« PreviousContinue »
We are on the eve of the consummation of a great national transaction-a transaction which will close a cycle in the history of our country-and it is impossible not to desire to pause a moment and survey the scene around us, and the prospect before us. However obscure we may individually be, our connection with this great transaction will perpetuate our names for the praise or for the censure of future ages, and perhaps in regions far remote. If, then, we had no other motive for our actions than but that of the honest desire for a just fame, we could not be indifferent to that scene and that prospect. But individual interests and ambition sink into insignificance in view of the interests of our country and of mankind. These interests awaken, at least in me, an intense solicitude.
It was said by some in the beginning, and it has been said by others later in this debate, that it was doubtful whether it would be the cause of Slavery or the cause of Freedom that would gain advantages from the passage of this bill. I do not find it necessary to be censorious, nor even unjust to others, in order that my own course may be approved. I am sure that the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] did not mean that the Slave States should gain an advantage over the Free States; for he disclaimed it when he introduced the bill. I believe in all candor, that the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] who comes out at the close of the battle as one of the chiefest leaders of the victorious party, is sincere in declaring his own opinion that the Slave States will gain no unjust advantage over the Free States, because he disall this, however, what has occurred here and in the
country, during this contest, has compelled a conviction that Slavery will gain something, and Freedom will endure a severe, though I hope not an irretrievable, loss. The slaveholding States are passive, quiet, and content, and satisfied with the prospective boon; and the Free
Mr. Chase moved to amend, by providing for the appointment of three Commissioners resid-claims it as a triumph in their behalf. Notwithstanding ing in the Territory to organize the Territory, divide it into election districts, notify an election on the first Monday in September then ensuing, etc., at which election the people should choose their own Governor, as well as a Territorial Legis-States are excited and alarmed with fearful forebodings lature-the Governor to serve for two years, and the Legislature to meet not later than May, 1855. This extension of the principle of "Squatter Sovereignty" was defeated-Yeas, 10; Nays, 30. Mr. Douglas's amendment was then agreed to, and the bill reported from the Committee of the Whole to the Senate.
The question on the engrossment of the bill was now reached, and it was carried: Yeas, 29; Nays, 12.
March 3.-The rule assigning Fridays for the consideration of private bills having been suspended, on motion of Mr. Badger, the Senate proceeded to put the Nebraska-Kansas bill on its final passage, when a long and earnest debate ensued. At a late hour of the night Mr. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate, in opposition to the bill, as follows:
MR. PRESIDENT: I rise with no purpose of further resisting or even delaying the passage of this bill. Let its advocates have only a little patience, and they will soon reach the object for which they have struggled so earnestly and so long. The sun has set for the last time upon the guaranteed and certain liberties of all the unsettled and unorganized portions of the American continent that lie within the jurisdiction of the United States. To-morrow's sun will rise in dim eclipse over them. How long that obscuration shall last, is known only to the Power that directs and controls all human events. For myself, I know only this-that now no human power will prevent its coming on, and that its passing off will be hastened and secured by others than those now here, and perhaps by only those belonging to future generations.
Sir, it would be almost factious to offer further resistance to this measure here. Indeed, successful resistance was never expected to be made in this Hall. The Senatefloor is an old battle-ground, on which have been fought many contests, and always, at least since 1820, with fortune adverse to the cause of equal and universal freedom. We were only a few here who engaged in that cause in the beginning of this contest. All that we could hope to do -all that we did hope to do-was to organize and prepare the issue for the House of Representatives, to which the country would look for its decision as authoritative, and to awaken the country that it might be ready for the appeal which would be made, whatever the decision of Congress might be. We are no stronger now. Only four
and apprehensions. The impatience for the speedy passage of the bill, manifested by its friends, betrays a knowledge that this is the condition of public sentiment in the Free States. They thought in the beginning that it was necessary to guard the measure by inserting the foreign inhabitants of the Territories from the right of Clayton amendment, which would exclude unnaturalized suffrage. And now they seem willing, with almost perfect unanimity, to relinquish that safeguard, rather than to delay the adoption of the principal measure for at most a year, perhaps for only a week or a day. Suppose that the Senate should adhere to that condition, which so lately was thought so wise and so important-what then? The bill could only go back to the House of Representatives, which must either yield or insist! In the one case or in the other, a decision in favor of the bill would be secured; for even if the House should disagree, the Senate would have time to recede. But the majority will hazard nothing, even on a prospect so certain as this. They will recede at once, without a moment's further struggle, from the condition, and thus secure the passage of this bill now, to-night. Why such haste? Even if the question were to go to the country before a final decision here, what would there be wrong in that? There is no man living who will say that the country anticipated, or that he anticipated, the agitation of this measure in Congress, when this Congress was elected, or even when it assembled in December last.
