protection. It affects to authorize any and every crime to be perpetrated against them. Under this decision, they may be robbed and murdered. In short, this decision would extend American infidelity, with all its attendant crimes, wherever Federal jurisdiction exists. Thus has the issue been made between the religious portion of the community and those who maintain this heathenism.

were to be regarded as property, and not persons, and the Government held responsible for their value."

When referring to this assertion of our Min ister, fifteen years since, I pronounced it un founded and untrue. I said this in the pres ence of the delegation from Virginia, the State of which our Minister, Mr. Stevenson, was citizen, and I called on them, as his friends, to sustain his assertion by showing some one i stance in which this Government had paid slaves killed in the public service. I declared the whole history of Congress showed that had in every instance refused such paymest and I defied them to show an exception such practice. No man met the challenge. I now repeat the assertion. I pronounce the statement of Mr. Stevenson untrue, a libel upon our Government, and a slander upon the American people. I not only declare his

I greatly rejoice that Christians in Europe are sensible of the existence of this war upon human nature. American Christians, patriots, and philanthropists, feel the warmest gratitude towards the religious men of Scotland, of of Eng. E land, of France, and Germany, for the kind sympathy which they express in this cause, for the very catholic remonstrances which they have addressed to our American Christians against this infidelity. Every lover of truth, every religious heart in our land, must have glowed with gratitude to God and love to man, sertion untrue, but I declare the opposite to as he read the eloquent and truthful address of true. The British Ministry, by complying w the Christians of Geneva, once the home of this demand, tacitly admitted that phase Europe's great reformer, to the Christians of

the United States, on this subject. And whose heart was not moved, when noticing the action of the Protestants of France in relation to it? Nor is this Christian feeling confined to Protestants. The African Institute of Paris, formed for the purpose of maintaining the rights of the African race, embraces among its members distinguished laymen, ministers, bishops, and archbishops, belonging to the Papal Church. My own humble efforts in behalf of our common brotherhood caused my name to become known to its directors, who placed it on the roll of its honorary members. I take this occasion to thank them for this honor. A Protestant by education, by feeling, I greet those Catholic Christians most cordially, as good and worthy laborers in this holy work. Heartily do I thank them for all that they have done, and are doing, for the down-trodden of our race.

Could I hope that my remarks would meet the eye of British Ministers, I would in an especial manner invoke their official influence against this infidelity. I would beseech them no more to sanction, by their action, that blas phemy which seeks to transform the image of God into property.

American infidelity which seeks to degrade sta human soul to the level of swine. More th cently they paid the slave-dealers the estimated value of the fathers, mothers, and children, board the Creole, who obtained their own erty by gallantly taking possession of the sel, and landing on British soil.

The money-the dollars and cents are of no importance; but concessions to this infidelity, at the present time, are important. It was n object with the slave power to obtain from th British Ministry the admission that men property. I would entreat the British Gover ment, and all other Governments, to mainta the dignity of our common nature. In the language of one of the most eloquent of Bay land's orators, I would say, "He who gave the forms, commands us to maintain the right of men." The Christians of the United State and of other nations would rejoice to learn that the British Ministry now, as in 1820, retuse even to correspond with our Executive on the su ject of property in human flesh.

I would also warn the Spanish Crown and other continental Powers, that our present Exec utive is seeking, by all the various means and arts of diplomacy, to detach Cuba from its si

I acknowledge that our Government was legiance, to annex it to the United States in dishonored in the eyes of all Christians, when der to increase the influence of the slave pow its Executive became the agent and solicitor and add strength to this American infidelity, of those pirates who claimed to own the fathers, I hope and trust that this conspiracy may be the mothers, and children, on board certain defeated; that all Christian Governments my slave ships wrecked on British islands, where, exert their power against the further extenna thanks to Christian civilization, no Slavery ex of this scourge of our race. I would most e ists. The President, espousing the cause of nestly invoke the Christians, philanthropiste, men who deserved the halter and the gallows, patriots, of this and of every nation and kindred demanded compensation from the British Gov and language, to exert their moral influens, ernment for their loss of human flesh. Our their legitimate powers, for the overthrow, the representative at the Court of St. James appears final eradication of this infidelity from the earth, to have misled and deceived the British Minis- for upholding the natural, Heaven-endowed try. In one of his official communications, he rights of man, for the progress, the moral ele declared that "our Government had deter- vation of our race, until all shall understand mined more than once, in the most solemn the will and obey the laws of our commco manner, that slaves killed in the public service Father, and attain that happiness which cons of the United States, even in a state of war, tutes the ultimate object of human existence.

SPEECH

OF

...

HON. J. COLLAMER, OF VERMONT,

ON

THE KANSAS QUESTION;

DELIVERED

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 1 AND 2, 1858.

WASHINGTON:

PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOPE.

