Chapter IV: Part 4

"In 1847, Mr. Chase was a member of the Second National Liberty Convention, and opposed the making of any national nomination at that time, urging that a more general movement against slavery extension and denomination, was likely to grow out of the agitation of the Wilmot Proviso, and the action of Congress and political parties in reference to slavery. In 1848, anticipating that the conventions of the Whig and Democratic parties would probably refuse to take grounds against the extensions of slavery, he prepared a call for a free territory state convention at Columbus, which was signed by more than 3,000 voters of all political parties. The convention thus called was largely attended, and invited a national convention to meet at Buffalo in August. The influence of Mr. Chase was conspicuous in the state convention, and no less so in the national convention, which assembled upon its invitation, and nominated Mr. Van Buren for President. An immense mass meeting was held at Buffalo at the same time. Mr. Chase was president of the national convention, and also a member of its committee on resolutions. The platform was substantially his work. On February 22d, 1849, Mr. Chase was chosen a senator of the United States from Ohio, receiving the entire vote of the Democratic members of the Legislature, and of those freesoil members who favored Democratic views. The Democratic party of Ohio, by the resolutions of its state convention, had already declared slavery an evil; and practically, through its press and the declarations of its leading men, had committed itself to the denationalization of slavery. Mr. Chase, therefore, coinciding with the Democrats in their general views of the state policy, supported their state nominees, distinctly announcing his intention, in the event of the party's desertion of its anti-slavery position, in state or national conventions, to end at once his connection with it. When the nomination of Mr. Pierce by the Baltimore convention of 1852, with a platform approving the compromise acts of 1850, and denouncing the further discussion of the slavery question, was sanctioned by the Democratic party in Ohio, Mr. Chase, true to his word, withdrew from it, and addressed to the Hon. B. F. Butler, of New York, his associate in the Buffalo convention, a letter in vindication of an independent Democratic party. He prepared a platform, which was substantially adopted by the convention of the independent Democracy at Pittsburg in 1852. Having thus gone into a minority rather than compromise his principles, Mr. Chase gave a cordial and energetic support to the nominees and measures of the independent Democracy, until the Nebraska bill gave rise to a new and powerful party, based substantially upon the ideas he had so long maintained. As a senator of the United States, Mr. Chase delivered on March 26 and 27, 1850, a speech against Mr. Clay's compromise bill, reviewing thoroughly all the questions presented in it. He moved an amendment providing against the introduction of slavery in the territories to which the bill applied, but it failed by a vote of 25 to 30. He proposed also, though without success, an amendment to the fugitive slave bill, securing trial by jury to alleged slaves, and another conforming its provisions to the terms of the Constitution, by excluding from its operation persons escaping from State or territories, and _vice versa_. In 1854, when the bill for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, commonly called the Nebraska Kansas bill, was introduced, he drafted an appeal to the people against the measure, which was signed by the senators and representatives in Congress, concurring in his political opinions; and in a speech on February 3, attempted the first elaborate exposure of the features of that bill, as viewed by its opponents. In the general opposition to the Nebraska bill he took a leading part, and the rejection of three of his proposed amendments, was thought to be of such significance as bearing on the slavery question, that it may be well to state them. The first proposed to add after the words, 'subject only to the Constitution of the United States,' in section 14, the following clause: 'Under which the people of the territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein.' This was rejected, yeas 10, nays 36. The second proposed to give practical effect to the principle of popular sovereignty by providing for the election by the people of the territory of their own governor, judges, and secretary, instead of leaving, as in the bill, their appointment to the Federal Executive. This was defeated, yeas 10, nays 30. He then proposed an amendment of the boundary, so as to have but one territory, named Nebraska, instead of two entitled respectively Nebraska and Kansas. This was rejected, yeas 8, nays 34. His opposition to the bill was ended by a final and earnest protest against it on the night of its passage. While thus vigilant in maintaining his principles on the slavery question, Mr. Chase was constant in the discharge of the general duties of his position. To divorce the Federal Government from all connection with slavery; to confine its action strictly within Constitutional limits; to uphold the rights of individuals and of States; to foster with equal care all the great interests of the country, and to secure an economical administration of the national finances, were the general aims, which he endeavored, both by his votes and his speeches, to promote. On the interests of the West, he always kept a watchful eye, claiming that the Federal treasury should defray the expenses of providing for the safety of navigation on our great inland seas, as well as on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and advocating liberal aid by the Federal Government to the construction of a railroad to the Pacific by the best, shortest, and cheapest route.

"He was an earnest supporter of the policy of the free homestead movement, in behalf of which he expressed his views during the first session of his term, on presenting a petition for granting the public lands, in limited quantities, to actual settlers not possessed of other land. He was also an early advocate of cheap postage and an unwearied opponent of extravagant appropriations. In July, 1855, Mr. Chase was nominated by the opponents of the Nebraska bill and the Pierce administration for governor of Ohio, and was elected. His inaugural address, delivered in 1856, recommended economy in the administration of public affairs, single districts for legislative representation, annual instead of biennial sessions of the legislature, and ample provision for the educational interests of the State. His state policy and senatorial course were now so much approved that at the national convention of the Republican party, held the same year, a majority of the Ohio delegation and many delegates from other States, desired his nomination for the presidency; but his name was, at his request, withdrawn. His first annual message to the Ohio legislature, in 1857, after reviewing the material resources, and the financial and educational condition of the State, together with its federal relations, recommended a bureau of statistics, which was accordingly established.