Under such circumstances, and in the midst of agitation, and excitement, and debates, it is only fair to say, that certainly the country has not decided in favor of the bill. The refusal, then, to let the question go to the country, is a conclusive proof that the Slave States, as represented here, expect from the passage of this bill what the Free States insist that they will lose by it-an advantage, a material advantage, and not a mere abstraction. are men in the Slave States, as in the Free States, who insist always too pertinaciously upon mere abstractions. But that is not the policy of the Slave States to-day. They are in earnest in seeking for, and securing, an object, and an important one. I believe they are going to have it. I do not know how long the advantage gained will last, nor how great or comprehensive it will be. Every Senator who agrees with me in opinion must feel as I do that under such circumstances he can forego nothing that can be done decently, with due respect to difference of opinion, and consistently with the constitutional and settled rules of legislation, to place the true merits of the question before the country. Questions sometimes occur which seem to have two right sides. Such were the questions that divided the English nation between Pitt and Fox-such the contest between the assailant and the defender of Quebec. The judgment of the world was suspended by its sympa.
thies, and seemed ready to descend in favor of him who, dark side has passed. I feel quite sure that Slavery at should be most gallant in conduct. And so, when both fell with equal chivalry on the same field, the survivors united in raising a common monument to the glorious but rival memories of Wolfe and Montcalm. But this contest involves a moral question. The Slave States so present it. They maintain that African Slavery is not erroneous, not unjust, not inconsistent with the advancing cause of human nature. Since they so regard it, I do not expect to see statesmen representing those States indifferent about a vindication of this system by the Congress of the United States. On the other hand, we of the Free States regard Slavery as erroneous, unjust, oppressive, and therefore absolutely inconsistent with the principles of the American Constitution and Government. Who will expect us to be indifferent to the decisions of the American people and of mankind on such an issue?
Sir, I am surprised at the pertinacity with which the honorable Senator from Delaware, mine ancient and honorable friend, [Mr. Clayton,] perseveres in opposing the granting of the right of suffrage to the unnaturalized foreigner in the Territories. Congress cannot deny him that right. Here is the third article of that convention by which Louisiana, including Kansas and Nebraska, was ceded to the United States:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion they profess."
The inhabitants of Kansas and Nebraska are citizens already, and by force of this treaty must continue to be, and as such to enjoy the right of suffrage, whatever laws you make to the contrary. My opinions are well known, to wit: That Slavery is not only an evil, but a local one, injurious and ultimately pernicious to society, wherever it exists, and in conflict with the constitutional principles of society in this country. I am not willing to extend nor to permit the extension of that local evil into regions now free within our empire. I know that there are some who differ from me, and who regard the Constitution of the United States as an instrument which sanctions Slavery as well as Freedom. But if I could admit a proposition so incongruous with the letter and spirit of the Federal Constitution, and the known sentiments of its illustrious founders, and so should conclude that Slavery was national, I must still cherish the opinion that it is an evil; and because it is a national one, I am the more firmly held and bound to prevent an increase of it, tending, as I think it manifestly does, to the weakening and ultimate overthrow of the Constitution itself, and therefore to the injury of all mankind. I know there have been States which have endured long, and achieved much, which tolerated Slavery; but that was not the slavery of caste, like African Slavery. Such Slavery tends to demoralize equally the subjected race and the superior one. It has been the absence of such Slavery from Europe that has given her nations their superiority over other countries in that hemisphere. Slavery, wherever it exists, begets fear, and fear is the parent of weakness. What is the secret of that eternal, sleepless anxiety in the legislative halls, and even at the firesides of the Slave States, always asking new stipulations, new compromises and abrogation of compromises, new assumptions of power and abnegations of power, but fear? It is the apprehension, that, even if safe now, they will not always or long be secure against some invasion or some aggression from the Free States. What is the secret of the humiliating part which proud old Spain is acting at this day, trembling between alarms of American intrusion into Cuba on one side, and British dictation on the other, but the fact that she has cherished Slavery so long and still cherishes it, in the last of her American colonial possessions? Thus far Kansas and Nebraska are safe, under the laws of 1820, against the introduction of this element of national debility and decline. The bill before us, as we are assured, contains a great principle, a glorious principle; and yet that principle, when fully ascertained, proves to be nothing less than the subversion of that security, not only within the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, but within all the other present and future Territories of the United States. Thus it is quite clear that it is not a principle alone that is involved, but that hose who crowd this measure with so much zeal and earnestness must expect that either Freedom or Slavery shall gain something by it in those regions. The case, then, stands thus in Kansas and Nebraska: Freedom may lose, but certainly can gain nothing; while Slavery may gain, but as certainly can lose nothing.
