shall be permitted to possess any part of it. For example, if the Missouri line of 36° 30' were extended to the Pacific, then all of the common property, viz: the territory not included within any of the States, only one sixth part lies south of that line; yet when, on behalf of the South, we insist that this comparatively small part shall be left open to us, our claim is denounced as a monstrous pretension, as insufferable Southern arrogance.

With just as much fairness might the South be excluded from any share of the public money and other public property. Of the sum annually paid out of the public Treasury, a small part comparatively is expended in the slaveholding States. This portion of the disbursement the North might insist on stopping with as good a grace as they can support their present claim. To prove that if that sum were also expended in the free States it would be productive of greater good, they might use just the same arguments that they now resort to. While the principle would be the same, too, in each case, it is clear that the ultimate mischief to the South in the future will be much greater from the exclusion from all the territory than could result from depriving us of any share in the public money.

If these new principles, which seem to have been adopted by most of the Northern politicians, are to prevail; if this government is to acquire territory by conquest or by purchase, and the Southern States are to be required to furnish their full proportion of men and money, and then the fruits of victory are to be appropriated exclusively by the North, it is idle to suppose that the South will go into any such partnership.

The Southern people have been free too long to corsent thus to become the vassals of the North. As their object is to obtain a recog nition of their right to participate fairly in the benefits of the national territory, their opposition is not limited to a particular mode of exclusion, as the Wilmot proviso. It extends to all such action on the part of the Federal government as places it always against them and their institutions. If, for example, when territory is acquired in which slavery legally exists, as was the case with the Louisiana territory, then the government is directly to interfere, and by an act of Congress to abolish slavery, as it did in more than three-fourths of that territory; and when, on the other hand, an acquisition of a different character is made, it is intentionally so to manage as to exclude slaveholders from all parts of it; it is obvious that the character of our political system would be essentially changed; so that the government, instead of being that of the whole Union, would have been converted into a mere machine for the advancement of the Northern section.

By one mode of proceeding, for example, we are asked to admit California as a State forthwith. But New Mexico and Deseret are in just as much want of legislative aid, and their inhabitants are just as urgent in their demands for our action in their cases. Inasmuch, therefore, as the inhabitants of all these Territories are in the same situation, and have all presented us forms of government, why discriminate between them? Why grant the request of one set and refuse it to the others? Is it because California has made a Constitution excluding

slavery, while the other two Territories have not imposed any such restriction in their forms of government? Is it for this reason, I say, that we are to be required to admit her at once? If the majority from the North, instead of disposing of all these Territories at this time, they being equally entitled to our consideration, insist on pushing through California alone, is not the conclusion irrisistible that it is their object merely to strengthen their hands, thus to enable them hereafter to secure the other portions of the Mexican territory by one mode or another?

Are Southern men to be required to stultify themselves so far before the country as to affect to be blind to this state of things? Could we settle the whole territorial question on equitable terms, we might be justified in waiving the strong objections to the manner in which this state of things was produced in California. The Northern members have not only, by decisive majorities, from time to time repeatedly during the last three years, passed the Wilmot proviso through the House of Representatives, but even at the last session, when Mr. Preston's bill to allow the people of that country to form a Constitution was under consideration, they appended that proviso to it, and thus obliged its friends to abandon it. The people of the country there, being thus persuaded that their only chance to get into the Union was by the exclusion of slavery, very naturally incorporated the proviso into their Constitution.

