volume four, page 125, chapter 83, ‘An act to extend the time for

the settlement of private land claims in the territory of Florida, to provide for the preservation of the public archives in said territory, and for the relief of John Johnson.’ [Laughter.] Here the name of the individual came last, but I have a case before me in which the individual came first. It is to be found in the _Statutes at Large, private acts_, volume six, page 813, chapter 89, entitled ‘An act for the relief of Chastelain and Pouvert, and for other purposes.’ And what do you suppose those other purposes to have been? About fifty appropriations for a variety of subjects which can be supposed to arise under such a government as ours. Will my friend read the extract for me?

Mr. Underwood accordingly read the extract as follows:

‘_An act for the relief of Chastelain and Pouvert, and for other purposes._

‘_Be it enacted, &c._ That the collector of the port of New York is hereby authorized to deduct from the amount of a bond given by Chastelain and Pouvert, for duties on merchandise imported in the schooner Gen. Jackson, Hawes, master, from Neuvitas, in the island of Cuba, such duties as may have been charged on that portion of said merchandise which was not landed in the United States, having been destroyed by fire in the harbor of New York, upon their producing proof to the collector of New York of the destruction of said merchandise.

‘_And be it further enacted_, That the following sums to pay the balance of accounts for which no appropriations now exist, and which have been passed upon and allowed by the proper accounting officer of the government, are now before them for audit, and for the payment of which appropriations are recommended by the heads of the proper departments, be and the same are appropriated, viz: For an award made by the proper accounting officer of the treasury in favor of the owners of the steamboats Stasca and Dayton, for services rendered under an agreement with Major Charles Thomas, quarter-master for the transportation of supplies, laborers, and other things for the use of the works at Fort Smith, Arkansas, in the year 1838, $13,350. For the payment of a balance due for supplies furnished to the Creek Indians, and medical services rendered to those Indians, after the commencement of the disturbances in the Creek country, and before and during the removal of the said Indians west of the Mississippi, which accounts were incurred under the direction of the proper officers or agents of the government, $7,741.44. For the payment of the expenses of a division of the lands of the Brothertown Indians among the members of the tribe, in obedience to the act of congress of the 3d of March, 1839, entitled, ‘An act for the relief of the Brothertown Indians in the territory of Wisconsin,’ the duties having been performed and the accounts presented, $1,830.’

Mr. Clay.――There are a great many others.

Mr. Benton.――What is the date of that act?

Mr. Clay.――It was approved July 1st, 1840; but I have one of a later date, if the honorable senator will prefer it. Here is one in 1849, entitled ‘an act for the relief of James Norris, and for other purposes:’

‘_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled_, That the secretary of the navy be, and is hereby, directed to place the name of James Norris, of Sandwich, in the state of New Hampshire, on the roll of invalid pensioners, and pay him a pension at such a rate per day as is provided by law for the total disability of an assistant surgeon in the navy of the United States, to commence on the first day of July, A. D. 1848, and continue during his natural life.

‘Sec. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That there be, and hereby are appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, the following sums, for the government of the territory of Minnesota. For salaries of governor, three judges, and secretary, nine thousand dollars. For contingent expenses of said territory, three hundred and fifty dollars. For compensation and mileage of members of the legislative assembly, pay of the officers and attendants, printing, stationery, fuel, and other incidental expenses, thirteen thousand seven hundred dollars.――Approved, March 3, 1849.’

I never knew that our young sister Minnesota thought her dignity at all affected or offended by this association with James Norris. There was a civil and diplomatic bill under consideration the last session. The senator’s recollection will assist me if it were not last session. To that bill the senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton) moved to add an amendment, to pay certain expenses incurred in the conquest of California. At the second session of the thirtieth congress, the bill ‘making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year ending June 30th, 1850, and for other purposes,’ being under consideration of the senate, Mr. Walker proposed an amendment, the object of which was to provide governments for the territory recently acquired from Mexico, including California, which was adopted; yeas 29, nays 27. At the same session, the same bill being under consideration, Mr. Walker, for the first time, proposed the amendment quoted above as agreed to; and Mr. Bell proposed an amendment to the amendment of Mr. Walker, which was disagreed to: yeas 4, nays 39.――_Senate Journal, second session, Thirtieth Cong._ pp. 241–’43.

I shall next notice an act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year 1842. It will be found in the fifth volume of the _Statutes at Large_, page 476, chapter 29. To that act is annexed a proviso limiting the compensation which should be received for printing the laws and documents of congress. The next subject I shall notice is an act to provide for the support of the military academy of the United States for the year 1838, and for other purposes. It will be found in volume fifth of the _Statutes at Large_, page 262, chapter 169.――These are only some out of a multitude of the same kind that might have been produced from the passage of such laws, from time to time, founded upon the discretion and good sense of congress, embracing subjects of every variety of incongruity. And yet, upon a bill which proposes to unite three subjects perfectly compatible in their nature, without the slightest incongruity existing between them――subjects which, at the last session, were proposed to be united together by the honorable senator from Wisconsin, in his proposal for the adjustment of these unpleasant questions, it is all at once discovered that the powers of government are paralyzed: that it is ‘tacking’――a word which has not yet been imported from England in her parliamentary law――it is all at once discovered that it is ‘tacking’――a most dangerous and undignified course, which ought not to be sanctioned.

I mentioned, sir, a while ago, acts which embraced every possible variety of legislation. I referred to an act providing for the support of the military academy of the United States for the year 1838, and for other purposes. That act makes thirty or forty appropriations for different objects! It makes appropriations for the documentary history of the revolution, for continuing the construction of the patent office, for furnishing machinery and other expenses incident to the outfit of the branch mint at New Orleans, Charlotte, and Dahlonega; for the salaries of the governor, chief judge, associate justices, district attorney, marshal, and pay and mileage of the members of the legislative assembly of the territory of Iowa, the expense there of taking the census, and for other incidental and contingent expenses of that territory, and in relation to the investment in state stock of the bequest of the late James Smithson, of London, for the purpose of founding at Washington, in this district, an institution we denominate the Smithsonian Institution. These and various other acts are all comprehended in a bill making an appropriation for the military academy at West Point.

Now, sir, after this, can it be said that there is any want of power, or any non-conformity in the practice of congress, in endeavoring to unite together, not three incongruous and discordant measures, but three measures of the same character, having, in different form, the same general object?