"During the same year, a deficit of over $500,000 being discovered in the State treasury, a few days before the semi-annual interest of the State debt became due, the decided action of Gov. Chase compelled the resignation of the State treasurer, who had concealed its existence, secured a thorough investigation, and, through a prompt and judicious arrangement, protected the credit of the State and averted a large pecuniary loss. At the close of his first term, Gov. Chase desired to retire from office, but the Republicans insisted on his renomination, which was made by acclamation. After an active canvass, the continued confidence of the people in his administration was manifested by his reelection by the largest vote ever given for a governor in Ohio. In his annual message, in 1858, after submitting an elaborate exposition of the financial condition and resources of Ohio, he recommended semi-annual taxation, more stringent provisions for the security of the treasury, and a special attention to the State benevolent institutions, including the reform school, in which he had always manifested a deep interest. These suggestions met the approbation of the legislature, and laws were passed accordingly."

The sketch we have quoted, gives an _exact_ and impartial, though brief, history of the political acts of Mr. Chase, but it is bloodless, without enthusiasm, and _to the friends_ of the distinguished subject of the sketch, will seem cold, giving no adequate idea of the ability and greatness of the man; but the sketch is perfectly impartial, and accurate in every particular.

Mr. Chase, while in the Senate of the United States, bore a very high reputation as a debater and as an orator. He never descended to notice personal attacks unless his political history was called in question, and remained cool and unruffled through scenes of great excitement and under a storm of personalities. His manner is dignified and his eloquence massive. Few men can deliver a speech, which for force, solid arguments, and high-toned eloquence, will equal the best of his. He is not an impetuous orator, or man, but is always collected, calm, and self-poised. Nevertheless, he has warm and enthusiastic friends, and those who know him best esteem him most.

In his personal appearance, Mr. Chase is somewhat imposing, for he is tall, of large proportions, with a large head and face, a fine port, dignified bearing, and an eye of quick intelligence. Through his entire career, whether at the bar, in Congress, or in the gubernatorial chair, Mr. Chase has never for an instant compromised the integrity or dignity of his character.

One of the finest of his senatorial speeches was made Feb. 3, 1854, in reply to a severe attack of Mr. Douglas upon himself and two or three other gentlemen, who had issued an address to the people upon the Kansas-Nebraska act. We can only quote the closing portions of this great speech:

"Mr. President, three great eras have marked the history of this
country, in respect of slavery. The first may be characterized as
the era of enfranchisement. It commenced with the earliest
struggle for national independence. The spirit which inspired it
animated the hearts and prompted the efforts of Washington, of
Jefferson, of Patrick Henry, of Wythe, of Adams, of Jay, of
Hamilton, of Morris--in short, of all the great men of our early
history. All these hoped, all these labored for, all these
believed in the final deliverance of the country from the curse of
slavery. That spirit burned in the Declaration of Independence,
and inspired the provisions of the Constitution, and of the
Ordinance of 1787. Under its influence, when in full vigor, State
after State provided for the emancipation of the slaves within
their limits, prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Under its
feebler influence at a later period, and during the administration
of Mr. Jefferson, the importation of slaves was prohibited into
Mississippi and Louisiana, in the faint hope that these
territories might finally become free States. Gradually that
spirit ceased to influence our public councils, and lost its
control over the American heart and the American policy. Another
era succeeded, but by such imperceptible gradations that the hues
which separate the two cannot be traced with absolute precision.
The facts of the two eras meet and mingle as the currents of
confluent streams mix so imperceptibly that the observer cannot
fix the spot where the meeting waters blend.

"This second era was the era of Conservatism. Its great maxim was
to preserve the existing condition. Men said, let things remain as
they are; let slavery stay where it is; exclude it where it is
not; refrain from disturbing the public quiet by agitation; adjust
all differences that arise, not by the application of principles,
but by compromises.

"It was during this period that the senator tells us that slavery
was maintained in Illinois, both while a territory and after it
became a State, in despite of the provisions of the ordinance. It
is true, sir, that the slaves held in the Illinois country, under
the French law, were not regarded as absolutely emancipated by the
provisions of the ordinance. But full effect was given to the
ordinance in excluding the introduction of slaves, and thus the
territory was preserved from eventually becoming a slave State.
The few slaveholders in the territory of Indiana, which then
included Illinois, succeeded in obtaining such an ascendency in
its affairs, that repeated applications were made, not merely by
conventions of delegates, but by the Territorial Legislature
itself, for a suspension of a clause in the ordinance prohibiting
slavery. These applications were reported upon by John Randolph,
of Virginia, in the House, and by Mr. Franklin, in the Senate.
Both the reports were against suspension. The grounds stated by
Randolph are specially worthy of being considered now. They are
thus stated in the report:

"'That the committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to
impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and
prosperity of the northwestern country, and to give strength and
security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of
this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the
inhabitants of Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample
remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and of
emigration.'

