Life and select literary remains of Sam Houston of Texas/Part 4

by William Carey Crane

PART IV.

PUBLISHED SPEECHES.

 

---

 

SPEECH ON THE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF SANTA FẺ, AND IN DEFENSE OF TEXAS AND THE TEXAN VOLUNTEERS IN THE MEXICAN WAR.

Delivered in the Senate of the United States, June 29, and July 3, 1850.

The following resolution, subntiitted by Mr. Cass on the 27th of June, being under consideration:

Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting by law any Officer of the Army from assuming or exercising within the limits of the United States any civil power or authority not conferred by an act of Congress, and of providing an adequate punishment for such offenses.

To which resolution Mr. Hale offered the following amendment, viz.

"And that this said committee also inquire whether, at any time since the commencement of the late war with Mexico, any orders have been issued by this Administration conferring civil authority upon any Officer of the Army of the United States, to be exercised without the limits of the several States of the Union, and, if so, by whom, and to whom, and by virtue of what laws were said orders issued."

Mr. Houston said: Mr. President, I will not vote for the amendment. I am perfectly willing to concede that orders were given under the late Executive while we were in a state of war with Mexico, for the occupation of the Territories, and, in some instances, of States, by military forces, and that on some occasions their people were subjected to martial law; but at the same time I shall insist that the circumstances of the case fully authorized the occupation of this territory at that time by the authorities of the United States, and that it was necessary for the proper conduct of the war against the enemy. I hold that this was not the case in time of profound peace.

During the war, the State authorities were not in a situation to give the security and protection to citizens that they were previously enabled to do, but which the United States was bound to do. Under these circumstances a considerable portion of the State of Texas was occupied by the forces of the United States, and temporarily placed under military government. California was similarly organized, and a military officer was appointed its civil governor for temporary purposes; but this was not during a time of peace — it was during war. I presume that no Senator here will say that the present necessities are of such a character as to authorize the exercise of military authority within the jurisdiction ol a State. If, sir, these acts were thus excusable, or if I could entertain the same views with the Senator from New York [Mr. Seward], then I might content myself with the expression of regret that they had occurred. But I do not do so, and therefore I have no such regret to express. For an outrage so flagrant, committed on the rights of a Slate, I seek no apology, and I will fancy no palliation or excuse, because it might give encouragement to future aggressions which would lead to the destruction of the rights of States, and of the Confederacy itself.

Under these circumstances I am bound at once to meet the occasion. By what authority, I ask, and under what sanction of constitutional law, has the Executive of the United States authorized a subordinate officer, within the limits of a sovereign State, to convoke the citizens by military authority to form a constitution within the limits of that State, and to present it to this body, at a time too, of all others, when such a course was most calculated to produce unwholesome and unpleasant effects upon the Union? And for what? To effectuate a plan which has been projected by the Executive for the carrying out of measures endeared to him, because of his claims to their paternity. Sir, this is no apology to a sovereign State for an outrage committed upon her rights; no palliation for offenses against the Constitution; nor will it be received as such by the American people. I know our correctives, and recourse to impeachment is one of them. But when was a culprit brought to condign punishment by impeachment? It is but a solemn farce, and furnishes no effectual remedy. Then, if a subaltern officer were arrested, could he be punished for an offense perpetrated in obedience to the order of his superior officer? No, sir, martial law has wisely shielded him, and though arraigned, he can not be punished if he has the warrant of his superior for what he has done. It is the more necessary, then, to ascertain whether this officer [Brevet Colonel Monroe] acted under the authority of his superior; and, if he has, severe reprobation should be visited upon the offender, and not only upon the inferior executive officer, who only executes the commands of his superior.

Sir, there has been an unfortunate prejudice entertained on the part of the Executive, whether as Commanding General in the field, or as Chief Executive of the Nation, against the citizens of the State which I have the honor, in part, to represent.

The people of that State have been unwarrantably assailed, traduced, and defamed by the present Executive of the Nation, when a General in the field. If I were not fully sustained by incontestable authority, I would scorn to impute to any high functionary of this Government aught that was unworthy of his station, or the high position which he occupies; but I am fully sustained in every word I say, as I will show by reference to testimony stronger than the mere assertion of a political opponent, that will carry conviction to the mind of every candid man who is disposed to canvass or discuss truth when it is presented to him.

On the 29th of March, previous to the war with Mexico, when General Taylor occupied a position on the banks of the Rio Grande, as commander of the army of occupation, before one blow was struck, what does the General say in reference to the Texans, not one of whom, up to that hour, had ever been placed under his command, that I am aware of, and not a solitary corps was then ranged under his banner, and yet what does he say of them? In reference to the critical position of the army, as then supposed, he said, "Under this state of things I must again urgently call your attention to the necessity of speedily sending recruits to this army—the militia of Texas are so remote from the border and so inefficient when they arrive, that we can not depend upon their aid." Sir, he has assumed the responsibility of defaming the character of men, who, to say the least of them, had never given the least occasion for such an imputation as this—men who would have rallied to his standard in a moment if he had given the least intimation to them—men who would have periled everything in defense of their territory—men who, in recollection of former deeds, would have offered up their hearts' blood in vindication of the honor of the flag of that Union with which they had become incorporated, and to which the bright lustre of their own lone star had been added. Yet he says the army was in a position of peril, and he could not depend upon them. When, I ask, had they ever been inefficient or delinquent in time of peril, or recreant in the hour of danger? Yet here a high functionary of the Government, the head of a gallant army, whose heart ought to have been filled with admiration of valorous deeds, and ready to award the tribute that is due to unconquerable courage, stigmatizes the men of Texas as inefficient and unreliable in time of peril. Experience had never enabled him to judge of them, and was this, then, no manifestation of prejudice? Why, sir, two hundred and fifty rangers, if he had called them into service, would have repulsed any attempt that might have been made to cross the Rio Grande. And the songs of peace would have been heard uninterruptedly until this day upon the banks of that river. Five hundred Texan rangers would have been more than enough to accomplish the object. Yet, instead of calling them to his aid according to his authority under the Government, he denounces them as unreliable; and when at last they were called upon, what did he do? Did he permit them to advance, or to pursue the enemy, for it was the first opportunity they had of encountering them upon equal terms? No. They were restrained, fretting like chafed lions, anxious for the pursuit, while he permitted commands to be led in advance by men unacquainted with Mexican warfare, colonels from the interior were permitted to lead the advance through the dense chaparrals and jungles of Mexico, and the brave Texans were confined to southern plains, exposed, untented, beneath southern suns, to endure disease and death; but, fortunately for the survivors, the day was not distant when they could give new manifestations of irresistible valor, worthy of the cause in which they were engaged. At Monterey it was Texans who first took the Bishop's Palace, a key to victory. Gillespie's monument stands upon the heights, a record of unshrinking gallantry. The Plaza, too, was virtually in possession of the Texans, when the flag for the armistice was received, and orders were sent into the city to stay the daring enterprise of those who were on the eve of possessing the Plaza, and who hesitated in rendering obedience to the order, as they deemed victory within their grasp. Their gallantry on this occasion was no security against obloquy and defamation; even after the peerless bravery displayed on this occasion, they were denounced and stigmatized as the veriest refuse of men, and as a dishonor to the army. Is it strange then, sir, that a prejudice, so easily conceived and strongly entertained, should now extend to the invasion of our constitutional rights as a State? Is it strange that our civil rights should be no more respected now, than was our military character then? No, sir, it is not strange.

But I will read for the information of the Senate and of the world, if it chooses to be concerned with matters of such minor importance, further evidence of encroachments upon the rights of Te.xas as a sovereign State. Let me ask, was it from a dependent condition, or after passing through a system of territorial pupilage that Texas became a sovereign State of this Union? No, sir; when Texas became a member of this Union, she stood upon the earth as one of the great community of nations; she was herself a nation; and that sovereignty as a nation she has merged in this Union, and proudly claims equality with its other members. I will now read an extract from a letter of General Taylor's, dated near Camp Monterey, October 6, 1846:

"Sir, I have respectfully to report that the entire force of Texas mounted volunteers has been mustered out of service, and is now returning home by companies. With their departure we may look for a restoration of quiet and order in Monterey, for I regret to report that some shameful atrocities have been perpetrated By Them since the capitulation of the town."

What high encomiums are these in acknowledgment of chivalric and valorous deeds; what encouragement to cheer the veteran's heart; what encouragement to offer to the young and ardent patriot! In another extract I find where he says:

"One company of foot volunteers which rendered excellent service in the campaign, is now on their march to Carmargo, there to be mustered out of service."

From this you would suppose that one company had done all that was commendable on the part of the troops of Texas. Indeed! one solitary company had "rendered excellent service!" The success of their arms, the exertions, the vindication of American honor, at Monterey, I suppose, were all confined to one company of infantry. One company "rendered excellent service!"

In another extract which is under my eye, I discover an admission in favor of the title of Texas by the Commanding General, which does not harmonize well with his recent assumptions, that the territory of Texas does not extend to the Rio Grande. The extract says:

"It is deemed necessary to station a small force at Laredo, on the east bank of the Rio Grande, for the purpose of protecting that frontier from Indian depredations, and enabling the Government of Texas to extend its jurisdiction with more facility to that river."

The jurisdiction of Texas, under the eye of the General, extended to the Rio Grande; but under the eye of the Executive, Texas has no right on that river. How can this contrariety of opinion be reconciled upon any other ground than that of prejudice and a spirit of persecution. The Executive is seeking to inflict further humiliation upon Texas, by aiming a blow at her State sovereignty; but, sir, this is not all. I will recur again to the slander of her troops, by reading an extract from a letter written at Monterey on the 10th of June, 1847, to the Secretary of War, in which he says:

"I have ordered the muster of the company of mounted Texas volunteers alluded to in my letter of June 8th. It is enrolled for the war, and commanded by H. W. Baylor. Major McCullough's company has been discharged, and we have now five companies of Texas horse, the exact number laid down in your memorandum of April 26th.

"I regret to report that many of the twelve months' volunteers, on their route hence, on the lower Rio Grande, have committed extensive depredations and outrages upon the peaceful inhabitants. There is scarcely a form of crime that has not been reported to me as committed by them; but they have passed beyond my reach, and even if they were here it would be found next to impossible

to detect the individuals who thus disgrace their colors and their country. Were it possible to rouse the Mexican people to resistance, no more effectual plan could be devised than the very one pursued by some of our volunteer regiments now about to be discharged.

"The volunteers for the war, so far, give an earnest of better conduct, with the exception of the companies of Texas horse. Of the infantry, I have little or no complaint; but the mounted men from Texas have scarcely made an expedition without unwarrantably killing a Mexican."

Sir, what an atrocity!—killing a Mexican upon an expedition! Kill a Mexican —monstrous!—this done in the face of day. Kill a Mexican! Why, sir, we hear of no such complaints when battalions fell at Monterey—I will not say how disposed of. We hear no such sympathetic complaints then. But killing one Mexican!—what a deed!! I grant you, that wherever there are instances of criminal injustice and outrage inflicted by the military, the authors of them deserve severe punishment; but a spirit of justice would suggest a course of propriety in this respect, which would punish the real offender and have a moral influence on all around. This has not been done, but whole corps have been stigmatized and denounced, and the most extraordinary reasons given for this most extraordinary conduct in a Commanding General. In lavishing further encomiums on the Texan troops, he says:

"I have, in consequence, ordered Major Chevallier's command to Saltillo, where it can do less mischief than here, and where its services, moreover, are wanted."

"Where their services are wanted"—for what? To "do mischief"—that is, to kill more than "one Mexican," I suppose. Is it not strange that he should send these men, whom he is unable to restrain and control in the face of a large army, to a place where there was none to control them and restrain them from outrage on the Mexicans? Were "their services" wanted there for outrage and depredation? or were they sent there with a view of ascertaining whether new temptations would inspire with a stronger sense of duty?

"The constant recurrence of such atrocities, which I have been reluctant to report to the Department, is my motive for requesting that no more troops may be sent to this column from the State of Texas."

"No more troops from Texas."

They had been an incumbrance to him, one would suppose; yet one of them, the gallant and lamented Walker, was mainly instrumental in saving the army from disaster at Palo Alto, and McCullough, who, in the General's report of the battle of Buena Vista, was only mentioned as having done very well, was designated as one of the spies sent on to Encarnacion, and was also a Texan. Instead of saying in that report that McCullough gave him information which saved the army, he spoke of him as one of the spies dispatched for information, but did not state that it was through him that he had derived it. Yes, sir, it was McCullough who reconnoitered the enemy's camp, and possessed himself of the first information of the advance of Santa Anna, and by communicating it to the General, enabled him to fall back from Agua Nueva to Buena Vista, where the gallant defense was made. Well, sir, does not all this look like strong prejudice against the Texans? Would it not, from this evidence, seem most conclusively that this prejudice which existed in the breast of the General, and was formed before he had any knowledge of the character of the soldiers of Texas, increased with the services rendered by them to the Government and to the army? And are we now to have visited upon us further consequences resulting from this prejudice? Is the State of Texas, as a sovereignty, to succumb to the degradation of an infringement upon her rights, the subversion of her authority, and the infraction of her territorial limits; and is it expected that we are to submit calmly to the infliction of such gross and unjustifiable wrongs?

Mr. President, there is a principle involved in this matter which extends far beyond the temporary inconvenience imposed upon Texas, or the actual injustice which may be inflicted on her. It is a principle which lies at the very foundation of our Government, the subordination of the military to the civil power, the subversion of which would be the destruction of our liberties. Is a mere military power allowed to interfere and prescribe to a sovereign State what shall constitute her territorial limits and boundary?

In this case, the former President of the United States, who established in time of war temporary military governments, ordered the government of the Territory to be surrendered to Texas as soon as peace terminated the war, or I have been misinformed; yet the present Executive has continued the military government, and has not surrendered the territory to Texas. Less than two years ago, the military authority. Colonel Washington, expelled, or rather caused the ejection of the judicial officers of Texas from the territory; and now, when Major Neighbors had succeeded in reorganizing the counties where no military authorities were stationed, and went to Santa Fé, what was the consequence? There the military Governor avowed his resistance to the authority of Texas, and caused that hasty and inconsiderate action of the population which has resulted in the handing over of the territory to a mere judge of the Kearny code. And he, forsooth, has taken all under his control, and now assumes to be the sovereign over this wide domain of Texas! Sir, if the military authorities of the United States have a right thus to conduct themselves in such a manner in that territory—a territory within the limits of what we have ever claimed, and which were recognized by all nations previous to annexation—then they have a right to occupy our Capital, or to wrest Galveston from our possession That territory no more appertains to New Mexico than does any other spot within the limits of Texas. Yet Texas has not been complaining, nor has she manifested undue anxiety in demanding her rights from time to time. Years have passed by since she had a right to expect the settlement of her boundary. The territory to which it extended has been acquired by the United States Government, and in good faith, if they had discharged their duties, they ought to have settled the boundary with the termination of the war, and said to Texas what and where it was.

Does any one for a moment believe that if Texas had been aware of this attempted curtailment of her limits, she would ever have become annexed to the Government of the United States? No, sir, no one can believe it even for a moment. Mexico would willingly have consented to recognize Texas as a separate power, without the slightest hesitancy, if the latter had proposed to submit to a curtailment of her territory. And is it to be expected that Texas will submit now to such a violation of her rights as is here indicated? I ask the Senate, as Americans and honorable men, whether if this were a question between the Government of the United States and Mexico, as to boundary, it is believed that the United States would surrender one foot of the territory which Texas has always claimed as her right?

Mr. Clay. Will my friend pardon me, as the hour for the special order has arrived, to do us the favor to continue his eloquent speech on Monday, if it would be agreeable to him?

Mr. Houston. Anything that will advance the public business I will yield to with pleasure—it will be no privation to me.

The resolution was accordingly laid on the table.

Wednesday, July 3, 1850.

In resuming the discussion, Mr. Houston said: Mr. President, I regret to trespass on the attention of the Senate to-day, and I likewise regret that for several days I have been prevented by the business of the body from concluding the expression of my views on this subject, as it would have been much more agreeable to me to have done so the day ensuing the one on which I last occupied the floor; but to come at once to the subject, I will remark that developments very recently have been made which seem to give additional importance to the events now transpiring in the section of the country to which these resolutions refer. Before I yielded the floor, I had submitted the proposition to the Senate, not only as a body, but as gentlemen individually, whether, if the question as to the Texas boundary was now to be settled with a foreign Power, a doubt could be entertained for a moment that the United States would insist upon the boundary as now asserted by Texas? The memorial presented this morning by the honorable gentleman from Delaware, it would seem, has settled the claim of the Texas boundary, and decided in favor of the recent proceedings relative to the state of government in New Mexico.

These memorialists are doubtless about as competent to decide upon the rights of Texas, as many others who have adventured opinions upon a subject of which they can know nothing. They are, certainly, not responsible for their opinions; and I am unwilling that any irresponsible persons, however high and imposing their standing may be, should decide upon rights appertaining to a State. I object to any decision which may be attempted by any powers less than the constitutional powers of this Government. It is a matter of regret to believe, for one moment, that an attempt has been made, and is now directed by the head of this nation, in opposition to the rights of Texas, and for the purpose of impeding her claims to justice. Can it indeed be true that the recent occurrences in Santa Fe have been instigated by the authorities at Washington, and that the officers of this Government, there in command, are but carrying out the purposes and designs of the Administration? Everything would seem to indicate that there is, at least, no disapprobation of the course which has been pursued by the officer in command at that point; consequently, the inference is, that if it has not been directed by the Executive, it is at least sanctioned by his acquiescence. It seems to be in furtherance of the plan suggested by the President, which must be carried out at all hazards, and, if necessary, at the sacrifice of the rights of a State. It must be consummated; and at what moment is this plan urged upon the American Congress? Is it at a time when there is any probability of its producing peace and harmony, or has it a tendency to allay the excitement which exists in the country—is it calculated to produce any beneficial results to any one section of this vast community; or is it not rather calculated to suspend all action, and leave the agitation unquieted without a remedy? If the commotion now existing in the land is not checked, it will go on. accumulating strength and force with every hour's delay, and give potency only to those who seek prosperity in their country's misfortune. Sir, the high-handed measures which have been carried on under the orders of the Administration, in the expectation that Texas, a younger sister, feeble, rising but recently from all the toils and trials of revolution, exhausted, emaciated, and surrounded with the difficulties that press upon her, is unable to resist the mighty arm of the Government, or that she will succumb to wrong and oppression, or that, if her voice of remonstrance should be heard at all, it would be heard with apathy and indifference by her sister States of the Union. If this has been the expectation, it is a vain illusion. Texas can not submit to wrong. If this nation has heretofore withheld her rights; if her claims have been deterred for years and she does not at this time command the favorable consideration of Congress, it is not her fault. She received the solemn pledge of this Government to fix her boundaries long before the acquisition of California; that acquisition has been consequent upon the annexation of Texas, and has grown out of it; and yet California comes forward, and now claims admission as a State.

I shall not now express my views in relation to the course which I think ought to be pursued; I am here to vindicate the rights of Texas, and to urge them upon the attention of the American Senate. Feeble as my advocacy of them may be, her rights are most eloquent, and her claims are prior to those of California, and are not to be postponed. No, sir, there is an urgent reason why her rights should be at once considered, and why her boundary should be at once settled. Is it not all-important that a sovereign State, claiming rights from this Government, under its solemn pledges, should have justice meted out to her at the earliest moment? Is it unreasonable that she urges her demand? Not at all. Years have rolled away since she received the pledge of this Government to determine her rights, and yet gentlemen say that the war with Mexico has nothing to do with the Texas boundary. I take the liberty of assuring the gentleman from New York [Mr. Seward] that it had much to do with that question. Mexico declared that if Texas was annexed to the United States it would be cause of war. The work was consummated, and war ensued. I ask, then, if war had nothing to do with our boundary? Has it not brought vast acquisitions to our territory, embracing our boundary, and deciding it according to our stipulated limits? You have made Texas a bridge to march over to foreign conquests, and are you now longer to postpone the adjustment of her rights? But how are these rights considered by the Executive of this nation? Is it thought fit to trample on Texas because she is young, or because she has not the thews and muscles and the sinews of older States to uphold her rights? Are her rights to be postponed or cloven down because, perchance, she might not agree with the Administration, and might not give to it the numerical support necessary to carry measures obnoxious to the nation?

Sir, the prejudices of the Executive against Texas, to which I referred the other day, are most strikingly made manifest in his message to the Senate relative to the recent proceedings at Santa Fé; yes, sir, and even in her misfortunes, and humiliation as supposed by some, she is taunted by the Executive, and we are told that she will submit to all this. I will say, without vaunting, that Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from whatever source it may. In the recent message of the Executive, after saying that a self-styled agent of Texas, a Mr. Neighbors, had come to Santa Fé for the purpose of arranging matters for Texas, he adds, what I can construe as nothing but a taunt,

"Meanwhile, I think that there is no reason for seriously apprehending that Texas will practically interfere with the possession of the United States."

How did that possession come? Is it, as gentlemen have argued, a conquered territory? Was it acquired by conquest and by blood? Sir, if blood was shed to vindicate the boundary, it was shed in Texas, after the United States had assumed to vindicate her boundary, but it was not shed in taking possession of Santa Fé by the American troops. The blood that flowed was at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma in defense of Texan soil, which the United States occupied as a portion of the American Union by virtue of the annexation of Texas; the occupation of Santa Fé was upon the same principle, but it was bloodless, and the recent Executive declared that it was the property of Texas, and subsequently he repeatedly recognized the right of Texas to the country lying east of the Rio Grande. President Polk directed the Secretary of War, Mr. Marcy, to order the military authorities to surrender to the authorities of Texas the civil government which had been held temporarily by the military authorities at Santa Fé. Yet it is now insisted that Texas has no rights there, and she is driven to vindication on the floor of this Chamber.

Mr. Pearce. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question in explanation of a remark which he has just made? I understood him to say that the recent Executive had authorized the delivery of the government of this country into the hands of Texas.

Mr. Houston. Yes, sir. I have information to that effect—the military and civil authority.

Mr. Pearce. I should be glad to be informed by what act he did so?

Mr. Houston. It was by an order of the Secretary of War. I can not lay my hand on it at this moment, but I have no doubt of its existence; for I believe I have it from such authority as can not be doubted.

Mr. Pearce. I hope the Senator will be able to produce it.

Mr. Houston. I shall be happy to do so, sir; but, to let that point rest at this time I will bring more recent evidence to satisfy the gentleman. In a letter addressed by the Adjutant-General, on the 20th March, 1850, to Brevet-Col. Monroe, the officer commanding at Santa Fé, of course under the direction of the Secretary of War, I find the following language:

"I am directed by the Secretary of War to state, in reply, that, regarding as he does your orders to Major Van Home, of December 28, 1849, as manifestly assuming to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction of Texas over the places enumerated therein, and professing to extend a 'code' of laws which had not been accepted by the people even whilst under military authority, it is deemed necessary distinctly to repeat, for your guidance on this occasion, what the department has often stated, that the Executive has no power to adjust and settle the question of territorial limits involved in this case. Other co-ordinate departments are alone competent to make the decision. . The main duties of the army are: to give protection and security on the soil of the United States, and preserve internal peace. Whatever else is done must arise from the urgent pressure of a necessity which can not be postponed, and to avoid the exercise of any civil authority which is not justified by that necessity. In sending to these people the

'Kearny code,' or other codes, it is proper to remark, that the only regulations which are applicable to their condition are those laws which were in force at the period of the conquest of New Mexico, or Texas may establish. The only exception is, that they be not in opposition to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Thus, on the 2oth of March was clearly acknowledged the right of Texas to establish her laws and jurisdiction over that part of the country which is now claimed as New Mexico. Sir, this is authority which I hope will be conclusive, yet I shall endeavor to satisfy the gentleman's inquiries, and convince him that not only the present, but the former Administration, without qualification, regarded Texas as having the undoubted ownership of all the territory which she had claimed east of the Rio Grande by her ordinance of 1836. Sir, she never claimed less; she never asked more—she will be satisfied with that, and she will be satisfied with nothing else. And how will Senators for one moment vindicate the honor of the United States, and attempt to curtail Texas of one foot of her territory on the east of the Rio Grande? No gentleman who has a due regard for the national character of this country can, upon retrospection of its history, hesitate to admit the justice of our claim. The Government of the United States, as far back as the administration of Mr. Jefferson, whilst Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney were Ministers abroad, in correspondence with the Spanish Minister, insisted that the United States had, by the purchase of Louisiana from France, acquired all the country east of the Rio Grande, and declared that river the western boundary of the territory purchased, upon the principle of new discovery. It is laid down that all the seaboard taken and occupied by right of discovery, with all the lands lying on the tributary waters emptying into the sea, and the lands lying upon those tributaries, belong to the nation by right of prior discovery, as high up as their sources. This principle embraced all that has been and is now claimed as the right of Texas. This principle was either correct, or it was incorrect. If it was a just claim on the part of the United States, the same principle will hear out Texas in her claim. She occupies the same country on the seaboard that was (as insisted) embraced in the purchase of Louisiana from France. The United States acquired it, as it was insisted upon, by the riglit of purchase. Texas has acquired it by the right of revolution, and resistance- to oppression. She asserted this claim at the outset of her war of independence; during ten years of war she maintained her boundary, without having for one moment faltered in the assertion of her rights. But what did the United States do? That they always act honestly and honorably can not be doubted; theirs was either a just or unjust claim; if it was an unjust claim they were dishonored by making it—if it was a just claim on the part of the United States against Spain at that time, it is equally just now when made by Texas. But what did the United States do? They insisted upon the Rio Grande as the western boundary of Louisiana. Spain was not in a situation to go to war to vindicate her claim, and it was virtually surrendered. By the treaty of 1819, at the time Florida was acquired, the country embraced within the identical limits which Texas now asserts was disposed of to Spain. If the United States had a valid right to it, it was an honest transaction to sell it to Spain; if she had no right to it, then the recollection of such a transaction ought to suffuse the cheek of every Senator in this chamber with the blush of shame. Texas now only claims the same boundary in virtue of the right of revolution and the compact of annexation. If the claim of the United States was honest at the commencement of the present century, I am not acquainted with any code of morals that would render it dishonest in the middle of that century, when we regard the blood and treasure which Texas has expended in her acquisition. Sir, the President must presume upon the potency of his authority when he says Texas will not practically interfere with the possession of the United States. It is arrogance to suppose that she will submit to the usurpations of the military authorities in Santa Fé. He may imagine that these men whom he regarded as inefficient, and whose aid he could not rely on previous to the battle of Palo Alto, will permit unbridled assumption to trample upon their rights; this, sir, is a melancholy subject, one which I deplore, and my heart is not easy under its influence. Regard it as we may, it is an unhappy and unfortunate transaction. It was remarked a few days since by an honorable Senator that if Texas should attempt the resumption of her rights in Santa Fé she would find a "lion in the path." We have noticed now that he is upon his walk, he has quitted his lair, and presents himself in the person of Brevet Col. Monroe, with his epaulette, his sword, and all the majesty of military authority. And does Texas cower? Sir, she is erect; she knows her rights, and I hope she will act with caution, and not inconsiderately. No word that I may utter here can stimulate or regulate her action. The mandate has already gone forth, or I misapprehend her course. It is reported here that three thousand troops have been ordered to the field; they will not quit the soil; they will not invade the territories of the Union; they will defend their own; they will regard the transactions at Santa Fé as an act of rebellion, or of resistance within the limits of a sovereign State, and claim the right of its suppression. The power vested in the Executive of Texas gives him the right to call out the militia in case of insurrection or invasion—if he has made the call, let the consequences be what they may, I fasten them upon the inhabitant of the White House. No, not upon the individual, but upon the advisers who surround him; who can make him an instrument of malleable metal in their hands, and, after he has answered their purposes, cast him from them. But, sir, I hope that Texas, in her liberality, and in that magnanimity which she has heretofore sustained and maintained, will not be cruel. I trust her vengeance will slumber; that cool reason and devoted patriotism will triumph over all the petty passions of humanity, and that she will be governed by influences which elevate man above all that is sordid and hateful. They have no perverted ambition to gratify, but they have a sense of what is right, and I hope, in the adjudication of this grave offense, when they make the actors amenable to the violated honor and dignity of the State, they will not make examples of more of them than is needful, but I am fearful that, in view of the great offense, examples may be multiplied. I trust they will be confined only to flagrant offenders.

I have information in relation to proceedings that have taken place at Santa Fé, and it is certainly of the most remarkable character. It comes indorsed by the Executive, for it is embodied in the information given in his message upon a call of this body for information. It consists of extracts from a publication made in a newspaper at Santa Fé, urging the adoption of a State Government, and assigning as a reason therefor the wishes of the Administration. The tenor of it fixes upon the Administration the criminality of having instigated the late extraordinary movements at Santa Fé. The writer of the publication signs

"In this position of affairs the Administration, through a conservative principle, and with a hope of shielding our country from the calamity by which she is so menacingly assailed, calls upon us to take such decisive measures as will tend, so far as we are concerned, to achieve that object, and propose, as the only effectual means in our power, the immediate adoption of a State Constitution and form of government, with the explicit declaration that we are for or against slavery, and present them for the action of Congress this session. Hence it is we find ourselves placed in a very peculiar and delicate position. On the one hand we may hope, within the next three years, to get a territorial government, should the Union be undissolved; and on the other, it appears to be our imperative duty to abandon those hopes, and, for the preservation of our nationality, to assume a form of government we have always, and conscientiously, opposed as disadvantageous for us."

This shows most conclusively that an influence of a controlling character was operating upon the mind of the writer. That influence could have been none other than that of the Executive of the nation, operating through the officers of the army and their employés in the country. I have been informed that more than half a million of dollars are annually expended in that vicinity, and this, with the authority of the military, among such a population as inhabits Santa Fé, is sufficient to coerce the action most desirable to the Administration. The writer of the article is deeply impressed with the necessity of action on the part of New Mexico; he was well informed, too, in relation to the bearing which its action would have on the well-being of the Union; the evidences were before him, and he was "conscientiously forced" to abandon his former policy.

Where did he get the "evidences"? What "forced" him to action? Was it directions from Washington, which embodied the "evidences" that "forced" upon him a change of policy? Yes; and with all, he owed a "sacred duty to the Union." I will read the extract:

"Believing, as I am most conscientiously forced to do by the evidences now before me, that the peril to the Union is certain, imminent, and immediate, and that it is in our power materially to aid in diverting it, I hold it a sacred duty I owe to the Union, my adopted country, and to myself, to advise the native people of New Mexico that I conceive it to be their duty, as well as my own, and that of every other American citizen in the territory, to come forward boldly, and at once, and endeavor to sustain the integrity of our Union by the formation of a State Constitution and government, with an explicit declaration on the subject of slavery."

Previous to writing this article, it appears that the people had been "always," and conscientiously, opposed to the State government, as disadvantageous to them; but now the conservative principle of the Administration calls upon them to take decisive measures, which they certainly have done, as far as they were able.

The Executive is not here directly charged, but the Administration is, and "whatever has been done amiss the President is responsible for. He has attempted to trample down the rights of a sovereign State, and thus by military power to vindicate the wrongs inflicted. The outrage upon Texas has been enforced by military power, contrary to the authority of the Constitution. Is this military power a portion of the "sovereign power" which we hear spoken of? I hope, sir, that it is not becoming a favored principle at the White House. If it is, not only Texas, but every State in the Union, may tremble for her rights and her institutions.

In March last, by order of the President, the Adjutant-General referred him to the instructions given to General Riley, under date 26th June, 1849, in which this remarkable expression appears: " Such regulations must necessarily be temporary, as they are presumed to be voluntary, and designed to meet emergencies and difficulties which the sovereign power will take the earliest occasion to remove." This was in reference to the rules and mode of governing the people in California, and is here adopted as applicable to New Mexico. What is the sovereign power here referred to? Is it the action of co-ordinate departments of Government? That can not be, for the sole remedy which has been here applied has been the authority of the Executive to his subalterns; Congress has taken no action upon it; the Supreme Court has made no decision, but the President of the United States has exercised the sovereign right of deciding that Texas has no just claim to Santa Fé, and the country east of the Rio Grande, If we will recur to a communication made by Brevet-Colonel Monroe, addressed to Brevet-Major Jeff. Vanhorn, on the 28th of December, 1849, we will find opinions entertained by him then which differed somewhat as to the right of Texas, and evinced a disposition to concede to her the right of civil jurisdiction, until the boundary should be settled between Texas and New Mexico, or tititil instructions to the contrary might be received from superior authority. I will submit the extract:

"As no civil jurisdiction has been assumed over this district by the State of Texas, therefore, in order that its inhabitants may have the protection of civil laws and magistrates, it is hereby directed that you sustain the civil jurisdiction of the Territory of New Mexico, her civil officers and magistrates, in the execution of their duties for the protection of persons and property only, under what is called the 'Kearny code,' until such time as Texas shall officially assume civil jurisdiction, or the Congress of the United States finally settle the boundary between Texas and New Mexico, or instructions to the contrary may be received from superior authority."

From this extract it must be manifest that the orders then given arose from a full conviction that Texas had rights, and that she had the right to exercise them within that Territory. I will not pretend to account for the change of opinion that came over Col. Monroe, nor will I assert that it was induced by secret or verbal orders. It is sufficient for me to show that, at one time, not only the Administration, but its subalterns and agents, acknowledged the rights of Texas.

It would appear, though, that this was anterior to the exercise of sovereign power—a power of which Texas has but too much cause to complain. Sovereign power does not reside in the White House at the other end of the avenue, nor in the adjacent Department buildings. No, sir; the sovereign power of this Union is shared by every freeman, its embodiment passing through the States from the people; a portion of it is centered in the Federal Constitution, and thereby that becomes the supreme law of the land, and is the only emliodiment of sovereignty. The President is but the agent of the Constitution, and I protest against its violation by his subalterns at Santa Fé. It was an unseemly exercise of sovereign power to attempt to remove the difficulties before referred to, inciting a portion of the people within the limits of a State, and without its consent, to erect themselves into a State Government; this is a palpable violation of the Federal Constitution; and, sir, such usurpation can not long remain sovereign in Texas. I trust her rights will soon be restored, and exist for ages inviolate, contributing a full share to the perpetuity of this Union. But the consummation of this great object can only be achieved by proper respect on the part of the Federal Government for the rights of States by which it is constituted, and not by permitting the Federal authorities to trespass upon the members of the Union, because they may suppose that the States are unable to resist military oppression. For aught I know, Texas may be regarded by the Executive or his Cabinet as a mere picket, or a corporal's guard, and may be treated accordingly. Accustomed to the camp and field, he may imagine that he has only to issue his order to be obeyed, and that the soldiers and the bayonets which have upheld his power for forty years are to be instrumental in carrying out his present purposes. If this be his idea of sovereign power it is fallacious. And, sir, when the Executive taunts Texas, and says that there is no danger of any practical interference on her part, he is wrong; Texas is loyal and devoted, but she is sensitive too. She always appreciates her adversaries, she loves her friends, and when duty bids her take her stand she never counts her enemies. The army of the United States, marched there to enforce a wrong upon her, would be weak and powerless. She will not submit to wrong; she asks for nothing but what is right. Every military act which has taken place at Santa Fé, calculated to embarrass the exercise of her authority there, has been an encroachment upon her rights, and every attempt now made to countenance or sustain the action which has been taken already, will be but the continuance of aggression, and an effort to destroy her authority as a State. Had Texas, on her part, at any time, pursued a course of conduct not calculated to promote the best feeling with the military authorities at Santa Fé, there might be some extenuation found for their conduct; now it is left without palliation or apology. The commissioner sent by Texas to Santa Fé was a gentleman of manly and sterling qualities. How did he demean himself? In a manner becoming the character which he bore, and the interesting mission which he had to execute. He was respected by all, and his mission promised to be successful; and no doubt it would have been so, had not the military power been employed to resist him. That power, united with a clique (to whose character I shall directly advert, in order to show who they are, and what they are; how they got there, and what they are doing there, and what they intend to do, and their object in the formation of a State Government), to defeat the object of the commissioner. Yes, sir; this commissioner deported himself as an officer of his Government, as a soldier, who had passed through Indian trails, endured hardships, borne fatigues, and undergone privations within the territory to which he was then commissioned. He was only zealous to maintain the honor, and uphold the rights of his own State; he was worthy of his position, and most worthily did he conduct himself. I will now give a little insight into the character of those gentlemen who are so busily engaged in carving a new State within the limits of Texas. It is derived from a communication addressed to the editor of the Pennsylvanian, a highly respectable gentleman, and the editor of a highly respectable journal. The writer is from New Mexico, whose name is subject to the call of any gentleman. From the style of his communication, I freely infer that he is a gentleman of some mark and character for intelligence; and for the purpose of presenting many important facts, I will read the communication:

"Messrs. Editors:—As yours is the only sheet which, in its views, approximates near the truth, in relation to a portion of New Mexico claimed by Texas, I take the liberty, with your permission, of making some statements, which hundreds of American citizens in Santa Fé will at any time verify, and which the future will prove the truth of.

"The attempt to form a State Government there had its origin in the ingenuity and self-interest of not over twenty men, all told, each of whom, until the early part of April, had opposed with all his energies the organization of a State Government, and had clamored loudly in public, and in a newspaper which Government officers, in Santa Fé, had appeared to have sold, for the continuance of a territorial government. This latter kind of government, it was said, was much the cheapest; and besides, the New Mexicans would never consent to direct, or even to indirect, taxation.

"Some of these gentlemen were favorite contractors at the Commissary and Quartermaster's Departments of Santa Fé and the territory, having numbers of dependent employes; some were the settlers of Santa F^ and the towns along the Rio Grande, men appointed by the militaiy Governor, with certain privileges and immunities, which have made them rich at the cost of the poor teamsters and soldiers; then there were the clerl<s of the Quartermaster, and the clerks of the army stores. This clique of men, all of whom are recipients of pay from Washington, and some of whom are said to have accumulated a quarter of a million of dollars since they have been in Santa Fé, are the only political agitators of New Mexico. It is they who have been endeavoring, by the loan of paper, press, and types to Judge Ortera, a Mexican aspirant to the Gubernatorial chair, to excite the prejudices of the New Mexicans against all who are in, or whoever may come into the country, who will not think as they think; and it was they who contrived to have Mr. Hugh N. Smith sent to Washington as a territorial delegate. These men are now for a State Government. Why?

"Will it be presumed for a moment that they became tired of drawing their salaries, and of exercising the privileges of power and place which were theirs?—theirs far removed from the supervision of the people, or of the authorities of the United States? Their power they used wiih an iron hand; their favors were dispensed to those who well understood what was required of them in return. Why are these men now for a State Government? The answer is, because they are forced by the public opinion against them of all the merchants and citizens of New Mexico, who have witnessed their conduct, political and personal, to vacate the places which they have abused; and because the claims of Texas were admitted to be just by the almost entire American population of the territory, at numerous meetings held previous to the 16th of April, at every one of which meetings the Government clique, and their resolutions denouncing Texas claims were voted down, ten to one. In desperation, then it was resolved in caucus, before I left Santa Fé, to make a new move on the political chessboard, and one morning the citizens were nearly unable to believe that the men and the newspaper, which had always supported a continuance of territorial government, and ridiculed the idea of a State one, were the clamorous advocates of the latter, and had already put the necessary machinery at work, which has since induced Col. Monroe to act as he has acted in regard to Texas and her Commissioner, and has created the convention of twenty-three persons, who have lately proclaimed New Mexico a State.

"In all these movements tending to the existence of New Mexico as a State, the people had taken no part up to the 116th of April last; on which day I left Santa Fé for Philadelphia. The speculators had. Every one of the persons who aided to produce the events which have since occurred there I know personally; and every one is a Government employé, as well as a speculator—and in one case, peculator. What I say, Mr. Editor, I can prove at any time and place, by witnesses; and hold myself ready so to do. Nor have I told you scarcely anything yet, compared with what I will endeavor to state, of the manner in which the people of the United States are robbed, in New Mexico, by men who have held sway there, and who are trying still to hold it under the new aspect of things. Should you deem any information, which I may be able to give you, worthy of publication, it is at your service.

"Yours respectfully, J. M. D."

Now, sir, can any one suppose that this is the whole history of the cause which led to the maltreatment of the Texan Commissioner, or the consequences which are to flow from it? No. A Constitution is to be sent here by New Mexico, under the supervision and direction of the President of the United States and his Cabinet, and presented as a firebrand to produce additional distraction in the councils of this nation, and, if possible, to defeat every salutary measure intended for the reconcilement of the difficulties which now exist. The non-action policy of the Executive and his Cabinet is fraught with every mischief; it brings with it no soothing influence for the restoration of peace and harmony; it is only calculated to continue excitement, and increase existing evils. If New Mexico presents a Constitution, all the advocates of the administration will rally to the support of the measure; which will be urged by all the influence of position, and advanced by all the power of patronage. In what situation then will Texas be placed? Will not all those who sympathize with her situation and respect her rights, rally to her rescue, determined to vindicate her honor? It will be a conflict then of a sovereign State contending for her rights and privileges on the one hand, whilst military usurpation and sovereign power will be struggling to defeat her rights, and crush her spirit, on the other. This can not be done; but the very apprehension of such a course as the one contemplated by the Executive, is fraught with calamity and distress to the country. No one acts without a motive; and it is fair to suppose that the object which is aimed at is a continuance of the present men in power by a reelection of the present Executive. As one of the signs manifest, I discover in the letter of Hugh N. Smith, when urging New Mexico to adopt a State Constitution, that votes, votes are wanted here to secure influence, and consequently, if New Mexico is admitted, it will increase the States in the Presidential election. Sir, the horse is already upon the track; already has the administration organ announced General Taylor as a candidate for re-election. Why, sir, what sort of conduct is this on the part of the Administration; which should be alive to everything calculated to harmonize the country. Even the high object of the Presidential office, when brought into the scale against the union, peace, and prosperity of more than twenty millions of freemen, should be placed beneath the heel of all honorable patriots; yet this additional cause of excitement is at this moment brought forward to increase the confusion now prevailing. But I have hope that Senators will come up to the present crisis and look it in the face, regarding its proper settlement as the means of restoring harmony and advancing the prosperity of the country. I ask you, sir, where is there a portion of the earth so prosperous and so happy as the country which we represent? All the elements of human felicity and glory are in possession of the American people. It is true, a portion of the State from which I come is unfortunately subject to incursions from marauding Indian tribes, and I am fearful that the proceedings at Santa Fé will be calculated to increase the hostility of the Indians, and add to the calamities of our frontier; 'tis true that more than seven hundred infantry have been ordered into Texas; such troops may perform garrison duty, but against the Indians they must be inefficient. Cavalry, or well-mounted rangers, are the only description of troops that can be useful against Indians. I hope the design, in ordering these troops to Texas, is not to prevent her from any practical interference with the possession of the United States. If it is really intended for the protection of the frontier, and not as a menace to Texas, I sincerely hope that by her it will be rightly construed. Nevertheless, I have confidence that Texas will exercise patience, the most elevated patriotism, and a reasonable zeal, while remembering that her rights have been disregarded by the contrivance of the Administration.

I will now say a word in relation to a subject, upon which I have not spoken in this body, and which I deem paramount to all others: I allude to the Compromise. If I had been opposed to that measure, it seems to me, from the manner in which it has been brought forward, and the consideration which has been devoted to it, the amount of character embodied in its production, the intelligence of the individuals who have combined in support of it, their connection with the fame and history of the present age, their former honorable achievements, and its presentation in this body by a chairman whose experience and high standing elevate him to an unrivaled position—when, under these imposing circumstances, it comes before this body, I am bound to accord to it, as well as its authors, my profound respect and consideration. Defective though it may be in some particulars, I should be tempted to distrust my own judgment if I were to condemn the general plan of the compromise. It may be improved by amendments, and. I doubt not, they may be of advantage to its perfection; but the great object to which it looks is of paramount importance, not only to us here, but to all throughout America, and to the civilized world; for should no compromise be effected, and distraction and anarchy stalk abroad, what happiness can we look for, or what perpetuity of freedom can we anticipate? Under these circumstances, I am disposed to give every possible aid to the measure in the hope that it will be made acceptable, that it may soothe or quiet the present distraction, until more fortunate circumstances shall dispel all clouds, and hush the jarring elements to peace.

I alluded the other day but cursorily— though not cursorily either—to the feelings which have always been evinced by the Executive, and now transferred to the Administration, against Texas and New Mexico, I must say with the intention of doing the President great justice, as I atn always ready to do. Though I do not like the way he has treated Texas, still I desire to make the proper distinction between a thing well done and one which is not well done. The President did say, in relation to the abuse lavished upon Texan troops during the war with Mexico, on one occasion—for I remember the publication that was made on the subject—that the information which was embodied in the dispatches read by me, was derived from an ex-Governor of Texas, then in command of those troops; and that if they were misrepresentations the Governor was the author of them. That Governor, I believe, denied that this was true. Whoever was the author of the calumny, I will not pretend to say; for as the Generals are both in high positions, it would be a piece of arrogance for one so humble as I am to decide a question of such delicate import. It is a question of veracity between one who occupies the mansion at the other end of the Capitol, and another who is the ex-Governor of a State, and the sole representative of the sole lone star of Texas in the late Nashville Convention—and self-constituted at that. Yet, however the matter may stand between those Generals, Texas shall not be undeservedly slandered without an effort on my part to vindicate her reputation.

Well, sir, the Nashville Convention—I have no right to speak harshly of the meritorious gentlemen composing that Convention—never has been a pet of mine. I thought I discovered an inkling of such manœuvres some two or more years ago, but I do not desire to occupy the time of the Senate by telling what I then thought, and I will content myself with saying, that it never has been a pet of mine. If there ever was a time for such a thing, I have never seen it. If it was called in contravention of the Constitution, and in violation of its proceedings, I do not think well of it. The Constitution declares, that no one or more States shall enter into any compact or agreement without the consent of Congress; and I do not believe Congress was ever consulted on the subject. If it meant anything, it was contrary to the Constitution, because it must be a compact or agreement; if it v/as not intended to make a compact or agreement, then I must think it was a piece of ridiculous flummery, and not particularly entitled to my respect, though the individuals who composed it may be. Now, that is my opinion in regard to the Nashville Convention. In view of the fact, that not more than two hundred and fifty votes out of thirty thousand were given in Texas for a representative to this Convention; and as it is the fact, since I have occupied the floor since this subject has been agitated, I avail myself of this opportunity—in the face of this assembly of the conscript fathers of America—in the face of the American people and the civilized world—in the face of all order — for order is the first law of Heaven—and in the face of my Creator—as I believe it to be inimical to the institutions of my country—to disdain and protest against that Convention and its action, so far as Texas is concerned. Yes, sir, I do it from my heart, and 1 know the declarations will meet a response in the hearts of thousands who are imbued with a pure love of the Union, and who have rushed to it as an asylum from all surrounding difficulties. Think you, sir, that after the difficulties they have encountered to get into the Union, that you can whip them out of it? No, sir. New Mexico can not whip them out of it, even with the aid of United States troops. No, sir!—no, sir! We shed our blood to get into ii, and we have now no arms to turn against it. But we have not looked for aggression upon us from the Union. We have looked to the Union of these States and its noble course to vindicate our rights, and to accord to us what in justice we claim—what we have ever claimed—and less than which we can never claim.

The honorable Senator from New York [Mr. Seward], yesterday when speaking of a measure that is not remarkably popular in Texas, I think— the Wilmot Proviso—said that you might slay it here, and it had been said that it was killed, but that the ghost—the dead corpse—had returned, clad with steel, and proceeded to stalk through these halls again. I really thought he said a dead horse, instead of a dead corpse, at the time; and it occurred to me at the moment, that if I saw any such spectre walking through the Hall, or on any portion of terra firma to which I could lay claim, either in or out of the State of Texas, and I had anything to do with the grooming of that horse, I need not borrow old Whitey's silver currycomb to do it, but would take an iron one [laughter], and I would rub him down with that.

I shall not occupy further the time of the Senate, and shall content myself with submitting to their consideration the views I have presented.

Mr. Clay. As these resolutions are likely to be the subject of further discussion, I move to lay them on the table for the present.

The motion was agreed to.

[Note.—General Taylor's decease, shortly after the delivery of this speech, induced the author to suppress it, with the design never to publish it, had it not been that the Hon. Mr. Pierce, of Maryland, and the Hon. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, made replies which were published. As those gentlemen animadverted, with some degree of severity, upon Mr. Houston's remarks, he felt it a duty to submit them, with the reasons for them, to the community.]

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 11, 1853, ON THE BILL PROVIDING FOR THE TEXAS DEBT.

On the bill to provide for the payment of such creditors of the late Republic of Texas as are comprehended in the act of Congress of September 9, 1850, Mr. Houston said:

Mr. President: I am very reluctant to occupy a moment of the precious time of the Senate, and particularly when other matters which are, in the estimation of honorable gentlemen, of so much urgency are pressed upon the attention of the body. But the bill before the Senate seems to implicate the character of the State of which I am in part the representative on this floor, and demands of her Senators at least an explanation. If they are incapable of vindicating her reputation, if she can not be justified in the course which she has adopted, no excuse will be rendered for it; and, to determine upon the merits of her claims to consideration and to the due regard of her sister States, it is proper that we should advert to the circumstances under which those debts originated, and under which they are held by the present claimants.

Texas, when she rose from her revolutionary struggle, did not owe much more than $2,000,000; and more concurred in the opinion that she owed but a million and a half than that her debt exceeded two millions. This constituted the amount of her entire liabilities at that time, and up to the year 1838. From the period of the commencement of her separate Government, in the fall of 1836, down to the winter of 1838, her entire debt did not exceed $2,500,000, embracing all her liabilities; and her entire currency in circulation was less than half a million. It was from 1838 up to the end of 1841, that the debt accumulated from two and a half millions to the enormous sum of twelve millions of dollars. This was not, as gentlemen seem to understand it in most instances, a debt created by the sale of bonds, pledging the faith of Texas for their redemption; for a little more than one million of bonds are all that are outstanding against Texas. The other debts have resulted from her currency. The impression has gone abroad that Texas was placed on a footing with other States, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and others, who sold their bonds at a depreciation, and that, therefore, the question would not arise whether she received the full value of those bonds or not; but that she was bound to pay them at their face; that she had received the most that could be obtained for them, and that the risk justified the depreciation of price at which they were purchased.

I know that these are the impressions which have gone abroad throughout the community; and if Texas, when her credit was low and depressed, had been compelled to raise means for the support of her armies and for the expenses of her civil list, and had for that purpose sold bonds calling on their face for a hundred cents to the dollar, and had only received fifty cents, she would yet have been bound in good faith to redeem them according to the letter of the liability, and would have had no excuse for shrinking from punctually meeting her obligations but inability to pay her debts. But when we look into the nature of the liabilities of Texas, we find that, with the exception of about one million of dollars, they are of a very different character from what has been generally supposed. Texas issued promissory notes. Up to 1838, these passed currently at par. A change in the administration of the Government then took place, and the first act of the new Administration was to raise new regiments for the purpose of defending the frontiers, as it was said, and then, although the previous amount allowed to the Executive for frontier defense had been inconsiderable, it was swelled up by appropriations to the amount of a million and a half of dollars, and the civil list had no less than half a million appropriated to support it.

The throwing of these two millions of dollars of promissory notes into circulation, had the effect of lowering the value of the former currency, and the whole depreciated at least fifty per cent., and gradually declined from that to the lowest point of depression. Successive issues were made, and the depreciation continued during the years 1839, 1840, and 1841; and in proportion as the issues were increased the depreciation went on. During that period immense expenditures were incurred and liabilities issued, for which there was not the semblance of authority. The Santa Fé expedition was fitted out, and must have cost more than one million of dollars; and that expenditure was incurred, not only without authority, but in positive violation of the expressed will of the two Houses of the Texan Congress, by a mere dictum of the Executive. The arms and munitions of war of the country were entirely expended in that expedition; and accumulated expenditures were bequeathed to the succeeding Administration. Thus issues to the amount of millions were made without authority, and they became valueless. In December, 1841, Texas suspended payment because she was then unable to pay her debts.

But here let me ask. Who are these creditors who now come forward with such plaintive appeals to this body? Who are they who are imploring the commiseration of Senators: "Help us or we sink "? Are they men who were sufferers by the Texan revolutionary struggle? or are they men who speculated upon the individuals who went through the toils and dangers of that revolution? These promissory notes depreciated in the hands of men who had toiled and fought in the revolution, men who had there given their services and their energies to the cause of independence. In their hands the notes depreciated until they became valueless. They were then thrown upon the market, they were seized upon by speculators. At auctions, in the streets of our cities and villages, they were submitted to public sale and cried off at from three cents to five cents, "Going, going, gone." Then it was that these speculators came in and secured their claims to the generosity and clemency of Texas, and the feeling and commiseration of this body! There were no bonds sold in market for what they would bring; but these were promissory notes sold for a mere song under the auctioneer's hammer, and "in quantities to suit purchasers," for they were piled up as large as cotton bales. When they were cried up till they reached about three cents on the dollar, they would be knocked down to the bidder, and he would be told to go and select from the pile as many as he wanted; he might take a bundle as large as a cotton bale. [Laughter,]

That is the way in which these evidences of debt were obtained. These are the liabilities for which gentlemen claim a hundred cents on the dollar, and which were acquired at the rate of from one to three or five cents on the dollar. No doubt gentlemen in the United States thought the prospect was very fine; they knew that the Texans were descended from the Anglo-Saxon stock, and that they would maintain their liberty in defiance of every difficulty; for the American race never retreated, never took one step backwards; and that from the day they had impressed their footsteps upon a perilous soil, they would go on. Such gentlemen, perhaps, thought that if the Texans were involved in difficulties, they might venture to sell real estate and get money when there was a prospect of investing it in Texas depreciated paper to much advantage. No doubt under these circumstances gentlemen in the United States purchased large amounts of the promissory notes of Texas at ten cents on the dollar, and now come forward and claim one hundred cents on the dollar! To exemplify it more particularly, I will state, that such was the depreciation of Texas currency, that, for instance, if a judge, getting a salary of $3,000, came forward to receive it, and his demand was exhibited, he would receive in Treasury notes $30,000, based upon no issue of bonds, but upon credit. In his hands, the money depreciated, until, perhaps, it became worthless, and then it was thrown into the market in some village, and purchased up by speculators at from one to three or five cents.

This is the character of the Texas liabilities. This is the manner in which they have been bought. What justice, therefore, would there be in giving a hundred cents upon the dollar for their redemption, when they were acquired at rates varying from one cent to five cents? Is Texas bound in good faith to do it.? Was the risk to these gentlemen worth the difference between three cents and a hundred cents on the dollar? I think not. Then, let me ask, has Texas evinced a disposition to pay her debts in good faith, and according to the rules of equity?

Upon these funds thus passed away at the most depreciated rates, and that were purchased up at a mere nominal rate, Texas has determined to pay upon none, no matter for what they were bought, less than twenty cents on the dollar, and from that rate up to twenty-five, fifty, seventy, and seventy-five cents, according to the dates of the issues of the notes, and the value at which they were issued, and also including, in most cases, the interest. This is the equitable principle upon which Texas determined to pay her debts. Does this evince a disposition to defraud her creditors, to involve her reputation, to repudiate? In these honest times, if a man gets his due, he is doing very well. Has not Texas done this toward her creditors? Texas, sir, has evinced no disposition to evade the payment of all equitable and just debts and liabilities.

I have every disposition to be very candid on this occasion, and therefore I think it due to the creditors, I think it due to individuals, and I think it due to the Government of the United States, to state plainly that I would not eschew one liability on the part of Texas, and transfer it to the shoulders of the United States. I would say to Texas, "Pay away the last cent in your coffers, bankrupt yourself, give away your hundred millions of acres of land, rather than throw the responsibility on the United States." If we were to be left destitute of a dollar, and without an acre of land available, the times then would not be as gloomy as those through which Texas has already passed. I would be sorry to see Texas not meet her just liabilities, and throw the responsibility of them upon the United States, and that then, through grace and tender mercy to the reputation of Texas, the United States should liquidate our debts.

I am for doing justice, and nothing but justice; but I am determined that something shall be understood in relation to this matter, more than the partial representation of the claimants was disposed to exhibit to the world. Who are those that are most clamorous against the injustice of Texas, and the wrongs which they have sustained from her? Are they men who have peculiar claims upon the sympathy of this body? Are they men who have peculiar claims upon the confidence of Texas? Are they men who blended their destiny with hers in her hours of trial? Are they men who marched with her armies upon their marches? Are they men who upon her vigils of peril watched with her? Are they men who toiled or starved for her? No, sir. They have sprung up, like dragon's teeth, around this Capitol within a few years; and we find the diffusive influence of this speculation upon multitudes that surround the Capitol. Members are besieged at every step with appeals, "Do this for us; do justice for us; save the reputation of Texas; be honorable, and it will do her some good." They do not say, in significant strains, "Fill our pockets, fill our pockets, will you?" though this is what they mean. They mean nothing else than to acquire, and to take away from either Government—I will not say ill-gotten gains—but what would be clear gains, if they got them.

The largest amount of the outstanding issues against Texas at this time arises from obligations that were issued from her treasury, for which she received but from sixteen to ten cents on the dollar; and now a hundred cents on the dollar is claimed for them, swelling the amount of her debts to millions. No matter how irregularly the debt was contracted by Texas, whether there was authority for the obligations issued or those brought in and funded; whether they were made without appropriations or not, Texas has estimated them, and placed them on a footing with the other equitable demands against her. She has extended equity when she might have caviled, and contended that, according to strict law, or common usage, she was not bound. Yet we are told that if Texas would only corre forward and redeem her outstanding obligations at par, or pay all the money she has in her coffers, and the $5,000,000 reserved by the United States, she would establish a reputation above all suspicion; that she would then sustain herself with credit; that it would do her more honor, and make her a more glorious nation than ever existed. Sir, Texas as a State is only a part of this Confederacy; one of thirty-one; and she does not aspire to be more glorious than the United States, or the mighty nations of the earth. We find that they have perpetrated offenses against good morality and national honor, which Texas scorns to do. They have repudiated debts, not only revolutionary debts, but others contracted in good faith. This Texas has not done, and will not do. She has not repudiated one dollar of her revolutionary debt, and she will not do it. She will pay a hundred cents upon every dollar she has realized. Is not that worthy of admiration? Yet gentlemen say she would be glorious if she would pay the nominal amount of her liabilities.

When the United States repudiated—I do not claim that as authority, but I wish to bring it in array before the public mind—it was for an amount upwards of $240,000,000 of revolutionary debt. Has Texas done anything of that sort? Has she repudiated one just demand, amounting to a single dollar, of citizens of Texas who assisted her in her hours of difficulty? Not one. The United States repudiated millions, and hundreds of millions, held in the hands of war-worn veterans, who had toiled through a revolutionary struggle of seven years. The United States repudiated the revolutionary debt of the war of Independence, which commenced in 1776. Texas, during her revolution of nine years, did not repudiate one dollar that was held by her revolutionary soldiers. The United States, when they assumed the debts of the several States—the old thirteen — after the war of the Revolution, required the States to scale those debts, and paid them at the scaled rates. If we were disposed to be a little tricky, might we not follow these examples? But if we have been tricky I do not know what fair dealing means.