I will pass on, with a single observation on an amendment introduced by the committee into the territorial bill. To that amendment I was opposed, but it was carried in the committee. It is an amendment which is to be found in the tenth section of one of the bills limiting the power of the territorial legislature upon the subject of laws which it may pass. Amongst other limitations, it declares ‘that the territorial legislature shall have no power to pass any law in respect to African slavery.’ I did not then, and do not now, attach much importance to the amendment, which was proposed by an honorable senator, now in my eye, and carried by a majority of the committee. The effect of that clause will at once be understood by the senate. It speaks of ‘African’ slavery. The word African was introduced so as to leave the government at liberty to legislate as it might think proper on any other condition of slavery――‘Peon’ or ‘Indian’ slavery, which has so long existed under the Spanish regime. The object was to impose a restriction upon them as to the passage of any law either to admit or exclude African slavery, or of any law restricting it. The effect of that amendment will at once be seen. If the territorial legislature can pass no law with respect to African slavery, the state of the law as it exists now in the territories of Utah and New Mexico will continue to exist until the people form a constitution for themselves, when they can settle the question of slavery as they please. They will not be allowed to admit or exclude it. They will be restrained on the one hand from its admission, and on the other from its exclusion. Sir, I shall not repeat now the expression of opinion which I have already announced to the senate as being held by me on this subject. My opinion is, that the law of Mexico, in all the variety of forms in which legislation can take place――that is to say, by the edict of a dictator, by the constitution of the people of Mexico, by the act of the legislative authority of Mexico――by all these modes of legislation, slavery has been abolished there. I am aware that some other senators entertain a different opinion; but without going into discussion of that question, which I think altogether unnecessary, I feel authorized to say that the opinion of a vast majority of the people of the United States, of a vast majority of the jurists of the United States, is in coincidence with that which I entertain; that is to say, that at this moment, by law and in fact, there is no slavery there, unless it is possible that some gentlemen from the slave states, in passing through that country, may have taken along their body slaves. In point of fact and in point of law, I entertain the opinions which I expressed at an early period of the session. Sir, we have heard since, from authority entitled to the highest respect, from no less authority than that of the delegate from New Mexico, that labor can be there obtained at the rate of three or four dollars per month; and, if it can be got at that rate, can anybody suppose that any owner of slaves would ever carry them to that country, where he could only get three or four dollars per month for them?

I believe, on this part of the subject, I have said every thing that is necessary for me to say; but their remains two or three subjects upon which I wish to say a few words before I close what I have to offer for the consideration of the senate.

The next subject upon which the committee acted was that of fugitive slaves. The committee have proposed two amendments to be offered to the bill introduced by the senator from Virginia, (Mr. Mason,) whenever the bill is taken up. The first of these amendments provides that the owner of a fugitive slave, when leaving his own state, and whenever it is practicable――for sometimes, in the hot pursuit of an immediate runaway, it may not be in the power of the master to wait to get such record, and he will always do it if it is possible――shall carry with him a record from the state from which the fugitive has fled; which record shall contain an adjudication of two facts: first, the fact of slavery, and secondly, the fact of elopement; and in the third place, such a general description of the slave as the court shall be enabled to give upon such testimony as shall be brought before it. It also provides that this record, taken from the county court, or from the court of record in the slaveholding state, shall be taken to the free state, and shall be there held to be competent and sufficient evidence of the facts which it avows. Now, sir, I heard objection made to this that it would be an inconvenience and an expense to the slaveholder. I think the expense will be very trifling to the great advantages which will result. The expenses will be only two or three dollars for the seal of the court, and the certificate and attestation of the clerk, &c. Sir, we know the just reverence and respect in which records are ever held. The slaveholder himself will feel, when he goes from Virginia to Ohio with this record, that he has got a security which he never possessed before for the recovery of his property. And when the attestation of the clerk, under the seal of the court, is exhibited to the citizen of Ohio, that citizen will be disposed to respect, and bound to respect, under the laws of the United States, a record thus exhibited, coming from a sister state. The inconvenience will be very slight, very inconsiderable, compared with the great security of the slaveholder.

Mr. Butler.――As the bill to which the senator refers has been somewhat under my care, I am sure the honorable senator will allow me to ask a question in relation to this amendment. Is it proposed that the certificate shall be from the judge, or shall be from the court, as it is termed; because I see it seems to be inferred that it must be given by a court, and a court of record, which has a technical meaning? I desire the honorable senator to inform me whether it is thus to be given by a court or by a judge at chambers?

Mr. Clay.――Mr. President, I confess I had in view the county courts of probate which prevail throughout the United States, and not the judge. But it can be so modified, if it be deemed essential to the progress of the bill.

The committee partake of the same spirit which I have endeavored to manifest throughout this whole distracted question. They are not wedded to any particular plan; and if any amendments are offered that will improve and better the bills reported, they will be accepted. I am sure that I answer for every member of the committee, with pleasure, that any amendments to aid the object we have in view will be accepted. I repeat, sir, I confess I had in view that this record should be taken from the county courts, which prevail in almost all the states, except Louisiana and South Carolina, which have their parish courts. Any one of these courts, after hearing evidence about the ownership of property and the escape of the property, could give the required record, and this would be carried to that part of the country where the parties go.

With respect to the other amendment offered by the committee to the fugitive bill, I regretted extremely to hear the senator from Arkansas object so earnestly and so seriously to it. I did not pretend to question his right, or the right of any other senator, but he will surely allow me to say, in all kindness, that of all the states in this Union, without exception, I will not except even Virginia herself, I believe that the state which suffers more than any other by the escaping of slaves from their owners, seeking refuge either in Canada, or in some of the non-slaveholding states, Kentucky is the one. I doubt very much whether the state of Arkansas ever lost a slave. They may, very possibly, once in a while, run off to the Indians, but very rarely. So of other interior states. So of Georgia and South Carolina. Sometimes, perhaps, a slave escapes from their seaports, but very rarely by land. Kentucky is the most suffering state, but I venture to anticipate for my own state that she will be satisfied with the provisions to which I am now about to call the attention of the senate.

Mr. President, in all subjects of this kind we must deal fairly and honestly by all. We must recollect that there are feelings, and interests, and sympathies on both sides of the question; and no man who has ever brought his mind seriously to the consideration of a suitable measure for the rēcapture of runaway slaves, can fail to admit that the question is surrounded with great difficulties. On the one hand, if the owner of the slave could go into this non-slaveholding state, and seize the negro, put his hands upon him, and the whole world would recognise the truth of his ownership of property, and the fact of the escape of that property, there would be no difficulty then in those states where prejudice against slavery exists in the highest degree. But he goes to a state which does not recognise slavery. Recollect how different the state of fact is now from what it was in 1793, nearly sixty years ago. There were, then, comparatively few free persons of color――few, compared to the numbers which exist at present. By the progress of emancipation in the slaveholding states, and the multiplication of them by natural causes, vast numbers of them have rushed to the free states.――There are in the cities of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston――I have not looked into the precise number――some eight or ten to one in proportion to the number there were in 1793 when the act passed.

