carried beyond the necessary implication, which produces 5. But after all, it seems to be generally conceded that it.. It should be limited to the creation of proper this restriction, if carried into effect could, not operate governments for new countries, acquired or settled, and upon any State to be formed from newly-acquired territo the necessary provisions for their eventual admission tory. The well-known attributes of Sovereignty, recoginto the Union; leaving, in the meantime, to the people nized by us as belonging to the State Governments, inhabiting them, to regulate their internal concerns in would sweep before them any such barrier, and would their own way. They are just as capable of doing so as leave the people to express and exert their will at pleathe people of the States; and they can do so, at any rate sure. Is the object, then, of temporary exclusion as soon as their political independênce is recognized by for so short a period as the duration of the Territorial admission into the Union. During this temporary condi- Governments, worth the price at which it would be tion, it is hardly expedient to call into exercise a doubt-purchased?-worth the discord it would engender, the ful and invidious authority which questions the intelli- trial to which it would expose our Union, and the evils gence of a respectable portion of our citizens, and whose that would be the certain consequence, let the trial relimitation, whatever it may be, will be rapidly approach-sult as might? As to the course, which has been intiing its termination-an authority which would give to mated, rather than proposed, of ingrafting such a restricCongress despotic power, uncontrolled by the Constitution upon any treaty of acquisition, I persuade myself it tion, over most important sections of our common would find but little favor in any portion of this country. country. For, if the relation of master and servant may Such an arrangement would render Mexico a party, be regulated or annihilated by its legislation, so may the having a right to interfere in our internal institutions in regulation of husband and wife, of parent and child, and questions left by the Constitution to the State Governof any other condition which our institutions and the ments, and would inflict a serious blow upon our fundahabits of our society recognize. What would be thought mental principles. Few, indeed, I trust, there are among if Congress should undertake to prescribe the terms of us who would thus grant to a foreign power the right to marriage in New-York, or to regulate the authority of inquire into the constitution and conduct of the soverparents over their children in Pennsylvania? And yet eign States of this Union; and if there are any, I am not, it would be as vain to seek one justifying the inter- among them, nor never shall be. To the people of this ference of the national legislature in the cases referred to country, under God, now and hereafter, are its destinies in the original States of the Union. I speak here of the committed; and we want no foreign power to interro inherent power of Congress, and do not touch the ques- gate us, treaty in hand, and to say, Why have you done tion of such contracts as may be formed with new States this, or why have you left that undone? Our own dig when admitted into the confederacy. nity and the principles of national independence unite to repel such a proposition. Of all the questions which can agitate us, those which are merely sectional in their character are the most dangerous, and the most to be deprecated. The warning voice of him who from his character and services and virtue had the best right to warn us, proclaimed to his countrymen, in his Farewell Address-that monument of wisdom for him, as I hope it will be of safety for themhow much we had to apprehend from measures peculiarly affecting geographical sections of our country. The grave circumstances in which we are now placed make these words words of safety; for I am satisfied, from all I have seen and heard here, that a successful attempt to ingraft the principles of the Wilmot Proviso upon the leislation of this Government, and to apply them to new territory, should new territory be acquired, would seriously affect our tranquillity. I do not suffer myself to foresee or foretell the consequences that would ensue; for I trust and believe there is good sense and good feeling enough in the country to avoid them, by avoiding all occasions which might lead to them. Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by Congress over this matter; and I am in favor of leaving to the people of any Territory, which may be hereafter acquired, the right to regulate it for themselves, under the general principles of the Constitution. Because 1. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of the requisite power to Congress; and I am not disposed to extend a doubtful precedent beyond its necessity-the establishment of Territorial Governments when needed leaving to the inhabitants all the rights compatible with the relations they bear to the confederation. But there is another important consideration, which ought not to be lost sight of, in the investigation of this subject. The question that presents itself is not a question of the increase, but of the diffusion of Slavery. Whether its sphere be stationary or progressive, its amount will be the same. The rejection of this restriction will not add one to the class of servitude, nor will its adoption give freedom to a single being who is now placed therein. The same numbers will be spread over greater territory; and, so far as compression, with