We do not, however, claim the benefit of the high examples to which I have referred; but I think that in view of them it comes with a very bad grace from the United States to become administrator on the affairs of Texas, and to determine what are her liabilities.

The amount of $5,000,000 that was reserved in the Treasury of the United States was reserved at the instance of creditors, who were importuning and surrounding Senators here when legislating on this subject. Some sagacious lawyer had discovered that the United States were liable when they acquired Texas, and received from her means which were intended for the liquidation of her debts. It was not intended by that reservation to determine what the debts of Texas were, but only the debts of a certain character for which the Government of the United States might possibly be held liable. When were they to pay these debts? When ascertained by Texas, and certified to the Treasury of the United States. That was the object of retaining the $5,000,000, as I understood it at the time, and 1 voted upon the subject in all good faith and confidence, satisfied, as I was, that the amount upon which the impost duties of Texas were pledged did not amount to $5,000,000, and that there would be a large residuum to Texas of that amount.

The President and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, after the passage of that bill, determined, in effect, that the Government of the United States were liable for all the debts of Texas. It will be remembered that in the administration of the Government of Texas from 1841 down to the time of the annexation in 1845, there was not one dollar of debt incurred, nor one liability created. From December, 1841, when the exchequer system was established, and the immense issues of $12,000,000 were suspended, $200,000 was the amount of the currency established by law, and that commenced to issue at the rate of a hundred cents on the dollar. A combination was directly formed of brokers and speculators, gentlemen alien to Texas, who wanted to filibuster, and subvert the Government, right or wrong, who said that if they were not admitted into its control or made participants of it, they would subvert it, if by no other way, by revolution. They combined, and by their combination immediately reduced the value of that currency from a hundred cents to seventy-five, and at one time it went down as low as twenty-five cents on the dollar. By economical issues, by extreme economy in the Government, the value rose again. But the Legislature, which met annually, consumed a large amount, and being opposed to the Executive, sought every possible means to embarrass him; and instead of requiring the taxes to be paid as under the previous existing laws, they repealed those laws for the collection of taxes, or postponed their operation for six months, so as to depreciate the value of, by lessening the demand for, this currency, and thereby to embarrass the Government in such a way that it could no longer exist. However, the good fortune that presided over Texas, and directed her path, did not desert her. The currency came up again, and was at par; but after a long session of the Texas Congress it fell to fifty cents, and even as low as thirty-seven and a half cents; but it rose again, and continued at par, in spite of all the combinations and machinations of faction, corruption, and treason. When that administration ended, in 1844, the Government of Texas had not only accumulated in the treasury $25,000 of par funds in gold and silver, but it had paid all just and unavoidable demands to foreign nations, and to support the Santa Fe and Mier prisoners in Mexico, and to procure their release, not less than $70,000. So that the Texas debt, with the exception of $2,500,000 accrued between the years 1838 and 1841, not a solitary cent accrued in the administration which lasted from the end of 1841 to 1844. It will thus be seen the debt of Texas did not grow out of her necessities, and that the present creditors who come forward here with their demands, and who, according to their saying, helped Texas in her hours of trial and threw their money into her lap, instead of doing that, threw it into the lap of speculators. Not a dollar of it went to Texas which will not only be paid in par funds, but which will also, I trust, be paid with interest, and at a premium. There were bonds issued,—let them be paid to the letter and to the last farthing; but let those who have accumulated these obligations by speculation, and that, too, of a most enormous character, receive, like Shylock, their "pound of flesh," or two pounds if you please, but " not one drop of Christian blood." Sir, if these men were the assignees, or the descendants of Shylock, they would reflect just credit upon his reputation. [Laughter.]

But, Mr. President, it is thought that it is immoral in Texas—that it is not a clever thing in her not to pay her debts. Now, I should like to ascertain by what standard of morality we are to arrive at the adjustment of her debts? Is it that standard of morality that pays a man not only what he has given, but a hundred per cent, in addition to that? Or is it the standard it is proposed to establish here, that when a man has given three cents for a dollar, he is to get a hundred cents? Is it that rule by which we are to judge of the morality of Texas, and the advantage of her creditors? That would be a very agreeable one to the creditors, but I can not see that it would be complimentary either to the heart or the head of Texas. I do not think there is anything smart in it. It may be smart for the creditors, but certainly most stupid for Texas. They are for fixing their standard of morality for Texas, and she is for fixing her standard of equity and justice for them; and the United States have no business at all with it one way or the other.

If, however, the United States are bound for the debts of Texas, they are bound for much more than this bill proposes to pay. The independence of Texas was not recognized by Mexico when it was annexed to the United States. The domestic debt of Mexico was then about a hundred millions of dollars. They claimed that Texas should pay a part of it. Propositions were even suggested before annexation, that if Texas would assume her proportion of the national debt of Mexico, the independence of Texas might be acknowledged. If the United States are now bound by the act of annexation for ihe debts of Texas to the extent that the means taken by the United States would have gone, the debt to the Government of Mexico is a prior one, and the United States are bound to Mexico for a much larger sum than they are bound to these creditors. Would you be willing to go back and settle that amount? Yet it has a priority over the present demand. Mexico never recognized the debts that Texas incurred by her revolution, and if you recognize that you are bound to pay them, you should also pay to Mexico the proper proportion of Texas to the one hundred millions of the domestic debt of Mexico.

It is true, the Government of the United States might justly bear a part of the liabilities incurred on the part of Texas, because a portion of the debt of Texas was entered into for the purpose of defending her frontiers against the Indians. What Indians were these? Were they indigenous to Texas? No, sir. Who were they? The Shawnees, the Kickapoos, the Choctaws, the Anadacoes, the Kechies, Wacoes, Caddoes, and other Indian tribes from the limits of the United States, who settled in Mexico, and made war upon Texas. It was therefore necessary for Texas to defend a frontier of six hundred or eight hundred miles against the inroads of these Indians. The Government of the United States was solemnly bound by treaty with Mexico to defend Texas against the Indians, to reclaim them to the territory of the United States, and to inhibit their crossing the frontier. Instead of that, what did the United States do? I intend no reflection upon them, but I intend to vindicate Texas, now a part of the United States, but then a part of Mexico. The United States had solemnly pledged their faith, by treaty, to give protection to the boundary of Mexico; but instead of that, they treated with the Caddoes and acquired their territory, forced them into the boundary of Texas, and paid them in arms, in munitions of war, in powder, in implements of slaughter and massacre, and those Indians drenched our frontier in blood. Weak as we were—pressed upon by Mexico on the one hand, and the wily and sagacious Indian on the other hand, watching his opportunity to maraud upon our frontiers and slaughter our men, butcher our women, massacre our children, and conflagrate the humble hamlets in which they had dwelt in peace, we incurred expenses to keep them off, and for this the United States are responsible, as they are for a hundred other violated pledges in relation to Indians.

But what is the real history of this matte? When the scaling of the debt of Texas took place, in 1848, there was an almost entire acquiescence on the part of her creditors. Some three or four, or perhaps five, were somewhat refractory, and having more sagacity than the others, they concluded that there was some important advantage which they would gain by coming here, and therefore they had recourse to the Government of the United States. They might then have had in view the idea of a reserved $5,000,000 fund out of which they would be enabled to get their demands by appealing to the sympathy of members; by trying to show that they were bankrupted by their liberality in their anxiety to help Texas in the time of her direst need. They thought that if they could represent successfully to the Congress of the United States that they had been munificent and liberal toward Texas, it would entitle them to some extraordinary interposition of the Government of the United States. They came forward after the compromise was proposed, but not until that time. They received a new impulse by the proposal of the compromise. Most of them had acquiesced prior to that time, and we now find that hundreds came in who were not then interested in the debts of Texas, Strangers have come in as participants in the interest and are to be the recipients of its benefits. This is the case, and none will deny that there has been a most extraordinary change. If it had not been that the compromise of 1850 passed, the Texas creditors would nearly all have received their money, or their proportion of it, by this time, and would have been at rest and quiet, each man consoling himself in the advantage of having made a handsome speculation upon his adventure. But it was thought proper that there should be an appeal to the generosity and magnanimity of Texas, and after her to the United States, and that they might make something, and could lose nothing by that course. In that way it is that these claimants have not only multiplied, but they have become more urgent in their pursuit for gain, and are now resolved that nothing will satisfy them but the hundred cents on the dollar, according to the face of the paper.

Well, sir, Texas has incurred liability. She issued bonds to a certain amount. Let her pay those bonds with interest, since she made a tender of them in the market. Let her pay for her vessels-of-war or navy; let her pay all the just contracts she has made; all the equitable liabilities arising from the currency which she threw into circulation. That currency became valueless in the hands of her own citizens, and was then grasped at by greedy speculators. Let her treat them, as she has done, with justice and fairness. It was twice in prospect to repudiate the debt of Texas. But did she do it? It was talked of, and a little encouragement might have produced the result. The conduct of the refractory creditors had no doubt stimulated it. But Texas did not repudiate a cent. Her Executive discountenanced it. It may be that an extract will be read here from the message of her Executive, in 1843, showing that she would pay the last cent which she justly owed. So she will. But if that message is read, let it be remembered that not a word of the extract is recognized until the whole message is produced here upon the floor, and the whole instrument construed together. It was then laid down as a principle that the Government of Texas would equitably redeem every dollar that she owed.

She had evinced a disposition to do it by submitting her public lands to entry at two dollars per acre when her notes were selling at three cents on the dollar; and she had kept them open for years subject to entry at that rate. She has gone further, and says it will be just to redeem money issued at a depreciation at the full value at which it issued from the treasury, with interest thereon. That is the act of Texas. What the refractory conduct of her creditors may do with the feelings of Texas I can not say. Within a few years a total revolution has taken place in her population. The number of emigrants since annexation, I suppose has more than doubled or quadrupled the previous number of inhabitants. The interest on the money retained in the Treasury here will diminish the necessity of taxation by her. What her people may deem to be politic and expedient hereafter in relation to their debts I know not. I do not encourage repudiation. I hope it never will take place; but if it should, let those be accountable for the result who invoke and provoke their destiny. Let the sin lie at their doors. I hope it will never lie at the door of Texas; but those who have advanced, or who have contracts with her, shall be paid to the last farthing of what they have advanced.

A law was passed by the Legislature of Texas, after annexation to the United States, in 1848, by which it was provided, that any person coming forward and depositing fifty cents at the treasury of Texas, should take a receipt from the treasurer, and for every fifty cents received at the treasury he should be entitled to one acre of land. Certificates to the amount of more than half a million of dollars were deposited under this law, as I was informed, and land drawn, or land warrants issued, to that amount. These gentlemen have gone quietly and located their lands, and now realize several hundred per cent. How are the benefits of this bill to be extended to them.? How are they to be recompensed for the losses which they have sustained, according to the plan of this bill? Are they to fall back upon the United States? Are they to become recipients of the benefits proposed in this bill, or are they to be excluded?

But I am sure that the honorable gentleman who introduced this bill can not object to the principle of Texas scaling. She is to be the judge of her own matters. She knows very well under what circumstances the debts or liabilities were contracted. She knows their character perfectly; and we find that the honorable gentleman who introduced the bill has not determined to pay according to the face of the paper, or of the demands of the creditors; but he, too, is for scaling the liabilities. He proposes that a certain amount shall be paid, and that, if that does not cover all the liabilities, the creditors shall receive it according to the proportion of their demands, and shall give a receipt in full. Now, Mr. President, as for the morality of the thing, whether one cent or one dollar, one degree or ten degrees of discretion at all changes the standard of morality, I am not prepared to say. I think Texas is the best judge of this matter; so that the United States would incur an additional reproach upon herself, if she were, by this law, to take it out of the hands of Texas to adjust her own affairs. Texas knows what her liabilities are; she knows all the circumstances surrounding them, under which they grew up, under which they dragged along, and by which they were managed. She knows, too, the influences and the means of their acquisition. But she is not acquainted with the means and influences that surround this Capitol, and which grow every day. I know it is perilous, eminently perilous, to oppose an influence so overwhelming as that of the claimants here. I have stood in perilous positions before, but when I felt badly nobody knew it. I feel well on this occasion, and proud that I have a colleague who has realized all that experience could teach or suffering inflict. Personally, to those who are the Texas creditors. I have no objection. I look upon them as I look upon other speculators. I look upon them as I do on men who go into the market every day—men who wish to make, in their estimation, honest gains, and who would not have their consciences smitten if they made one hundred per cent, every day. That would not involve their honor, but it would, in their estimation, sustain the honor of those on whom they make the one hundred per cent. I want no more sympathizers with Texas. I do not want them to appeal in behalf of Texas, to rescue her honor. Her honor, her safety, her existence, her liberty, her independence, were once involved, and I did not see, in her direst need, and when clouds enveloped her in darkness, the face of one of those men who now claim to be her benefactors or her sympathizers. It was not until the last enemy had marked her soil—it was not until our star had risen in the east, and until it was attaining something like its meridian splendor, that the speculators were attracted by the hopes of gain. Then, in that proud day, they were willing to unite their destiny with her; but to grope their way in darkness, to peril their lives in conflict, to confront and grapple with the enemy, not one was there. Let them not talk of Texas' honor, Texas' renown, and Texas' escutcheon cleared. She cleared them herself, sir. It was not a speculation; it was a real transaction; and she will keep it clear. It is her best guardian under the segis of the Constitution. I desire justice and liberality to all who aided Texas; and no matter how they have acquired their demands, give them an earnest for everything they have, and upon that earnest give them interest, and, if you please, be liberal, but let Texas have the credit of doing justice to her creditors, and let not the United States intervene to save her soiled honor, as it is called. She will take care of that article herself, and she will take care of her money, too, I trust, and make a useful application of it in paying all just demands, but not the demands of Shylocks. Sir, I have done.

 

---

 

SPEECH ON THE NEBRASKA AND KANSAS BILL, U. S. SENATE, March 3, 1854.

Mr. President:—This unusual night sitting is without precedent in the history of any previous Congress at this stage of the session. The extraordinary circumstances in which we find ourselves placed, would seem to indicate a crisis in the affairs of the country of no ordinary importance; a crisis that portends either good or evil to our institutions.

The extraordinary character of the bill before the Senate, as well as the manner in which it is presented to the body, demands the gravest deliberation. This, sir. is the anniversary of a protracted session, in which the organization of the Territory of Nebraska was elaborately discussed, on the last day of the last session. In that discussion, which, like this, had kept us in our seats to the morning dawn, the prominent points of opposition were such as related to the Indian tribes. Such a bill at the present session would have met with no insuperable objections; but what do we now find? A bill entirely variant, and a bill which involves new and important principles. It has come an unexpected measure without a harbinger, for no agitation was heard of, and the breeze bore no whisper to our ears that the Missouri Compromise was to be repealed.

Its presentation has been as sudden as the measure itself is bold, and the excitement of the public mind is of corresponding intensity. We are told, to be sure, that there is no necessity for agitation, and that soon the public mind will be tranquil, and the country will be in a state of repose and quiet—as it was at the introduction of this measure. The honorable Senator who has just taken his seat [Mr. Douglas], the chairman of the Committee on Territories, in his lecture to the South, exhorted them to stand by the principle of this bill, with the assurance that it will be good for them, and that the country will maintain it Sir, under proper circumstances I should recognize the exhortation; but is the principle such a one as should be adopted by this body, or can it be sanctioned by the nation? Whether it is expedient and useful at this time I shall take the liberty to examine.

Mr, President, I can not believe that the agitation created by this measure will be confined to the Senate Chamber, I can not believe, from what we have witnessed here to-night, that this will be the exclusive arena for the exercise of human passions and the expression of public opinions. If the Republic be not shaken, I will thank Heaven for its kindness in maintaining its stability. To what extent is it proposed to establish the principle of non-intervention? Are you extending it to a domain inhabited by citizens, or to a barren prairie, a wilderness, or even to forty thousand wild Indians? Is this the diffusive excellence of non-intervention? I, sir, am for non-intervention upon the principles which have heretofore been recognized by this Government. Hitherto, Territories have been organized—within my recollection Alabama, Missouri, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Iowa, have been organized—and the principle now proposed was not deemed essential to their well-being; and is there any infirmity in their constitutions or their growth? Sir, has any malign influence attached to them from their simple, economical organization? It may be that the word "economy" is deemed obsolete in the present condition of our Treasury. Were it otherwise, I am simple enough to confess that the organization of two Territories—when there are not people to constitute an ordinary county in one of the populous States of this Union, and when those who do inhabit the Territories are United States soldiers, who are not entitled to vote at elections in the States or Territories—is not a procedure that can be characterized as economical. If the principle of non-intervention be correct, it is correct where the Territories have been governed by laws of Congress until they are prepared to make application for admission as States. Then they have a right to elect their delegates to convention, for the purpose of framing State constitutions, which, if accepted by Congress, invest them with all the sovereign rights of States; and then, for the first time, they have the complete power of self-government. A Territory under the tutelage of Congress can form no organic laws, either admitting or excluding slavery. A people without organic laws might alternately enact and repeal all laws, and re-enact them without limitation, as they would have no local constitution. Congress has a supervision over the action of all Territories until they become sovereign States. In the formation of State governments, I can say that they have the exclusive right to determine whether they will come into the Union with or without slavery. There, sir, is the application of the prmciple of non-intervention, and one that I have always maintained. But gentlemen speak of sovereignty—they say that the people are sovereign, and supreme. Sir, I bow with all deference to that sovereignty; but I do not apply the principle to the Territories in their unorganized and chrysalis condition. Sovereignty implies the power of organization, and a self-acting, self-moving, and self-sustaining principle; but the Territories have it not. They only acquire it when they become constituent parts of this Confederacy.

But we are told that the South has stood by the Compromise. I am glad of it. Yet gentlemen have protested against the recognition of North and South. Why, sir, they are recognized every day. The distinction has been recognized by the statesmen of every day, and every section of the country. Am I to be told that the question has not assumed that character, and that it will not operate to carry sectional influence with it to a certain extent? It is impossible that you can divest it of a sectional character to some extent. Why, we are told in the very breath that declares there is no such principle recognized, that the North has violated the Missouri Compromise and the South has maintained it; and yet do you tell me that there is no North and no South? Let us look at the action of the North and South. I am not going back to make a technical, or legal, or constitutional argument upon the facts and circumstances of the Missouri Compromise—its creation, its progress, its recognition, and final decision. I am not going to characterize it as a compact, distinguished from a compromise, because I can see no reasonable application of the one that does not belong to the other.

The word "compromise" is a more comprehensive and rational term when applied to an amicable adjustment of differences existing between two parties who are reconciled. I well remember that on the organization of Oregon Territory the South denounced the Missouri Compromise, and did not recognize it. Was not that denunciation subsequent to a joint recognition by both sections of the Union, the North and the South? Had they not united, the South, perhaps, with more unanimity than the North, upon its application to Texas in her annexation? Yes, sir, they had. That was in 1845; and in 1848, three years after, without any intervening act of bad faith on the part of the North, the South repudiated it on the organization of Oregon Territory.

Mr. Atchison (Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, in the chair). The Senator says that the Southern members of the Senate repudiated the Missouri Compromise on the Oregon bill. Now that, I think, with all due deference to the Senator, is not so. The Senator from Illinois proposed to the Oregon bill the Missouri Compromise, and every Southern gentleman, according to my recollection, voted for it—every one in the Senate. The bill went to the House, and the House refused to accede to it.

Mr. Douglas. Yes, sir.

Mr. Atchison. The Senator from Texas, and my then colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. Benton], alone of all the Southern members voted to recede from it.

Mr. Houston. I thank the gentleman for giving me a very pleasing intimation. It reminds me, Mr. President, of what did occur. We voted to recede from it. The other gentlemen did not vote to recede. They had voted in opposition to its organization and admission, or what was tantamount to it. And what was the reason? It was because there was a proposition, and I had introduced resolutions myself, to extend the compromise line to the Pacific Ocean. The North did not accept it. I did not believe it would be more than an abstraction. Why did I do it then? I will tell you. But previous to this, and at the time Oregon was organized by the Government, the South went against it, I may say, in a body. The Southwestern Senators and myself went for it, under the heaviest denunciations and anathemas that could be applied to any individuals. Was this an abandonment of it by the North? Had it been an abandonment of the application of it by the North, or its non-application by the South, to Texas? Did not the North receive five and a half degrees of slave territory from Texas, and in consideration of that cede to Texas the right of forming four States in addition to the one then formed? Call it a compact or compromise, as you please; but then it assumed the character of a compact when applied to Texas, because Texas came in recognizing that as a principle concurred in by the North and the South. They both applied it to Texas, and it was upon it that she came in. And so far, certainly, it was a compact with her. Is not Texas interested in that? Did she not consider the Missouri Compromise practically a compact, so far as she is concerned? Because she predicated her own upon it. And if you deprive her of the benefits resulting from and declared by that compact, when are her four States to come in, if the North has the ascendency? Can not they exclude them when they please if the Missouri Compromise be repealed? We hold them by an obligation which it would be dishonorable and infamous to abandon. You can not repeal that compromise without the consent of Texas. Remember, Texas was an independent nation, a sovereignty, when she came into this Union. She had rights equal to those possessed by this country; institutions quite as good, and a more harmonious structure of her community. Now, will there not be a liability that these four additional States may be denied to Texas? Texas insists upon this right in my person, as one of her representatives. I claim it as no boon bestowed. I ask it as no gift. The State demands it as a right, to form four additional States, if she should elect to do so.

But what would the repeal of this Compromise amount to? An abstraction? What would the South be benefited by it? By the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, the bill is perfectly eviscerated, or, to use a senatorial term, because I think it may be applied with more propriety, elegantly emasculated. Yes, sir, it amounts to nothing. It holds a promise to the ear, but breaks it to the hope. If it is ever to be repealed, I want no empty promises. They have not been asked for by the South. They are not desired; and, so far as I am concerned, they will never be accepted. Neither my colleague nor myself have ever been consulted in relation to this subject. On the contrary, we have been sedulously excluded from all consultation. I have never had an intimation that a conference was to take place, a caucus to be held, or stringent measures applied in the passage of this bill. Nothing of the kind, I have been in the dark in relation to it. I feel that Texas has as important an interest as any other section of this Union in the repeal of the Compromise, and would be as vitally affected by it. She must be eventually, if calamities are to fall upon the South, the most unfortunate of all that portion of the Union.

I will give you my reasons why I think Texas would be in the most deplorable condition of all the Southern States. It is now the terminus of the slave population. It is a country of vast extent and fertile soil, favorable to the culture and growth of those productions which are most important to the necessities of the world—cotton, sugar, and tobacco. An immense slave population must eventually go there. The demand for labor is so great, everything is so inviting to the enterprising and industrious, that labor will be transferred there, because it will be of a most profitable character, and the disproportion of slaves to the white population must be immense. Then, sir, it becomes the gulf of slavery, and there its terrible eddies will whirl, if convulsions take place. I have a right, therefore, to claim some consideration in the Senate for the effect which the repeal of this Compromise will have upon our State. I have a right to demand it, and demand it for other reasons than those which I formerly gave here, that were personal to myself.

It is alleged that the refusal on the part of the North to continue the Missouri Compromise line over the acquisitions of 1847 and 1848 was a repudiation of the Compromise. That may be thought technically true. I grant that a proposition was made, or a compromise entered into by the North and South, to extend the Missouri Compromise as far as the jurisdiction of the United States extended. That was to the Pacific Ocean. When it was, by contract, carried on through Texas on its annexation, then, if I understand it, it was a new line—a continuation of the old line by consent. It was established there by a compact with Texas; for by the original Missouri Compromise it could only extend as far as the jurisdiction of the United States went. Then the proposition to continue it to the Pacific was a new and substantive proposition. Though it might refer to the original principle of the old, it had no more connection with it than the Atlantic has with the Pacific.

I understand, if individuals make a contract, whether they enter into it in writing or not, if it is to be executed by any given time, and subsequently it is proposed by one of the parties to make another contract, which involves not the first, but is made because it is convenient to extend the first further, the refusal of one of the parties to agree to the second does not invalidate the former contract. This is a kind of argument I have never heard resorted to, except in favor of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. I have a great deal of veneration for that Compromise. I recollect the time when I was tried in the Senate Chamber upon its principles. There are Senators here who well remember that I was denounced, more in manner than in words, when I said I planted myself upon the Missouri Compromise line, and that astride of it I would stand, if needs be, and that there I would do battle, and there would I perish in the defense of the rights of the South. That was emphatic language, and I felt all that I uttered. Sir, I have some reverence for it; and if I should feel such reverence, it is not unreasonable that I should have determinations, too, which will not be changed by all the technical and abstract notions which have been adduced and relied upon to enlighten the public mind, to manufacture public sentiment here, and to give direction to it abroad. Sir, I have no idea that the public sentiment is to be subverted, and I assure you that the North, or West, or South, can not be willing that this should be done. No one can deprecate more than I do the fearful agitations which, I apprehend, will follow this; but after the manifestations which we have had here, nothing that I can utter will affect those who are present, or certify to them what must be the inevitable consequence, out of this Hall, when agitation is rife abroad. Do these gentlemen say that I have not made any argument on this point? It is, sir, because I was not sufficiently skilled to meet the refined arguments that were adduced in favor of the repeal. What necessity has grown up for the adoption of this measure since 1850? None had resulted at this time last year. None has been heard of.

Three years have passed in tranquillity and peace. Yet the gentleman who urges the measure thinks that he would have been derelict to his duty had he not brought things to their present condition, and presented the matter in the shape in which it now stands. If it was necessary at ail, it was necessary last year. No new developments have been made. The great principle of nonintervention existed then. There is no new demand for it now. Is not that a reason why this bill ought not to pass? Was there any new indication given of its necessity up to the time that the bill was introduced here? None throughout the whole land. How, and where, and why, and when, and with whom this measure originated. Heaven only knows, for I have no cognizance of the facts; but I well know that persons deeply involved in it, and exercising senatorial privileges here, never received information that such a measure would be brought forward, or would be urged with that pertinacity with which it is now done. Little did we think that it was to be urged upon us as a great healing measure. The honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] said last night that this is to be regarded as a great healing measure for the purpose of preventing agitation. Sir, I heard of no agitation until it arose here, nor would there have been any this day in the United States, if the bill in the form in which it was presented last year, had been brought forward and adopted without any provision either for non-intervention or the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

So far back as 1848, I find that President Polk recognized the Missouri Compromise as of binding force upon this country. He considered it not only binding upon the North in relation to the South, but, as the Chief Magistrate of this Union, he regarded it as binding upon the South, because it accorded certain privileges to the South; for he says, when speaking in relation to his approval of the Oregon bill, that he approved it because it lay north of 36° 30°; but had it lain south of 36° 30°, he would not say what action he would have taken upon it; clearly intimating that he would have vetoed the bill, regarding as he did the Missouri Compromise as obligatory on the two sections of the Union. How has it been repudiated since that time? Was it repudiated and superseded, or rendered null and void, by the Compromise of 1850? No such thing. Do you think that the astute statesmen, the men who managed and controlled the business of that Compromise, as much as any other men versed and skilled in legal lore and in general learning, men of acumen and keen perceptions, would have permitted that matter to go unexplained, if it ever had been contemplated to repeal the Missouri Compromise? Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster would never have done it. Yet no information was given that any such design was entertained by any member of this body. I am sure that, for one, I did not entertain it. Other gentlemen, more astute than myself, might have done so, but I am confident that it was not the general understanding that non-intervention was to be applied to these Territories because they lay north of 36° 30°.

I again ask, what benefit is to result to the South from this measure, if adopted? I have shown, I hope, that if you repeal this Missouri Compromise, Texas has no guarantee left for the multiplication of her States, if she chooses to make them. What are its advantages? Will it secure these Territories to the South? No, sir, not at all. But, the gentleman tells us, it is the principle that we want. I can perceive but one principle involved in the measure. and that principle lies at the root of agitation; and from that all the tumult and excitements of the country must arise. That is the only principle I can perceive. We are told by Southern, as well as Northern gentlemen, those who are for it, and those who are against it, that slavery will never be extended to that Territory, that it will never go there; but it is the principle of non-intervention that it is desired to establish. Sir, we have done well under the intervention of the Missouri Compromise, if the gentlemen so call it, in other Territories; and, I adjure you, when there is so much involved, not to press this matter too far. What is to be the consequence? If it is not in embryo, my suggestion will not make it so. It has been suggested elsewhere, and I may repeat it here, what is to be the effect of this measure if adopted, and you repeal the Missouri Compromise? The South is to gain nothing by it; for honorable gentlemen from the South, and especially the junior Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter], characterize it as a miserable, trifling little measure. Then, sir, is the South to be propitiated or benefited by the conferring upon her of a miserable, trifling little measure? Will that compensate the South for her uneasiness? Will it allay the agitation of the North? Will it preserve the union of these States? Will it sustain the Democratic or the Whig party in their organizations? No, sir, they all go to the wall. What is to be the effect on this Government? It is to be most ruinous and fatal to the future harmony and well-being of the country. I think that the measure itself would be useless. If you establish intervention, you make nothing by that. But what will be the consequence in the minds of the people? They have a veneration for that Compromise. They have a respect and reverence for it, from its antiquity and the associations connected with it, and repeated references to it that seem to suggest that it marked the boundaries of free and slave territory. They have no respect for it as a compact—I do not care what you call it—but as a line, defining certain rights and privileges to the different sections of the Union. The abstractions which you indulge in here can never satisfy the people that there is not something in it. Abrogate it or disannul it, and you exasperate the public mind. It is not necessary that reason should accompany excitement. Feeling is enough to agitate without much reason, and that will be the great prompter on this occasion. My word for it, we shall realize scenes of agitation which are rumbling in the distance now.

I have heard it said, and may as well remark it now, that the Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, to a certain extent, will affiliate with the weaker political party at the North, the Whigs, and will make a fair contest with the Democrats. If they throw this question in the scale, and the Democrats do not, they will preponderate. Then how are the Democrats to sustain themselves under this pressure? Suppose the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, or the repeal of the Compromise of 1850 is proposed, and the Democrats oppose it, they will meet with the objection that it is not more sacred than the Missouri Compromise, and the repeal will be urged before the people; and we shall see our House of Representatives with a preponderating power of Abolitionism, the principles of which will triumph. Every Representative who votes for this measure will be prostrated; he can not come back, or, if he comes back, he wilt be pledged to the repeal of a measure fraught with so many blessings of peace to the country. With all the fancied benefits of non-intervention, they can not overbalance the disastrous consequences that must ensue to our institutions.

This is an eminently perilous measure, and do you expect me to remain here silent, or to shrink from the discharge of my duty in admonishing the South ot what I conceive the results will be? I will do it in spite of all the intimidations, or threats, or discountenances that may be thrown upon me. Sir, the charge that I am going with the Abolitionists or Free-Soilers affects not me. The discharge of conscious duty prompts me often to confront the united array of the very section of the country in which I reside, in which my associations are, in which my personal interests have always been, and in which my affections rest. When every look to the setting sun carries me to the bosom of a family dependent upon me, think you I could be alien to them? Never—never. Well, sir, it I am now accidentally associated with Abolitionists, in voting against this measure of repeal—if I vote with them, and with individual Senators with whom my relations have always been courteous and polite personally, they well know that I feel no sympathy with their notions—that I think them fanatical—I do not esteem it a greater misfortune attendant upon me than I have witnessed before, in this Chamber, with other Senators from the South. In the passage of the Compromise bill of 1850, I saw associations of extremes quite as extraordinary as on this occasion. I almost thought that the extremes of the Abolitionists and Secession parties had become Siamese twins; they were so intimate that I could not help but remark it.

Mr. Seward. Who?

Mr. Houston. I need not mention who; I merely throw out the suggestion. I do not inquire into the motive which induced the introduction of this bill into the Senate. I cast no reflections on gentlemen, either for its introduction or for its support; but I deprecate the consequences which will flow from it. I have conversed with several Senators, and I have never heard the first who would not admit that it was an unfortunate and ill-advised measure. The venerable and distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] the other day, in his speech, declared, in substance, that he thought it was an unfortunate circumstance that it had ever been introduced into the Senate, although it meets with his approbation when it is here. And now, when he who has been in the councils and transactions of this country for fifty years, who has witnessed all the vicissitudes and mutations through which the country has passed, who has been an actor in the most important scenes of the Union—when he does not recognize it as a healing and welcome measure, I ask Senators if I err in resisting it? They say it is here. It is here, and, if I had the power, I would kick it out. What, if a measure unwholesome or unwise is brought into the Senate, and it comes from the party of which I am a member, and its introduction is an error, is it not my duty to correct that error as far as I possibly can? Sir, I stand here for that general purpose. My constituents send me here for that purpose.

But I will not admit for a moment that this meets the sanction of the Executive. All his antecedents are in the face of it. Supporting him as I did, I most believe him consistent and truthful. He is upon the record as an opponent to agitation of any kind, whether in the Halls of Congress or anywhere else. He is pledged to keep down and resist agitation, as far as in his power, and that the institutions of the country shall sustain "no shock" during his Administration. If this bill passes, will there be no shock? Depend upon it, Mr. President, there will be a tremendous shock; it will convulse the country from Maine to the Rio Grande. The South has not asked for it. I, as the most Southern Senator upon this floor, do not desire it. If it is a boon that is offered to propitiate the South, I, as a Southern man, repudiate it. I reject it. I will have none of it.

Mr. President, not in any spirit of unkindness—not entertaining unfriendly or ungentle feelings—I will allude here, by way of illustration, to one of the most beautiful and captivating incidents in the Holy Bible—one that shows a forgetting, and kind, and amiable, and forgiving temper, which, even under a sense of deep injuries, was willing to embrace a brother and forget the past. I need not relate to this intelligent assembly the history of Esau and Jacob. The birthright and the mess of pottage are familiar to all. The two brothers separated in anger, after Jacob had acquired the blessing which should have been given to Esau, and Jacob fled to Laban, his mother's brother, in a distant country, where he greatly prospered. Afterward, when he separated his flocks from those of his father-in-law, it became necessary for him to journey through the land of his brother Esau, who was then a man of influence, and power, and wealth. As Jacob approached, he thought it was necessary to propitiate his brother for the wrong which he had done him, and he supposed he could not do that without some atonement, or some gift. He dispatched a portion of his family, some ot his handmaidens, and children, and servants, with a drove of cattle, which he intended as an offering to his brother; and the sacred narrative says that when Esau heard that his brother was journeying toward his land, "Esau ran to meet him; and they embraced and kissed each other; and they wept." Now I do not see why the North and South, if they have been separated, might not embrace each other without any feeling of anger. But, after some colloquy had taken place between the brothers, Esau said: "What meanest thou by this drove which I met?" And Jacob said, "These are to find grace in the sight of my Lord." And Esau then made a reply worthy of a generous spirit. He said: "I have enoough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself."

So, if this is an offering to propitiate the South, the South may say, "I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself." If this is the only offering tendered to the South, we will not ask it; we do not want it; the people will be angry if you give it, and I never want to make trouble with my friends at home. I would rather you would keep it. If you are indebted in anything to the South, all I have to say is, that you might find some other occasion when it would be more agreeable to cancel the obligation. The South, as a community, only desire their rights under the Constitution and existing compromises.

But, sir, the people are not going into abstractions to understand this subject. Nor will there be a lawyer at every point, every cross-road, every public meeting, every muster, or every court-house, to give elaborate dissertations upon the unconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. I care nothing about its constitutionality or unconstitutionality. Not one straw do I care about it, on account of the circumstances out of which it grew, and the benefits flowing from it. Mr. Jefferson said he could not find constitutional authority for the acquisition of Louisiana. If that was the case, even if the Compromise, based upon an unconstitutional act, to reconcile the different sections of the country, was without authority of the Constitution, it became a legitimate subject of legislation. I say legitimate, because it was an acquisition of territory which must be governed in some manner suited to the exigencies of the occasion. Hence the resort to the principle of compromise, and to legislation. Was the acquisition of Florida constitutional? I think not. Yet we retain it as one of our States, Was the acquisition of Texas constitutional? No, sir, it was not. It was a mere act of legislation on the part of this Government—a compromise—precisely such as the compromise which this bill proposes to repeal. But Texas is in, and you can not tlirust us out; and that is the whole of it. But it is not constitutional. If it is not, and validity attaches only to compacts, in contradistinction to compromises, then this is a compact predicated upon the compromise of Missouri.

I do not know whether it is constitutional, technically. It is sufficient for me to know that it has stood for more than thirty years, and received the approbation of our wisest and ablest statesmen, from the day of its adoption down to the present, and was never questioned until after the commencement of the present session of Congress. It is strange that an unconstitutional law should have remained so long in force amid all the agitation, and excitement, and bitterness between the North and the South; and that this is the first proposition ever made to repeal it. Have we to yield to it without any necessity, and without any excuse for it, when we see that discord will run riot in our land?

Sir, the occasion to which I have alluded, was not the only one on which I said I was willing to stand on the Missouri Compromise line, in defense of the rights of the South. On another occasion, it will be recollected in this Chamber, when speaking of the obligations the country was under to a distinguished statesman, then in private life, and whose party had postponed his claim, or pretermitted it, or, in common parlance, laid him on the shelf, I said, that when the Missouri agitation was quieted, he was held throughout the land as a great pacificator; and if he had committed a mountain of sins, that single achievement of tranquillizing the great Republic, giving permanency, peace, and growth to its institutions, would have overbalanced them all. I said that Henry Clay deserved a monument of bronze, of marble, or of gold, to be placed in the rotunda of the Capitol, for men in aftertimes of great excitement to contemplate, and look upon as a man who blessed his country. That was the sentiment I entertained, and it arose from veneration, not only for the man, but for the needed restoration of harmony to our native land. Were I to make such a declaration now, it would be thought that it was an endeavor to bring this bill into discredit. No, sir, nothing is necessary from me to discredit it; for it is its own condemnation under the circumstances in which it is presented here, at this time, in the midst of unity, peace, and harmony, while all is at rest, with not a ripple on the vast ocean of our community. I have seen agitation and bitterness before.

I recollect when I ventured to make the first address in this Chamber on the subject of the agitation in 1850, with what discountenance it was received. So little was there a disposition to harmonize, that when I suggested that six Senators, without regard to party or section, might be selected from the members of this body, who could compose an Address and send it abroad so as to harmonize the country, and hush the fierce waves of political agitation that were then lashinig the base of this Capitol, it met with no response. Well, we subsequently obtained peace and harmony. Let us preserve it. And there is no mode by which we can so effectually accomplish that object, as by rejecting the proposed measure. I had fondly hoped, Mr. President, that having attained to my present period of life, I should pass the residue of my days, be they many or few, in peace and tranquillity; that as I found the country growing up rapidly, and have witnessed its immeasurable expansion and development, when I close my eyes on scenes around me, I would at least have the cherished consolation and hope that I left my children in a peaceful, happy, prosperous, and united community. I had hoped this. Fondly had I cherished the desire and the expectation from 1850 until after the introduction of this bill. My hopes are less sanguine now. My anxieties increase, but my expectation lessens. Sir, if this repeal takes place, I will ha e seen the commencement of the agitation; but the youngest child now born, I am apprehensive, will not live to witness its termination. Southern gentlemen may stand up and defend this measure. They may accept it from the Northern gentlemen who generously bestow it; but if it were beneficial to the South, it would have been asked for. It was not asked for—nor will it be accepted by the people. It furnishes those in the North, who are enemies of the South, with efficient weapons to contend with.

The Democracy in the North have stood firm to party ties. They have fought gallantly for our rights. If we pass this bill how can they maintain themselves? How can their representatives return to them and say: " We gave it"? Would not the reply be: " You gave it; then you are faithless servants, and we will put you down; you disgraced your party; you have given away a sacred thing, a pledge, a compromise thirty-four years old, which was venerated for its antiquity, and national benefits derived from it"? Depend upon it, they will be held to a strict account. They will have to answer for it. I call upon you to sustain those who stood by you of the South in opposition to those whose fanaticism, and prejudice, and misguided feeling would have wrested your rights from you. If you place them and their party in the predicament which I have mentioned, you will be doing them great injustice.

Mr. President, I have very little hope that any appeal which I can make for the Indians will do any good. The honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Pettit] says, in substance, that God Almighty has condemned them, and has made them an inferior race; that there is no use in doing anything for them. With great deference to that Senator, for whom I have never cherished any but kind feelings, I must be permitted to dissent from his opinions. He says they are not civilized, and they are not homogeneous, and can not be so, with the white race. They can not be civilized! No! Sir, it is idle to tell me that. We have Indians on our western borders whose civilization is not inferior to our own. It is within the recollection of gentlemen here that, more than twenty years ago, President Ross, one of them, held a correspondence upon the rights of the Indians to the Cherokee country, which they possessed east of the Mississippi, and maintained himself in the controversy with great credit and ability; and the triumph of Mr. Adams, if it was one, was much less than he had obtained over the diplomatist of Spain [Mr. Don Onis], in relation to the occupation of Florida by General Jackson. The Senator from Indiana says that, in ancient times, Moses received a command to go and drive the Canaanites and Moabites out of the land of Canaan, and that Joshua subsequently made the experiment of incorporating one tribe of the heathen with the Israelites, but it finally had to be killed off. Therefore, the Senator concludes, the Cherokees can not be civilized. There may have been something statesmanlike in the policy, but I do not discover the morality of it. I will say, however, that there is no analogy between the two cases. The people of Judea who were killed, or exterminated, were idolaters, and the object was to keep the people of Israel free from the taint of idols and idolatry, under the command of Providence, and therefore the extermination in His dispensation became necessary. But the Cherokees never have been idolaters, neither have the Creeks, nor the Choctaws, nor the Chickasaws. They believe in one Great Spirit—in God—the white man's God. They believe in His Son Jesus Christ, and His atonement, and propitiation for the sins of men. They believe in the sanctifying efficacy of the Holy Ghost. They bow at the Christian's altar, and they believe the Sacred Volume. Sir, you may drive these people away, and give their lands to the white man; but let it not be done upon the justification of the Scriptures. They have well-organized societies; they have villages and towns; they have their state-houses and their capitols; they have females and men who would grace the drawing-rooms or saloons of Washington; they have a well-organized judiciary, a trial by jury, and the writ of habeas corpus. These are the people for whom I demand justice in the organization of these territories. They are men of education. They have more than one hundred native preachers in those tribes, as I have heard. They have their colleges, as I remarked in my former address to the Senate on this subject. They become associated in friendship with our young men in the various institutions in the United States; and they are prepared to be incorporated upon equal terms with us. But even if they were wild Indians, untutored, when you deprive them of what would give them knowledge, and discourage them from making an effort to become civilized and social beings, how can you expect them to be otherwise than savage?

When you undertake to tame wild horses, do you turn them from you and drive them into the desert, or do you take care of them and treat them with humanity? These Indians are not inferior, intellectually, to white men. John Ridge was not inferior in point of genius to John Randolph. His father, in point of native intellect, was not inferior to any man. Look at their social condition, in the nations to which I have alluded. Look at the Chickasaws who remain in the State of Mississippi. Even among white men, with all their prejudices against the Indians, with their transcendent genius and accomplishments, they have been elected to the Legislature. Whenever they have had an opportunity, they have shown that they are not inferior to white men, either in sense or capability.

But the honorable Senator from Iowa [Mr. Dodge] characterizes the remarks which I made in reference to the Indians as arising from a feeling of "sickly sentimentality." Sir, it is a sickly sentimentality that was implanted in me when I was young, and it has grown up with me. The Indian has a sense of justice, truth, and honor, that should find a responsive chord in every heart. If the Indians on the frontier are barbarous, or if they are cannibals and eat each other, who are to blame for it? They are robbed of the means of sustenance; and with hundreds and thousands of them starving on the frontier, hunger may prompt to such acts to prevent their perishing. We shall never become cannibals in connection with the Indians, but we do worse than that. We rob them, first of their native dignity and character; we rob them next of what the Government appropriates for them. If we do not do it in this hall, men are invested with power and authority, who, officiating as agents or traders, rob them of everything which is designed for them. No less than one hundred millions of dollars, I learn from statistics, since the adoption of this Government, have been appropriated by Congress for purposes of justice and benevolence toward the Indians; but I am satisfied that they have never realized fifteen millions beneficially. They are too remote from the seat of government for their real condition to be understood here; and if the Government intends liberality or justice toward them, it is often diverted from the intended object and consumed by speculators.

I am a friend of the Indian, upon the principle that I am a friend to justice. We are not bound to make them promises; but if a promise be made to an Indian, it ought to be regarded as sacredly as if it were made to a white man. If we treat them as tribes, recognize them, send commissioners to form treaties, and exchange ratifications with them, and the treaties are negotiated, accepted, ratified, and exchanged—having met with the approval of the Senate—I think they may be called compacts; and how are those compacts regarded? Just as we choose to construe them at the time, without any reference to the wishes of the Indians, or whether we do them kindness or justice in the operation, or not. We are often prompted to their ratification by persons interested; and we lend ourselves unintentionally to an unjust act of oppression upon the Indians by men who go and get their signatures to a treaty. The Indian's mark is made; the employés of the Government certify or witness it; and the Indians do not understand it, for they do not know what is written. These are some of the circumstances connected with the Indians. Gentlemen have spoken here of voting millions to build ships, and placing the army and navy at the disposition of the President in the event that England act inconsistently with treaty stipulations. This is done because, if England violates a treaty with us, our national honor is injured. Now, I should like to know if it becomes us to violate a treaty made with the Indians when we please, regardless of every principle of truth and of honor? We should be careful if it were with a power able to war with us; and it argues a degree of infinite meanness and indescribable degradation on our part to act differently with the Indians, who confide in our honor and justice, and who call the President their Great Father, and confide in him. Mr. President, it is in the power of the Congress of the United States to do some justice to the Indians by giving them a government of their own, and encouraging them in their organization and improvement by inviting their delegates to a place on the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives. If you will not do it, the sin will lie at your door, and Providence, in His own way, mysterious and incomprehensible to us though it is, will accomplish all His purposes, and may at some day avenge the wrongs of the Indians upon our nation. As a people we can save them; and the sooner the great work is begun, the sooner will humanity have cause to rejoice in its accomplishment.

Mr. President, I shall say but little more. My address may have been desultory. It embraces many subjects which it would be very hard to keep in entire order. We have, in the first place, the extensive territory; then we have the considerations due to the Indians; and then we have the proposed repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which seems to require the most explanation, and to be the main point in the controversy. The great principle involved in that repeal is non-intervention, which, we are told, is to be of no practical benefit if the Compromise is repealed. It can have no effect but to keep up agitation.

Sir, the friends who have survived the distinguished men who took prominent parts in the drama of the Compromise of 1850, ought to feel gratified that those men are not capable of participating in the events of to-day, but that they were permitted, after they had accomplished their labors, and seen their country in peace, to leave the world, as Simeon did, with the exclamation: "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation." They departed in peace, and they left their country in peace. They felt, as they were about to be gathered to the tombs of their fathers, that the country they had loved so well, and which had honored them—that country upon whose fame and name their doings had shed a bright lustre which shines abroad throughout all Christendom—was reposing in peace and happiness. What would their emotions be if they could now be present and see an effort made, if not so designed, to undo all their work, and to tear asunder the cords that they had bound around the hearts of their countrymen? They have departed. The nation felt the wound; and we see the memorials of woe still in this Chamber. The proud symbol (the eagle) above your head remains enshrouded in black, as if deploring the misfortune which has fallen upon us, or as a fearful omen of future calamities which await our nation in the event this bill should become a law. Above it I behold the majestic figure of Washington, whose presence must ever inspire patriotic emotions, and command the admiration and love of every American heart. By these associations I adjure you to regard the contract once made to harmonize and preserve this Union. Maintain the Missouri Compromise! Stir not up agitation! Give us peace!

This much I was bound to declare—in behalf of my country, as I believe, and I know in behalf of my constituents. In the discharge of my duty I have acted fearlessly. The events of the future are left in the hands of a wise Providence.

 

---

 

SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE

ON TREATMENT OF INDIANS, DECEMBER 3I, 1854.

Mr. Houston. Mr. President, I hardly know what to say in reply to the Senator from Iowa, for I hardly know what to think of his speech. [Laughter.] If I were to characterize his remarks in any way, I should say that they were, at least, very remarkable. In the first place, let me say to that honorable Senator, and to the honorable Senator from Florida, that they were talking about things of which I knew very little, for I was not in the United States when the occurrences to which they alluded took place, and I was not, therefore, familiar with the history of those wars. If I am not mistaken, however, it was an outrage of a very delicate character which brought on the Florida war.

Mr. Mallory. That is a mistake, sir.

Mr. Houston. Well, sir, that was the report which was brought to Texas. Whether it was true or not, I do not know; but that was the information which I received from people from that section of the country. As for the Black Hawk war, I know little or nothing about it; for, in Texas at that time, we had no mail communication with the United States, and we got but few papers from the States, so that I remained uninformed in relation to those matters; but, no doubt, they were very exciting. The Senator from Iowa said the Black Hawk war was brought on by a council of the nation; but I have heard that an examination of the circumstances will show that the first outrage was committed by an individual, not by the concurrence of the nation, though they afterward became involved in the general war. In that statement, I believe, I am sustained by the history of the times.

I have already stated that occasions occur where outlaws among the Indians commit acts of aggression on the whites, and the whites immediately retaliate on the Indian nations, and these nations, in self-defense, become involved in war; but I never knew a case where a treaty, which was made and carried out in good faith, was violated by the Indians. In Florida the Indians complained that they had been deceived in the treaty, and that the boundaries assigned were not as they understood them; and they killed their own chiefs. It was charged that some of the agents were involved in speculations to a great extent dependent on the treaty. I recollect it was so stated at the time.

I think, sir, the Senator's speech was of a remarkable character in relation to politics and other matters, which I am sorry that he has introduced. He has undertaken to admonish me, and for this admonition I am much obliged to him. His experience, his superior opportunities, may entitle him. in the opinion of others, to the right of admonishing me; and I am perfectly willing, on that point, to yield my own opinion to what may be the general impression of the body. I did not provoke his remark by any allusion to any one, predicated upon my own disposition to arraign the conduct of others; nor have I asserted anything in regard to the officers of the army, but what are matters of fact, taken from the official documents. When I made suggestions of a speculative character, I gave them as such.

But, Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa has said that he would not have been astonished if the rankest abolitionist had made such a speech, and had avowed such sentiments as I did. He says that, if a man in Western New York had presented such vievs, he would not have been surprised. Now, I wish to know what connection my remarks had with abolition.? What connection they had with any one in Western New York? In what respect have I catered to any prejudice or morbid sensibility? I have stood here alone in this body, against a powerful array of talent and influence, contending for what I conceived to be a great principle, and which must obtain, or the Indian race be exterminated.

In regard to that principle, I have the concurrence of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bell], who was once Secretary of War, and, as such, had control of the Indian Department, and who has, since that period, been a prominent member of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate. I believe that my opinions are also concurred in by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Sebastian], who is the head of the Committee on Indian Affairs. I can inform the Senator from Iowa that I will sustain him to the extent of my humble abilities in any measure he may introduce in favor of the Indians, and for the establishment of a policy which will ultimately benefit them, and reflect credit upon the Government of the United States.

I have not been regardless of what I considered the honor of the United States, and the interest of the Indians. In no instance have I been remiss in these particulars. I could not cater to any passion or prejudice on this subject, because I know of no societies in the North, or in the South, or in any section of this Union, for the advancement of the civilization of the Indians. If such societies exist, I am not in correspondence with them, nor am I aware of the existence of any such associations. Then, for what ulterior purposes could I advocate the rights of the Indians, or invoke the justice of this Government toward them? Could it be any expectation of political benefits? None upon earth.

I presume the abolitionists are perfectly absorbed in the subject of abolition. For myself, I would rather see them turn their attention to the amelioration of the condition of the Indians on our Western wilds, or to the reclamation of those whom they hold in slavery. There are not less than two thousand prisoners in the hands of the Comanches; four hundred in one band, in my own State. The prisoners can be reclaimed from those Indians, who are coming- down to settle upon their reservations. They take no prisoners but women and boys. The boys they treat with a degree of barbarity unprecedented; and their cruelties toward the females are nameless and atrocious. Our Government is silent in relation to them. Has humanity no claims upon us in this respect? Has justice no demand unanswered?

Sir, we have not seen the facts to which I have just alluded impressed on a page of our official communications from the War Department. The officers stationed near the places where those transactions have taken place have not reported them. No effort has been made to obtain appropriations for the reclamation and redemption of those prisoners. This is a subject which calls aloud for the humane influence of the Senator. There is no sickly sentimentality in this, but a manly upheaving of soul that, in consideration of suffering humanity, demands that the Government shall rescue them from the most cruel and unrelenting bondage.

I have been accused of catering to a morbid, sickly sentimentality. Sir, I never yielded anything of my own conscientious convictions to consult the opinions of others. I never stooped to solicit office; but I have received and accepted it to my own disadvantage. I might have hated the Indians, if I had a soul no bigger than a shell-bark. [Laughter.]

In my boyish days, before manhood had hardened my thews and muscles, I received balls and arrows in this body, in defense of suffering humanity, particularly women and children, against the Indians; and I aided in reclaiming the brightest spot of the South—Alabama. When I remember that, in those early days, I assisted in rescuing females and children from the relentless tomahawk and scalping-knife, it seems to me that the charge that I have stooped to court favor by the expression of my sentiments on this question is one which falls harmless at my feet.

 

---

 

ON PETITION OF THREE THOUSAND MINISTERS AGAINST REPEAL OF MISSOURI COMPROMISE, MARCH, 1854, IN UNITED STATES SENATE.

Mr. President: I think that a petition of this kind ought to be received, and that it is not subject to the charge brought against it by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas]. It does not arraign our action by being drawn up after that action was had. The Nebraska bill passed this body on the night of the 3d, or, rather, on the morning of the 4th instant. The memorial appears to be dated on the 1st of March. I can not think that it meant any indignity to the Senate. There is nothing expressive of any such feeling in it. It is a right that all individuals in the community have, if their terms are respectful, to memorialize the Senate of the United States upon any subject. Whether there is any ulterior object in this I know not; but from the date of the memorial, and from the number of signers, I am induced to believe that the memorialists thought there was something wrong in that bill; and if they believe that its passage would be a breach of faith on the part of the Government, they had a right to say so. I took the liberty of making the same charge here. There were more questions than that of non-intervention involved in that bill. It involved an infraction of faith with the Indians, of pledges given to them under all the solemn forms, yet mockery, of treaties. That was one point involved; and I charged that the passage of the bill would be a violation of plighted faith in that particular. Was it a violation of faith to disregard the Missouri Compromise, which was of so much antiquity and utility to the country? That is a matter of discussion. I have not arraigned the action of any gentleman since the passage of the bill, but anterior to it I gave my opinions in relation to its character as a disregard of treaties, and as a flagrant violation of the plighted faith of the nation toward the Indians.

With respect to the Missouri Compromise, I believe its repeal to be as flagrant a breach of faith as the violation of treaties made with the Indians. I have not charged Senators with corrupt motives, nor have I charged them with anything selfish; but I certainly can see no more impropriety in ministers of the Gospel, in their vocation, memorializing Congress, than politicians or other individuals. I do not believe that these ministers have sent this memorial here to manufacture political capital, to have it entered on the records of the Senate, so that it might be taken back and disseminated through the country. Sir, it comes from the country. I told you that there would be agitation, but it was denied upon this floor. Is not this agitation? Three thousand ministers of the living God upon earth—His vicegerents—send a memorial here upon this subject; and yet you tell me that there is no excitement in the country! Sir, you realize what I anticipated. The country has to bear the infliction. Sir, the coup d'état was not successful. The bill did not pass before the community was awakened to it. The community was awakened to it not alone in New England, for I have seen letters from the South and West stating that it was there regarded as a breach of faith, and I can see no wrong in ministers expressing their opinion in regard to it. This protest does not attack the reputation of Senators. It does not displace them from their positions here. It does not impair their capabilities for the discharge of the high functions which the Constitution has devolved upon them. I see nothing wrong in ail this.

Ministers have a right to remonstrate. They are like other men. Because they are ministers of the Gospel they are not disfranchised of political rights and privileges; and, if their language is respectful to the Senate, in anticipation of the passage of a bill which is obnoxious to them, they have a right to spread their opinions on the records of the nation. The great national heart throbs under this measure; its pulse beats high; and is it surprising that we should observe the effects of it? I trust, sir, that the nation may yet again see the blessed tranquillity that prevailed over the whole country when this "healing measure" was introduced into the Senate. The position of. the nation was enviable. It was unagitated. There was not, in my recollection, a time so tranquil, nor a community more happy. A nation more prosperous existed not upon the earth. Sir, I trust that there will be no continuance of agitation; but the way to end it is not to make war upon memorialists. Let them memorialize if they think it necessary. If they state what is incorrect, let the subject be referred to committees, and let the committees give an exposition of the truth, and lay it, in reports, before the public, and then the intelligence of the nation will determine as to what is right, and what consideration ought to be given to it. I would not take away the liberty to indulge in the freest expression of opinion, or the exercise of the rights and privileges which belong to any portion of this country; yet I would discourage agitation. I may hold the contents of this protest, to some extent, heretical; yet they are not expressed in such offensive language as would justify a denial of their right to memorialize. If it had been intended to impugn our motives or our actions, either as corrupt or immoral, we could bear it. The people surely have a right to think and speak upon our action. We are not placed in a position so high that we are elevated above the questioning power of the people. They have the right to look into our action and investigate our conduct, and, if they do not approve of it, to express their opinions in relation to it. I shall never make war upon them on that account; yet, I trust that whatever disposition may be made of the bill which we have passed, the agitation has already reached its acme; and that from this point it may decline, until the country is again restored to peace and happiness.

Mr. President, I have the misfortune to differ from my friends in relation to this measure, but that difference is not sufficient to induce me to enter anew into the discussion of it. I will, however, discuss the propriety of this memorial. The gentlemen misapprehend its character entirely. I understood the honorable Senator from Virginia—but I may have been mistaken—to say that it invoked the vengeance of the Almighty God upon the Senate.

Mr. Mason. In substance it does, as I understand.

Mr. Houston. There is no invocation contained in the memorial. It is a respectful protest, stating their appreciation of the measure then pending before the Senate of the United States, and not one word is contained in it derogatory to the Senate at the time it was drawn, and there is no invocation of wrath or vengeance upon the members of this body. It is a respectful protest, in the name of the Almighty God.

By the expression which I used, that these ministers were the vicegerents of the Almighty, I merely intended to say that they were harbingers of peace to their fellow-men; and if it was a lapsus linguæ, or improper expression, it does not change the intention that I then entertained in my mind of expressing a belief that it was nothing else than an extraordinary emergency that diverted men from their ordinary pursuits in the ministry of the Gospel to engage at all in, or to step even to the verge of, the political arena.