"Sir, these reports, made in 1803 and 1807, and the action of
Congress upon them, in conformity with their recommendation, saved
Illinois, and perhaps Indiana, from becoming slave States. When
the people of Illinois formed their State constitution, they
incorporated into it a section providing that neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall be hereafter introduced into this
State. The constitution made provision for the continued service
of the few persons who were originally held as slaves, and then
bound to service under the Territorial laws, and for the freedom
of their children, and thus secured the final extinction of
slavery. The senator thinks that this result is not attributable
to the ordinance. I differ from him. But for the ordinance I have
no doubt slavery would have been introduced into Indiana,
Illinois, and Ohio. It is something to the credit of the era of
conservatism, uniting its influences with those of the expiring
era of enfranchisement, that it maintained the Ordinance of 1787
in the north-west.

"The era of conservatism passed, also, by imperceptible
gradations, into the era of slavery propagandism. Under the
influences of this new spirit, we opened the whole territory
acquired from Mexico, except California, to the ingress of
slavery. Every foot of it was covered by a Mexican prohibition;
and yet, by the legislation of 1850, we consented to expose it to
the introduction of slaves. Some, I believe, have actually been
carried into Utah and into New Mexico. They may be few, perhaps,
but a few are enough to affect materially the probable character
of their future governments.

"Sir, I believe we are on the verge of another era. The
introduction of this question here, and its discussion, will
greatly hasten its advent. That era will be the era of reaction.
We, who insist upon the denationalization of slavery, and upon the
absolute divorce of the General Government from all connection
with it, will stand with the men who favored the compromise acts,
and who yet wish to adhere to them, in their letter and in their
spirit, against the repeal of the Missouri prohibition. You may
pass it here, you may send it to the other House, it may become
law; but its effect will be to satisfy all thinking men that no
compromise with slavery will endure, except so long as they serve
the interests of slavery; and that there is no safe and honorable
ground to stand upon, except that of restricting slavery within
State limits, and excluding it absolutely from the whole sphere of
federal jurisdiction. The old questions between political parties
are at rest. No great question so thoroughly possesses the public
mind as this of slavery. This discussion will hasten the
inevitable reorganization of parties upon the new issues which our
circumstances suggest. It will light up a fire in the country
which may, perhaps, consume those who kindle it.

"I cannot believe that the people of this country have so far lost
sight of the maxims and principles of the Revolution, or are so
insensible to the obligations which those maxims and principles
impose, as to acquiesce in the violation of this compact. Sir, the
Senator from Illinois tells us that he proposes a final settlement
of all territorial questions in respect to slavery, by the
application of the principle of popular sovereignty. What kind of
popular sovereignty is that which allows one portion of the people
to enslave another portion? Is that the doctrine of equal rights?
Is that exact justice? Is that the teaching of enlightened,
liberal, progressive Democracy? No, sir; no! There can be no real
Democracy which does not fully maintain the rights of man, as man.
Living, practical, earnest Democracy imperatively requires us,
while carefully abstaining from unconstitutional interference with
the internal regulations of any State upon the subject of slavery,
or any other subject, to insist upon the practical application of
its great principles in all the legislation of Congress.

"I repeat, sir, that we who maintain these principles will stand
shoulder to shoulder with the men who, differing from us upon
other questions, will yet unite with us in opposition to the
violation of plighted faith contemplated by this bill. There are
men, and not a few, who are willing to adhere to the compromise of
1850. If the Missouri prohibition, which that compromise
incorporates and preserves among its own provisions, shall be
repealed, abrogated, broken up, thousands will say: Away with all
compromises; they are not worth the paper on which they are
printed; we will return to the old principles of the Constitution.
We will assert the ancient doctrine, that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property, by the legislation of
Congress, without due process of law. Carrying out that principle
into its practical applications, we will not cease our efforts
until slavery shall cease to exist wherever it can be reached by
the constitutional action of the government.

"Sir, I have faith in progress. I have faith in Democracy. The
planting and growth of this nation, upon this western continent,
was not an accident. The establishment of the American Government,
upon the sublime principles of the Declaration of Independence,
and the organization of the Union of these States, under our
existing Constitution, was the work of great men, inspired by
great ideas, guided by Divine Providence. These men, the fathers
of the Republic, have bequeathed to us the great duty of so
administering the government which they organized, as to protect
the rights, to guard the interests, and promote the well-being, of
all persons within its jurisdiction, and thus present to the
nations of the earth a noble example of wise and just
self-government. Sir, I have faith enough to believe that we shall
yet fulfill this high duty. Let me borrow the inspiration of
Milton, while I declare my belief, that we have yet a country 'not
degenerated, nor drooping to a fatal decay, but destined, by
casting off the old and wrinkled skin of corruption, to outlive
these pangs, and wax young again, and, entering the glorious ways
of truth and prosperous virtue, become great and honorable in
these latter ages. Methinks I see in my mind a great and puissant
nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking
her invincible locks. Methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her
mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday
beam; purging and unscaling her long-abused sight at the fountain
itself of heavenly radiance; while the whole noise of timorous and
flocking birds, with those also that love the twilight, flutter
about, amazed at what she means, and in their envious gabble would
prognosticate a year of sects and schisms.'