In proportion to the number of free blacks, multiplied in the free states, does the difficulty increase of recovering a fugitive from a slaveholding state. Recollect, Mr. President, that the rule of law is reversed in the two classes of states. In the slaveholding states the rule is, that color implies slavery, and the _onus probandi_ of freedom is thrown on the persons claiming it, as every person in the slaveholding states is regarded _prima facie_ as a slave. On the contrary, when you go to the non-slaveholding states, color implies freedom and not slavery. Every man who is seen in the free states, though he be a man of color, is regarded as free. And when a stranger from Virginia or Kentucky goes to remote parts of Pennsylvania, and sees a black person, who perhaps has been living there for years, and claims him to be his slave, the feelings and sympathy of the neighborhood are naturally and necessarily excited in favor of the colored person. We all respect these feelings, where they are honestly entertained. Well, sir, what are you to do in a case of that kind? You will give every satisfaction that can be given that the person whom you propose to arrest is your property, and is a fugitive from your service or labor. That is the extent of one amendment which we propose to offer, but there is also another. The amendment upon which I have been commenting provides for the production of a record. Now, what is the inconvenience of that? It provides that when the owner of the slave shall arrest his property in a non-slaveholding state, and shall take him before the proper functionary to obtain a certificate to authorize the return of that property to the state from which he fled, and if he declares to that functionary at the time that he is a free man and not a slave, what does the provision require the officer to do? Why, to take a bond from the agent or owner that he will carry the black person back to the county of the state from which he fled; and that at the first court which may sit after his return, he shall be carried there, if he again assert the right to his freedom; the court shall afford and the owner shall afford to him all the facilities which are requisite to enable him to establish his right to freedom. Now, no surety is even required of the master. The committee thought, and in that I believe they all concurred, that it would be wrong to demand of a stranger, hundreds of miles from his home, surety to take back the slave to the state from which he fled. The trial by jury is what is demanded by the non-slaveholding states. Well, we put the party claimed to be a fugitive back to the state from which he fled, and give him trial by jury in that state.

Well, sir, ought we not to make this concession? It is but very little inconvenience. I will tell you, sir, what will be the practical operation of this. It will be this: When a slave has escaped from the master, and taken a refuge in a free state, and that master comes to recapture him and take him back to the state from which he fled, the slave will cry out, ‘I do not know the man; I never saw him in my life; I am a free man.’ He will say any thing and do any thing to preserve to himself that freedom of which is for a moment in possession. He will assert most confidently before the judge that he is a free man. But take him back to the state from which he fled, to his comrades, and he will state the truth, and will relinquish all claim to freedom. The practical operation, therefore, of the amendment which we have proposed, will be attended with not the least earthly inconvenience to the party claiming the fugitive. The case is bond without surety. The bond is transmitted by the officer taking it to the district attorney of the state from which he has fled. That officer sees that the bond is executed, and that the slave is taken before the court. Perhaps, before the slave reaches home, he will acknowledge that he is a slave; there is an end of the bond and an end of the trouble about the master. Is this unreasonable? Is it not a proper and rational concession to the prejudices, if you please, which exist in the non-slaveholding states? Sir, our rights are to be asserted; our rights are to be maintained. They will be asserted and maintained in a manner not to wound unnecessarily the sensibilities of others. And, in requiring such a bond as this amendment proposes to exact from the owner, I do not think there is the slightest inconvenience imposed upon him, of which he ought to complain.

Sir, there is one opinion prevailing――I hope not extensively――in some of the non-slaveholding states, which nothing we can do will conciliate. I allude to that opinion that asserts that there is a higher law――a divine law――a natural law――which entitles a man, under whose roof a runaway has come, to give him assistance, and succor, and hospitality. A divine law, a natural law! and who are they that venture to tell us what is divine and what is natural law? Where are their credentials of prophecy? Why, sir, we are told that the other day, at a meeting of some of these people at New York, Moses and all the prophets were rejected, and that the name even of our blessed Saviour was treated with sacrilege and contempt by these propagators of a divine law, of a natural law which they have discovered above all human laws and constitutions. If Moses and the prophets, and our Saviour and all others, are to be rejected, will they condescend to show us their authority for propagating this new law, this new divine law of which they speak? The law of nature, sir! Look at it as it is promulgated, and even admitted or threatened to be enforced, in some quarters of the world. Well, sir, some of these people have discovered another plausible law of nature. There is a large class who say that if a man has acquired, no matter whether by his own exertions or by inheritance, a vast estate, much more than is necessary for the existence of himself and family, I who am starving, am entitled by a law of Nature to have a portion of these accumulated goods to save me from the death which threatens me. Here are you, with your barns full, with your warehouses full of goods, collected from all quarters of the globe; your kitchens and laundries and pantries all full of that which conduces to the subsistence and comfort of man; and here am I standing by, as Lazarus at the gate of the rich man, perishing from hunger――will not the law of Nature allow me to take enough of your super-abundance to save me a little while from that death which is inevitable without I do it? Why, sir, trace this pretended law of Nature, about which, seriously, none of the philosophers are agreed, and apply it to one of the most interesting and solemn ceremonies of life. Go to a Mahometan country, and the Mahometan will tell you that you are entitled to as many wives as you can get. Come next to a Christian country, and you will be told that you are entitled to but one. Go to our friends the Mormons, and they will tell you that you are entitled to none. But there are persons in this age of enlightenment and progress and civilization, who will rise up in public assemblages, and, denouncing the church and all that is sacred that belongs to it――denouncing the founders of the religion which all profess and revere――will tell you that notwithstanding the solemn oath which they have taken by kissing the book to carry out into full effect all the provisions of the constitution of our country, there is a law of their God――a divine law, which they have found out and nobody else has――superior and paramount to all human law; and that they do not mean to obey this human law, but the divine law, of which, by some inspiration, by some means undisclosed, they have obtained a knowledge. That is the class of persons which we do not propose to conciliate by any amendment, by any concession which we can make.

But the committee, in considering this delicate subject, and looking at the feelings and interests on both sides of the question, thought if best to offer these two provisions――that which requires the production of a record in the non-slaveholding states, and that which requires a bond to grant to the real claimant of his freedom a trial by jury, in the place where that trial ought to take place according to the interpretation of the constitution of the United States, if it take place any where. Therefore, in order to obviate the difficulties which have been presented, and to satisfy the prejudices in the non-slaveholding states, we propose to give the fugitive the right of trial by jury in the state from which he fled. The statement in the report of the committee is perfectly true that the greatest facilities are always extended to every man of color in the slaveholding states who sues for freedom. I have never known an instance of a failure on the part of a person thus suing to procure a verdict and judgment in his favor, if there were even slight grounds in support of his claim. And, sir, so far is the sympathy in behalf of a person suing for his freedom carried, that few members of the bar appear against them. I will mention, though in no boastful spirit, that I myself never appeared but once in my life against a person suing for his freedom, but have appeared for them in many instances without charging them a solitary cent. That I believe is the general course of the liberal and eminent portion of the bar throughout the country. One case I made an exception, but it was a case when I appeared for a particular friend. I told him: ‘Sir, I will not appear against your negroes unless I am perfectly satisfied that they have no right to freedom; and even if I shall become, after the progress of the trial, convinced that they are entitled to freedom, I shall abandon your cause.’ I venture to say, then, that in all that relates to tenderness of treatment to that portion of our population, and to the administration of justice to them, and the supply of their wants, nothing can be found in the slaveholding states that is not honorable and creditable to them.

Mr. President, the only measure remaining upon which I shall say a word now, is the abolition of the slave-trade in the district of Columbia. There is, I believe, precious little of it. I believe the first man in my life that I ever heard denounce that trade was a southern man――John Randolph of Roanoke. I believe there has been no time within the last forty years when, if earnestly pressed upon congress, there would not have been found a majority, perhaps a majority from the slaveholding states themselves, in favor of the abolition of the slave-trade in this district. The bill which the committee has reported is founded upon the law of Maryland, as it existed when this district was set apart and ceded to the United States.――Maryland has since very often changed her laws.――What is their exact condition at present, I am not aware. I have heard that she has made a change at the last session, and I am told that they may again be changed in the course of a year or two. Sir, some years ago, it would have been thought a great concession to the feelings and wishes of the north to abolish this slave-trade. Now, I have seen some of the rabid abolition papers denounce it as amounting to nothing. They do not care for that. And will my friends, some of my friends on the other side of the house, allow me to say a word or two with respect to their course in relation to this measure. At the beginning of this session, as you know, that offensive proviso, called the ‘Wilmot proviso,’ was what was most apprehended, and what all the slaveholding states were most desirous to get rid of. Well, sir, by the operation of causes upon the northern mind friendly to the Union, hopes are inspired, which I trust will not be frustrated in the progress of this measure, that the north, or at least a sufficient portion of the north, are now willing to dispense with the proviso. When, three months ago, I offered certain resolutions, and when to these measures it was objected, by way of reproach, that they were simply carrying out my own plan, my honorable friend from North Carolina at the moment justly pointed out the essential differences between the plan, as contained in the resolutions offered by me, and that now presented by the committee.

At the time I offered those resolutions, knowing what consequences and, as I sometimes feared, fatal consequences, might result from the fact of the north insisting on the proviso, by way of compensation, in one of the resolutions which I offered――the second one――I stated two truths, one of law and one of fact, which I thought ought to satisfy the north that it ought no longer to insist on the Wilmot proviso. Those truths were not incorporated in the bill reported by the committee, but they exist, nevertheless, as truths. I believe them both now as much I did in February last. I know there are others who do not concur with me in opinion. Every senator must decide for himself, as the country will decide for itself, when the question comes to be considered. Well, when our southern friends found they were rid of the proviso, they were highly satisfied, and I shared with them in their satisfaction. If I am not much mistaken, a great majority of them would have said, ‘If, Mr. Clay, you had not put those two obnoxious truths in them, we should have been satisfied with your resolution.’ Well, sir, we have got rid of the Wilmot proviso, we have got rid of the enactment into laws of the two truths to which I refer, but I fear there are some of our southern brethren who are not satisfied. There are some who say that there is yet the Wilmot proviso, under another form, lurking in the mountains of Mexico, in that natural fact to which my honorable friend from Massachusetts adverted, as I myself did when I hinted that the law of nature was adverse to the introduction of slavery there. Now, as you find that just desire is to be obtained, there is something further, there are other difficulties in the way of the adjustment of these unhappy subjects of difference, and of obtaining that which is most to be desired, the cementing of the bonds of this Union.

Mr. President, I do not despair, I will not despair, that the measure will be carried. And I would almost stake my existence, if I dared, that if these measures which have been reported by the committee of thirteen were submitted to the people of the United States to-morrow, and their votes were taken upon them, there would be nine-tenths of them in favor of the pacification which is embodied in that report.

Mr. President, what have we been looking at?――What are we looking at? The ‘proviso;’ an abstraction always; thrust upon the south by the north against all the necessities of the case, against all the warnings which the north ought to have listened to coming from the south; pressed unnecessarily for any northern object; opposed, I admit, by the south, with a degree of earnestness uncalled for, I think, by the nature of the provision, but with a degree of earnestness natural to the south, and which the north itself perhaps would have displayed if a reversal of the conditions of the two sections of the Union could have taken place. Why do you of the north press it? You say because it is in obedience to certain sentiments in behalf of human freedom and human rights which you entertain. You are likely to accomplish those objects at once by the progress of events, without pressing this obnoxious measure.――You may retort, why is it opposed at the south?――It is opposed at the south because the south feels that, when once legislation on the subject of slavery begins, there is no seeing where it is to end. Begin it in the district of Columbia; begin it in the territories of Utah and New Mexico and California; assert your power there to-day, and in spite of all the protestations――and you are not wanting in making protestations――that you have no purpose of extending it to the southern states, what security can you give them that a new sect will not arise with a new version of the constitution, or with something above or below the constitution, which shall authorize them to carry their notions into the bosoms of the slaveholding states, and endeavor to emancipate from bondage all the slaves there? Sir, the south has felt that her security lies in denying at the threshold your right to touch the subject of slavery. She said, ‘Begin, and who can tell where you will end? Let one generation begin and assert the doctrine for the moment, forbearing as they may be in order to secure their present objects, their successors may arise with new notions, and new principles, and new expositions of the constitution and laws of nature, and carry those notions and new principles into the bosom of the slaveholding states.’ The cases, then, gentlemen of the north and gentlemen of the south, do not stand upon an equal footing. When you, on the one hand, unnecessarily press an offensive and unnecessary measure on the south, the south repels it from the highest of all human motives of action, the security of property and life, and every thing else interesting and valuable in life.

Mr. President, after we have got rid, as I had hoped, of all these troubles――after this Wilmot proviso has disappeared, as I trust it may both in this and the other end of the capitol――after we have been disputing two or three years or more, on the one hand, about a mere abstraction, and on the other, if it were fraught with evil, not so much present as distant and future, when we are arriving at a conclusion, what are the new difficulties that spring up around us? Matters of form. The purest question of form, that was ever presented to the mind of man――whether we shall combine in one united bill three measures, all of which are necessary, or separate them into three distinct bills, passing each in its turn, if it can be done.

Mr. President, I trust that the feelings of attachment to the Union, of love for its past glory, of anticipation of its future benefits and happiness; a fraternal feeling which, I trust, will be common throughout all parts of the country; the desire to live together in peace and harmony, to prosper as we have prospered heretofore, to hold up to the civilized world the example of one great and glorious republic, fulfilling the high destiny that belongs to it, demonstrating beyond all doubt man’s capacity for self-government; these motives and these considerations will, I trust, animate us all, bringing us together to dismiss alike questions of abstraction and form, and consummating the act in such a manner as to heal not one only, but all the wounds of the country.

CORRESPONDENCE.

[SINCE the decease of the distinguished subject of these memoirs, several of his letters (some of which were never intended for the public eye) have found their way into the newspapers. As a laudable curiosity exists to know the general style of his correspondence, a few letters are subjoined, which will afford a pretty correct idea of the easy and familiar manner of his intercourse with personal friends. The unreserved manner in which he expresses his opinions upon topics which were commanding attention at the time, may be regarded as peculiarly one of his prominent characteristics, and one, too, which few individuals in political life seem anxious to emulate.――The first three letters were addressed to Robert Walsh, Jr., Esq., formerly editor of the _National Gazette_, but of late years the Paris correspondent of the New York _Journal of Commerce_, in which paper they originally appeared.]

“WASHINGTON, 6th September, 1817.

“MY DEAR SIR: Having seen the second volume of the Register at Mr. D. Brent’s, I was about to inquire at the book-stores for it, when a copy was left at my house, I did not know how, until I received your obliging favor of the 29th ulto. Although it found me engaged in an interesting course of reading, I did not hesitate to interrupt the progress of my studies, to peruse your introductory discourse.

“I was much gratified in perceiving that you had undertaken the vindication of the captors of Andre, from the most indiscreet and unfounded attack of Col. Talmage. Rarely, if ever, whilst presiding in the H. of R., was I so much shocked as when he made it. It was so unnecessary, so unjust, and, I thought, was so much the result of a wish, on the part of the accuser, to announce _his_ participation in the concern of which he spoke. I really felt so transported with indignation, on the occasion, that I found myself, at one time, involuntarily rising from the Speaker’s chair, in defence of those injured men. I then wished that congress would guard against the unfavorable inference, which the future historian might possibly draw, from a rejection of their petition, by allowing them the solicited augmentation of their pensions; and I still regret it was not done.

“I do not agree with all that you have said respecting the famous Compensation Act. The form was always objectionable with me, and I still think the per diem mode preferable. In England, formerly, the members of the H. of Commons received _wages_, (that was the technical term applied to the allowance to the members,) which were paid by the boroughs, &c., that elected them. When the country had increased in wealth, and Parliament had obtained greater political importance, opulent men offered to serve, without pay, and then the receipt of wages was gradually discontinued and finally abolished. In that country, of small territorial extent, where the aristocratic feature of the government and the consequent entails which exist on estates, will always keep up large fortunes, there never can be any considerable inconvenience in attending Parliament. But, you know, to attend that body is in fact, with the mass of the members, to be present only three or four times every session, when the great questions come up. Generally throughout the session there are not more than from fifty to one hundred members in attendance. But even in England, formerly so great, occasionally, was the reluctance to submit to the inconvenience of attending Parliament, that instances have occurred of compulsory attendance.

“Every thing is otherwise here. We have happily no aristocracy, and no device for keeping estates in the possession of the same family for any length of time. The powerful operation of our statutes of distribution scatters the accumulated wealth of industry or of avarice. Fortunes are small, in the general, and will always continue so, whilst our present institutions exist. Our territory is of immense extent. The consequence is that he who happens to be a member of congress from a great distance, has to make vast and often ruinous sacrifices. Our government is yet in its infancy, and the novelty of the situation, the great excitement of the times, and other causes may have prevented us heretofore from experiencing much difficulty in getting competent members to serve. Young, however, as we are, and short as has been my service in the public councils, I have seen some of the most valuable members quitting the body, from their inability to sustain the weight of those sacrifices. And in process of time I apprehend this mischief will be more and more felt. Even now there are few, if any instances, of members dedicating their lives to the duties of legislation. Members stay a year or two, curiosity is satisfied, the novelty wears off; expensive habits are brought or are acquired; their affairs at home are neglected; their fortunes are wasting away, and they are compelled to retire. There are no sacrifices too great for one to make, when necessary, for his country.

“You say that the competition would be too much if the compensation were high. Every demagogue would aspire to the honor. Our form of government, however, supposes a competence on the part of the electors to discriminate and to choose. And depend upon it that, in the general, in any such common scrambling as you suppose, talents and virtue will prevail. To suppose that they would not, is to arraign our system. But if there be danger arising from too much competition, the result of high pay, is there not on the other hand, equal or greater danger from insufficient competition, the result of inadequate pay? I confess that I would much rather see every man in the congressional district, aspiring to the honor of representing it, than to see such an arrangement of the pay, that only one or two persons could face the expense and sacrifice incident to a seat.

“Do you not press the subject of Bonaparte too far? Fallen and captive, has he not some claim upon the magnanimity not only of his conquerors, but, during his imprisonment, upon cotemporary authors also? England has shown him none. All posterity will, I think, condemn her surrender of him to the allies, and her concurrence in his exile to St. Helena. Chatham, or Fox, or even Pitt, would have permitted him, as he desired, to remain in England. Is it not to be apprehended that any animadversions upon him, at the present time, will indirectly conduce to sanction the principles of legitimacy and the conduct of the allies?

“I ought to apologize for the unintended length of my letter. I do not often turn over the first side of the paper, and can only say that my having offended, in this instance, has proceeded from the respect and consideration in which you are held by

“Yours, faithfully and cordially, “H. CLAY. “R. WALSH, JR., ESQ.”

* * * * *

[CONFIDENTIAL.]

“WASHINGTON, 18th Feb. ’25.

“DEAR SIR: I thank you for your prompt attention to the paragraph which I sent you, and for your friendly letter.

“You did not like my Kremer Card. I was not surprised, but hear me. I was assailed from all quarters. The cannon of every man who would now, or four or eight years hence, be President, (except that of Mr. A.,) was directed against me. I heard it all, and saw every movement. I should have disregarded it, whilst the attack assumed the ordinary form of anonymous or even editorial commentary. But when a person was so far designated as to be elected to be a _member_ of the H. of R. belonging to the _Pennsylvania_ delegation, it assumed a tangible shape. A crisis arose in my poor affairs. Silence and criminality would have been the same. And it seemed to me that I was called upon to take a step even of apparent rashness. I ought to have omitted the last sentence in the Card; but as to the rest, I yet approve of it. And still the reason, the philosophy, the religion of no man more decidedly condemns duelling than, I hope I may say, mine does. The corrective of that pernicious practice must be found in communities, not in individuals, at least in such humble ones as I am. When the public shall cease to stamp with dishonor the man who tamely submits to injurious imputations, duels will cease. I hope the sequel of that affair was more satisfactory to the northern public.

“I have consented to go into the department of state, after much deliberation. They will abuse me for it. They would have abused me more if I had declined it. I shall carry into it zeal and industry only. The other departments which are vacant by Mr. Calhoun’s election to the V. P., and Mr. Crawford’s retirement, remain to be filled, but I am not at liberty to indicate their probable incumbents.

“An opposition is threatened; but there is no danger of any, unless the course of the Administration shall furnish just occasion for it, which we shall strive to prevent. What is now threatened, is the offspring of chagrin and disappointment. What will they oppose? If we go right, that will not, is it to be hoped, make them go wrong. An impartial trial and a just verdict are all that is demanded, and that the country will render, whatever the hopes of faction may inspire.

“I am, with great regard,

“Faithfully yours, “H. CLAY. “ROBERT WALSH, JR., ESQ.”

* * * * *

“WASHINGTON, 25th April, 1836.

“DEAR SIR: I duly received your favor of the 18th inst. You do me the favor to desire an adequate notion of my services and views whilst I was in the department of state. I regret that the bad state of my health, and my various public duties here oblige me to be very brief.

“Besides the discharge of the current duties of the office, I negotiated various treaties. Some of these (those for example with Austria and Mexico) were agreed upon, but not actually signed, and were subsequently concluded in the name of the succeeding administration.

“In the treaty with Central America was first introduced the great principle, that the national and foreign vessels should be equally allowed to introduce into their respective countries merchandize without regard to its _origin_. The principle had been adopted in the convention with England of 1815, negotiated by Messrs. Adams, Gallatin and me, of permitting the vessels of the two countries to import the productions of the _two countries_, on terms of entire equality; but it was restricted to the productions of G. B. and the U. S. It did not admit of an English vessel importing into the U. S. the produce of any country other than G. B., nor _vice versa_. By the treaty with Central America, which I negotiated, on the contrary, an American vessel may carry into its ports the produce of any country of the four quarters of the world, on the same terms as it can be imported by a national vessel, and _vice versa_. This has been a model treaty, which has been followed in several treaties afterwards negotiated.

“My instructions to Mr. Brown on our claims against France cost me much labor, and were favorably thought of by others.

“But my great work was the preparation of the instructions intended for our commissioners who were to meet first at Panama and afterwards at Tacubaya. If you could take the trouble to read them, you would obtain a better conception of my views than any I can now give you, as to the liberal basis on which the commerce of the world should be placed. I there argue and endeavor to have established the principle that _private_ property on the ocean shall enjoy the same safety and protection to which it is entitled on land. And all the maritime principles in favor of free trade, against spurious blockades, &c., for which we had so long and so earnestly contended, are sought to be established at the proposed congress.

“These instructions are almost exclusively my sole work. Without consulting any body particularly, I engaged in their preparation, and afterwards submitted the draft of them to the President and his Cabinet. They run into about eighty pages of manuscript, and I do not think that the alterations which, on the scrutiny of these gentlemen, they underwent, amounted altogether to one page; and these related chiefly to the projected connexion between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. I was disposed to go a little farther than my colleagues.

“The relations in which I stood to the Diplomatic Corps, during the whole of Mr. Adams’s administration, and to every member of it, were of the most cordial and friendly character. It was impossible, I think, that business could have been transacted more satisfactorily to all parties. I have reason to believe, that up to this moment, the members of that corps who were associated with me, retain lively recollections of our amicable feelings and intercourse.

“I will not dwell on this subject: but must refer you, for any deficiencies, to my public acts and the transactions of the day.

“I will add that I introduced into the Department, as vacancies from time to time occurred, (I created none) some most accomplished assistants, several of whom were found to be so necessary that they escaped the general proscription.

“I think it very probable that your feelings towards me have been sometimes misunderstood and misrepresented. Certainly, in our personal intercourse, I never discovered any evidence of hostility or prejudice. Candor obliges me to say that I have sometimes seen in your paper what I thought bore testimony of an inimical spirit; but your frank assurance now convinces me that I was mistaken. We have been in the midst, during these late years, of the most exciting scenes in our public affairs. I do not much underrate the power which I was opposing――certainly not its disastrous tendency. I felt that I was struggling for the country, for its civil liberty, its institutions, its prosperity, its value. I felt that I had a good title to the support of all honorable and intelligent men. Perhaps I have been sometimes too sensitive, when I thought that support was not yielded, and have censured too hastily when I supposed a measure of zeal in the public cause was not displayed by others equal to my own. With best wishes for your health and prosperity, I am

“Your friend and obedient servant, “H. CLAY. “R. WALSH, ESQ.”

* * * * *

[The following private letter was written to several political friends in the state of New York, who wrote to Mr. Clay in 1844 on the subject of emancipating his slaves. They expressed their high admiration of his character, their pleasure on learning that he had given freedom to his man Charles, and their desire that he would extend the same boon to all those who still remained on his hands. He replied as follows:]

ASHLAND, 8 Jan., 1845.

_Gentlemen_,――I have perused your friendly letter in the spirit in which it was written. I am glad that the emancipation of my servant Charles, meets your approbation. A degree of publicity has been given to the fact, which I neither expected nor desired. I am not in the habit of making any parade of my domestic transactions, but since you have adverted to one of them, I will say that I had previously emancipated Charles’ mother and sister, and acquiesced in his father’s voluntary abandonment of my service, who lives with his wife near me. Charles continues to reside with me, and the effect of his freedom is no other than that of substituting fixed wages, which I now pay to him, for the occasional allowances and gratuities which I gave him.

You express a wish that I would emancipate the residue of my slaves. Of these more than half are utterly incapable of supporting themselves, from infancy, old age, or helplessness. They are in families. What would they do if I were to send them forth on the world? Such a measure would be extremely cruel instead of humane. Our law does not admit of emancipation, without security being given that the freed slave shall not be a public charge.

In truth, gentlemen, the question of my emancipating the slaves yet remaining with me, evolves many considerations of duty, relation and locality, of which, without meaning any disrespect to you, I think you are hardly competent to judge. At all events, I, who alone am responsible to the world, to God, and to my conscience, must reserve to myself the exclusive judgment.

I firmly believe that the cause of the extinction of negro slavery, far from being advanced, has been retarded by the agitation of the subject at the North. This remark is not intended for those who, like you, are moved by benevolent impulses, and do not seek to gratify personal or political ambition.

I am, with great respect, Your friend and obedient servant, H. CLAY.

Footnotes.

1 – In one of the many speeches which he made during his journey, he thus alludes to the tenderness with which he was treated. ‘I was taken into custody, made captive of, but placed withal in such _delightful bondage_, that I could find no strength and no desire to break away from it.’

2 – Extract from the Grant to Crozat, dated at

‘_Fontainbleau_, September 14, 1712.

LOUIS, By the grace of God, &c.

‘The care we have always had to procure the welfare and advantage of our subjects, having induced us, &c. to seek for all possible opportunities of enlarging and extending the trade of our American colonies, we did, in the year 1683, give our orders to undertake a discovery of the countries and lands which are situated in the northern part of America, between New France and New Mexico; and the Sieur de la Salle, to whom we committed that enterprise, having had success, enough to confirm a belief that a communication might be settled _from New France to the Gulf of Mexico_, by means of large rivers, this obliged us, immediately after the peace of Ryswic, to give orders for establishing a colony there, and maintaining a garrison, _which has kept and preserved the possession we had taken in the very year 1683_, of the lands, coasts, and islands, which are situated _in the Gulf of Mexico between Carolina on the east_, and old and new Mexico on the west. But a new war having broke out in Europe shortly after, there was no possibility, till now, of reaping from _that colony_ the advantages that might have been expected from thence, &c. And, whereas, upon the information we have received concerning the disposition and situation of the said countries, _known at present by the name of the Province of Louisiana_, we are of opinion, that there may be established therein considerable commerce, &c., we have resolved to grant the commerce of the country of Louisiana to the Sieur Anthony Crozat, &c. For these reasons, &c. we, by these presents signed by our hand, have appointed and do appoint the said Sieur Crozat, to carry on a trade in all the lands possessed by us, and bounded by New Mexico _and by the lands of the English of Carolina_, all the establishments, ports, havens, rivers, and principally the port and haven of the Isle Dauphine, heretofore called Massacre; the river of St. Louis, heretofore called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far as the Illinois, together with the river St. Philip, heretofore called the Missouri, and of St. Jerome, heretofore called Onabache, with all the countries, territories, and lakes within land, and the rivers which fall directly or indirectly into that part of the river St. Louis.

‘_The Articles_――¹. Our pleasure is, that all the aforesaid lands, countries, streams, rivers, and islands be, and _remain comprised under the name of the government of Louisiana_, which shall be dependent upon the general government of New France, to which it is subordinate; and further, that all the lands which we possess from the Illinois, be united, &c. to the general government of New France, and become part thereof, &c.’

3 – The chairman had risen to put the question, which would have cut Mr. Clay off from the opportunity of speaking, by carrying the bill to the house.――_Editor._

4 – This prediction is already beginning to be realized.――_Editor._

5 – It is due to Mr. Clay to observe, that one of the most offensive expressions used by Mr. Quincy, an expression which produced disgust on all sides of the house, has been omitted in that gentleman’s reported speech, which in other respects has been much softened.――_Editor._

6 – It is impossible to describe the pathetic effect produced by this part of the speech. The day was chilling cold; so much so, that Mr. Clay has been heard to declare, that it was the only time he ever spoke, when he was unable to keep himself warm by the exercise of speaking; yet there were few eyes that did not testify to the sensibility excited.――_Editor._

7 – This speech was never published.

8 – The proposition which it asserts was, he thought, sufficiently maintained by barely reading the clause in the constitution on which it rests: ‘the congress _shall have_ power to dispose, &c. the territory or other property belonging to the United States.’

9 – The house of representatives has uniformly maintained its right to deliberate upon those treaties, in which their coöperation was asked by the executive. In the first case that occurred in the operation of our government, that of the treaty commonly called Mr. Jay’s treaty, after general Washington refused to communicate his instructions to that minister, the house asserted its rights, by fifty odd votes to thirty odd. In the last case that occurred, the convention in 1815 with Great Britain, although it passed off upon what was called a compromise, this house substantially obtained its object; for, if that convention operated as a repeal of the laws with which it was incompatible, the act which passed was altogether unnecessary.

10 – The resolution, offered by Mr. Clay, declaring that the United States would not see with indifference any interference of the holy alliance in behalf of Spain against the new American republics.

11 – Madame de Staël.

12 – It has been, since the delivery of the speech, suggested, that the reverend Robert Finley, of New Jersey, (who is also, unfortunately, dead,) contemplated the formation of a society, with a view to the establishment of a colony in Africa, and probably first commenced the project. It is quite likely that he did; and Mr. Clay recollects seeing Mr. Finley and consulting with him on the subject, about the period of the formation of the society. But the allusion to Mr. Caldwell was founded on the facts, well known to Mr. Clay, of his active agency in the organization of the society, and his unremitted subsequent labors, which were not confined to the District of Columbia, in promoting the cause.

13 – A society of a few individuals, without power, without other resources than those which are supplied by spontaneous benevolence, to emancipate all the slaves of the country!

14 – See the last annual report and the highly interesting historical sketch of the reverend Mr. Ashmun.

15 – To say nothing of cotton produced in other foreign countries, the cultivation of this article, of a very superior quality, is constantly extending in the adjacent Mexican provinces, and but for the duty, probably, a large amount would be introduced into the United States, down Red river and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

16 – Mr. Clay subsequently understood that colonel Murray was a merchant.

17 – Mr. Clay stated that he assumed the quantity which was generally computed, but he believed it much greater, and subsequent information justifies his belief. It appears from the report of the cotton committee appointed by the New York convention, that _partial_ returns show a consumption of upwards of two hundred and fifty thousand bales; that the cotton manufacture employs nearly forty thousand females, and about five thousand children; that the total dependants on it are one hundred and thirty-one thousand four hundred and eighty-nine; that the annual wages paid are twelve million one hundred and fifty-five thousand seven hundred and twenty-three dollars; the annual value of its products thirty-two million three hundred and six thousand and seventy-six dollars; the capital forty-four million nine hundred and fourteen thousand nine hundred and eighty-four dollars; the number of mills seven hundred and ninety-five; of spindles, one million two hundred and forty-six thousand five hundred and three; and of cloth made, two hundred and sixty million four hundred and sixty-one thousand nine hundred and ninety yards. This statement does not comprehend the western manufactures.

18 – As to Shirley, Mr. Clay acknowledges his mistake, made in the warmth of debate. It is yet the abode of the respectable and hospitable descendants of its former opulent proprietor.

19 – This subject had been set down for this day. It was generally expected, in and out of the senate, that it would be taken up, and that Mr. Clay would address the senate. The members were generally in their seats, and the gallery and lobbies crowded. At the customary hour, he moved that the subject pending should be laid on the table, _to take up the land bill_. It was ordered accordingly. At this point of time Mr. Forsyth made a motion, supported by Mr. ♦Tazewell, that the senate proceed to executive business. The motion was overruled.

20 – It is understood to have been read by Mr. Hill.

21 – The following is the proceeding to which Mr. Clay referred:

Resolved, by the general assembly of Maryland, that the senators and representatives from this state in congress, be requested to use their utmost endeavors, in the admission of the state of Missouri into the union, to prevent the prohibition of slavery from being required of that state as a condition of its admission.

It passed, January, 1820, in the affirmative. Among the names of those in the negative, is that of Mr. Taney.

22 – The amendment was in the following words:

_Be it further enacted_, that in all instances of appointment to office by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, the power of removal shall be exercised only in concurrence with the senate; and when the senate is not in session, the president may suspend any such officer, communicating his reasons for the suspension ♦during the first month of its succeeding session, and if the senate concur with him, the officer shall be removed; but if it do not concur with him, the officer shall be restored to office.

Mr. Clay was subsequently induced not to urge his amendment at this time.

23 – The following is the table referred to by Mr. Clay.

_Statement showing the dividend of each state, (according to its federal population,) of the proceeds of the public lands, during the years 1833, 1834, and 1835, after deducting from the amount fifteen per centum, previously allowed to the seven new states._

Fifteen per Share for centum Total Federal each to new to new States. population. state. states. states. ―――――――――――――― ――――――――――― ――――――――― ――――――――― ――――――――― Maine 399,437 $617,269 New Hampshire 269,326 416,202 Massachusetts 610,408 943,293 Rhode Island 97,194 150,198 Connecticut 297,665 459,996 Vermont 280,657 433,713 New York 1,918,553 2,964,834 New Jersey 319,922 494,391 Pennsylvania 1,348,072 2,083,233 Delaware 75,432 116,568 Maryland 405,843 627,169 Virginia 1,023,503 1,581,669 North Carolina 639,747 988,632 South Carolina 455,025 701,495 Georgia 429,811 664,208 Kentucky 621,832 960,947 Tennessee 625,263 966,249 Ohio 935,884 1,446,266 230,844 1,677,110 Louisiana 171,694 265,327 67,661 332,888 Indiana 343,031 530,102 325,485 855,588 Illinois 157,147 242,846 483,760 726,606 Missouri 130,419 201,542 174,354 375,897 Mississippi 110,358 170,541 788,403 958,945 Alabama 262,508 405,666 541,940 947,607

[Fractions of dollars are omitted in the above sums.]

24 – MESSRS. GALES & SEATON:

In the speech which I addressed to the senate, on the subject of abolition petitions, I ascribed to Dr. Franklin the authorship of the law passed by the state of Pennsylvania, in 1780, for the gradual emancipation of slaves. Such was the impression on my mind; but, from a communication which I have since received, I believe that the measure originated with another distinguished citizen of Pennsylvania, the late honorable George Bryan.

I will thank you to make this correction, unimportant in respect to the use I made of the fact, but otherwise just and proper. Yours, respectfully, H. CLAY Washington, March 2, 1839.

25 – The result of the returns has since been announced, and it shows a population of rising seventeen millions. Still Ohio has the proportion supposed, of about one tenth of the population, according to _federal numbers_, which furnish the rate proposed for distribution.

26 – It is but justice to those officers to say, that the most extravagant increase in the contingent expenses of congress is in the article of printing, for which they are not responsible.

Transcriber’s Notes.

The following corrections have been made in the text:

Page 12: Sentence starting: Among them were George Nicholas,... – ‘Brekenridge’ replaced with ‘Breckenridge’ (George Nicholas, John Breckenridge,)

Page 28: Sentence starting: ‘How far is it the policy.... – Missing endquote in text; placement uncertain. (‘How far is it the policy...)

Page 31: Sentence starting: In the early part of the session.... – ‘comformable’ replaced with ‘conformable’ (conformable to the decisions of)

Page 40: Sentence starting: He maintained that these laws.... – Missing endquote in text; placement uncertain. (‘a legislative construction)

Page 52: Sentence starting: It placed in bold relief.... – ‘babaric’ replaced with ‘barbaric’ (the barbaric depredations)

Page 55: Sentence starting: A people having, besides.... – ‘prostated’ replaced with ‘prostrated’ (which must be prostrated before)

Page 82: Sentence starting: A most animated discussion.... – ‘uinimpaired’ replaced with ‘unimpaired’ (in the unimpaired possession)

Page 93: Sentence starting: A few days subsequent.... – ‘subseqent’ replaced with ‘subsequent’ (A few days subsequent)

Page 105: Sentence starting: He went on to state,... – ‘slighest’ replaced with ‘slightest’ (agitate in the slightest degree)

Page 111: Sentence starting: If she would but extend.... – ‘exend’ replaced with ‘extend’ (but extend her hand)

Page 115: Sentence starting: Says one familiar with.... – Missing endquote in text; placement uncertain. (‘popular meetings,...)

Page 138: Sentence starting: Soon after the appearance.... – ‘Beverly’ replaced with ‘Beverley’ (Mr. Carter Beverley,)

Page 151: Sentence starting: He promptly obeyed the call,... – ‘slighest’ replaced with ‘slightest’ (which cast the slightest shade)

Page 160: Sentence starting: But the salvation of it.... – ‘retrogade’ replaced with ‘retrograde’ (making this retrograde movement,)

Page 165: Sentence starting: The governor’s room.... – ‘visiters’ replaced with ‘visitors’ (constant succession of visitors.)

Page 171: Sentence starting: There is an abundance.... – ‘veneficial’ replaced with ‘beneficial’ (it is perfectly beneficial.)

Page 174: Sentence starting: I cannot but remember,... – ‘weilding’ replaced with ‘wielding’ (though wielding such a vast)

Page 189: Sentence starting: No permanent advantage, however,... – ‘permanant’ replaced with ‘permanent’ (No permanent advantage, however,)

Page 190: Sentence starting: His power of illustration.... – ‘mysterous’ replaced with ‘mysterious’ (knowledge of its mysterious movements.)

Page 208: Sentence starting: Born in an humble station,.... – ‘withont’ replaced with ‘without’ (without any of the adventitious)

Page 215: Sentence starting: That coöperation did not end.... – ‘unyelding’ replaced with ‘unyielding’ (the unyielding opposition to)

Page 217: Sentence starting: MR. BRECKENRIDGE then rose.... – ‘Breckinridge’ replaced with ‘Breckenridge’ (Mr. BRECKENRIDGE then rose)

Page 245: Sentence starting: The question was then put.... – ‘Breckenbridge’ replaced with ‘Breckenridge’ (proposed by Mr. Breckenridge,)

Page 250: Sentence starting: I could not but realize.... – ‘memery’ replaced with ‘memory’ (to cheer his memory and his)

Page 431: Sentence starting: Whatever may be the character.... – ‘maintaing’ replaced with ‘maintaining’ (capable of maintaining the relations)

Page 448: Sentence starting: It will be seen, that Mr. Clay.... – ‘Munroe’ replaced with ‘Monroe’ (administration of Mr. Monroe,)

Page 582: Sentence starting: It is a circle of.... – ‘philanthrophy’ replaced with ‘philanthropy’ (circle of philanthropy,)

Page 629: Sentence starting: If I have not been.... – ‘misimformed’ replaced with ‘misinformed’ (If I have not been misinformed)

Page 631: Sentence starting: According to the principle.... – ‘Excutive’ replaced with ‘Executive’ (compass of the Executive power,)

Page 799: Sentence starting: If it were possible to pacify.... – ‘he’ replaced with ‘be’ (no difficulty need be apprehended.)

Page 950: Sentence starting: The committee on foreign relations.... – ‘delaring’ replaced with ‘declaring’ (declaring that Texas)

Page 980: Sentence starting: No prudent or practical government,... – duplicated word removed ‘in’ (will in its measures)

Page 995: Sentence starting: Neither of them,... – ‘1823’ replaced with ‘1833’ (whatever in 1833.)

Page 998: Sentence starting: [Here Mr. Clay read parts.... – ‘speculototors’ replaced with ‘speculators’ (attempts were made by speculators,)

Page 1211: Sentence starting: Mr. Clay had hitherto viewed.... – ‘weigh’ replaced with ‘weight’ (in its numerical weight,)

Page 1244: Sentence starting: And first, the government will,... – ‘preseve’ replaced with ‘preserve’ (and thus preserve the public)

Page 1262: Sentence starting: [Here some body cried out.... – ‘Beverly’ replaced with ‘Beverley’ (Mr. Carter Beverley,)

Page 1301: Sentence starting: One of these objections was.... – duplicated word removed ‘at’ (if admitted at all,)

Page 1306: Sentence starting: Now, sir, if you admit California,... – ‘settlemennt’ replaced with ‘settlement’ (to the settlement of the boundary)

Footnote 19: Sentence starting: At this point of time Mr. Forsyth.... – ‘Tazwell’ replaced with ‘Tazewell’ (supported by Mr. Tazewell,)

Footnote 22: Sentence starting: _Be it further enacted_,... – ‘duing’ replaced with ‘during’ (for the suspension during the)