that is undoubted: that, when the Chair is stating a question of order, he must not be interrupted by a Senator. There is no question about that rule of order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator did not interrupt the Chair.

MR. SUMNER. The Chair does me justice in response to the injustice of the Senator from Virginia.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Order! order!

MR. MASON. The Senator is doing that very thing at this moment. I am endeavoring to sustain the authority of the Chair, which certainly has been violated.

[133] Nothing is clearer, under the rules of the Senate, than
that Mr. Sumner was in order, when, on introducing his bill, he
proceeded to state the causes for doing it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the opinion of the Chair that the debate is out of order. I am not precisely informed of what the rule is; but such is my clear impression.

MR. WALKER (of Wisconsin). If the Senator from Massachusetts will allow me, I will say a word here.

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. WALKER. It is usual, upon notice being given of intention, to ask leave to introduce a bill. The bill is sent to the Chair, and it is taken as a matter of course that the Senator asking it has leave. But in this instance, differing from the usual practice, objection has been made to leave being granted. The necessity is imposed, then, of taking the sense of the Senate on granting leave to the Senator to introduce his bill. That, then, becomes the question. The question for the Chair to put is, Shall the Senator have leave?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the question proposed.

MR. WALKER. Now, Sir, it does seem to me that it is proper, and that it is in order, for the Senator to address himself to the Senate, with the view of showing the propriety of granting the leave asked for. He has a right to show that there would be propriety on the part of the Senate in granting the leave. I think, therefore, as this may become a precedent in future in regard to other matters, that it should be settled with some degree of deliberation.

MR. GWIN. Let the Chair decide the question.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has decided that debate was not in order, in his opinion.

MR. SUMNER. From that decision of the Chair I most respectfully take an appeal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. From that ruling of the Chair an appeal is taken by the Senator from Massachusetts. The question is on the appeal.

MR. BENJAMIN. In order to put a stop to the whole debate, I move to lay the appeal on the table. That is a motion which is not debatable.

MR. SUMNER. Is that motion in order?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Certainly it is in order.[134]

MR. WELLER (of California). I desire to make one remark in regard to the rule.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not in order now. The question must be taken without debate.

MR. SUMNER. Allow me to state the case as it seems to me. I was on the floor, and yielded it to the Senator from Wisconsin strictly for the purpose of an explanation. When he finished, I was in possession of the floor; and then it was that the Senator from Louisiana, on my right----

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Massachusetts give leave to the Chair to explain?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order was made by the Senator from California [Mr. GWIN], that debate was not in order upon the question of granting leave; and the Chair so decided. The Senator from Massachusetts then lost the floor, as I apprehend, and he certainly did by following it up by an appeal. After that he could go no further. He lost the floor then again for a second time, and then it was that the Senator from Louisiana intervened with another motion, which is certainly in order, to lay the appeal on the table. That is not debatable. This, it seems to me, is the state of the case.

[134] The motion was clearly out of order: first, because in the
Senate an appeal from the decision of the Chair on a question of
order cannot be laid on the table; and, secondly, because Mr.
Sumner was already on the floor, so that Mr. Benjamin could not
make a motion.

MR. CHASE (of Ohio). Will the Chair allow me to make a single statement?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Certainly.

MR. CHASE. The Senator from Massachusetts rose and held the floor during the suggestion made to the Chair by the Senator from Wisconsin. The Chair then, after the Senator from Wisconsin had finished his suggestion, declared his opinion to be, notwithstanding the suggestion, that debate was not in order. The Senator from Massachusetts then took an appeal, and retained the floor for the purpose of addressing the Senate on that appeal. While he occupied the floor, the Senator from Louisiana rose and moved to lay the appeal upon the table. That will be borne out by the gentlemen present.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is so; but the Chair does not understand that debate was in order on the appeal. The appeal was to be decided without debate, and therefore the Senator from Massachusetts necessarily lost the floor after he took the appeal.

MR. BELL (of Tennessee). I would inquire whether there is not a bill already pending for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. I have not inquired of the Secretary, but it is my belief there is a similar bill pending; but it was not on that ground the Chair made this ruling.