"Sir, we may fulfill this sublime destiny, if we will but
faithfully adhere to the great maxims of the Revolution; honestly
carrying into their legitimate practical applications the high
principles of democracy; and preserve inviolate plighted faith and
solemn compacts. Let us do this, putting our trust in the God of
our fathers, and there is no dream of national prosperity, power,
and glory, which ancient or modern builders of ideal commonwealths
ever conceived, which we may not hope to realize. But if we turn
aside from these ways of honor, to walk in the by-paths of
temporary expedients, compromising with wrong, abetting
oppression, and repudiating faith, the wisdom and devotion and
labors of our fathers will have been all--all in vain.

"Sir, I trust that the result of this discussion will show that
the American Senate will sanction no breach of compact. Let us
strike from the bill the statement which historical facts and our
personal recollections disprove, and then reject every proposition
which looks toward a violation of the plighted faith and solemn
compact which our fathers made, and which we, their sons, are
bound, by every tie of obligation, sacredly to maintain."

Mr. Chase's opinions respecting the independence of the State courts can be gathered from his message to the Ohio Legislature, Jan. 4, 1858. We quote:

"A disposition has been manifested, within the last few years, by
some of the officials of the Federal Government, exercising their
functions within the limits of Ohio, to disregard the authority,
and to encroach upon the rights of the State, to an extent and in
a manner which demands your notice.

"In February, 1856, several colored persons were seized in
Hamilton County as fugitive slaves. One of these persons, Margaret
Garner, in the frenzy of the moment, impelled, as it seems, by the
dread of seeing her children dragged, with herself, back to
slavery, attempted to slay them on the spot, and actually
succeeded in killing one. For this act, she and her companions
were indicted by the grand jury for the crime of murder, and were
taken into custody upon a writ regularly issued from the Court of
Common Pleas.

"While thus imprisoned under the legal process of a State court,
for the highest crime known to our code, a writ of habeas corpus
was issued by a judge of the District Court of the United States,
requiring their production before him. The writ was obeyed by the
sheriff, and, contrary to all expectations, and in disregard, as I
must think, of principle and authority, the prisoners were taken
from his custody by order of the judge, and, without allowing any
opportunity for the interposition of the State authorities,
delivered over to the Marshal of the United States, by whom they
were immediately transported beyond our limits. The alleged ground
for this action and order was that the indicted parties had been
seized as fugitive slaves upon a Federal Commissioner's warrant,
before the indictment and arrest, and that the right to their
custody, thus acquired, was superior to that of the sheriff, under
the process of the State. This doctrine must necessarily give
practical impunity to murder whenever the murderer may be seized
by a federal official as a fugitive from service before arrest for
the crime under State authority. Imputing no wrong intention to
the judge, I am constrained to add that his proceeding seems to me
an abuse, rather than an exercise, of judicial power.

"A similar case occurred more recently in the county of Champaign.
Several deputies of the federal marshal having arrested certain
citizens of this State for some alleged offence against the
Fugitive Slave act, a writ of habeas corpus was issued by the
probate judge of that county, requiring the arrested parties to be
brought before him for inquiry into the grounds of detention. The
sheriff of Clark County, while attempting to execute this writ,
was assaulted by these petty officials and seriously injured,
while his deputy was fired upon, though happily without effect. A
warrant was issued by a justice of the peace for the apprehension
of the perpetrators of these offences. This warrant was duly
executed and the prisoners committed to jail under the custody of
the sheriff of Clark County. A writ of habeas corpus was then
issued by the same district judge who had interposed in the case
of Margaret Garner, requiring the sheriff of Clark County to
produce his prisoners before him at the city of Cincinnati. This
writ was also obeyed, and the prisoners were discharged from
custody by the order of the judge, on the ground that being
federal officers, and charged with the execution of a federal
writ, they had a right to overcome, by any necessary violence, all
attempts made under the process of a State court, to detain them
or their prisoners, even for inquiry into the legality of the
custody in which those prisoners were held.

"This principle cannot be sound. It subverts effectually the
sovereignty of the State. It asserts the right of any district
judge of the United States to arrest the execution of State
process, and to nullify the functions of State courts and juries,
whenever in his opinion a person charged with crime under State
authority has acted in the matter forming the basis of the charge,
in pursuance of any federal law or warrant. No act of Congress, in
my judgment, sanctions this principle. Such an act, indeed, would
be clearly unconstitutional, because in plain violation of the
express provision which requires that the trial of all crimes
shall be by jury.

"It is deeply to be regretted that collisions of this kind should
occur. The authorities of Ohio have never failed in due
consideration for the constitutional rights of federal courts, nor
will they thus fail. But they cannot admit, without dishonor, that
State process is entitled to less respect than federal, nor can
they ever concede to federal writs or federal officials a
deference which is not conceded to those of the State.

"The true course is one of mutual respect and mutual deference.
Whenever, in any inquiry upon habeas corpus, by any court, State
or federal, it may be ascertained that the applicant for the writ
is detained under valid process in pursuance of a constitutional
law, he should be remanded at once to the custody from which he
may have been taken for trial in due course. No investigation
should take place into the guilt or innocence of the party
charged, or, what is substantially the same thing, whether the
facts were justified by the authority under which the applicant
was acting at the time. Inquiries of this character are for juries
upon a regular trial and in open court; not for a judge at
chambers. If made upon one side upon habeas corpus, they must also
be made upon the other. If federal courts are to protect federal
officials from prosecution by State courts for alleged violations
of State law, State courts in their turn must protect State
officers from prosecution in federal courts, under similar
circumstances. Hence, dangerous conflicts must arise, and imminent
peril both to liberty and union.