We are told, Mr. President, that this was intended for the purpose of agitation. It is certainly a manifestation of agitation; but it could not have been intended to create agitation, for the thing was done, and here is one of its developments and consequences. Yet, sir, I can see nothng wrong in the memorial so far as I am concerned. If ministers of the Gospel are not recognized by the Constitution of ti:e United States, they are recognized by the moral and social constitution of society. They are recognized in the constitution of man's salvation. The great Redeemer of the world enjoined duties upon mankind; and there is a moral constitution from which we have derived all the excellent principles of our political constitution—the great principles upon which our Government, morally, socially, and religiously, is founded.

Sir, I do not think there is anything very derogatory to our institutions in the ministers of the Gospel expressing their opinions. They have a right to do it. No man can be a minister without first being a man. He has political rights; he has also the rights of a missionary of the Saviour, and he is not disfranchised by his vocation. Certain political restrictions maybe laid upon him; he may be disqualified from serving in the Legislatures of the States, but that does not discharge him from political and civil obligations to his country. He has a right to contribute, as far as he thinks necessary, to the sustentation of its institutions. He has a right to interpose his voice as one of its citizens against the adoption of any measure which he believes will injure the nation. These individuals have done no more. They have not denounced the Senate, but they have protested, in the capacity of ministers, against what I and other Senators on this floor protested. They have the right to do it, and we can not take that right from them. They will exercise it. The people have the right to think, and they will exercise that right. They have the right of memorializing, and they will exercise that right. They have the right to express their opinions, and they will exercise that right. They will exercise their rights in reprobation or commendation at the ballot-box, too; and preachers, I believe, vote. They have the right to do so. They are not very formidable numerically, but they have the right to do this as ministers of the Gospel, as well as we Senators have a right to vote for the adoption of a measure; and if it is not in accordance with their opinions they have a right to condemn it. They have the right to think it is morally wrong, politically wrong, civilly wrong, and socially wrong, if they do not interfere with the vested rights of others in the entertainment of those opinions.

I understood my honorable friend from Mississippi to say that the South had been groaning for a long time under this oppressive measure. The South, sir, are a spirited people, and how they could have submitted, for more than a third of a century, to this indignity, this wrong, this act of oppression, which has ground them down in their prosperity and development, and never have said a word about it until this auspicious moment arrived, and that, too, when political subjects have been agitated at the North and South—that it should have been reserved for the action of the present Congress, after all others had glided by without complaint, rebuke, remonstrance, or suggestion of appeal, is a most extraordinary thing. My friend does not apprehend it; but there was no excitement out of this Capitol, or out of the city of Washington. It originated here. This was the grand laboratory of political action and political machinery. The object was to mature the measure here, and inflict it, by a coup d'etat, upon the nation, and then radiate it to every point of the country. The potion does not react pleasantly. There is a response, but how does it go down? Not well. The physic works—it works badly; it works upward.

I am wiling to receive any memorials that are presented to this body which are respectable in terms, whether they come from preachers, politicians, civilians, or from the beggars that congregate about your cities; and I will treat them with respect and kindness. As long as they are respectful in terms to this body, though they express their apprehension of a calamity about to fall on the country, it brands no man; and if they denounce a measure in advance, it is what they have a right to do. We have a more eligible position here to advocate our opinions than individuals have in social life to maintain their positions. We have all the panoply of power and State sovereignty thrown around the members of this body to guard and shield them against attacks; but they are thrown in the midst of the community without any shield, except it is the shield of morality and propriety of conduct which gives protection to their persons. While they express themselves respectfully, I shall never treat with disrespect preachers, or any other individuals, who come before this body to give us their opinions upon political subjects.

In reply to some remarks of Mr. Douglas —

Mr. Houston said: Mr. President, as the honorable Senator from Illinois, the Chairman of the Committee on Territories, seemed in a most emphatic manner to address his remarks to me, I think him fully entitled to the respect of my attention. He has dwelt upon the Abolition character of this document. So far as any such character may be embodied in it, I have nothing to say. There are various opinions entertained here and elsewhere upon various subjects with which I have nothing to do, and with which I have no affiliation; but with this subject, as it is presented to the Senate now, I have some connection. With the controversy which exists between the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Territories and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chase], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner], I have nothing to do. I was not here when the controversy originated, nor when it was first introduced into the Senate. I have not participated in it since; and however unpleasant such altercations or controversies may be, and however I may regard them as impeding the transaction of business in this body, I have forborne either public or private expressions of opinion upon that matter.

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator that the only allusion which I had to him was the simple quotation which I made from his remarks when he spoke of these ministers being the vicegerents of the Almighty. My other remarks were intended for another quarter, so far as they had an application anywhere. If he is under the misapprehension of supposing that they referred to him, I wish to correct him; that is all. I do not want to interrupt him.

Mr. Houston. I am very glad to hear the disclaimer, for the gentleman's remarks appeared to be directed so unequivocally toward me, that I was led into the misapprehension of supposing that they were intended perhaps to apply to me, in a manner in which it was not the purpose of the gentleman to apply them. But, sir, I explained, when I was up before, the misapplication of the term "vicegerent," and I expressed my opinion to be that the ministers of the Gospel were the heralds of the Almighty God, or His ministers of peace upon earth. I thought the gentleman would not have carped upon that expression, unless with reference to some particular influence which my views might have upon the auditory. It was a mere misapplication of a term, and I so explained it. But, Mr. President, I think the object of this memorial is misapprehended. I find no fault with its introduction either before or after the passage of the bill to which it refers, for that bill may be returned to the Senate with amendments. Such thing's very frequently occur. At all events, as the memorial has been prepared with great care, and as the gentlemen who have signed it have been anxious that their views should be laid before the Senate of the United States, lest other measures embracing similar principles should be introduced, I can see nothing improper in allowing them to lay their views respectfully before the Senate. I do not think there is any evidence that the gentlemen who have signed the memorial have any disposition to establish theocracy in our country, or that they wish to take the Government into their own hands, and exercise a controlling influence over it. We find that those who have signed this document are of different sects and various denominations. I think there is no danger that such an amalgamation of interests and opinions will take place as to embody a force sufficient to make any great impression on the institutions of this country, or to endanger our liberties.

Mr. President, this memorial is regarded as a substantive and independent matter, as intended to produce agitation, and to insult the Senate; but it is really the effect of a measure which I predicted would have this influence upon the community. The cause exists in the Senate. It exists in the amendment inserted into the Nebraska Bill proposing the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and this is but responsive action to that. The cause is not in the clergymen who have signed this memorial. The memorial is the effect of a cause brought forward and presented in the Senate. The memorial impugns the action of no one. It is true the memorialists speak of the measure as immoral. Surely that ought not to insult Senators. They are not such paragons of morality that they can not bear to have their moral character questioned, if they should happen to do anything which would not be strictly moral, according to some standards, but which I should not think to be very immoral. But is their morality of such a delicate texture as to be affected by a memorial coming from "the land of steady habits"?

We are told that there is a great principle involved in the bill to which this memorial refers. This is a very formidable and very visible response to that great principle which it is said has lain dormant. Sir, I need not name the number of years that it has lain dormant. No bright genius ever elicited it; no brilliant conception ever discovered it until this session had progressed for some time, when the great principle of non-intervention at once sprang up to illumine the world, to be regarded as one which, at some future day, would be a universally-recognized principle. Sir, I recognize the principles of self-government, but I do it in sovereignty. A people in tutelage can not exercise sovereignty, but States can. A people who are in a territorial existence which is fitting them to become States, exercise what may be called a quasi sovereignty. They are never really sovereign until they are recognized by Congress as such, and are received into the Union as sovereign States. Then is the time for the operation of self-government, but it grows out of sovereignty. Is it to be in five squatters? They may pass a law to-day and repeal it to-morrow, and the next day they may pass another law, and so on successively from day to day, and from year to year, they may pass and repeal laws. The Territories have no power to pass organic laws until the attributes of sovereignty are about to attach, or have actually attached to them. That is what I call non-intervention. That is what I call sovereignty and self-government. This is the great principle which it is said is involved in the bill which we have passed; and now we are receiving the response to it. I hope we may never have any more responses of this description. I pray Heaven that we may never have another such protest in this body. I pray that there may never exist any necessity for it. But for the necessity or cause, which originated in this body, this memorial would never have been laid upon your table. This is but the effect; the cause was anterior to it. If we wish to avert calamitous effects, we should prevent pernicious causes.

 

---

 

SPEECH ON THE SUBJECT OF AN INCREASE OF THE ARMY, AND THE INDIAN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 29 AND 31, 1855.

January 29, 1855.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill from the House of Representatives, making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending the 30th of June, 1856, the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. Shields to the amendment of Mr. Hunter (which is to provide for two additional regiments of regular cavalry and five hundred Rangers), to substitute for that provision two regiments of infantry and two of cavalry.

Mr. Houston said:

Mr. President: Before the Senate proceed to vote upon the adoption of the policy now proposed, I think it would be well to examine the causes which have led to the present condition of affairs, and then to inquire into the best means for the restoration of peace upon our Indian frontier. An examination of this sort will inform us whether there is any necessity for an increase of the military force of the country.

I am aware, sir, that, in discussing subjects which relate to the Indians or to their rights, I shall command but little sympathy from the Senate, and not much from the country. They are a people isolated in their 'interest, and solely dependent for protection and justice upon the Government of the United States. How far justice has been accorded to them in the past, or how far it is, in all probability, to be awarded to them in the future, is a matter beyond speculation. If we are to judge from the past experience of our times, we should infer that there is but very little hope of anything being done for the red man; and we should infer that, in the opinion of his white brethren, his doom has already been written and recorded.

Mr. President, the Indians have been charged with an aggressive and hostile spirit toward the whites; but we find, upon inquiry, that every instance of that sort which has been imputed to them, has been induced and provoked by the white man, either by acts of direct aggression upon the Indians or by his own incaution, alluring them to a violation of the security of the whites. They have tempted the cupidity of the Indians. If a lawless fellow happens to prove vagrant to his band, and throws off all the rules and restrictions imposed by the chiefs on their warriors, and chooses to involve his nation in a difficulty by taking the life of a white man, if he can do so, as he supposes, with impunity, his action is charged to his tribe; but they should not be held responsible. Sir, we have seen thrilling accounts of sanguinary massacres which alarm us at the first blush; and, if we are to believe the paragraphs disseminated through the medium of the press, we should suppose, in reality, that the Indian was as barbarous as he had ever been, and that all the assaults or massacres, as they are termed, are unprovoked and wantonly inflicted on the defenseless white man. As an instance of this, let me mention the massacre at Fort Laramie, and from that instance ycu can pretty accurately deduce the true condition of other acts of a similar character. What were the circumstances in connection with that case?

During the last summer some bands of the Sioux nation of Indians were encamped within six miles of Fort Laramie. They were in amity with the United States, and on terms of friendship and good feeling with the officers and men of the neighboring fort. A man from a neighboring tribe, whose relatives had, a year before, been slaughtered by the troops at Fort Laramie, happened to be among these bands of Sioux. Some Mormon emigrants passed by the camp of the Indians, and a cow escaped from them, made toward the village, and the Mormons pursued her, but unsuccessfully. The Indian to whom I have referred, by way of revenge for the loss of his relative, slaughtered the animal. Complaint was made at Fort Laramie. The chiefs instantly said that they would see that reparation was made for the injury which had been done. Was this satisfactory to the commanding officer? No, sir; but he detailed a brevet lieutenant, with a company, for the purpose of arresting the Indian. The company arrived at the encampment of the Indians with two pieces of artillery. Demand was made of the chiefs, but this Indian said to them, "I have taken a lodge here; I am willing to die; you have nothing to do with this matter; you have no concern with it; the responsibility is not upon your people, but it is upon me alone." So soon as this reply was given to the lieutenant he fired, and crippled one of the principal chiefs, and killed a man. The delinquent still refused to give up. After that, the chiefs rallied and exhorted the men to commit no outrage; their influence controlled the action of the Indians; but a drunken interpreter, who was calculated to incite the lieutenant to action, caused him, no doubt, to fire his cannon. The next thing was that the war-whoop was sounded, and the lieutenant and part of his men were killed. The others dispersed, were pursued by the Indians in hot blood, and every man was slaughtered.

This is a succinct narrative of that event. Were the Indians to blame? He who violates a law is the man who is responsible for the consequences of that violation. The Indian intercourse laws of the United States have pointed out the manner in which to proceed in such, a case. If a citizen sustains injury from any tribe, or from an individual of a tribe, information is to be given to the Indian agent for that tribe. He is immediately to make a demand upon the chiefs of the nation. If they do not surrender the individual, which in all probability they would do Immediately, if they were treated in good faith, deduction is made from their annuities for the amount of the injury, and there the matter stops. If no annuities are due to them, rather than bring on war, the United States Treasury is responsible to the individual who has sustained loss. These are the provisions of the intercourse laws. In this case, did either of the officers make a demand on the chiefs? The chief sent an assurance that justice would be done and the individual given up, though he did not belong to their band. The officers, unwilling to receive that assurance, dispatched a handful of men against several lodges of Indians, and among whom there had been some ground of complaint. The consequences which I have narrated resulted from this indiscretion and violation of law. It was a violation of law, for no demand was made upon the chiefs for indemnity, and no response was received from them. These gallant gentlemen thought they should go there and make war. They are paid for it; "it is their vocation." Are such men entitled to sympathy? Are they entitled to respect? But their conduct alarmed the Sioux; and because that tribe proposed to confederate with other tribes, we are asked to increase the military force of the country; forsooth, we are to wage war upon the winds, for you might as well do it as upon the prairie Indians.

But this is not all that grew out of that transaction. A clamor is raised about the mail party who were destroyed subsequently to that. It was very natural to expect that it would be done. The Sioux chief, who was wounded on the occasion to which I have referred, was taken to the Arkansas, and there he expired in consequence of the injury he had received. His kindred resolved to revenge his death. The Indian appreciates the ties of kindred far beyond any white man. They may have less intelligence, but the chords of nature are stronger, the sensibilities of the heart more lively than those which stimulate our Christian, enlightened action. It is well known that the grief which resounds through the Indian camp when a warrior or chief expires, or when a relative dies, is like the wailing of Egypt. When this chief expired his friends sought for a white man, that they might take vengeance on him—not for those who had inflicted the wrong, but whoever they might happen to find among the whites. They first came upon the mail party. One, who was not a relative of the chief, said to one of his kindred, "There is a white man, you can now take vengeance on him; you are a coward if you do not do so." He said: "I am no coward; but if you say it, I will kill him." Then he went and killed two out of the three composing the mail party.

Now, sir, what had been the condition of the Indian country previous to these occurrences? I have been assured by gentlemen who have passed from California to Fort Laramie, a distance of one thousand four hundred or one thousand five hundred miles, that they met individuals traveling alone through that vast region. They passed through a wilderness of one thousand four hundred or one thousand five hundred miles unassailed, and without injury from any one. Did this look like a desperate feeling on the part of the Indians, when they allowed unprotected individuals, sometimes singly, occasionally in small companies of three or four persons, to pass through their country unmolested? No, sir. It is some sudden act of wrong and outrage which stimulates the Indian to aggression. He has no inducement to it unless he expects great plunder, because he is very well aware that if he cultivates kind and friendly relations with the whites, he can receive from them supplies that he can not obtain any other way—things which gratify his taste for dress, and supply his wants and appetites. For this reason the Indian is always disposed to be in peace and friendship with his white neighbors if he can.

I have given some illustrations of the so-called Indian outrages. I may refer to another one, which not long since took place in Oregon, and which is given, in some quarters, as a reason why an increase of the Army is required. I refer to a recent massacre of the Indians at a ferry-house in Oregon, as described by the agents and superintendents of that Territory. A number of miners, to the amount of forty, associated together to attack a village of seventy Indians, men, women, and children, without any means of defense, with only five pieces of firearms, pistols, and guns, and two of them entirely useless. The officer, who reports the action, describes in a most military and elegant style, the manner in which he assaulted the village in three divisions. They were entirely successful; killed some sixteen men, killed one squaw, and wounded a couple, and no children—that was merciful! But, sir, they scattered the warriors who were there defenseless, and applied the torch to fheir wigwams. We are told by the gallant gentleman who reported the matter, that the next day the Indians were there hovering about the mouldering ashes of their wigwams. This gallant and chivalrous man, wonderful to relate, says he did not lose a man in the attack. Was he not lucky? [Laughter.] That fellow must look out for a brevet; though I hope he will hardly come here claiming bounty land. [Laughter.]

This act is denounced by the agent and superintendent as most cruel and barbarous. The poor creatures were willing to do anything and everything which was asked of them. They denied every charge that the malicious and the wanton had brought against them; and the truth of their narrative is indorsed by the agent, a man of intelligence. I do not know him; but his report bears the impress of intelligence and integrity.

Well, sir, these circumstances, it is said, call for an army of three regiments, or three thousand men. What are they to cost? Five millions of dollars is the amount which it is proposed to appropriate by the bill which was reported by the Senator from Illinois. We are to appropriate $5,000,000 to bring on a great Sioux war, to meet a most wonderful confederacy, which, it is said, is forming among the Indians. Why, sir, they can not keep together because they are starving in little bands, even in those parts of the country where they can command the most game. How could they remain embodied for any length of time without supplies, without animals, and without food, when their women and children are starving? How could they, under such circumstances, remain a mighty confederation to sweep our frontier? Why, sir, from the display that is made, by the terrible cry of alarm, one would think that New Orleans itself could hardly be safe, but that the Indians would sweep down the Missouri and Mississippi, and carry death, destruction, and devastation in their course!

Arc these causes calculated to produce such mighty effects? Is it proper that the nation should be involved in a general Indian war at this time? Is it proper that $5,000,000 should be expended from the Treasury to begin this war? If this be done, what will be the consequence? The Indians will not be embodied to meet you. Your troops will hear that in some direction there is a Comanche, or a Kioway, or an Osage camp, and they will advance upon it with "all the pomp and circumstance of a glorious war." A morning gun will be fired as a signal to rise and prepare for the march. On such an occasion, with the bugle sounding in advance, how beautiful must be the reflection from the arms and banners floating in the prairie! That is to be the spectacle which is to amuse or drive the Indians ahead. They are to meet the Indians on a trackless waste. You might as well pursue the course of a ship's keel on the ocean, as to pursue the Indians of the prairies. They would disperse, and your army would be left there; and they, perhaps, surrounding you, in the distance, and laughing at the glorious pomp with which you were marching through their prairies. If you take men there and make a display without efficiency, you provoke their ridicule and supreme contempt.

But, Mr. President, ihe course which has been pursued since the days of William Penn to the present moment, has not been entirely successful in conciliating the Indians. Under the management of Washington, of the first Adams, of Madison, of Monroe, of the second Adams, of Jackson, and of Polk, we have, with few exceptions, been very successful in maintaining peace with them. The suggestions made by our fathers in relation to their civilization and humanization, are exemplified and illustrated in the present condition of the southern tribes, who have received the greatest benefits of the light shed on them; and they have responded to it by the cultivation of mind, by the development of resources, both physical and intellectual, which reflect lustre on their character. Can not the Indian now be influenced in the same way, by the same means? Have we no landmarks to guide us? Have we not experience to teach us? Have we not humanity to prompt us to march on in the path which is already laid out before us? Sir, how different is the policy now pursued from what it once was! I must read, for the instruction of the Senate, an extract from the last annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and I beseech your attention to it, because it contains more good sense and reflection than I could impart in the same number of words. It will be necessary in the examination of this subject, in relation both to the Indians and the Army, to see in what manner they harmonize with each other, and how far the one is necessary to the success of the other. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in his report to the Secretary of the Interior, describes a transaction to which I wish to call attention:

"As heretofore reported to you, an association of persons has undertaken to appropriate to their own use a portion of the land ceded by the Delawares, fronting on the Missouri River, and south of Fort Leavenworth; have laid out a city thereon, and actually had a public sale of the lots of the same on the 9th and 10th of October last. These unlawful proceedings have not only taken place under the eyes of the military officers stationed at the fort, but two of them are said to be members of the association, and have been active agents in this discreditable business. Encouraged by these proceedings, and prompted by those engaged in them, other persons have gone on other portions of the tract ceded by the Delawares in trust to the United States, and pretend to have made, and are now making, such 'claims' as they assert will vest in them the lawful right to enter the land at the minimum price under the preemption law of July 12, 1854."

This is a specimen of the aid and succor afforded by military commanders to the agents to maintain and preserve peace among the Indians. These are the gentlemen to whom the agents look for co-operation in the discharge of their duties, and to afford equal protection to the Indians against aggressions from the whites, as to the whites against aggressions from the Indians. Such a transaction as is here disclosed is an act of unmitigated infamy in the officers who have lent themselves to it. I hope the Executive, in the plenitude of his power, and in the exercise of a wise and just discretion, will erase their names from the records of the country, and redeem our annals from infamy so blackening as this. Think, sir, of an officer wearing an American sword, adorned with American epaulettes, the emblem of office and the insignia of honor and manly pride, degrading himself by a violation of the faith of his Government, rendering him a disgrace to the uniform which he wears and the earth upon which he treads!

It will be recollected that the Delaware Indians own one million eight hundred thousand acres of land. They ceded one million three hundred thousand acres to the Government of the United States for $10,000, reserving to themselves the land on which the city referred to has been laid out on the banks of the Missouri. They confided five hundred thousand acres to the Government of the United States, as they could not themselves dispose of it except to the Government; and, believing that it would be a source of wealth and independence to them, they have granted it to the Government, in trust, to be sold by it, the right of possession remaining in them until it should be disposed of. It appears, from the Commissioner's report, that persons had gone and taken possession of this land. If they have not done so, they ought to be vindicated against the charge. I regard it as authentic a.nd official, and until it is controverted I have nothing to extenuate, nor do I set down aught in malice. Justice requires me to state the facts.

Mr. President, I said to the Senate, on a former occasion, that eighteen tribes of Indians had been located by this Government within the limits of the present Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, and that most of them had been removed there from the east of the Mississippi. They were located there under the faith of solemn pledges, that while grass grew or water run, or the earth brought forth its fruits, they should remain on the lands assigned to them unless they chose to abandon them, and that they should not be included within the boundaries of any State or Territory. Notwithstanding this, these Indians were embraced within the Nebraska and Kansas bill. They were taken in—yes, sir, as strangers are sometimes "taken in." What is now their condition, and what must it be in after-time? On this point let the Commissioner of Indian Affairs speak. In his recent report he says, in reference to the Nebraska and Kansas Indians:

"In the recent negotiations for their lands, the Indians dwelt upon the former pledges and promises made to them, and were averse generally to the surrender of any portion of their country. They said that they were to have the land 'as long as grass grew or water run,' and they feared the result if they should consent to yield any part of their possessions. When they did consent to sell, it was only on the condition that each tribe should retain a portion of that tract as a permanent home. All were unitedly and firmly opposed to another removal. So fixed and settled was this idea, that propositions clearly for their interest were rejected by them.

"The residue of the tribes who have recently ceded their lands should, therefore, be considered (subject, in a few cases, to a contraction of limits) as permanently fixed. Already the white population is occupying the lands between and adjacent to the Indian reservations, and even going west of and beyond them; and at no distant day all the country immediately to the west of the reserves, which is worth occupying, would have been taken up. And then the current of population, until within a few years, flowing only from the East, now comes like an avalanche from the Pacific coast, almost overwhelming the indigenous Indians in its approaches. It is therefore, in my judgment, clear, beyond a doubt or question, that the emigrated tribes in Kansas Territory are permanently there—there to be thoroughly civilized, and to become a consistent portion of the population, or there to be destroyed and exterminated. What a spectacle for the view of the statesman, philanthropist, Christian—a subject for the most profound consideration and reflection! With reservations dotting the eastern portion of the Territory, there they stand, the representatives and remnants of tribes once as powerful and dreaded as they are now weak and dispirited. By alternate persuasion and force, some of these tribes have been removed, step by step, from mountain to valley and from river to plain, until they have been pushed half way across the continent. They can go no further; on the ground they now occupy the crisis must be met, and their future determined. Among them may be found the educated, civilized, and converted Indian, the benighted and inveterate heathen, and every intermediate grade. But there they are, and as they are, without standing obligations in their behalf of the most solemn and imperative character, voluntarily assumed by the Government. Their condition is a critical one; such as to entitle them not only to the justice of the Government, but to the most profound sympathy of the people. Extermination may be their fate, but not of necessity. By a union of good influences and proper effort, I believe they may and will be saved, and their complete civilization effected.

"Be that as it may, however, the duty of the Government is, in my opinion, plain. It should fulfill, with the greatest promptness and facility, every treaty stipulation with these Indians; frown down, at the first dawning, any and every attempt to corrupt them; see that their ample annuities are directed faithfully to their education and improvement, and not made the means of their destruction; incessantly resist the efforts of the selfish and heartless men who, by the specious plans and devices for their own gain, may seek to distract and divide them; require diligence, energy, and integrity in the administration of their affairs, by the agents who may be intrusted with their interests and welfare, and visit the severest penalty of the law on all who may violate its salutary provisions in relation to them. Let these things be done; the co-operation of the civil officers, magistrates, and good citizens of the Territory secured, and the most active efforts of the friends of the benevolent institutions now existing among them be brought into exercise for their moral culture; and, by harmonious and constant effort and action, a change may, and, it is believed, will, be brought about, and Kansas become distinguished as a land in which the complete and thorough civilization of the red man was worked out and accomplished."

Sir, it is the violation of treaties, and the bad faith of the white man and his aggressive course, that cause the inquietude of the Indian, and we feel it very much in the section of country in which I live. There is a remedy, and that remedy must be applied, or the Indians exterminated, at an expense ten times beyond what would civilize, in half a century, every red man who walks upon the soil of America. I have seen tribes rise from a state of barbarism to a condition in which they are as civilized in their institutions, in their religion, and in their social refinement and habits, as citizens of the United States, and all this has been done within half a century. These things are as possible now as at any former time; and a sum, very easily calculated—less than the amount estimated as necessary to raise these troops and subsist them for one year—would civilize every Indian on the continent, set him down on a piece of land, and give him "a local habitation and a name." Is it not worth an attempt? Is it not worth accomplishment? Sir, let me give you some experience in relation to Indians.

The United States have regiments in Texas, and Texas is considered by some as a burden on the Treasury. Texas, it is said, exhausts the Army of the United States, and withdraws them from more eligible stations to protect her frontier. I will show you, sir, how that is. In 1842 and 1843 Texas had a war on hand which had been brought about by an exterminating policy proclaimed by a new Administration, and peace was not restored until 1843, when the head of the Government of Texas went about the work of their civilization. He went into the wilderness, on the prairies, and there met the Indians, who would not trust themselves within the timbered land, nor, near any place where there was a possibility of ambuscade. A treaty was there made, which not only stayed the tomahawk and the scalping-knife, but preserved peace and safety on the frontier until 1849. We were for six years without massacre, without conflagration, without prisoners being taken. Not a Texan was killed in that time by the Indians. One man was killed near the Indian country, but whether by the Mexicans or Indians was a doubtful question; at any rate, he was not scalped.

Now, sir, how was this done? By what means? By pursuing a policy which had been initiated in 1836, but was disrupted in 183S, and a war brought upon the entire borders of that young Republic. The old policy was re-established in 1843. Resistance was made to it, as there was to every attempt made to establish a government. There was an attempt, on the part of some lawless men, to resist everything like order and organization, and throw the government into anarchy and misrule; but they failed. These Indians had been our enemies; they had been exasperated by unprovoked aggressions upon them; but the proper conciliatory disposition soon won their regard and affection. What was the expense of all this? I am almost afraid to state it, for I fear it will not be credited when we see the enormous estimates now made for the expense of treaties with the Indians. Sir, every dollar given to the Executive of Texas to consummate these treaties, to feed the Indians, to make presents, was annually $10,000; and he rendered vouchers for the last cent. For this sum peace was accomplished and maintained, the safety and protection of our frontiers insured, and the Indians made peaceable and happy.

When Texas was annexed to the United States, these Indians, on account of faith having been maintained with them by the then Executive of Texas, refused to meet and confer with the commissioners sent to them by the President of the United States, until they had the sanction of the Government of Texas; and the symbols of confidence were put in the hands of the commissioners before the Indians would treat with them. A treaty was then negotiated. What was the history of it? One of the commissioners — a noble and gallant gentleman, who afterward fell at Chapultepec, in Mexico, at the head of his regiment—was too much indisposed to render any assistance. His co-commissioner assumed the whole business; and what did he do? He had the Indians' names signed with a mark on a sheet of paper, had it attested, and brought it on here. He made large promises to the Indians; he assured them of an annuity of $14,000, to be paid annually, at a certain trading-house; but when he wrote his treaty (for he did not write it until he came here, when he appended to it the sheet containing the signatures), it contained a provision that they should receive barely $14,000 as a full acquittance. It cost $60,000 to negotiate this treaty, as the records of the treasury show. This is a sum equal to the price of six years' peace between the Indians and the Government of Texas. Perhaps, however, the people of Texas were better then than now. Since that time they have been under the Government of the United States. I simply state facts. I leave the inference to others.

Sir, if the agent appointed by Mr. Polk, who has been restored by the present Executive—it is a bright spot in his Administration, and I commend him for it—had never been removed, there would have been peace to this day on the borders of Texas; but as soon as the Indian agent who was appointed to succeed him went there, he must forsooth establish a ranche; he must have a farm. The Indians who had been settled there from 1843 up to 1849, had been furnished by the Government of Texas with implements of husbandry, with seeds of every description, and they were cultivating their little farms. They were comfortable and independent. They were living in perfect peace. If you can get Indians located, and place their wives and children within your cognizance, you need never expect aggression from them. It is the Indian who has his wife in security, beyond your reach, who, like the felon wolf, goes to a distance to prey on some flock, far removed from his den; or like the eagle, who seeks his prey from the distance, and never from the flocks about his eyrie. The agent to whom I have referred lost two oxen from his ranche where he kept his cattle. He went to the officer in command of Fort Belknap, got a force from him, and then marched to those Indians, sixty miles from there, and told them they must pay for the oxen. They said, " We know nothing about your oxen; our people are here; here are our women and children; we have not killed them; we have not stolen them; we have enough to eat; we are happy; we have raised corn; we have sold corn; we have corn to sell; we have sold it to your people, and they have paid us for it, and we are happy." The agent and the military gentlemen scared off the Indians from the limits of Texas, and drove them across the Red River to the Wichita mountains, taking every horse and animal they had to pay for the two oxen. This was done by an accredited agent of the Government, and by an officer who deserved but little credit. Are such things tolerable, and to be tolerated in the present age and condition of our Government?

What was the consequence? Those Indians felt themselves aggrieved. They saw that a new regime had come; they had had the era of peace and plenty, and now they were expelled by a different influence. They felt grateful for the benign effects of the first policy toward them, and that only exasperated them to a greater extent against the second; and they began to make incursions, ready to take vengeance on any white men they might meet in their neighborhood, and slay whoever they might find. They made their forays from the opposite side of the Red River, from the Wichita mountains, and came like an avalanche upon our unprotected citizens. There is one fact showing how your interference with the Indians within her limits has injured Texas.

There is another fact in connection with the Indian policy of Texas which I shall mention. How was it with the Wichita Indians? Texas sought to conciliate them; they lived beyond her borders, and made incursions from the limits of the United States into Texas while she was an independent Republic. She did everything in her power to bring about peace with them, and, through the friendly Indians, was pacifying them. One of their chiefs, with his wife and little child, and twelve of his men, came to Fort Belknap. Some one hundred and fifty or two hundred miles west of the fort, at Hamilton's valley, property had been stolen by Indians. It was not known which out of the thirteen different tribes had taken it; for outlaws occasionally congregated from each, half a dozen of them stealing off from their tribes, without the influence of their chiefs operating upon them. They were outlaws, careless of the destiny of their tribes, and reckless of the crimes which they might commit, so that they could gratify their cupidity and recompense their daring. These men had taken some property. Dragoons came on in the direction of Red River, and reached Fort Belknap. So soon as they arrived, the officer said to this chief: "Sir, I retain you as a prisoner. It is true you came under a white flag; but I am an officer; I have the power; I take you prisoner, and you must stay here a prisoner until the horses are brought back. Your men must stay, too, except one, whom I will send to your tribe with intelligence of the fact." The chief said: "My tribe have not committed the robbery; it is a great distance from me; it is in another direction. I come from the rising sun; that is toward the setting sun; I was far from it; you are between me and it; I did not do it." "But," said the officer, "you are a prisoner." The officer put him in the guard-house. Imprisonment is eternal infamy to an Indian. A prairie Indian would rather die a thousand deaths than submit to the disgrace of imprisonment. You may wound and mutilate him as you please, you may crush every limb in the body of a prairie Indian, and if he can make no other resistance, he will spit defiance at you when you come within his reach. This chief, meditating upon his deep disgrace, knowing that he was irreparably dishonored, unless he could wash out his stains with blood, resolved that night that he would either die a freeman or rescue himself from dishonor. He rose in the night. He would not leave his wife and child in the hands of his enemy; so he took his knife and stabbed his squaw and little one to the heart. Not a groan was heard, for he well knew where to apply the poignard. He went and shot down the sentinel, rushed upon the superior officers, was shot, and perished like a warrior, in an attempt to wipe a stain from his honor. His men fled and returned to their tribe, but it was to bring blood, carnage, and conflagration upon our settlements. They came not again as brothers to smoke the calumet of peace, but with brands in their hands to set fire to our houses. Contrast that with the previous years; contrast it with the harmony which had before existed, and you see the lamentable result of sending, as Indian agents and army officers to take charge of the Indians, men who know nothing about the Indian character.

Well, sir, how can Texas expect peace; how can she expect protection to her citizens?' Not from your army. It has never given her protection; it is incompetent to give protection; and it is a reproach to the country. I will not say anything personally unkind of the officers who command, for they are gentlemen; but I say they know nothing about the Indians, and I shall prove it. Texas deserves protection, and she can have it if a rational effort be made to give it to her, but not by your troops. What sort of protection can she expect from hostile Indians, when the commanding officer of that military department, a gallant gentleman, who has borne himself nobly in the heat of battle, skillful in design, bold and gallant in execution, and in all the martial arts replete, but amongst the Indians unskilled. He has issued an order that no Indian should go within twenty miles of a fortress on the frontier of Texas. The Indians think, "Very well, you say the Indians shall not come within twenty miles of your forts, and we say your men shall not come within twenty miles of us, or we will shoot them." That is a pretty good notion for an Indian; it is very natural. The boundary is fixed by the white man, and the Indian lives up to it.

Well, sir, there is a remedy for all this, and it is very easy to apply it; but how are we circumstanced there? Is it supposed by some that we are deriving great aid from the army, and that the greatest portion of the disposable forces of the United States is in Texas, and protecting it.? How can they protect us against the Indians when the cavalry have not horses which can trot faster than active oxen, and the infantry dare not go out in any hostile manner for fear of being shot and scalped! Can they pursue a party who pounce down on a settlement and take property, and reclaim that property? Have they ever done it? Did the old rangers of Texas ever fail to do it, when they were seated on their Texas ponies 1 They were men of intelligence and adroitness in regard to the Indian character, and Indian warfare. Do you think a man is fit for such service who has been educated at West Point Academy, furnished with rich stores of learning; more educated in the science of war than any general who fought through the Revolution, and assisted in achieving our independence? Are you going to take such gentlemen, and suppose that by intuition they will understand the Indian character? Or do you suppose they can track a turkey, or a deer, in the grass of Texas, or could they track an Indian, or would they know whether they were tracking a wagon or a carriage? [Laughter.] Not at all, sir. We wish, in the first place, to have men suited to the circumstances. Give us agents who are capable of following out their instructions, and who understand the Indian character. Give us an army, gentlemen, who understand not only the science of command, but have some notions of extending justice and protection to the Indian, against the aggression of the whites, while they protect the whites against the aggressions from the Indians. Then, and not till then, will you have peace.

How is this to be done? Withdraw your army. Have five hundred cavalry, if you will; but I would rather have two hundred and fifty Texas rangers (such as I could raise), than five hundred of the best cavalry now in service. I would have one thousand infantry, so placed as to guard the United States against Mexico, and five hundred for scouting purposes. I would have five trading-houses from the Rio Grande to the Red River for intercourse with the Indians. I would have a guard of twenty-five men out of an infantry regiment, at each trading-house, who would be vigilant and always on the alert. Cultivate intercourse with the Indians. Show them that you have comforts to exchange for their peltries; bring them around you; domesticate them; familiarize them with civilization. Let them see that you are rational beings, and they will become rational in imitation of you; but take no whiskey there at all, not even for the officers, for fear their generosity would let it out. Do this and you will have peace with the Indians. Whenever you convince an Indian that he is dependent on you for comforts, or for what he deems luxuries or elegances of life, you attach him to you. Interest, it is said, governs the world, and it will soon ripen into affection. Intercourse and kindness will win the fiercest animal on earth except the hyena; and its spots and nature can not be changed. The nature of an Indian can be changed. He changes under adverse circumstances, and rises into the dignity of a civilized being. If you war against him, it takes a generation or two to regenerate his race, but it can be done. I would have fields around the trading-houses. I would encourage the Indians to cultivate them. Let them see how much it adds to their comfort; how it insures to their wives and children abundant subsistence, and then you win the Indian over to civilization; you charm him, and he becomes a civilized man.

Sir, while people are seeking to civilize and Christianize men on the banks of the Ganges, or the Jordan, or the Brahmapootra, why should not the same philanthropic influence be extended through society, and be exerted in behalf of the American Indians.? Is not the soul of an American Indian, in the prairie, worth as much as the soul of a man on the Ganges, or in Jerusalem? Surely it is. Then let the American Government step forward; let it plant the standard of regeneration and civilization among the Indians, and it will command the co-operation of the citizens in their philanthropic efforts. I am willing to appeal to the venerable and distinguished Senator from Michigan, who knows what an Indian is, and what his disposition is, perhaps more thoroughly than I do myself. To him would I defer, but to no other man, for a certain and intimate knowledge of the Indian character.

There is another point in connection with the dealings of the Government with the Texas Indians to which I will advert. There are the Comanches of the woods, and the Comanches of the prairie. The Texas Indians do not receive their annuities in Texas, but they are brought into Kansas, a great distance from us, where they receive the munificence of the Government in their annuities, on the east of the Red River and the Arkansas. What is the consequence? They believe Texas is not their friend, or that the Federal Government, from their crude notions of it, would pay them in Texas, and would not make them travel over rivers, and through trackless prairies, to receive their presents. They return to Texas, not with feelings of respect for the benefits they receive, but with contempt. This is bad policy. You should distribute your presents to the Texas Indians within the limits of Texas. Her territory is broad enough; her domain is fertile enough; her character is high enough to justify you in doing so. She has done much for herself—more than this Government has ever done for her.

In order to treat with the Indians properly, as I have said, you should take away your troops, except the portion I have stated. The Indians, with the exception of the Osages, Kiowas, and Kaws, are disposed to be friendly, I believe. As to the disaffection of the Sioux, I look on it only as an uprising to resist aggression. They were fired on by artillery and small arms, without provocation, and it is but natural that they should resist. Theirs is not a confederation to assail the whites, but to protect themselves. I justify them in doing it. I am sorry there is a necessity for it; but if I were among them, and they proposed a confederacy to repel cruelty and butchery, I would join them, and he would be a dastard who would not.

When gentlemen speak of a war upon the Indians, have they considered the consequences? You may succeed in killing their women and children, but it is a remarkable fact that you kill but very few of the warriors. Those who march with martial display upon the Indians, find them to-night at one point at dark; they may see the smoke of their fires; and at dawn tomorrow they will be fifty or seventy miles away, with their caravans, and every child and woman, not even a dog being left behind. What army that you could send of three thousand men, or any other number, could effect anything by making war upon the Indians? Why, sir, it would be like the redoubtable exploit of the celebrated King of France, who, "with forty thousand men marched up a hill, and then marched down again." [Laughter.] Yes, sir, that, I predict, would be the history of such a campaign.

To accomplish the object here contemplated, it is proposed to spend $5,000,000. As I have said before, that amount of money would civilize every Indian on the continent, if you sent men of intelligence and capacity among them to do it. I have been delighted with the reports which I have had the opportunity of glancing at, accompanying the annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. One from a gentleman who now occupies a seat in the other House [Mr. Whitfield] gratified me exceedingly. I have had the pleasure of seeing him but once since my arrival. I knew him, when a youth, in Tennessee, and he has more than met my expectations, though then they were not indifferent. He has proved himself to be a man of fine perceptions, of excellent judgment, and of good heart. He has capacity to treat with and to reclaim the Indians; and, I doubt not, that he and other gentlemen who could be associated with him, could go to the Indians, with five hundred troops, if you please—not march through the Indian country, but send word to the chiefs; let them know they had a force, and there is not a chief, who has had any relations with the United States, but would come forward willingly, make treaties, and maintain them in good faith. But you must establish trading-houses; you must protect them, and then you may command the Indians absolutely, and you will have no murders upon your roads.

Sir, would it not be much wiser to send a few wagons with presents than to send an army? Would not the object be effected much sooner by sending commissioners with presents? The Executive and Senate are the treaty-making power, and all that is necessary for Congress to do, is to make an appropriation for the purpose. Would it not be much easier to take presents to the Indians, and would not the object of attaining and preserving peace be much sooner effected in this way than by an army? While you were clothing and equipping your army, and marching it there, the Indians might kill half the people on the frontier. Your army would have to march thousands of miles to reach them; but commissioners could go quietly along, with four or five hundred troops, or as many as might be necessary; I would leave that to their discretion; I would select men of capacity for fighting as well as for treating. Send such men, and there will be no trouble in bringing about peace. My life upon it, $5,000,000 would suffice to civilize every Indian who has ever been in treaty with the United States, and settle him in a quiet, comfortable home.

Some time since the present agent in Texas was ordered to lay off a section of country in that State for the use of the Indians. He did so. He said to the fierce Comanches, "Come here, my brothers, and settle down." They have done so. The Indians to whom I before alluded, who were driven off by the former agent, after robbing them of their horses, upon the assurances given at the return of the present worthy and intelligent agent, faithful to his trust, came back in perfect confidence, and set themselves to building their houses to shelter their women, old men, and children, while J the warriors went out to kill game. There they are. The southern Comanches went within the border, and said, "Let us settle"; but they were immediately told, through the influence of the army, I suppose, that they must not settle there. I saw, not long since, a letter from a most intelligent gentleman, who said that the officer at Fort Belknap, with three companies of rangers, and two of regulars, was daily expecting to make a descent on the poor Indians who had been settled there by the agent, under the pledges of the Government, which promised them that they should have a country where they should throw away the arts of the wild and the red man, and become domestic, agricultural, and civilized in their pursuits. They have acquiesced in that policy of the Government, but are in constant dread lest the military gentleman in command of the fort, in order to gain laurels and acquire glory, and do honor to his profession, may make a descent with the regulars and volunteers, or rangers, upon the poor Indians. If intelligence of such a descent should arrive, I should not be surprised. I shall be distressed, to be sure; but it will only be one of a thousand distresses which I have felt at the wrongs inflicted on the Indians.

I have before spoken, Mr. President, of the talk as to the army being applied to the defense of Texas. What is the efficiency of that army? There are three companies at Fort Belknap. What force do you suppose they have? They have the incredible amount of efficient force (and part of them on the alert, reconnoitering and scouting) of just sixty men. There were sixty men out of three companies! Now, how many men constitute a company?

Mr. Shields. Sixty-four.

Mr. Houston. They have not one-third of the requisite number. The amount at a fort where there are two companies is thirty men. That is the protection you afford to Texas. We have no efficient force in Oregon. I have discovered, in looking over the reports, that, at the fort, near the ferry-house, where the massacre of such unprecedented atrocity took place, there were but four soldiers. This is the protection your army affords!

Now, sir, is it politic to increase the regular force of the United States? To govern a country well, where intelligence predominates over selfishness and interest, I think the smaller the army is the better. I have had some experience in that. It is very well to take care of arms and ordnance stores and army stores which would be useful in time of war. It is necessary, I think, to have an army for that purpose. You may have as great a stock of science as you please, but it does not follow that you are bound to make an officer of every gentleman you educate at West Point. I do not think it would be wise policy to extend the army to suit the establishment of the Military Academy; but rather to suit the Military Academy to the interests and exigencies of the country. That is my opinion about the army.

The nominal number of the army is fourteen thousand. There is not a vacancy, I presume, for an officer in the whole service. According to the data I have before me, and the items 1 have given, I suppose there are about four thousand five hundred men in the service. To make the actual number of fourteen thousand complete, you would have to make the nominal force three times fourteen thousand. Let the head of the Department show that they can keep this establishment perfect before they go to ingrafting new limbs on it, in its present imperfect condition. Let the trunk be sound before you graft it. I know that the officers will never be less than the establishment; and if the soldiers be less than the establishment, it shows that it is too large, and ought rather to be reduced. Whenever we see that the present establishment is kept in order, and the requisite number of men to make it complete always in the service, it will commend itself to consideration; and if a greater amount of force, or a larger establishment be necessary, it would be acceded to. I do not, however, now see any necessity for it. If you increase it, it will never get less. We know that, even when the army is increased in time of war, there is difficulty in reducing it to a peace establishment afterward. It has always been the case, and always will be, that a man, by once holding an office temporarily, acquires a claim to it which is enforced by relatives and friends: and the army thereby will become an eye-sore to the people, and a carbuncle upon the body politic.

It may be asked, sir, how I would furnish protection to the emigrants who travel on the plains to California and Oregon. I would fix a proper season at which they should take their departure from Fort Laramie. I would have them depart in companies, each company consisting of about one thousand emigrants. Out of these one thousand, the usual proportion would be about two hundred and fifty men, I would give them a guard of two hundred and fifty more, making five hundred men to each company. I would have them start in three several bodies in the course of the year, so that they should accomplish the trip properly, and let them start at such distances that they should not be more than one hundred miles apart. In this way they would be enabled to march across the plains without difficulty. I would have a fort at each end of the road to prevent the passage of a company incompetent to defend themselves, and not let them undertake to cross the wilderness alone. This is the course which I would pursue, and, I think, in this way perfect security would be given to the emigrants. Thus, if our citizens would make the venture, they would have an escort and a protection capable of resisting all the Indian power which might come upon them.

Sir, in the course of my remarks I have said some things which might seem to bear upon the officers of the army as a class. My partialities for military men, and for gentlemen of the army, are of a character not to be doubted. I know their high-toned feeling, their honorable bearing, and their chivalry; and when I commented upon some of them, I only spoke of such as brought themselves within the purview of my remarks by impropriety of conduct, deserving the reprobation of every man who appreciates honorable feelings, integrity, and truthfulness. As a class, however, 1 admire and respect them. I have experienced their hospitalities. Once I enjoyed their association with pleasure; and my recollections of early habits, formed in their companionship, always mark a verdant spot in memory's waste. It is only the guilty and the culpable that I condemn.

Sir, I believe the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs has withdrawn that portion of the amendment relating to the appointment of three commissioners to treat with the Indians. But, Mr. President, if we wish to do good to the Indians, we have it in our power; if we wish to destroy them, we can starve them out. If we intend to save them, we can do it by appealing to their best feelings. There is one pathway to an Indian's heart. If you show him that comforts and benefits are to result to his wife and children, you may command him absolutely, and he yields implicitly. He has no opposing thought to their interest. I have always seen that if you could impress an Indian with the conviction that comfort and security would inure to his squaw and pappooses, from the adoption of a particular policy, he would submit to it. My colleague [Mr. Rusk] knows that this is the way to the heart of an Indian. The proudest warrior is humiliated at the thought of his wife and little ones being in the least uncomfortable. Whenever an Indian intends to conciliate the whites, he brings his family and settles as near as he can to a fort or agency, and says, "Here are the hostages I give you for my fidelity to you; if I do wrong, I know they will suffer; they are dearer to me than my life." The Indians can be brought around trading-houses.

I have lost all hope of the stations in Texas doing any good. I would not have more than twenty-five men at a trading-house to give protection, in the event of any ebullition among the Indians of a violent character. It would be entirely accidental if such a necessity happened around the trading-houses as to require protection to be given to the caravans emigrating to California and Oregon. I would encourage the Indians in the arts of peace. You need no armies; you need no Indian allies to butcher them. All you have to do is to maintain your faith in carrying out the treaties which have been made, and not directly or indirectly encourage men to violate every principle of honor and humanity, and deride even faith itself.

After some remarks by Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, Mr. HOUSTON said:

The honorable Senator from Tennessee, in the course of his remarks, has fallen into several errors; he certainly has misapprehended me as to the import of my remarks about the force necessary to guard the emigrants. I estimated them, perhaps, at three thousand annually; I do not care whether it be three hundred or three hundred thousand; but in proportion as they are numerous, they will afford themselves efficient means of defense; and, according to my calculation, in twenty thousand there would be furnished five thousand fighting men. Then, as to a smaller force, if they were organized in the march, a small addition of soldiers would be sufficient to give them all the protection that would be necessary. It is necessary to subdivide them into such companies as can conveniently travel together, on account of grass, water, and other supplies that they must procure on the prairies.

As to the army and its efficiency, I remark, that if the army were filled up to the amount that is necessary, it would take three times fourteen thousand nominally, to furnish an efficient force of fourteen thousand in the field. I estimate the efficient force at about one-third of the number that appears on paper.

Mr. Shields. Will the Senator permit me to interrupt him?

Mr. Houston. With great pleasure.

Mr. Shields.The legal or authorized force is a little over fourteen thousand, but the actual force is about eleven thousand.

Mr. Houston. Then, Mr. President, for security, it will be necessary to keep encampments in sight from Fort Laramie until they reach California. If they are ever out of sight of a guard sufficient to protect them, they are liable to depredation. If small companies of only a hundred men can thus travel, they will travel at their own risk and go to their certain destruction, unless the Indians are conciliated; and that shows the necessity of making peace with them. The honorable Senator from Tennessee says that it is an imperative necessity to send the army. He says if the commissioners fail, you must have recourse to chastisement; but if they succeed, the force of three thousand men will be unnecessary.

But, Mr. President, my life upon it, and I do not say it lightly, if from three hundred to five hundred men were taken by the three commissioners; or, if they limited their escort to forty, or fifty, or one hundred men, they would succeed in conciliating every Indian on this side of the Rocky mountains, if in the meantime the white men do not commit aggression. If you send such discreet men as could be selected, you can keep peace; and yet, upon the contingency that they may not succeed, you are to go to the expense of an army. But if we can not keep up our present establishment of fourteen thousand complete and effective men for actual service, with all the resources of this nation, its increased bounty, and pay, and rations, let us give up the army; let them go to more useful employments. What is the use of talking about making the establishment commensurate with the present wants, if you can not keep up the present establishment to the necessities and exigencies of the country? Let them do that, and expose the fallacy of the theory which says that we must keep on increasing the army until we get the requisite number to keep up to the established standard. Let them reduce the officers to the number of men. That is the way to do it. We must have some criterion to go by; and until we do it we shall never have an efficient army. The army is small enough. Its efficiency is the great object. Now, fourteen thousand men are sufficient for all the exigencies of the country; and we must have some mode to give the emigrants security, or they must go at their own hazards or adventure. I desire to give them protection. You have to rely upon the disposition of the Indians for security to our emigrants. Unless you conciliate them, all the armies we can take will never give the emigrants protection. What kind of security can you give to emigrants for a distance of fifteen or eighteen hundred miles? You can give no protection where the troops would be a mile apart, for the unprotected emigrants might be attacked and slaughtered before any succor could come to them. Sir, it is the feelings of the Indians which you have to conciliate; it is their friendship, their confidence, you must obtain. Treat them with justice and liberality, and a hundredth part of the money which you spend in supporting the army will keep them faithful. They will not violate a treaty unless the aggression is commenced by the whites. A few outlaws of a tribe may; but in such a case the tribe will not sacrifice its annuities for the lives of outcasts. It will either execute them or hand them over to the military authority of the country for condign punishment.

In this way a few examples would have an electric influence upon all the tribes, for they have a more direct communication than the United States Government possesses with all its mail facilities, until it establishes a telegraph. They carry intelligence a hundred miles in twenty-four hours, and do you think that the laying off of this town in Kansas is not already communicated to every tribe of Indians in the prairies?' Yes, it is; they know that the white man has told the Indians, the Delawares, a lie; they know they have stolen their land; they know there is no faith to be reposed in them. Keep faith with them, send men who are wise and instructed in the Indian disposition and character, and they will give you peace—my life upon it. You have not a solitary man between the Mississippi and the Pacific coast, but knows that all the money in the Treasury lavished, will never give you peace or protection to the emigrants, until you have the confidence and the friendship of the Indians. Were you to pay ten thousand, or a hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand dollars to keep the troops there, they would render no aid of importance to the emigrants, unless you secure the friendship of the Indians. Whenever that is secured you will have peace, but as long as you rely on military force to give protection to the emigrants, you will not have peace.

January 31, 1855.

After a speech by Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, Mr. Houston said:

Mr. President, I am impressed with the belief that any effort of mine, on the present occasion, will be unavailing for the accomplishment of the object which I have in view; but, nevertheless, I regard it as an imperative duty to do everything in my power to prevent the adoption of a course of policy which I consider detrimental to the peace and security of our frontier settlements.

I admit, sir, that the measure proposed by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Shields], as chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, is presented to the Senate in an imposing manner. It seems to be indorsed by the Secretary of War and the President of the United States; but, though I entertain full respect for the opinions of those distinguished gentlemen, I must be allowed liberty to investigate the subject for myself, and to put my own construction on the facts which are laid before us. It is not sufficient for me that a measure comes here indorsed by the recommendation of the Executive. If I entertain a different view from the Executive on any point, I must act, as a Senator, on my own judgment, and not in subserviency to the views of others. Are we to acquiesce in the proposition now presented to us, because the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Jones] and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Dawson] tell us it is indorsed by the Executive Departments, and has received their approbation? Are we to become the mere recording instruments of the opinions of the Executive, without the privilege of investigating subjects, and acting on them independent of those influences which may be brought to bear on us? For my own part, Mr. President, I shall, when placed here for the purpose of deliberation and action, always exercise my own opinions, however much I may defer to the recommendations and opinions of others, as I am responsible, not only to my constituents, but to the nation.

I must confess, Mr. President, that I can not regard the necessity as urgent as it seems to be esteemed by other gentlemen, and by those who have recommended it. It seems to be a measure of war, and retaliation for wrongs done; it is a measure which, we are told, is necessary to save our frontiers from aggression, and to protect them against violence and warfare. I can not arrive at that conclusion. However misguided I may be, or however obtuse my faculties, I can not see the slightest indications of a disposition, on the part of the Indians, to wage hostilities against this country, or to endanger the lives of our citizens, if a correct policy were pursued. Sir, we must go to the origin of this matter, to see how far causes have influenced the present condition of things. We shall then be in a situation to apply the necessary remedies, and to secure our frontiers against aggression. In the first place, we are informed by the Secretary of War that —

"During the past year the Sioux had committed many depredations upon the property of the emigrants passing Fort Laramie on their route to Oregon and Utah. On the 19th of August, Lieutenant Grattan, of the 6th infantry, was sent, by the commander of the post, with thirty-five men to arrest an offender. This entire force was massacred by the Indians, with the exception of one man, who escaped severely wounded, and subsequently died. The circumstances of this affair were at first involved in obscurity; but authentic details have since proved that the massacre was the result of a deliberately formed plan, prompted by a knowledge of the weakness of the garrison at Fort Laramie, and by the temptation to plunder a large quantity of public and private stores accumulated at or near that post. The number of the Indians engaged in the affair was between fifteen hundred and two thousand men."

It is very strange that numerous outrages have been committed, as we are told by the Secretary of War. Sir, what are the facts? Not a single outrage was committed upon the frontier in the vicinity of Fort Laramie but this; and how was it produced? Was it produced by the Indians? We are told by the Secretary, too, forsooth, that an ambuscade was laid for the purpose of decoying this lieutenant, and massacring him and his party. Strange it was, indeed, that he should not have discovered this ambuscade, when he, for the distance of a mile or more, had marched through the Indians, with two pieces of artillery, to arrest an Indian, without requiring the chiefs, or waiting for them, to surrender the offender. But what was the offense? The killing of a crippled cow. That embraces the repeated outrages upon the people in the vicinity of Fort Laramie, and on the route to Oregon and to California!

Let us look into the facts. We are told by a most intelligent gentleman. General Whitfield, an Indian agent, that these Indians had committed no depredations until they were fired upon, and one of their chiefs wounded. That took place before they attempted to retaliate; and even then, in the first instance, they abstained from anything like retaliation, through the influence of their chiefs, until the artillery had fired upon them. Did that look like an ambuscade which was laid, or a deliberate design to massacre the party? Sir, these are facts. They are not deductions. They are verified by as gallant a man as ever was in a camp of the United States—a man of intelligence and of character. What was the condition of the Indians there? Why, sir, they had been promised annuities. They were aware that the goods had arrived there. They had been there for nearly three weeks. The Indians had patiently waited. Their provisions were scarce. The agent was expected to return daily, and did soon return and possess himself of all the facts. The individual who was relied on by the War Department, made an authentic statement to the agent, which was verified by no less than seven witnesses who were on the ground, that the aggression was made by the lieutenant, and at the instigation of a drunken interpreter, from whom the lieutenant had taken a bottle of whiskey, and had thrown it down and broken it. Who can suppose that such a medium through' which to communicate to the Indians was calculated either to inspire respect or confidence, or that he was a very suitable medium through which to present grave matters, and make reclamation for a cow?

Sir, that cow is to become the wonderful prodigy of the present age, and she is to enlist the sympathies of the whole country for the lieutenant and his company, who fell victims to indiscretion and rashness. Doubtless, induced by the language of this drunken interpreter, he acted with the indiscretion that would characterize youth, but not the deliberation of manhood, and yet this country is to be involved in a war, the least expense to be attached to which will be $5,000,000. It will be an expensive cow; and after you have carried on the war as long as the war continued in Florida, and it has cost you another forty-five millions, you will end it in the same way by peace. Where they have boundless deserts, and mountains, and fastnesses, and plains in which to find security, and when those in Florida, who were hemmed in on an isthmus or a cape, could not be reduced by the army of the United States, and the militia of the South, how are you going to take troops thousands of miles to subdue these Indians in the illimitable West? It is impossible that it can be done, Mr. President. Then you will have to purchase peace; and, beside all that, for ten years to come, you will have to increase your officers, and clerks in your accounting offices, to pay for the lost horses, and the incidental losses and injuries done.

But, we are told by the honorable Senator from Alabama [Mr. Fitzpatrick] that there is great danger from the Indians, in large bodies of two thousand five hundred, sweeping down the Missouri River and the Mississippi, and that carnage, massacre, and slaughter will be the consequence of it. Much respect as I have for the honorable Senator—and I assure you it is of the most sincere character—T can not agree with him on these Indian subjects, though he has lived in a State contiguous to the Indians, but of a character very different from those of the plains. The Indians of the plains are sui generis when compared with others. They are not like the Indians located in the towns or wigwams of the South; they have no marks of civilization in their habits. The want of contact with the whites has deprived them of a thousand advantages which the Indians of the South possessed from the earliest recollection of the Senator.