MR. BELL. I would inquire whether there is not such a bill pending? Did not the honorable Senator from Ohio some time ago bring in such a bill?

MR. WELLER. I think he did.

MR. CHASE. No, Sir.

MR. BELL. Then I am mistaken.

MR. CHASE. My bill is not on that subject.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana, to lay on the table the appeal taken by the Senator from Massachusetts from the decision of the Chair.

MR. CHASE. I ask if the motion of the Senator from Louisiana is in order, when the Senator from Massachusetts retained the floor for the purpose of debating the appeal?

MR. BENJAMIN. The Senator is not in order in renewing that question, which has already been decided by the Chair.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Chair acted under an erroneous impression in supposing that debate on the appeal was not in order, when it actually is, it was the fault of the Chair, and it would not have been in order for the Senator from Louisiana to make the motion which he did make, while the Senator from Massachusetts was on the floor. But the Chair recognized the Senator from Louisiana, supposing that the Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the floor. The Senator had taken an appeal; he followed it up by no address to the Chair, indicating an intention that he intended to debate the appeal, or the Chair certainly should so far have recognized him. But the Chair would reconsider his ruling in that respect, with the consent of the Senator from Louisiana.

MR. BRIGHT (of Indiana). The Chair will permit me to suggest that I think the motion proper to be entertained now is the one proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. NORRIS]. The Senator from Massachusetts presented his bill; the Senator from New Hampshire raised the question as to whether the Senate would grant leave to introduce it; and I think the proper question to be put now is, Will the Senate grant leave to introduce a bill repealing the Fugitive Slave Law? The effect of the motion of the Senator from Louisiana would be to lay the subject on the table, from which it might be taken at any time for action. For one, I desire to give a decisive vote now, declaring that I am unwilling to legislate upon the subject, that I am satisfied with the law as it reads, and that I will not aid the Senator from Massachusetts, or any Senator, in----

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is certainly not in order.

MR. BRIGHT. I certainly am in order in calling the attention of the Chair to the fact that the Senator from New Hampshire----

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is not in order.

MR. BRIGHT. Then I will sit down and ask the Chair to state wherein I am out of order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. In discussing a question which is not before the Senate.

MR. BRIGHT. I claim that the motion is before the Senate. The Senator from New Hampshire raised the question immediately, that----

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair decides otherwise.

MR. BRIGHT. Then I appeal from the decision of the Chair, and I state this as my point of order: that, before the bill was presented in legal parlance, the Senator from New Hampshire raised the question as to whether the Senate would grant leave, and that is the point now before the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the question which he supposes to be pending. The Senator from California made a point of order, that debate on the bill proposed to be introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts was not in order. The Chair so ruled. From that ruling the Senator from Massachusetts took an appeal. The Chair supposed that the Senator from Massachusetts had yielded the floor, and he gave the floor to the Senator from Louisiana, who moved to lay that appeal on the table. That is the question which is now pending. The Chair before suggested, that, if the Senator from Massachusetts had not yielded the floor, he had made a mistake in giving the floor to the Senator from Louisiana, but he did not suppose that the Senator from Massachusetts, after taking the appeal, without some indication of his intention to debate it, could continue to hold the floor, and he therefore recognized the Senator from Louisiana. The Chair is sorry, if he did the Senator from Massachusetts injustice in that respect; but he did not hear him, and recognized the Senator from Louisiana.

MR. BRIGHT. I would respectfully ask the Chair what has become of the motion submitted by the Senator from New Hampshire?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not understand him to submit a motion, but the Senator from California took his point of order.

MR. BRIGHT. I wish to inquire of the Senator from New Hampshire whether he has withdrawn his motion?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not entertained. It is not in his power to say whether it was withdrawn or not, for it was not entertained.

MR. NORRIS. I think I can inform my friend from Indiana how the matter stands. The Senator from Massachusetts proposed to introduce a bill on notice given. I raised the question, that it could not be introduced without leave of the Senate, if there was objection.

MR. SUMNER. Do I understand the Senator to say without notice given? I asked leave to introduce the bill in pursuance of notice.