"If such conflicts must come, to the extent of the power vested in
me, I shall maintain the honor of the State, and support the
authority of her courts."

We have scarcely given the reader a sample of Mr. Chase's style of speech, or opinions on the slavery question, and it is quite possible we have not given the most eloquent extracts which may be found in his public speeches and messages, but we have quoted enough to show every intelligent reader who Mr. Chase is and what his opinions are.

EDWARD BATES.

We shall only give an outline sketch of Edward Bates, of Missouri, for though a man whose name is prominently before the public, yet he has seen little of that congressional life which gives a man a political record.

Mr. Bates was born in Goochland County, Virginia, on the 4th of September, 1793, being the seventh son and twelfth child of Thomas F. Bates. His ancestors came from the west of England to the Jamestown settlement as early as 1625, and they were plain people of the middle rank of English life. They were Quakers, and remained so for more than a century--some of the descendants to this day. The ancestors of Mr. Bates, however, forfeited membership in the Society of Friends--or we should say, rather, Mr. Bates' _father_, Thomas F. Bates, lost his membership with the Society for bearing arms in the war of the Revolution. A noble cause to die for, and certainly to lose ecclesiastical relations for! He was at the siege of York; and his children from that day were no more Quakers.

The scholastic education of Mr. Bates was not perhaps first-class. He entered no college and passed through with no "course," but was, nevertheless, well taught in the elements, at home, by his father and a kinsman, Benj. Bates, of Hanover; at school, for several years, at Charlotte Hall Academy, Maryland; and a most excellent school it was.

The choice of the young man for a profession was the navy, and in the winter of 1811-12, a midshipman's warrant was offered him; but in deference to the wishes of his mother, he declined it and gave up his choice. This fact gives a key to the man's character. He has always been willing to do his duty, however great the personal sacrifice. In 1813, he served as a volunteer at Norfolk, Va., in a militia regiment. In 1814, he emigrated to St. Louis, under the kind care of his elder brother, Frederick Bates, then Secretary of Missouri Territory, and afterward Governor of the State. He entered the law office of Rufus Easton, an eminent lawyer, who was in his time a delegate from the territory in Congress. In 1816, he was duly licensed to practise law, and succeeded so well that in 1819 he was appointed Circuit Attorney. In 1820, he was one of the eight men who represented St. Louis County in the convention which formed the State Constitution for Missouri. Later, he was the Attorney-General of the State; and later yet, was elected for several times to both houses of the Missouri General Assembly. In 1824, President Monroe appointed him U.S. Attorney-General for the Missouri District. In 1826, he was elected to Congress, where he served honorably for two years. In 1828, he ran again, but was beaten by the storm of Jackson politics. This result of the congressional campaign seemed to disgust him with public political life, and he quietly withdrew to private life. He has since steadily practised law to support a large family--with one exception. In 1853, he was elected Judge of the St. Louis Land Court. After performing the duties of the office for about three years, he resigned it and went back to the practice of the law.

In 1847, to go back a little, Mr. Bates presided over the Internal Improvement Convention at Chicago. In 1850, Mr. Fillmore appointed him Secretary of War, but he declined the office. In 1856, he presided at the Whig Convention in Baltimore; in 1858, received from Harvard University the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. We omitted to mention that, in 1823, Mr. Bates married Julia D. Coulter, a native of South Carolina, by whom he has had seventeen children, eight of whom survive.

Before we give a few of Mr. Bates' political opinions, one fact should be stated. He, a southern man, went to Missouri and became a slaveholder, by inheritance and otherwise; yet, a few years since, set his slaves free, and is understood to be unequivocally in favor of emancipation in the State of Missouri.

Now for Mr. Bates' political opinions--and we shall quote from his late letter. He says, speaking of slavery:

"As to the negro question, I have always thought, and often
declared, in speech and in print, that it is a pestilent question,
the agitation of which has never done good to any party, section,
or class, and never can do good, unless it be accounted good to
stir up the angry passions of men, and exasperate the unreasoning
jealousies of sections, and by these bad means foist some unfit
men into office, and keep some fit men out. It is a sensitive
question, into whose dangerous vortex it is quite possible for
good men to be drawn unawares. But when I see a man, at the South
or the North, of mature age and some experience, persist in urging
the question, after the successful experience of the last few
years, I can attribute his conduct to no higher motive than
personal ambition or sectional prejudice."

This is all Mr. Bates says on the slavery question. He then goes on to speak in favor of internal improvements to advance the interests and protect the rights and industry of the country.

"Protection, if not the sole, is the chief end of government. It
is for the governing power to judge, in every instance, what kind
and what degree of protection is needful--whether a navy to guard
our commerce all around the world, or an army to defend the
country against armed invasion from without, or domestic
insurrection from within; or a tariff to protect our home industry
against the dangerous obtrusion of foreign labor and capital."