So far as I am concerned, the time for looking on the
most can get nothing more than Kansas; while Nebraska-the wider northern region-will, under existing circumstances, escape, for the reason that its soil and climate are uncongenial with the staples of slave culture -rice, sugar, cotton, and tobacco. Moreover, since the public attention has been so well and so effectually directed toward the subject, I cherish a hope that Slavery may be prevented even from gaining a foothold in Kansas. Congress only gives consent, but it does not and cannot introduce Slavery there. Slavery will be embarrassed by its own overgrasping spirit. No one, I am sure, anticipates the possible reestablishment of the African Slave-trade. The tide of emigration to Kansas is therefore to be supplied there solely by the domestic fountain of slave production. But Slavery has also other regions besides Kansas to be filled from that fountain. There are all of New Mexico and all of Utah already within the United States; and then there is Cuba, that consumes slave labor and life as fast as any one of the slaveholding States can supply it; and besides these regions, there remains all of Mexico down to the Isthmus. The stream of slave labor flowing from so small a fountain, and broken into several divergent channels will not cover so great a field; and it is reasonably to be hoped that the part of it nearest to the North Pole will be the last to be inundated. But African slave emigration is to compete with free emigration of white men, and the source of this latter tide is as ample as the civilization of the two entire continents. The honorable Senator from Delaware mentioned, as if it were a startling fact, that twenty thousand European immigrants arrived in New-York in one month. Sir, he has stated the fact with too much moderation. return to the capital a day or two ago, I met twelve thousand of these emigrants who had arrived in NewYork on one morning, and who had thronged the churches on the following Sabbath, to return thanks for deliverance from the perils of the sea, and for their arrival in the land, not of Slavery but of Liberty. I also thank God for their escape, and for their coming. They are now on their way westward, and the news of the passage of this bill, preceding them, will speed many of them toward Kansas and Nebraska. Such arrivals are not extraordinary-they occur almost every week; and the immigration from Germany, from Great Britain, and from Norway, and from Sweden, during the European war, will rise to six or seven hundred thousand souls in a year. And with this tide is to be mingled one rapidly swelling from Asia and from the islands of the South Seas. All the immigrants under this bill, as the House of Representatives overruling you have ordered, will be good, loyal, Liberty-loving, Slavery-fearing citizens. Come on, then, gentlemen of the Slave States. Since there is no escaping your challenge, I accept it in behalf of the cause of Freedom. We will engage in competition for the virgin soil of Kansas, and God give the victory to the side which is stronger in numbers as it is in right.
There are, however, earnest advocates of this bill, who do not expect, and who, I suppose, do not desire, that Slavery shall gain possession of Nebraska. What do they expect to gain? The honorable Senator from Indiana (Mr. Pettit) says that by thus obliterating the Missouri Compromise restriction, they will gain a tabula rasa, on which the inhabitants of Kansas and Nebraska may write whatever they will. This is the great princi ple of the bill, as he understands it. Well, what gain is there in that? You obliterate a Constitution of Freedom. If they write a new constitution of freedom, can the new be better than the old? If they write a Constitution of Slavery, will it not be a worse one? I ask the honorable Senator that. But the honorable Senator says that the people of Nebraska will have the privilege of establishing institutions for themselves. They have now the privilege of establishing free institutions. Is it a privilege, then, to establish Slavery? If so, what a mockery are all our Constitutions, which prevent the inhabitants from capriciously subverting free institutions and establishing institutions of Slavery! Sir, it is a sophism, a subtlety, to talk of conferring upon a country, already secure in the blessings of Freedom, the power of self-destruction.