MR. NORRIS. The Senator from Massachusetts, I have already stated, offered his bill agreeably to previous notice.

MR. SUMNER. Precisely.

MR. NORRIS. The question was then raised, whether it could be received, if there was objection? The question arose, whether leave should be granted to the Senator from Massachusetts to introduce the bill?

MR. SUMNER. That is the first question.

MR. NORRIS. The Senator from Massachusetts, upon the question of granting leave, undertook to address the Senate. He was then called to order by my friend from California for discussing that question. The Chair sustained the objection of the Senator from California. From the decision of the Chair the Senator from Massachusetts took an appeal; and that is where the question now stands, unless the Senator from Louisiana had a right to make the motion which he did make, which was to lay the appeal on the table.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, unless the Senator from Louisiana will disembarrass the Chair by withdrawing it, on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana to lay the appeal on the table.

MR. SUMNER. On that motion I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

MR. FOOT (of Vermont). On what motion have the yeas and nays been ordered?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion of the Senator from Louisiana.

MR. WALKER. I wish to know, before voting, what will be the effect of a vote given in the affirmative on this motion? Will it carry the bill and the whole subject on the table?

MR. FOOT. An affirmative vote carries the whole measure on the table.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, Sir; if the motion to lay on the table be agreed to, it carries the bill with it.

SEVERAL SENATORS. No, no!

MR. BENJAMIN. The question is, whether, on the motion for leave to introduce the bill, there shall be debate? The Chair has decided that there shall be no debate. Those who vote "yea" on my motion to lay the appeal of the Senator from Massachusetts on the table will vote that there is to be no debate upon the permission to offer the bill, and then the question will be taken upon granting leave.

MR. WALKER. The Chair decides differently. The Chair decides, if I understand, that it will carry the bill on the table. Then how can we ever reach the question of leave, when objection is made?

MR. WELLER. I object to this discussion. The Chair will decide that question when it arises. It does not arise now. I insist that the Secretary shall go on and call the roll.

MR. WALKER. Suppose some of us object to it?

MR. WELLER. Then I object to your discussing it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on reflection, thinks that the motion, if agreed to, would not have a further effect than to bring up the question of granting leave.

MR. BRIGHT. I desire to understand the Chair. I do not wish to insist on anything that is not right, or that is not within the rules. That I insist upon having. The honorable Senator from Louisiana is right in his conclusions as to his motion, provided he had a right to make the motion; but I doubt whether he had a right to make that motion while the motion of the honorable Senator from New Hampshire was pending. I do not wish, however, to consume the time of the Senate. If the effect of the decision of the Chair is to bring us back to the question as to whether we shall receive the bill or not, I will yield the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. That is it.

MR. BRIGHT. Very well.

MR. SUMNER. Before the vote is taken, allow me to read a few words from the Rules and Orders, and from Jefferson's Manual.

"One day's notice, at least, shall be given of an intended motion
for leave to bring in a bill."

That is the 25th rule of the Senate; and then to that rule, in the publication which I now hold in my hand, is appended, from Jefferson's Manual, the following decisive language:--

"When a member desires to bring in a bill on any subject, _he
states to the House, in general terms, the causes for doing it_,
and concludes by moving for leave to bring in a bill entitled, &c.
Leave being given, on the question, a committee is appointed to
prepare and bring in the bill."

Now I would simply observe, that my purpose was merely to make a statement----

MR. BENJAMIN. I call to order.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator had presented his bill, and was debating it afterwards. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana to lay the appeal on the table, and on that the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted,--yeas 35, nays 10, as follows:--

YEAS,--Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown,
Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Dodge, of Iowa, Evans,
Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of
Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt,
Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson,
of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey, and Weller,--35.

NAYS,--Messrs. Chase, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Gillette, Rockwell,
Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker,--10.

So the appeal was ordered to lie on the table.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on granting leave to introduce the bill.

MR. SUMNER. On that question I ask for the yeas and nays.