As to our foreign policy generally, he says he is willing to leave it where Washington placed it, on the sage maxim, "Peace with all nations; entangling alliances with none." The greedy appetite for foreign acquisition which makes us covet our neighbor's lands, and devise cunning schemes to get them, has little of his sympathy. He argues this point briefly, but forcibly, opposing the acquisition of Cuba, and the other islands and Central American countries which would then be demanded. As to buying them, we had better wait till we cease borrowing money to pay current expenses; and before conquering, pause and estimate the cost of rushing into war with all maritime Europe, and half of America. Cuba has much more to fear from us than we have to fear from Cuba. Mr. Bates continues:

"But suppose we could get, honestly and peaceably, the whole
country, continental and insular, from the Rio Grande to the
Orinoco, and from Trinidad to Cuba, and thus establish our _mare
clausum_, and shut the gate of the world across the Isthmus, can
we govern them wisely and well? For the last few years, in the
attempt to govern our home territories of Kansas and Utah, we have
not very well maintained the dignity and justice of the nation,
nor secured the peace and prosperity of the subject people....

"For my part, I should grieve to have my country become, like
Rome, a conquering and dominant nation; for I think there are few
or no examples in history, of governments whose chief objects were
glory and power, which did ever secure the happiness and
prosperity of their own people. Such governments may grow great
and famous, and advance a few of their citizens to wealth and
nobility, but the price of their grandeur is the personal
independence and individual freedom of their people. Still less am
I inclined to see absorbed into our system, "on an equal footing
with the original States," the various and mixed races (amounting
to I know not how many millions) which inhabit the continent and
isthmus south of our present border. I am not willing to inoculate
our body politic with the virus of their diseases, political and
social--diseases which, with them, are chronic and hereditary, and
with us could hardly fail to produce corruption in the mind and
weakness in the members."

The letter concludes as follows:

"It seems to me that an efficient, home-loving government,
moderate and economical in its administration, peaceful in its
objects, and just to all nations, need have no fear of invasion at
home, or serious aggressions abroad. The nations of Europe have to
stand continually in defence of their existence, but the conquest
of our country by a foreign power is simply impossible, and no
nation is so absurd as to entertain the thought. We may conquer
ourselves by local strifes and sectional animosities, and when, by
our folly and wickedness, we have accomplished that great
calamity, there will be none to pity us for the consequences of so
great a crime.

"If our government would devote all its energies to the promotion
of peace and friendship with all foreign countries; the
advancement of commerce; the increase of agriculture; the growth
and stability of manufactures, and the cheapening, quickening, and
securing the internal trade and travel of our country; in short,
if it would devote itself in earnest to the establishment of a
wise and steady policy of internal government, I think we should
witness a growth and consolidation of wealth and comfort, and
power for good, which cannot be reasonably hoped for from a
fluctuating policy, always watching for the turns of good fortune,
or from a grasping ambition to seize new territories, which are
hard to get and harder to govern.

"The present position of the administration is a sorrowful
commentary upon the broad democracy of its professions. In theory,
the people have the right and ability to do anything--in practice,
we are verging rapidly to the one man power.

"The President, the ostensible head of the national Democrats, is
eagerly striving to concentrate power in his own hands, and thus
exclude both the people and their representatives from the actual
affairs of government. Having emptied the treasury, which he found
full, and living precariously upon the borrowed money, he now
demands of Congress to intrust to his unchecked discretion the war
power, the purse, and the sword.

"First, he asks Congress to authorize him, by statute, to use the
army to take _military_ possession of northern Mexico, and hold it
under his _protectorate_, and as a security for debts due to our
citizens. _Civil_ possession would not answer, for that exposes
him, as in the case of Kansas, to be annoyed by a factious
Congress, and a rebellious territorial legislature.

"Second, not content with this, he demands discretionary power to
use the army and navy in the South also, in blockading the coast
and marching his troops into the interior of Mexico and New
Granada, to protect our citizens against all evil doers along the
transit route of Tehuantepec and Panama, and he and his supporters
claim this enormous power upon the ground that, in this particular
at least, he ought to be the equal of the greatest monarch of
Europe. They forget that our fathers limited the power of the
President by design, and for the reason that they had found out,
by sad experience, that the monarchs of Europe were too strong for
freedom.

"Third, in strict pursuance of his doctrine, first publicly
announced from Ostend, he demands of Congress to hand over to him
thirty millions of dollars, to be used at his discretion, to
facilitate his acquisition of Cuba. Facilitate--how? Perhaps it
would be imprudent to tell.

"Add to all this the fact (as yet unexplained) that one of the
largest naval armaments which sailed from our coasts is now
operating in South America, ostensibly against a poor little
republic far up the Plata River, to settle some little quarrel
between the two Presidents. If Congress had been polite enough to
grant the President's demand of the sword and the purse against
Mexico, Central America and Cuba, this navy, its duty done at the
South, might be made, on its way home, to arrive in the Gulf very
opportunely, to aid the 'Commander-in-Chief' in the acquisition of
some very valuable territory.

"I allude to these facts with no malice against Mr. Buchanan, but
as evidences of the dangerous change which is now obviously sought
to be made in the practical working of the Government--the
concentration of power in the hands of the President--and the
dangerous policy, now almost established, of looking abroad for
temporary glory and aggrandizement, instead of looking at home for
all the purposes of good government--peaceable, moderate,
economical--protecting all interests, and by a fixed policy
calling into safe exercise all the talents and industry of our
people, and thus steadily advancing our country in everything
which can make a nation great, happy, and permanent.