...

the progress we have made, and upon the foot-of 36° 30', then almost utterly uninhabited, he observer, and demand of us that we should inquire how this has been effected?

into that Territory? They never dreamed of ital that day; for it was further provided, that if saver should be taken into that Territory for sale, they should be thereby freed, and the men bringing them in should be subject to penalties. Was real that directly regulating and prohibiting the im portation of slaves into that Territory? Clearly. They went on further to provide that no slave should be taken there even in the families of their masters for settlement, if they had been imported in the United States since 1798. The meaning of that was this: "We told you when we formed the Mississippi Territory, that we, the General Gor ernment of the United States, where we couldlay our hands on the importation of slaves, woud prohibit it; you understood that; and we now te you that if you have brought any slaves into aty of the States after that expression of our opinion. you shall not take them into this Territory of ours."

In order to understand the nature of the arrangement of which I have spoken, we have to inquire who made it? from what authority did it spring? who exercised that authority? and how long had it been exercised? It was the action of Congress legislating on the subject of slavery in the territory beyond the limits of particular States, When did it begin? It began with the Government; and it was exercised at every stage of its existence, under the administration of almost every President that occupied the chair, by every political party that has ever been in power. I do not say that it has been exercised in any one particular way, but the power has been exercised; and it becomes us a little to ascertain how, in what manner, and at what period. I shall not go into any very great detail on this point; I have had occasion heretofore to do so. Beyond the Ohio, all things were settled according to the arrangement of the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was ratified by Congress; and as new Territories were formed, in consequence of new States being admitted from that region, the ordi-souri, in 1820. Then a difficulty arose; then thit

nance was reenacted, and slavery was prohibited in every Territory formed northwest of the Ohio river. This was an exercise of the power of Congress over the subject of slavery in the Ter

ritories.

When they came to legislate in relation to a country where slavery existed to any appreciable extent, did Congress leave it to the people there to be a topic of discord and contention among them in their infancy, and in the gristle of their youth? Not at all. To say nothing now about the case of the cession by North Carolina of that which now makes Tennessee, let me take the case

of the Mississippi Territory ceded to the United States by Georgia. Slavery existed in that Territory, and did not Congress legislate about it? Certainly they did. Let it always be remembered that no principle on earth is better settled than this: that the power to regulate a thing includes the power to prohibit it. The power to regulate commerce includes the power to lay an embargo, and to lay an embargo unlimited in time: it has so been decided. Congress legislated on the subject of slavery in the Mississippi Territory in 1798, during the Presidency of the elder Adams. In forming the territorial government for Mississippi, where slavery existed, and where Georgia had ceded it on the condition that it should not be abolished, Congress regulated the matter and prohibited the importation into that Territory of slaves from abroad. Congress could not constitutionally do that in the States until 1808; but ten years before that time they prohibited it in that Territory. That was legislating directly and expressly on the subject of slavery in the Territo

ries; regulating it.

In 1803, after the acquisition of Louisiana, Congress, in the formation of the Territory of Orleans,

made three leading provisions on

this subject.

Slavery existed in that Territory. It existed extensively in the lower part of the Territory-extensively, I mean, in proportion to the population. Congress provided, in the first place, that no slaves should be taken into that Territory, except in famhad no power to prohibit the introduction of slaves domeniid they dream that they

Little of trouble, little of controversy, between the different parts of the United States, arose o those occasions. They went on quietly by a of common consent until the admission of Me

was a controversy; and what was done? C gress found great difficulty in settling it: but they followed a very early example. "Abraham sa unto Lot, let there be no strife, I pray thee, be tween me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen, for we be brethren; if thou wi take the left hand, then I will go to the right; of if thou depart to the right hand, then I will goto the left." A line was drawn through where they stood, and Lot looked out upon the great plainthen a great and rich plain of Jordan-and be journeyed to the east and occupied it, and th controversy ceased. How did our fathers do in 1820? There was a controversy between ther herdmen; and they said, let there be no strife be tween our children, for we are brethren. They ran a line and the strife ended. All was peace from that time until we got some more territory, which we acquired by the treaty of peace wah Mexico. There had, however, in the mean time, been another acquisition-Texas-about which! do not propose to speak at large now; but on taal occasion the same line was run, and no contro versy existed on that point.

In regard to the acquisitions from Mexico, some difficulty arose; and it is said now, and much sisted upon, that on that occasion a principle w established which required the repeal of the M. souri compromise in 1854. I have even heard repeated this session, that the reason why th Missouri compromise was ultimately repealed, ty the exertions of the South and the northern frie who joined them, was because they proposed extend that line through the territory neque from Mexico, and the northern people woundnes agree to it. What a strange excuse is this! The question we are discussing in these days is, bal Congress power to prohibit slavery in any par of any Territory? because, if they had, they could prohibit it in all. Did not those men at made the proposition to extend the Missouri promise line to the Pacific, thereby agree tha north of that line slavery should be prohibi Certainly they did. They then granted and tre now, however, as if there were no reasonable ex to exercise that very power. They seem to this