MR. STUART. I rise to a question of order; and I think, if the Chair will consider it for the moment, he will, or at least I hope he will, agree with me. The parliamentary law is the law under which the Senate act. Whenever there is a motion made to lay on the table a subject connected with the main subject, and it prevails, it carries the whole question with it. It is different entirely from the rules in the House of Representatives. The rules in the House vary the parliamentary law, and you may there move to lay a matter on the table, because that is the final vote, and is equivalent to rejecting it, and a motion to take it up from the table is not in order. But now the Presiding Officer will see, that, if this course be pursued, the Senate may grant leave to introduce this bill, they may go on and pass it, and yet next week it will be in order for the Senator from Massachusetts to move to take up the appeal which the Senate has just laid on the table; whereas the whole subject on which his appeal rested might have been passed and sent to the other House. That surely cannot be so. The ruling of the Chair in this respect, therefore, I suggest is wrong, and the motion to lay on the table carries the whole subject with it. It is important to have the matter settled for the future practice of the Senate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. At the first mooting of the proposition, the Chair was of that opinion; but he is perfectly satisfied now that it did not carry the whole question with it. The question was on the motion to lay the appeal on the table, and that motion was exhausted when it did lay the appeal on the table. It did not reach back to affect the question of granting leave. That is now the question before the Senate. On that the yeas and nays have been asked for by the Senator from Massachusetts.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

MR. STUART. I will not take an appeal from the decision of the Chair, but I only wish to say, that, as I am satisfied I am right, I do not wish, by acquiescing in the decision of the Chair, to embarrass us when such occasions may arise again.

The question, being taken by yeas and nays upon granting leave to introduce the bill, resulted,--yeas 10, nays 35, as follows:--

YEAS,--Messrs. Chase, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Fessenden, Foot, Gillette, Rockwell, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker,--10.

NAYS,--Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson, of New Jersey, Toombs, Toucey, and Weller,--35.

So the Senate refused to grant leave to introduce the bill.

DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AT THE PRESENT CRISIS.
FORMATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

SPEECH BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION AT WORCESTER,
SEPTEMBER 7, 1854.

The Free-Soil party, having assumed the name of Republican party, held its Annual Convention at Worcester, September 7, 1854. It was organized by the following officers: Hon. Robert Rantoul, of Beverly, the venerable father of the late Mr. Rantoul, as President; George R. Russell, of West Roxbury, B. W. Gage, of Charlestown, Samuel Hopkins, of Northampton, Charles Shute, of Hingham, Albert Currier, of Newburyport, Warren Lovering, of Medway, Adam Harrington, of Shrewsbury, Francis Watkins, of Hinsdale, Robert Sturtevant, of Savoy, Asaph Churchill, of Dorchester, Richard P. Waters, of Beverly, William Washburn, of Boston, Charles Beck, of Cambridge, Benjamin B. Sisson, of Westport, Joel Shed, of Bridgewater, Augustus Morse, of Leominster, Foster Hooper, of Fall River, Levi Reed, of Abington, John A. Andrew, of Hingham, Vice-Presidents; Joseph Denny, of Worcester, William H. Harris, of Worcester, E. W. Stacy, of Milford, Charles R. Ladd, of Chicopee, William H. DeCosta, of Charlestown, Secretaries. At the same Convention Hon. Henry Wilson was nominated for Governor, and Hon. Increase Sumner for Lieutenant-Governor. John A. Andrew, Esq., was made Chairman of the State Committee.

Mr. Sumner's reception in the Convention was quickened by recent events in which he had borne part. It is thus described in a report of the Convention.

"At this point the Hon. Charles Sumner entered the hall. His
reception was such as is rarely accorded to a public man. The
whole vast audience rose as one man to welcome him, and the most
deafening cheers of welcome resounded for several minutes. We have
never seen a more hearty and enthusiastic demonstration in honor of
any man. It was the spontaneous homage of true men to the man who
had upheld the Freedom standard and carried it into the thickest of
the fight,--to the man who had upheld the honor of Massachusetts
in the Senate, vindicated her opinions, and thrown back upon her
assailants the taunts and insults which they had never ceased to
heap upon her. The cheering, as our Senator appeared upon the
platform and took his seat, was loud and long continued."

Mr. Sumner was at once called to speak. His speech is given as reported by the Boston _Traveller_, which ran a special train in one hour from Worcester, a distance of forty miles, in order to lay it before the public without delay.

