contrived in the chambers of conspiracy, to subvert the liberties of the people, and to overthrow the republic itself.

The republic stands upon a fundamental principle, that the people, in the exercise of equal rights, will establish only just and equal laws, and that their own free and enlightened public opinion is the only legitimate reliance for the maintenance and execution of such laws. This principle is not even peculiar to ourselves—it lies at the foundation of the government of every free people on earth. It is public opinion, not the imperial army, that executes the laws of the realm in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Whenever France is free, it is public opinion that executes the laws of her republican legislature. It is public opinion that executes the laws in all the cantons of Switzerland. The British constitution is quite as jealous of standing armies as a police, as our own. Government there, indeed, maintains standing armies, as it does a great naval force; but it employs the one, as it does the other, exclusively for defense, or for conquest, against foreign states. Fearful lest the armed power of the state might be turned against the people, to enforce obnoxious edicts or statutes, the British constitution forbids that any regular army whatever shall be tolerated, on any pretense. The considerable military force which is maintained in different and distant parts of the empire, only exists by a suspension of that part of the constitution, which suspension is renewed by Parliament from year to year, and never for more than one year at a time. Civil liberty, and a standing army for the purposes of civil police, have never yet stood together, and never can stand together. If I am to choose between upholding laws, in any part of this republic, which cannot be maintained without a standing army, or relinquishing the laws themselves, I give up the laws at once by whomsoever they are made, and by whatever authority; for, either our system of government is radically wrong, or such laws are unjust, unequal, and pernicious.

Such is the presumption against the pretended laws of Kansas, which arises out of the proposition to debate. I shall not, however, in so grave a case, leave my argument to rest upon mere presumption. Listen to me while I recite some of the principal statutes of the territorial legislature of Kansas, which the senate, differing from the house of representatives, proposes to enforce at the point of the bayonet against citizens of the United States:

"No person who is conscientiously opposed to the holding of slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in this territory, shall be a juror in any cause in which the right to hold any person in slavery is involved, nor in any cause in which any injury done to, or committed by, any slave, is in issue, nor in any criminal proceeding for the violation of any law enacted for the protection of slave property, and for the punishment of crime committed against the right to such property."

Here is an edict which subverts that old Saxon institution, which is essential and indispensable, not only in all republican systems of government, but even in every free state, whatever may be the form of its government. The question has been asked a thousand times, why does the republican system fail in Spanish America? The answer is truly given as often, that the republican system fails there, because the trial by jury has never existed in Spanish America, and cannot be introduced there.

Lend your ear, if you please, while I repeat another of these statutes of the territory of Kansas:

"All officers elected or appointed under any existing or subsequently-enacted laws of this territory, shall take and subscribe the following oath of office: 'I, do solemnly swear, upon the holy Evangelists of Almighty God, that I will support the constitution of the United States, and that I will support and sustain the provisions of an act entitled "An act to organize the territories of Nebraska and Kansas," and the provisions of the law of the United States commonly known as the "fugitive slave law," and faithfully and impartially, and to the best of my ability, demean myself in the discharge of my duties in the office of -; so help me God.'

Here is an edict which establishes a test oath, based on political opinion, and, by disfranchising one class of citizens, devolves the government upon another class, and thus subverts that principle of equality, without which no truly republican government has ever existed, or ever can exist.

Excuse me, senators, for calling to your notice a third chapter in the territorial code of Kansas:

"If any free person, by speaking or by writing, assert or maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in this territory, or shall introduce into this territory, print, publish, write, circulate, or cause to be introduced into this territory, written, printed, published, or circulated, in this territory, any book, paper, magazine pamphlet, or circular, containing any denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in this territory, such person shall be deemed GUILTY OF FELONY, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor for a term of not less than two years."

"If any person print, write, introduce into, publish, or circulate, or cause to be brought into, printed, written, published, or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or

.

assist in bringing into, printing, publishing, or circulating, within this territory, any book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, hand-bill, or circular, containing any statements, arguments, opinion, sentiment, doctrine, advice, or inuendo, calculated to produce a disorderly, dangerous, or rebellious disaffection among the slaves in this territory, or to induce such slaves to escape from the service of their masters, or to resist their authority, he shall be guilty of felony, and be punished by imprisonment and hard labor for a term not less than five years."

Ever since the debate about the extension of slavery in the territories of the United States began, I have, from year to year, from month to month, and sometimes even from day to day, in this place, and at other posts of public duty, spoken, written, printed, published, and circulated speeches, books, and papers, which constructively would be pronounced felonious, if such a law as this had been in force at the place where that duty was performed. I have not hesitated in the spirit of a free man, and, so far as I can claim such characters, under the responsibilities of a statesman and a Christian, to scatter broadcast over the land, and even throughout the territory of Kansas itself, statements, opinions, and sentiments, which, though designed for a purpose different from that mentioned in this edict, I doubt not would, by prejudiced judicial construction, be held to fall within its inhibition. Whatever other senators may choose to do, I shall not direct the president of the United States to employ a standing army in destroying the fruits of freedom which spring from seeds I have conscientiously sown with my own free hand. This statute, if so you insist on calling it, subverts the liberty of the press and the liberty of speech. Where on earth is there a free government where the press is shackled and speech is strangled? When the republic of France was subverted by the first consul, what else did he do, but shackle the press and stifle speech? When the second Napoleon restored the empire on the ruins of the later republic of France, what else did he do, than to shackle the press and strangle debate? When Santa Anna seized the government of Mexico, and converted it into a dictatorship, what more had he to do than shackle the press and stifle political debate?