The course which you have to some extent pursued, however patriotic may be your motives, and more especially that of the National Intelligencer, seems to me calculated only to produce mischief. I refer to the attempt to underrate the condition of feeling at the South by extracts carefully culled from Southern papers, letters, &c. No impression is thereby made on the South. The subject being one which everybody there fully understands, opinions cannot be shaken in relation to it. Those persons who reason know that it is wrong that the South should not be permitted, with her institutions, to occupy any part of the common territory; such as are not accustomed to reason feel that the exclusion is a gross outrage on their rights. When any man, how high soever may be his position, declaims against the extension of slavery into any part of the territory, his words produce no more effect on the settled judgment of the South, than the dashing of the waves against the base of a mountain of solid granite. The only effect of these publications is to deceive the North. What possible good can result from keeping the people of that section in profound ignorance of the condition of things in the South? Is it wise thus to mislead the people there? Why not let them know that their movements may bring them into danger? Is it regarded as a wise stroke of policy, in a military commander, to conceal from his his own troops the danger, until he can bring them up suddenly upon a masked battery? If the Union be in peril, nothing seems to me better calculated to increase the danger than such a course as this.

Even if these quotations should be fairly made from the particular papers selected, it must be remembered that they constitute a small portion of those published in the Southern States. It may be re

marked, too, that a number of these papers are published by Northern men, some of whom retain their original sectional feelings, and are adroitly endeavoring to advance the anti-slavery views of the North. Other journals, partly from a party feeling of opposition to movements which found in the first instance more favor in the Democratic papers, and partly out of deference to the tone of the central press in this city, supposed to be in accordance with the views of the administration, have echoed back what they supposed would be acceptable here. As, however, it has become manifest that they were unintentionally aiding the anti-slavery movement of the North, they have gradually been taking a better view of things; and I have no doubt but that, ultimately, all such of them as are governed by patriotic considerations will assume the proper position. The North is also misled by the fact that certain Southern men seem willing to sacrifice the general national interests of the Union, by abandoning the rights of their own section and adopting the narrow sectional claims of the North. Whether these persons are governed by misguided patriotism, or are merely seeking Northern support for their personal advancement, it cannot be expected that they should be sustained by those whose rights they are willing to surrender. If they have not already lost their influence, they will inevitably do so when their position is understood and the feeling has become intense. The effect of these things, however, can be productive of nothing but mischief, by misleading the North. Had the real state of feeling in the old thirteen colonies been understood in England six months before the declaration of independence, our revolution would never have occurred; but the British Parliament and people were cheated and deceived by the ministers and their organs, who declared, from time to time, that the complaint on this side of the Atlantic came only from a few ambitious and factious men, who were making a noise and exciting sedition to give themselves consequence; and that the great body of the inhabitants of the colonies were loyal, contented and quiet, and so attached to the general government and the union with Great Britain, that they would submit to whatever laws the Parliament might pass. With this example so familiar to American minds, is it not strange that similar delusion should now prevail?

But I will now advert to another point, viz: the means proposed to resist the improper action of the Northern majority. I have expressed the opinion that under our obligations to support the Constitution of the United States, all means consistent with its provisions should be exhausted before there should be a recommendation to appeal to our rights above it. And I have hence advised that, under all the circumstances, if an equitable adjustment cannot be obtained of the the territorial question, then we ought to refuse to pass any appropriation bills for the support of the government. The idea of refusing supplies is not of American origin. It has been claimed in England as the undoubted right of the Parliament to refuse, at its own discretion, supplies to the executive. This right, too, has in practice from time to time been exercised to protect the rights and liberties of the people

of England, and has even been the means of extorting additional privileges from the British monarchs.

Will it be pretended that the representatives of American freemen ought to do less to protect the essential rights, and liberties even, of the people whom they represent? In England, however, nothing less than a majority of the representatives can do this; but under our Constitution the minority may effect the same object. Nobody will, I apprehend, affirm that the same act, per se, which would be proper when done by the majority, would be wrong if effected by the minority, acting in the manner provided by the Constitution itself. The act of the majority is only effective because the Constitution so declares; but this same Constitution provides also that certain acts, when done by the minority, shall be effective. This difference between our Constitution and that of Great Britain operates in behalf of liberty, and to protect the rights of the minority. It is in some respects like the Presidential veto, which everybody admits ought in certain cases to be exercised, though it does have the effect of defeating the action of the majority. The Constitution of the United States, under which alone Congress acts, provides that one-fifth of the members present may demand that the ayes and noes shall be taken on any question which may be submitted by the Speaker.