In this speech Mr. Sumner had two objects,--first, to vindicate the necessity of the Republican party, and, secondly, to destroy the operation of the Fugitive Slave Act in Massachusetts, showing especially that citizens are not constrained to its support. His position with regard to the oath to support the Constitution was much discussed at the time, and the _National Intelligencer_, in elaborate articles by Mr. Gales, undertook to call him to account. To the latter he replied by letter. The speech had an extensive circulation.

Mr. Sumner came to the Convention at the invitation of Mr. Andrew, Chairman of the Provisional State Committee, whose first letter, dated July 22, 1854, was as follows.

"You will have seen, before receiving this note, the report of the
meeting at Worcester, at which _a new party was begun_, and the
steps preliminary to a State nominating convention taken. I think,
in spite of strong opposition from the Whig presses and fuglemen,
who cannot bear to give up their factitious powers and influence,
that there is a great popular movement commenced, which may, under
proper cultivation, disclose a splendid result in the fall. But
more depends upon the aid you can give than upon that of any one
man. Your recent battles in the Senate have shut the mouth of
personal opposition, wrung applause from the unwilling, excited a
State's pride and gratitude, such as rarely it is the fortune of
any one to win. Your presence at the nominating convention, to be
held on the 10th of August,--probably at Springfield,--is a point
which must be agreed to at once. It will secure a most triumphant
meeting, certainly in point of numbers and enthusiasm. I want you
to write to me at once, permitting me to say to any of our friends
that you _will_ attend the meeting. A speech of half an hour, or
an hour, is all that you _need_ make, though you could have three
hours, if you would use them.... I am bold, speak urgently, since
I am, as Chairman of the Provisional State Committee, officially
responsible for the utmost exertions to serve the cause in this
behalf."

This was followed by another letter from Mr. Andrew, dated August 28, 1854, as follows.

"I, however, wish to have the authority now to say definitely to
all inquirers that you will be present on the 7th, and address
the convention, and I wish this to be considered as a formal and
official invitation. There are constant references made to the
hope of seeing and hearing you there, on all hands. Everybody
counts for that gratification. And we can do nothing which will
so completely secure a triumphant gathering as to announce your
name. The whole Free-Soil party, proud of your recent achievements,
and grateful for the many exhibitions of your devotedness to our
principles at all times of hazard and necessity, and the people
of all parties, who feel you to have been the most conspicuously
representative man to whom Massachusetts has intrusted her interest
in Congress since the death of John Quincy Adams, are alike anxious
to greet you.

"I do not wish you to feel under the necessity of preparing for one
of your greatest speeches. No one will demand that of you. They
only want you to come, and to say what seems to yourself proper to
say at the time."

The speech drew from Mr. Chase the following expression.

"Your speech was just the thing. I read it with delighted
admiration. Only one thing abated my pleasure,--the dissolution of
the Independent Democracy. I am now without a party: but no matter;
I shall soon cease to have any connection with politics."

Mr. Seward wrote thus:--

"I have read your noble speech. It is eminently able, and in a tone
that is as characteristic as it is worthy of you. Of its particular
direction, as relates to parties, it is not becoming me to speak.
Its merits as an argument are unsurpassed."

MR. PRESIDENT, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS:--

After months of constant, anxious service in another place, away from Massachusetts, I am permitted to stand among you again, my fellow-citizens, and to draw satisfaction and strength from your generous presence. [_Applause._] Life is full of change and contrast. From slave soil I have come to free soil. [_Applause._] From the tainted breath of Slavery I have passed into this bracing air of Freedom. [_Applause._] And the heated antagonism of debate, shooting forth its fiery cinders, is changed into this brimming, overflowing welcome, while I seem to lean on the great heart of our beloved Commonwealth, as it palpitates audibly in this crowded assembly. [_Loud and long applause._]

Let me say at once, frankly and sincerely, that I am not here to receive applause or to give occasion for tokens of public regard, but simply to unite with fellow-citizens in new vows of duty. [_Applause._] And yet I would not be thought insensible to the good-will now swelling from so many honest bosoms. It touches me more than I can tell.