What mankind everywhere want, is not the removal of the Constitutions of Freedom which they have, that they may make at their pleasure Constitutions of Slavery or of Freedom, but the privilege of retaining Constitutions of Freedom when they already have them, and the removal of Constitutions of Slavery when they have them, that they may establish Constitutions of Freedom in their place. We hold on tenaciously to all existing Constitutions of Freedom. Who denounces any man for diligently adhering to such Constitutions? Who would dare to denounce any one for disloyalty to our existing Constitutions, if they were Constitutions of Despotism and
Slavery? But it is supposed by some that this principle is less important in regard to Kansas and Nebraska than as a general one-a general principle applicable to all other present and future Territories of the United States. Do honorable Senators then indeed suppose they are establishing a principle at all? If so, I think they egregiously err, whether the principle is either good or bad, right or wrong. They are not establishing it, and cannot establish it in this way. You subvert one law capriciously, by making another law in its place. That is all. Will your law have any more weight, authority, solemnity, or binding force on future Congresses, than the first had? You abrogate the law of your predecessors-others will have equal power and equal liberty to abrogate yours. You allow no barriers around the old law, to protect it from abrogation. You erect none around your new law, to stay the hand of future innova
Sir, in saying that your new principle will not be established by this bill, I reason from obvious, clear, well settled principles of human nature. Slavery and Freedom are antagonistical elements in this country. The founders of the Constitution framed it with a knowledge of that antagonism, and suffered it to continue, that it might work out its own ends. There is a commercial antagonism, an irreconcilable one, between the systems of free labor and slave labor. They have been at war
with each other ever since the Government was established, and that war is to continue forever. The contest, when it ripens between these two antagonistic elements, is to be settled somewhere; it is to be settled in the seat of central power, in the Federal Legislature. The Constitution makes it the duty of the central Government to determine questions, as often as they shall arise, in favor of one or the other party, and refers the decision of them to the majority of the votes in the two Houses of Congress. It will come back here, then, in spite of all the efforts to escape from it.
This antagonism must end either in a separation of the antagonistic parties-the Slaveholding States and the Free States-or, secondly, in the complete establishment of the influence of the Slave power over the Free-or else, on the other hand, in the establishment of the superior influence of Freedom over the interests of Slavery. It will not be terminated by a voluntary secession of either party. Commercial interests bind the Slave States and the Free States together in links of gold that are riveted with iron, and they cannot be broken by passion or by ambition. Either party will submit to the ascendency of the other, rather than yield the commercial advantages of this Union. Political ties bind the Union together-a common necessity, and not merely
common necessity, but the common interests of empire of such empire as the world has never before seen. The control of the national power is the control of the great Western Continent; and the control of this continent is to be, in a very few years, the controlling influence in the world. Who is there, North, that hates Slavery so much, or who, South, that hates emancipation so intensely, that he can attempt, with any hope of success, to break a Union thus forged and welded together? I have always heard, with equal pity and disgust, threats of disunion in the Free States, and similar threats in the Slaveholding States. I know that men may rave in the heat of passion, and under great political excitement; but I know that when it comes to a question whether this Union shall stand, either with Freedom or with Slavery, the masses will uphold it, and it will "tand until some inherent vice in its Constitution, not yet lisclosed, shall cause its dissolution. Now, entertaining these opinions, there are for me only two alternatives, viz. either to let Slavery gain unlimited sway, or so to exert what little power and influence I may have, as to secure, if I can, the ultimate predominance of Freedom.
Sir, I have always said that I should not despond,
even if this fearful measure should be effected: nor do I
now despond. Although, reasoning from my present convictions, I should not have voted for the compromise of 1820, I have labored, in the very spirit of those who established it, to save the landmark of Freedom which it assigned. I have not spoken irreverently even of the compromise of 1850, which, as all men know, I opposed earnestly and with diligence. Nevertheless, I have al
ways preferred the compromises of the Constitution, and have wanted no others. I feared all others. This was a leading principle of the great statesman of the South, (Mr. Calhoun). Said he:
States. It is a firm and stable ground, on which we can better stand in opposition to fanaticism than on the shifting sands of compromise. Let us be done with compromises. Let us go back and stand upon the Constitution."
I stood upon this ground in 1850, defending Freedom upon it as Mr. Calhoun did in defending Slavery. I was overruled then, and I have waited since without proposing to abrogate any compromises.