But, sir, how would a force of Indians embody themselves on the frontiers and remain for twenty days embodied? It can not be done. My honorable colleague [Mr. Rusk] well knows that they can not do it, unless they have the appliances and comforts of the white man; unless they have stock from which they can prepare provisions for the occasion, and produce grain. It is impossible, sir, and it is now their daily employment, with the exception of a few outlaws or war parties that occasionally go out to engage in hunting, to support their women and children, and to keep them from starvation. Yes, sir, it is impossible that they can embody themselves, and remain fourteen days embodied, in an attitude menacing to the security of our frontier settlements.

I apprehend no danger. We find, from every circumstance, that the Indians there are perfectly disposed to peace and conciliation. There is no disposition to go to war, except on the part of some outlaws in each tribe, who may go on predatory excursions, regardless of the authority of their chiefs; but the chiefs have influence enough, for they are despotic, their power is absolute, and if you will give them time they will control the tribe, and those fellows will be surrendered, and make an atonement for their crimes. They will be surrendered, for, after the killing—I will not call it massacre—or after their repelling of the attack made by Lieutenant Grattan and his party, which terminated so disastrously to them, amounting almost to their entire extermination, the chiefs, apprehensive of the consequences, and of the difficulty of having the facts presented to this Government, and fearing the involvement of their wives and children in difficulties, and that they should be harassed and reduced to starvation to an extant greater than they had yet experienced, came forward with propositions to make reparation for the injury done, and to surrender the ofl:enders. But the officer did not receive them. No, sir, he drove them off: " Away, sir, I want nothing to do with you." If you wish to have a force, under such circumstances, exercising no more discretion or precaution than is here evinced, sufficient to protect our frontier, you will have to maintain three hundred thousand, instead of three thousand. Why could he not have said to the Indians: "Bring in the chiefs, I will await the decision," or, "The agent will be here, or is here; talk to him "; but no, sir, the officers were willing to take the responsibility without referring it to the agent.

And here we find a discrepancy between the report of the head of the Indian Bureau and the Secretary of War. We find that the Indian agent, in detailing the facts, gives them as they are, perfectly authenticated by the best evidence; and we find the officers giving a different glossary. These statements have to be reconciled. If I wished information in relation to the army purely, I would, with great pleasure and respect, go to the Secretary of War, for I know his intelligence would respond to any inquiry that is proper to his duty; but if I want information in relation to the Indians, I go to the head of the Indian Bureau, where I expect to find an able, intelligent, and attentive gentleman. In the present instance, I am happy to say that I fully appreciate his conduct. I respect his capacity and his consistency in the discharge of the duties assigned to him.

Sir, do we find in the report of the Secretary of War as complete information in relation to Indian matters as we receive from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs? I think not. In relation to the recent outrages against the Delaware Indians, in the usurpation of their territory in disregard of every pledge made by this Government, we find that the Secretary of War has not reported the delinquency, or the criminality, of the officers engaged, but it comes in an authentic shape from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. What should be done in relation to this matter, it is not necessary that I . should say. 1 gave my opinion the other day in relation to what ought to I be done.

Mr. Shields. The honorable Senator alludes to the delinquency of some officers of the army. Now, when charges are made against certain officers, I want to get at their names. Let them be punished if they have committed a fault. I do not like to hear a general accusation without specifying the names of the individuals. Will the honorable Senator mention them?'

Mr. Houston. I assure the Senator that I do not exactly recollect; but I am perfectly willing to go as far as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Doubtless they are matters of delicacy; and as an investigation may be pending—a court of inquiry, or a court-martial—in relation to the officers, he may not think proper to exhibit their names to the public. But he says that two officers of the army were engaged in it; and I go as far as I am justified, in giving a statement which is authentic, I have no doubt—I am afraid it is; I wish I had a doubt. Our functionaries there, whether civil or military, are bound to protect the Indians equally with the whites. I want to see the officers impressed fully with the importance of their responsibilities. I want to see them as ready to maintain the dignity and character of the United States, and preserve, unsullied, its integrity, as I do its arms and its chivalry. It is as much their duty to do so; and there is a chivalry always in protecting the weak against the strong, the defenseless against the aggressor. If the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs is prepared to say that no officer of the army has been concerned in this nefarious transaction, I am perfectly willing to waive it. If I have done injustice, show it to me, and I will take it back. But if the Senator is not prepared to do it, I insist upon it, as a matter of grave consideration and import to the honor of the nation, that it devolves the responsibility on the Executive of prompt action.

Mr. Shields. The honorable Senator will see, I think, the propriety of my request. He presents a report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, charging two officers of the army with delinquency.

Mr. Houston. Criminality.

Mr. Shields. That is still worse; but he does not enlighten the Senate, or the world, as to who the two officers are; and yet he expects that we can answer for some two officers somewhere. Now, what I ask, in justice to the army, in justice to the Senate, and in justice to the War Department, is, that the honorable Senator specify who the men are, and what the criminality is of which they have been guilty, and then I will join him in punishing them.

Mr. Houston. The report is made by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and is predicated upon the statement of General Whitfield. The gentlemen named are. Major Maclin and Major Ogden, of the United States Army. If they are innocent of this, I most heartily hope—having known one of them, and felt an interest his appointment—they will be enabled to vindicate themselves most fully, and to establish the character which, I believe, they were entitled to up to this time, or until this information came.

Now, Mr. President, here was a report made in relation to the Indians at Fort Laramie. We are told that, for three years, these recommendations for an increase of the army have been before the Senate; and yet, wonderful to tell, all the outrages that have been committed upon the emigrants to California, and Oregon, was the crippled cow transaction. Three years ago there was a call for this as loudly as there is now, and yet no disastrous consequences have taken place; for, if Lieutenant Grattan had never gone there, there would never have been any difficulty; or if, previous to that time, the army had not gone and committed outrages upon the Indians across the Missouri River, there would not have been any difficulty.

Here, sir, by way of digression, I will state that Governor Stevens, with sixty men, and comparatively few presents, perhaps not amounting to more than $5,000 in value, traveled through all the hostile tribes from Fort Laramie, or where he first struck the Indian country, to Oregon, and never met with molestation. He conciliated them all; and he speaks of their great anxiety to conciliate the United States, and the great respect and hospitality with which he was treated. Sometimes his men were in numbers of four, or greater or less, as it happened, and they were always in perfect security, and treated with the utmost hospitality. He often ventured himself with three or four men into the midst of Indian lodges, and received their hospitality; and when he rose from a council, in which all his men had been seated on handsome buffalo skins, those skins were carried to his tent as an expression of respect and hospitality. The Indians could, at any time, have annihilated his whole command; but he was a gentleman of discretion, and possessed of as much chivalry as any one who wore the uniform of the United States. That shows you that there is no actual danger.

We hear constantly of traders going through the country; and when a gentleman here felt some little alarm on one occasion, and described his situation as most critical, he said that traders had gone out when these occurrences took place at Fort Laramie, and he would have sent for them, only he was afraid they would all be massacred. The Indian traders have gone on. They have nothing to defend them. They have no guards, no arms; and yet a simple trader, with persons enough, Indian or white, to pack and convey the articles of traffic which he possesses, or the proceeds of his trade, can go through the whole Indian country, and not meet with the slightest molestation or injury. How does this happen, Mr. President? Does it happen that the Indians are hostile, and that they will not attack a weak party; that they want the United States to send armies to hurl defiance at them? Sir, their complaint is, whenever aggression has been said to have been committed by them, or whenever they have retaliated, that it has been because the white man first blooded the path, and they wished to walk, too, in a path of blood. Yes, sir, that is the secret of it. When our traders can go from Fort Laramie, or from the frontier of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, to the Pacific Ocean, with perfect impunity, and return laden with stores from the desert or the wilderness, obtained in traffic with the Indians, I say when our troops are injured, there is a fault somewhere, and that fault is in not cultivating kind relations with the Indians, and treating them with justice and humanity. It is the interest of the traders to conciliate them, and we never hear of their being robbed. We are told that the Indians exact blackmail from our emigrants to California. Yes, sir, they do; because persons who have preceded them have provoked and irritated the Indians. I grant you that no caravan ought to go without some military protection. The male portion of the party well armed, with a small military force, can always defend themselves against as many Indians as can remain embodied in any country where the buffalo is not abundant. I am for giving ample protection, wherever it may be, to the emigrant trains; but they should go in such detachments or caravans as will render it convenient to afford them subsistence, for I would not that one scalp shot. Id be taken.

I can exemplify, to some extent, an impression that I have when I contrast war measures with peace measures. I well recollect in 1835, 1836, 1837, and 1838, in Texas, we had peace. The Comanches would come down to the very seaboard in amity and friendship, would repose confidently in our dwellings, would receive some trifling presents, and would return home exulting, unless they were maltreated, or their chiefs received indignities. If they did receive such, they were sure to revisit that section of the country, as soon as they went home, and fall upon the innocent.

For tiie years I have mentioned, in Texas, we had perfect peace; and, mark you, it did not cost the Government over $10,000 a year. We had no standing army. A new Administration came in, and the Legislature immediately appropriated $1,500,000 for the creation of two regular regiments. Those regiments were raised. What was the consequence? The policy had changed in the inauguration of the President. He announced the extermination of the Indians. He marshaled his forces. He made incursions on a friendly tribe, who lived in sight of our settlements, where the arts of peace were cultivated and pursued by them—by agriculture and other arts, and by the exchange and traffic of such productions of the soil as were convenient. They lived by traffic with Nacogdoches. The declaration was made, and it was announced by the Cabinet that they would kill off "Houston's pet Indians." Well, sir, they killed a very few of them; and my honorable colleague knows very well, if it had not been for the volunteers, they would have licked the regular army—as the Indians said; I was not there.

The Cherokees had ever been friendly; and, when Texas was in consternation, and the men and women were fugitives from the myrmidons of Santa Anna, who were sweeping over Texas like a simoon, they had aided our people, and given them succor; and this was the recompense. They were driven from their homes, and were left desolate. They were driven up among the Comanches. What was the consequence? Every Indian upon our borders, from the Red River to the Rio Grande, took the alarm. They learned that extermination was the cry; and hence it was that the flood of invasion came upon our frontiers, and drenched them with blood. The policy of extermination was pursued, and a massacre of sixteen chiefs at San Antonio, who came in amity for a treaty, took place. That was in 1840. Before this army was raised they had been in the habit of coming down for purposes of peace and commerce. But an army of Indians marched through the settlements to the seaboard, one hundred or one hundred and fifty miles, undetected, I grant you, avoiding the dense settlements, went to Linville, upon tide water, rifled the stores, and slaughtered the men, if there were any, the women treated with cruelty, and their children's brains were dashed against the walls of their peaceful habitations. The exterminating policy brought it on. The country became involved in millions of debt, and the Indians in Texas were kept in constant irritation.

That was in 1840; and it was not until the year 1843 that intercourse could be had with them through the medium of the pipe of peace, the wampum, and the evidences of friendship. Then, what I related the other day occurred, and kind relations were again brought about, which subsisted until 1849. For the last 3'ear there has not been the life of a citizen lost on our borders that may be attributed to the Indians. One old man and three children were found near Medina, and another man was found, not scalped, and we know not by whose hands he came to his death—whether he was killed by Indians or Mexicans. They have detected companies of felons there, whites and Mexicans, stealing horses, and running them through the wilderness to Red River. The forts, they knew, were there, and they could dodge them, and go within one mile, or twenty, or thirty, just as they please. They are perfectly harmless.

The Indians have killed several soldiers—and why? Whenever they get the chance they treat them like dogs. What did they do? The agent made an agreement with the principal officer, for the Indians (to enable them to subsist), that they should have a certain amount of powder and lead; and the sutler should be permitted to sell it. The commanding officer was absent. Perhaps the young lieutenant, or the junior— I hope the Senator will not ask for the name, for, indeed, I have forgotten it—was in command. The Indians came in, and asked the sutler for powder. He said, "No, you can not get one grain of powder or lead." "Why," say they, "our women and children are crying with hunger, and we want to go out and kill game and feed them; we want the powder." "No, you can not get powder," says he. They then said, "If you drive us off, we will have to go and join the northern Comanches. We have always been disposed to be friendly, but we can not stay and starve. We must go and join the stronger party." "Well," says the oflicer, "you may go."

"But," say they, "if war comes on." The reply is, "War is my trade; bring it on as soon as you please." They separated; and the agent had to send two hundred miles a friendly Dela*vare Indian, before he could overtake that band, and with difficulty he got them back. The agent had to traverse and ride seven hundred miles to effect the restoration of harmony.

That is the way they manage. If these are the gentlemen that are to hold the lives and property, and the security of our citizens in charge, I want them to be men of some discretion, some wisdom, some little experience, not those who have just burst from the shell, or juveniles from the Military Academy, without ever having seen an Indian, and knowing nothing of their disposition. Send men of age and discretion, who have some sympathy for the whites, if they have no respect for the Indians. Then, sir, you may dispense with a great deal of the force which you now have, or ought to have, to make the army efficient. Now, you see the consequence of this wiping out of the Indians, and making them respect you. Whenever you attack them, you embody them; for we are told by an agent, Mr. Vaughan, a gentleman of high respectability, as I understand, that the Indians are disposed to live in perfect amity with the United States; and that they do not only say that they are disposed to be at peace, but that they report the hostility of other Indians, and say that they will co-operate with the whites in giving them any information and aid that they possibly can; and will assist them in a conflict with hostile Indians; so that there is no danger to be apprehended. If you conciliate but one part, the others will not attempt to enter into hostilities. It is for the accomplishment of this that I desire to see the appliances of peace, not of war, used. Here, for instance, Mr. Vaughan says:

"The Brulies from the Platte, the Ouh-Papas, Blackfeet, Sioux, a part of the Yanctonnais, Sans Arc, and Minecougan bands of the Missouri, openly bid defiance to the threats of the Government, and go so far as to say that they do not fear the result, should soldiers come to fight them."

That is all hearsay. It is reported as hearsay, not as being authentic.

"The rest of the tribes in this agency are disposed to do right, and many of them at once will unite in exterminating the above bands. Several of them have come voluntarily to me, and stated that, should a force be sent here to chastise these, they will hold themselves in readiness to give any information relative to their locality and movements in their power, and render any assistance that may be required of them."

Well, now, when you can divide the Indians in this way and have one party, suppose you were to send two hundred men against hostiles, you could acquire an equal Indian force, so as to countervail them, and the whites would determine at once the preponderance in favor of our Government. Mr. President, I assure you I can not agree to the proposition. Besides, the general objections which I have to the increase of the army as the policy of the Government, I will say that we have enough in the present force, if properly employed, with the exception of the convoys necessary to the emigrant trains, and it would be very easy to digest a system for that purpose short of the contemplated three thousand troops.

Sir, I discovered furthermore that in the plan suggested the section of country from which I come is left entirely free from all the influences of its provision and all its benefits. My honorable colleague says that those who are in danger ought to feel for home. I say so too, but I am sure he has not looked into this, and exercised his accustomed sagacity, or he would perceive that Texas has not been mentioned in this provision; but it relates to the emigrant routes of California. Texas is to be put out of the way.

There is nothing central there—no preponderating political influence there. Texas is neglected.

I made a proposition the other day, that if the troops are to be called out, and one-fourth of the money were given to our agent that would be annually expended, I would stake my life upon the event that we should have perfect peace there; and the influence of peace there would radiate to the Pacific. Justice will be done. Their wants will be supplied. We must remember, sir, there is a race of mortals wild, who rove the desert free. They owe no homage to the written rules which men have made; owe no allegiance to the idle forms which art suggests; but, proud of freedom in their native wilds, they need but competency's aid to make them blest. Well, sir, feed them. You have it to do, or you have to kill them. Which is the most expensive, leaving out the humanity of the thing? If you merely regard it as a matter of dollars and cents, you will find that to feed them is cheaper than to kill them, though you should not lose a human life, nor the labor or the exposure of the citizens, and suffer the casualties which would be brought upon them by a war.

I go for conciliation; and I come here, Mr. President, to legislate in part for Indians, but not to legislate for Indians to the exclusion of the whites. But the honorable Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Jones], for whose eloquence and high conceptions I have great respect—though I do not, in everything, coincide with him—differs from me. I must be permitted to make a commentary upon a few sentences which appear in the remarks that he made the day before yesterday. He said:

"I am not here to legislate for Indians. I am here to legislate for white folks and negroes, and not for Indians. I have no Indian constituency; and I confess that I have no great sympathy for them. When I remember their barbarities in my own State, when I see there the graves made by their hands, this heart of mine has no warm, impulsive feeling for them. I would do them no wrong; I would give them all the protection which can be accorded to them; but I would protect our own citizens against them. They should perpetrate no outrage upon our citizens if I could avert it."

Mr. President, the Senator says he has no Indian constituency. I have none; and moreover, Mr. President, I have no Buncombe constituency, either. [Laughter.] I have a very proud and exalted constituency. They are pretty much self-existent and independent. But, Mr. President, I come here to legislate for Indians. I find them embraced within the pale of our Constitution. It points out the course for me to pursue in relation to them in my legislative action. The principles of our Government, independent of the express letter of the Constitution, would suggest to me what course to pursue. They are here recognized by the action of this body in the ratification or rejection of treaties which have been made with them. I grant you it is a farce which has lost now even the solemnity of a farce, if it ever had any; but still I come here to legislate for the Indians. To tell you the truth, sir, it is always with great reluctance that I see the subject of legislation for negroes introduced into the Senate. I do not think it a proper place for it. I have never recognized the right of the Senate to do it, and I never will; and there I take issue with the honorable Senator in that particular.

But, independent of that, the Indians are a people who are upon our borders. We are brought in contact with them. We have taken their soil, their country. They have yielded to superior intelligence, and to the spirit of domination inherent in our race. They are a feeble race, yielding to the pressure of circumstances, and to the mastery of white men. But, sir, if they are inferior, and have fallen beneath our prowess, and they are prostrate, let us raise them up; let us elevate them; let us bring them to equality with ourselves as to intelligence, for they are not inferior in native capacity, they are not inferior in the employment of mechanical arts. What did the Senator from California [Mr. Weller] say yesterday? He stated that the wild Indian boys, who were taken in California, and put to agricultural pursuits, learned with the same readiness that the white boys did, to plow, and the arts of agriculture, so far as they had been tried. It was manly testimony, and it commends the gentleman and his experience to consideration. He tells you, too, that a few years ago, there were not less than ten thousand Indians in four counties, who have now dissolved and melted away, until but a fraction over three thousand remain. With the vast number that are still there, perhaps the proportion of diminution will soon be as great. We ought to look with some degree of commiseration upon these people. It is not the duty of every gentleman to feel sympathy for them, but he should feel a manly respect for himself; he should feel for humanity in any shape, for a merciful man will be m.erciful to his beast. They are degraded and sunk by their contact with the white man. They have, unfortunately, first to learn his vices, and, by degrees, to glean his virtues. But yet we see, under these influences, nations rise, become respectable, intelligent, scientific, and not only scientific, or learned, but we find them with their judicial department, their political department, their administrative department, and their Christian department. You find, in the last twenty years, not less than seventy ministers of the Gospel have grown up among the Creeks, the last to raise a hostile arm against the United States. Why not produce the same result with other tribes? My distinguished friend from Michigan [Mr. Cass] well knows that the Indian is susceptible, not only of improvement, rapid improvement, proportioned to the facilities afforded to him, but that he has as high and generous impulses as ever swayed the human heart, or quickened life's vital current; and who, when their friendship is plighted, would give their life to redeem you from an adversary's blow. Yet these men are not worth legislating for! Were their existence to terminate, and not to go beyond this earthly sphere, were there no eternity to receive the undying spirit of an Indian, humanity would bid us do justice to the red men. But they have an undying spirit, and if you inflict wrongs upon them and they are unredressed, the accountability is beyond human power to tell;| but the honor of this nation demands the maintenance of good faith toward hem. Have we heard that any efforts have been made to redress the wrongs recently inflicted on the Delawares? No, sir, we have not heard that the military there have interposed and driven the offenders from their land. It is not neutral territory; it is their property; and the United States is pledged, by treaty, and by honor, to protect them in its possession. They have delegated a trust to the United States to sell this land if they dispose of it for their benefit; but they have not given it to the aggressor. Will the Government permit the wrongs to go unredressed? Where is the military authority there, that they do not expel the aggressors, in obedience to the intercourse law—persons who are there without permission? Sir, the nation's honor grovels in the dust, its ermine is soiled, its glories are clouded.

Mr. President, I am reluctant to detain the Senate; but I must take the liberty of making a suggestion, and it may be regarded in the character of prophecy or fancy, as may be most convenient and acceptable. Raise the three thousand troops, make a general war with the Indians, and it will take five years to terminate it. It will become a focus of excitement. It will virtually arrest emigration to California and to Oregon. It will cost you fifty millions of dollars, and you then will have to approach these Indians through the medium of pacification. Send your wise men, three commissioners, if you please, and send two or three hundred men, as discreet men might designate, and you will make peace with every man in the course of nine months, and give perfect security to your emigrant trains. You will not hear of bloodshed, unless it results from a spirit of retaliation provoked by the whites. This being done, you would have the blessed reflection that you have saved the effusion of human blood. The women and children of the Indians will be preserved. But if you call the attention of the warriors to war and battle, and to marauding, by way of retaliation, upon your trains, starvation will ensue for want of the means of subsistence. Mark these words; pacific force will give peace and save millions of money; a hostile force will expend millions, waste human life and dishonor the nation.

After some remarks by Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, and Mr. Mallory,

Mr. Houston said: Mr. President, I hardly know what to say in reply to the honorable Senator from Iowa, for I hardly know what to think of his speech. [Laughter.] If I were to characterize his remarks in any way, I should say that they were, at least, very remarkable. In the first place, let me say to that honorable Senator, and to the honorable Senator from Florida, that they were talking about things of which I knew very little, for I was not in the United States when the occurrences to which they alluded took place, and I was not, therefore, familiar with the history of those wars. If I am not mistaken, however, it was an outrage of a very delicate character which brought on the Florida war.

Mr. Mallory. That is a mistake, sir.

Mr. Houston. Well, sir, that was the report which was brought to Texas. Whether it was true or not, I do not know; but that was the information which I received from people from that section of the country. As for the Black Hawk war, I know little or nothing about it; for in Texas, at that time, we had no mail communications with the United States, and we got but few papers from the States, so that I remained uninformed in relation to those matters; but no doubt they were very exciting. The Senator from Iowa said the Black Hawk war was brought on by a council of the nation; but I have heard that an examination of the circumstances will show that the first outrage was committed by an individual, not by the concurrence of the nation, though they afterward became involved in the general war. In that statement, I believe, I am sustained by the history of the times. I have already stated that occasions occur where outlaws among the Indians commit acts of aggression on the whites, and the whites immediately retaliate on the Indian nations, and those nations, in self-defense, become involved in war; but 1 never knew a case where a treaty, which was made and carried out in good faith by the Government, was violated by the Indians. In Florida the Indians complained that they had been deceived in the treaty, and that the boundaries assigned were not as they understood them; and they killed their own chiefs. It was charged that some of the agents were involved in speculations to a great extent, dependent on the treaty. I recollect it was so stated at the time.

I think, sir, the Senator's speech was of a remarkable character in relation to politics and other matters, which I am sorry that he has introduced. He has undertaken to admonish me, and for this admonition I am much obliged to him. His experience, his superior opportunities, may entitle him, in the opinion of others, to the right of admonishing me; and I am perfectly willing, on that point, to yield my own opinion to what may be the general impression of the body. I did not provoke his remarks by any allusion to any one, predicated upon my own disposition to arraign the conduct of others; nor have I asserted anything in regard to the officers of the army, but what are matters of fact taken from the official documents. When I made suggestions of a speculative character, I gave them as such.

But, Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa has said that he would not have been astonished if the rankest Abolitionist had made such a speech, and had avowed such sentiments as I did. He says that, if a man in Western New York had presented such views he would not have been surprised. Now, I wish to know what connection my remarks had with Abolition? What connection had they with any one in Western New York? In what respect have I catered to any prejudice or morbid sensibility? I have stood here alone in this body, against a powerful array of talent and influence, contending for what I conceived to be a great principle, and which must obtain or the Indian race be exterminated. In regard to that principle, I have the concurrence of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bell], who was once Secretary of War, and as such had control of the Indian department, and who has, since that period, been a prominent member of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate. I believe that my opinions are also concurred in by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Sebastian], who is the head of the Committee on Indian Affairs. I can inform the Senator from Iowa that I will sustain him to the extent of my humble abilities in any measure he may introduce in favor of the Indians, and for the establishment of a policy which will ultimately benefit them and reflect credit upon the Government of the United States.

I have not been regardless of what I considered the honor of the United States, and the interest of the Indians. In no instance have I been remiss in these particulars. I could not cater to any passion or prejudice on this subject, because I know of no societies in the North, or in the South, or in any section of this Union, for the advancement of the civilization of the Indians. If such societies exist, I am not in correspondence with them, nor am I aware of the existence of any such associations. Then, for what ulterior purposes could I advocate the rights of the Indians, or invoke the justice of this Government toward them? Could it be any expectation of political benefits? None upon earth. I presume the Abolitionists are perfectly absorbed in the subject of Abolition. For myself, I would rather see them turn their attention to the amelioration of the condition of the Indians on our western wilds, or to the reclamation of those whom they hold in slavery. There are not less than two thousand prisoners in the hands of the Comanches; four hundred in one band, in my own State. The prisoners can be reclaimed from those Indians, who are coming down to settle upon their reservations. They take no prisoners but women and boys. The boys they treat with a degree of barbarity unprecedented; and their cruelties toward the females are nameless and atrocious. Our Government is silent in relation to them. Has humanity no claims upon us in this respect? Has justice no demand unanswered "i Sir, we have not seen the facts to which I have just alluded impressed on a page of our official communications from the War Department. The officers stationed near the places where those transactions have taken place have not reported them. No effort has been made to obtain appropriations for the reclamation and redemption of those prisoners. This is a subject which calls aloud for the humane influence of the Senator. There is no "sickly sentimentality" in this, but a manly upheaving of soul, that, in commiseration of suffering humanity, demands that the Government shall rescue them from the most cruel and unrelenting bondage.

I have been accused of catering to a morbid "sickly sentimentality." Sir, I never yielded anything of my own conscientious convictions to consult the opinions of others. I never stooped to solicit office; but I have received and accepted it to my own disadvantage. I might have hated the Indians, if I had a soul no bigger than a shell-bark. [Laughter.]

In my boyish days, before manhood had hardened my thews and muscles, I received balls and arrows in this body, in defense of suffering humanity, particularly women and children, against the Indians; and I aided in reclaiming the brightest spot of the South—Alabama. When I remember that, in those early days, I assisted in rescuing females and children from the relentless tomahawk and scalping-knife, it seems to me that the charge that I have stooped to court favor by the expression of my sentiments on this question, is one which falls harmless at my feet.

I hardly know what to think of the gentleman's remarks as to catering for the presidency. I hardly know what to say about the extraneous subjects which he has introduced. I suppose the shortest way of naming what he intended to allude to, is by the term "Know-Nothing." Now, of the Know-Nothings I know nothing [laughter]; and of them I care nothing. But if the principles which I see charged to them in many instances are the principles which they seek to carry out, I can say to gentlemen that I concur in many of them. If their object is to resist the encroachments of one religion or sect upon another, I am with them. I say, resist all such encroachments, and leave all religion uncontaminated by the perversion of power that might accidentally result in proscription and the inquisition. "I'll none of it"; I am opposed to and would prevent such a result.

I admit that we are all descended from foreigners, because, originally, there were no natives here who were white men. Many of those foreigners who originally came here were baptized in the blood of the Revolution; but they were not such men as are now coming to our shores, and should not be named in connection with those who are spewed loathingly from the prisons of England, and from the pauper houses of Europe. Such men are not to be compared to our ancestry, or to the immigration which, until recently, has come to our shores from foreign countries. If the object of those to whom the Senator from Iowa has referred, be to prevent men of infamous character and paupers from coming here, I agree with them. I would say, establish a law requiring every person from abroad, before being received here, to bring an indorsement from one of our consuls abroad, and produce evidence of good character from the place whence he emigrates, so that, when he comes here, we may receive him into full communion with all the rights guaranteed to him by the laws which may exist at the time of his immigration. But, sir, to say that a felon, who left his prison the day he sailed for this country, or, perhaps, was brought in chains to the vessel which bore him here, is, in five years, to stand an equal with the proudest man who walks on our soil, the man who has shed his blood to consecrate liberty and his country, is not the kind of arrangement that I go for.

Mr. Mallory. Will the Senator from Texas allow me to ask him one question?

Mr. Houston. With pleasure.

Mr. Mallory. As the subject of Know-Nothingism, as it is called, has been brought here

Mr. Houston. I have not introduced it, and I am not going to comment on it.

Mr. Mallory. Precisely so; the Senator has not introduced the subject, and perhaps he is not responsible for its introduction; but he is undertaking to say what he himself thinks upon it. Now, as he is speaking on the subject, I should like to understand distinctly whether he approves or does not approve of so much of the creed attributed to the Know-Nothings as would make those who profess the Roman Catholic religion ineligible to office?

Mr. Houston. I would vote for no such law.

Mr. Mallory. I asked the gentleman whether he approved that or not—not whether he would vote for it.

Mr. Houston. No, sir; I could not approve of such a law. But the proscription which is charged on those to whom allusion has been made, is no more than formerly existed between Whigs and Democrats. When party discipline was kept up, if a Whig voted for a Democratic candidate he was ruled out of his party and branded as a deserter; and if a Democrat voted for a Whig he was disowned by his party. That species of political proscription will exist everywhere, according to the notions of people. I do not set up my opinion as the doctrine by which others are to be governed. I am governed by my own principles, and my own sentiments, and I have a right to vindicate them, and I am responsible for them to the world. When the Senator from Iowa supposes that I would cater for the Presidency of the United States, he does me great injustice. I would not cater for any office beneath Heaven. But, sir, I know one thing: if it were to be forced upon me, I should make a great many changes in some small matters. [Laughter.]

Mr. President, I am very sorry that my young friend from Iowa, for whom I entertain so much respect, should have acted as he has done. He certainly has gone beyond anything that I had imagined. He supposes that my object in addressing the Senate on this Indian subject was to connect it with the Nebraska and Kansas bill. I have not thought of that bill except that I alluded to the manner in which it was passed yesterday evening, when the Senate refused, rather discourteously, as I thought, to adjourn to enable a Senator to speak; but I now take back what I then said, for the Senate did afterward adjourn. I alluded then to the manner in which the passage of the Nebraska bill was effected, but I have not thought of it in the speeches which I have made upon our Indian relations. I have sought to let it go by and rest in peace. I have not been anxious to renew the controversy in regard to it. If it is for good, I hope good will result from it; if for evil, 1 hope the least possible evil will be the result. I have nothing to do with that now, and I shall not allude to it further.

The Senator from Iowa says that I have attacked the Indian agents and the officers of the army. I have not reflected upon a single agent of this Government. If I think honestly that a measure recommended by the Administration is impolitic, unwise, and unproductive of good to the country, I have the undoubted right to oppose it in argument, and to vote against it. That is a privilege which pertains to me as a Senator from one of the States of this Union. I have a right to exercise that privilege. It arrogates nothing to myself, and, therefore, I shall exercise it. It is not, however, to be supposed, because I vote against this measure, that I am opposed to the Administration, or find fault with its every act. If the gentleman had reflected, he would have come to the conclusion that the Administration has done so many good acts that I can not particularize them; and because I do not concur in this measure, it is not condemnatory of the general course of the Administration. All I have to do, at present, is with this measure.

The Senator from Iowa misapprehended me in another respect; and that was, in supposing that I was opposed to raising even five hundred men. I say, raise that number; raise men enough to go as convoys or guards to the emigrating parties; and, besides that, send out commissioners who are wise and discreet men—such as were taken to explore the promised land of Canaan in olden times. Let them go and bring reports of the feelings of the Indians, and see whether good fruits will not result. Let them go there and make treaties with the Indians. Let them take two hundred, or three hundred, or five hundred men with them. If I were going I should not take more than three hundred. Indeed, I believe one hundred would be sufficient to meet the Comanches. One hundred Americans, with Sharp's rifles, would subdue the whole of them, if they could get the Indians to come to them. There is the difficulty. You know there is an old adage about catching birds. Nurses tell children to put a little salt upon their tails, and you have them. [Laughter.] You can not catch these fellows in that way. You can not get near enough to them; and there is the difficulty. But, sir, in order to sustain what I said in relation to officers of the army, I wish to read an extract from the last official report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior:

"As heretofore reported to you, an association of persons has undertaken to appropriate to their own use a portion of the land ceded by the Delawares, fronting on the Missouri River, and south of Fort Leavenworth; have laid out a city thereon, and actually had a public sale of the lots of the same on the 9th and loth of October last. These unlawful proceedings have not only taken place under the eyes of the military officers stationed at the fort, but two of them are said to be members of the association, and have been active agents in this discreditable business. Encouraged by these proceedings, and prompted by those engaged in them, other persons have gone on other portions of the tract ceded by the Delawares in trust to the United States, and pretend to have made, and are now making, such ' claims ' as they assert will vest in them the lawful right to enter the land at the minimum price under the preemption law of July 22, 1854."

There is the authority from which I drew my conclusions in relation to the conduct of those officers. I have not branded them with any opprobrious terms. If they are innocent, what I said can not injure them; if they are guilty, there is no condemnation too deep for them.

Mr. Dodge, of Iowa. I hope the Senator from Texas will name the persons who have been guilty of the conduct to which he has alluded.

Mr. Houston. I have given the quotation from the official documents. I will tell the Senator the reasons why I referred to that transaction. In the first place, it was to demonstrate the fact that aggressions are committed upon the Indians; and is not this calculated to dissolve the bands of peace, and bring on war? In the next place, this country is under the control of the military; and why have they not restrained those people from such an outrage?

 

---

 

SPEECH FAVORING A MEXICAN PROTECTORATE.

Delivered in the Senate of. the United States, April 20, 1858.

Mr. Houston. I move to take up the resolution I had the honor to submit some weeks since on the subject of a protectorate over Mexico and Central America; and I believe it is in order to offer some remarks on that motion.

Mr. Hunter. I must say, in regard to that motion, that I shall have no objection to it, provided it will not supersede the consideration of the special order. When is the hour for its consideration?

The President pro tempore. At one o'clock.

Mr. Hunter. Then I will say that of course I do not object to taking up the resolution, if at one o'clock we shall proceed with the special order.

Mr. Gwin. I thought the deficiency bill was the special order for twelve and a half o'clock.

The President pro tempore. The special order was fixed for half-past twelve o'clock yesterday; but it is for one o'clock to-day.

Mr. Houston. I hope I may be allowed to conclude my remarks; they are limited.

Mr. Hunter. The Senator from Texas tells me that he will not occupy more than an hour, and as I am anxious to go on with the deficiency bill, perhaps it would be better that he should commence now. It will only postpone the consideration of that bill for half an hour. I hope the Senate will consent to let him take up his resolution.

Mr. Houston. I move to take up the resolution for the purpose of offering a substitute, and proposing that it be referred to a special committee to consist of seven. I do not suppose that will lead to any argument whatever. I wish to offer some views explanatory of the object of the resolution.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. Houston in regard to establishing a protectorate over Mexico and other Central American States.

Mr. Houston. Mr. President, it will be recollected that a few weeks ago I offered a resolution to instruct the Committee on Foreign Relations to inquire into the expediency of establishing a protectorate over Mexico and the Central American States by this Government. That resolution, without being amply discussed, was laid upon the table. I have risen for the purpose of proposing a substitute for it, by which the inquiry shall be confined to Mexico, and submitted to a select committee.

It is, perhaps, nothing more than respectful to Great Britain, inasmuch as we have been negotiating with her for several years in relation to Honduras and the Mosquito shore, that the differences between the two countries should be amicably adjusted, if possible, before we proceed to intervene for the regulation of the affairs of the five puny States beyond Mexico, Moreover, the condition of most of those States, bad as it is, is incalculably better than that of our poor, distracted, adjoining neighbor. Their public demoralization, too, affects us less injuriously.

The State, sir, which I have enjoyed the honor of representing in this chamber, in part, with my lost but unforgotten colleague, since the emblem of her national independence took its place among the galaxy of stars which is unfurled over our heads, has a paramount interest in the establishment of orderly government in Mexico. It is as essential to her public morality and general prosperity as is that of any one State in the Union to another. The line of partition between the United States and Mexico stretches nearly two thousand miles—one thousand of which is Texan. Along a considerable portion of that line, on our side, savages abound, over whose propensities for the commission of crime on the inhabitants on the other side we can exercise, although obligated by solemn treaty stipulations to do so, no effectual restraint. On account of the depredations incessantly perpetrated by the Comanches and other tribes upon the Mexicans, the border population is steadily receding into the interior; and instead of progressive civilization, the chances multiply, from day to day, that the country will be turned over to barbarism—to the savages now within our own limits. Mexico can not prevent it, because she is never free from civil war or other intestine commotions; and we can not, at any cost, short of hermetically sealing our frontier. Thus good neighborhood on either part, as matters at present stand, is next to an impossibility. The one can not repel, and the other can not pursue. The wild Indian in his forest wanderings has no respect for, if he even had a knowledge of, the lines which separate civilized nations. He roams wherever his untutored mind points the way, making in his strides the powerless—whether the white or the red man—his victim. Different, vastly different, is the condition of the neighborhood on our northern frontier. The inhabitants of the British Provinces are so assimilated in character and identified in interests with the inhabitants of the Northern States that they are as much the same as if they constituted one people. Practically there is nothing but a political line of division between them. The Marcy-Elgin treaty cemented their intercourse, and commercially annexed the Canadas and other adjacent possessions of Queen Victoria to those States. We gave to the colonies everything that they asked—everything that they could have desired.

The Senator from New York told us the other day, in substance, that the North was mighty, and that it would speedily become still mightier. In the majesty of its powder it may, at no distant day, bring those colonies into the Union, and particularly if they should become dissatisfied with the rule of the mother country. Nor can it be pleaded that they are not prepared for admission. Every day that passes—such is the frequency of their communication with the citizens of Michigan, New York, and New England—they receive practical lessons in the science of self-government, adopting of course the tenets of anti-slavery. Their number does not greatly exceed a third of that of Mexico, and yet they probably contribute ten times as much to the prosperity of the North as Mexico does to the prosperity of the South. I do not mention this in the language of sectional complaint, but in justification of the measure I propose.

The notion, sir, that Mexico will ever help herself out of the extremities to which she has been so deplorably reduced, is too absurd to be entertained by a rational mind. The more she struggles, ostensibly for the bettering of her condition, the more anarchical she becomes. To bring such a population as hers into the Union would be to assume the gravest of responsibilities. To suffer her to be parceled out by filibusters—each chief perhaps a despot—would be to fraternize with every desperate adventurer in our own land, and to invite to our continent all the wild, vicious spirits of the other hemisphere. Nor could we consent, without palpable dishonor, to see her placed in the leading-strings of any European Power, even were there a disposition manifested to so place her. We have, then, no alternative, if we put the slightest value upon our interests, and are not disposed to disregard our duty, but to arrange plans immediately for ruling her wisely, and, as far as possible, gently.

In the consummation of great measures we are apt to be—perhaps a little too apt—a closely cost-calculating people. In the matter of the proposed protectorate of Mexico, one of the first questions which is likely to suggest itself to our countrymen is that relating to the expenditure it will involve. Happily, this can be readily and satisfactorily answered.

The protectorate must be self-protecting—the expense incident to it defrayed by the protected. The General Government of Mexico could probably be administered, taking a term of ten years, for $6,000,000; while her custom receipts, under a well-regulated and honestly administered revenue tariff, would double that amount.

Our Gulf and Pacific squadrons would be ample for the protection of her commerce in those quarters, and without subjecting us to additional outlays, I've thousand reliable regular troops, properly garrisoned and distributed, would insure the establishment and preservation of internal order; and the adoption of a good police system would eventuate in bringing to justice, and effectually subduing, the rapacious and blood-thirst;y bandits who infest her highways. Hence it is clear that we have it in our power to improve the condition of Mexico immeasurably; to breathe the breath of new life into her nostrils; and without incurring the risk of a dollar. What a salutary change would this be, not only for both countries, but for the world at large!

Faithless to her engagements, Mexico has been for a long time but a little better than a national outlaw. She is powerful for the commission of wrongs, but powerless for their redress. Our Department of State is the repository for the grievances of our citizens by her high-handed deeds; but nothing more than a repository, since the securing of indemnities for outrages has become a somewhat obsolete idea. Those grievances are doubtless magnified in a pecuniary point of view, as grievances ever are where a government is responsible; but still there should be an authority in Mexico with which they may be adjusted and provided for, as ascertained to be valid. The claimants might select one commissioner for their examination, Mexico another; and, in case of disagreement, the two an umpire. So with the inhabitants of other countries, who have experienced wrongs at her hands which have not been redressed. With respect to her funded debt, it amounts to about fifty-five million dollars, and is chiefly owned in England and on the Continent. It was consolidated in 1846, by a convention between the Government of Mexico and a committee of the bondholders, by which it was to bear five per cent, coupon interest. The war in which Mexico became involved with the United States so enfeebled her that she was unable to provide the interest, or a single dividend of it, until some time along in 1850, when she sent a commissioner to London to represent the state of her finances, and to make a new proposal to her creditors. This proposal was to the end that she would pay out of the California indemnity money the interest in arrears, and pledge one-fourth of the custom-house receipts on imports as well as exports for the payment of the future interest of the debt, provided the bondholders would agree to diminish the rate of interest from five to three per cent. To this, after some hesitation, they consented. Since then, such is the faithlessness with which she has acted, and such the subterfuges that she has had to resort to in order to sustain her sickly existence, that she has appropriated to herself nearly all the customs dues received; having remitted only a sufficient amount to pay four of the semi-annual three per cent, interest dividends which have since matured. With this arrangement, to which Mexico is bound, we could not interfere, as her protector, unless with the assent of the bondholders. It might, however, probably be modified to their own and her advantage. The assumption of it by this Government, as a consequence of the protectorate, is too idle a supposition to be entertained. Great Britain could not expect more from us in the premises than to see that the portion of the revenue from the customs stipulated for was regularly placed at the disposal of those bondholders when collected. This would in ail likelihood defray the interest as it accrued, besides creating a sinking fund for the absorption, in a few years, ol the principal, and thus extricate the hand of our unfortunate neighbor from the lion's mouth. England, as I shall presently show, would be well enough pleased to have it so extricated.

Mr. President, I have looked, but looked in vain, in both wings of this Capitol, for a fellow-member who was a fellow-member with me when the celebrated Monroe doctrine was announced. Of the two hundred and sixty-one Senators and Representatives who constituted the Congress which commenced its session on the first Monday of December, 1823, I stand here alone, and I will not disguise it, as one who regards himself as among the last of his race—as one who feels that he is approaching his journey's end on life's pilgrimage, and who has now no other ambition to gratify than to " render the State some service." All those worthy spirits, alas! have, one by one, quitted earth, with the exception of President Buchanan, ex-President Van Buren, ex-Senator Branch, ex-Senator Rives, Governor Letcher, and Governor Wickliffe of Kentucky, Governor Johnson of Virginia, General Mercer, General Campbell of South Carolina, Mr. Saunders of North Carolina, Mr. Stuart of Pennsylvania, Mr. Blair of Tennessee, and possibly two or three others. To say nothing of the distinguished merits of the survivors, in that great Congress might have been seen, in the full meridian of strong intellect, the Jacksons and Clays, the Websters and Randolphs, the Macons and Forsyths, the Bentons and Livingstons, the Barbours and Johnsons, the McLanes and McDuffies, the Kings and Smiths, the Taylors and Hamiltons, the Floyds and Holmeses, the Ruggleses and Bartletts. It was to such men, chosen alike for their wisdom and integrity, representing twenty-four sovereign States and thirteen millions of inhabitants, that Mr. Monroe (counseled by a Cabinet composed of John Quincy Adams, William H. Crawford, John C. Calhoun, Samuel L. Southard, Williatn Wirt, and John McLean) addressed himself in such confident and resolute language with reference to the ulterior purposes of this country. I shall never cease to remember the exultant delight with which his noble sentiments were hailed. They met not only with a cordial, but an enthusiastic reception both in and out of Congress. They were approved with as much unanimity as if the entire population of the Union had been previously prepared to re-echo their utterance. At that glorious epoch there was a broad, towering spirit of nationality extant. The States stood in the endearing relation to each other of one for all, and all for one. The Constitution was their political text-book, the glory of the Republic their resolute aim. Practically, there was but one party, and that party animated by but one object—our upward and onward career. As if in atonement for the wrong inflicted upon the country by the angry Missouri controversy, which was then fresh in every mind, there seemed to be no circumscription to that genuine patriotism which everywhere within our embraces displayed itself. May we not trust, Mr. President, that a similar result will ensue from the still more angry Kansas controversy, and that the benign influences of such results will be as durable as creation? This will assuredly be the case if the only question asked within this Capitol when an embryo State asks for admission into the Union is: Does her constitution conform to the national requirement—"a republican form of government"? We have cheapened ourselves immensely in the world's esteem, and, I fear, polluted our system of government, in our extravagant disbursements, which have been overlooked in the profitless strife which had its emanation in the hostility to the institution of negro slavery. Let each new State, hereafter, come slave or free, as she chooses, and we shall henceforth have peace, the peace of union as contemplated by the authors and founders of our Republic. We have grander ends to attain than the frittering away of a healthful existence upon such loathsome, ignoble subjects. Our aspirations should be to spread our heaven-inspired principles, by our lofty public bearing, on to the most remote and benighted regions; proudly, in the rectitude of our intentions, taking our place at the very head of the nations of the earth. It is for us, if we are equal to our mission, to realize for America the poet's vision of the future of England:

"Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,
Her honor and the greatness of her name
Shall be and make new nations; she shall flourish,
And, like a mountain cedar, reach her branches
To all the plains about her."

But, sir, to return to the Monroe doctrine. In their notice of the message at the time it was promulgated, the then as now calm, observing editors of the National Intelligencer remarked:

"It does honor to its author, and the most material parts are conceived in the true spirit of the days in which he first engaged in the scenes of public life."

Sir, that doctrine is, perhaps, quite familiar to every member of this Senate; but such has been my unrelaxing pride in it for nearly thirty-five years, increased, if possible, by the fact that I am the only person entitled to a seat in this building to whom it was addressed, that I can not refrain from its perusal, nor from narrating its history and explaining its purpose.

Our relations at that time were not in a satisfactory condition with the Emperor of all the Russias—the differences having grown out of a claim of that autocrat to a portion of this continent—and in this connection Mr. Monroe made the emphatic declaration:

"In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements in which they may terminate, the occasion has been judged proper for asserting as a principle, in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power."

Subsequently he reviewed the political condition of the two hemispheres, and referring to the desire of the Holy Alliance to re-establish Spain in her late American possessions, he fearlessly stated that —

"We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those Powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their parts to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European Power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States."

••••••••••

"It is impossible that the Alied Powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent [American] without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can any one believe that our Southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference."

Shortly after the settlement of Europe by the Congress of Vienna, the more despotic continental Governments suddenly became seriously troubled on account of the liberal sentiments which strikingly manifested themselves in Spain and elsewhere. The Holy Alliance, in its conferences at Troppau and Laybach, declared eternal hostility to all popular institutions, announcing its purpose to "repress republican opinions wherever they might be found, and to extinguish the feelings that prompted them." To use its avowed language:

"To preserve what is legally established was, as it ought to be, the invariable principle of their policy. Useful or necessary changes in legislation, and in the administration of States, ought only to emanate from the free will and the intelligent and well-weighed conviction of those whom God has rendered responsible for power."

The Czar of Russia had promised Ferdinand of Spain that if he would overthrow the constitution of that kingdom he would assist him, not only in fortifying his throne, but also in re-establishing his authority over the revolting Spanish-American provinces. To this proposition England dissented, in terms so decided as to cause its relinquishment—an occurrence not displeasing to Austria, as she was averse to the marching of a large Russian army across her bosom in the direction of the Pyrenees. But France, acting in the interest of the Holy Alliance, and probably with a view to selfish ulterior objects, determined to intervene in the affairs of Spain, and—under the alleged excuse to England that she wished to prevent the yellow fever, which was prevailing in Portugal, from entering her limits—she established an army in the confines of the Spanish realm, which she designated a "cordon sanitaire." The disappearance of the disease, however, from the peninsula, did not lead to its withdrawal, and subsequently she bestowed upon it the title of the "army of observation." But it was not long—in the summer of 1823—until she marched it over her boundary and undertook to control Spain. When, in 1808, Napoleon attempted to place the crown of that realm durably upon the head of his brother Joseph, he unquestionably contemplated the acquisition by his house of all the distant possessions. This idea might not have been the actuating one in the armed occupation of Spain by France; but it is certain that she regarded those possessions as a prize worth securing, if they could be obtained at a reasonable, or, indeed, an extravagant cost. She saw distinctly that they were as good as lost to the mother country, which was in a deplorable moral, financial, commercial, and physical condition. Mr. Canning, as Premier, made unceasing efforts to influence France to recall her army from Spain, but they were disregarded. This enlightened British statesman boldly arrayed his Government against the principles of the Holy Alliance, and lost no suitable occasion to publicly proclaim the sentiments by which the British were animated—sentiments which were warmly responded to at home, and by the larger portion of the continental public. They were simply these, and, from their very nature, in violent antagonism with those entertained by the stipendiaries of the crowned head contrivers of the Congress of Verona: The people the origin of all power, the object of all governments the good of the governed.

Nor were suitable opportunities left unavailed of by the Premier for strengthening and cementing the ties of friendship between his own and this country. In a speech which he delivered to his townsmen of Liverpool, on the 25th of August, 1823, at a banquet which they gave to Christopher Hughes, our excellent Minister to the Netherlands, he said, among other things:

"On such an occasion he might be permitted to express the gratification he felt, in common with the great mass of the intelligent and liberal men of both countries, to see the animosities necessarily attendant on a state of hostility so rapidly wearing away, and giving place to feelings so consonant to the true interests of the two nations, united by a common language, a common spirit of commercial enterprise, and a common regard for well-regulated liberty. It appeared to him that of two such nations the relative position was not wholly unlike that which occasionally occurred in families, where a child having perhaps displeased a parent—a daughter, for instance— in contracting a connection offensive to that parent's feelings, some estrangement would for a while necessarily ensue; but, after a lapse of time, the irritation is forgotten, the force of blood again prevails, and the daughter and the mother stand together against the world."

About the time this speech was delivered, Mr. Canning is reported to have had an interview with our Minister near the Court of St. James, in which he explained the policy of his Government with respect to Spain and the South American States, desiring the co-operation of the United States, if necessary, in its enforcement. Our Minister, it appears, had no instructions upon the subject, but transmitted the proposal to Washington for consideration. On the 31st of March previous the Prime Minister wrote to the British Minister at Madrid to intimate to the French Minister near that Court, in terms sufficiently distinct to admit of no misconception, that while Great Britain utterly disclaimed any intention of appropriating to herself any of the former colonies or dependencies of Spain, she would not tacitly consent to their acquisition, or that of either of them, by France. This led to a conference between himself and the Prince de Polignac, the French Minister, on the 9th of October, 1823, in which the latter proposed:

"That in the interests of humanity, and especially in that of the Spanish colonies, it would be worthy of the European Governments to concert together the means of calming, in those distant and scarcely civilized regions, passions blinded by party spirit, and to endeavor to bring back to a principle of union in government, whether monarchical or aristocratical, people among whom absurd and dangerous theories were now keeping up agitation and disunion."

But the conference terminated without a result, Mr. Canning no doubt deeming it better to await intelligence from this capital relative to his proposal to our Minister. The world-renowned message contained Mr. Monroe's answer. It was as unexpected as a destructive earthquake, and dispelled every hope which had been indulged in Paris, and in autocratic circles elsewhere, of the re-establishment of Spain in her lost possessions. It was thus that the triumph of England over the Holy Alliance was effected, as was explained, when Parliament mot in the following February, by the Marquis of Lansdowne in the House of Lords, and Mr. Brougham in the House of Commons.

In the discussion upon the speech from the throne, at the opening- of the session, the Marquis observed, in the House of Lords, in commenting upon that part of it relating to the non-recognition of the Spanish-American States in terms of disapproval:

"But if we had been tardy, it was a satisfaction to find that America had, on this occasion, taken that decisive step which so well became its character and its interest. As that important decision was of the utmost consequence to every portion of the world where freedom was valued, he could not grudge to the United States the glory of having thus early thrown her shield over those struggles for freedom which were so important, not merely to America herself, but to the whole world." . . . . " Let their Lordships look to what had happened in the United States. There a population of three millions had, in the course of forty years, been increased to ten millions."

In the House of Commons, during the same day and in the same discussion, Mr, [now Lord] Brougham, remarked:

"The Holy Alliance! [A cry of ' Hear! '] What, was this designation ot these sovereigns doubted? Why, it was not his, but that which they had given themselves. There was but one view that could be taken of that league of conspirators and of the motives of their alliance.". . . .

"The question, however, with regard to South America, he believed was now disposed of, or nearly so; for an event had recently happened than which no event had ever dispersed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the freemen in Europe—an event in which he, as an Englishman, connected by ties of blood and language with America, took peculiar satisfaction. An event, he repeated, had happened, which was decisive on that subject; and that event was the message of the President of the United States to Congress. The line of policy which that message disclosed became a great and independent nation; and he hoped his Majesty's Ministers would be prevented by no mean pride or paltry jealousy from following so noble and illustrious an example. He trusted that as the United States had had the glory of setting, we should have the good taste to follow the example of holding fast by free institutions, and of assisting our brother freemen, in whatever part of the globe they should be found, in placing bounds to that impious alliance which, if it ever succeeded in bringing down the Old World to its own degraded level, would not hesitate to attempt to master the New World too."

Mr. Canning, the Premier, in reply, stated that—

"In some of the principles laid down in the message of the President of the United States he entirely agreed; and he might be permitted to say that, long before the message went forth, it was distinctly admitted in the State Papers of Great Britain that the question between the mother country and the colonies was not a fit subject for foreign interference; but he did not agree in the principle that the parent State had not a right, if she could, to recover her own colonial dominions." [Mr. Brougham motioned that such a principle was not laid down.] "Mr. Canning, continuing. In the paper to which the honorable and learned gentleman referred, there was a passage which many individuals construed in that way, and he certainly understood the honorable and learned gentleman so to have construed it. He was clearly of opinion, with the President of the United States, that no foreign State had a right to interfere pending the dispute between the colonies and the mother country; but he was as strongly of opinion that the mother country had a right to attempt to recover her colonies if she thought proper."

Mr. Canning's construction of the message was clearly correct, as will have been seen from the extracts which I have read from that document. Spain, ruled by France, as the swordsman of the Holy Alliance, was included in the declaration that —

"With the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view an interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European Power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

It has often been asserted, sir, that Mr, Canning originated the Monroe doctrine. It has been seen to what extent he is entitled to that credit. The announcement of that doctrine, as valuable a purpose as it served his Government, perhaps took no one more by surprise than himself. Little could it have been imagined that a young republic, with nothing like half of its present population, could summon resolution to proclaim at the top of its voice, to all the potentates of the other hemisphere, in substance:

"You may manage your affairs as you choose there, but you shall not carry your system or systems of government to the world of the West. With stout hearts and strong minds, and, above all, relying upon God's favor, we will prevent the establishment of any new European alliances in this hemisphere, or perish in the effort."

At the time of preparing his message it may have been seen by Mr. Monroe that circumstances might arise rendering it necessary that the exercise of a controlling influence over one or another of those young republics would become a necessity on the part of this country. Mr. Clay, in his zeal for their recognition, has asserted, in his place in the other House, that "it would be impugning the wisdom of Almighty God to suppose that He had created beings incapable of self-government "; but Mr. Monroe was not, perhaps, quite so sanguine. He, however, was determined, as far as his official influence could be advantageously employed in the instance of those republics, that the experiment should have a fair trial. But if it should result in failure no foreign Power should attempt their resubjugation. It would become a duty under our mantle to nourish, cherish, and protect such as could not take care of themselves. The unlocking of the rich, varied, natural stores of Mexico would redound not only to the enlarged welfare of that country, but to the good of every country interested in commerce and in enlightened civilization. She is, literally, the thriftless "talent tied up in a napkin." She can never be otherwise until we exercise a controlling influence over her. We must make her respectable and respected. She has been going down so long that she is incapable of rising. With life and property secure, it is estimated that she could produce $100,000,000 of silver annually. Instead of fifteen or twenty miles of railroads she might in a score of years have as many hundreds. With such an attractive climate and fruitful soil and variegated scenery she would become the center of fashionable travel and the abode of enterprising industry; and the occurrence would not only command the approval, but also the admiration, of Great Britain and other European States. The London Times, which moulds rather than follows public opinion, says:

"There is not a statesman who would wish to see Great Britain hamper herself with an inch of Mexican ground. Let the United States, when they are finally prepared for it, enjoy all the advantages and responsibility of ownership, and our merchants at Liverpool and elsewhere will be quite content with the trade that may spring out of it. The capacity of the Mexican population for appreciating a constitutional rule is not so remarkable that we should volunteer to administer it."

The Monroe doctrine has been repeatedly ridiculed of recent years, and by grave Senators, as the merest of abstractions—as unmeaning and valueless. But let me tell you, sir, that but for that doctrine Texas probably had never entered your confederacy. Canning might have yielded to Polignac for the consolidation of a monarchical or aristocratical form of government for the ci-devant colonies of Spain, by which, of course, she would have been included as one of those colonies, had it not been for the seasonable declaration of that doctrine, and the thrill of joyous delight with which it was hailed by the votaries of liberty everywhere. On this account alone I may be pardoned for fancying that it is deserving of a worthier designation, even by the most violent tongue, than an abstraction. When Cortez returned lo Madrid from his conquering expedition to America, he went to Court. The haughty Charles V., observing his stately mien as he approached him, emphatically demanded: "Who are you, sir?" "The man," replied he, "who has given you more provinces than your ancestors left you cities! " With equal truth may it be said of Texas that she has been instrumental in giving the Union more dollars that its founders left it cents. She has been instrumental in developing its resources more in twelve years than had been previously developed in sixty. I do not mention this in a spirit of vainglory. Who could be vainglorious of such a State?— a State that is advancing with giant's strides in all that constitutes a State to the head of the column of the Southern division of the Union? The time may come—yes, will come, sir—when if she shall be as properly cared for by this Government in her intercourse with Mexico as New York has been cared for in her intercourse with the British Provinces, she may be to that division what the Empire State is to the Northern division. But whatever her future power, I trust that the language of her sons will ever be, in contradistinction to the supercilious expressions which fell from the lips of a distinguished Senator a few days ago, as far as concerns the exercise of might for the purpose of sectional oppression:

"O! 'tis excellent

To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant."