During the late session of Congress, an eminent supporter of the Nebraska Bill said to me, with great animation, in language which I give with some precision, that you may appreciate the style as well as the sentiment, "I would not go through all that you do _on this nigger question_ for all the offices and honors of the country." To which I naturally and promptly replied, "Nor would I,--for all the offices and honors of the country." [_Laughter and long applause._] Not in such things are the inducements to this warfare. For myself, if I have been able to do aught in any respect not unworthy of you, it is because I thought rather of those commanding duties which are above office and honor. [_Cries of "Good! good!" and loud applause._]

And now, on the eve of an important election in this State, we are assembled to take counsel how best to perform those duties which we owe to our common country. We are to choose eleven Representatives in Congress,--also, Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and members of the Legislature, which last will choose a Senator of the United States, to uphold, for five years ensuing, the principles and honor of Massachusetts. If in these elections you were governed by partialities or prejudices, personal or political, or merely by the exactions of party, I should have nothing to say now, except to dismiss you to the ignoble work. ["_That is it!_" "_Good! good!_"] But I assume that you are ready to renounce these influences, and press forward with single regard to the duties now incumbent.

* * * * *

Here two questions occur, absorbing all others: _first_, what are our political duties here in Massachusetts at the present time? and, _secondly_, how, and by what agency, shall they be performed? What and how? These are the two questions, of which I shall briefly speak in their order, attempting no elaborate discussion, but aiming to state the case so that it will be intelligible to all who hear me.

* * * * *

And first, what are our present duties here in Massachusetts? Unfolding these, I need not dwell on the wrong and shame of Slavery, or on the character of the Slave Power--that Oligarchy of Slaveholders--now ruling the Republic. These you understand. And yet there are two outrages, fresh in recollection, which I must not fail to expose, as natural manifestations of Slavery and the Slave Power. One is the repeal of the Prohibition of Slavery in the vast Missouri Territory, now known as Kansas and Nebraska, contrary to time-honored compact and plighted faith. The other is the seizure of Anthony Burns on the free soil of Massachusetts, and his surrender, without judge or jury, to a Slave-Hunter from Virginia, to be thrust back into perpetual bondage. ["_Shame! shame!_"] These outrages cry aloud to Heaven, and to you, people of Massachusetts! [_Sensation._] Their intrinsic wickedness is enhanced by the way in which they were accomplished. Of the first I know something from personal observation; of the latter I am informed only by public report.

It is characteristic of the Slave Power not to stick at the means supposed needful in carrying forward its plans; but never, on any occasion, were its assumptions so barefaced and tyrannical as in the passage of the Nebraska Bill.

This bill was precipitated upon Congress without one word of public recommendation from the President, without notice or discussion in any newspaper, and without a single petition from the people. It was urged by different advocates, on two principal arguments, so opposite and inconsistent as to slap each other in the face [_laughter_]: one, that, by the repeal of the Prohibition, the territory would be absolutely open to the entry of slaveholders with their slaves; and the other, that the people there would be left to determine whether slaveholders should enter with their slaves. With some, the apology was the alleged rights of slaveholders; with others, the alleged rights of the people. With some, it was openly the extension of Slavery; and with others, openly the establishment of Freedom, under the pretence of "popular sovereignty." The measure thus upheld in defiance of reason was carried through Congress in defiance of all the securities of legislation.

It was carried, _first_, by _whipping in_, through Executive influence and patronage, men who acted against their own declared judgment and the known will of their constituents; _secondly_, by _thrusting out of place_, both in the Senate and House of Representatives, important business, long pending, and usurping its room; _thirdly_, by _trampling under foot_ the rules of the House of Representatives, always before the safeguard of the minority; and, _fourthly_, by _driving it to a close_ during the present Congress, so that it might not be arrested by the indignant voice of the people. Such were some of the means by which the Nebraska Bill was carried. If the clear will of the people had not been defied, it could not have passed. If the Government had not nefariously interposed, it could not have passed. If it had been left to its natural place in the order of business, it could not have passed. If the rules of the House and the rights of the minority had not been violated, it could not have passed. If it had been allowed to go over to another Congress, when the people might be heard, it would have failed, forever failed.