It has been no proposition of mine to abrogate them now; but the proposition has come from another quarter-from an adverse one. It is about to prevail. The shifting sands of compromise are passing from under my feet, and they are now, without agency of my own, taking hold again on the rock of the Constitution. It shall be no fault of mine if they do not remain firm. This seems to me auspicious of better days and wiser legislation. Through all the darkness and gloom of the present hour, bright stars are breaking, that inspire me with hope, and excite me to perseverance. They show that the day of compromises has past forever, and that henceforward all great questions between Freedom and Slavery legitimately coming here-and none other can come-shall be decided, as they ought to be, upon their merits, by a fair exercise of legislative power, and not by bargains of equivocal prudence, if not of doubtful morality.
Mr. Douglas closed the debate, reiterating and enforcing the views set forth in his Report already referred to; and at last the vote was taken, and the bill passed: Yeas, 37; Nays, 14; as follows:
Yeas-For the Kansas-Nebraska bill:
Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Badger,
Dodge, of Iowa,
Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Tenn.,
Clay, of Ala., Dawson, Dixon,
So the bill was passed, and its title declared to be "An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas," and the Senate adjourned over to the Tuesday following.
In the House, a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska had been noticed on the first day of the session, by Mr. John G. Miller, of Mo., who introduced it December 22d.
Jan. 24th.-Mr. Giddings gave notice of a bill to organize said Territory.
Jan. 30.-Mr. Pringle, of N. Y., endeavored to have the bill passed at the last session (leaving the Missouri Restriction intact), reported by the Committee on Territories; but debate arose, and his resolution lay over.
Jan. 31.-Mr. Richardson, of Ill., chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported a bill "To organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas," which was read twice and committed.
Mr. Richardson's bill was substantially Mr. Douglas's last bill, and was accompanied by no
"I see my way in the Constitution; I cannot in a compromise. A compromise is but an act of Congress. It may be overruled at any time. It gives us no security. But the Constiwhich we can meet our friends from the non-slaveholding report. Mr. English, of Ind., submitted the
tution is stable. It is a rock on which we can stand, and on
views of a minority of said Committee on Territories, proposing, without argument, the two following amendments:
1. Amend the section defining the boundary of Kansas, so as to make "the summit of the Rocky Mountains" the western boundary of said Territory.
2. Strike out of the 14th and 34th sections of said bill all after the words "United States," and insert in each instance (the one relating to Kansas, and the other to Nebraska) as follows:
Provided, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent the people of said Territory, through the properly constituted legislative authority, from passing such laws, in relation to the institution of Slavery, as they may deem best adapted to their locality, and most conducive to their happiness and welfare; and so much of any existing act of Congress as may conflict with the above right of the people to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.
This appears to have been an attempt to give
Finally, at 11 o'clock, P.M., of Friday, 12th, after a continuous sitting of thirty-six hours, the House, on motion of Mr. Richardson, adjourned.
May 13th.-The House sat but two hours, and effected nothing.
May 15th.-Mr. Richardson withdrew his demand for the Previous Question on closing the debate, and moved instead that the debate close at noon on Friday the 19th instant. This he finally modified by substituting Saturday the 20th; and in this shape his motion prevailed by a two-thirds majority-Yeas, 137; Nays, 66the following opponents of the bill voting for the motion, namely:
MAINE.-Thomas J. D. Fuller, Samuel Mayall-2.
MASSACHUSETTS.-Nathaniel P. Banks, jr.-1.
NEW-YORK.-Gilbert Dean, Charles Hughes-2.
OHIO Alfred P. Edgerton, Harvey H. Johnson, An
practical effect to the doctrine of Squatter drew Ellison, William D. Lindsley, Thomas Richey-5. Sovereignty; but it was not successful.
May 8th.-On motion of Mr. Richardson, the House-Yeas, 109; Nays, 88-resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, and took up the bill (House No. 236) to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, and discussed it -Mr. Olds, of Ohio, in the chair.
On coming out of Committee, Mr. George W. Jones, of Tenn., moved that the rules be suspended so as to enable him to move the printing of Senate bill (No. 22, passed the Senate as aforesaid) and the amendment now pending to the House bill. No quorum voted-adjourned. May 9th.-This motion prevailed. After debate in Committee on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Committee found itself without a quorum, and thereupon rose and reported the fact to the House-only 106 Members were found to be present. After several fruitless attempts to adjourn, a call was ordered and a quorum obtained, at 9 P.M. At 10, an adjournment prevailed.
INDIANA. Andrew J. Harlan, Daniel Mace-2.
MICHIGAN -David A. Noble, Hestor L. Stevens-2.