less abundance of the necessaries of life, is an evil, so far will that evil be mitigated by transporting slaves to a new country, and giving them a larger space to occupy. I say this in the event of the extension of Slavery over any new acquisition. But can it go there? This may well be doubted. All the descriptions which reach us of the cordition of the Californias and of New-Mexico, to the acquisition of which our efforts seem to be at present directed, unite in representing those countries as agricultural regions, similar in their products to our Middle States, and generally unfit for the production of the great staples which can alone render slave labor valuable. If we are not grossly deceived-and it is difficult to conceive how we can bethe inhabitants of those regions, whether they depend up on their plows or their herds, cannot be slaveholders. In voluntary labor, requiring the investment of large capital, can only be profitable when employed in the production of a few favored articles confined by nature to special districts, and paying larger returns than the usual agricultu ral products spread over more considerable portions of the earth. 2. Because I believe this measure, if adopted, would weaken, if not impair, the Union of the States; and would sow the seeds of future discord, which would grow up and ripen into an abundant harvest of cala-guished writer, "the soil, the climate, nor the productions mity. In the able letter of Mr. Buchanan upon this subject, not long since given to the public, he presents similar considerations with great force. "Neither," says the distinof California, south of 36° 80', nor indeed of any portion of it, North or South, is adapted to slave labor; and beside every facility would be there afforded for the slave to escape from his master. Such property would be entirely insecure in any part of California. It is morally impos 8. Because I believe a general conviction that such a proposition would succeed, would lead to an immediate withholding of the supplies, and thus to a dishonorable termination of the war. I think no dispassionate observer at the seat of Government can doubt this re-sible, therefore, that a majority of the emigrants to that sult. 4. If, however, in this I am under a misapprehension, I am under none in the practical opera ion of this restriction, if adopted by Congress, upon a treaty of peace, making any acquisition of Mexican Territory. Such a treaty would be rejected as certainly as presented to the Senate. More than one-third of that body would vote against it, viewing such a principle as an exclusion of the citizens of the slaveholding States from a participation in the benefits acquired by the treasure and exertions of all, and which should be common to all. I am repeating-neither advancing nor defending these views. That branch of the subject does not lie in my way, and I shall not turn aside to seek it. In this aspect of the matter, the people of the United States must choose between this restriction and the extension of their territorial limits. They cannot have both; and which they will surrender must depend upon their representatives first, and then, if these fail them, apon themselves. portion of the Territory south of 36° 30', which will be chiefly composed of our citizens, will ever reëstablish Slavery within its limits. "In regard to New-Mexico, east of the Rio Grande, the question has already been settled by the admission of Texas into the Union. "Should we acquire territory beyond the Rio Grande and east of the Rocky Mountains, it is still more impossible that a majority of the people would consent to reëstablish Slavery. They are themselves a colored population, and among them the negro does not belong socially to a degraded race." With this last remark, Mr. Walker fully coincides in his letter written in 1844, upon the annexation of Texas, and which everywhere produced so favorable an impression upon the public mind, as to have conduced very materially to the accomplishment of that great measure. yond the Del Norte," says Mr. Walker, "Slavery will no! pass; not only because it is forbidden by law, but be cause the colored race there preponderates in the ratic "Be of ten to one over the whites; and holding, as they do, the government and most of the offices in their possession, they will not permit the enslavement of any portion of the colored race, which makes and executes the laws of the country." The question, it will be therefore seen on examination, does not regard the exclusion of Slavery from a region where it now exists, but a prohibition against its introduction where it does not exist, and where, from the feelings of the inhabitants and the laws of nature, "it is morally impossible," as Mr. Buchanan says, that it can ever reëstablish itself. It augurs well for the permanence of our confederation that during more than half a century, which has elapsed since the establishment of this government, many serious questions, and some of the highest importance, have agitated the public mind, and more than once threatened the gravest consequences; but that they have all in succession passed away, leaving our institutions unscathed, and our country advancing in numbers, power, and wealth, and in all the other elements of national prosperity, with a rapidity unknown in ancient or modern days In times of political excitement, when difficult and delicate questions present themselves for solution, there is one ark of safety for us; and that is an honest appeal to the fundamental principles of our Union, and a stern determination to abide their dictates. This course of proceeding