Contemporaneously with the final triumph of this outrage at Washington, another dismal tragedy was enacted at Boston. In those streets where he had walked as freeman Anthony Burns was seized as slave, under the base pretext that he was a criminal,--imprisoned in the Court-House, which was turned for the time into fortress and barracoon,--guarded by heartless hirelings, whose chief idea of Liberty was license to wrong [_loud applause, and cries of "That's it! that's it!"_],--escorted by intrusive soldiers of the United States,--watched by a prostituted militia,--and finally given up to a Slave-Hunter by the decree of a petty magistrate, who did not hesitate to take upon his soul the awful responsibility of dooming a fellow-man, in whom he could find no fault, to a fate worse than death. How all this was accomplished I need not relate. Suffice it to say, that, in doing this deed of woe and shame, the liberties of all our citizens, white as well as black, were put in jeopardy, the Mayor of Boston was converted to a tool [_applause_], the Governor of the Commonwealth to a cipher [_long continued applause_], the laws, the precious sentiments, the religion, the pride and glory of Massachusetts were trampled in the dust, and you and I and all of us fell down while the Slave Power flourished over us. [_"Shame! shame!" and applause._]

These things in themselves are bad, very bad; but they are worse, when regarded as natural offspring of the Oligarchy now swaying the country. And it is this Oligarchy which, at every political hazard, we must oppose, until it is overthrown. Lord Chatham once exclaimed, that the time had been, when he was content to bring France to her knees; now he would not stop till he had laid her on her back. Nor can we be content with less in our warfare. We must not stop till we have laid the Slave Power on its back. [_Prolonged cheers._] And, fellow-citizens, permit me to say, not till then will the Free States be absolved from all political responsibility for Slavery, and relieved from that corrupt spirit of compromise which now debases at once their politics and their religion; nor till then will there be repose for the country. [_Immense cheering._] Indemnity for the past and security for the future must be our watchwords. [_Applause._] But these can be obtained only when Slavery is dispossessed of present vantage-ground, by driving it back exclusively within the limits of the States, and putting the National Government, everywhere within its constitutional sphere, openly, actively, and perpetually on the side of Freedom. The consequences of this change of policy would be of far-reaching and incalculable beneficence. Not only would Freedom become national and Slavery sectional, as was intended by our fathers, but the National Government would become the mighty instrument and herald of Freedom, as it is now the mighty instrument and herald of Slavery. Its powers, its treasury, its patronage, would all be turned, in harmony with the Constitution, to promote Freedom. The Committees of Congress, where Slavery now rules,--Congress itself, and the Cabinet also,--would all be organized for Freedom. The hypocritical disguise or renunciation of Antislavery sentiment would cease to be necessary for the sake of political preferment; and the Slaveholding Oligarchy, banished from the National Government, and despoiled of ill-gotten political consequence, without ability to punish or reward, would cease to be feared, either at the North or the South, until at last the citizens of the Slave States, where a large portion have no interest in Slavery, would demand Emancipation, and the great work would commence. Such is the obvious course of things. To the overthrow of the Slave Power we are summoned by a double call, one political and the other philanthropic,--first, to remove an oppressive tyranny from the National Government, and, secondly, to open the gates of Emancipation in the Slave States. [_Loud applause._]

While keeping this great purpose in view, we must not forget details. The existence of Slavery anywhere within the national jurisdiction, in the Territories, in the District of Columbia, or on the high seas beneath the national flag, is an unconstitutional usurpation, which must be opposed. The Fugitive Slave Bill, monstrous in cruelty, as in unconstitutionality, is a usurpation, which must be opposed. The admission of new Slave States, from whatsoever quarter, from Texas or Cuba [_applause_], Utah or New Mexico, must be opposed. And to every scheme of Slavery, whether in Cuba or Mexico, on the high seas in opening the slave-trade, in the West Indies, or in the Valley of the Amazon, whether accomplished or merely plotted, whether pending or in prospect, we must send forth an EVERLASTING NO! [_Long continued applause._] Such is the present, immediate duty of Massachusetts, without compromise or hesitation.