Behold, senators, another of these statutes. In the chapter which treats of the writ of habeas corpus we have this limitation:

"No negro or mulatto held as a slave within this territory, or lawfully arrested as a fugitive from service from another state or territory, shall be discharged, nor shall his right of freedom be had under the provisions of this act.”

It

This is an edict, which suspends the writ of habeas corpus. relates indeed to a degraded class of society, but still the writ which is taken away from that class is the writ of habeas corpus, and those who are to be deprived of it by the edict may be freemen. The state that begins with denying the habeas corpus to the humblest and most obscure of freemen, will not be long in reaching a more indiscriminate proscription.

It ought to be sufficient objection here, against all these statutes, that they conflict with the constitution of the United States, the highest law recognized in this place. I myself denounce them for that reason, as I denounce them also because they are repugnant to the laws of nature, as recognized by nearly all civilized states.

Pardon, I pray you, senators, the prolixity of the next chapter, which I extract from the Kansas code:

Every person who may be sentenced by any court of competent jurisdiction, under any law in force within this territory, to punishment by confinement and hard labor, shall be deemed a convict, and shall immediately, under the charge of the keeper of such jail or public prison, or under the charge of such person as the keeper of such jail or public prison may select, be put to hard labor, as in the first section of this act, specified, to wit: 'on the streets, roads, public buildings, or other public works of the territory' (§ 1, page 146); and such keeper or other person, having charge of such convicts, shall cause such convict, while engaged at such labor, to be securely confined by a chain, six feet in length, of not less than four-sixteenths nor more than three-eighths of an inch links, with a round ball of iron, of not less than four nor more than six inches in diameter, attached, which chain shall be securely fastened to the ankle of such convict with a strong lock and key; and such keeper, or other person, having charge of such convict, may, if necessary, confine such convict, while so engaged at hard labor, by other chains, or other means, in his discretion, so as to keep such convict secure, and prevent his escape; and when there shall be two or more convicts under the charge of such keeper, or other person, such convicts shall be fastened together by strong chains, with strong locks and keys, during the time such convicts shall be engaged in hard labor without the walls of any jail or prison."

I have devoted, heretofore, no unimportant part of my life to mitigating the severity of penal codes. The senate of the United States now informs us, that if I desire the privilege of voting for this bill, which is designed to maintain the army of the United States in its integrity, I must consent to send that army into the territory of Kansas, to fasten chains of iron six feet long, with balls of iron four inches in diameter, with strong locks, upon the limbs of offenders

guilty of speaking, printing and publishing principles and opinions subversive of the system of slavery.

I have no excessive tenderness in regard to taking life or liberty as a forfeiture to the majesty of the laws, for the invasion of the peace and safety of society. Yet I do say, nevertheless, that I regard chains and balls, and all such implements and instruments of slavery, with a detestation so profound, that I will sooner take chains upon my own frame, and wear them through what may remain of my own pilgrimage here, than impose them, even where punishment is deserved, upon the limbs of my fellow men. I cannot consent to go backward, and restore barbarism to the penal code of the United States, even for the sake of an appropriation to maintain the army of the United States for a single year.

The Kansas code rises, as you advance through it, to a climax of inhumanity. Here is the next chapter:

"If any person shall aid or assist in enticing, decoying, or persuading, or carrying away, or sending out of this territory, any slave belonging to another, with intent to procure or effect the freedom of such slave, or with intent to deprive the owner thereof of the services of such slave, he shall be adjudged guilty of grand larceny, and on conviction thereof shall suffer death, or be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than ten years."

Pray tell me, senators, what you think of that? This statute has been promulgated in Kansas, a territory of the United States. It can have become a law there only, directly or indirectly, through the exercise of the legislative power of the congress of the United States. The constitution of the United States confers upon congress no power whatever to consign any human being to a condition of bondage or slavery to another human being; but, on the contrary, prohibits the exercise of a power so inhuman and barbarous.

The constitution of the United States, consequently, confers on congress no power, directly or indirectly, to make it a crime in one man to persuade another, reduced to bondage or slavery, to seek his freedom. I repudiate this pretended law, therefore, and I will not consent to send the army of the United States to Kansas to execute it.

I am here asked, while voting twelve million dollars to support the federal army, to make it a crime against the United States, punishable with death, to persuade a slave to escape from bondage, and to command the army to execute that punishment. I cannot do that.