has carried us in safety through many a trouble; and I trust will carry us safely through many more, should many more be destined to assail us. The Wilmot, Proviso seeks to take from its legitimate tribunal a question of domestic policy, having no relation to the Union, as such, and to transfer it to another, created by the people for a special purpose, and foreign to the subject matter involved in this issue. By going back to our true principles, we go back to the road of peace and safety. Leave to the people, who will be af fected by this question, to adjust it upon their own responsibility, and in their own manner, and we shall render another tribute to the original principles of our Government, and furnish another guaranty of its permanence and prosperity. I am, dear sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, LEWIS CASS. A. O. P. NICHOLSON, Esq., Nashville, Tenn. MR. VAN BUREN ON SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. THE following letter was addressd to the New York City Delegates to the Utica Free Soil Convention, of 1848, in response to a letter to Martin Van Buren, asking his opinion on the subject herein discussed: GENTLEMEN: | LINDENWOLD, June 20, 1848. .You desire also my views in regard to the prohibition by Congress of Slavery in territories where it does not now exist, and they shall be given in a few words, and in a manner which will not, I hope, increase, if it does not diminish the existing excitement in the public mind. The illustrious founders of our Government were not insensible to the apparent inconsistency between the perpetuation of Slavery in the United States, and the principles of the Revolution, as delineated in the Declaration of Independence; and they were too ingenuous in their dispositions to attempt to conceal the impressions by which they were embarrassed. But they knew, also, that its speedy abolition in several of the States, was impossible, and its existence in all, without fault on the part of the present-generation. They were also too upright and the fraternal feelings which had carried them through the struggle for independence were too strong to permit them to deal with such a matter upon any other principles than those of liberality and justice. The policy they adopted was to guarantee to the States in which Slavery existed, an exclusive control over the subject within their respective jurisdictions, but to prevent by united efforts, its extension to territories of the United States in which it did not in fact exist. On all sides the most expedient means to carry out this policy were adopted with alacrity and good feeling. Their first step was to interdict the introduction of Slavery into the Northwestern Territory, now covered by the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, This may justly be regarded, as being in the main, a Southern measure. The subject was first brought forward in Congress by Mr. Jefferson. Virginia made the cession of territory upon which the ordinance was intended to ●perate, and the Representatives from all the slaveholding States gave it a unanimous support. Doubts have arisen in the minds of some whether the ordinance of 1787 was authorized by the articles of Confederation. A bill was introduced in the new Constitution, recognizing and adapting it to the new organization, and it has ever since been treated and regarded as a valid act. This bill received the Constitutional approbation of President Washington, whose highest and sworn duty it was to support the Constitution under which it was enacted. Nor was the North backward in doing its part to sustain the policy which had been wisely adopted. They assented to the insertion of provisions in the Constitution necessary and sufficient to protect that interest in the States, and they did more. trade by the Quakers of Philadelphia and New-York, and by Dr. Franklin as President of a society for the promotion of Abolition. These petitions were in the House of Representatives, referred to a Committee of seven, all but one of whom were Northern members, whose report as amended in Committee of the Whole, affirmed "that Congress have no power to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States, it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulation therein which humanity and true policy might require." The perseverance and good faith with which both branches of policy thus adopted have, until very recently, been recognized and carried out, are highly honorable to the whole country. The peculiarity of the subject to be converted into an element of political agitation, as well in the slaveholding as in the non-slaveholding States, may have led to occasional attempts so to employ it, but these efforts have been very successfully frustrated by the good sense and good feeling of the people in every quarter of the Union. A detailed account of the numerous acts of the Federal Government, sustaining and carrying into full effect the policy of its founders upon the subject of Slavery in the States, and its extension to the Territories, and the steps aken, in the non-slaveholding States, to suppress or neutralize undue agitation in regard to it, would be alike instructive and honorable to the actors in them. But it will be readily perceived that this could not be given within the necessary limits of a communication like the present. It must therefore suffice to say that from 1787, the date of the ordinance for the prevention of Slavery in the Northwestern Territory, down to and including 1838, at least eleven acts of Congress have been passed, organizing Territories which have since become