Whenever one section of this country presumes upon its strength for the oppression of the other, then will our Constitution be a mockery, and it would matter not how soon it was severed into a thousand atoms and scattered to the four winds. If the principles are disregarded upon which the annexation of Texas was consummated, there will be for her neither honor nor interest in the Union; if the mighty, in the face of written law, can place with impunity an iron yoke upon the neck of the weak, Texas will be at no loss how to act, or where to go, before the blow aimed at her vitals is inflicted. In a spirit of good faith she entered the Federal fold. By that spirit she will continue to be influenced until it is attempted to make her the victim of Federal wrong. As she will violate no Federal rights, so will she submit to no violation of her rights by Federal authority. The covenant which she entered into with the Government must be observed, or it will be annulled. Louisiana was a purchase; California, New Mexico, and Utah a conquest; but Texas was a voluntary annexation. If the condition of her admission is not complied with on the one part, it is not binding on the other. If I know Texas, she will not submit to the threatened degradation foreshadowed in the recent speech of the Senator from New York. She would prefer restoration to that independence which she once enjoyed, to the ignominy ensuing from sectional dictation. Sorrowing for the mistake which she had committed in sacrificing her independence at the altar of her patriotism, she would unfurl again the banner of the "lone star" to the breeze, and re-enter upon a national career where, if no glory awaited her, she would at least be free from a subjection by might to wrong and shame.; But I will dismiss such thoughts from my mind, and indulge in their stead the pleasing belief that the Federal Constitution, the Constitution of our fathers, the Constitution of compromise between conflicting interests, will ever be found potent enough to overpower the most formidable sectional opposition which may be advanced against its provisions. Beyond it there would be but little left worth living for.

In conclusion, I trust, sir, that you will pass the resolution which I now send to the Secretary. Of the form of the protectorate I have said comparatively nothing. It will be for the committee, if ordered, to decide upon that, with such lights as may be placed before it. I have no preferences on the subject. It may assimilate to that of Great Britain over the Ionian Isles, or be entirely original in its character. No advantages in trade intercourse ought to be claimed by us which should not become common to other countries, and no more authority exercised than would be indispensable to secure obedience to salutary law.

I send to the Chair a preamble and resolution as a substitute for that which I before offered. I ask that it be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

"Whereas, The events connected with the numerous efforts of the people of Mexico to establish upon a reliable basis an orderly system of self-government have invariably resulted in complete failure; and whereas the condition of Mexico is such as to excite alarming apprehensions that she may precipitate herself into a wild condition of anarchy, and the more so as she has demonstrated from time to time her utter inability to suppress intestine commotions and to conquer the hordes of bandits by which she was infested; and whereas the United States of America, on account of the continental policy which they cherish and desire to enforce, can never permit Mexico to be resubjugated by Spain, or placed under the dominion of any foreign Power; and whereas one of the most important duties devolving upon civilized governments is to exact from adjoining nations the observances of good neighborhood, thus shielding themselves against impending or even remote injury to their border security: Therefore —

"Resolved, That a select committee of seven be raised to inquire and report to the Senate whether or not it is expedient for the Government of the United States of America to declare and maintain a protectorate over the so-called Republic of Mexico, in such form and to such extent as shall be necessary to secure to this Union good neighborhood, and to the people of said country the benefits of orderly and well-regulated republican government."

Mr. Hunter. I call now for the special order.

Mr. Houston. I move the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Hunter. I gave way for the Senator to make a speech.

Mr. Houston. It will not take a moment, I hope.

Mr. Seward. I move that it lie on the table and be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

 

---

 

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 23, 1856.

The Senate having under consideration the Resolutions of Mr. Iverson for the appointment of a Special Committee to examine the members of the Naval Board under oath —

Mr. Houston said: Mr. President, I am suffering from hoarseness and indis position; and the explanations which have just been made have occupied a large share of our time; but yet I shall proceed to occupy a portion of the time of the Senate to-day with some remarks in relation to the action of the Naval Retiring Board, which is now before us for consideration.

It is proper for me to state, prefatory to the remarks which I propose to submit, why it is that I am under the necessity of now addressing the Senate on this subject. Sir, I have been charged with dragging into this debate, personalities and individual character in a manner calculated to produce irritation and bad feeling. When I spoke before, I disclaimed any intention of that kind; and I believe the records of the Senate will verify the fact, that I not only disclaimed it, but that, in point of truth, my former remarks are not liable to such a construction.

It will be recollected, Mr. President, that this debate was first inaugurated into the Senate by the venerable Senator from Delaware [Mr Clayton], in secret session. He referred to a resolution which I had introduced for the purpose of obtaining from the archives of the Navy Department certain information; and he animadverted—though not with any degree of severity, with an implied censure—on the course which I had thought proper to adopt. His own course, I must say, struck me as somewhat novel.

Here I must express my sincere and unqualified regret that the venerable Senator is not present to hear every word which I have to utter in relation to the course which he has been pleased to adopt. I will not, in his absence, say all that I should say if he were present. I am sure that no Senator in this body entertains half the sincere regret for his absence that I do. For the last ten days I have postponed my address that the Senator might be present, so that he might hear what I have to say, and so that he might be prepared to repel any improper accusation, if such should be brought against him.

Sir, I have no accusation to make against the venerable Senator [Mr. Clayton]. I shall advert to his own remark?;, but not with that degree of point which I desired to do, and which his presence would necessarily suggest. I know his ability and distinction. I am aware of his adroitness in debate. I know his diplomatic capacity. I fully appreciate those high qualities which distinguish him from the ordinary mass of mankind. I aspire to none of those distinctions; I am too humble in my pretensions even to emulate his proud, preëminent position; but I must nevertheless be permitted to vindicate the course which I have taken in reference to the measure now before the Senate.

It will be recollected, Mr. President, that the Senator at some period—I do not recollect the precise date, nor is it material—came forward, after the Senate had gone into executive session, and indicated a desire to present to us a most momentous subject —one deeply affecting his own feelings. I must confess that I felt the deepest sympathy with the Senator then. I had heard of his indisposition, which had detained him from the Senate Chamber for ten days previous to this event, and I believed it was a valedictory that he came here to deliver to the Senate; and I supposed it would command all the sympathy which his colleagues in the Senate could afford.

This was my impression then; and if I were in the habit of surrendering to sensibility to a womanish extent, I believe I should have wept, such was the plaintive tone and manner of the Senator. Great was my astonishment, however, when I heard his speech, after leave was accorded to him to have it read, as he was unable to deliver it. It was an address carefully collated, conned, prepared, punctuated, the i's dotted, the t's crossed, and everything done in nice order—documents referred to with great particulaiity, and of the most astounding import—all prepared for the occasion. Senators sympathizing with him, asked him to sit on the chair to rest himself. He read it all. It was painful to hear his plaintive tones. His voice, usually vigorous; his manner, characteristically animated and nervous, seemed to have become enervated; and he sunk down into the softest gesticulations and most pathetic tones, yielding apparently to the force of disease. His tone and manner commanded the richest stores of sympathy from every feeling heart in the Senate.

But, sir, when that speech appeared in print, what was it? It was a flaming eulogy; it was the inauguration of Captain Du Font's fame and name into the Senate of the United States. Was it brought forward under ordinary circumstances? or was it intended to send it forth as a harbinger for the purpose of forestalling anything that might result from the communication of certain documents (when his name had not been previously alluded to in the Senate), and by that means give him an advantage which he would not otherwise possess? Was it fair, was it courteous to the Senate, or was it to take a snap judgment on the sympathies of the Senate, and foist a man before the public in the most imposing attitude?

No sooner was the speech delivered here, than leave was asked to remove from it the injunction of secrecy, and throw it wide to the world. It was done in executive session. Gentlemen may have said: "It must be something of great importance; we will read the Senator's speech, and see what it is." The injunction was removed, and the speech was published. On examining it, we find it to be an attempt to indoctrinate us with the Senator's opinion that Captain Du Pont is a perfect nonpareil. [Laughter.] Yes, sir; here it is; this is the title-page to the speech:

"Captain S. F. Du Pont, U. S. Navy. Speech of Hon. John M. Clayton, of

Delaware, in the Senate of the United States, March 11, 1856, in executive session. The injunction of secrecy had been removed."

Who could resist an. inclination to get possession of this rich morceau, when it was a secrecy worthy of the note and attention of Senators? It is a most imposing thing. After this introduction, on the first page of the body of the pamphlet, before addressing the distinguished officer of this body who presides over its deliberations, I find, in flaming capitals, the words "Captain S. F. Du Pont, U. S. N.," and then it begins:

"Mr. Clayton said," etc.

Now I think this is one of the rarest diplomatic moves that I have discovered. It is worthy of the negotiator; it is worthy of the diplomatist; but whether it really will have the effect which was designed, I know not. Yet, sir, I have been charged with introducing personalities and personal character into this body. What does the Senator say in this speech } He gives a most delicate, and at the same time—I should almost be tempted to say—a most equivocal, pledge; for he says:

"I owe it to common justice to bear my sincere testimony in his behalf, and to repel the efforts made to injure him, no matter when or by whom made."

He pledges his "sincere testimony " on this occasion. It never would have suggested itself to me to attempt to qualify the testimony of the honorable Senator, unless he had implied that he had two species of testimony—sincere, and equivocal, or jocose. [Laughter.] My opinion was, that there was but one species of testimony, and that it was always sincere, because it is presented under the solemnity of an obligation to tell the truth.

By examining this speech, we find that the Senator from Delaware goes on and introduces the name of Lieutenant Maury, and various others. He introduces the names of Messrs. Pendergrast, Du Pont, Missroon, and other officers who were on board the Ohio in 1839 and 1840, by reading a document exculpatory of them written by a former Secretary of the Navy. He thereby put their general characters in issue; and I believe it would be technically correct, in a court of law, under the indulgence of the judge, under such circumstances, to prove the facts in regard to them. I had called for certain documents from the Navy Department, but they were not presented to the Senate when this speech was made. The Senator was not apprised, from any assurance given to those who called for them, that they would ever be presented, or made a matter of consideration before this honorable body. Still, he chose to anticipate them. The result was, that he involved himself in the dilemma of having his friends brought before the Senate, not in the most enviable point of view. I am not so sure but that he was a little too diplomatic in that respect. Men may go too far, I find here something designed to cover up a nice little reflection. On page 6 of the pamphlet speech, I find the following:

"No man who has a proper respect for the honored memory of the Commodore will seek to recall these events for the purpose of casting unjust reflections upon the living; and I purposely forbear all comment upon any part of the proceedings except the triumphant final vindication of Du Pont and his associates contained in the letter of the Secretary, which justly closed the whole controversy forever."

The venerable Senator from Delaware was unacquainted with the subject, for that letter was as far from closing the controversy as anything could possibly be. I am glad that the Senator has not pledged to the statement his " sincere testimony," because it would have implicated him; but, as I have intimated, he involved not only his friends, but others who had no connection whatever with the papers called for, and whose names were not included in them. I leave that point, however, for the present.

When I formerly addressed the Senate on this question, my course was also the subject of comment on the part of the Senator from Delaware near me [Mr. Bayard]. For that gentleman I entertain feelings of kindness and personal respect. I admire his talents, his intelligence, and his usefulness in the Senate. I am aware of the fact, that he is justly the pride of his constituency. All these considerations conspired to impress me most favorably and kindly toward him; but I think that he did not, in his remarks on the occasion to which I allude, exercise that courtesy which is looked for, expected, and desired in the Senate. I stated that Captain Du Pont had, when a lieutenant, insulted Captain Smith. The honorable Senator replied that it was untrue, and asked me for my authority. I told him; but he said it was untrue, and that the authority on which I relied could not be tortured into the meaning which I gave it, unless I had greater powers of perversion than ever he had before suspected me to possess. I thought that was pretty sharp; but I suppose that, as it was a gratuity, I ought to be thankful for it and take it. Therefore I did so. [Laughter.] On that point I desire to place myself right, and, without any unkind feelings to the Senator, to vindicate my veracity; but I shall indulge in no asperity of remark toward him, because I have no unkind feeling to gratify, and I have great respect to cherish.

I propose to read the evidence on which I based the statement that Du Pont had insulted Captain, now Commodore Smith, of the navy; and then it will be seen whether my construction is not the most reasonable one. The distinguished Senator intimated before that I really had not read my extracts in a manner to please him, implying that my education was not as good as it ought to have been. I shall overlook that remark; but really it seems to me that the deductions which I draw from the documents are most rational for a plain, common-sense man. I think that Captain Smith was insulted; and to show it I shall read what he wrote to Commodore Hull in reply to a letter of Mr. Du Pont. If I did not read all the letters to which I referred before, it was not because I had any purpose to garble them, as was intimated. They are all very rich. Captain Du Font's productions are all of a classical character. I should like to give them all, but it would render my speech too voluminous. He had complained of the accommodations of the Ohio. He was placed on the orlop deck—a deck that comes to the water line, I believe. It appears, from the inklings which have transpired here, that Commodore Hull had taken his family on board the Ohio, as was customary on ships of war at that period, by permission of the Secretary. Because Du Pont and some other officers were excluded from the cabins to give place to the ladies, they were provoked; and four of them, according to the Secretary of the Navy, formed "cabals " for the purpose of annoying the Commodore and expelling the ladies. I do not say whether or not that was social and gentlemanly; I doubt it. When they made complaint to Commodore Hull, as the documents will show, they were occupying quarters to which they had been ordered by the Navy Department. When complaint was made Commodore Hull ordered Captain Smith to provide them cabins or temporary accommodations on the deck, so as to relieve them from the confined atmosphere below, where it was said to be insalubrious. When this offer was made to Mr. Du Pont, he said, in a letter to Captain Smith, dated July 29, 1839:

"But the commander-in-chief, having decided that he is not authorized to make any permanent change, of which he is of course the sole and proper judge, I prefer remaining where the Navy Department has placed me as long as my health will endure it, rather than occupy quarters which I deem unfit for an officer holding the third rank known in our service, and from which he may be ejected at any moment."

This refusal was given to Captain Smith, who had, at his instance, provided these quarters. He declined going into them. Did Commodore Hull press him? No, sir. Why? Because he was where the Secretary of the Navy had placed him. Commodore Hull had not placed him there. Then, sir, that venerable and gallant commodore, the first that ever struck a British flag upon the ocean in our war of 1812, still bore the proud sailor's spirit in his heart, loving his country, and exacting due obedience to his orders. I have read what Mr. Du Pont said in his letter to Captain Smith. At page 44 of Executive Document No. 44, of the present session—the same from which I last read—I find this letter of Captain Smith:

"United States Ship 'Ohio,' at Sea, July 30, 1839.

"Sir:—I have received from Lieutenant Du Pont a very, as I think, extraordinary and uncalled-for communication, which I think it is proper, as well as it is a duty, to inclose to you,

"The true military course for me to pursue would be to compel him to occupy the apartment assigned to him in addition to that which he has so much complained of, and which he says is untenable; but under the present state of excitement upon the subject of accommodations of the ward-room officers, I do not deem it expedient to take such a course, but to allow the gentleman to remain in the apartment assigned to him by the Navy Department, which he prefers to that prepared for and appointed to him by myself, and which was certainly intended by me to relieve him from what he complained of in the other. The tenor and character of this communication, as well as the course he has taken, first, in making the complaint referred to, and then declining to accept the accommodation offered as a remedy for the evil, develop a spirit of dictation in its author too clearly, to my view, to require comments from me.

"Respectfully, your obedient servant,

"Joseph Smith,

"Captain United States Ship Ohio.

"Commodore Isaac Hull, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Naval Force in the Mediterranean, at sea."

Now, I leave it to the candor of any and every Senator to determine whether I made an untrue statement, or drew a false deduction, in asserting that he had insulted Captain Smith. Is not this the language of an insulted man? Certainly it is.

Mr. Mallory. Will my friend allow me to draw his attention to one point in this connection?

Mr. Houston. With great pleasure.

Mr. Mallory. I know that the honorable Senator from Texas wishes the letters which he is now presenting to be understood by the Senate in a manner perfectly fair to all parties. I therefore call his attention to the fact that he read but one part of a paragraph of the letter of Mr. Du Pont, to which he referred. If he will read the closing paragraph of that letter, the Senator from Texas will see that Captain Du Pont expressly disclaimed any intention whatever of giving offense, and expressed thankfulness for the consideration which had been shown him.

Mr. Houston. That is true; but if a man spits in your face and then says he did not intend to insult you, would you believe him?' Or if a man knocks you down and then begs your pardon, and says he did not mean to do it, would you believe him? Words qualifying a matter of that kind can have no force.

Mr. Mallory. I only ask that the paragraph be read in connection.

Mr. Houston. I would have read it myself with great pleasure, but I objected, because Du Pont is so copious and diffuse in his writings, that if I were to attempt to read all that he says, my speech would be entirely too bulky, I will, however, read the paragraph to which the Senator from Florida has called my attention. Mr. Du Pont said, as I have already shown, in his letter to Captain Smith, that he would not occupy the quarters prepared for him, but would remain in those assigned to him by the Navy Department. He first grumbled about the accommodations provided by the Department; others were prepared for him, which he declined to occupy; and after insulting Captain Smith in the way I have detailed, he goes on in this letter to say:

"I trust, sir, however, that you will not for a moment suppose that I do not fully appreciate the consideration which induces you to do all that you conceive lies in your power to alleviate the present state of things."

I am very glad that I have read this paragraph, because it shows that he did not intend this indignity for Captain Smith so much as for Commodore Hull. It was there the arrow was directed, but he did not shoot it. He says that Captain Smith did all that he possiblv could, but yet that they were not accommodated. Why? Because Commodore Hull was in the way—that is it. I am glad that I read it, because it just suits me.

I think the inference which I drew from this correspondence is a fair one; and it is evident from it that I stated nothing untrue when I said that Captain Smith was insulted. I am perfectly aware of the source whence the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] derived his information on this point. I was not aware at the time of the existence of a document which, I presume, induced the contradiction that he so unceremoniously administered to me. I shall allude to it. Lieutenant Du Pont, after he returned from the Mediterranean, wrote a letter to the Department dated June 5, 1840. In that letter, rendering his apology to the Secretary of the Navy, he says that he was very much astonished to hear that Captain Smith was offended. I will read his own language:

"But Captain Smith, in speaking of it to Mr. Pendergrast, the executive officer of the ship, ofter remarking that, in his opinion, it involved me in an inconsistency with a previous communication to him, added: 'but it is a perfectly respectful letter, and, if it required an answer, I would reply to it in the same spirit in which it is sent '; and this observation was reported to me at the time by Mr. Pendergrast."

This was the hearsay of Mr. Pendergrast, communicated to Mr. Du Pont, and Mr. Du Pont communicates the same hearsay to the Secretary of the Navy, and to the distinguished Senator from Delaware, so that it is hearsay evidence upon which Mr. Du Pont relies to show that Captain Smith was not insulted. He gives his recollection. Whether his recollection be right or wrong, in opposition to the letter I have read of Captain Smith, I will let Senators determine. I am inclined strongly to believe that Du Pont's memory was bad, even if Captain Pendergrast ever made the communication; whether he did or not I do not pretend to say. It does not appear from Captain Smith's letter that their deduction was correct at all events.

I am thus willing to leave the issue of veracity between the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] and myself without any unkind feelings. He observed that he thought I had read extracts in a peculiar manner, so as to give particular things peculiar force and meaning. In the course of the Senator's remarks he stated that he had been the schoolmate of Captain Du Pont. I admit that I have very little diplomacy about me, and very little of that polish and exquisite refinement which is acquired by intercourse with foreign nations, and results from education and early associations that are calculated to impress a young man with refined and delicate ideas. I admit, sir, that the Senator has possessed advantages in these respects. If I had been of another school—if in early life I had been thrown into association with Captain Du Pont, I might now come forward under more imposing auspices than I am enabled to do at this time. Not having had such advantages, however, what am I to do? If I have an idea to convey that language will not express, or if I desire to represent an act that is described in an extract which I read, but the meaning of which can only be conveyed by a similar act—such as a whistle—I can not avoid presenting it in a natural way, so as to present what I mean. This is considered "undignified" on my part! Be it so. I can not help it.

Sir, I am more the child of nature than of art and refinement. If I had been the companion and schoolmate of Captain Du Pont, if I had been conversant with learned lore, and v/ilh abstract science, with all the depths of learning, and all the accomplishments that a proud and glorious lineage could give, as is the case with the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard], I, too, might claim tiie preeminence that always appropriates itself to men of high and noble parts. But, sir, I have not possessed these advantages; and if I do not accord with the views of gentlemen of taste and of classic lore, it is no fault of mine; nor do I reprehend myself for the misfortunes attendant upon early life. Sir, I have found in life one volume open—it is Nature's volume, where every chapter is nature, and every verse 's human life. That volume is open to the humblest as well as the proudest. Education to the common mind may embellish, but it can never implant what Nature has failed to supply. [Applause in the galleries.]

The President. The galleries will be cleared if the demonstrations are repeated.

Mr. Houston. Mr. President, there is one circumstance that really seemed for a moment to embarrass me, from the apprehension that a possible deduction might be drawn from what was said by others, that I had attempted surreptitiously to impose on the Senate by interpolating the word "sex " into a document where it did not exist. I thought, at the time, thai I could not be mistaken; I had evidence satisfactory to my mind; but when I called for a copy of the official documents from the Department the copy did not contain the word "sex." I went to the office, and in the recorded copy I did not find the word "sex" written, though it was necessary to give force and sense to the language. I learned, subsequently, that the press copy taken at the time contained the word "sex"; this was not discovered until the 24th of March, 1856. Then, sir, after all the rhetorical flourishes and denunciations of the Senators from Delaware, I come forward prepared, under the official statement of one of the officials of the Navy Department, to assert that the word "sex" is contained in the letter of Secretary Paulding of December 16, 1839. It was intimated that I introduced the word surreptitiously, or that, if not surreptitiously done, there was a second motive for it. First, I was charged with the crime of having acted improperly; and next, it was said that it was unjust to the individual.

I regret exceedingly ever to have occasion to dwell on private character, or to advert to scenes of an unpleasant nature that are calculated to reflect on my countrymen, whether in private or official position, and to brand them with anything dishonorable, or which is not illustrious and glorious to the country. Sir, the man who bears my country's flag, the man who represents her in a foreign country, the man to whose discretion and integrity the honor of the country is confided, should be a man of spotless character, of pure and exalted chivalry, of refined and delicate sensibilities, particularly when he has occasion to defer to that sex to whom every hero, every soldier, and every statesman is most honored in rendering the homage of his heart. Sir, for the man who has a mother, or a sister, or a daughter, and does not feel that woman is to be shielded and protected by his generous arm, there is no epithet too— I will use no phrase to designate his character. No, no; I can not do it; I will not; out of respect to the Senate I will not.

Well, sir, how does the letter read now, when we have the correction? I will show. I have been charged with foisting this matter on the notice of the Senate, as if it had not all been taken back and the subject concluded forever, as the venerable Senator from, Delaware [Mr. Clayton] said—forever! Well, sir, I have before read this letter to show the facts which were charged specifically, and to see whether the Secretary of the Navy could expunge, or obliterate, or take them back, at any subsequent period, under an undue influence, either political or personal, or through misrepresentation. The letter in which the word occurs is a reprimand which was sent to Commodore Hull to read to these gentlemen in the Mediterranean. The records will show that they began a cabal and insubordination before they left the port of New York, and violated the rules and regulations of the navy. They ought unceremoniously to have been stricken from the rolls. This transaction was not in the days of Jackson, which have been referred to by the venerable Senator from Delaware, or these gentlemen would have been dismissed, because the man who showed the least defection in chivalry, in honor, or in deference to the female sex, was then compelled to walk the plank, no matter how deep the plunge. Here is what is said in the letter of the Secretary of the Navy:

"Yet it is with great regret the Department is obliged to state, that no sooner had they set foot on board this noble ship than the officers of the ward-room, who ought to have set an example of respect and subordination to their juniors, entered into combinations and cabals calculated to defeat every object for which she had been fitted out. They clamored against the arrangements that had been made by the navy commissioners for their accommodation, as if a ship of war were intended for that purpose alone. They lost sight of the respect and consideration due to that sex which every gentleman, and most especially every officer, should feel it his pride to cherish on all occasions; appealed to the public in communications disrespectful to their superiors, and violated the long established rules of the service by publishing an official correspondence without the consent of the Department."

The venerable Senator from Delaware put these gentlemen on their trial originally, and raised an issue about their infallibility. Here is corroborative testimony of what I said before, in the same dispatch of Secretary Paulding:

"The letter of Lieutenant Du Pont is not such a one as I had expected from an officer who had heretofore sustained so high a character in the navy."

That is the same construction which the Secretary put upon it; the same which Captain Smith put upon it, and the same construction which Commodore Hull put upon it. I give the same construction to the letter. And yet, Mr. Pendergrast told Lieutenant Du Pont that Captain Smith had said so and so, and that he did not put the same construction on it. But I will read further from the same dispatch:

"The letter of Lieutenant Du Pont is not such a one as I had expected from an officer who had heretofore sustained so high a character in the navy. It is not couched in language becoming an inferior addressing his commanding officer; and his refusal to accept the concession of which his brother officers availed themselves savors more of pettishness than dignity, or of manliness."

That is the opinion of the Secretary of the Navy, and it is what the Secretary pledges to Commodore Hull before he sent the revocation of the reprimand. Read it, and you will see where the defect is in the organization, and perpetuation, and improvement of our navy. You will see, when you come to contrast the reprimand, which was evoked by the conduct of the individuals, and the Secretary's retraction, that duty had been one time performed, but it was retracted under an influence—whether political, personal, or official, I care not. Such things are deleterious to the navy, to its discipline, and to the interests of the country at large. As I will show, from the remonstrance of Commodore Hull, the venerable Senator was mistaken when he said that that retraction concluded the subject forever. In the same letter of December 16, 1839, the Secretary says to Commodore Hull:

"For yourself. Commodore, I have only to say, you are commander-in-chief ot the Mediterranean squadron. The laws and regulations of the service give you ample power to protect yourself from disrespect, and to enforce subordination. Exert that power to the utmost; and so long as you do not go beyond your lawful authority you may rely on my co-operation and support."

This is what Mr. Paulding says. I think there was good sense in all that, and it is just what he ought to have said; but I wish now to refer to another letter. Commodore Hull, in writing to Mr. Paulding, on March 21, 1840, after the receipt of the retraxit of the reprimand, says:

"Subordinate officers, nowadays, set aside the decisions of their captains, and appear prepared and determined to resist the acts of the Navy Department by appeals through newspapers, and by referring their imaginary grievances to their Senators and Representatives; and, in the case of the letter of Lieutenant Du Pont, it would seem that his determination to appeal to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from his State is intended to convey an implied threat."

This was the condition of things. He was threatened impliedly that an appeal would be made to the Senators if he did not immediately make satisfaction for a row that was kicked up here«by the officers, when, if they had been on board ship, or had been careful on shore, they would not have been involved in that dilemma.

Sir, I am willing to go on, and show how far these gentlemen were really exculpated by the Secretary of the Navy. I wish to refer to a letter written by Commodore Hull after he received the exculpatory dispatch. I believe it was written afterward, judging from the dates given in the printed documents, though they are very much confused. After they came to the Senate they were referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, and they went to the printers in a miserable condition; and the dates and letters are so completely reversed and mixed up that it causes utter confusion in attempting to get at them. How it happened I do not know. I saw them in proper order at the desk, and where they received this overhauling I do not know.

Commodore Hull, after the difficulty had arisen, in March, 1840, when the insubordination of these gentlemen was at its height, was driven to great straits. He understood that we were on the eve of a war. He was in the Mediterranean. He had the finest ship in the service; he had officers who had been detailed to give character and credit to his command. After the reading of the first reprimand, he addressed these officers—Messrs. Du Pont, Pendergrast, and Godon—in this language:

"There are three remedies which strike me for this state of things. One is, to lay this ship up in a Spanish port—this noble ship, the pride of our country, with her beautiful flag, of which we were once ready to boast, with its stars and stripes, hoisted at half-mast—until lieutenants can be sent from the United States to restore it to its proud and honorable bearing. Another is, to take you to sea with all your discontent, disaffection, and disrespect for your commanding officers, and trust to time to bring about a better state of feeling. And the third is, to make such changes among you as my means will admit of. I have not yet determined which to adopt; but I will now state to you that I am responsible for this ship. I shall go to sea when I please; I shall go where I please; and stay as long as I please."

They thought that Commodore Hull was an elderly gentleman. These men have a great antipathy, as they have shown on the naval board, to aged men. Age fares badly with them. The feeling germinated there, and it has grown rapidly since.

I have now presented some of the evidences on which I rely to show that these men were not the most subordinate in the world. It is necessary for me also to advert to another circumstance which was referred to by the Senators from Delaware—I mean the private letter which they allege I read, that was addressed to Mr. Thorburn, an officer in the navy, by Captain Du Pont. That is where the unfortunate whistle originated. Mr. Thorburn had the letter. It referred to one written to Colonel Burton, I think, a brother soldier, who had received laudation. Mr. Du Font's letter to Lieutenant Thorburn suggested that the same opportunity was afforded to the officers of the navy to have some laudation, and, forsooth, because it had not been obtained, there was disaffection! How was that a private letter? It was in reference to a public matter. It was not a private letter. It must be borne in mind that, according to the venerable Senator from Delaware, Captain Du Pont was the leading man on all occasions, not only as to rank, but as to age; for, whether it is with young or old, Du Pont never follows, but always leads. That was the substance of the expression of the Senator in regard to him. Such a man wished to have a whistle from Thorburn—a name connected with that of Warrington, who never disgraced the honor of his country, but bore it up triumphantly and victoriously. Thorburn, as honorable and as good a man as any that walks in the Senate, is aspersed here as most unworthy, if he permitted this letter, which referred to public matters, to be used here; and it is intimated to the Senator from Texas, very directly, that he was culpable for it! Oh! it is unfortunate to have a two-edged weapon.

The venerable Senator from Delaware said, that if the Senate could only know and see the letter written by Thorburn to Du Pont, it would be seen that he felt contrition, or something to that effect. That Senator wanted to bring it here, and read it; but as it was a private letter Du Pont would not allow him to do so. That Senator [Mr. Clayton] is perfectly willing to bring it here and read it. His colleague [Mr. Bayard] denounced it as a dishonorable thing; yet his colleague was willing to do that dishonorable thing which he condemned in another. Thorburn has as clean a record as any man for efficiency. He has met the enemy; he has been under fire when there was danger. Except that important battle which I dwelt on the other day, near San Jose, I believe Captain Du Pont never has been in action; and then there was great contrariety in the reports as to the mortality incident to that great engagement. [Laughter.] But I will say this—No man is more honorable than Thorburn; no man is more respected; no man in the navy is more efficient; and no man has served his country with more fidelity; and there is no official that sat on the board who has a higher and juster claim to retain position on the active list; yet he was stricken down. For what? Because he did not belong to the clique that some think is necessarily established for the government of the navy.

I believe I have explained the principal charges that were made affecting my veracity; but I shall have much to say—more, indeed, than I desire to say, if it were possible to avoid it, for I am not in the best condition for speaking; but I feel bound to go on.

The chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs [Mr. Mallory] talked about "drag-nets." Sir, there are so many technical nautical phrases that grow up on the seaboard, and its bays and estuaries, and places where ships run, that I am not posted up in them. My situation has always been in the interior. I have been precluded from the advantages and facilities which result from familiarity with matters of navigation. As to drag-nets, I should like to see that word defined. Does it mean something which is to rake the bottom? I ask the honorable chairman of the committee if that is its meaning? If it means to drag on the bottom, I think I have been robbed of the use of rny drag-net; I think the distinguished Senators have got it. They have been applying it to Lieutenant Maury; and I think there was some drag-netting done in relation to the facts which the venerable Senator from Delaware presented here. I do not know where he got them, but I know that he had them. It reminds me of an incident that occurred with a mill boy. He went to the mill by a new direction to which he had not been accustomed. There were some insinuations that the miller was not the most honest man in taking toll. The boy, of course, used all his vigilance whilst there. He was standing about the mill, and observing everything to which his curiosity attracted attention. The miller thought he would get into an interesting conversation; so he went to the boy and asked him what his father's name was. The boy said he did not know. "Well," said the miller, "where is he from?" "I do not know," answered the boy. " Why," said the miller, "you know nothing." "Yes," said the boy, "some things I know, and some things I do not know." "Well, what is it that you do know?" The boy answered, "I do know that the miller's hogs are very fat." "Well, what is it that you do not know?" "I do not know whose corn fattens them." [Laughter.] So I know that the Senator from Delaware had this information, but I do not know who gave it to him. The natural inference is that it was no enemy.

I come now, sir, to speak more particularly of the action of the naval retiring board, and the law by which it was created. I believe that law is universally condemned. It is possible that the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, and both the Senators from Louisiana, think it not only constitutional, but very proper. For my part, however, as I said before in speaking of this subject, I regard it as a most odious law, and it has been most odiously executed. What was involved in that measure? The efficiency of the Navy—our whole national marine. The safety and glory of our country were involved in that measure. Was it ever considered as such a measure ought to have been; or was it skillful engineering that drove it through the Senate, that carried it through the other House, and that is now endeavoring to sustain it by an overwhelming influence? I shall not omit to state what that influence is. But I ask you, what obligation rested on the officers constituting this board? Did the obligation of an oath rest upon them? Were they sworn to discharge their duty, and the trust confided to them, impartially? Or were they invited by sinister considerations to violate the trust, and fail to discharge the obligations which duty imposed on them? Had they not most seductive influences held out to them?' What were they? Promotion; to take the place of others, or to keep them out. Sir, this was the situation in which they were placed. They had every motive to disregard the rights of others, and consult their own interest; and they had no obligation but selfishness to constrain them to the discharge of their duties, or restrain them from the disregard of their duties.

Sir, we are told—and it is the voice of wisdom speaking to us—"that no man can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other; ye can not serve God and mammon." These men could not on this occasion serve their country and serve themselves. They could not serve those whom they had regarded as friends heretofore; because, if they retained them in their situations, it gave themselves no promotion These men had to sacrifice and strike them down. They did not take the three senior commodores to revise and prune the navy, who could have had no incentive but impartiality, and whose honor might have been relied upon. Commodore Stewart said that even they were not sufficiently informed to judge discreetly; yet these men took the responsibility of making places for themselves under circumstances the most unfortunate.

If you will permit me again, I will give you a quotation that is one of solemn import: "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them; for it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." It was a secret tribunal—an inquisition that struck down all alike. You may seek to compare it with the regulation of the army of the United States in 1815, and at other times; but there is no analogy between them. There the senior officers were selected. Why were they selected? Because they had no incentive to disregard the rights of subordinates, and according to their information they could retain or they could strike down or remove. There was no indelicacy, no injustice in that. The object of that was to retain efficiency; but it was not a measure like this. They could remove no superior. The law did not give them that power, but they could recommend for retention by the President of the United States such officers of the army, subordinate to themselves, as they thought proper or right. They might have had personal likings or dislikes, but these could not amount to much.

How different was the case here! Fifteen men were selected with power to gratify all their dislikes, to embody and band together all their antipathies, their aversions, their private slanders, their defamation if they chose, and with power to resort to the cumulative records of the Navy Department, running back for not less than thirty years. I was charged by the venerable Senator from Delaware with having gone back as far as 1838 and 1840 to call for information in relation to these gentlemen. I did not think there was anything very wrong in that; but here I find that Commodore Shubrick says they made "free use" of the records of the department; and what kind of criteria are they? They have been accumulating for years. Every slander which was sent there in relation to an officer was filed. These men themselves might have been preparing for this occasion; for more than five years ago it was designed to consummate this work, and bring about this "reform" in the navy. We may go back, in my opinion, to the period when this occurrence took place on board the Ohio, and such was Commodore Hull's opinion, as I think you will deduce from what I have read.

What kind of impartiality was exercised by the board? Could men act impartially under such circumstances? Did they know with any degree of certainty the character of half the officers upon whom they acted? But what have they done? Mark you, they had prepared a register a year before. They had been figuring and engineering on this subject. Some of these gentlemen the year before had drawn deductions, relying confidently on the consummation of this work, and I have no doubt a work of most iniquitous character. It was stated by the honorable Senator from Florida that there was no harm in these gentlemen dotting the register, and that there was no harm in the congress that was held in Commodore Skinner's office, which I narrated in my former speech. It was before they were appointed members of the board, but not before they knew that they would be appointed and indorsed; and because they were unapproachable they were placed above all responsibility and all law! The selection of one of them was a guarantee to any act which they might indorse! They were appointed by the President and the Secretary of the Navy, and their conduct is not to be questioned!

What does the honorable Senator himself say, who is the chairman of the committee? He says he has no doubt that it was perfectly just and right that they should do—what? That they should retire, furlough, and drop, just as they did. From what do you suppose he deduces that fact? Why, he says that the year before he made a calculation himself—not being an officer of the navy, not being personally acquainted with the navy, living at Pensacola, where a few ships touched annually—and that out of one hundred whom he marked, ninety-nine were dropped or retired. Do you think there had never been any conclave sitting here, ordaining who should be dropped or retained, long before the bill was passed—dropping men, not because they were inefficient, but because their places were supposed to be necessary either to members of the board, or to friends and relatives who were to be promoted by the removal, retiring, or dropping of these gentlemen? Is it fair that men should thus be stricken down with every evidence of interest on the part of those who did the act? Should the country be thus essentially injured without redress? Is there to be no justice, no sympathy, nothing but taunts and insolence to the unfortunate, and those who are stricken down without demerit?

Sir, the honorable Senator, the chairman of the committee, spoke of officers who were dropped, and officers who were disrated, occupying a place in the gallery—audiences by prearrangement—when I spoke. I believe it was repeated by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Clayton], though it is not to be found in his speech, that the ladies of those officers were here. What a high crime on the part of men who have been stricken down and dishonored!

Mr. Mallory. The Senator does not mean to misrepresent me, I know, but I desire to call his attention to the fact that I made no such remark. Although I have never seen the notes of what I did say on the occasion to which he alludes, and never read the report, I am confident that he will not find that I alluded to any officers furloughed, retired, or dropped, being in the galleries. I did say that when I saw the galleries, on the occasion referred to, I knew what was to come. That was my remark. I did not refer to any officers being there.

Mr. Houston. I suppose the honorable chairman of the Naval Committee means that the whistle was to come. I did not intend that at the time myself, so that he knew more than I did. I perceive that was a misfortune for me. I wish I had never learned to whistle [laughter], but I might have learned to blow a trumpet. Trumpeting and whistling were coupled together in the letter to Thorburn, and I might have illustrated it very well without whistling, by blowing a trumpet. [Laughter.]

If the distinguished Senator did not refer to that, the Senator from Delaware did. Have men no right to entertain anxiety for their sullied honor, for their blighted prospects, for their dishonored name? May not the partners of their woes and joys—the mothers of their children—the companions of their cares—who feel interested in their honor, be permitted to sympathize with their sorrows? To forbid this would be worse than the worst despotism. It is a tyranny that chains the mind, and renders the freedom of limbs a reproach to the possessor. What woman would not feel for a husband—she whose anxious care, whose deep solicitude, has pursued him when tossed on the billows of the ocean, when borne before the fury of the storm, when struggling in the battle breeze? Is she not to be permitted to feel for that husband? I pity the Government that can forbid such feelings, and its Senators who forget their duty to themselves.

I have not the pleasure of seeing in his seat at this moment my friend, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler], but we have had, on several occasions, little spats on the floor, always awakening some new and pleasant emotion in my heart toward him. Sometimes he is a little sharp and razorish in his remarks; but still I like him. That Senator and myself, I am proud to say, on this occasion concur in opinion. 1 have always admired the gallant State of South Carolina. If there is pure and unadulterated chivalry in the world, you will find a portion of it in South Carolina, in the descendants of the Huguenots. Sir, a noble son of South Carolina has recently been tried in every station. He has performed feats of valor that neither corsair, nor commander, nor snilor, has rivaled in the last five centuries. I allude to Rolando. His generosity is only equaled by his sterling and indomitable courage. His bearing is that of a gentleman, and his courage the flint—it always reflects the fire when brought in contact with steel. When the poor, miserable Chinese were perishing, and when all the ship's crew dared not offer assistance, Rolando volunteered, and saved five hundred and thirty out of six hundred. In a few moments more they would have perished. He rescued them; and in two successive fights with the pirates he performed feats of courage the most daring and unexampled in modern warfare. He was stricken down; and, as an apology for that, what is presented? An insinuation is brought against him by the venerable Senator from Delaware. I wish he were here. What did he say? That the reports of his shipmates, or the officers of the ships, would justify the finding of the board. They were all retained, and my inference would be that it was a mistake in the board to retain any of them, if they condemned Rolando. Formerly, if unequivocal charges of delinquency and crime were furnished, men were stricken from the rolls, and the act was never called in question. It is different now. Ah! sir, he had excited the envy of these men. None would be willing now to put their chivalry or valor in competition with his. I hope it will never be done. I want reason; I want legislation; I want national justice to restore these officers to their proper places; but I wish no bloodshed; I would discourage it; but if it rested on that test I should feel assured of the capacity of those who have been stricken down.

But now an insinuation is made against Rolando. When I called upon the Senator from Delaware, and asked him to state the facts, he said, "Call on his brother officers—call on his captain; he will sustain what I say of him." Still further, he said it was all I would get; but it would justify the board in their finding. That is what I call branding a man with an innuendo. The venerable Senator was not willing to exhibit the arrow, but he was willing that the poison should be infused into the wounds of Rolando's insulted feelings—he was willing to attack his honor and reputation. He would not name the facts; but he referred us to officers at Norfolk, as if a Senator could rise on this floor and go on the wings of the wind to Norfolk and get the hearsay of officers who had been with Rolando, and who had filed, in compliment to the Department or the officers of the board, some censures on him. In the Senator's innuendo there is not one word of truth. If I catch a man in one mean thing I am willing to extend my suspicion to everything that he does. The course of the Senator on this point reminds me of a story which I heard of a manufacturer of Bologna sausages. An individual had a habit of loafing about his premises and eating his sausages until he became very troublesome, and the manufacturer thought it proper to give him a gentle intimation that he was rather too familiar, and that his services could be dispensed with. He went off, and immediately slandered the establishment. The manufacturer being informed of it, called upon him and told him that he had heard he was telling stories about his "sassenger" establishment. [Laughter.] He said, "I understand you have reported that my Bologna 'sassengers' are made of dog's meat." [Laughter.] He replied, "I never reported any such thing." "Well," said the man, "I am exceedingly glad of it, because I heard that you had done so; but if you say that you have not, it is sufficient." He said, "I did not say it, but I will tell you what it was that I did say. I said that where Bologna sassengers were plenty dogs were scarce." [Laughter.]

Now, Mr. President, how was it with the venerable Senator from Delaware? He would not say directly that Rolando was intemperate, but he insinuated that he was, because that was the charge against him. He was willing on that insinuation to ruin his prospects. I have the pleasure of an acquaintance with that gentleman, and I know no more gallant man. I have seen him in the prime of life, and I consider him to possess all the efficiency requisite for a sailor of the highest order; but he has been stricken down.

But, sir, the venerable Senator went further, and alluded to the case of Lieutenant Maury. I received a letter this morning, to which I beg leave to refer, as it is usual in the Senate to allude to letters which members receive. A gentleman who had seen some of the speeches in the Senate on this subject—perhaps those of the Senators from Georgia—said, in writing to me, that he had perused those speeches with great pleasure: and remarked, further:

"I see that they have adverted to Lieutenant Maury, and that he has been one of the victims of this board who has been struck down. I have never seen him; but I have considered his fame as coextensive with the world; and I have looked upon him as the first officer of the American navy, and my friends all around me think so too."

That was his opinion; and I venture to say it is the opinion of the country at large; but this board of fifteen, in their small dimensions, did not think so. Of course they could not envy Lieutenant Maury; for we are told by the venerable Senator from Delaware that they retained gentlemen of superior science to Lieutenant Maury! Of two of the scientific gentlemen who have been retained, to whom he alluded, I take great pleasure in speaking, because I have respect for them; and I will give my reason for not mentioning the others. I have respect for Gibbon and Herndon. They have contributed to science and to the honor and usefulness of their country. I have no objection to interpose to the assertion as to the retention of scientific men, so far as regards those two cases; but I can not consent to include others who hae been receiving official preference and favor, and who have been promoted by the action of this board, or had a hand in it. It is immortality enough for them that they were indorsed by the "immortal fifteen." They have passed the ordeal of the slaughter-house of reputation. Let that be their indorsement. What I say, humble as I am, is to become history, and I will not give them immortality by stating their names. They do not deserve it, and I will not do it. They may look for fame to what the venerable Senator from Delaware said of them; though I believe he has no indorser; but as it was his "sincere testimony." I suppose it will pass current. [Laughter.] They are the men who happen to be retained.

I am perfectly aware of what has produced this excitement. I have not had persons contributing to my means of information who had access to the Navy Department. I have not had such persons to run to the department for me and obtain every musty document that would assail the reputation of any man. But, Mr. President, when you compare the documents which I have read and the evidence on which I relied, with that introduced by the venerable Senator from Delaware, I think the inference must fairly be drawn that I am less obnoxious to the charge of having used a drag-net than that Senator himself. How has he assailed Maury? He has gone back for fifteen years. I can very well understand the object of the venerable Senator in that. He did not intend to insult the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bell], who had taken an interest in Maury's case. He read from a speech which I had made, where I said that I had been Maury's patron, and was proud of it. Sir, I am, I was, I will be, proud of him! I feel that he has been wronged; and I hope that he will be redressed, and that the country will be benefited by honoring him with what he deserves.

But what has the venerable Senator from Delaware done? Was it necessary for the examination of any matters connected with the action of the board that he should present what he did present in regard to Lieutenant Maury? I did not go into the personal affairs of Mr. Du Pont or other gentlemen; but he went into the personal affairs of Mr. Maury. He commented on the present salary of Lieutenant Maury as if he were not entitled to it by law. He spoke of the vegetable garden, the kitchen, and the cart-horse allowed him. The Senator traveled over every intermediate step, beginning at the pedestal of his fame, and going down to the very mud of his garden. That was to assail and mortify the feelings of that man who honors his country. As Franklin contemplated and grasped the philosophy of the clouds and tamed the fierce lightning of heaven, so Maury has fathomed the ocean, and controlled by his calculations the fury of the storm and the violence of the tempest; he has mastered the waves of the ocean, and played familiar with her name. Can the Senator tarnish his name? Never, never; the attempt to do it will only make the country suffer.

Sir, the name of Maury is endeared to every American heart. It is a name that will live as long as the odium which attaches to the inquisitorial action of the retiring board shall be remembered; and that will be forever. If the venerable Senator from Delaware had only confined himself to the use of a drag-net on these officers, and had not employed official scavengers and pimps to minister to his appetite, and enable him to assail Maury as he has done, it would have been well for him.

But, sir, what is the tremendous influence that is brought to sustain this board? Look at it. There is the Executive of the nation. What has he done? Has he not indicated the strongest disposition possible to sustain the board? What has the Secretary of the Navy done? Has he not imitated the example? Are there not many things contingent on the confirmation of the nominations here made? I suppose, when some individuals were taken off, it was said to them, " My dear fellows, be contented; do not be anxious; do not be like these rude men, these noisy fellows around h re; we will take care of you; you will be provided for." If a midshipman is wanted, they say they can not do anything until we confirm the nominations sent to the Senate. On that hangs everything. There is an influence which is now suspended over the Senate, and over the destiny of this nation. Is it not tremendous? With the patronage of the Government this is a Herculean influence—one dangerous to the liberties of the country. All these appliances are to be brought to bear upon us. Sir, I shall resist them, and I indorse the expression of my friend from Georgia [Mr. Iverson], who said that he would rot in his seat before he would ever vote for the confirmation of one of these nominations, until justice shall be awarded to the officers who have been wronged.

It is very strange that the venerable Senator from Delaware should have referred to Jefferson's action in the reduction of the navy about 1801, when it was determined that he should retain but nine captains. I do not recollect the particulars of the case, but he was to retain a certain number. Mr. Jefferson retained two more. It is said, however, that he reduced the navy at his own option. True; but Congress had passed a law for that purpose, and Mr. Jefferson did nothing selfish in the matter; he acted for the good of the country. He used a large discretion, because he retained two more officers than were provided for in the law. There is a discrepancy between the record and the law, but the inference is that Mr. Jefferson deemed it indispensable to the service, and exercised a discretion which had been through courtesy awarded to him.

I come now to the case of Captain Stribling. I have no disposition to assail any gentleman; but he has obtruded himself here. He was a member of the board, and I hold him accountable, as I do its other members, for its action; but let us see whether his conduct comes up to the standard necessary to determine the merits of others. When 1 last spoke on this subject I charged him with one fact, on the evidence furnished me by an official record—the report of the inspecting officers at New York. I only read a report, and fairly commented on it. He rendered an excuse, which I also read. What did it amount to? Nothing—less than nothing. It was no apology; and yet the Secretary of the Navy was perfectly willing to receive it—in the way in which it was intended—as a blind. If any man of common-sense—any sailor will compare the facts reported there with the duties of an officer, he will be satisfied that Captain Stribling did not discharge his duty as an officer ought to have done; and that his ship was neither in an efficient condition nor in proper order to sustain the honor of the country's flag, if it had been assailed. The ship might have been sunk before he could discharge a gun.

How is it with Captain Pendergrast? I was struck with the analogy between what both Captain Pendergrast and Captain Stribling alleged as reasons for the condition of their ships. I will show here—and any person will find it who chooses to examine the explanation given by Captain Pendergrast when he was in charge of the Saranac in the West Indies—that he does not deny one solitary fact. He breaks out in expressions implicating Lieutenant May, but does not answer a solitary charge which is brought against him; nor does he explain his conduct. He merely says that he did not do what he ought to have done, because he thought so and so. He did not drill his men for fire, nor train them for anything but passing powder. They all passed powder well. But what is powder without ball and without the other facilities which give efficiency to its use? I will read what Lieutenant May said in regard to Captain Pendergrast. On these charges he was never arraigned— never tried. This is a key to open the mysteries of the Navy Department, and it will show why reform has been necessary, and where the default was, and where the error originated and now exists. Lieutenant May, as far back as the 13th February, 1852, says:

"I have to charge Commander Pendergrast with neglecting and failing to put this ship, the Saranac, under his command, in fighting order; and also, in the important arrangement against fire, neglecting to muster the crew at stations. From June 10, 1851, the day Commander Pendergrast took command of this ship, till the 24th day of December, the crews of the guns were exercised but once (as the log-book will show), and that only time was on the ist day of September, a few days out from Norfolk, on the passage to the Havana. Thus it will be seen that in the period of longer than six months, or one hundred and ninety-six days, the guns' crews were drilled at great gun exercise but once, and from the 10th day of June until January 19, 1852, the ship's company were not once mustered at fire stations, and on that day, the 19th, were mustered for the first time, from the fact, it may be presumed, that on the previous evening the alarm of fire had been raised on board the ship. These startling facts speak for themselves; the log-book of the ship, and the testimony of the officers, will bear me out in them; and if anything could make more culpable such unprecedented neglect, such apathetic indifference to the condition and efficiency of the ship, it is the fact that at this very time we were engaged in a delicate and responsible charge growing out of the Cuban difficulties, at any moment liable to have involved us in difficulty or collision; and, of later date, in the same unprepared state, we sailed from Pensacola for San Juan de Nicaragua to investigate the Prometheus difficulty, which, happily for the credit of this ship, was peaceably settled."

He never was called to account on these charges. Whether true or false, it was the duty of the Secretary of the Navy to bring him to trial. They were substantiated by a respectable officer, whom for some reason the board retained on the active list; so that he has an indorsement by them; and yet these charges still remain in the Navy Department.

Mr. Houston here gave way to a motion to adjourn.

Tuesday, April 2, 1856.

Mr. Houston said: Mr. President, when the Senate adjourned yesterday upon the motion of my friend from Tennessee [Mr. Bell], I was engaged in making some remarks in reference to certain charges preferred against Captain Pendergrast by Lieutenant May, of the United States Navy. Those charges were of a most grave and imposing character. They remained in the Department, and are yet there upon file; they were never withdrawn. No action was ever taken upon them. They should have been adjudicated. They were preferred by an officer of high character and reputation in the navy of the United States. It can not be charged that he is one of those disaffected toward the board; it can not be said that chagrin and mortification have influenced him; for he has been retained on the active list of the navy, and is now in commission in active service. These charges were of a most grave and important character. Captain Pendergrast was charged with being deficient in every point of his duty. He had failed in the exercise of his crew. He had failed in every part of his duty that was calculated to give efficiency to his command and efficiency to the navy of the United States. With all these charges staring the Secretary of the Navy in the face, he selected him as one of the members of this retiring board. He was one of the individuals who was to determine on the merits and demerits of his fellow-officers, not merely those who were subordinate to him in position and rank, but he was to pass upon those who stood before him on the list of the navy. He was placed above all responsibility; he was not accountable for his action to any one; nor was he acting under the obligations of an oath to discharge his duty upon that board according to law or according to conscience. He was not restricted to any other rule than that of caprice, or whim, or prejudice.

We find that, notwithstanding all these charges were before the Secretary, he indorsed Mr. Pendergrast as a gentleman of high honor, and placed him in this high position, irresponsible to the law or to the Constitution. Sir, it was not considered necessary that he should arraign the individuals upon whom he passed judgment. They were to have no hearing. There was no investigation of their case, except that which took place in this secret tribunal—this secret inquisition.

Mr. President, if there were no other reasons for condemning the action of this board, and subjecting it to repeal or revision by the Congress of the United States, the very character of it, its secrecy, the irresponsibility of its members, and all the attendant circumstances, make an appeal to the justice and judgment of the Senate and Congress of the United Stales. Though they have received the indorsement and approval of the Secretary of the Navy and the President, they stand before this body subject to its investigation, consideration, and action. If a charge was made against a pirate the most abandoned, whose hands had been a thousand times washed in the blood of innocence, who had violated every law, human and divine, who had set himself up as the avowed and common enemy of mankind—if he had lived and acted, and perpetrated crimes under the black flag and the human bones painted red to display the profession which he followed, he would have been entitled to an examination, he would have been favored with a trial, he would have been arraigned and brought before a tribunal where he could confront the witnesses against him, and where counsel would be accorded to him.

One of the officers who received a blow from this tribunal had twice triumphed over pirates; he had rescued commerce from their depredations, and human beings from butchery by their barbarous hands. I alluded to him, yesterday, as one who had performed most gallant feats. He was struck down by this board, dishonored in the early prime of manhood and efficiency, without a hearing, a trial, or arraignment; when the very miscreants from whom he redeemed society were permitted a privilege which was denied to him. Can you impose on the common mind of mankind the belief that the proceedings of this board were in accordance with the genius of our Government, or with justice and truth? It can not be done, sir. The officers who were passed upon by the board were not permitted to be heard in their defense, and no examination whatever took place. What was the rule by which their cases were determined? Documents that were filed in the Navy Department—and of which the chairman of that board assures us "free use" was made, running back for a long lapse of years, in some cases from fifteen to twenty years—were brought before the board. The archives of the Department were ransacked, and charges that had lain in the musty pigeon-boxes of the Department were raked up, and officers were adjudged on such evidence.

Sir, who was here to examine into the charges preferred against Captain Pendergrast? Who was there on that board to examine the charges filed against various members of it, and upon which they had never been arraigned? If they arraigned officers on actions of the past, it was an ex post facto proceeding, violative of the Constitution and the chartered rights of every American citizen, whether in public or in private station. The law could have no operation upon such events. Why? Because they had transpired before the enactment of the law. But, sir, were officers adjudged by such considerations? Yes; and by rumors that had long gone by. They were not arraigned on facts in reference to their present condition in the navy. The charges against them were not of recent date, for the board went back for a quarter of a century, and with the address of scavengers imputations were brought up by them against the character of their brother officers. They were not heard on the subject; no intimation or suggestion was given to them that they were to be tried on these matters susceptible of explanation; but they were condemned by men against whom flagrant offenses and delinquencies had been charged, and those charges still stood on the files of the Navy Department. Sir, can you call these proceedings just? Was it in the contemplation of the officers of the navy, when they entered the service, that these were to be the criteria by which the character and claims of gentlemen and officers and their places in the navy of the United States should be determined? I think not.

Under these circumstances, is it possible that the Senate can sanction such inquisitorial proceedings and such condemnatory acts as grew up under influences of this character? They were never contemplated by the law. It is to remedy these evils that we urge the appointment of a special committee—and for what purpose? To ascertain the facts. Will not the members of that committee be doing what they can to promote justice? As gentlemen, selected from this body for the impartial investigation of the subject, they will, of course, do all they can to bring forth the facts. By their examinations, the truth can be elicited; the imputations, reports, rumors, and hearsay, on which officers were stricken down, can be compared, analyzed, and dissected by the Senate, and a just judgment deduced from the evidence which may be brought forward.

But, sir, it has been suggested that the appointment of such a special committee will be a reflection on the Committee on Naval Affairs. I do not think so. The gentlemen of that committee have already had sufficient employment in the investigation of this subject. The elaborate report which they have made, and the investigations to which they have devoted themselves, have already consumed a sufficiency of their time and absorbed their minds. They have made a report to the Senate, and I believe they are unanimous in their conclusions, that no specific redress ought to be granted to individuals, except to a partial extent, under the discretion of the President of the United States. I do not intend to cast the slightest reflection on him, for it is not necessary to the impartial investigation of this subject; but we are all too well acquainted with human nature not to know what would be the result of leaving it to his discretion. What would be his situation? He has already indorsed the action of the board. He has played subservient to them. He was their minister. He acted in accordance with their suggestions and dictation. For the sake of consistency he would feel that he was bound to carry out their action. If he should come to that conclusion, what redress would be granted to individuals who have received the malediction and brand of this board? What officer who has been disrated would be benefited by being commended to ihe justice or the charity of the President and Secretary of the Navy? Would not the influence of those who concurred on the board be united in constraining the President to uphold his former decision for the sake of consistency, no matter who were the sufferers? The President would feel a natural inclination to be consistent; and he has already sustained the board's action, upon the suggestion that they were constrained to act as they did, that they acted to the best of their knowledge, that they were actuated by high and honorable feelings, such as should prompt gentlemen under similar circumstances. If Congress does not render justice, no truth, however glaring and potent, will be sufficient to reverse their irreversible decrees. I know that the Secretary of the Navy has acknowledged that injustice was done to individuals; but who are to be the beneficiaries of this acknowledgment? Adopt the proposition of the Naval Committee, and it is matter of favor—it is confided to executive discretion. Think you, then, that it would extend to all who have been injured and who seek redress? Men of irreproachable and spotless character—men who were never delinquent for a moment in the discharge of their duties, and always met every requisition made upon them, have been disrated by this board, and are here asking for redress. I say it is your duty to give it to them.