It is also provided that each House may adopt its own rules of order. Such rules have been adopted already by the House of Representatives, and are until modified or changed by the House itself, as much binding on the Speaker and every member as any constitutional provision whatever. In accordance with these rules, certain motions. may be made, and the ayes and noes taken from time to time. Under the Constitution and these rules, one-fifth of those members present have undoubtedly the power to prevent the passage of laws, and to prevent also the adoption of any motions for a change of the old rules of the House. Unquestionably this is a power in the hands of the minority which might be abused; so, however, might any other power granted by the Constitution, whether given to the majority, the minority, or to a single individual, as the President, Judge, or other officer. If the minority, for mere factious or slight purposes, were thus to impede legislation, this would, undoubtedly, be a great abuse; but if that minority were, on the other hand, to resort to this system only temporarily, and as a matter of defence against a well-settled and gross system of injustice and tyranny on the part of the majority, then their conduct would not only be no abuse of its powers, but would, in fact, be a most praiseworthy and patriotic action for the protection of the essential rights of their constituents. No citizen has a right to strike another person; but if one is assailed and beaten, then he is justified in striking the assailant until he compels him to desist from his attack.

Since this mode of resistance was suggested, it seems to have been received with much favor by Southern men. From many evidences within my reach, I select the following passage from a letter to me, which seems to present fairly the view taken in the South, as far as I am able to understand it. The writer is not only one whose opinion

will have as much weight as that of any one in North Carolina, from his standing and talents, but is entitled to the more consideration from the fact that, during a service of many years in Congress, he was not less distinguished for his moderation and conservative views than for the firmness and ability with which he maintained them. As the letter from which I make the extract was a private one, I do not give the name of the writer, much as I might, by so doing, strengthen the judicious statement of the case made by him. He says:

"I approve of your position to resist the passage of the appropriation bills until the slavery question is finally settled. This is a much better and more effectual plan than for Southern members to leave their seats, which I have seen proposed in some quarters. Should the Southern members merely leave their seats and return home, it will produce no result; the North will pocket the public money and laugh at them. The matter can be settled nowhere but upon the floor of Congress, except by a dissolution of the Union, which nobody desires. If fifty of our Southern members would lay aside all other party ties and act firmly and openly together, they can force the North to do what is right, and what she ought to do without hesitation. Resist all bills for the support of government until this subject is finally and satisfactorily settled, particularly the annual appropriation, the army and navy bills. Let it be distinctly understood that you will oppose these measures by every parliamentary tactic in your power, and that you cannot be bought off, forced off, nor coaxed off, until justice is done the South; and, in my judgment, success is inevitable. At all events, if I were there I would try the experiment until March 4, 1851.

"The South has no direct interest in the passage of these bills, and if the object of refusing them is understood, I have no doubt it will be cordially approved. Should Congress adjourn without passing these bills, there will very soon be organized a powerful party in the North to put down Free-soilism and Abolitionism both. I do not think we should be plagued with either again for some time. In a movement of this kind every thing depends on its being carried out by firm, honest and true men, and I hope enough such may be found in Congress to undertake it, in spite of all the clamor it will raise in the North and among those who live by the government. It is a harsh measure, but in my opinion it is the only one left to save the Union and protect the South. Desperate diseases require desperate

remedies."

Should this means of resistance be adopted by the Southern members, there would be, I have no doubt, excitement at first and anger in the North. To allay it, however, if they are consistent and sincere in their expressions of devotion to the Constitution and laws, it would only be necessary for us to remind them of their own doctrine. If we complain of the threatened action of the majority, they advise us to refer the matter to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, they say, is the great constitutional arbiter whose decisions all good

*Hon. Wm. B. Shepard.