Mr. Richardson, having thus got in his reso|lution to close the debate, put on the previous question again, and the House-Yeas, 113; Nays, 59-agreed to close the debate on the 20th.
Debate having been closed, the opponents of the measure expected to defeat or cripple it by moving and taking a vote in Committee on various propositions of amendment, kindred to those moved and rejected in the Senate; some of which it was believed a majority of the House would not choose (or dare) to vote down; and, though the names of those voting on one side or the other in Committee of the Whole are not recorded, yet any proposition moved and rejected there, may be renewed in the House after taking the bill out of committee, and is no longer cut off by the Previous Question, as it formerly was. But, when the
May 10th.-Debate in Committee continued. May 11th.-Mr. Richardson moved that all debate in Committee close to-morrow at noon. Mr. English moved a call of the House: Re-hour for closing debate in Committee had fused; Yeas, 88; Nays, 97.
Mr. Mace moved that Mr. Richardson's motion be laid on the table: Defeated. Yeas, 95; Nays 100.
Mr. Edgerton, of Ohio, moved a call of the House. Refused: Yeas, 45; Nays, 80.
arrived, Mr. Alex. H. Stephens moved that the enacting clause of the bill be stricken out; which was carried by a rally of the friends of the bill, and of course cut off all amendments. The bill was thus reported to the House with its head off; when, after a long struggle, the House refused to agree to the report of the Committee of the Whole-Yeas, (for agreeing) 97 ; Nays, 117-bringing the House to a direct vote on the engrossment of the bill.
The day was spent in what has come to be called "Filibustering "—that is, the minority moving adjournments, calls of the House, asking to be excused from voting, taking appeals, etc., etc. In the midst of this, Mr. Richardson withdrew his original motion, and moved instead that the debate in Committee be closed in five minutes after the House shall have re-admitting aliens, who have declared their insumed it.
The hour of noon of the 12th having arrived, Messrs. Dean and Banks raised points of order as to the termination of the legislative day. The Speaker decided that the legislative day could only be terminated by the adjournment of the House, except by constitutional conclusion of the session. Mr. Banks appealed, but at length withdrew his appeal.
Mr. Richardson now moved an amendment, which was a substitute for the whole bill, being substantially the Senate's bill, with the clause
tention to become citizens, to the right of suffrage. He thereupon called the Previous Question, which the House sustained-Yeas, 116; Nays, 90-when the House adopted his amendment-Yeas, 115; Nays, 95-and proceeded to engross the bill-Yeas, 112; Nays, 99-when he put on the Previous Question again, and passed the bill finally-Yeas, 113; Nays, 100— as follows:
FROM THE FREE STATES.
NEW-YORK.-Thomas W. Cumming, Francis B. Cut ting, Peter Rowe, John J. Taylor, William M. Tweed, Hiram Walbridge, William a Walker, Mike Walsh, Theo. R. Westbrook-9.
PENNSYLVANIA.-Samuel A. Bridges, John L. Dawson, Thomas B. Florence, J. Clancy Jones, William H. Kurtz, John McNair, Asa Packer, John Robbins, jr., Christian M. Straub, William H. Witte, Hendrick B. Wright-11. NEW-JERSEY-Samuel Lilly, George Vail-2.
OHIO.-David T. Disney, Frederick W. Green, Edson B. Olds, Wilson Shannon-4.
INDIANA. John G. Davis, Cyrus L. Dunham, Norman Eddy, William H. English, Thomas A. Hendricks, James H. Lane, Smith Miller-7.
ILLINOIS.-James C. Allen, Willis Allen, Wm. A. Rich
FROM THE SLAVE STATES.
DELAWARE.-George R. Riddle-1. MARYLAND.-William T. Hamilton, Henry May, Jacob Shower, Joshua Vansant-4.
VIRGINIA.-Thomas H. Bayly, Thomas S. Bocock, John S. Caskie, Henry A. Edmundson, Charles J. Faulkner, William O. Goode, Zedekiah Kidwell, John Letcher, Paulus Powell, William Smith, John F. Snodgrass-11. NORTH CAROLINA.-William S. Ashe, Burton Craige, Thomas L. Clingman, John Kerr, Thos. Ruffin, Henry M. Shaw-6.
SOUTH CAROLINA.-William W. Boyce, President S. Brooks, James L. Orr-3.