Well, sir, is it disrespect to the Committee on Naval Affairs to say that a special committee shall be created for the purpose of making an impartial examination into the facts of the case of each officer whose memorial has been presented to the Senate? No, sir; it is not disrespectful. I should be disposed to think that the gentlemen of the Naval Committee would feel a delicacy in taking cognizance of any matters connected with the subject, inasmuch as they have already expressed their opinions. They have made an elaborate report, invoking every possible aid, direct and collateral, to their support; and they have quoted a succession of reports of the Secretary of the Navy, from the time of Mr. Bancroft down to the present day, speeches made in the House of Representatives, former reports made to the Congress of the United States, opinions of committees, and everything else calculated to sustain the position of the board, but nothing that would show the injustice which has been done to individuals—nothing giving any assurance that they had impartially investigated the subject. My desire is, that it shall be impartially looked into. Why? Because I have a judgment to form, and I wish to have that judgment enlightened. I wish to hear the whole case. We have heard the advocates of the board; let us hear the advocates of the memorialists. Let us compare the statements on both sides—those favorable to the board and those adverse to it—with the array of facts that can be presented on either side. That is what I desire. This can be accomplished through a select committee.

For the purpose of more perfectly understanding this subject, and obtaining all the information possible, I had the honor of introducing into the Senate, some days ago, a resolution calling for the proceedings of a court-martial which grew out of the action of the board, and in which some ill-feeling had been manifested. I was anxious to have the information brought before the Senate, not because I was acquainted with it, and believed it calculated to create a prejudice against the board, but because I wished to be enlightened and to be informed of all the facts in relation to the subject. A controversy had existed between some officers in relation to the action of the board; one member of the board was held responsible for its action in one case, and ill-blood grew up between one officer and a member of the board, which led to a court-martial. I wished to know whether blame properly attached to the individual who was arraigned and tried by order of the Secretary of the Navy, or whether the member of the board was culpable and had proved recreant to his duty and his honor. I wished to judge of all these things. But, sir, what was the course of the Senate? Apprehending that ill-feelings, or a heated state of excitement, might grow out of the communication of the information, they declined to adopt the resolution. It reminded me, Mr. President, of a trial which took place not very far from here, before a magistrate endowed with a good portion of common-sense and considerable integrity, but not a highly educated man — not a metaphysician. When the parties appeared before him, after hearing the testimony on the side of the plaintiff, seeing a good deal of excitement around him, he ordered the court to adjourn, and went out hastily with some bustle. "Oh!" said the people, "stop, stop, Squire, you are not going?" "Yes," said he, "I have heard enough." "But," they said, "you have heard only half the case." "Yes," replied he; "but to hear both sides of a case always confuses me, and I can not give my decision; I am off! " [Laughter.] Judging from the nature of the opposition to the resolution, I fear the Senate imagined that, if they were to hear both sides of the case, they could not as readily decide on its merits as if they only heard one side, and that was the side advocated by the Committee on Naval Affairs.

I am clearly of opinion that, if a special committee be raised, in accordance with the resolutions of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Iverson], we shall be enabled to elicit the facts in relation to the whole subject; we can call on the gentlemen of the board, and ascertain the reasons for their action in relation to particular individuals. Then we shall learn authoritatively whether they founded their action on rumor, hearsay, prejudice, or common fame. What would be the fate of the board if " even-handed " justice was but rendered to them? According to the treatment which they have given to others, they are themselves obnoxious to charges sufficient to remove them for inefficiency, as much so as any officers whom they have removed.

Sir, it is the elite of the navy whom they have stricken down in many instances, and others have been dropped who might well have been retired. Some men have been dropped who received the thanks of Congress, who were presented with swords and medals for their valorous deeds, and who seven times saw the British lion cower beneath the wings of the American eagle. They are sent adrift, in their old age— cut loose from every hope. Others, in the vigor of life, in the fullness of manhood, in the prime of chivalry and gallant bearing, have been stricken down. I will, in one particular instance, cal the attention of the Senate to the language of a gentleman who is eutit ed, by his associations, by his simplicity, and the laconic character of his memorial, to the consideration of the special committee, where nothing- can be smothered, but where the facts, glaring as the noonday sun, can be investigated, and a just award made on his merits.

Mr. Mallory. Will my friend from Texas inform me to what particular officer he alludes, as having received the thanks of Congress, and having been seven times in victory—as I understand him to say—and who has yet been dismissed?

Mr. Houston. Lieutenant Brownell.

Mr. Mallory. I will ask the honorable Senator if he knows the fact that the officer to whom he alludes has never seen an hour's sea service in the navy in his life? He has held a commission, I believe, since 1837, and up to the hour that the board acted upon him he had never rendered at sea, on board of any vessel, an hour's duty, and he was annually reported in the Register as, "Sea service, none. "

Mr. Toombs. I ask the Senator from Texas to allow me a moment.

Mr. Houston. With great pleasure.

Mr. Toombs. I have never in my life heard a statement, though true in itself, which did so great injustice to any man as that just made by the chairman of the Naval Committee of this House [Mr. Mallory]. Lieutenant Brownell entered the navy as a master at the beginning of the war of 1812; he was in seven actions on the Lakes, and did himself the most distinguished credit, as is evidenced by the records of the Department. He was there throughout the entire war. After it closed he resigned, having been wounded and rendered unfit for sea service, as he admits. He re-entered the navy in 1841 as a lieutenant, when he might have entered as a captain. And a Senator now rises in his place and says that he never saw a day's sea service. This is said of a man who fought on the Lakes during the whole war, who was seven times in action, and seven times assisted to haul down the British colors.

The chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, by his statement, would have the Senate and the country believe that Lieutenant Brownell never did one day's sea service. Coming out of the war, wounded and unfit for service, he retired from the navy, and drew a pension for the wounds which he had received. He re-entered the navy in 1841 as a lieutenant, with all these facts known, when he might have entered as a captain. We are simply given the statement that since that time he has performed no sea service. I am at liberty to state that before 1849 his three years' service on the Lakes, during the war with Great Britain, and in the action of Commodore Perry, where he distinguished himself, were marked on the Naval Register, and it has been stricken out by the Navy Department unjustly, and without any authority. Those are the facts of the case.

Mr. Allen. Mr. Brownell is a native of Rhode Island, and he never refused to go on duty until within a short time past, when he was suffering from the wounds which he received in the battles on Lake Erie. He was always ready, and had never declined to enter the service at any time whenever called upon. These statements I make at his request; he called on me yesterday, and desired that I should make them if his name should be Called in question.

Mr. Toombs. Allow me to state another fact. He has for these services received the thanks of the American Congress, and a sword was voted to him.

Mr. Houston. And a medal also.

Mr. Mallory. I would not, Mr. President, designedly do an act of injustice to any man, particularly one who has fought for his country, as it is alleged Mr. Brownell has done. I am not ignorant of Mr. Brownell's history in the navy, and I do him no injustice. So far as concerns the facts stated by the Senator from Georgia, perhaps he is better acquainted with them than I am. Mr. Brownell was an acting-master during the war. He entered the navy as a lieutenant, if I recollect rightly, in 1837.

Mr. Toombs. In 1841.

Mr. Mallory. I should like to know upon what authority it is asserted that he could have entered the navy as a captain? The understanding of those somewhat familiar with naval matters is, that it was only after repeated effort, and effort in very high political circles, that he was admitted into the navy at all. I stated that, since that time—since he has held a commission in the navy, he has never seen an hour's sea service in the navy. He has received the pay of a lieutenant from 1837, I think, to 1855, without rendering sea service, while other officers of his grade have been performing it. In saying that, I do him no injustice.

Mr. Toombs. Very great injustice, by not giving the rest of his history.

Mr. Mallory. He received the thanks of Congress—not specially, but as every one did who fought in Perry's victory. I have simply heard, as I presume the Senator from Georgia has, that Brownell was wounded; to what extent I have not heard. The intimation of the honorable Senator from Texas was, that this man, while in active service, was stricken down. Why, if I understand the Senator from Georgia correctly, Mr. Brownell never considered himself fit for sea service, but only for shore duty. I have nothing to say about his action on the Lakes. All that I say is, that he did hold a commission from 1837 to 1855, and during that time you will find, opposite his name on the Register, " Sea service, none."

Mr. Houston. Well, Mr, President, suppose he had only been qualified for shore duty; had he not, by his sufferings, by his wounds, by his gallantry, by the estimation in which his acts were held by the Congress of the United States, entitled himself to a shore situation for life, if necessary, or might he not have been placed on the retired list? Was he not dropped?

Mr. Mallory. Yes, sir,

Mr. Houston. Instead of being placed on the retired list he was dropped. He might have been placed either on the furloughed or the retired list; but, no, sir; these memorials of his country's gratitude, the admiration and high approval of Congress, were enough to excite the envy of the men on that board who conspired to strike down members of the navy, and dishonor men equal to themselves in position.

How is it with the gentleman whose memorial I have now before me—Lieutenant Gibson, the first officer on board the ship with the gallant Ingraham, when he sustained your flag and your country's honor abroad in a foreign port, by not permitting a foreign hand to touch or defile the hem of the garment of even an imputed citizen of the United States? What does Gibson say? After respectfully presenting his case to the consideration of Congress, he says:

"By the action of the late naval retiring board, I was placed on the furlough list. When that act was consummated, I had but a short time previously returned from a long cruise in the United States ship St. Louis. Having been her executive officer during the whole period of her absence from the United States, and having obtained from her commander (Ingraham) a letter testifying his satisfaction at my performance of the executive duties of the ship, I joined my family, and was with them enjoying an interval of rest after so long an absence from them, conscious that I had performed my duty, with no thought or apprehension of approaching evil, when the letter from the Secretary of the Navy, notifying me that I had been put on furlough, came upon me like a blast of the hurricane, sweeping before it ail peace of mind, all comfort, and almost even hope itself. You may possibly imagine, sir, the feelings of a person thus circumstanced, on the receipt of such information, but it is impossible for me to describe these feelings. And why, I ask, have I been thus dealt with? I know not. I, however, feel a perfect confidence that no charge can be established against me which can affect my efficiency. I therefore contend that the board have treated me most cruelly and unjustly."

Has he not a right to say it? Again:

"I have never skulked from my duty, but have obeyed with alacrity the orders which I have received for sea duty. This is proven by the fact (as shown by the Naval Register of 1856) that I have performed seventeen years and eight months' sea service, which is within two months of as much sea service as has been performed by the commodore who acted as presiding officer of the naval retiring board, though that gentleman entered the navy exactly two years before I was born; and I can also show, by the same register, that I have performed more sea service than twenty-six of the post-captains, and seventy-nine of the commanders, whose names are there registered."

Is this an ordinary case? No; it is an extraordinary one. Here a gallant man is struck down. The eloquence in which he describes his emotions can receive no additions from me. His language is the expression of a wounded heart, suffering under the pangs of wounded honor and lacerated feelings. It requires no embellishment. It has the bright embellishment of truth, prompted in its utterance by wounded honor. I will ask the honorable chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs if this is not a case for the interposition of Congress? How will you reach it? Through the action of the President? If he had an opportunity to restore him to position and favor, would the naval board acquiesce in it? No, sir; they would not. It would be a reflection on their judgment and on their action; it would compromise their honor, and the infallibility of their omnipotent judgment! He has no chance but through the interposition of Congress. Hundreds are in a similar situation. Will you permit them to remain the degraded victims of personal hate, and spite, and envy, and jealousy—down-trodden, pointed at by their companions in life as disrated men? Every avenue to success is shut against them. They have no opportunity of making their way through life; for, if they are retired, or furloughed, or dropped—no matter though they were the souls of honor—no underwriter will underwrite for any vessel with these gentlemen on board as officers. No, sir; they are shut out. The insurance companies have adopted a rule, as I have been assured by gentlemen who took the pains to examine, that they will not underwrite a vessel on which one of these officers is employed. If they had originally chosen to follow their profession, and obtain employment in the merchant marine of the United States, they would have found no impediment to their future success; but here every barrier is interposed by the action of this board—I will not say judgment of this board, for I believe judgment had nothing to do with it. I believe it was either caprice, or whim, or jealousy, or prejudice, or hatred, or envy; and that the higher impulses of the human heart, and the more generous motives of the soul, which inspire men to do justice, have never been called in requisition for one moment.

I am sorry that the venerable Senator from Delaware [Mr. Clayton] is not now present. I desire now to allude to a circumstance on which he commented* and which will be recalled to the recollection of every Senator upon the mention of a name. That Senator spoke of the action of the board in the case of Commander Ringgold, of the navy, who was furloughed. I believe he spoke of it as a proper action of the board. When asked if the temporary delirium which he suffered had not existed only in one instance, the Senator said that he was sorry to say he had understood, or that rumor had said, that it was not the only instance, but that there were others. Now, to satisfy myself, having known the gentleman for thirty years, I went to the Navy Department, and I found that, whilst at the city of Canton, in July, 1854, whither he had proceeded with his squadron during the revolutionary disturbances (at the urgent appeals of American citizens), in the performance of the sacred and paramount duty of protecting their lives and property, the officer, whose duty it was to do this, being absent from the coast on other important duty, he had been suffering severely from chills and fevers, and the surgeon had administered to him undue quantities of quinine, of morphine, and of the elixir of opium—quantities sufficient to derange the strongest head. Without his knowledge, a medical survey was held on him by three surgeons, two of whom then saw him for the first time, and then only for a few minutes, while he was suffering from the effects of the narcotics; as we have all seen a hundred men grow delirious under paroxysms of chills and fever, or intermittent fever. The surgeons immediately decided that Commander Ringgold was deranged, that it was a case of mental aberration, and went off. When he threw away these poisons, and was recovering, he asked that a re-survey might be granted to him, but it was denied, and he was sent home under circumstances that were sufficient to derange any man. The physician who came home with him, as will be found by reference to the records of the Navy Department, said he was perfectly sane, intellectually and mentally. Another survey was called for last June, and again it was reported that Commander Ringgold was perfectly restored; that his health and intellect were as perfect as they had ever been, or as any man's could be.

Was this the excuse which the board had for its action in his case? Was it because, from indisposition, Ringgold had, on a survey, been ordered home under peculiar circumstances, which I will not here detail? In the examination of the records I found Commander Ringgold's application for the command ot the expedition to the North China Seas. In that application to Secretary Kennedy he desired the command, if it should not be called for by any officer of higher claims than himself or his senior in the navy. No other officer called for it. Commander Ringgold was appointed, and his constituted one of the handsomest expeditions which has ever sailed from an American port.

But if this was the ground for the removal of Ringgold, is he the only one upon whom a survey took place? No, sir; I found in the course of my examination that Captain Du Pont had at Rio Janeiro a survey upon his health, when he started for the East Indies, and arrived at that point in command of a beautiful vessel—a little ticklish, it is true, in managing, but one of the neatest craft in our navy. He found it necessary to request a survey. It took place, and he was condemned as laboring under a chronic disease, in which he had taken a relapse, and his life was in danger if he prosecuted the journey. He came home. Since then, I believe, he has got along very well. 1 have heard of no relapse. As it was a "chronic disease" then, I suppose it must have remained so forever, and has never left him. Here the very same man passed judgment on Ringgold, who had himself labored under a survey and condemnation. These are the farts. It will be found that from the very first moment when Ringgold called for the survey under which he was condemned, up to the day when he sailed home, his correspondence with the commodore of the squadron contains as sane and pertinent letters as I have ever read from any gentleman in my life. Yet he was condemned, deprived of his command, and sent home a prisoner. These are the facts. From what I know of that gentleman, personally, if I had to sail on board a ship, there is no one in the service with whom I would sooner risk my life and personal security than with Ringgold. As to his habits, they are irreproachable; as to his chivalry, it is unquestioned. His family have given evidences of it. He is the brother of the gallant Major Ringgold, whose blood was drunk by the thirsty soil of Palo Alto, and who fell a victim for his country's honor. But that was no plea in his behalf. He was too elegant a gentleman to escape the condemnation of this board.

Lieutenant Bartlett, who was handed over by the venerable Senator from Delaware to the tender mercies of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Slidell], is another officer who is a striking example of the influence of prejudice against men of merit and capacity. There is something peculiar in his case, and the Senator from Louisiana has arrayed the facts and given us the secret. He told us that, being a connection of Commodore Perry, and seeing a certain correspondence, he felt an interest in the matter; and what is the whole of it? Most strange, indeed, that he should have felt that Commodore Perry's honor was about to suffer, when I think that one of the most honorable acts which any gentleman could have done is the one that was imputed to him by Lieutenant Bartlett. It will be recollected that on one occasion Lieutenant Bartlett met Mr. Parker, and being shown a letter written to Mr. Parker that seemed to indicate a disposition entertained by Commodore Perry, favorable to the disrated officers, it made a deep impression on his mind. He sought an interview with Commodore Perry; and what was the consequence?' It resulted in a very unrestrained communication on the part of Commodore Perry to Mr. Bartlett, which was transmitted by Mr. Bartlett to a friend, to whom he wished to administer consolation—not with a view to have it published. That friend inconsiderately sent it off, and it was published. Thus it made its appearance in the newspapers. A mind heated, encouraged by the denunciations of Commodore Perry of the action of that board, would naturally recur to the most striking portions of that conversation, and identify them with any circumstance that held out a hope of redress to the injured parties. He says that Commodore Perry, in the conversation, stated this:

"I hope the day will soon come when the monstrous injustice which has been done to you and others will be corrected."

Those are the words—"monstrous injustice," and that he should have repeated them in connection with this letter is one of the most natural things in the world. He had not seen the letter for weeks; but recurring to his conversation with Commodore Perry in detail, in order to corroborate that, he adverts to the letter to Mr. Parker. Can any one believe for a moment that Mr. Bartlett intended to pervert the truth or to distort the facts? Did he not suppose that the letter to Mr. Parker was what he stated? But hurried, excited upon the subject, his mind recurring to the strong expressions of Commodore Perry, he merely stated them as if they had been used in the letter to Mr. Parker. Could he have any bad motive in misrepresenting the letter? Did he not know that if he had misrepresented it he was liable to detection and correction at any time?

The Senator from Louisiana indulged in very harsh, and, as I thought, unnecessary remarks in regard to Lieutenant Bartlett. The peroration of the venerable Senator from Delaware, who deprecated the application of epithets to individuals who could not he heard to vindicate themselves on this floor, would have applied very forcibly to the remarks of the Senator from Louisiana. Lieutenant Bartlett had been distinguished. He had been in France three years on special service, and he had discharged all his duties there in a most enlightened and able manner. He came home lauded by our minister in France, as having with ability and capacity discharged his trust. He arrived here and adjusted his accounts; and there is no record of one iota against him in the Department, but everything is smooth and clear. To be sure, they did not pay him what he was promised. They were to give him a certain percentage on the money expended, but they did not do it because he had drawn, and the money did not pass through his hands; but the responsibility on his part was the same. Instead of allowing him this percentage they withheld some thousand dollars. But what of that? Is there any officer in the army or navy who has had money to expend, that has not been called in question in his pecuniary adjustments? Accounts are checked with great particularity, and it is no reflection on an officer to have disputes with officials here in reference to his accounts.

But, sir. Lieutenant Bartlett was detailed on active service at the time when he was dropped. Why was he dropped? Because it was rumored that he had done something improper on the western coast of the United States, when he was in command of the cutter Ewing. It was rumored; but no fact was established, nor has it been to this hour, nor can it be; but that was the alleged ground on which he was dismissed. The true ground was, that he was an efficient officer; that he was in favor of real reform of the navy; that he was not a friend of flogging; and was an advocate of temperance. Some people have an appetite for seeing others whipped, so that they escape the lash themselves. Lieutenant Bartlett was at sea at the time when he was stricken down; and why? Another gentleman who has been here, I think, for three years, had been ordered to sea. He was inefficient, and unable to go to sea; he obtained leave of absence, and was withdrawn. Lieutenant Bartlett was detailed to supply his place; and in thirty-six hours afterward, I believe, he was on board the ship. He performed the cruise with perfect satisfaction to the officer who commanded; and the gentleman whose place he supplied has remained, I am told, up to this time in Washington city, most comfortably quartered; and, though inefficient, he has been retained on the active list, but he has not been promoted. Bartlett was one of the men who was willing and able to perform at sea an undue portion of service, because others had from disinclination refused to meet the detail made of them.

As Mr. Bartlett has been handed over to the tender mercies of the Senator from Louisiana, I will hand over to Mr. Bartlett's tender mercies Mr. Missroon and Mr. Jenkins, witnesses who appeared against him before the Committee on Naval Affairs. I think, by the time the Senator gets through with all of them, he will find that it is a troublesome business to nurse them all. To the tender mercies of Bartlett I commend these gentlemen. He was singled out of all the memorialists before the Naval Committee for the purpose of examination; and when he presented himself before that committee he asked to have the privilege of having counsel. Counsel were denied him; witnesses were brought forward and examined—I do not know whether they were sworn or not, but they were examined as to his general character, his character for veracity—all pointing to this publication in the newspaper which has been indorsed, and which I consider of perfect validity, because Commodore Perry in two months has never controverted or denied a single word of it. I consider it indorsed by his silence, and deriving all the verity which it could have received from his absolute affirmative sanction.

Mr. Benjamin. Will the Senator permit me to say a word?

Mr. Houston. With great pleasure.

Mr. Benjamin. My colleague is absent, and I am not aware, of course, of those circumstances of detail which he obtained from Commodore Perry, and which are involved in the investigation of this quarrel—almost triangular I may call it. But so far as the Senator from Texas can draw any advantage from the supposed ratification of this statement by Commodore Perry, I beg leave to recall to his memory the fact that the last time when this subject was under consideration in the Senate my colleague distinctly stated that the extract from the letter which had been published in the New York Herald had remained unnoticed until some person would make himself responsible for it; that he himself, after correspondence with Commodore Perry, had in his hands the means of rebutting this pretended statement of Commodore Perry's as erroneous, to say the least—I believe my colleague used a harsher word, which I do not choose to repeat. He stated that it had remained unanswered only because there was no responsible person to father it; and as soon as the Senator—I think it was the Senator from Texas—informed my colleague that Mr. Bartlett was responsible for this statement, my colleague arose, and, on behalf of Commodore Perry, denied it the very first moment that an opportunity was offered him.

Mr. Houston. I would suggest to the Senator from Louisiana that it was the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Iverson] who made the statement to which he has just referred.

Mr. Benjamin. It was the Senator from Georgia; I was not quite certain in my memory. Mr. Houston. It was the Senator from Georgia with whom the Senator from Louisiana had the colloquy to which reference is made. I understood that the statement which the absent Senator from Louisiana had from Commodore Perry merely referred to the expression contained in the letter to Mr. Parker, and not to the general substance of the publication. It was particularly aimed at the quotation " monstrous injustice"

Mr. Iverson. In the conversation which occurred between the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Slidell] and myself on the occasion referred to by the other Senator from Louisiana to-day, I gave the authority of Mr. Bartlett for the statement which purported to have been contained in the letter from Commodore Perry to Mr. Parker. The Senator from Louisiana contradicted it—not by stating anything, or quoting anything from Commodore Perry, but by submitting the original letter which had been transmitted to him, not by Commodore Perry, but by Mr. Parker; so that really Commodore Perry has never said, directly or indirectly, whether the fact be true or not.

Mr. Benjamin. So far as that matter is concerned, I should like to put it right now. It is a very unfortunate circumstance that this controversy should arise during the absence of my colleague; but the Senate will remember distinctly that my colleague rose and stated that he had been waiting for some one who would take the responsibility of the statement which had been communicated anonymously to the Herald. It is true that my colleague did not read to the Senate any direct communication from Commodore Perry; but he gave the Senate and the country fully to understand that in everything that he said he was justified and authorized by private communications from Commodore Perry. He did not use any statement from Commodore Perry for the purpose of meeting this anonymous communication; but he said that he knew Commodore Perry's views and feelings upon the subject; that this communication had been sent to him from Lieutenant Parker; that he had retained it in his possession, with the full knowledge of Commodore Perry's views on the subject; and had waited until some person should back this anonymous communication before he gave it the contradiction which he thought it merited, and in terms which he considered justifiable under the circumstances. I make no commentary upon those terms. It is not my desire to enter into the discussion upon these grounds; but I certainly think that during the absence of my colleague it is my duty, at all events, to recall the true state of facts to the Senate, so that injurious impressions may not go abroad, either as to the conduct of Commodore Perry, or as to the action of my colleague, who is now absent from his seat.

Mr. Iverson. So far as regards the quotation from the letter of Commodore Perry to Mr. Parker, which was made by Mr. Bartlett in the communication which I read to the Senate on that occasion, Mr. Bartlett himself has corrected it, and admitted the fact that he used too strong language in the alleged quotation.

Mr. Benjamin. I understand that to be so.

Mr. Iverson. There is no controversy, therefore, on that point; but it has been stated by Mr. Bartlett, and it was stated yesterday on the floor of the Senate by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. JonesJ, on the authority of a Senator of this body not now in his seat, and upon the authority of Lieutenant Gibson — and I presume the statement will not be controverted—that Commodore Perry has, time after time, in the most public manner, without any concealment, and without giving any confidential character to his communications, condemned in the most unequivocal and decided terms the action of the naval board. That Commodore Perry has never denied, and no one, I presume, will ever deny it for him.

Mr. Benjamin. I wish to say but one word more, if the Senator from Texas will pardon me. I do not pretend to know what Commodore Perry has said on the subject. The Senator from Georgia says that it will not be denied that—as was asserted yesterday—Commodore Perry made use of expressions condemnatory of the course of the naval board. I know nothing whatever on that matter; but I do protest against any inference being drawn as to Commodore Perry's concession in regard to the truth or accuracy of these representations of his conversations, until my colleague, who is closely related to him, and vv^ho is in possession of his confidence on the subject, shall be in his seat, and shall have heard a statement of the conversations that are imputed to him. For myself, I do not pretend to deny—as the Senator from Georgia says that he presumes no one will deny—these imputed conversations; but I will say that until they come from some other source than Lieutenant Bartlett I refuse my credence to them.

Mr. Mallory. If my friend from Texas will allow me, I wish to put him right as to one question. All this controversy in relation to personal matters I can not enter into, because this great naval reform does not depend on any such questions which may be put in issue here. Therefore I have not responded to the remarks which the honorable Senator from Tennessee made yesterday in referring to Mr. Bartlett; I have not responded to anything which fell from the honorable Senator from Texas in relation to Mr. Bartlett, because the case was committed to the honorable member from Louisiana [Mr. Slidell], who will give proper responses to the ideas thrown out here in regard to Mr. Bartlett, which I have no doubt will be satisfactory to the Senate.

But the Senator from Texas undertakes to comment on a matter which this body has committed to one of its standing committees—a memorial on which there is to be a report. That matter is before the committee, and is undergoing its investigation at this moment. What report the committee may make upon that subject is yet entirely uncertain. The Senator from Texas, however, undertakes to comment upon the conduct of the committee in that case. If he chooses to do that, I submit it as a matter of taste and propriety; but I wish to correct him as to a point of fact in which he is mistaken. I presume that he has been misinformed upon the subject, because I am confident that he could not have derived his information from any member of the committee. The statement to which I allude is as to the investigation which is going on as to the veracity of Mr. Bartlett.

The Senator said that the investigation pointed to the letter in the Herald, as if the veracity of Mr. Bartlett was to be dependent entirely on the issue of the controversy between Commodore Perry and himself. Now, I beg to inform my friend from Texas that such is not the fact. I have never asked a question, to my knowledge, in relation to that letter, the answer to which would affect the veracity of Mr. Bartlett in any degree whatever. The examination before the committee is entirely outside of that. It may come in, as a matter of course, though I should never ask a question about it. I merely wish to put my friend from Texas right, and to state that the acts of the committee are yet incomplete; they are going on in their investigation, and will endeavor to acquit themselves to the satisfaction of the Senate.

Mr. Houston. I really thought that I was out of this triangular controversy; but the remarks of the gentleman who has just spoken appear to implicate me a little. I did not charge the gentleman with what he imagines; but I said that, judging from the circumstances and from the declarations of the Senator from Louisiana, it was clear to me that this publication in regard to Commodore Perry had stimulated the member from Louisiana in the course which he pursued in the arraignment of Mr. Bartlett before the committee. I said that the questions which were put to the witnesses who were introduced were designed or calculated to invalidate his general credit and veracity. Am I right?

Mr. Mallory. No, sir; I do not think the Senator recollects precisely the point which he made. It was that the investigation as to the veracity of Mr. Bartlett was all directed to this letter in relation to Commodore Perry, That was the Senator's remark. I wish to say that he is misinformed as to that fact entirely.

Mr. Houston. At all events, his veracity and his general character were attacked by the witnesses—Mr. Missroon and others. I do not say that I understand the information before the committee as well as the venerable Senator from Delaware. He said that, though he knew the proceedings of the committee well enough, he would not state them. He was perfectly posted in relation to the whole matter. I have no doubt, and I believe every word that he said as to his information. I have not alluded to this matter for the purpose of imputing anything dishonorable to Commodore Perry. I have respect for that gentleman; I would not hurt a hair of his head; nor would I soil the hem of his mantle. I have respect for him; and I have more respect than I before entertained for him since I have seen this publication, because it shows that he has a heart. If he had yielded to the importunities of the head of the department, and given his time and attention to a board that was odious to him as a system of proscription, he is excusable; but he is now fully awakened to a sense of the injustice done to gallant men, and entertains an ardent hope that reparation will be made, commensurate with the wrongs inflicted.

This was the amount of the conversation. 1 wish it known everywhere, because I believe it veritable, and because Commodore Perry has never opposed one contradiction to it that I have heard of; nor did the Senator from Louisiana impu:e to Mr. Bartlett a want of accuracy or truth in any part of the statement which he' made, except in the quotation of the letter, and that I have already explained, where the words " monstrous injustice " were substituted, from th-' deep impression which the conversation had made on him. He had merely seen the letter. His statement of it was written as a private communication, and not with a view of having publicity given to it; but that was inconsiderately done by the friend to whom it was sent. Mr. Bartlett, in writing to a friend, says:

"I have spoken to you of a conversation held in New York, since my return from the coast of Africa, with Commodore Perry, the subject being the action of the late naval board, of which he was a member. I had also seen a letter in Commodore Perry's handwriting to Mr. Parker, son of Commodore Parker, late a lieutenant, in which Commodore Perry compliments Parker, and then adds: 'I hope the day will soon come when the monstrous injustice which has been done to you and others will be corrected.' In visiting Commodore Perry I did not suppose he would be very communicative; but he received me with so much warmth of feeling and courtesy that I determined to express myself very freely upon the whole matter, and did so. The Commodore then said that he could not talk to me of my own case, being under implied obligations of secrecy to the board, but he would say that he abominated the action of the board; that he had protested against its secret sessions; that he had presented a resolution (which he had preserved) to have open meetings, or to that effect, which was voted down; that he had been dishonored and disgraced by the action of the board, he being a member of it; that he hoped he should soon be called upon to disclose his views of all that had been done there, and that, when called upon to disclose his views of all that had been done there, or taken place at the board, either before Congress or a court of justice, he would tell the whole truth; that he had protested before the President and Secretary against such Star Chamber proceedings; that he considered it monstrous in every way; that it was a packed conspiracy against the honor of the navy; that it had ruined his reputation, and he knew it; and he also now knew that he had done wrong there as little as he had done, and he was sorry for it; that it was the first time in his life that he had been called upon to do that which had caused him to lose his self-respect, but that the action of a majority of that board had done it

"The Commodore also said, 'that he hoped not one of the new commissions would be confirmed by the Senate till a full investigation could be had, and the shameful conduct of these conspirators exposed.' He said he did not make any secrecy of his opinions about this matter; that the board had disgraced and dishonored him, and he knew it. The name of Perry was in every way identified with the navy, and he had lost all interest in the navy, and would resign instanter if he had the means of living. He regretted that he had not given up his commission, if necessary, or placed it on the issue, rather than act; and not to have done so he now sees was to set aside his ordinary sagacity; regrets that he did not refuse to be even a conservative member of the board. The Commodore also said: 'Sir, the board never imagined for one moment that all the list as the action of the board would be approved by the Secretary and the President,' but supposed it would be sent back for revision, and then, he said, 'the conservative members of the board would have had some power, and could have compelled the conspirators, or these men, to do justice where so much injustice had been done.'

"Here is a confession from a penitent and suffering member, which his whole manner and action showed to be real.

"The Commodore also said: 'Sir, if I was ordered to the command of a dangerous and important expedition to-morrow, I would tell the Department and the world that I would prefer to select my officers from those who have been discarded rather than those who are left. There is nothing but a bundle of sticks left: men who never did anything, and never will; who never made a mistake because they never attempted anything' "

Mr. Benjamin. Will the Senator from Texas be so good as to inform me from what authority he reads that? Where was it published?

Mr. Houston. This is the publication which has made so much fuss, and in it occurs the quotation which has been commented on in the Senate.

Mr. Benjamin. Is it signed by Lieutenant Bartlett?

Mr. Houston. Not at all.

Mr. Benjamin. It is anonymous, then?

Mr. Houston. It was recognized by gentlemen here. It was stated by the Senator from Georgia and recognized by ——

Mr. Iverson. The Senator from Texas will allow me to say that he is under some mistake about that. I did not make any allusion to anything from Mr. Bartlett except the quotation of the letter of Commodore Perry to Mr. Parker.

Mr. Houston. That is what I say. It is a quotation used in this publication—it is all the same publication.

Mr. Iverson. The Senator should not give me as authority for the residue of the statement which he has read.

Mr. Benjamin. This is a question which I can not allow to pass in any confusion. I do not understand—and my recollection is not—that my colleague heard that letter read, and failed to deny that that conversation was had between Commodore Perry and Mr. Bartlett. On the contrary, my distinct recollection is that my colleague repelled, as a charge which would dishonor the character of Commodore Perry, the fact that he had made any such statement as that which was contained in the pretended extract from a letter, which extract was afterward admitted to be false ——

Mr. Houston. It was not admitted to be false. I hope the Senator will use an expression becoming the Senate.

Mr. Benjamin. Did I not understand the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Tennessee to admit it?

Mr. Houston. They admitted that it was erroneous; that it was a mistake.

Mr. Benjamin. If it is not true, I beg the Senator's pardon. But what is the case? That which purported to be the copy of a letter written by Commodore Perry was, according to the statement of the Senator from Tennessee yesterday, merely something that rested in the brain of Lieutenant Bartlett from a conversation; the letter was an entirely different thing. Now, sir, the Senator from Texas says that my colleague, having heard that letter read, or these statements of Lieutenant Bartlett about a conversation, which he repeated, did not deny them. I say that, according to the best of my recollection—I am very sorry that I have not the Globe here before me in which my colleague's statements are contained ——

Mr. Iverson. If the Senator will allow me, I will say that I may remember them, as I was particeps criminis in the transaction at the time. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Slidell] did not deny that Commodore Perry ever wrote such a letter, and, as evidence of the fact, he produced the original letter.

Mr. Benjamin. I am now referring, not to the letter, but to the pretended statements by Mr. Bartlett of a verbal conversation. The Senator from Texas says that this conversation between Lieutenant Bartlett and Commodore Perry was repeated in the Senate in the presence of my colleague, and not denied by him.

Mr. Houston. I hope the gentleman will not become too much excited. I will correct him.

Mr. Benjamin. I am not excited; but I do not intend that my colleague's position shall be misrepresented, through error on the part of the Senator from Texas.

Mr. Houston. I said that the remarks of the Senator's colleague grew out of a reference to the quotation from a letter of Commodore Perry to Mr. Parker. I do not say that the statement which I have just presented has ever been read in the Senate before; and because I believe it had not been read, I proposed to read it on this occasion that it should go out on the authority of a Senator.

Mr. Benjamin. The Senator from Texas, then, do:s not pretend this statement has ever been read in the presence of my colleague without contradiction?

Mr. Houston. I never did pretend it.

Mr. Benjamin. I am satisfied, sir.

Mr. Houston. But I pretend, and I assert, that it has been published in the newspapers for weeks and months, and that it has never met a contradiction, that I have discovered, from Commodore Perry.

Mr. Benjamin. It was published unsigned—an anonymous communication.

Mr. Houston. Ah! that has very little to do with the contradiction of a falsehood; I apprehend the Senator would not be prevented from contradicting a falsehood by any nice considerations as to whether it was signed, or sealed, or delivered, if it was generally circulated. I have never seen it contradicted, and I have seen the statement corroborated by Mr. Gibson's letter which was read here yesterday. That embodies, substantially, a conversation of the same import, but it did not go into the same details that appear here. It has remained uncontradicted by Commodore Perry. I mean no reflection or disparagement on Commodore Perry. I read this statement without intending to implicate him in anyway; because I believe he told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when he called the board a set of "packed conspirators." That is just what I believe about them.

I will inform the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Benjamin] that it was entirely in relation to the quotation used by Lieutenant Bartlett, in this communication to a friend, that the discussion arose between the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Iverson] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Slidell], in which the latter denounced, in the most unmeasured terms. Mr. Bartlett, as having stated a falsehood, and perhaps said he was degraded, or something of that sort. It is very easy to say such things; but I do not recollect that he ever opposed a contradiction to the detailed conversation given by, or imputed to, Lieutenant Bartlett in this paper. It was only to the use of the words "monstrous injustice" that he objected. I believe it was with reference to that very expression used in the conversation with Lieutenant Bartlett, that he placed his quotation to the letter to Mr. Parker; but his veracity is equal to that of any gentleman. I have not the least doubt that his services and standing in the navy, his spotless reputation, his intelligence, and chivalry, are as irreproachable as those of any gentleman who sat on the retiring board. I except none for useful and efficient service—he is certainly equal to any.

Mr. President, a controversy arose in relation to a book which the venerable Senator from Delaware imputed to Mr. Du Pont. I have informed myself in relation to it. It was a book written on the defenses of the country, and for which Sir General Somebody Douglas complimented Lieutenant Du Pont. I believe it amounted to a pamphlet, or something about that size, and was circulated broadcast. Some one wrote him a letter about it. I do not know for what purpose it was written; perhaps it was the same kind of a letter as that written to Mr. Thorburn. The venerable Senator from Delaware was somewhat discourteous, and used harsh contradictions in relation to my misapprehension of this book, and imputed rather a want of intelligence or a want of veracity to me. I do not know which he intended should be the inference. From his first remarks I supposed that he referred to a book which Mr. Du Pont had a hand in writing—" Regulations for the Navy of the United States." Being informed on that subject, I had, in reply to the Senator's "executive session" speech, in which he inaugurated Mr. Du Pont's fame into the Senate, alluded to the book, supposing that he had the credit of writing but one book; but I am willing now to ascribe to him the credit of writing two books, or as many as you please. Certainly, according to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Du Pont is responsible for the book to which I referred; for he said that Du Pont never follows, whether old or young, but he leads wherever his country's interest or honor requires him. I presume he would not participate in anything not involving the country's interest or honor; and therefore, as the book to which I alluded was prepared by a board, composed of Commodore Morris, Commodore Shubrick, Commodore Skinner, and Commander Du Pont, I suppose that he should be held accountable for it.

There is a singular coincidence between the principles laid down in his book of regulations and the principles upon which the retiring board acted. This book was prepared by a committee of officers. It comprised two hundred and fifty pages—quite a respectable-sized book. They had it printed without the order of Congress, and had it sanctioned by the then President of the United States. As it was done under a former Administration, and as there were some things rather alarming in it, overturning the principles of judicial procedure, and as there had been no legal enactment in regard to the compilation, it was thought proper by the Secretary of the Navy to refer it to the Attorney-General for his opinion. I have here his opinion on some of the regulations, and I must say that they are of the rarest character that I have ever seen. I have taken extracts from these regulations and the Attorney-General's opinion. I could not bring the whole book here. I am aware that some gentlemen except to my reading extracts not sufficiently copious, but I really think they are. This is at least very demonstrative and suggestive in its character.

The Attorney-General says:

"So in the thirty-fifth chapter articles occur on the subjects of courts-martial which are in pari maieria with provisions of the act of Congress, and are in effect abrogatory or emendatory of the same, as plainly as a new act of Congress could be.

"Again, one of the articles in the same chapter changes the whole theory of judicial procedure by forbidding the court to receive evidence of the previous good character and former services of the accused in mitigation of the punishment to be awarded. This provision, which is the more observable when compared with another article which allows evidence to be introduced of previous bad character, may, or may not, be wise; it is, at any rate, a very positive act of legislation."

That is a novelty; but it is the principle on which the retiring board acted. They only sought accusations against officers; but we have heard of no extenuating circumstances, and of nothing received by them in mitigation. The Attorney-General says further of this book:

"Numerous other examples might be given of specific provisions of the 'system of orders,' which are, in every essential quality, acts of general legislation as clearly and emphatically as any part of the subsisting laws enacted by Congress for the government either of the navy or the army.

"I am of opinion, therefore, that the 'system of orders and instructions' under examination, being a code of laws and an act of legislation, was in derogation, as such, of the constitutional powers of Congress, and, as the mere act of the President in a matter not within his executive jurisdiction, is destitute of legal validity or effect."

••••••••••

"Hence, the 'system of orders and instructions' for the navy, issued by President Fillmore, as Executive of the United States, 'February 15, 1853, is without legal validity, and in derogation of the powers of Congress.' "

This was the emanation of the gentleman who compiled and prepared these regulations for the conduct of the navy; and for which, according to the suggestions of the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Du Pont must be in great part responsible, he never being second on any occasion to old or young. It is said, Mr. President, by the venerable Senator from Delaware, that Commodore Parker would be obliged to no one for having introduced his name. The allusion was to a document sent here in answer to a resolution offered by myself, calling for some information. When the document came, it included a letter which the Senator thought would prejudice Commodore Parker. That letter is placed in the very first part of the communication of the Secretary of the Navy, though it was of a date subsequent to many letter^ contained in the same document, which are put out of place. I have not the pleasure of knowing Commodore Parker; but to show that he was entitled to the highest credit and commendation, I will refer to the following letter of Captain Pendergrast:

"Washington City, July 31, 1852.

"Sir:—In compliance with your request of yesterday I have the honor to submit the following statement:

"I commanded the Saranac steamer for thirteen months, under Commodore Parker, and during that time was a messmate of his. This association led to the most cordial and affectionate regard for him personally, and impressed me with the highest respect for him as an able and efficient commander of a squadron. I have no hesitation in saying that I have never known a squadron better managed than the Home squadron has been by Commodore Parker; nor have I known any one who has acquitted himself better, or who has made a more favorable impression on foreigners.

"Commodore Parker had confided to him, during his command in the West Indies, many delicate and important trusts, and in the discharge of his duties on those occasions he displayed great judgment and ability, and I have reason to believe his conduct was most cordially approved of by our Government.

"I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

"G. J. Pendergrast, Commander.

"Hon. John P. Kennedy, "Secretary of the Navy, Washington City."

This is the opinion of Captain Pendergrast, approving and certifying to the conduct of Commodore Parker. If Commodore Parker was delinquent. Captain Pendergrast has either failed to state the truth, or he has done what is equivalent to it—he has concealed the truth. If the Commodore was culpable, he has not told it. What does it amount to? We find that individuals have had charges against them smothered; that they have not been exposed to reprehension, investigation, or condemnation, but that they have escaped through the favoritism of the Secretary of the Navy, and have not been held accountable.

Since the time when Mr. Bancroft was in the Department, we find that there has been a systematic attempt to conceal charges against officers, and not to bring them to trial when they have been repeatedly accused of improper conduct. Successive secretaries, instead of investigating such charges, have permitted them to be suppressed, or compromised, or withdrawn, when it was their bounden duty to see that they were held amenable.

But, Mr. President, my friend from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] made some explanations in regard to a few matters to which I alluded on a former occasion. I referred to some circumstances that took place on the Brazilian squadron at Rio Janeiro. To my statement my friend from South Carolina took exception. Commodore Shubrick, in his letter of October 28, 1846, to Commodore Rousseau, inclosing the survey that had taken place on the vessel Saratoga, remarks that "the Saratoga having been found, on examination, unfit to continue her cruise around Cape Horn in her present condition, he has ordered Commodore Shubrick to report to him (Rousseau) that after having repaired the injuries sustained by the vessel, he may exercise the discretion given him in the letter of the Department of 20th July last."

Commodore Shubrick says further that in the course of her repairs she may be found even in a worse state than represented—if so, taking into consideration the length of time which has elapsed since she was ordered to the Pacific, he should think she could be of little or no service in that squadron. Commodore Rousseau taking this as an intimation, tantamount to an order, coming from a superior for the inspection, ordered the Saratoga back to Norfolk; so that she never joined the squadron as authorized by the Secretary of the Navy, but repaired to Norfolk, and her service was withheld from that squadron during the whole time.

I understood my friend from South Carolina to say, that Commodore Shubrick had taken Mazatlan and Guayamas. Guayamas was taken, I think. by Captain Lavalette, not by order of Commodore Shubrick. He was sent out to Cape St. Lucas, and whilst there, the weather becoming unfavorable, he was impatient to return, and he went and took Guayamas himself without orders from the Commodore. My friend also stated that Mazatlan "was taken in the face of a superior force " by Commodore Shubrick, and that he had achieved everything that was achieved on the Pacific. It appears that Mazatlan was taken without a solitary man resisting. The American flag was run up by Lieutenant Halleck, of the army, with two men; and Commodore Shubrick was informed by the municipal authorities or council, on November ii, 1847, that —

"The undersigned make known to the senior commodore that this port was evacuated since last night by the military force, and that, from the outpost to within the city, there is no other force than a small number of persons composing the police for the maintenance of good order." [Delivered by the President of the Junta.]

This is the achievement of which my friend spoke, and which was set forth with such flourishes in the newspapers. That is the history of the taking of Mazatlan. It appears farther that at Mazatlan, the day after this occurrence, I think, when an attempt was made to march ninety men, under the command of Lieutenant Selden, they met the enemy, who were fired upon from the Independence, the Commodore's ship, then at anchor off the cape at Mazatlan. All the Commodore's men ran at the first fire of the enemy, except one, who was killed. Stanly was in command of a six-pounder. Fifteen out of the seventeen men under his command were shot down and Lieutenant Selden was wounded. They maintained their ground for some time, until the force from the Independence rallied and came back.

I was also called in question the other day by the venerable Senator from Delaware, in relation to the statement which I made of the achievement at San Jose, out of which, unfortunately, the "whistle" grew. He said that I had reflected on the officers accompanying Captain Du Pont. I did no such thing. I never disparaged their conduct. I hold him responsible for his report, and not for the conduct of the men. It appears that Lieutenant Heyvvood sallied forth from his fortress to rescue Captain Du Pont, and relieve him. I did not cast any reflection on Heywood; but any military man can perceive the policy of leaving Lieutenant Heywood with eighteen or twenty men in all, in the heart of Southern California, without any succor within one hundred miles of him! Did it argue generalship to put him ashore under these circumstances? I leave it for military men to determine. I will not criticise it; but I will say that it is a miracle that they were not every one sacrificed. It was a strange thing, indeed, to leave them under such circumstances, when there were hundreds of men on board the vessels who could have strengthened the post. At least fifty men were necessary to live in the midst of three hundred enemies; but eighteen or twenty men, it is said, were left, without succor within one hundred miles. But for some whaling-vessels that went there, the captains of which supplied them with provisions, their fate would inevitably have been destruction. Heywood 's valor and chivalry, and that of his gallant companions, did everything that was done. His gallant comrade, Stevens, who was afterward so highly lauded for his conduct on that occasion, has been dropped and stricken down. It is disgraceful.

I come again, in conclusion, to the action of Commodore Hull in the Ohio. It was stated by the Senators from Delaware, that the letter of Secretary Paulding, retracting his reprimand of the four ward-room officers of the Ohio, should forever have closed that transaction. It is a singular coincidence that those officers should have been then implicated together in disorder and insurrectionary or mutinous conduct, for it amounted to that. They were subsequently designated in the navy as the "four mutineers." It is singular that these men should have been selected subsequently to act together on the naval board. I propose to show, however, that the letter of Secretary Paulding, pretending to cancel these charges, did not close the transaction forever. I will read Commodore Hull's replies, and let the Senate judge from them whether or not Commodore Hull felt that he had injured these individuals, or whether he himself had been deeply wounded. After he had received the first letter from the Department, authorizing him to reprimand these gentlemen, he addressed a letter to them in which he said:

"I have been put aside by some of you; disrespect and almost contempt have been evinced for me; and the time has arrived when it must and shall cease. There are three remedies which strike me for this state of things. One is, to lay this ship up in a Spanish port—this noble ship, the pride of our country, with her beautiful flag, of which we were once ready to boast, with its stars and stripes, hoisted at half-mast—until lieutenants can be sent from the United States to restore it to its proud and honorable bearing. Another is, to take you to sea with all your discontent, disaffection, and disrespect for your commanding officers, and trust co time to bring about a better state of feeling. And the third is, to make such changes among you as my means will admit of. I have not yet determined which to adopt; but I will now state to you that I am responsible for this ship. I shall go to sea when I please; I shall go where I please; and stay as long as I please.

"Gentlemen, our country is on the eve of war with a mighty and powerful nation, and what is the situation in which you have placed me? Who can go into battle with confidence, surrounded by disaffected officers? And, I may well ask, Who of those originally ordered to this ship as her sea-lieutenants can I confide in?"

This shows the feelings of Hull when he received and read to them the reprimand administered by the Department. I propose, however, to advert more particularly to what he said of Lieutenant Du Font's conduct on that occasion. In a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, dated March 21. 1841, Commodore Hull says:

"I have long since been convinced that Lieutenant Du Pont is the leader in all the disaffection which has so unhappily reigned in the Ohio, and I am fully persuaded that the pernicious influence he has exercised over others has effected more injury to the service than he will ever be able to repair."

That was his opinion of Lieutenant Du Pont; I leave gentlemen to draw their own conclusions from it. I have no disposition to go beyond the records, and I have not done so. I have a right to advert to public records, and they sustain me in what I say. It is evident that Commodore Hull felt deeply mortified by the action of the Department in withdrawing the reprimand first administered to these officers. This is shown by the correspondence of Commodore Hull. I read from his letter to the Department of December 5, 1840:

"Having thus fully and strictly complied with all the directions embraced in your letter of 'June 24, 1840,' and having bowed with all due submission to your will and decision, I now claim the attention of the Department to the position its decision has left me in, viz, that of an officer in command of a foreign squadron, under the ban of his Government.

"In reversing my acts, which were based, as is admitted, on the promised 'co-operation and support ' of the head of the Navy Department, it must be evident that, without some exposition of the circumstances under which I acted, without some declaration of facts in the case by the Department, a large portion of reproach will be thrown upon me, and my command and authority may be ridiculed; but should this not be the case, the ground which will be assumed, both in and out of the navy, will be this: Commodore Hull had a difficulty with some of the lieutenants of the Ohio, a portion of whom he sent to the United States, with orders to report to the Secretary of the Navy, who disapproved of Commodore Hull's course, and sent the lieutenants back again; thus sustaining the lieutenants, and censuring Commodore Hull.

"I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything more to the Department in justification of the course I pursued toward those officers; but it may not be improper in me to refer to certain extracts of your letters, and to ask an application, in my case, of that justice which has been so promptly yielded by the Department to others.

"In a letter written by the Department at the commencement of the present cruise of the Ohio, viz., so early as 'December 27, 1838,' the following sentiments, opinions, and views are expressed:

" 'The Department expects that, actuated as well by a due regard to your own honor as to the permanent interests of the navy, you will retain your command until, by a firm and steady assertion of authority, in which you may rely on it for support, you have suppressed that spirit of discontent which, if permitted to triumph, will, it is feared, be fatal to the future character and discipline of the service.' 'From the first, a spirit of discontent, approaching to insubordination, has prevailed among a portion of the officers, which manifested itself in disrespect to their commander, in appeals to the public, as void of foundation as they were destitute of all manly consideration.' . . . . 'And in violation of the regulations of the service by publishing an official correspondence without permission of the Department.' "

Now, Mr. President, can any one doubt that this is satisfactory evidence that Commodore Hull was not sustained by the Department, and was left in the awkward dilemma of being overruled, and having a triumph awarded to those who were generally designated in the navy as mutineers? And those four mutineers composed almost one-third of the naval retiring board. I will read further from the same letter of Commodore Hull:

"And here I beg leave to ask of the Department if these extracts do not contain a repetition of 'specific acts,' 'definite charges,' and 'official misconduct,' alleged against ' a portion of the officers of your (my) ship? ' And does not the Department carry out, in part, its previous judgment by detaching Dr. Ticknor from the Ohio? Surely I could not have erred in believing that, in the promise of 'co-operation and support ' by the head of the Navy Department, further action was left to my discretion. Permit me to refer to the case of Lieutenant Du Pont, and to ask why the Department left me to judge of the sufficiency of an apology which he was to make to me, as one of the grounds on which his application to return to the United States was to be granted, and thereby leaving to my discretion an act of 'humanity'? With such a guide, calling on me in terms precise and almost imperative, to exert the power to the utmost which the laws and regulations of the service give me to protect myself from disrespect and to enforce subordination, with a promise of co-operation and support in the exercise of my lawful authority, and the example set me in detaching Dr. Ticknor, the inference was as direct and positive, to my mind, as a peremptory order would have been; and I acted in good faith, and with a single eye to the good of the naval service."

Now, I will read the last extract which I propose to present from Commodore Hull's letter, to show that to his last hour he felt it as a fatal blow to his influence, fatal to his honor, and dangerous to the well-being of the navy of the United States. He says:

"I dare not question the propriety of the decision reversing my acts; but I trust I may say that, in my humble conception, the Department has not fully assumed or taken upon itself the responsibility of the course pursued by me; and, as a consequence, I feel that I am placed before the navy and the country as resting under the disapprobation of the Government of the United States, which will be to me a severe injury, unless averted by the head of the Navy Department.

"That any immediate evil will ensue to the navy generally, or to my immediate command, remains to be seen; but I must say, I much fear that my reputation and authority, as a commander of a foreign squadron, have received a shock from which they will not speedily recover.

"It is somewhat remarkable that this station— the Mediterranean—was the scene of my early services in our then infant navy. I witnessed its rise, its progress, and its advancement; bound myself to it, and hoped its course would ever be onward; and that now it is the scene of my last service, and I am here, I fear, to be a witness of its fall, retrogradation, and ruin; but my hopes and wishes are, to live long enough to see harmony and union, discipline and subordination, restored among its officers."

Mr. President, I have read these communications because they are important, and they contain a clear refutation of what was suggested by the venerable Senator from Delaware, when he said that the whole transaction was closed by the retraction by the Department of the first reprimand. The Committee on Naval Affairs inform us that they have thoroughly investigated this subject, and they have reported the results of their examination, and I understand it is a unanimous report. They have suggested remedies for the reform of all the errors which they think exist, and they appear now determined still to retain cognizance and jurisdiction over the subject. I am opposed to committing the investigation which I think is necessary to that committee, because it is impossible that an impartial investigation can take place before them. They have expressed their opinion. If we were selecting jurors to try a culprit, or to determine a civil cause between individuals resting on merely pecuniary considerations, impartial men would be chosen, who had expressed no opinion in relation to the facts or justice of the controversy. In any case affecting life or property, men would not be selected to adjudicate it who had already expressed their opinion upon it; but those would be chosen who were impartial, and free from bias of every kind. I desire to have a committee appointed who can, without being tied down by former biases or committal, determine whether or not injustice has been done by this board.

I have not said that the officers of the navy were rascals; I have not impugned their honor; I have not doubted their chivalry and gallantry; but I admit that I have not entertained a favorable opinion toward the board and their action. For that I am responsible to my own judgment. I have a right to express my opinion on their conduct so long as I keep within the pale of the public records of the country. If I have transcended the privilege accorded to me—if I have violated the franchises of the Constitution, I am free to attack an arraignment. If I travel out of the record—if I slander or traduce private individuals, let it be shown, and I shall always be ready to defend myself, on notice being given of the attack against me. My person is free to arraignment. I am responsible for my course. The views which I have taken on this subject have been fully sustained by the documents; and I could, from them, deduce facts going much beyond what I have presented. What would honorable gentlemen think of me if I were to make a statement like this: A certain member of the board, while the bill of z last session was pending, used his efforts to procure its passage. A certain gentleman was opposing it. The officer came to him and said, " What are you doing here opposing this bill?" "Why," said he, "I do not wish it to pass the Senate." The officer said to him, "I know very well why you are opposing it; you are afraid that such a man, your friend, Captain so-and-so, will be prejudiced by the bill, and that is the reason why you oppose it. Now," said he—this was before the law was passed—" never mind; I will be a member of the board, and not one hair of Captain H.'s head shall be hurt." If any Senator asks me whether I can prove this statement, or desires to know the author, I tell him, grant a special committee that will go heartily into the investigation, and I will bring the witnesses who will substantiate the statement.

I think this circumstance shows that all the talk that we have heard of the disinterestedness of the board amounts to nothing. These men were interested in the result of their own action. The whole thing had been concocting for years under successive Secretaries of the Navy, until its consummation took place in the year 1855, with all the management and contrivances possible. This "packed conspiracy," as Commodore Perry designated it, was concocted for years. You may trace back four of its members, who cooperated consistently since 1838, 1839, and 1840, when a conspiracy was formed against Commodore Hull while he was in command of the Mediterranean squadron. I desire my fellow-citizens, the officers of the Government, to be rescued from such persecution. I shall not arraign the board. I do not say they are not honest—I shall cast no reflection on the chivalry of the navy. My feelings in regard to the board perhaps may be illustrated by a transaction which occurred in Augusta County, Virginia, before Judge Coulter, a gentleman of distinction, and a remarkable Democrat.

A Dutchman was sued before the judge. The Dutchman was very much opposed to the Democracy, and had used harsh and derogatory epithets concerning them. He did not know how far the denunciations which he had used against the Democrats might influence the judge in his particular case; he therefore called upon Judge Coulter, and said to him: "Judge, I want to talk to you; you know I have always been a strong Federalist, and you have been a strong Democrat, and we have always voted against one another." "Yes," said the judge; " we have—what of it? " "Oh," replied the Dutchman, "they tell bad tales on me, and it is reported that I said that all the Democrats were grand rascals; now, judge, I never said that." "Well," replied the judge, "I am glad that you did not say it." "No, I never said it, but I will tell you what I did say, and I will stand to it as long as I live—I did say that all the rascals were Democrats." [Laughter.]

Mr. President, I certainly say that, according to my apprehension, there has been a great deal of bad conduct in this matter; and it has been prompted, perhaps, by a want of knowledge as to the merits of various officers. 1 must confess that I have never been so much excited in my life, in relation to the condition of my country, as at the present time. I have never before felt that a blow so fearful, so fatal, so terrific, has been aimed at its security and efficiency as this reduction, or rather annihilation, of the navy. Sir, it has been the right arm of our strength, of which every American has been proud. It was approved by Jackson, a man of noble and chivalrous bearing. He suggested no amendment to it, except such as necessity required. Successive Presidents found no fault with it, until bureaus began to multiply and accumulate about the capital. Then the suggestion was made that the navy was inefficient, and should be reformed. This cry has been altogether since 1840—since the Mediterranean cruise under Commodore Hull—since bureaus were located in this city.