Thus far I have spoken of duties in national matters; but there are other duties of pressing importance, here at home, not to be forgotten or postponed. It is often said that charity should begin at home. Better say, _charity should begin everywhere_. While contending with the Slave Power on the broad field of national politics, we must not forget the duty of protecting the liberty of all who tread the soil of Massachusetts. [_Immense cheering._] Early in Colonial history Massachusetts set her face against Slavery. At the head of her Declaration of Rights she solemnly asserted that all men are born free and equal, and in the same Declaration surrounded the liberties of all within her borders by the inestimable rights of Trial by Jury and _Habeas Corpus_. Recent events on her own soil have taught the necessity of new safeguards to these great principles,--to the end that Massachusetts may not be the vassal of South Carolina and Virginia, that the Slave-Hunter may not range at will among us, and that the liberties of all may not be violated with impunity.

I am admonished that I must not dwell longer on these things. Suffice it to say that our duties in National and State affairs are identical, and may be described by the same formula: In the one case to put the National Government, in all its departments, and in the other case the State Government, in all its departments, openly, actively, and perpetually on the side of Freedom. [_Loud applause._]

* * * * *

Having considered _what_ our duties are, the question now presses, _How_ shall they be performed?--by what agency, by what instrumentality, in what way?

The most obvious way is by choosing men to represent us in the National Government, and also at home, who will recognize these duties, and be ever loyal to them [_cheers_],--men who at Washington will not shrink from conflict with Slavery, and also other men who at home in Massachusetts will not shrink from the same conflict when the Slave-Hunter appears. [_Loud applause, and cries of "Good! good!"_] In the choice of men we are driven to the organization of parties; and here the question arises, By what form of organization, or by what party, can these men be best secured? Surely not by the Democratic party, as at present constituted [_laughter_]: though, if this party were true to its name, pregnant with human rights, it would leave little to be desired. In this party there are doubtless individuals anxious to do all in their power against Slavery; but indulge me in saying, that, so long as they continue members of a party which upholds the Nebraska Bill, they can do very little. [_Applause and laughter._] What may we expect from the Whig party? [_A voice, "Resolutions."_] If more might be expected from the Whig party than the Democratic party, candor must attribute much of the difference to the fact that the Whigs are _out of power_, while the Democrats are _in power_. [_Long continued cheers._] If the cases were reversed, and the Whigs were in power, as in 1850, I fear, that, notwithstanding the ardor of individuals and the Resolutions of Conventions [_great laughter_],--made, I fear, too often, merely to be broken,--the party might be brought to sustain an outrage as great as the Fugitive Slave Bill. [_Laughter and applause._] But, without dwelling on these things (to which I allude with diffidence, and, I trust, in no uncharitable temper or partisan spirit), I desire to say that no party which calls itself _National_, according to the common acceptation of the word,--which leans upon a slaveholding wing [_cheers_], or is in combination with slaveholders [_cheers_],--can at this time be true to Massachusetts. [_Great applause._] And the reason is obvious. It can be presented so as to penetrate the most common understanding. _The essential element of such a party, whether declared or concealed, is Compromise; but our duties require all constitutional opposition to Slavery and the Slave Power, without Compromise._ ["_That's it!_" "_Good! good!_"] It is difficult, then, to see how we can rely upon the Whig party.

To the true-hearted, magnanimous citizens ready to place Freedom above Party, and their Country above Politicians, I appeal. [_Immense cheering._] Let them leave old parties, and blend in an organization which, without compromise, will maintain the good cause surely to the end. Here in Massachusetts a large majority concur in sentiment on Slavery,--a large majority desire the overthrow of the Slave Power. These must not scatter their votes, but unite in one firm, consistent phalanx [_applause_], whose triumph will constitute an epoch of Freedom, not only in this Commonwealth, but throughout the land. Such an organization is presented by this Republican Convention, which announces its purpose to coöperate with the friends of Freedom in other States. [_Cheers._] As REPUBLICANS, we go forth to encounter the _Oligarchs_ of Slavery. [_Great applause._]