GEORGIA.-David J. Bailey, Elijah W. Chastain, Alfred H. Colquitt, Junius Hillyer, David A. Reese, Alex. H. Stephens-6.
ALABAMA.-James Abercrombie, Williamson R. W. Cobb, James F. Dowdell, Sampson W. Harris, George S. Houston, Philip Phillips, William R. Smith-7.
MISSISSIPPI.-William S. Barry, William Barksdale, Otho R. Singleton, Daniel B. Wright-4.
LOUISIANA.-William Dunbar, Roland Jones, John Perkins, jr.-3
KENTUCKY.-John C. Breckinridge, James S. Chrisman, Leander M. Cox, Clement S. Hill, John M. Elliot, Benj. E. Grey, William Preston, Richard H. Stanton -8.
TENNESSEE.-William M. Churchwell, George W. Jones, Charles Ready, Samuel A. Smith, Frederick P. Stanton, Felix Zollicoffer-6.
MISSOURI. Alfred W. Lamb, James J. Lindley, Jöhn G. Miller, Mordecai Oliver, John S. Phelps-5. ARKASNAS.-Alfred B. Greenwood, Edwin A. Warren-2.
FLORIDA.-Augustus E. Maxwell-1.
TEXAS.-Peter H. Bell, Geo. W. Smyth-2. Total-69.
B. Morgan, William Murray, Andrew Oliver, Jared V. Peck, Rufus W. Peckham, Bishop Perkins, Benjamin Pringle, Russell Sage, George A. Simmons, GERRIT SMITH, John Wheeler-22.
NEW-JERSEY.-Alex. C. M. Pennington, Charles Skelton, Nathan T. Stratton-3.
PENNSYLVANIA.-Joseph R. Chandler, Carlton B. Curtis, John Dick, Augustus Drum, William_Everhart, James Gamble, Galusha A. Grow, Isaac E. Hiester, Thomas M. Howe, John McCulloch, Ner Middleswarth, David Ritchie, Samuel L. Russell, Michael C. Trout14.
OHIO.-Edward Ball, Lewis D. Campbell, Alfred P. Edgerton, Andrew Ellison, JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS, Aaron Harlan, John Scott Harrison, H. H. Johnson, William D. Lindsey, M. H. Nichols, Thomas Richey, William R. Sapp, Andrew Stuart, John L. Taylor, EDWARD WADE
INDIANA.-Andrew J. Harlan, Daniel Mace, Samuel W. Parker-3.
ILLINOIS.-James Knox, Jesse O. Norton, Elihu B. Washburne, John Wentworth, Richard Yates-5. MICHIGAN.-David A. Noble, Hestor L. Stevens-2. WISCONSIN.-Benjamin C. Eastman, Daniel Wells, jr.—
VIRGINIA. John S. Millson-1.
NORTH CAROLINA.-Richard C. Puryear, Sion H. Rogers-2.
TENNESSEE.-Robert M. Bugg, William Cullom Emerson Etheridge, Nathaniel G. Taylor-4.
LOUISIANA.-Theodore G. Hunt-1.
OTHER SOUTHERN STATES.-None. Total-9.
Total, Free and Slave States-100.
N. ENGLAND STATES.-- William Appleton, of Mass.-1.
OHIO.-George Bliss, Moses B. Corwin-2.
INDIANA.-Eben M. Chamberlain-1.
IOWA.-John P. Cook-1.
Total from Free States-9.
MARYLAND.-John R. Franklin, Augustus R. Sollers
SOUTH CAROLINA.-Wm. Aiken, Lawrence M. Keitt, John McQueen-3.
GEORGIA.-Wm. B. W. Dent, James L. Seward-2.
MISSISSIPPI.-Wiley P. Harris-1.
KENTUCKY.-Linn Boyd, (Speaker,) Presley Ewing-2.
Total from Slave States-12.
Whigs in Italics. Abolitionists in SMALL CAPITALS. Democrats in Roman.
May 23d.-The bill being thus sent to the Senate (not as a Senate but as a House bill), was sent at once to the Committee of the Whole, and there briefly considered.
May 24th.-Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, moved to strike out the clause in section 5, which extends the right of suffrage to
those who shall have declared on oath their intenoath to support the Constitution of the United States, and tion to become such, [citizens] and shall have taken an the provisions of this act.
Negatived-Yeas: Bayard, Bell, Brodhead, Brown, Clayton, Pearce, and Thompson of Kentucky. Nays, 41.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed