did not contemplate the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and that he (Douglas) could not be brought to that point until after Dixon had offered his amendment. Douglas says that these statements are refuted by the Independent Democratic Appeal which Sumner and Chase both signed. "If the statements of this document be true," says Douglas, “that the first bill did repeal the eighth section of the Missouri act, what are we to think of the statements in their speeches since, that such was not the intention of the committee-was not the recommendation of the report, and was not the legal effect of the bill? On the contrary, if the statements in their subsequent speeches are true, what apology do those Senators propose to make to the Senate and country for having falsified the action of the committee in a document over their own signatures, and thus spread a false alarm among the people, and misled the public mind in repect to our proceedings? These Senators cannot avoid the one or the other of these alternatives."

II. This refers to the opposition of the North to the objectionable clause in Missouri's Constitution, which gave rise to the third struggle over Missouri's admission.-See Historical Note, vol. ii., p. 350.

12. At this point Douglas was drawn into a colloquy with Seward and Sumner on the character of the Missouri Compromise, whether or not it was in the nature of a compact, Douglas contending that if it were a compact the North had been the first to violate it. As evidence, he brings up the Northern refusal to admit Missouri under the Constitution which she had formed and the proposition, made by Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, in the House of Representatives, February 12, 1821, to admit Missouri on condition that she prohibit slavery. Sixtyone Northern men voted for this condition to thirty-three against it,-eleven months after the Missouri Compromise act was passed.

13. In the omitted passage Douglas continues at length to show that the breach of the compact came from the North. He and Seward engaged in a long colloquy as to the character of the acts admitting Missouri and the obligations under them. Douglas labors long to show that the act of 1820 was not a compact, and to call it such was "to charge the Northern States of this Union with an act of perfidy unparalleled in the history of legislation or of civilization."

14. In the passage omitted-a page of the Globe-Douglas engages in running discussion with Seward and Sumner, partly on personal matters, partly on the compact character of the Missouri act.

15. The omission contains a colloquy between Douglas and Seward as to Clay's agency in the compromises of 1820 and 1821, Douglas emphasizing the charge that it was after the North had repudiated the compromise of 1820 that Clay had secured the later compromise of 1821. Douglas refers to Clay's disclaimer made in his speech of February 6, 1850, in which Clay said that "nothing struck him with so much surprise as the fact that historical circumstances soon passed out of recollection; and he instanced as a case in point the error of attributing to him the act of 1820." To this passage from Douglas, Seward nodded assent.

16. See Note 4 on Everett's Speech.

17. At this point Everett enters into controversy with Douglas as to the intent and purport of Webster's words in 1850. Everett still adhered to his interpretation of Webster's meaning. Everett says: "That this is the correct interpretation of Mr. Webster's language, is confirmed by the fact that he said, more than once, and over again, that all the North lost by the arrangement of 1850, was the non-imposition of the

Wilmot proviso upon Utah and New Mexico. If, in addition to that, the North had lost the Missouri restriction over the whole of the Louisiana purchase, could he have used language of that kind, and would he not have attempted, in some way or other, to reconcile such a momentous fact with his repeated statements that the measures of 1850 applied only to the territories newly acquired from Mexico."

Everett then quotes Webster's later speech of July 17, 1850, clearly sustaining his interpretation. Douglas does not satisfactorily answer Everett upon this point, but he turns the discussion into another direction, still, however, claiming Webster in support of his policy of non-intervention. Rhodes says on this point: "In the course of his speech, Douglas took up Everett's argument, and showed by the construction he put upon Webster's 7th of March speech that he could twist the language of the clearest of speakers to his purpose as well as he could distort the facts of history."

After the colloquy with Everett, Douglas turns to answer Wade, who had referred to the fact that Douglas himself in 1845 and 1848, when the questions of Texas and Oregon were up, had urged the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific. Douglas then takes up more than a page of the Globe in reviewing the Oregon and Texas debates and his own record on those subjects. The debate then turned on personal matters as to whether Chase and Sumner had come to the Senate as the result of " corrupt bargains or dishonorable coalitions," '—a digression caused by an insinuation of Douglas and a remark by Senator Weller, of California. The debate brought out the circumstances leading to the election of Chase to the Senate. See Appendix, Congressional Globe, vol. xxix., pp. 335, 336, Ist Sess. 33d Congress.

18. Douglas then quotes the instructions of several Colonies to their delegates in the Continental Congress, when authoriz

ing them to vote for the Declaration of Independence. These generally provided that the internal concerns and policy of each Colony should be left to the people of the respective Colonies. Douglas considered this a precedent for his policy of leaving to the people of the Territories the "determination and regulation of their own domestic institutions in their own way."

19. What is the refutation of this proposition? Is there a distinction between Congressional power in the Territories and Congressional power in the States? Suppose Douglas were asked whether the people of a Territory might establish a monarchy? or an aristocracy? or polygamy? Lincoln asked such questions in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The only limitation which Douglas proposed to impose on the people of a Territory was that their policy and institutions should be 46 subject to the Constitution of the United States."

20. Does this recital state the position, or contention, of any of Douglas' opponents ?

21. Does the sequel prove the truth of Douglas' statement? Was not just the reverse of this the case? Could Douglas have believed that the result would be as he states?

22. This insinuation refers to the circumstances attending Chase's election to the Senate. See Note 16.

23. For interesting characterizations of Douglas see Rhodes' History of the United States, vol. i., pp. 474, 492, 477; Schouler's History of the United States, vol. v., p. 283. Von Holst's Constitutional History of the United States, 1850-1854, P. 303.

CHARLES SUMNER.

1. For a sketch of Sumner, see vol. ii., p. 420.

2. On January 24, 1856, President Pierce submitted to Congress a special message on the affairs of Kansas. In this message he recited in substance the following facts: The Kansas-Nebraska bill became a law May 30, 1854, and the race began between the Slave States and the Free for the possession of Kansas. The first Territorial Governor of Kansas, Andrew H. Reeder, of Pennsylvania, received his commission on June 29, 1854, but he did not arrive in Kansas until October 9th of that year. The first election for a Territorial Legislature was held on March 30, 1855, the delay being caused in providing for the authorized census and enumeration. The Legislative Assembly elected on March 30th, did not meet until July 2, 1855, and thus for one year after the Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed Kansas was without a complete government, without legislative authority, without the ordinary guarantees of peace and public order. On November 29, 1854, before the requisite preparation was made for the election of a Territorial Legislature, a delegate to Congress was elected, Whitfield, who took his seat without challenge. After the election of the Legislature in March, the Governor officially received and considered the returns; declared a large majority of the Council and House of Representatives " duly elected," and "thus complete legality was given to the first Legislative Assembly of the Territory"; and President Pierce concluded that it was too late now to raise the question of irregularities in the election, and that the body must be recognized as the legitimate Assembly of the Territory. This message was calculated to make a favorable representation of the pro-slavery party and their cause in Kansas, and Pierce concluded by recommending that Congress should pass an enabling act for the admission of Kansas.