States, in all of which the Constitutional power of Congess to interdict the introduction of Slavery into the Territories of the United States, is either directly exercised, or clearly asserted by enactments which, as matters of authority, are tantamount to its exercise; and that at the only period when the peace of the slaveholding States was supposed to be seriously endangered by Abolition agitation, there was a spontaneous uprising of the people of the North of both parties, by which agitation was paralyzed, and the South reassured of our fidelity to the compromises of the Constitution. In the laws for the organization of the Territories, which now constitute the States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa, Slavery was expressly prohibited. The laws for the organization of the Territories of Mississippi, New Orleans, Arkansas, Alabama and Florida, containing enactments fully equivalent in regard to the extent of power in Congress over the subject of Slavery in the Territories to the express exercise of it in other cases. These acts were approved by Presidents Washington, the elder Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson and myself, all bound by our oaths of office to withhold our respective approvals from laws which we believed unconstitutional. If in the passage of these laws The trouble apprehended at the commencement of the during a period of half a century, and under the adminisGovernment from this source, began to show itself as tration of so many Presidents, there was anything like early as the year 1790, in the form of Petitions presented sectional divisions, or a greater or less participation in to Congress upon the subject of Slavery and the slave-their enactment on the part of the Representatives of the slaveholding or non-slaveholding States, I am not ap-| prised of it. I believe the plan devised by the founders of the Government, including the Fathers of our Political Church, for the treatment of this great subject, and which has hitherto been so faithfully sustained, and which has proven so successful in preserving the Union of these States, to be not only the wisest which the wit of man could have devised; but the only one consistent with the safety and prosperity of the whole country. .I do, therefore, desire to see it continued so long as Slavery exists in the United States. The extent to which I have sustained it in the various public stations I have occupied is known to the country. I was at the time well aware that I went further in this respect than many of my best friends could approve. But deeply penetrated by the conviction that Slavery was the only subject that could endanger our blessed Union, I was determined that no effort on my part, within the pale of the Constitution, should be wanting to sustain its compromises, as they were then understood, and it is now a source of consolation to me that I pursued the course I then adopted. distinctly announced my opinion in favor of the power of Congress to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, although I was, for reasons which were then, and are stili satisfactory to my mind, very decidedly opposed to its exercise there. The question of power is certainly as clear in respect to the Territories as it is in regard to that District; and as to the Territories, my opinion was also made known in a still more solemn form, by giving the Executive approval required by the Constitution to the bill for the organization of the Territorial Government of Iowa, which prohibited the introduction of Slavery into that Territory. The opinion from which we dissent was given in the face of, and directly contrary to, the views expressed, in forms the most solemn and explicit, by all or nearly all the non-slaveholding States, and we are not at liberty to suspect the sincerity of these expressions. Honest and well-meaning men, as we know the masses of our political friends in those States to be, are incapable of trifling with so grave a subject. now. Our ancestors signalized the commencement of this The doctrine which the late Baltimore Convention has glorious Government of ours, by rescuing from subjection presented for the sanction of the nation, is, in substance, to Slavery a Territory which is now covered by five great that the laws I referred to were but so many violations of States, and peopled by more than four millions of freemen, the Constitution that this instrument confers no power on in the full enjoyment of every blessing which industry Congress to exclude Slavery from the Territories, as has and good institutions can confer. They did this when the so often been done with the assent of all. This doctrine opinions and conduct of the world in regard to the instiis set forth in the published opinion of the highly respect-tution of Slavery were very different from what they are able nominee of that Convention, who, it is well known, received that distinction, because he avowed that opinion, and who, it is equally certain, would not have received it if he had not done so. It is proposed to give this doctrine the most solemn sanction known to our political system, by the election of its declared advocate and supporter to the Presidency. If it receives the proposed sanction of the People of the United States, the result cannot be doubtful. The policy in regard to the extension of Slavery to the Territories of the United States into which it has not yet been introduced, which has existed since the commencement of the Government, and the consequences of which have been so salutary, must cease, and every act of Congress designed to carry it into effect be defeated by the Veto of the Executive. The Territories now owned by the United States, and every acquisition of territory that may hereafter be made to the United States, whether obtained by annexation, by cession for a valuable consideration, or by conquest, must, as long as this opinion is held, and as far as the action of the National Legislature is concerned, be subject to the inroads of Slavery. And this consequence is to be submitted to on the assumption that the framers of the Constitution, with their attention directed to the subject, and with a well understood desire to do so, have failed to clothe Congress with the necessary powers to prevent it. I cannot, with my vote, contribute to this sanction. cannot do so, because I cannot concur in the opinion which we are called upon to sustain. They did so before Great Britain had even commenced those gigantic efforts for the suppression of Slavery by which she has so greatly distinguished herself. After seventy-four years' enjoyment of the sacred and invaluable right of self-government, obtained for us by the valor and discretion of our ancestors, we, their descendants, are called upon to doom, or if that is too strong a word, to expose to the inroad of Slavery, a territory capable of sustaining an equal number of new States to be added to our Confederacy-a territory in a great part of which Slavery has never existed in fact, and from the residue of which it has been expressly abolished by the existing Government. We are called upon to do this at a period when the minds of nearly all mankind have been penetrated by a conviction of the evils of Slavery, and are united in efforts for its suppression-at a moment, too, when the spirit of Freedom and Reform is everywhere far more prevalent than it has ever been, and when our Republic stands proudly forth as the great exemplar of the world in the science of Free Government. Who can believe that a population like that which inhabits the non-slaveholding States, probably amounting to twelve millions, who by their own acts, or by the foresight of others, have been exempted from the evils of Slavery, can at such a moment be induced, by consideraItions of any description, to make a retrograde movement of a character so extraordinary and so painful? Such a movement would, in my view of the matter-and I say it with unfeigned deference to the conflicting opiniona of others-bring reproach upon the influence of free institutions, which would delight the hearts and excite the hopes of the advocates of arbitrary power throughout the world. The power, the existence of which is at this late day denied, is, in my opinion, fully granted to Congress by the Constitution. Its language, the circumstances under which it was adopted, the recorded explanations which accompanied its formation-the construction it has received from our highest judicial tribunals, and the very solemn and repeated confirmations it has derived from the measures of the Government-leave not the shadow of a doubt in my mind, in regard to the authority of Congress to exercise the power in question. This is not a new opinion on my part, nor the first occasion on which it has been avowed. While the candidate of my friends for the Presidency, I Accept, gentlemen, my warmest acknowledgments for the obliging expressions contained in your letter, and be lieve me to be Your friend, MARTIN VAN BUREN. To Messrs. Nelson J. Waterbury, David Dudley Field, and others, New York. LAND FOR THE LANDLESS. Action of Congress on the Public Lands. THE Public Domain of the United States is still immense, notwithstanding the millions upon millions of acres which have been squandered or passed over to the hands of speculators and monopolists, by the action of the National Government during the past few years. It is estimated by intelligent persons, who have given their attention to the subject, that lying within the States and Territories of this Govern ment there are now about one thousand millions of acres of public lands still unentered. "What shall be done with this immense domain ?" is a question which has for years occupied the minds of thoughtful men, who have the best interests of society at heart. At length, the great question of the proper disposition of these lands has become one of party, and may be stated as follows: "Shall the Public Domain be open The vote upon the motion to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole, was as followsthe Democrats in Roman, the Republicans in Italics, and the Southern Americans in SMALL CAPITALS: MAINE.-Wood-1. YAS. CONNECTICUT.-Arnold, Bishop-2. PENNSYLVANIA.-Ahl, Chapman, Dewart, Montgomery, to monopoly by speculators, leading inevitably | ried, the bill never would have been reached, to a landed aristocracy? or shall it be reserved and would never have been heard of afterward. for actual occupants in small quantities, at a nominal price, or without price ?" There would be no difficulty whatever in adjusting this question at any time and in the right way, if the Negro question, which, in the National Administration, absorbs or overrides all others, were not behind it. Although this is an old question, it had never commanded in Congress, the attention to which it is entitled, previous to the organization of the Republican party; because until that time both the great parties into which the country was divided were either controlled, or their action was modified, by the Slaveholding interest of the country. That interest, which is ever vigilant, understands that Slavery cannot well exist were small freeholds prevail, and hence it opposes, with all its great power, all Preemption and Homestead laws, knowing well that if our new States and Territories are to be occupied in quarter-sections, they will be occupied by working farmers, and not by speculators and great planters. Since this question has assumed a national importance, a concise record of the proceedings and votes in Congress during the session of 1858-9, and 1859-60, upon the disposition of the Public Domain, will be of interest as a matter of record. MARYLAND.