It is important that we should inquire into this matter now. It is important that we should sustain this right arm of the nation. You may compare the militia and volunteers of the country to the body, the defensible part of the nation; the army to its left arm, and the navy to its right arm. The navy is not confined in its action to our own shores, but it goes abroad, sustaining the honor of our flag upon every sea. That right arm has been crushed, and lies palsied at the side of the body-politic. It must be renovated by the repeal of this odious action. The law under which it has been disgraced is, in my opinion, unconstitutional, and even its provisions have not been executed according to their spirit.

I ask for a thorough investigation of the subject, and I desire to have a special committee appointed for that purpose, so that we may arrest this evil, and if possible arrest the downward course of the country. Sir, I feel that our situation is an important one. The nation's heart has been wounded by this action; and the life-blood of the country will ooze out from the arteries if they are not now bound up by the strength and energy of Congress, and our system renovated and made perfect in all its parts. I say there was no necessity for this action, and it was not in contemplation even in the report of the Secretary of the Navy at so late a day as 1854.

I desire to refer to that report of the Secretary of the Navy, in which he says emphatically that such a law was not necessary, for he recommends the extremest measure which he thought was required, and he does not go to this extent; but it was engineered through Congress. Everything in regard to it was kept secret. It was done by the co-operation of the committee and the silence and apathy of members, who, from their peculiar condition, not being connected particularly with the navy, were prevented from entering into an investigation of the principles of the law. In the report to which I have just alluded, Mr. Dobbin says:

"Is the particular plan of having the aid of a board of officers in ascertaining the incompetent and unworthy objected to? I am not wedded to that or any other scheme, provided the main object can be attained. I should be content to have the Secretary from time to time officially report to the President such names as he wishes should be retired or dropped; that the President should transmit, if he thinks proper, their names to the Senate, with a recommendation suited to each case. Thus the President and the Senate, the appointing power, will be the removing power; and the apprehension of Star Chamber persecution and being victimized by secret inquisition, now felt by some worthy officers, would be quieted."

Sir, if this course had been adopted the navy would have been purged, if it needed purging; it would have been purified, invigorated, and sustained: but how is it now? I will take any number of men who have been removed and disrated, and you may pick out at hap-hazard an equal number among those retained, and you will find them as defective in capacity as those who have been dismissed.

Mr. President, I earnestly trust that the Senate will adopt these resolutions, appoint the special committee forthwith to proceed in the investigation of the cases of those officers who have presented memorials to us, so that they will have it in their power at an early day to report upon the subject. I have much to deplore in the condition of the country, and much to reprehend; but this is the most fatal blow which I have yet seen aimed at the nation—one that has inflicted a deeper wound on its honor and efficiency than all that have been accumulating from the days of my boyhood to the present moment, and the consequences of which will be most disastrous if not arrested.

I can not consent to sustain the bill reported by the Committee on Naval Affairs, which proposes to increase temporarily the whole number of officers in the navy, when we have already so many officers for the ships, that now only once in every fifteen years can a captain perform his cruise, a commander once in fifteen years, and the lieutenants once in five years. Under such circumstances, are you to make provision for an additional number to supply the places of those who have been improperly dropped or removed? No, sir. I will replace them where they stood at the adoption of this unconstitutional measure. I say it was a nullity from the commencement, because it was unconstitutional, and because the law, even such as it was, has not been properly executed.

I ask the Senate to restore these men to the places which they formerly occupied. Let this be done, and our country will feel and know that there is a conservative principle in the legislation of this Union which can arrest all the cabals, all the machinations, and all the packed conspiracies that may be concocted against the well-being of the country or against any particular arm of its service, which are prompted by sinister motives, and designed to strike down worthy men for hatred, envy, or ambition. It will show the people that there is an influence which can put down those who seek, by grasping at power, to promote themselves at the nation's expense, and do injustice to worthy and honorable men.

Now, Mr. President, I have no more to say on this occasion; but before taking my seat I beg leave to return my thanks to the honorable Senator from Tennessee for the courtesy which he has shown me by allowing me to proceed to-day.

 

---

 

SPEECHES ON THE PACIFIC RAILROAD BILL, AND IN REPLY TO HON. A. IVERSON, OF GEORGIA.

Delivered in the Senate of the United States, January 12th and 13th, 1859.

The Senate having under consideration the Pacific Railroad bill—Mr. Houston said:

Mr. President, it was not originally my intention to address to the Senate any remarks on this subject, but it seems to me that the proposition now submitted to us is one of great importance. If I have correctly apprehended the design of the Pacific railroad, it is for the national advantage, for the general benefit, and it ought not to be confined to any particular section or interest in the United States. If so, I can not perceive the propriety of restricting the engineers in their reconnoissances to any particular locality, but we should leave the wide field open for the selection of that line which will best promote our great national purposes. This amendment, however, proposes to limit the selection to a point north of the thirty-seventh parallel. It seems to me that if nature has designed a communication between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean, the least expensive, the most direct, the most facile means of communication, is to be found in a route commencing at the mouth of the Red River. By commencing there, all the streams which would be encountered, if you commence at Memphis, or any point further north, will be avoided, and there is but one stream of importance between that and the Rio Grande. It is a natural trough, if you will permit the expression, extending from that point, with but very little interruption, to El Paso. That country has been described by Captain Marcy, and others, who have taken reconnoissances of it, and it is manifest that a road can be constructed there with less expense than on any other route which has been designated or thought of.

We have heard of sandy deserts there interposing insuperable obstacles. Is there any route suggested that interposes no obstacles to the accomplishment of the work? None that I have heard of. It is remarkably singular that the obstacle which is regarded as insuperable, this dreary, sandy desert, this Arabian waste, as it has been termed, in which steam-cars and caravans are to be overwhelmed, is not actually known on that route at all. We have now a regular mail communication between El Paso and the Pacific Ocean. If there were no facilities for a railroad on that route, how is it possible that mail-coachcs could run regularly over without impediment? That fact affords a practical refutation of this assumption, which is unfounded in fact.

Why need this interpose an objection so as to rule out from the general provisions of this bill a section of country that possesses equal, if not greater advantages than any other for this work? By the route which I have suggested you are afforded through the Mississippi River, from the point where the Red River empties into it, egress to the Atlantic and the Gulf, From that point, too, you can communicate with the South when you can not from St. Louis, because the ice-bound condition of the Mississippi at that point precludes navigation, and you are totally dependent on transportation by cars from St. Louis. The mouth of the Red River is never obstructed by ice, nor does it ever offer any obstruction at any point on the Mississippi below the mouth of the Ohio River. From the mouth of the Ohio you can communicate with the North and East; and from Memphis and Vicksburg with the whole South. At the terminus of this route, you have all the facilities of water transportation which, in point of cheapness, very far surpasses railroad transportation. But, sir, if you terminate the road at St. Louis, where the river is ice-bound at this season of the year, and where commerce must of necessity be arrested, how will the people of the Gulf or of the lower part of the Mississippi have communication with it? Must you transport articles to some point south of the Ohio River, and thence radiate through the whole southern country? Is that the way? Sir, you have the opportunity of accommodating all by locating the terminus at the mouth of the Red River, and there the whole commercial world is open to you; all the facilities that arise from railroad and water transportation are afforded to every section of the country north of it; but if you bring the road to St. Louis, you must be solely dependent upon railroad transportation, and you can not have it by water, because the Mississippi is ice-bound as well as the Missouri, and you are arrested there. All the cheapness, all the conveniences, and everything that would result from the other terminus is there converted into a coast and an impediment to transportation.

I think that to restrict the southern limit to the thirty-seventh, or even to the thirty-fourth parallel, is ruling out one of the most important routes, the advantages of which to the South will be incalculably greater than any other. By leaving a margin for including that route, do we cut off the North from any portion of the advantages which it has a right to claim? None at all. The Ohio and the Mississippi are open to Cairo; and at Cairo, at Memphis, and at Vicksburg, the line of which I have spoken will connect with the whole eastern portion of the country. The entire line north will be reached from Cairo; from Memphis this line will communicate with Charleston, with Richmond, and with all the southern portion of the Union. Either from Vicksburg or from Memphis, you can convey to New Orleans, by ship or steamboat transportation, all the materials that will arrive from the Pacific coast. If you have anything to transport there, you have all the advantages of embarking them at a point more accessible than the mouth of the Ohio for the people of the North. They have no streams to ascend; but the people of the South have the broad and secure Mississippi, with no impediments, no sawyers, no obstructions, to prevent their reaching the terminus with perfect convenience and security. You can not have access to the North from any other point with the same facilities that you can from this terminus on the Mississippi.

Why rule out this route? Is it not entitled to consideration? Why not give entire latitude to those who are to construct the road, to make their selection? If it is not eligible to make the terminus I have suggested, very well; let them so decide; but I implore you not to disfranchise those who have a right to your consideration as a part of this Union. If this is to be a great national work, give it a national character, and treat it as a national measure for the defense of the Pacific coast. I have always been its advocate. I have seen no constitutional impediment to it. There is none; or else it is unconstitutional to give national defense. The Federal Government is bound to defend the several States, and to give security to them. If they owe it allegiance and loyalty, the Federal Government owes them protection. Can you give protection to California without a direct communication with the Pacific Ocean? You can not. Can you bind them in interest? Can you make them identical with us? Can you bind them in cordiality, in sympathy, and in loyalty, unless you create a bond of this kind? You can not. I wish no portion of this country to be alien to the Union, and I wish to do justice to all. I never could conceive that there was a constitutional impediment in the way of this work. Are we authorized to build forts and fortifications? If we are, are we not equally bound to afford other means of defense? Is not the communication with San Francisco and with the Pacific as important as it is to erect forts here upon our borders, on the Atlantic? Equally important. They are necessary to the protection of our Atlantic coast, and a railroad is indispensable to the protection of the Pacific coast.

I have always been a stickler for strict construction, and I am yet; but I believe whatever is necessary for the salvation of the country is constitutional. There has been no constitutional provision to bring these vast Territories into the United States, and to incorporate them into our Union. The Constitution can not be stretched; it is not a piece of India-rubber; it is a compacted whole, and not to be distended; but whenever you step beyond the Constitution to acquire a dominion, it becomes expedient that you should do something with that dominion; and then it becomes a matter of legislative discretion. That is my opinion about the Constitution and its application to those Territories that have been acquired without its pale and without its provisions. I insist that it would be an act of glaring injustice to this section of the country, possessing the vast and illimitable advantages which it does as a terminus of a road, to exclude it from the common benefits that are extended to other sections of the Union.

Mr. President, as I remarked in the outset, it was not my intention to have uttered one syllable upon this occasion. I have always entertained my private views and opinions. I did not know that they were more orthodox than those of other gentlemen, nor did I wish to bring them in opposition to their views. It is possible that I'm ght be reconciled to the views which they have advanced; but they have not yet convinced me, and I have a right to give my opinion.

I have regretted, Mr. President, that in the course of this discussion it has been deemed necessary to draw any invidious distinctions between the North and the South. That to me for the last twelve or fourteen years has been a subject of deep and inexpressible regret. I have never heard that chord struck but its vibration was painful to me; and the other day, when gentlemen thought proper to advert to it, and when there was crimination and recrimination, I was deeply wounded. I had hoped that that subject was deeply buried, that it never would be resurrected again, at least within my hearing for the short period during which I am to occupy a seat on this floor. That good fortune, however, was not allotted to me. I had to hear the jarring sounds again, not of the death-knell, but of agitation; and what its ultimate consequence is to be, I know not; I hope never the severance of this Union. I hope, I believe, the Union is to be eternal. I can not but think that if the bright capacity, the cultivated intellect, and the undoubted patriotism of gentlemen here could be subsidized to the great object of devising ways and means for the perpetuation of the Union, for harmonizing the discordant sentiments that exist in the community, and reconciling difficulties, it would be a most desirable and commendable employment. It would seem, however, that they were rather devising causes and occasions of disagreement and alienation between the North and the South. Disunion has become a cant phrase. It is talked of familiarly. In olden times, and it is within my recollection, when it was first sounded in the House of Representatives, when it was first suggested in the debate on the tariff of 1824, I thought it was treason, and that the individual ought to have been crucified. It is no more acceptable to me now than it was then. It is more familiar, but that does not commend it either to my affection or to my judgment. Disunion, sir! You might as well tell me that you could have a healthy patient, and a whole man, if you were to cut the main artery of his life.

Have gentlemen ever reflected as to when, v/here, and how they are to begin disunion; and where it is to end? Will they cut the great Mississippi in two? Who is to have the mouth of it? Who is to command its source? Will it be those who agitate the subject, or are ultra upon it? Never, never! Look at the great West, rising like a giant. Think you they will be prohibited the privilege of commanding the great outlet of that river, when their productions are boundless and float upon its bosom every year, and every day of every year? Sir, it is madness. I must remark to my honorable friend from Georgia [Mr. Iverson], with all kindness of feeling personally, that when I heard him speak for the South, I could not but review scenes that passed before me in the old Chamber, when gentlemen rose and spoke for the South as if they were proxies of the South, and held the South in the hollow of their hands, or controlled its destinies by their will. Sir, I am of the South. I was born there. I have lived there. No other man in the whole South has a broader interest in it than myself; my all is there, and I have represented a proud State here. I answer for a part of the South. I intend to disclaim the right of any gentleman on this floor to speak for the South, when I can offer a negation to his assertions.

This must be stopped, sir. It may wear out. If it does not, and the crisis comes, you will find the patriotic hearts of the South are better employed than in agitating this subject; men who are better engaged in the daily avocations of life; men whose employments lead them to love their country, to hope for its advancement, to rely in security that on their own exertions depend the welfare and prosperity of their families; and whose prayers are for harmony and the well-being and prosperity of their children in life. These are the bone and sinew of that country. They have no passions to flatter; they have no political aspirations; they cherish nothing but a holy loyalty for their country and its Constitution; and when these men are called to action, and look around upon the elements which they are to oppose, it will be as wise, if it were possible, for a sane man to throw himself in the way of the furious tornado, as for public men to oppose them. They will not do it. They will stand aloof, hugging security with a consciousness of happiness and the future well-being of the human race. They will be contented with the blessings they enjoy, and will not put them to the hazards of revolution.

The gentleman spoke of one State seceding and others following. Mr. President, it would be much easier for one State to come back than it would be for other States to go with it. I can see no propriety in that. What would they do.' Suppose one State goes out; it rules itself out of the Union; it has cut off all intercourse with the other States; and as to talking of a division of the great public lands of the United States, the right of a State to any participation in them is at an end when she secedes from the Union. She has left good company and gone off by herself; she is in a minority; she can not take any portion of the territory, for she has abj ared that; she has surrendered it by going out of the Union, for it is only through the Union that she has an interest in it. Where would be the navy of the seceders? where their army? where their security at home? Sir, the very moment that a State places herself out of the Union, that moment she assumes the attitude of revolution; she has revolted. Certain duties are enjoined on her by the Constitution; if she resists the operation of the Constitution, she becomes a rebel per se.

Sir, let the wise men of this Union turn their heads and their hearts toward peace and harmony; let them become reconciled one to another, and continue not the use of crimination and recrimination, but the language of conciliation, of courtesy, of considerate demeanor, reflecting but not talking, thinking but not acting prematurely, and then we shall see a harmonious and desirable state of things in this country. We shall see no animosity; we shall see here no bitterness; no incendiary pamphlets will be circulated in either section. Let gentlemen of the North cease to agitate the subject of our Southern institutions. They are ours, they were theirs, and they had a right to them, and can re-establish them again if they choose. If it is a matter of policy with them to eschew them, it is a matter of necessity and of right and of interest on the part of the South to maintain them. Gentlemen ma> talk of philanthropy and humanity and the equality of all men under the Declaration of Independence; but I do not think an African equally white with me, and therefore he is not on a footing of equality exactly. He has never enjoyed political rights, and therefore he has been deprived of none. In Africa, he enjoyed the privilege of slaughtering and eating his fellow-man; and it was consistent with his idolatry, and consistent with his education; but that does not give him the education and moral pitch that white men have.

But be that as it may, whilst these subjects are being discussed, I ask, I implore gentlemen to tell us what better disposition can be made of them. Is the wild and savage African of Africa better than the slave of the South? Is he as well off as the free blacks of the North or those who are freezing in Canada? No; he is not as well off as they are; he is not cared for; and will you throw our slaves back again into barbarism, or will you turn them loose upon us in the South? Have we done aught to produce the necessity of having them amongst us? Did not your ancestors do it? We never were a commercial people; we never carried on the slave-trade until recently—and I brand that as an act of unmitigated infamy; but it was done by others. Slavery has descended to us; it is necessary, and we must maintain it; but does it conflict with the well-being of Northern gentlemen and Northern society that the South bear it? We are told that it is a calamity and misfortune to us. Let us bear our misfortunes alone. We have not asked for intervention, nor can we permit it. It is requiring too much. Have I ever sought to drive slavery into your communities? Have I ever sought to extend its limits or to trench on any one of the established principles of gentlemen who think differently on this subject from myself? I have not sought to thrust it down their throats; but I have determined always to maintain it as a man, and to vindicate the rights that exist with us.

You never hear me talk of "Southern rights." The South has no rights but what belong to the North; nor has the North any rights but what belong to the South. The North has excluded slavery; the South retains it. The North did it because exclusion was their interest; the South retain it because that is their interest. All the States have equal rights. You, gentlemen of the North, have the right to adopt slavery when you please. We have the right to abolish it when we please. You have the right to abolish it, and we to adopt it. Our rights are reciprocal under the Constitution. We hold no rights that are Southern that are not Northern; but "Southern rights" is a cant phrase, calculated to inflame the popular mind, and create an alienation of feeling, as though the South was, in interest, antagonistic to the North, and the North to the South. Allay these reflections, gentleman; hush them up; cure and heal the wounds that have been inflicted upon the nation; give harmony to it, and you will give stability to our institutions. God has given us everything that is necessary to make us a happy, a great, and a mighty nation; and, oh, let us not be laggard in the generous race of emulation to honor His works.

Thursday, January 13, 1859.

Mr. Iverson having replied to the foregoing remarks, Mr. HOUSTON rejoined as follows:

Mr. President: If it had not been for the lateness of the hour last evening, at which the honorable Senator from Georgia [Mr. Iverson] concluded his remarks, I should then have taxed the Senate for a short time; but as the usual hour had arrived for our adjournment, I thought it proper to defer what I had to say until this morning. Before proceeding to notice the remarks of the honorable Senator, I desire to afford him an opportunity of giving a more explicit explanation to one expression which he used in relation to myself. When he referred to the course which I had pursued in the Senate on former occasions, he spoke of my "antecedents." If the gentleman will be so kind as to explain to me the full scope of that observation, I shall be better enabled to compass my view of the subject. I should be glad if the Senator would think proper to explain what he meant by my "antecedents," as he twice used that term in the course of his remarks.

Mr. Iverson. Well, sir, I meant simply this: as far as my observation of the Senator's political course had gone—and it covered a number of years—I understood him upon all occasions, in season and out of season, to be crying hosannas to the Union; and I meant, in connection with that, the remark which I made, that when, in the face of the Northern aggression, in the face of the rapid and powerful march of the spirit of abolitionism in the Northern States, and the dangers to which the institutions of the South were subjected by it, I heard a Southern man constantly singing praises to the Union, and denouncing everybody who should call it in question under any circumstances, I suspected that he was endeavoring to make himself a popular man in the North, for the purpose of reaching high political position.

Mr. Houston. Mr. President, the honorable Senator need not repeat the whole of his exposition of that particular remark of his, for he has heretofore been very explicit; and I intend, in the course of my observations, to advert to that particular part of his speech. He has not instanced any particular occasion to which he intended to apply the term "antecedents"; no vote, no action of mine, by which I have gone out of the way for the purpose of lauding the Union, or condemning any gentlemen who had thought contrary to me on that subject. I have combated opinions that I thought heretical, and I am always ready to combat them—whether they be in accordance with Northern or Southern views; but not for the purpose of making personal assaults or reflections on gentlemen. If my antecedents are looked out, it will be found that they have been entirely consistent. I know to what the gentleman must necessarily have referred, as he made the remark in connection with his allusion to the recent defeats which I have sustained. The reference must have been to my vote for the organization of Oregon, my vote for the admission of California, and my vote in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. All these votes were in strict accordance with the instructions that I derived from my own State, and under the Constitution of the Union and the Democratic measures of this Government; so that in them I am sustained. But if my advocacy of the Union has caused my immolation, politically, as the Senator says, I exult and triumph in that as the most glorious antecedent of my existence; one that I hail with pride and consolation as an American; because I have always looked to the Union as the sheet-anchor of our safety and our national grandeur and prosperity. If for that I have been stricken down, I rejoice at it; I shall consider myself a blessed martyr; and I should endure that martyrdom a thousand times were the alternative submitted to me of office or abandonment of the Union.

But, sir, the Senator suspects that I or any Southern man who advocates and sings peans to the Union is in pursuit of the Presidency. 1 can assure the honorable gentleman that it is the last thing in this world that I would accept, if it were tendered to me; and for his satisfaction, and that he may not hereafter anticipate any rivalry on my part, in any aspirations that he may have, I withdraw myself from all competition by the assurance that if every political party of this Union were to tender to me this day the nomination for President, I would respectfully decline it. I have higher, nobler, tenderer duties to perform. I have to create a resting-place for those who are dear to me as the people of this Union, and who form part of them. These are the duties I have to perform. If there is aught of public service that remains to me unfinished, I am not apprised of it. My life has been meted out to sixty-five years; and forty-five years of that life devoted to my country's service, almost continuously, should entitle me to an honorable discharge. I claim that discharge from my country. I claim that, having performed every duty which devolved upon me with fidelity, I ought to be permitted to retire from this Chamber in accordance with my heartfelt desires, with a constitution, thank God, not much impaired, and with clean hands and a clean conscience, to the retirement where duties are demanded of me as a father. So, the defeat of which he speaks was no disappointment; and, by way of explanation, that the gentleman may be more perfectly satisfied with my position, I will say, that had my lamented and honorable colleague. General Rusk, remained with us, by the providence of God, on the 4th of March last I should have vacated my seat and retired to the walks of private life. A man who has combated so many difficulties as myself, who has been engaged in constant commotion, in turbulence, and in scenes of upheaving difficulties, should seek a respite at the close of his life, if his span should be meted out a few years, to create a homestead for his family, and a place of rest for himself. So, sir, I hope the gentleman, on this point, will be perfectly satisfied that I have no aspirations ungratified; I have no expectations, as a recompense, to look for, for my devotion to the Union. It is an inherent principle in me; I gave evidences of it many years ago. 1 have periled everything for that and for the protection of the frontier of the honorable gentleman's State, in early life, when disunion was a word not known in the vocabulary of politics in America. That was an evidence that I gave then, of devotion to the Union; and I need not point to the spot in the South which I watered with my blood to defend this Union. What I have done since, I care not to recount; but I know that, without reference to the Presidency of the United States, I v/as engaged in struggles that tended to the perpetuation of this Union, as I believe, though I was then in a separate community of men. We gave national existence to Texas, that she might become a part of this great Confederacy. I there gave renewed evidence of my devotion to the Union, and to the institutions of the United States. Sir, there a spark flashed upon the world, the consequence of which has created a revolution that is still onward, and will continue to affect this whole globe. Until time shall merge in the ocean of eternity, its effects will not be arrested. It has opened a world, and we came forward and were incorporated into this Union. It was not a small territory; it was an empire and a Republic of itself, which had passed through every crucible of trial and of difficulty that would test men's souls and try their nerves. This was not to secure the Presidency of the United States; nor did it look very possible then that aspirations of that kind influenced me or any other Texan. Certainly it is not so plausible as to suppose that, by contriving the separation of these States, the honorable gentleman might have aspirations to gratify, which, it might be presumed, could not be so well compassed in the Union, considering the intractable character of the Northern people. Their affinities might not be such as to be commanded readily in advancing the gentleman to the Presidency, and he might think it expedient to have a dissolution of the Union, and a new confederacy formed, in order that he might turn a jack and secure the game to himself. [Laughter.]

Sir, I trust I have always had higher and holier aspirations than those connected with self. If my ambition were not inordinate, it ought to be gratified and fully satisfied with the number of positions that I have filled, as responsible and important, relatively, as that of the Presidency of the United States; surrounded by difficulties, overwhelmed by menacing millions, without a friend to succor or sustain us. Sir, I have had to wade through difficulties and through scenes of anguish and peril with a gallant people—none have ever been tested to the same extent— without resources, new, unhoused, surrounded by all the inconveniences and peril of a wilderness, surrounded by savage tribes, with the feelings of nations alien to us. Sir, we have had these to pass through; and loyal to one section of the country, I was loyal to all. When Texas was annexed to the United States, it was not to the Southern Confederacy, nor in anticipation of one; she was annexed to the Union; and as a Union man, I have ever maintained my position, and ever shall. I wish no prouder epitaph to mark the board or slab that may lie on my tomb than this: "He loved his country; he was a patriot; he was devoted to the Union." If it is for this that I have suffered martyrdom, it is sufficient that I stand at quits with those who have wielded the sacrificial knife.

But, sir, it has not estranged me from the people I represent. The gentleman says I have no right to represent them on this floor; that I have been repudiated. That forms a justification for him, I suppose, when speaking of the entire South, to embrace the little section of Texas and represent that too, while he excludes the actual representative from any participation in the duties of his section. I admit the great ability of the gentleman, and his entire competence for the task. He speaks of the whole South as familiarly as if he were speaking for it; and, in contradistinction to the whole South, he speaks of Georgia as "my own State." Well, sir, that may be all right; Georgia may have but one man in it for aught I know. [Laughter.] I have not been there for two years; but it did seem to me, having heard of distinguished personages there, some that have occasionally illumined the Senate by the corruscations of their genius and their profound ability, that really Georgia had some other representatives on this floor and in the other House than the honorable Senator himself.

Can the gentleman suppose that any little mar, as he would think it to be, in not re-elevating me to a situation in this body, would inflict the slightest mortification on me? Not at all. I do not believe that it was intended in the act to compliment me, by any means. I believe it was designed to pretermit and to rebuke me; and the means to do it were afforded, because the persons who were then in power and controlled the presses and political influences in the State had been pampered and nourished, and cherished by the means which my late colleague. General Rusk, and myself, procured for the State, the $5,000,000 granted by Congress, of which there remains to-day not one bit of gold-dust in the treasury of Texas. We gave them the means of controlling the political condition of that State, thinking we had placed men in power who had claims upon its confidence and respect. Whether it was a wayward fit, or whether it was a considered thing, I care not. It afforded me an opportunity of retiring to the situation that I desire; and it has not alienated my affections in the slightest from the people of Texas. They have no honors to confer that I would accept; still they are the people that I need not say I love. I cherish them, and their interest is to me a dear interest, because with their destiny my posterity are identified.

These are the reasons that control me, Mr. President, and they shall ever control me. Those men had no power to inflict mortification on me, and their act was exceedingly grateful to me because it solved a problem which had never been solved before. It had been insisted upon that Texas could not get along without my services; but they have demonstrated to me that they can get along without my services, and I am exceedingly glad of it, because it shows their increasing prosperity. [Laughter.] But, sir, whilst the constitutional term which remains unexhausted to me shall endure, I will continue faithfully to discharge my trust to them, and I have made a gain if they should perchance have made a loss, and I will avail myself of that advantage without leaving the Senate with a single regret, or, I hope, a harsh or ungentle feeling toward one gentleman within the scope of my view. I would not cherish a wish of unkindness to the honorable Senator from Georgia; and if truthfully he can reconcile the course which he has adopted to himself, he will meet with no rebuke from me. But rebuke and vindication are different things.

It is possible that I may be able to extend courtesy to the gentleman in my seclusion or retirement at home, in my humble way of life—for none of the blandishments of wealth or elegance have ever surrounded me in life. Hardy and rugged in my nature, both physically and intellectually, I have always been ready to meet and combat the inconveniences of life. I have known how to abound, and I have known how to want. I have known what it is to feel exultation, and I have realized abasement. Whatever Providence has allotted me, that I have learned to be contented with, so long as my honor is untarnished. The honorable gentleman may find it, ere a single year runs out, convenient in an excursion to Texas, after some political events have taken place in Georgia, to call and spend a social time with me, realizing that fortune is a capricious jade, and that politics are "mighty unsartin." [Laughter.] Should the gentleman come, I promise him the bread of peace, the reception of welcome; but still he can not indoctrinate me with the principles of disunion. That I announce. That is a subject that shall be ruled out of our social intercourse, while it meets my unqualified condemnation without attaching it to the gentleman himself. [Applause in the galleries.]

The Presiding Officer. Order!

Mr. Houston. I take the Globe, and expect to have them all filed away, and I may occasionally try to refresh my reminiscences, and regale myself by adverting to some scenes that have been exciting in the Senate of the United States, and throughout the nation. I shall hope that they are things that have been, but are not; for no sound will be so delightful to me in retirement as to hear that the Union is more closely bound together every day, cemented by affection and reciprocal kind offices; and that that crimination and recrimination which has existed heretofore, has died away; that all agitation has subsided, and is forgotten; that like one great family in a grand migration to a happier condition of national existence, we are marching hand in hand, and that our people feel one common cause, one common home, one common fraternity throughout the broad Union.

But, Mr. President, notwithstanding the gentleman's characteristic amenity and politeness, his great amiability of disposition, and his bland kindness of demeanor, I am satisfied that, when he gave utterance to these sentiments, he could not have been in earnest, and that they were merely an ebullition of the moment—nothing more. He says:

"The Senator talks about the Union and sings hosannas in its praise. I have heard those songs sung before; and I must say that I have never heard them sung by a Southern man without suspecting at once that his eye was upon the Presidency of the United States."

Sir, that would argue, if I were disposed to be suspicious—but I am very unsuspecting in my nature—that the gentleman who is ready to draw deductions from the conduct of others, was always looking at that prize himself, and that on the least indication, as he believed, of a similar feeling in others, he was ready to detect it and set it down to their account rather as an offense than as a commendable quality. Again:

"It may require a great deal of charity, looking at the antecedents of that Senator, and the remarks he has made here to-day, to suppose, although his political life is about to end, that he has not lost sight of that long and lingering hope of his— the great folly of his life."

Now, sir, I might call on the gentleman for some evidence of that, but I will not do it. I do not believe it is tangible, and I do not wish to occupy time unnecessarily; but, really, I have never endeavored to chalk out a course of policy in my life, with reference to the Presidency, that seemed half so significant as to promise the dissolution of the Union and the formation of a Southern republic; for that clearly indicates ulterior views on the part of the Senator, with a mind that was suspicious—not with me! Again:

"Sir, it is this very intensity of feeling which the Senator from Texas has so long exhibited for the Union, over and at the sacrifice of the interests of his own section, that the people of his State have decided to put him in retirement; and, for one, I can not but rejoice at that decision."

I should like to know what sacrifice of the interests of my country I have ever caused. Was it for sacrificing my country that I was immolated? or that I was pretermitted, is a better expression, for I consider it no sacrifice without some loss of life; and I am not hurt. [Laughter.] The cry was, "Abolition, and the three thousand preachers," because I advocated their right of petition to the Senate of the United States. These were the charges made against me: opposition to the Nebraska bill, voting against the repeal of the Missouri compromise. I am satisfied that it was done, not altogether regardless of the circumstances that then existed, for it was known that about the time the Nebraska bill was introduced, when it was not contemplated to repeal the Missouri compromise, in Providence, Rhode Island, I made a solemn declaration that I would vote against the bill, and resist it while I lived. Then the alternative was suggested, " Let us bring in the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and Houston is either bound to retract what he has avowed publicly, or to vote against the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and that will put him down, by raising the cry of abolition against him. He will have to vote with gentlemen who are ultra in the North, and that will put him down, by identifying him with them Besides, the Administration of the Government, with all its patronage, with all the newspaper press, and with the cry of Democracy, shall overwhelm this man, and he is no longer an obstacle; and if we have suspected he had his eye on the Presidency, this will kill him at home, and then he will be killed abroad." There is a consolation in that part of it, and I am much obliged to them for it.

I do not interfere with politics out of the House or in the House, any more than I can help; but I see that it is complained that the Northern Democracy is routed and broken down. I announced in the discussion of the Nebraska bill, that if you dared to repeal the Missouri compromise, it would be giving the adversaries of the Democracy in the North a weapon with which they would discomfit and beat them down; that it was not sustaining the Northern Democracy; that it was literally butchering them. Has it not been so? And what has the South gained by it? The result is that within a brief space of time, two States that would have been Indian territory, will be added to the North. It has placed Missouri in such a situation that she must of necessity yield to the surrounding influences, and add another State to the North. I shall not enlarge upon this; but that is what the South gained. I forewarned them of the impending evil, and for that I was stricken down; so far as political influences could be brought to bear, I was pretermitted; and these were the offenses that I had committed. But the Southern vision is becoming clear; the beam is being taken out of their natural eyes, and they are beginning to comprehend fully the extent of the benefits flowing from that kind of dispensation. I opposed that repeal. I could not agree with gentlemen who advocated the measure of repealing the Missouri compromise, sanctified by so many Democratic associations, by the approval of Monroe and his Cabinet, of Jackson, of Polk, and of all the illustrious men; approved by all; rejected by none; not even a mooted question in the community. Its repeal was concocted here, and from here it was radiated throughout the country with the eclat of a Democratic Administration, as a Democratic measure.

But did that sanctify that curse to the South? No, sir ; it could not con- vert it into a blessing; that was impossible. If some gentleman of the North, who is considered ultra in politics — the gentleman from Massachusetts, or from New York, or from Ohio — had introduced a provision to repeal the Missouri compromise, what reception would the proposition have met in the South? There was not a man in the whole South who would not have grasped his weapon of war and rushed to the scene of combat, and been willing to have fallen upon that line in vindication of Southern rights. Well, sir, did it sanctify it as a measure of blessing to the South, that it was introduced not by a Southern man, but by a Northern man with Southern principles? When he introduced it, it was adopted by the South and by both the existing political parties which had but a few years before solemnly abjured the reagitation of the slavery question, in their political conventions. Their solemn pledge was disregarded; the torch was applied to the magazines of agitation; and what has been the condition of the country from that moment to this, but agitation unnecessarily produced, for political ends and to manufacture Presidents? That was all of it, and the South is yet the sufferer; and I pray God that deeper calamities may not fall upon her. That measure is the initiative of misfortune to the South.

These may have been my antecedents; but they are such as I am proud of; and I only regret I did not triumph and enforce them with ability sufficient to have produced a trembling in this Chamber, to make gentlemen weak in the knees who resisted the conviction that flashed upon every mind.

I am sure I need not dwell upon this subject; but I will make a further remark to the honorable gentleman, who on a former occasion classed me as a party to myself. From that I rather derived some consolation, because I knew that according to my estimate, I could not have been in bad company if I were by myself, [laughter,] and that no difficulty could arise between myself and my companions. [Renewed laughter.] We should harmonize perfectly. I see discord in other political parties; I see a great want of harmony; I see "hards" and "softs," politically in the same party, not exactly harmonizing; some going a little too far, some not going far enough; some going one road, and some another; some rather kind to banks, and others a little friendly to internal improvements, beyond the standard that General Jackson fixed.

I am a Union man. The great champion of the Union was Andrew Jackson. To him descended from the fathers of the Republic, in a direct line, the principles upon which he stood; and his declaration, "The Union: it must and shall be preserved," will never be forgotten. Sir, that will tingle in the cars of patriots for ages to come. All the combinations of aspirants or political demagogues can not defeat the great object and aim of our forefathers, and of the men who rise in the vista between them and us. I have never, in my life, seen an Andrew Jackson Democrat who was not a firm and decided Union man. He was not a man to make hypothetical cases, and say that in such and such events, in case such and such things would be done, the Union would be dissolved. It is easy to make a man of straw and prostrate him. The honorable Senator from Georgia, however says the people of Georgia would not even wait for overt acts. He thinks they would begin before it came to that. I thinlc there was no danger to be apprehended from the anti-slavery agitation so long as it was confined to such people as those who originated it in the North—a lady or two, and a gentleman or two, here and there. They became objects of importance from the fact that the South, choosing to agitate the matter, came in conflict with them, and gave them prominence, and swelled them into something like a political party, and, after a while, they became imposing in their attitude. But, sir, there were more free-soilers made by the repeal of the Missouri compromise than had ever existed before on the face of the earth. By whom was that appeal brought about? Who produced it?

Sir, I am not afraid of disunion. I do not think there is any danger, though gentlemen may talk. There are a great many very gaseous gentlemen in the South who have a great deal of time to play the demagogue, and to become important street-corner politicians, to talk about it; but there are thousands of men at home at their work, who know nothing and care nothing about what is said in such places and by such persons. These men contrive either to be sent to public assemblies on occasions that can give expression to their opinions, or they send themselves voluntarily, and they assume to represent what is considered an important class in the community. But, sir, they are not going to bring about disunion. An attempt was made in a portion of the Southern country to start a great Southern league, to prepare the public mind for forcing the Southern States into a revolution at any time that might be thought proper; but that league was an abortion; it failed; it may have had one small branch, but it tapered down to the mere point of nothing. That was said to be a great effort. From the fuss it made throughout the South, you would have thought it embodied some great principle; that the South were in imminent danger of destruction, but it happened that the South got along very well, and the Southern league died. That is the way these leagues will go whenever they start, and are brought to the attention of the people. When the people reflect, they will be fu!ly satisfied that it is not a league for the benefit either of them or of their posterity.

I can not for a moment believe that the wisdom of the nation will ever, so long as time lasts, abandon the road of security and safety to it, or that it will ever forget the wise teachings of the fathers. What do you think of the great political leader who will boldly assert that the boys, nowadays, have more wisdom than the framers of the Constitution and the fathers of the Revolution had? Such a sentiment has been enunciated by the author of the Southern league; but how much regard is to be paid to his sanity, or how much respect to his patriotism or his opinions? Sir, what shall be thought when a man profanely derides the memory of our glorious ancestors who established this Union, and consecrated it by their wisdom and by their loyalty and by their devotion to human happiness, and who had the prospective glory of a nation of freemen before them. The idea that an American tongue should be wagged to detract from their high renown and manifest wisdom is sacrilege.

The honorable gentleman supposes that I meant to make a martyr of him, and that I imputed to him treason, and wanted to crucify him. Sir, I never thought of such a thing. I meant to make no application of my remarks on that point to him; but I wanted to impress him with my personal kindness of feeling, and to show that I had no hostility. I did not wish to evince, either in tone, in language, or in sentiment, any personal hostility to him. It was his opinions that I combated; not his personal amiable qualities, nor his blandness, nor his personal attractions or embellishments; but I wished to attack what I thought was the heresy of his positions; not to impugn his honor, his truth, or his candor. I could not do that, for he is exceedingly candid. [Laughter.] It is really strange that he should suppose that I would crucify him. I have no doubt he thinks he is right; but I would rather that he should live for a thousand years, that he should live until experience shall correct what I think are his errors; but I would not cut short his life a single moment, or send him to his long account with the sin of any predilection he might have for disunion upon his head. I would not think of it, Mr. President. [Laughter.] I am sure there is no single quality that I more admire than forbearance; and though that gentleman has thought proper to say that I charged him with treason, I beg leave to say that he was not in my mind's eye at the particular moment that I used the expression in regard to treason. I was referring then to a crisis over which busy memory was employed, thinking of the scenes that had passed between that moment and the moment I was addressing the Senate; what vast changes had taken place; a new world of associates, and all things contrasted with that day, wonderful to contemplate. I never once thought of inflicting crucifixion upon the gentleman, nor did I think of charging him with treason, though I believe the sentiments he has enunciated might bear that construction, if we were to come down to the Constitution and its intent and spirit. He says it is treason to the South to do so and so. Well, sir, the honorable gentleman is not unconscious of his importance. I am satisfied that he is fully impressed with the exalted position which he occupies, and I can not say that I ever wish that he shall not be renewed in his position here; but if he shall not be, I promise him a hospitable reception at Cedar Point, where we can talk over the present, talk over the past, and enjoy the fish of the bay and the game of the forest.

Mr. President, I tell you that the honorable Senator is not altogether without some aspirations; he feels that he is not only capable of great things, but that they might be thrust upon him, for he says:

"I am free to declare, that if I had the control of the Southern people "

Well, now, that shows that there is good material there out of which to make a Governor, and if he had never thought about the control of them he would not, in the heat of debate, suggest it here. There is something deliberate and calculating in this:

"I am free to declare here, that if I had the control of the Southern people, I would demand this of Congress "—

He thinks that the South should have everything. He does not define exactly what it is, but she should have an equal share of everything, with out specifying any particular thing—as I now hope she has; and he says:

"I would demand this of Congress at the organization of every Territorial government, as the terms upon which the South should remain in the Union. I would hold our 'right' in one hand and 'separation' in the other, and leave the North to choose between them. If you would do us justice, I would live with you in peace; if you denied us justice, I would not live with you another day."

Now, sir, I want to know when the North has denied us justice? and I want to know whether words spoken are to be taken for acts done? Is it to be a cause of quarrel between the North and South that a number of intemperate individuals at the North express ultra notions, about which the masses in the North do not agree themselves? Is the language of such individuals to be set down to the charge of the North as meriting the reprobation and condemnation of the whole community? and are they, for that reason, to be declared aliens and to be ostracised? Can we control the expressions of persons in the North? There is no constitutional prohibition, that I know of, against the expression of opinion; every man has a right to express his opinions in this country; and, much as I may be at variance with gentlemen in regard to their views, I do not consider the expression of them an act of treason to the South. The South very freely exercises the same privilege; and if the North had the same disposition which is evinced by some portions of the South, they could with good reason complain of the constant talk of dissolution, and use that as a pretext for sloping off themselves. I do not believe that the expression of opinions is a violation of the Constitution; I do not think it is sufficient ground to keep up an eternal quarrel. An overt act of encroachment on our rights would place us in a different position. I can see no use in presenting hypothetical cases continually, and saying that if such and such things were done that never have been contemplated or thought of, they would be good ground for separation. When those things occur it will be time enough to examine the point; we shall be as well prepared then as we are now; but to make preparation for an event that is not at all probable, may be the means of precipitating us into difficulties from which nothing would ever extricate us. When an act is done there may be something in it; but gentlemen may express themselves as they please.

I was censured, and it was brought up as a cause of challenge against me in a canvass through which I passed, that I had said that if John C. Fremont, or any other citizen under the Constitution of the Union, were elected President, I would not deem it cause for going into revolution or division. That was the sentiment I declared, and it was brought up in judgment against me. I repeat the sentiment—I would judge the tree by its fruit. The American people have the right to select any citizen who is qualified under the Constitution for President of the United States; and whilst he discharges his duties under the Constitution, I would render him allegiance as faithfully as if he had been the man of my own choice, however adverse he might be to me. So long as he discharged his duties by executing the laws of the country and supporting the Constitution, I would sustain him. The gentleman feels ground of felicitation in the fact that I was beaten; he rejoices at that result. I can join him in that feeling, and say to him that, if he should happen to be beaten in Georgia, we can talk over both events in Texas in perfect tranquillity; and I am sure he will learn from me to be reconciled, and feel pleasant under the infliction. But, considering the humility of my condition, as the gentleman represented it, his attack really suggested to me the fable of the dead lion. Another animal passing by, regarding his lifeless condition, took the liberty of planting its heels in his face, and exulted in the infliction which it made. It was of that peculiar class of animals from which Samson took a jaw-bone to slay the Philistines. [Explosive amusement in the galleries and on the floor of the Senate Chamber.]

Mr. Iverson. Mr. President, I heartily rejoice that the Senator from Texas, in the generous moderation which he has exhibited upon the present occasion, has said nothing to which I feel called upon to make any reply. That Senator's relations and mine of a personal character, as he knows well, have been long friendly and cordial; and I regret, perhaps more than he that anything should have occurred to mar the kind feelings which have subsisted between us. But, sir, when yesterday the Senator thought proper to indulge in language which I considered exceedingly ungenerous and harsh toward sentiments which I had uttered on this floor, I could but feel that I was called upon to repel the charges he made, and to carry the war even into Africa; but the kind personal feelings which the Senator has exhibited toward me to-day, together with the very exalted compliments he has thought proper to pay me, have disarmed me and suppressed even the temporary feelings into which I was betrayed yesterday after the speech of the Senator. I rejoice that I have it in my power, on the present occasion, to express my regrets that I should yesterday, by what I considered a harsh attack made on my sentiments and myself personally, have been betrayed into any language which was calculated to wound the sensibility of the Senator from Texas.

 

---

 

SPEECH OF HON. SAM HOUSTON.

Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 3, 1859.

In pursuance of a notice, I ask leave to introduce a bill to repeal so much of the act of February 21, 1857, entitled "An act to divide the State of Texas into two judicial districts," as creates and establishes a district court of the United States in the eastern district of the State of Texas, and to incorporate the same with the western district of said State.

Before the motion is put, however, I desire to make some remarks explanatory of its object.

I might have claimed this as a privileged question; but not wishing to do so, I have determined to submit the remarks which I wish to make in relation to it on the presentation of this bill. I need not inform the honorable Senate, or you, Mr. President, that a subject of much excitement has occupied the attention of the Congress of the United States, in relation to the impeachment of one of the judicial officers of Texas.

From the reflections which have been cast upon the character of Texas, I feel called upon to vindicate her reputation, and to stand up in the maintenance of her rights, and, as I conceive, her good character. I find it has become historic in the proceedings of the other House, and before the committee of investigation, that reflections of the most unwarrantable character have been cast, not only upon the general character of Texas, but upon her citizens at large. In the first place, I find in the answer of Judge Watrous before the committee that he alleges these facts as the reason for the clamor which he contended was raised against him. He has the effrontery to affect a tone of injured innocence, and says:

"I should have much more respect for the manliness which should have disclosed the real cause of the assault. As to the 'divers citizens' whose rights had been improperly invaded, they must, of course, be the defendants in the only two suits which I had tried. Can it for a moment be supposed that, in trying these two very ordinary suits, I could have been guilty of such enormous outrages as to call for or to justify this anomalous and this clandestine mode of procedure? The mystery is solved by the simple fact that the decision of one of the cases involved the construction of the statute of limitations, to which so many of the emigrants to Texas had looked as a sure and certain protection against those creditors whom they had left behind, and who were so unreasonable as to follow them into the country of their adoption, and commence suits upon the liens which had been created upon the property to secure the payment of these debts. It was, indeed, a just subject of complaint that the statute of limitations was not declared to be a sponge to wipe out all the debts of the citizens of Texas, If I had put the construction on the statute required by the exigencies of the case and the popular cry; if I could have been driven from my position by any of the means resorted to; if I had consented to surrender my

reason and my judgment, and to tamper with my conscience and my oath, these resolutions would never have been heard of; and I should have glided smoothly down the stream cf popular favor, and have been enabled to taste the 'froth from every dip of the oar.' "

I find also in the Globe that a most zealous speech was made in advocacy of Judge Watrous by a gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Tappan], and that, in debating the subject of impeachment when the resolutions were under discussion in the House, he not only retracted a former judgment of Judge Watrous' guilt, but sought to protect him by indulging in aspersions upon the State and citizens of Texas, who were his accusers. This uncalled-for and wicked defamation, made before the country, calls for reply and for rebuke. The gentleman, with others who were interested with him in the defense of Judge Watrous, showed such utter disregard of the facts as to assert that the resolutions of the State urging the resignation of the judge, "grew out of the fact of a decision made by him, which touched the pockets of a good many citizens of Texas."

I request the close attention of honorable Senators to a history which it is now time to divulge, of one of the most extraordinary and monstrous conspiracies ever formed by the ingenuity of man, and under the incitements of plunder. I design to make a full and authentic exposẻ, which circumstances now call for, of a conspiracy against the public domain of Texas, of the most enormous designs, conceived in the most grasping and comprehensive spirit of fraud, armed with the most extraordinary resources, enlisting talents and power, and all the ingenuities of intellect in its execution, and involved in its progressive steps, in a secrecy that would adorn a romance, and extending in its ramifications through different parts of the Union — I know not where.

The history I propose to recite, with strict adherence to the evidence in my possession, a part of which has been slumbering until this time, not designing to indulge in any assertions, or in any criminations not fully warranted by the text of the testimony. In the first place, it is necessary to explain the condition of the public domain of Texas, at the period when the history of the appalling conspiracy referred to commenced. In the year 1837, by a general law of Texas, large donations of land were made to those who had arrived and settled in the country previous to 1836, the date of her declaration of independence; to married men one league of land, and to those who were unmarried, one-third of a league.

Under this law boards of land commissioners were appointed, whose duty it was to investigate all claims on the Government for head-rights to lands, and to grant certificates to such persons as furnished the requisite proofs of their being entitled to the same. Many of these boards betrayed their trust, and perpetrated frauds of the most alarming magnitude, assigning large numbers of certificates to fictitious persons. These frauds came to be of the most open and notorious character; so much so that cases could be instanced where, to counties not numbering more than one hundred voters, nine hundred certificates were issued by the fraudulent action of these boards. The amount of these false certificates reached at last to such an overwhelming number that on the 5th day of February, 1840, a law was enacted, visiting the most severe penalties on the crime of making, or issuing, or being concerned in the making or issuing any such fraudulent or forged certificates, and providing that those who issued, or dealt in, or purchased or located, or who were concerned in the issuing, or dealing in, or purchasing or locating, these fraudulent land certificates, should be punished by thirty-nine lashes on the bare back, and by imprisonment from three to twelve months, in the discretion of the judge. A law was passed about the same time, forbidding the survey of any land claimed under these certificates, until certified to be correct by other boards of commissioners, appointed to examine into and detect the frauds by which the bounty of the Republic had been abused, and an attempt made to despoil it of its domain.

Senators will be enabled, by the light of the legislation to which I have referred, to comprehend, on unimpeachable authority, the distressed and terrible condition of affairs in Texas, about the year 1840, with reference to her public lands. It is not necessary to accept the truth of the statement of the enormous and frightful frauds which threatened to devastate the Republic, robbing it of millions of acres of its public domain, on the faith of the popular clamor, or even on that of the general history of the time; for we have here the special and severe legislation of the State, attesting the justice of the public alarm, and defending her interests against the advances of the stupendous fraud that threatened to engulf the fortunes of herself and of her people. To this we may even add the high testimony of the Supreme Court of the United States, which at a subsequent date we find confirming the just causes of terror that had so agitated the Republic of Texas on the subject of these certificates, in the following terms :

"Immense numbers of these certificates were put in circulation, either forged or fraudulently obtained, which, if confirmed by surveys and patents, would soon have absorbed all the vacant lands of the Republic."

To those who were adventurous in crime and daring in its exploits, a rich and tempting held was opened in the wide extent of these fraudulent land certificates. Detection was dangerous; but the prize was great in proportion to the danger. It was natural to suppose, too, that detection might be baffled by the resources of a company extending to distant points, and enlisting in its enterprise of fraud men of capital, of position, and of comprehensive ingenuity; and men who, so long as they escaped the thirty-nine lashes, would not care for public reproaches; and, so long as they saved their backs from public stripes, would laugh to scorn that lash which public indignation may put "into the hand of every honest man to whip the rascals naked through the world."

John C. Watrous was appointed Federal Judge in Texas on the 29th of May, 1846, soon after the admission of the State into the American Union. Some time previous to January, 1847, we find a land company organized in the city of New York, the main object of which was to speculate in the fraudulent Texas land certificates, and to endeavor to have them validated through the machinery of the courts. This company was composed of Messrs. J. N. Reynolds, J. S. Lake, Judge Watrous, O. Klemm, McMillen, Williams, etc. The only citizen of Texas who appears to be in the company is John C. Watrous, United States district judge, with circuit court powers.

The object of introducing Judge Watrous into this banded association is not left to mere conjecture. I will presently show what facilities it was designed to give to the removal of suits from Texas and Texas juries, and it may be well understood how the high position of Judge Watrous might be lent to the advancement, in various respects, of the interests of the company, and how his court might be prostituted, if he, a willing tool for gain, submitted to the vile offices of fraud.

To accomplish these purposes there were also imported into Texas about the date of the formation of the company referred to, two attorneys in their service—Ovid F. Johnson, of Pennsylvania, and William G. Hale, of New Hampshire.

Thus we find the conspiracy armed for the prosecution of its designs, having an active promoter in a judicial officer high in position, and having for its confederates parties whose names and positions have not yet been fully disclosed.

It appears that nearly the entire interest was represented in the city of New York, the commercial metropolis of the country, famous, indeed, more for its enterprises of good than for those magnificent adventures of fraud that form startling episodes in the history of a great commercial city.

In a letter which I will here submit there are some names given of members of the conspiracy, including that of Judge Watrous:

"New York, November 14, 1847.

"Dear Sir:—This will introduce to you my friend O. F. Johnson, Esq., on his way to Texas, where, for the future, he intends to reside. Mr. J. was here, and being one ot us, was present in several conferences with Messrs. Lake, Judge Watrous, Klemm, McMillen, Williams, etc., in reference to our Texas enterprise. He can tell you all, and more than all of us could by letter. I expect to see you before the 1loth December.

"Yours truly,J. N. Reynolds.

"Messrs. Martin & Co., New Orleans, Louisiana."

It will be noticed that to the list of names in the letter there is the significant afifix of et cetera.

It appears from the correspondence of the association, passages from which I shall presently submit, that the general term even included Phalen, which was not divulged in the list referred to, although he was president of the association! Who else is included in the term et cetera? They may be upon the bench; they may be in the halls of Congress; they may be in positions of seeming respectability; they may be any and everywhere. The country is left to imagine the extent of the conspiracy, with enough known to stimulate the desire to know more.

The plot is concerted in the city of New York, the great city for the speculative and dramatic enterprises of trade. The curtain rises there, and we find the dramatis personæ, as far as revealed in the bills, in Judge Watrous, Reynolds, Lake, Klemm, Williams, and McMillen. It will be instructive of the plot to pass in review the public characters of some of the actors.

J. N. Reynolds, a New York politician, who appears to be an active manager of the affairs of the company, is the individual of that name who was charged with receiving from Lawrence, Stone & Co., a compensation of $1,500 for lobbying a tariff scheme in Congress.

Joseph L. Williams is an ex-member of Congress from Tennessee; was a witness in behalf of Judge Watrous, in the investigation made in 1852 into the judge's official conduct as to the very frauds in which it now appears he was a confederate; and has resided during the past and present sessions of Congress in this city, where he has been actively defending Judge Watrous.

Of Messrs. Lake and Klemm, and of their mode of transacting business, we find some curious accounts in one of the numbers of "De Bow's Review," in the year 1848. (See October and November numbers, pp. 262, 263, treating of the connection of these gentlemen with the bubble banking system.)

The article tells us that —

"Mr. J. S. Lake was formerly canal commissioner, and became the largest stockholder in the Bank of Wooster [Ohio], an institution never in good repute, and which was on the point of failing three years ago, together with the Norwalk and Sandusky banks, in connection with the exploded bubble called the bank of St. Clair, Michigan. The capital of the Wooster Bank was $249,450; of that there stood in Mr. Lake's name $171,900. Mr. Lake then moved to New York, and commenced business as a broker under the firm of J. S. Lake & Co., in Wall street. The Co. was his son-in-law, O. Klemm, who was doing business in Cleveland under the firm of O. Klemm & Co., the Co. being J. S. Lake, in New York. Klemm was also cashier of the bank. Those gentlemen performed all the business of the bank; that is to say, Mr. Klemm purchased with its means eastern drafts, and sent them to Lake for collection. Lake making his returns occasionally, the other directors knowing but little of the transactions. With the large amount of the means derived from the Wooster Bank, Lake & Co. speculated in produce, on which they acknowledged a loss of $150,000, and they started three other Ohio banks, besides buying the Mineral Bank of Maryland and a bank in Texas." . . ."Here, then, Lake & Co. had borrowed of the public on small notes through four banking machines, one laying the foundation of the others, $936,398."

Mr. Lake's banking operations were extended to Texas, under circumstances which make it evident that they were particularly designed to further the gigantic land conspiracy conducted there by Judge Watrous, and to furnish additional resources of power in the execution of their plans. We find this confederate of Judge Watrous securing the only bank charter in Texas. The mother bank was established at Galveston, Judge Watrous' home, and its president was Samuel M. Williams, whose name has been prominently brought forward in the late investigation into Judge Watrous' conduct in connection with the La Vega eleven-league grant; also with the grant in the Ufford and Dykes suit, and with the forged power of attorney introduced into both these suits.

Further: we find that, simultaneous with the institution of the Cavazos suit (which involved an immense amount of property—an embryo city, a port of entry, numerous villages, and valuable government improvements—and in which Judge Watrous' conduct was charged to have been fraudulent and corrupt), a branch bank is established at Brownsville, which is included in the Cavazos grant. Of this branch bank, Reynolds, one of the land company, and its active agent, is appointed manager or president. He appears to have entered into these banking operations with great spirit, judging from his letters in relation to the affairs of the land company, in which he speaks of importing "trunks full" of notes, and adverts to the lands on the Rio Grande, where his bank was located, as "an empire worth fighting for." I will read extracts from these letters, as they throw light on the general subject, which may be instructive.

"New York, November 14, 1847.

"Dear Sir:—. . . . The first plate is done, and the second is under full way. We had a very pleasant time when Klemm and McMillen were here. Mr. Williams, with whom you have become acquainted, was here, and we had a supper at Delmonico's. Johnson was with us, also Lake and Judge Watrous. Mr. Lake is hurrying like Jehu, and says we must be off, so that you, Mc., and I, shall leave New Orleans by the 10th. I am not half ready to leave, but suppose I shall be tumbled off with a trunk full.

"Yours truly,J. N. Reynolds.

"To —— ——."

"New York, May 6, 1847

"My Dear Sir:—I shall endeavor to leave here for Philadelphia on Monday next. I am extremely anxious to see you; and Mr. Phalen, the president of our association, has business in Baltimore—he will leave on Saturday—so that on his return through your city we may all have an interview together.

"I send you a map of our survey on the Rio Grande—an empire worth fighting for. . . . .

It may be easily understood what service these bubble banks might perform, or might be expected to perform, in furnishing resources of power to the land company, and particularly in a small community like that of Brownsville. No exertion of power, or resort of ingenuity, seems to have been left untried by the conspirators to compass their infamous ends.

A United States judge was secured as a confederate; attorneys were imported into the country to give vigor to the speculation; and banks were established to subserve the ends of the conspiracy. All the transactions of different members of the company seem to have been "part of one stupendous whole," banded in one common design of plunder; and a rivalry seemed to exist as to who should grasp the larger fortune in the land controversies of Texas.

To convey some idea of the fearful magnitude of the operations of this land company, I may state that it appears, from the action of the Senate of Texas on the subject, that they extended to twenty-four millions seven hundred and thirty-one thousand seven hundred and sixty-four acres of land, besides being implicated in the proceeds of other interests of immense value, to which I shall presently allude.

To give some idea of the confidence which appears to have animated this vast conspiracy, I may here introduce a letter in which Reynolds, one of the principal financial conductors, proposes to another member of the conspiracy to have still another judicial district created" in the glorious country their locations covered," and to secure the appointment of judge there. It seems that these parties were not satisfied with having enlisted the services of one federal judge to promote the ends of their conspiracy; they were anxious to perfect their organization by securing the appointment of still another judge in their interest, to share the labors of his honor, John Charles Watrous. I will read the brief but interesting disclosures made in the letter I have alluded to. Here it is:

"Branch of the Commercial and Agricultural Bank of Texas, AT Brownsville.