"The rapid increase of the public expenditures (and that, too,
under the management of statesmen professing to be peculiarly
economical) is an alarming sign of corruption and decay.

"The increase bears no fair proportion to the growth and expansion
of the country, but looks rather like wanton waste and criminal
negligence. The ordinary objects are not materially augmented--the
army and navy remained on a low peace establishment--the military
defences are little, if at all enlarged--the improvement of
harbors, lakes and rivers is abandoned, and the Pacific railway is
not only not begun, but its very location is scrambled for by
hungry sections, which succeed in nothing but mutual defeat. In
short, the money, to an enormous amount (I am told at the rate of
from eighty to one hundred millions a year), is gone, and we have
little or nothing to show for it.

"In profound peace with foreign nations, and surrounded by the
proofs of national growth and individual prosperity, the treasury,
by less than two years of mismanagement, is made bankrupt, and the
government itself is living from hand to mouth on bills of credit
and borrowed money! This humiliating state of things could hardly
happen, if the men in power were both honest and wise. The
democratic economists in Congress confess that they have
recklessly wasted the public revenue; they confess it by refusing
to raise the tariff to meet the present exigency, and by insisting
that they can replenish the exhausted treasury and support the
government, in credit and efficiency, by simply striking off their
former extravagances.

"An illustrious predecessor of the President is reported to have
declared 'that those who live on borrowed money ought to break.' I
do not concur in that harsh saying; yet I am clearly of the
opinion that the government, in common prudence (to say nothing of
pride and dignity), ought to reserve its credit for great
transactions and unforeseen emergencies. In common times of peace,
it ought always to have an established revenue, equal, at least,
to its current expenses. And that revenue ought to be so levied as
to foster and protect the industry of the country, employed in our
most necessary and important manufactures."

DANIEL S. DICKINSON.

Daniel Stevens Dickinson was born at Goshen, Litchfield County, Conn., Sept. 11, 1800.

His father, Daniel T. Dickinson, was a farmer, an intelligent, upright man, who through life was devoted to his calling as the most honorable and useful, and left an unsullied name.

In 1806, the family removed to what is now Guilford, Chenango County, New York, where Daniel S. Dickinson spent his boyhood, mostly on the farm, in the usual occupations of a farmer's boy.

His education, as far as public advantages were concerned, was limited to the common schools of the country; but with a spirit of self-reliance, untiring industry and an ardent desire for knowledge and advancement, he availed himself of such private facilities as he could command or devise, and persevering in a plan of self-education systematically, with a fine literary taste and extensive reading and study, he early became a thorough English scholar, well versed in the classics and familiar with general literature.

Between 1816 and 1820, he learned, and worked as apprentice and journeyman at, a mechanic's trade. In 1820, he commenced teaching and was successfully engaged in it considerably up to 1825, both in the common and in academical or select schools.

About 1820, he learned, without a teacher, the art of land surveying, in which he became expert, and practised somewhat extensively until 1828. During a portion of the time, while teaching and surveying, he was also engaged in the study of the law. He married, in 1822, Lydia Knapp, daughter of the late Colby Knapp, M.D., an early settler of Guilford, a prominent member of the medical profession, and extensively identified with the early history of the town and county. They have had four children, only two of whom, the youngest--daughters--are living. In 1828, he was admitted to the practice of the law, and opened an office at Guilford, where he remained in practice until 1831.

In December, 1831, he removed to Binghamton, the county seat of Broome County, New York, where he has ever since resided. He immediately entered upon an extensive legal practice, and soon took rank among the ablest lawyers of the State. He was made the first President of Binghamton, on its municipal organization in 1834. Was a member of the Baltimore Convention which nominated Van Buren and Johnson, in 1835. Was elected to the State Senate in the fall of 1836; took his seat 1st January, 1837, and served for four years as a senator and member of the Court for the Correction of Errors, in both of which capacities, as a debater, legislator and jurist, he maintained a prominent rank. His review in the Senate of the message of Governor Seward established him at once as a leader of his party, and is still referred to among politicians as exhibiting both the tact and power which afterward so strongly marked his public career. His opinions delivered in the Court of Errors are models of conciseness and force, and temper in just proportion the technicalities of law with the deductions of sound reason and strong common sense.

His term in the State Senate expired Dec. 31, 1840. At the election in 1840, he was a candidate for the office of Lieut. Governor, at the time Mr. Van Buren ran the second time for President, and was defeated, though he received 5,000 more votes than Mr. Van Buren.

In 1842, finding that his name was being used again in connection with the office of Lieut. Governor, he declined the nomination in advance of the meeting of the convention, but was nevertheless nominated unanimously and by acclamation, and compelled by circumstances to accept, and was elected by 25,000 majority. The office of Lieut. Governor made him President of the Senate, Presiding Judge of the Court for the Correction of Errors, member of the Canal Board, Regent of the University, etc., etc. His term of office expired Dec. 31, 1844, and he declined a reelection. It was held during a somewhat stormy period in the history of the State, but was so discharged as to add to his reputation with the people and his standing with the Democratic party. As the presiding officer of the Senate, in particular, he showed a decision, firmness and dignity of character which elicited the admiration and approval of opponents as well as friends.