-HARRIS, RICAUD-2. VIRGINIA. Bocock, Caskie, Edmundson, Faulkner, Garnett, Millson, Powell-7. NORTH CAROLINA.-Craige, Ruffin, Scales, Winslow-4. FLORIDA.-Hawkins-1. ALABAMA.-Curry, Houston, Moore, Shorter-4. TENNESSEE.-Atkins, Jones, MAYNARD, READY, Savage, KENTUCKY.-Burnett, Jewett, MARSHALL, Peyton, Stevenson, Talbott, UNDERWOOD-7. MISSOURI. ANDERSON, Caruthers, John B. Clark, James OHIO.-Burns, Cockerill, Groesbeck, Harlan, Law NAYS. MAINE.-Foster, Gilman, Morse, I. Washburn 4. On the 20th of January, 1859, (See Congressional Globe, p. 492,) a bill relating to preëmptions, reported from the Committee on Public Lands, was pending before the House. The bill proposed to make some changes in the details of existing preëmption laws, but without affect-mins, ing the substance of the present system of disposing of the public lands. It was, however, in parliamentary order to propose to amend the bill so as to change the present system, and to bring the House to a direct vote upon such propositions. The friends of such change were prompt to avail themselves of this advantage. Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the bill by adding the following as an additional section: Be it further enacted, That from and after the passage of this act, no public land shall be exposed to sale by proclamation of the President, unless the same shall have been surveyed, and the return of such survey duly filed in the Land Office, for ten years or more before such sale. NEW-YORK.-Andrews, Clark, John Cochrane, Dodd, NEW-JERSEY.-Clawson, Huyler-2. NORTH CAROLINA.-GILMER, VANCE-2. OHIO.-Bingham, Bliss, Giddings, Hall, Leiter, -5. ILLINOIS.-Farnsworth, Kellogg, Lovejoy, Washburne, -4. MISSOURI.-Blair-1. MICHIGAN.-Howard, Leach, Walbridge, Waldron -4. WISCONSIN-Potter, Washburn-2. Iowa.-Curtis, Davis-2. CALIFORNIA.-Scott-1. MINNESOTA.-Cavanaugh, Phelps-2. Total, 92. The force and effect of this amendment would be to give the preemptors ten years the start of the speculators and land monopolists. That is to say with the addition of Mr. Grow's amendment to the existing laws and regulations touching the Public Lands, they would be open to preemption ten years before they could come The motion to refer the bill to the Commitwithin the grasp of the speculator, thus giving tee of the Whole having thus failed, the House the poor, industrious settler ample time to was brought to a direct vote upon Mr. Grow's "clear up" his farm and pay for it from the pro- amendment, which was adopted by the followceeds of the soil. This was just what the South ing votes: and the Democracy did not want, as the sequel will show. The opponents of the bill forthwith resorted to parliamentary tactics to avoid a direct issue apon Mr. Grow's proposition. -5. YEAS. MAINE.-Foster, Gilman, Morse, Washburn, Wood Their first movement was a motion to refer-10. the bill and amendment to the Committee of the Whole, familiarly and aptly styled "the tomb of NEW-YORK.-Andrews, Bennett, Burroughs, Clark, the Capulets." If that reference had been car-John Cochrane, Dodd, Fenton, Granger, Hoard, Kel GEORGIA-Crawford, Stephens, TRIPPE, Wright-7. TENNESSEE.-Atkins, Avery, Jones, MAYNARD, Ready, INDIANA.-Davis, Foley, Gregg, Hughes-4. MISSOURI.-ANDERSÓN, Caruthers, Clark, Craig, Phelps, ALABAMA.-Cobb, Curry, Dowdell, Houston, Moore, WOODSON. Total-95. MISSISSIPPI.-Davis, McRae, Singleton-8, TENNESSEE. MAYNARD, READY, Smith, Watkins, ZOLLI COFFER-5. The defeat of the bill, in consequence of the incorporation into it of Mr. Grow's amendment, shows that a majority of the House was really opposed to that amendment, although it OHIO.-Burns, Cox, Hall, Pendleton, Vallandigham-5. had been adopted by a vote of 98 to 81. CerINDIANA.-Davis, Foley, Gregg, Hughes-4. tain members, who did not dare to vote directly ILLINOIS.-Hodges, Marshall, Shaw, Smith-4. against the amendment, joined in killing it MISSOURI. ANDERSON, Caruthers, Clark, Craig, Phelps, afterward, by killing the bill, of which it had KENTUCKY.-Burnett, Elliott, UNDERWOOD-3. WOODSON-6. CALIFORNIA.-Scott-1. Total, 81. been made a part by their own votes. Thus Messrs. Stewart, of Maryland, Atkins, Upon the adoption of Mr. Grow's amendment, Avery, Jones and Savage, of Tennessee, and the Republican vote, as will be seen, was unani- Jewett, Stephenson, and Talbot, of Kentucky, mously in the affirmative. Of the votes from who had voted for the amendment, voted after the Slave States, all but nine were in the nega-ward against the bill. Only one, Mr. Blair, of tive, and, as we shall presently see, there was only one of that number who was really in favor of it, this one being Mr. Blair, Republican, of Missouri. Mr. Grow's amendment being incorporated into the bill, the next question was upon the passage of the bill, which was defeated by the following vote: RHODE ISLAND.-Brayton, Durfee-2. -21. NEW-JERSEY.-Clawson, Robbins-2. the nine Southern supporters of the amend- Afterward, on the same day, when these With reference to the vote on this bill to-day, with an OHIO. Bingham, Bliss, Cox, Giddings, Hall, Harlan, INDIANA.-Colfax, Kilgore, Pettit, Wilson-4. I say it frankly, I say it in sorrow, that it was to the Re- |