At the election in 1844, he opened the Presidential campaign in New York on the annexation of Texas, which he warmly advocated against the opinion of many leading Democrats. He spent the whole campaign upon the stump; was one of the Democratic _State_ electors, and united in casting the vote of the State for Polk and Dallas. About the 1st of December, 1844, he was appointed by Governor Bouck United State senator in place of N. P. Tallmadge, resigned, and immediately proceeded to Washington and took his seat as such. Governor Tallmadge's term expired on the 4th of March, 1845. On the meeting of the Legislature in January, 1845, he was elected for the unexpired term of Governor Tallmadge, and subsequently for the regular term of six years, from 4th March, 1845; during which term he remained in the Senate, closing his public service 4th March, 1851. For a number of years he was Chairman of the Committee of Finance in the Senate, but declined it, and all committee service, the last short session of the term.

He was a member of the committee to bear the remains of Mr. Calhoun to his native State, and discharged the duty with the almost filial regard he felt for the great man who had been called away from the field of his public labors. This is the only time he ever visited the South; but, though necessarily a hasty trip, he received many tokens of public and private appreciation.

In 1847, he introduced into the Senate, and advocated in an able speech, his celebrated resolution on the acquisition and annexation of territory, and asserting, in opposition to the doctrines of the Wilmot Proviso, the principles of "popular sovereignty," which formed the basis of the adjustment of 1850, and has since been so fully approved by the people.

He opposed the Oregon Treaty, which surrendered several degrees of American territory to Great Britain.

He opposed the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, which he conceived to be a cheat, and has been a constant source of embarrassment and misunderstanding between the two governments.

During the session of 1850, he was given a public dinner by the Democrats of the counties of New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond and Westchester, at the city of New York. The invitation was tendered by the leading Democrats of the five counties. They said in it that the occasion was sought for the purpose of "giving full utterance to the sentiments of respect and confidence with which his distinguished political services to our common country had inspired them," and closed as follows: "In the trying crisis through which our country, and we may add the cause of the world's freedom, and of Republicanism, is now passing, the State of New York is most fortunate in being represented in the Senate of the Union, by one whose patriotism soars above the level of time-serving purposes, and whose eminent talents and moral worth command respect both in the State he represents, and in the councils of the nation."

On his visit to New York, in compliance with this invitation, besides the splendid public _fete_, at which Charles O'Connor presided, he was waited upon by the various Democratic committees with resolutions and congratulatory addresses approving his course; was made the guest of the Common Council, although it was then politically Whig, who unanimously presented him the "freedom of the city," and passed resolutions thanking him for his public services in behalf of the city and State.

He was a member of the Committee of Thirteen in the Senate, of which Mr. Clay was chairman, which perfected the compromise measures of 1850, and took a leading part in their advocacy and adoption: a policy which, though often disturbed by demagogues of both parties since, has signally borne the test of the public judgment. At the close of the session at which those measures were adopted, he received from Mr. Webster the beautiful letter reference to his course, which we append.

MR. WEBSTER TO MR. DICKINSON.

WASHINGTON, _Sept. 27, 1850_.

MY DEAR SIR: Our companionship in the Senate is dissolved. After
this long and important session, you are about to return to your
home, and I shall try to find leisure to visit mine. I hope we may
meet each other again two months hence for the discharge of our
duties in our respective stations in the government. But life is
uncertain, and I have not felt willing to take leave of you
without placing in your hands a note containing a few words which
I wish to say to you.

In the earlier part of our acquaintance, my dear sir, occurrences
took place which I remember with constantly increasing pain,
because the more I have known of you the greater has been my
respect for your talents. But it is your noble, able, manly and
patriotic conduct in support of the great measures of this session
which has entirely won my heart, and secured my highest regard. I
hope you may live long to serve your country; but I do not think
you are ever likely to see a crisis in which you may be able to do
so much either for your own distinction or for the public good.
You have stood where others have fallen; you have advanced with
firm and manly step where others have wavered, faltered and fallen
back, and, for one, I desire to thank you, and to commend your
conduct out of the fullness of an honest heart.

This letter needs no reply; it is, I am aware, of very little
value, but I have thought you might be willing to receive it, and
perhaps to leave it where it would be seen by those who may come
after you.

I pray you, when you reach your own threshold, to remember me most
kindly to your wife and daughter, and I remain, dear sir, with the
truest esteem, your friend and obedient servant,

DAN'L WEBSTER.

MR. DICKINSON TO MR. WEBSTER.

BINGHAMTON, _Oct. 5, 1850_.

MY DEAR SIR: I perused and re-perused the beautiful note which you
placed in my hands as I was about leaving Washington, with deeper
emotion than I have ever experienced, except under some domestic
vicissitude. Since I learned the noble and generous qualities of
your nature, the unfortunate occurrence in our early acquaintance,
to which you refer, has caused me many moments of painful regret,
and your confiding communication has furnished a powerful
illustration of the truth that "to err is human, to forgive
divine." Numerous and valued are the testimonials of confidence
and regard which a somewhat extended acquaintance and lengthened
public service have gathered around me, but among them all there
is none to which my heart clings so fondly as this.