"December 11, 1850.

""My Dear Johnson:—. . . . You have seen the report recently published in the Republic of the glorious country our locations cover. I think you can gain it; and then get a law passed for a new United States district, and take the appointment, I would go on at the heel of the session, and log-roll for you if necessary.

"Yours truly,J. N. Reynolds.

The members of the company seem to have a great aptitude for "log-rolling," and the disreputable appliances of the lobby. They must have considered themselves very potential in this respect, to judge from the frequent propositions of the kind. They had supreme confidence in themselves; and their continued success seems to have inspired the belief that there was naught too difficult or too high for spirits like theirs to dare.

As a further instance of the determined courage of these honest gentlemen, and their resolves to do or die, I am tempted here to give one other extract of a letter from Reynolds to Johnson, written at New York. It suggests, too, the desperate character of the enterprise for which the writer required men of "nerve" to adventure in the boat now floating down the stream of success, but which might at any time be dashed upon the rocks. He writes as follows :

"New York, May 4, 1847.

"My Dear Sir:—. . . . We play for empire, and will see it to the end. If you find any of your moneyed friends who have the nerve to go into this boat with us, at this stage of our voyage, I will give them an interest on the most favorable terms. As to the value of the lands there can be no doubt. Does the Judge talk of coming North?

"Yours truly,J. N. Reynolds.

"O. F. Johnson, Esq."

From the point to which I have now reached, in the narration of the facts as to the organization, the object, and the means of this company, the history becomes more interesting, inasmuch as it directly involves the acts of Judge Watrous, and exposes, over their own signature, in letters, the shameless schemes of the members of the company to corrupt the courts of the United States.

The first movement of the parties in the court seems to have been the institution of a made-up suit, to test the question how far the fraudulent land certificates might be valilated by the action of the courts. The suit was brought in Judge Watrous' court by Phalen, a citizen of New York, against Herman, a citizen of Texas, on a promissory note for three thousand dollars, dated 5th July, 1846, at ninety days.

The inspection of the correspondence of the land company betrays the fact that this man Phalen was the president of that company, and a confederate of Judge Watrous.

The defense was that the note was given for a fraudulent, and therefore worthless land certificate.

The petition in the suit was filed on the 21st of January, 1847.

The answer was filed on the 22d of the same month.

The transfer to New Orleans, on application of the plaintiff, was made on the next day after, the 23d. Thus, in less than seventy-two hours from the institution of the suit, it was transferred to New Orleans, on application of the plaitiff. All this was done out of term time.

The transcript was filed there (New Orleans) on the nth of February. The trial was commenced on the 16th of that month; and the case was finally submitted, for decision, on the 23d of March.

Thus we see, that in sixty odd days from the filing of the petition, the case was put at issue, transferred, tried, and submitted. It appears that in the pleadings at New Orleans, it was admitted by the plaintiff that the certificate which he (Phalen) had sold to Herman for three thousand dollars was a. fraudulent one, issued to a fictitious person.

It appears, moreover, that Judge Watrous had informed one of his confederates in the land association (Reynolds) of the transfer of the suit referred to, actually before it had been commenced in his court! In a letter from Reynolds to Johnson, dated the 10th of February, 1847, he says:

"Judge Watrous informs me, by letter of the 19th ultimo, that you were to leave the next day, from Galveston, for New Orleans, in charge of our land case, with the view of bringing it before the circuit court of that district."

This information was given on the 19th of January; the suit was not even instituted until the 21st of that month.

I will now read some of the correspondence in my possession, that passed between members of the land company touching the conduct of this suit:

"New York, February 10, 1847.

"Dear Sir:—Judge Watrous informs me, by letter of the 19th ultimo, that you were to leave the next day, from Galveston, for New Orleans, in charge of our land case, with the view of bringing it before the circuit court of that district. And I hear from Major Holman, that you were daily expected in Philadelphia. I write therefore, at present, merely to say, that if you are in New Orleans, that I have caused Mr. Grimes to be written to by one of our associates, and that he will join you in the case. I am very anxious to have your views briefly on the prospect; and if you will keep me advised of its progress, it will lay me under an obligation I shall take pleasure in requiting. In my judgment, the least possible notoriety should attend the case in New Orleans, no matter what the result may be. Nor do I think it was the best pohcy to have pressed the courts of Texas. They may be easily made to follow the law, while they have not the nerve to pronounce it.

"You will please call on Mr. Grimes. Let me hear from you.

"Yours truly,J. N. Reynolds.

"Ovid F. Johnson, Esq."

 

---

 

"New York, May 22, 1847.

"My Dear Sir:—Can you not contrive through Jennings, of New Orleans, to get at the Judge's opinion? His mind must, ere this, have been made up. Tell Jennings to get it out of the clerk of the district or of the circuit court. Tell him that you must have it for me in advance of the mail. Do your best to have the decision go off quietly in New Orleans. As Jennings is now interested, tell him that he must work to our hands. Ail this you can do from your acquaintance with him. You may promise him your influence as to the future, and it will not be less potential than the Duke. I would give anything to know at this moment, as I could so much better shape my action with Mr. M. Indeed, if we get a favorable opinion, and have the news in advance, I shall go by lightning to Texas.

"Ovid F. Johnson, Esq.J. N. Reynolds."

The declarations of these letters, perhaps, surpass anything ever seen in a correspondence of this nature, in shameless effrontery, and the betrayal of corrupt intentions. It is openly advised that "the best should be done to have the decision go off quietly in New Orleans"; that "the least possible notoriety should attend the case," It is recommended that dishonorable influences should be used with the officers of the court there; and it is admitted that they had been made interested in the case. Not satisfied with the part he had already taken in the making up and direction of this suit, but rivaling his confederates in the steps taken toward influencing officers of the court, we find Judge Watrous leaving his court at Galveston, to attend the court at New Orleans during the progress of the suit; thus giving an influence to his views and interests by his presence and countenance.

On the 30th of June, 1847, a decision was given in the case of Phalen vs. Herman, in the court of New Orleans, in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the fraudulent certificate sued on to be valid, and giving judgment for $3,000. Here the curtain drops in New Orleans; but without a day's intermission rises again, in continuation of the plot, in Texas.

With reference to this Phalen suit we find the following judgment expressed in a series of resolutions passed in August, 1856, by the Senate of Texas, but at too late a day in the session to obtain the action of the other legislative House:

"Said judge (Watrous) is guilty of obtaining and attempting, by contriving and carrying on a made-up suit in his own court, to validate in the same over twelve hundred fraudulent land certificates, claimed by himself and his 'compeers,' and of a class—in all the enormous amount of twenty-four millions three hundred and thirty-one thousand seven hundred and sixty-four acres—of fraudulent certificates, thereby attempting to deprive his country of a vast domain, besides causing the State the cost of additional counsel in defending herself against such enormous preconcerted spoliations; and, on discovery of his interests in said class of certificates being made, said judge transferred said suit for determination to the United States court in another State, after shaping the case and influencing that court in such a manner as to obtain his desired judgment."

It will be observed from what I have stated of the sudden translation of the conspiracy from New Orleans to Texas, that there is no pause in the progress of the drama; the scenes are shifted with almost incredible swiftness; and when the interest might seem to flag, we find a new character introduced into the drama to challenge our admiration of the versatility and resources of the plotters.

Thus we find, on the very day of the rendering of judgment in the Phalen suit at New Orleans, Thomas M. League, a new character in the play, but sufficiently well known as a partner of Judge Watrous in his land speculations, and an ally in all his enterprises, intervenes, and institutes a suit in the State court of Texas, as the transferee of the identical fraudulent certificate that had been declared valid in the United States district court at New Orleans. This Mr. League will be found to be a conspicuous party throughout the whole system of fraud dealt out through Judge Watrous' court. In a resolution adopted by the Senate of Texas, in 1856, just referred to, his connection with the judge is pointedly alluded to; and it is stated:

"That it is believed by many good citizens that said Watrous, in connection with Thomas M. League, and other compeers, are directly or indirectly interested in most of the important suits brought in his court."

It will be well to keep an eye on this Mr. League, and to note his association with the enterprise of the fraudulent certificates, for there will hereafter be shown his connection with other and later schemes of judicial fraud, carried out through the machinery of Judge Watrous' court.

It would appear, from the evidence taken before the committee of the House, in the investigation into Judge Watrous' conduct, an attempt is made to have it appear that League's connection with him dated from the inception of the Lapsley frauds, in 1850; but here we have the fact to note of his previous connection with the judge's land speculations; and find him, in 1847, at the head and front of the nefarious land certificate conspiracy. His connection with Watrous was a general one, and contracted with a common design, whenever and wherever opportunity offered.

The object of this suit, instituted by League, was to compel the surveyor to survey the land called for in the certificate. Thus we have the case brought into the State court, backed by the authority of a precedent decision, declaring this fraudulent certificate valid. The manner of thus bringing it may be explained by that passage in the letter of Reynolds, in which he says:

"Nor do I think it was the best policy to have pressed the courts. of Texas. They may be easily made to follow the law, while they have not the nerve to pronounce it."

The case was decided in Galveston, the court sustaining the surveyor in his refusal to survey under such certificate; whereupon an appeal was taken to the supreme court of the State, at Austin.

Now to exhibit more fully the connection of Judge Watrous with these suits, and with the general affairs of the land company, I will here read a letter which appears to have been addressed by William G. Hale, on the subject of this case, on the 14th of March, 1847, to Judge Watrous, who was then at New Orleans, being the same time when the Phalen suit was pending there.

"Austin, March 14, 1847.

"My Dear Friend:—I have written several letters to you at Galveston, which your trip to New Orleans has probably prevented from reaching you. They contained some particulars which it is important for you to know, and I will briefly recapitulate them.

"Our case was docketed No. 504, nearly at the heel now, although some new appeals have come up. As the court is going over the docket regularly, and has about reached No. 250, it would be some time before we could get a hearing; but we expect to bring it in during the absence of the lawyer here, on the spring circuit. Hemphill speaks of taking a vacation in his turn. You will find more about it in my other letters. We have been looking over the case carefully, and have, we think, discovered some new points.

"Col.————, from Nacogdoches, was here a short time ago, and being connected through some business with Colonel ————, communicated to us several startling pieces of intelligence. He says Miner has been riding about his part of the country, endeavoring publicly to buy up the certificates, but the large holders, being generally men of some respectability, would not associate with him, or listen to his offers; that he was thus compelled to traffic with the lowest class of bar-room vagabonds, who palmed off upon him forged and duplicate certificates, and boasted openly of cheating him, in all the 'groggeries.'

"This may, or may not, be correct; Miner, not the seller, may have been the cheater; but it shows the necessity of additional caution, and, coupled with his former conduct, furnishes, perhaps, a good ground for restraining him in his course. •••••••••• "Col. Ward refuses to patent islands. A mandamus will be necessary.

"I have inspected the titles of the Nueces, and will have an opinion ready. •••••••••• "We have had a long interview with Mr. Hedgcoxe, the agent of Peters colony, and are arranging matters. ••••••••••

"Ever yours,William G. Hale.

"Hon. John C. Watrous, New Orleans, Louisiana."

I ask the particular attention of honorable Senators to the terms and expressions of this letter; the trading with "bar-room vagabonds"; the likelihood of the sellers of these certificates having been "cheated" in the trade; and the chuckling tone of congratulation in the assertion of the probability of "Miner being the cheater, not the seller." It is to be recollected that this letter was to Judge Watrous himself. It was about "our case." Here is the letter of the "dear friend," the counselor, the agent of a United States district and circuit judge, informing him of trades made for his (the judge's) benefit, with drunken vagabonds, and chuckling over the cheats thought to be imposed upon the dirty and miserable bar-room gangs with whom it was found necessary to carry on their criminal commerce. Here is the principal, Judge Watrous, judge of a federal court, adopting the acts of this smart agent, participating in the low swindling of bar-room vagabonds, and through the letters of his agent, communing with himself, and congratulating himself on the fruits of the lowest and most debased exploits of fraud.

It must be recollected, too, that this commerce in land certificates, openly treated of between Judge Watrous and his agent, was in violation of a law, of a highly penal character, punishing the offender with the infamy and pain of thirty-nine public stripes on the bare back.

Here also is another letter, which I will read, from the same William G. Hale to O. F. Johnson, directly indicating Judge Watrous' active connection with the suits referred to, and with the procurement of fraudulent land certificates:

"Galveston, July 5, 1847.

" My Dear Sir : — Colonel ———— , Judge Watrous, and myself, received the 'legal papers' and your letter. Judge Norton happened, by the merest good fortune, to be here at the time, and Trueheart also; so the whole matter was arranged here and by a trip to Houston.

"We altered the petitions materially, owing to many reasons which have sprung up since you left. Judge Watrous will explain them to you at length. All the papers were sent to San Antonio by Colonel Wilson, a partner of Trueheart, who pledged himself to have them filed by the 20th of last month. That directions should be sent from New York on the first of June, and in a matter of such difficulty, and be executed in San Antonio on the 25th, is one of those lucky chances which rarely happen.

"I have received several letters from the trustees of the Peters Association, and have written to them explaining some matters. What arrangement did you make with them as to fees; and will they advance anything?

"Our other matters remain in statu quo. The Stafford cases have given us much trouble, but we shall get out the attachments in a few days. We may, however, have to promise the sheriff, as an incentive, the $175 which, as you wrote us, the banks agree to advance for expenses.

"Judge Toler is quite anxious about the 'Grant claims.' The papers in Holman's hands I hope you will be able to procure. The original certificates of the grant, ninety-seven in number, have been just found among Judge W.'s papers. Toler said he would be at the North this summer. A. Allen has already gone on. I suppose you have seen him. He will give you some trouble in arranging this matter. •••••••••• "Judge Watrous will be in New York about the first of August. He has been detained here by business.

" Very truly yours, William G. Hale."

The papers referred to in the above letter, as sent to San Antonio, by Colonel Wilson, were fraudulent land certificates, exceeding one million acres, besides an indefinite number which Hale, in his instructions to Wilson, designates as "No. 2"; a list of those in the hands of Miner, the agent referred to in the letter from Hale to Watrous, as dealing with bar-room vagabonds, and cheating them for the benefit of his principal.

I may here introduce another letter from Hale to Johnson, showing the prosecution of the designs of the conspirators, as dealing in these fraudulent certificates, in defiance of the penal statute, and showing- also the great estimation of the advantage of having these certificates put into a company stock, and "managed " by Judge Watrous and his confederates; for to secure this advantage one hundred and fifty thousand out of three hundred thousand acres is offered as a premium.

"Austin, February 24, 1847.

"My Dear Sir:—. . . . Colonel ———— met here with an old acquaintance, Colonel ————, and, what is more to the purpose, a large landholder in the East. Through some former business connections with him, ———— was able to persuade him to an arrangement most advantageous to us. ———— holds about sixty of the rejected—ah! call them not fraudulent!—and thinks he can secure as many more. He is willing to give us half in order to have the others put into the company stock, and located and managed with the rest; most kindly offered to divide with us, so that this arrangement will secure us about thirty more leagues, or one hundred and fifty thousand acres contingently. has gone home now to obtain them. He speaks in the most disrespectful terms of Miner and his management.

"Miner is here, and going to San Antonio. I have, most strangely, received no letter yet from Judge Watrous, respecting the final settlement with the 'little fellow,' nor the survey and the engagement of Hay, but I expect one daily. Miner's presence will complicate matters, I am afraid. ••••••••••

"William G. Hale."

The expression of this letter "ah! call them not fraudulent," is curious for its flippant irony. It reminds one of the same self-complacency with which, in a formerly-quoted letter, he opines his agent, Miner, to be "the cheater, not the seller."

To return to the history of the case which Mr. League had taken in hand. At the December term of the Supreme Court of the United States, judgment was rendered, affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas, declaring the certificate invalid and void.

It might have been supposed that after the judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas, the high Court of Appeals, and, finally, after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, against the validity of the certificate, further efforts on the part of the company would have been hopeless. But what vitality, what ramifications, what resources, must they have possessed, when we find them daring, at the last, as I shall show, to anticipate exerting an influence on the United States Supreme Court itself? This, certainly, was a fitting climax to audacity and assertion of power. Thus we find this branch of the scheme of the conspirators expiring with an adventurous and desperate effort to retrieve their fortunes by improper influences with the courts; the last effort, still characteristic, and still significant of the comprehensive grasp and connections of this most extraordinary combination.

As exposing the honest proposition of exerting an influence on the Supreme Court of the United States, I will here read from a letter from Mr. Joseph L. Williams on this subject, to whom, it appears, was and is allotted the Washington branch of the company's operations:

"Washington City, November 1, 1851.

"Dear Sir:—. . . . Your suggestions as to the proper course for our party to pursue, in respect to the Salt Lake, commanded, as they still do, my most earnest attention. Not doubting that you have most thoroughly viewed this triangular title—not hearing from Mr. Reynolds on this point, and of course unadvised of his peculiar views in detail, in relation thereto—I must say that I most fully concur in your views of our best policy. Time is on the wing. A fewr years more, and Mr. Reynolds and I border on 'the sere and yellow leaf.' Of immense value, the property admits of a very long division. A protracted litigation, in quest of the lion's share, divests us virtually of all, and secures something only to our legal representatives. Dum vivimus, vivamus. So say I. Of our party, Mr. Reynolds holds the major interest; perhaps nearly all. Compared to his, my right is small. Thus, I feel some delicacy in obtruding any conclusion of mine against any deliberate judgment of his. I have the utmost confidence in his judgment and discretion.

"I am also sure that all that can be compassed by energy and perseverance, he (Reynolds) will accomplish. And yet, he may be impelled by the rivalry to evade an obsolete title on the one hand and a fraudulent one on the other, backed, as it is, by the perjured tyrants of a petty and venal Legislature. Hence, you will oblige me by assuring our old friend Reynolds that while, under the peculiar circumstances, I venture my mite of advice, in confirmation of yours, with due deference to. him, I yet offer it most urgently. Please, therefore, show him this letter. As he is of course familiar with all the positions stated in your letter, they need not be detailed in this paper. My health, though far better than when I saw you here, under so many months of the care of Dr. Francis, of New York, is still by no means reliable. If this thing can be made available during the short life I have yet probably before me, I am very anxious to see that result.

"I find much of your matter of reliance in the big suit, in Bibb's Reports. This casually led me, the other day, to bring the case to the notice of ————. He seems perfectly familiar with every precedent and doctrine applicable to this case, and its whole class, and he says it is quite impossible for the Supreme Court, on deliberate review and consideration, to abandon right, reason, and customary law on account of one casual act of stultification at the last term. I shall not omit the part of striker with certain members of the court, which I told you I would see to. I am already here for the purpose, I will persuade Catron, of Tennessee, to take the case under his especial charge.

••••••••••

"Joseph L. Williams."

It has been shown, incontestably, that Judge Watrous was a member of the conspiracy, in the furtherance of whose designs Williams was acting. The part assumed by this man as " striker " with certain members of the Supreme Court, was, to all intents and purposes, the act of Judge Watrous himself. He (the judge) was responsible for the acts of his confederates, having entered into a conspiracy with them for their mutual profit, and with a common design. Such is the rule of evidence. Such is the irresistible conclusion to be made in cases of this nature, according to the authority which I will here read, from the great and universally admitted text-book on the subject of evidence, which is no doubt familiar to honorable Senators:

"The evidence in proof of a conspiracy will, generally, from the nature of the

case, be circumstantial. Though the common design is the essence of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that the defendants came together and actually agreed in terms to have that design, and to pursue it by common means. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part, and another another part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of that same object, the jury will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. Nor is it necessary to prove that the conspiracy originated with the defendants, or that they met during the process of its concoction; for every person entering into a conspiracy or common design already formed, is deemed in law a party to all acts done by any of the other parties, before or afterward, in furtherance of the common design."—3 Greenleaf, sec. 93.

This rule for determining the responsibility of Judge Watrous I would have borne in mind, as I shall proceed to develop the acts of the different conspirators in the prosecution of their common schemes of fraud.

What state of things could exist, or can be imagined, that would more loudly and imperiously call for resolutions such as were passed by the Legislature of Texas, in the name of an outraged people, against the judicial plunderer and conspirator who was aiming to coin his fortunes by forgery and fraud the most stupendous? A copy of these resolutions I beg to submit here for the consideration of honorable Senators:

"JOINT RESOLUTION.

"Whereas, it is believed that John C. Watrous, judge of the United States district court for the district of Texas, has, while seeking that important position, given legal opinions in causes and questions to be litigated hereafter, in which the interests of individuals and of the State are immensely involved, whereby it is believed he has disqualified the court in which he presides from trying such questions and causes, thereby rendering it necessary to transfer an indefinite and unknown number of suits, hereafter to be commenced, to courts out of the State for trial; and whereas it is also believed that the said John C. Watrous has, while in office, aided and assisted certain individuals, if not directly interested himself, in an attempt to fasten upon this State one of the most stupendous frauds ever practiced upon any country or any people, the effect of which would be to rob Texas of millions of acres of her public domain, her only hope or resource for the payment of her public debt; and whereas his conduct in court and elsewhere, in derogation of his duty as a judge, has been marked by such prejudice and injustice toward the rights of the State, and divers of its citizens, as to show he does not deserve the high station he occupies: Therefore,

"Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That the said John C. Watrous be, and he is hereby requested, in behalf of the people of the State, to resign his office of judge of said United States Court for the district of Texas.

"Sec. 2. Be it further resolved, That the Governor forward the said John C. Watrous, under the seal of the State, a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolution; also, a copy to each of our Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the United States.

"Approved, March 20, 1848."

An absurd and abortive attempt has been made by Judge Watrous and some of his especial advocates, to explain the feeling that prompted the passage of these resolutions, by the fact that he had given an unpopular decision on the statute of limitations. Indeed, Judge Watrous, in his printed answer to the charges assigned against him, adopts this preposterous assertion as his principal defense, and appears to suggest that, instead of himself being the criminal, the people of Texas are so dishonest and depraved, that the standards of morality he has adopted in his court are too high for them to appreciate and conform to. The falsehood of this is only exceeded by the obliquity of the shameless man who utters it. In making such a statement in his answer, he knew that he was stating what was untrue in fact and false in spirit. And, further, I shall prove that he not only stated what was untrue, but was constrained to convict himself of it before the committee that inquired into his conduct.

In his answer to which I have reference, Judge Watrous has the effrontery to assert that his ruling in the case of the Union Bank vs. Stafford, on the statute of limitations, brought upon him the censure and denunciation conveyed in the resolutions of the Legislature. This was worse than puerility, for it proved to be utterly untrue. The Stafford suit was not even instituted until some months after the resolutions had been passed by the Legislature.

This essential fact Judge Watrous thought to suppress; but when the committee called for witnesses from Texas, and he had reason to suppose that his falsehood would be detected, he was then fain to acknowledge it, and to make the humiliating and self-convicting request of the committee to withdraw his answer, committing him to the falsehood, from the files, so that he might suppress the public evidence of his infamy, at least in this particular.

In 1852, the matter of the judge's nefarious dealings in fraudulent land certificates was brought to the attention of Congress, and this charge, among other matters of crimination, was assigned against the judge in a memorial of William Alexander, a citizen of Texas. Only three witnesses, however, out of twenty-one tasked for by the prosecution, were sent for, and these three not witnesses to any one of the specifications pending against the judge. The committee reported the evidence insufficient; the House failed to act in any way on the matter, and the facts, therefore, of the case, remained undeveloped and occult, and the justice of it unvindicated.

The Legislature of Texas, at its last session, instructed the Representatives of that State to urge the trial of Judge Watrous on all the charges against him; and in obedience to these instructions the Hon. Mr. Reagan, who in part represents the State in the other branch of Congress, had the memorial of Mr. Alexander taken from the files, and referred to the Judiciary Committee for investigation. Mr. Reagan urged an investigation of the charges contained in that memorial; and in his speech in the House, on that subject, states:

"I also offered to the committee to make the charge against Judge Watrous, that he had sold three fraudulent league certificates to a gentleman by the name of Lowe, of Illinois, for about six thousand dollars, when he knew the certificates to be fraudulent, void, and worthless; and when, by the laws of Texas, to sell such certificates was a crime of the grade of forgery, and punishable with a most ignominious penalty. And I proposed to prove this charge by a part of a record which I had from the district court for Galveston county, Texas, and by the testimony of gentlemen who were then here as witnesses in this case from Texas.

"But Judge Watrous resisted my right to make these charges, and the committee felt themselves bound by the action of the House on the Alexander memorial, as these were a part of the charges contained in that memorial, and declined to hear the charges. I then gave notice to Judge Watrous, and his counsel. General Gushing, that when the House came to act on the report of the committee I should bring these things to the attention of the House, so that if, by such means, he should elude a trial and escape justice, the Representatives of the people, and the people of the nation, through our proceedings, should know how it was done."

Here I might rest on the proofs already submitted of Judge Watrous' deep and dire offenses in connection with the land company, to the extensive operations of which I have but briefly referred. But I conceive that the just interests of my State, and those of some of her most valued citizens, who have been injured, misrepresented, and betrayed by the machinations of this conspiracy, require that I should extend the narrative to other principal facts.

I have already made brief allusion to the operations and designs of the conspiracy in the direction of the Rio Grande. This branch of the speculation deserves, on account of its great importance, a fuller development of the facts connected with it.

The Cavazos grant was one of immense value, and constituted a tempting prize to the grasping and rapacious spirit of these land speculators, with whom Judge Watrous was actively connected. It lies about sixty miles on the Rio Grande; about forty miles on the Gulf of Mexico and the Laguna Madre, and about sixty miles on the Sal Colorado. It contains about two hundred and fifty thousand acres of land. It embraces within its limits, as claimed by Cavazos, the town or city of Brownsville, also Point Isabel, which is the site of the Custom-house, and the port of entry for the Rio Grande country; besides numerous villages or ranches, and also valuable government sites and improvements. With the expectation of occupying the upper portion of the Rio Grande country, "an empire worth fighting for," it was necessary for the company to have this coast outlet to complete their gigantic scheme. Point Isabel was the only coast outlet for the great salt lake of Texas that lay within sixty miles of it, and that constituted an inexhaustible source of wealth. This great principality that commanded the outlet of the Rio Grande country, and that so abounded in all the elements of wealth, was reputed to be owned by some eight Mexican families.

The salt lake I have referred to was another grand prize, which the land company was seeking to grasp through the aid of Judge Watrous. I shall presently show how this underplot, too, was conceived and conducted in the progress of the sweeping and overwhelming designs of the vast combination.

Returning, however, to Galveston, to watch the progress of these honest gentry, with reference to the Cavazos grant, we find John Treanor and William G. Hale meeting there. It appears they there concoct a suit. This suit is represented by John Treanor, as the agent of all the Mexican families, or parties represented to be owners of the Cavazos grant. It is instituted by Allen and Hale; and the allegations of the complaint are verified by the affidavit of John Treanor, claiming to be agent as aforesaid. This man Treanor appears to be a notorious person in the district of the Rio Grande, to judge from the testimony of Brevet-Major W. W. Chapman, of the army, when stationed at Fort Brown, who briefly describes him in a public official letter, as "a man without character or standing in the community." Sufficient indications of his character, however, are given in the part assumed by him and his confederate, Hale, in this Cavazos case. It appears from the record of this case that at least five of the Mexican families or parties claimed to be represented, had never given any authority whatever for the institution of the suit; and as to one of the five, Treanor himself was constrained to admit that his interest was diametrically opposed to the claim, for the establishment of which he had been made a party plaintiff. Here, then, in the very inception of the suit, we see fraud prominently and boldly standing out. In the whole progress of the suit, too, we remark John Treanor and William G. Hale as the managers throughout. Their numerous affidavits support the case to the end. In no part of the proceedings do we find the complainants acting or participating. It is Treanor, the "man without character or standing," and William G. Hale, the agent and attorney of the land company, I have been referring to, the intimate friend of Judge Watrous.

It appears, moreover, that for purposes of collusion it was managed that Hale and Johnson, the two lawyers imported for purposes already referred to, should take opposite sides. Further than this, and to still greater outrage of justice, it appears from the record that James N. Reynolds, a member of this New York land company, is appointed by Judge Watrous United States Commissioner at Brownsville, to take testimony. Thus the company, or its members, were represented by their agents and attorneys, who act as counsel on different sides of the case, and by Reynolds, the active manager of their affairs, who, as United States Commissioner, took the principal testimony for the defense, which it evidently appears to have been the object of the company to defeat.

The fact of collusion, the committee of investigation in the Thirty-fourth Congress have determined unanimously, and in passing judgment upon it they say:

"In the case of Cavazos et al. vs. Stillman et al., the record affords sufficient evidence to satisfy the committee that there was collusion between the solicitors for the complainants and a part of the solicitors for the defendants, and that a part of the defendants, or one of them at least, Jacob Mussina, was defrauded and betrayed by such collusion. They would further state that there is evidence to satisfy them that a part of the defendants were concerned in the conspiracy, and that the judge of the court knew of the collusion during the pendency of the suit."

I may also suggest here that it will be found profitable to fix attention upon the man Treanor, as hereafter he will be found figuring in another important matter in active connection with Judge Watrous.

I am disinclined to trespass upon the time of the Senate by following this Cavazos case through its tortuous progress, and to its final acts of injustice and oppression. What little I have said of the patent fraud, in its inception and management, will prepare the minds of honorable Senators to understand the conclusions arrived at by the committees of investigation in the House, as to the consummation of the conspiracy, and fraud by the wrongful decisions of Judge Watrous on the side of his confederates, Hale and Treanor.

The committee of the Thirty-fourth Congress conclude their report by saying:

"The committee have examined numerous records, consisting of pleadings, orders of court, affidavits and depositions, and after a patient and laborious research, they have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the conduct of Judge Watrous in the case above referred to can not be explained without supposing that he was actuated by other than upright and just motives; that in his disregard of the well-established rules of law and evidence he has put in jeopardy and sacrificed the right of litigants."

In the present Congress we have a report from a moiety of the Judiciary Committee, which, on the Cavazos branch of the case, presents the following summary and well-sustained judgment:

"Every irregular or wrongful decision of the judge was in favor of the complainants and against the defendant, Mussina, and those occupying a similar position, and was to their particular injury. By maintaining the proceeding as one rightfully brought on the chancery side of the court, these defendants were illegally deprived of their right to a trial by a jury, and were compelled to submit to an adjudication upon their rights to the property in such a manner that the decision would be final and conclusive as to the title of the property, instead of one upon the right of possession, which would at once have been pronounced, on the law side of the court in an action of ejectment. By maintaining jurisdiction over the case, when a portion of the defendants, as well as the plaintiffs, were aliens, these defendants were deprived of their rights to have the questions involved in it decided by the courts of Texas, to whose jurisdiction they were rightfully amenable, and whose laws were to govern in that decision. By admitting incompetent witnesses to testify, their rights were affected by evidence given by persons who had an interest in the litigation adverse to theirs. And, finally, they are prevented from having the decision against them reviewed in the appellate court by the failure of the judge to perform his full duty to them in facilitating the exercise of the right of appeal, given to them by the law, from motives of public policy, for their own private advantage; and that, too, when there is reason to believe that the decree by the court is not in conformity with the principles of law, as recognized in Texas. Such a course of action continued through the whole progress of a cause, in favor of some of the parties and against others, is, to our minds, conclusive evidence of the existence of a purpose, on the part of the judge, to favor one party or set of parties at the expense and to the injury of others, which is inconsistent with an upright, honest, and impartial discharge of the judicial functions. And this, we believe, constitutes a breach of that 'good behavior' upon which, by the Constitution, the tenure of the judicial office is made to depend."

It appears that a decree was rendered in the Cavazos suit, in the month of January, in favor of Cavazos and others.

After the rendition of the decree, suits in ejectment became necessary. At this juncture we find Judge Watrous again acting and making a wrongful and tyrannical order for the exclusion from jury service in his court (on the regular panel) of the citizens of the four Rio Grande counties of Cameron, Hidalgo, Star, and Webb.

By the deputy marshal, whose term of office depended on the pleasure of the judge, jurors are selected— not taken from the jury list of the State, as the law requires; not even drawn or balloted for—to attend the United States Court at Brownsville; all from Galveston, a distance of several hundred miles. They are taken from this distant place, that is the home of Judge Watrous, and of his confederates. Hale and League. These Cavazos suits had been pending in Galveston, and adjudications been had on some of them. They were a subject of notoriety there; and had naturally given rise to much popular discussion and conversation with reference both to the questions and the interests involved.

Thus it appears that to accomplish the purpose of the judge more fully, the citizens of four counties were dishonored and deprived of important civil privileges, and the law was violated.

They were not taken from different parts of the State, as is the custom in the United States Courts, but from the narrow circle of the judge's own home and neighborhood. A schooner is chartered by the deputy marshal, to carry them to the court at Brownsville. There are also selected by the deputy marshal a company of strolling players to serve as jurors, and placed on board this schooner. Judge Watrous himself is a compagnon de voyage.

Honorable Senators may imagine the scene, the small, coasting, gulf schooner, freighted with jurymen and players, and the United States district and circuit judge.

I have, in a brief manner, referred to the collusion in the Cavazos suit, which Judge Watrous knew, and which he countenanced, to the prejudice and betrayal of at least one of the defendants, Mr. Jacob Mussina. The evident position of matters, and the reports of the committees on the subject, from which I have read, show that Mussina was without any power to enforce his rights, and without any chance to obtain them in the determination of this case in Judge Watrous' court. He then applied for redress to the courts of his domicile in Louisiana; and finding the parties there who were accused in the committee's report referred to, as having colluded in the Cavazos suit, and as having "defrauded and betrayed him," he sued them for the collusion and frauds they had practiced to his prejudice, in Judge Watrous' court, and otherwise. This suit was commenced on the 1st of November, 1851; it was tried In May, 1853; and a verdict was rendered in favor of Mussina, by a jury of his countrymen, for the land claimed, or $214,000 in lieu thereof, and $25,000 as damages.

In January, 1854, a rule was taken at Galveston, Texas, upon Jacob Mussina, a citizen of Louisiana, and he was cited to appear before Judge Watrous at Galveston, to anstver for contempt of court in instituting the suit in New Orleans, in disobedience to the decree which he had rendered in the Cavazos case, although the fact was that the suit referred to was commenced two months before the rendition of the decree, which proceedings the House Judiciary Committee of the Thirty-fourth Congress have characterized in a deliberate, unanimous report, as " irregular, unjust, and illegal, and, taken in connection with the previous proceedings and rendition of the decree, oppressive and tyrannical." And this opinion was endorsed by a portion of the present Judiciary Committee in the House, from whose report I read the following expression of judgment:

"It also seems clear, when the pleadings in the suit instituted by Mussina against Stillman, Belden, and Ailing, and Basse and Hord, in the fourth district court of New Orleans, are considered, together with the judgment rendered in it, upon the verdict of a jury, and the evidence in the contempt case, that there was no foundation whatever for the proceeding against him for a contempt, and that the action of the judge with respect to it was unauthorized by law, and was intended to be vexatious and oppressive. How any other conclusion can be arrived at, when it is remembered that the suit in New Orleans was instituted by Mussina against his codefendants alone and their counsel, and related to rights growing out of their own transactions, it is not easy to conceive."

The defendant appealed from the judgment of the New Orleans court in favor of Mussina. In 1855, the case was heard on appeal, in the supreme court of the State of Louisiana, and was dismissed on a question of jurisdiction in the court. It was during the hearing of this appeal that Judge Watrous was at New Orleans, under the assumed name of "John Jones," and lodging secretly at the Verandah Hotel.

In order to continue understandingly the history, the narration of which I have undertaken, it is necessary here to make a momentary review of the positions occupied by the man Reynolds, who, it has been shown, was a prominent actor in the eventful drama of the conspiracy, so far as it appears to have progressed. It has been shown that he was one of the chief and choicest spirits in the inception of the New York company. It has been shown from the correspondence relative to the action of the court at New Orleans, that he had made the clerk of the court interested in the suit. It has been shown undc^r what circumstances he established a bogus bank on the Cavazos grant. It has been shown that he was appointed by Judge Watrous, and acted as commissioner to take testimony in the Cavazos case, on the side of the defense, to defeat which, by collusion, was the evident purpose of the company of whom and in whose service he was.

Thus we find this man Reynolds connected and intermixed with all that takes place through Judge Watrous' court, in the progress of the conspiracy in which both were so deeply and so criminally interested and implicated.

I now present him as attempting to seize the "Great Salt Lake of Texas," the immense value of which and its location I have referred to. This lake was a reservation of the Government of Texas, and the only possible means of appropriating this valuable property was by influencing the courts and the Legislature.

It is shown by the letter of Mr. Joseph L. Williams, which I have read in another part of this case, and by the order of transfer, to which I shall presently refer, that the three, Reynolds, Williams, and Watrous, at least, were interested in this fraudulent adventure.

They had already been successful in the Phalen suits, at New Orleans (wherein their fraudulent certificates were declared valid); and, in the flush of their entire success in this matter, they were emboldened to extend their grasp, and to attempt to take by adventure every prize that their avarice could discover.

This suit is instituted in Judge Watrous' court, on the 14th of May, 1849. it appears that the case remained there from the 14th of May, 1849, to the 7th June, 1850. It is then transferred to New Orleans; and it is especially to be remembered that the application for the transfer in this case, as well as the transfer in the Phalen case, was made by the plaintiff himself—Mr. James N. Reynolds. I will here give an extract from the order of transfer:

"James N. Reynolds, of Louisiana,

vs.

Henry M. Lewis, and Thomas Newcomb, of Texas.

$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$

No. 1982.

"Petition in this cause filed in district court of the United States, district of Texas, on the 12th day May, A.D. 1849."

Copy of order of transfer.

And afterward, on Monday, the 7th day of June, A.D. 1850, the following order was made, to wit:

"James N. Reynolds,	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$
vs.
Henry M. Lewis.

"This day came the parties by their attorneys, and upon motion of the said plaintiff, and because the judge of this court is so connected, in interest and otherwise, with one of the parties in this suit as to render it improper, in his opinion, to sit upon the trial of that cause, it is now hereby ordered by the court, that this fact be entered upon the record of this court, and that a certified copy of such entry, with all the proceedings in this suit, be forthwith certified in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, that being the most convenient court of the United States in the next adjacent State."

Well might Reynolds move for a transfer to New Orleans. Did he not think (as his correspondence has already disclosed) that he had the clerk of the court to work there in his behalf? Did he not think that he had an approach to the ear of the court there? Did he not have there the influence, the official presence of Judge Watrous, a brother of the bench? In fine, did he not have the case transferred from the juries of Texas, but to have it removed to a court, where there was every augury of success, it mattered not whether by fair or by foul means?

I have already directed attention to the participation of Thomas M. League in the management of the affairs of the land company, and in the advancement of its interests. It has been shown that at the time the curtain dropped at New Orleans on the Phalen case, a suit was on the instant instituted by League, on the identical test land certificate that had just been the subject of the suit in New Orleans; thus revealing his partnership in the common iniquity of Judge Watrous and his "compeers," and indicating his position as a prominent actor in the infamous certificate business, that was the chief, but not the only, subject of the company's operations.

It may also be remarked, that Johnson and Hale, the attorneys for the company in the Phalen case at New Orleans, appear also as counsel for League, in the consequent suit at Galveston.

It is to be seen how he sustains other characters, and undertakes other parts in the wide field of the company's speculations. It appears from the testimony in the Watrous investigation that, in company with Robert Hughes, the confidential adviser and favored counsel of Judge Watrous, he assumed or simulated an interest in what was called the Powers and Hewitson's colony grant, and undertook to bring suits in relation to it in Judge Watrous' court, by feigned change of residence.

The grant to Powers and Hewitson, the empressarios, included a large body of valuable land on the coast, west of Galveston.

Powers expressed an unwillingness to go out of the State, and change his residence, so as to qualify himself to sue in the Federal court. He, too, as League testified, had the common affliction of being " afraid to trust the juries of Texas." The difficulty, however, appears to have been solved by League, in concert with Judge Watrous' counsel and familiar, Robert Hughes. League volunteered to go out of the State, and bring suits in his own name, in the Federal court, for a share of the property to be recovered. Powers furnished the subject matter of litigation. League furnished all the money, and "Hughes was to do the legal part of the matter."

The plot, however, was finally disconcerted by the decision of the United States Supreme Court, to the effect that League's change of residence not being bona fide, he could have no standing in court; in a word, that it was an attempted fraud upon the jurisdiction of the court.

It then became necessary to use another party in the matter, and a gentleman by the name of Williams, of North Carolina, is substituted. Thus we see this man, bent on accomplishing his ends, throughout identifying himself and the counsel of Judge Watrous with a scheme in which both were only acting mercenary parts, using the word in its broadest sense; in which he was hired to act the part of a litigant in the court of his friend and partner, Judge Watrous, in fraud of the jurisdiction of that court; and in which the judge's counsel and familiar too was hired under a contract of champerty, and was to have a share of the land for "doing all the legal part of the matter."

This is to be remarked, as the first introduction of Hewitson into the Federal court, and will shortly lead, as I shall show, to the development of other connections between him and Judge Watrous in the perpetration of other and more astounding frauds than have yet been disclosed.

I conceive that it is required, in order to complete the history of the system of frauds, in which Judge Watrous was prominently concerned, to show further the connections between some of the prominent actors introduced into the narrative and others to be introduced, in matters which have been the subject of late congressional investigation, and of fierce debate. I certainly do not propose to review the debates that have taken place on this subject. But I refer more particularly to the transactions, which I shall proceed to give a brief sketch of, of the obtaining of lands by Judge Watrous, the wrongful use of his court in relation thereto, and his participation in fixing a forged link in a chain of title upon settlers in Texas, that I may more fully show and illustrate the constant and pervading connection of parties already alluded to with the judge in attempts to plunder the citizens of Texas, and in administering a system of fraud through his court.

In January, 1851, we find that two suits were commenced in the United States court in Texas, presided over by Judge Watrous. One was entitled Uflord vs. Dykes; the other was Lapsley vs. Spencer and ten others.

These two suits were commenced in Judge Watrous' court at the same term, for between fifty and sixty thousand acres of land each William G. Hale was counsel for the plaintiff in one case, and Robert Hughes counsel for the plaintiff in the other. In both cases, it appeared from the testimony. the property claimed was owned in the State of Alabama; and in both cases, the claims of the parties had slumbered for nearly twenty years — until the first term of the court of Judge Watrous, after he (Judge Watrous) had obtained an interest.

With respect to the Ufford and Dykes suit, an attempt was made in the course of the investigation by the committee of the House to discover who were the parties in interest in Alabama. But the inquiry was baffled. The witness who was examined as to the matter, plead his privilege as an attorney, and declined to answer. What important disclosures might have been made, had the question been freely answered, and the truth relieved from suppression, is left to conjecture. It was esteemed important to know the connections which existed in the inception of these suits. The committee sought the information; but they were stopped at the very threshold by concealment, leaving the whole matter in suspicious darkness.

It is also found in the Ufford and Dykes case, that William G. Hale, the agent of the fraudulent land company, as shown by the correspondence, and holding the most intimate relations with the court, is counsel for the plaintiff, and that on the other side of the case, the counsel is Robert Hughes, the confidential friend and witness of the court.

The same question of title existed as in the Lapsley cases, in which Judge Watrous was interested by partnership in speculation with the plaintiff to the amount of one-fourth of the property, which one-fourth is valued at $75,000, and for which he (Judge Watrous) has never laid, and never was required to pay, a cent of pier chase money up to the present time. The grants in both cases had a common title; and in one of them Judge Watrous had obtained an interest.

It may be observed, too, that the judge professes to have purchased an interest in one of these grants, without ever seeing the title papers, on the simple opinion of Hughes, "the best land lawyer in the Union," as he enthusiastically describes him, that they were good. He was willing, as he signifies, to accept this opinion absolutely as true. Now this UfTord and Dykes grant had a title identical with that in which Judge Watrous had obtained an interest. This title he had declared to be good, on the bare assertion of Hughes. He thus went on the bench in the Ufford and Dykes case, fully committed to an opinion on the title, and with nothing whatever for him on that point to adjudicate.

I now request honorable Senators to accompany me to a scene in the United States district court in Texas, and to bestow upon it but a moment's criticism, in order to perceive its significance.

On the bench is his honor. Judge Watrous, surrounded by all the imposing circumstances of the dispensation of justice. The case of Ufford vs. Dykes is called. A jury is impaneled. Before the judge, as foreman of that jury, stands Edwin Shearer, a deputy clerk in his own court, who is the agent of the judge, who was consulted on the subject, at the inception of the very scheme of fraud at Galveston; was present at Selma, Alabama, when the contract was made between Judge Watrous and others, and who is a brother-in-law of Price, a partner of the judge in that transaction; and besides, was not qualified under the law to be a juror. It appears that a verdict was rendered thus:

Verdict—Endorsed: "We, the jury, find a verdict for the plaintiffs for the ten leagues of land described in the plaintiff's petition, and also ten cents damages. "March 1o, 1854. Edwin Shearer, Foreman."

This appears to have gone by default. Now, to obtain a default, a chain of title was necessary; such a chain was to be exhibited Yet it is found to be admitted by counsel, more than a year after this trial, that the authority to sell the land in suit—the power of attorney to Williams—the main link of the title, was wanting. It could not have been before the court or the jury, when the verdict was entered. It could not, for the especial reason that the default was entered in March, 1854, and the testimony of the parties in the Watrous investigation shows that the power was never transcribed, or withdrawn from the land office, until December of that year. Juries, it is to be recollected, are selected in Judge Watrous' court—not balloted for. Further comment than this is unnecessary.

This default was opened at the suggestion of Judge Watrous, as the judgment by default did not appear to answer the purpose he had in view. The object evidently was to have the title completed, by introducing the power of attorney, and obtaining judgment of its genuineness. And the fact most striking is that at the second trial, Robert Hughes, the representative of Judge Watrous, is smuggled into the case for the defense, and very kindly furnished to the opposite counsel, William G. Hale, Esq., the power referred to—the very link of title necessary to defeat him, Robert Hughes, in the defense of the suit!

I have adverted to a scene in the Ufford and Dykes case. I wish the attention of Senators to another scene, transpiring after the lapse of about one year, in the same cause, and in the same court. Judge Watrous is on the bench. Before him stand Robert Hughes and William G. Hale. Contemplate for a moment the position of these parties. Judge Watrous is the owner of an interest valued at seventy-five thousand dollars in the La Vega grant, which, it appears, he purchased in reliance on the opinion of Robert Hughes. To Hughes is intrusted the defense of his title. He is the "sole counsel" for Lapsley and others. He stands now before the court in opposition to that title, as "the leading counsel for the defendant, and controlled its management." Here is Robert Hughes, the representative of Judge Watrous, interested in the La Vega title, standing before Judge Watrous, in opposition to that title. What a strange and anomalous position, surely! Here is his honor, John C. Watrous, on the bench; and here, John C. Watrous personated by Hughes at the bar. The case is called, and the curtain rises on still further developments in the scene. The plaintiff's counsel, William G. Hale, announces himself ready to proceed, except that he lacks the power of attorney to Williams, that is all-important to complete his title. Judge Watrous, through his representative, or Hughes, as representing the Judge, supplies that want; thus kindly giving to his opponent. Hale, the very means of defeating him (Hughes) in the suit; but mark you, the means also of sustaining the title of Judge Watrous—for the power of attorney was common to both titles. I have already shown, in the Cavazos case, how counsel of this vast company were introduced for purposes of collusion, and for the betrayal of parties who stood in the way of the land speculations of Judge Watrous and his confederates. Therefore, this is illustration the second.

It will be seen hereafter, as I proceed toward the completion of the narrative of facts I have undertaken, that the power of attorney alluded to plays a very important part in the scheme of fraud by which Judge Watrous was attempting to appropriate an immense tract of land situated within his judicial district.

The legal title to the La Vega grant was conveyed by League to John W. Lapsley, of Alabama, who held the property in trust for the several parties in interest, including Judge Watrous.

In the deed of conveyance there is to be remarked a very singular feature. There is no general warranty of title; but there is a special and extraordinary warranty given in the following terms:

"The said party of the first part (League) binds himself, his heirs, and legal representatives to warrant and forever defend the title by this indenture granted to the said party of the second part, his heirs, legal representatives, and assigns, against the said Thomas de la Vega, and the party of the first part, the respective heirs and assigns, and all others claiming, or to claim, by, under, or through the said Thomas de la Vega, and the party of the first part, or either of them."

This warranty, it is to be observed, is against the party's own vendor. It applied to the chain of title from him, the all-important link of which was the power of attorney to Williams to sell the land. It shows that in the transaction at Selma, Alabama, to which Judge Watrous was a party, the power of attorney was a subject of concern, and probably of debate. It suggests that even then, by some of the parties, the denunciation was anticipated, which was afterward made, of that title-paper as a forgery, and a forgery, too, in the procurement of which Judge Watrous himself had assisted.

This power of attorney purports to have been made in the year 1832. It appears that no attempt was made to prove it up until 1855. Thus it was kept secret, or nothing revealed of it, for about twenty-three years. It is true that Robert Hughes testified that he withdrew a power of attorney from the general land office in 1854—twenty-one years after its purported date; that there was no mark on it showing when, or by whom it was filed, or that it was ever filed; nor is there any mark or evidence on the document to show that the power of attorney, the present subject of discussion, was the paper withdrawn from the land office by Robert Hughes—as he was careful not to leave in the land office any copy of the paper he withdrew.

I have requested, in the progress of this narrative, that honorable Senators would regard attentively the man Hewitson, who appears to have been one of the heaviest suitors in Judge Watrous' court, and a partner of League and of Hughes in the subject-matter of the litigation, and of whose use by the court, in support of perhaps the most monstrous of its frauds, I promised some revelations. He, too, is now called in by Judge Watrous, through his counsel, to perform a service at the sacrifice, as the sequel will show, of all that honest men hold most dear—such sacrifices and such service, however, as seem to be the price of the Judge's favor.

In the case of Ufford and Dykes, a verdict was rendered February 27, 1855; the 23d of the same month, and the same year, Hewitson's deposition is taken, de bene esse, at Galveston, to prove up the power of attorney. The order of transfer had then been made to remove the Lapsley cases from Austin to New Orleans. The power to Williams was common to both suits. It had been managed to get it into the Ufford and Dykes case without difficulty, through the favor of Judge Watrous, and the evident collusion of counsel. In the Lapsley cases, however, an attempt is made to prove it up by Hewitson's deposition. Why, I ask, was this done? Why was the discrimination in relation to the proof of the power made between the two suits, unless for the palpable reason that it was considered that the power was not in a position to pass the review of the tribunal at New Orleans? Thus again is betrayed the ill-concealed concern of the parties in relation to this power of attorney.

The deposition of Hewitson appears to have been taken at Galveston. It is to be observed that the Lapsley cases, in which it was intended to be used, were then in transitu, in obedience to the order of transfer, and that the transcript was in the pocket of Robert Hughes at Galveston. The deposition was taken before Archibald Hughes, a son of Robert Hughes, an agent of Lapsley, Watrous, and others, in their land transactions, deputy marshal, then, or formerly, deputy clerk, and United States Commissioner in Judge Watrous' court. Thus, before this creature of the court, without notice to the counsel of Spencer, then in Galveston, and selecting the time when the suits were in tranisitu, it was managed to take this deposition of a confederate in the land transactions both of court and counsel.

The introduction of this deposition was made with an adroitness and secrecy characteristic of the parties who managed it. They were governed by constant policy and secrecy, that seem to have regulated all their movements. In the Lapsley suit, as in the Phalen suit at New Orleans, they showed their appreciation of the maxims of the policy of Reynolds, who advised that the cause should "go off quietly"; that "the least possible notoriety should attend it," etc.

Thus was the deposition of the confederate Hewitson, on which it was sought to rob the honest settlers of their land and homes, taken after the transcript had been ordered to be transmitted to New Orleans, taken without notice to the opposite parties, and taken surreptitiously before a creature of the court, and a man in intimate relation with those whose interest it was to betray and defeat the settlers who claimed the land. Remarkable coincidence — this testimony of Hewitson. in support of the power of attorney, is taken at Galveston during the trial of the Ufford vs. Dykes case, and perhaps on the very day when Hughes so magnanimously furnished Hale with a copy, and stipulated that no exceptions should be taken.

In my opening remarks I alluded to "the deep secrecy" which surrounded, as far as possible, the movements of the conspiracy, a sketch of which I have attempted to give from the results of long investigation, and by the lights of some newly discovered evidence on the subject. I have pointed out, in the progress of the narrative, instances of the secrecy and cunning of the management of these parties. Every means were taken to conceal their steps, and every opportunity was seized to take the opposite parties at advantage.

The order of transfer from Austin appears to have been entered at the November term, 1854. The transcript was taken by Robert Hughes, with Hewitson's deposition, which was sent him en route to New Orleans, where the cases appear to have been filed in April, 1855. When the docket was called there, it appears that Hughes was anxious to have the cases disposed of with dispatch, and to take advantage of the supposed absence, at that time, of a defense. But in this he was disappointed by the sudden apparition in court of a poor settler, who had traveled all the way from the wilderness, over hundreds of weary and painful miles, to confront the artful despoiler of his home and to demand justice. I will let the poor man, Eliphas Spencer, tell his story of what transpired in the court at New Orleans, as it is related in the printed evidence taken by the committee of the House in the Watrous investigation. He says:

"I think he [Hughes] said he would like to have them [the suits] tried at as early a day as would be convenient to the court, for he thought there would be no defense, and they could not take up much of the time of the court in trying them. After that I got up and said that I had come some six hundred miles to defend my land, and I wished that time should be given me to prepare my evidence, etc. Judge Hughes observed, 'Oh, Mr. Spencer, I did not know that you were in court, or any one, to attend to the suits.' "

In confirmation of this statement of Spencer of the advantage attempted to be taken against him, there is found an admission of Hughes himself, made in a letter to Lapsley, written when he was in attendance on the cases in New Orleans, April, 1853:

"I will press the cases to trial with the utmost rigor. I do not expect there will be any counsel here for the defendants."

There is something here of almost pathetic interest to claim the earnest attention of this honorable body. This poor settler, it appears, had planted a home as early as 1847, on what was then the extreme frontier of Texas, and had lived through hardships and dangers difficult to depict, until at last he had secured, as he fondly imagined, a permanent resting-place for his life, and had commenced to gather the fruits of his toils and privations to sustain his wife and children. This land was included in the La Vega tract, and he was the principal defendant, representing in the business the other settlers who had planted themselves around him. He was sued in every shape, and it would seem that every ingenuity of his opponents was taxed to betray him. It appears from the evidence that the suit instituted against him at Galveston was removed to Austin, without any order of transfer having been made in the case; that he had no lawyer employed to attend to it at Austin, and that when all the cases were removed to New Orleans and the transcript carried there, he heard for the first time, and then, too, not from those who were prosecuting and attempting to betray him, of Judge Watrous' long-concealed interest in the suits, and their removal, on that account, to New Orleans. No sooner is he made aware of this—no sooner does he perceive the long-matured conspiracy to keep him in ignorance and to betray him and his co-suitors—than the poor intended victim is suddenly aroused, hurries to New Orleans, six hundred miles away, and confronts in the court-room the confederate of Judge Watrous, for his ruin, at the very moment that he is sajang to the court that the suits would not be defended. Well might Mr. Hughes exclaim, "Oh, Mr. Spencer!" at the dramatic surprise; and well may our sympathies be prompted by the apparition on the stage of the poor man come to save his home from the grasp of the spoiler; and yet at last, by the renewed acts and influences of corrupt and powerful men, he is turned from it.

It has been shown that it was the expectation of Hughes to have the Lapsley cases dispatched, and to use the deposition of James Hewitson as to the execution of the power of attorney, taken, as has been seen, surreptitiously, and by a fraudulent contrivance, before any of the defendants or their counsel should be present to protect their rights on the trial at New Orleans. Under any circumstances, the only proper course would have been to attach the power of attorney, which was referred to in the deposition of Hewitson, and made a part of it. But this is not done; it is found that, after the lapse of a year from the filing of the deposition, when the trial of the case comes on, it has not even been filed. It was used in evidence against Spencer, and still not filed; but a copy appears to have been substituted for it.

Let me for a moment regard the scene in court, in which Robert Hughes, who had constituted himself the exclusive custodian of this paper, comes forward to sustain it by his testimony as a witness. Here is the representative of Judge Watrous, by his own evidence, establishing the genuineness of the paper, as that which Hewitson had sworn to, and which, since that time, had been in the possession of said Hughes. He produces the paper from his pocket, without any indorsement, without any file mark, and identifies it.

Thus it appears that the defendants in the Lapsley cases were deprived of opportunity to protect their rights against this forged document, except upon presentation in court.

Judgment had been rendered in the case of Lapsley against Spencer on the 30th of May, 1856, and six days thereafter, the following entry is found in one of the Lapsley cases remaining over, showing the anxiety of the parties for an opportunity to sustain their plea of forgery, and evidencing the persistent attempts of Hughes to deny them such opportunity. I read, from page 649, testimony in the Watrous investigation:

Minutes, April Term, 1856.

"New Orleans, Friday, June 6, 1856.

""John W. Lapsley

vs.

D. R. Mitchell, Warren, and James Dunn.

$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$

No. 2458.

"The defendants, by their counsel, this day suggested to the court, that heretofore, to wit: on or about the 25th day of February, 1855, the plaintiff herein took the deposition, de dene esse, of one James Hewitson, to prove execution of a certain power of attorney purporting to have been executed by Thomas Vega, before Juan Gonzales, regidor of Leona Vicario, with José Nazas Ortez and J. M. McMoral as assisting witnesses, dated the 5th day of May, 1832, authorizing Samuel M. Williams to sell the land in controversy which said power of attorney defendants believe to be a forgery, and having so filed their plea by their attorney, which said power of attorney has never been filed among the papers of said cause, although the same constitutes a part of the deposition of the said Hewitson, and that the same is yet in the possession of the plaintiff 's attorney; and thereupon moved the court to require and cause the said power of attorney to be regularly filed among the papers of said cause, or to be deposited with the clerk in his special charge and keeping, subject to the inspecting of the parties, that the defendants may have an opportunity of sustaining their plea of forgery aforesaid by procuring witnesses to inspect said power of attorney. The plaintiff's counsel being present in court, accepted service of this motion, and waived time to show cause."

 

---

 

Minutes, April Term, 1856

.

"New Orleans, Monday, June 7, 1856.

""John W. Lapsley	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$
vs.
D. R. Mitchell and Warren.

"The rule herein taken by the defendant upon the plaintiff, to show cause why he should not file the original of a certain power of attorney, having been argued and submitted on a former day, and the court having considered the same, doth now order that the said rule be discharged."

In the course of the debate in the House, with respect to the charges against Judge Watrous, considerable stress appears to have been laid on the decision of the Supreme Court, of Lapsley vs. Spencer, by which the question as to the power of attorney in that case was settled. From the dissenting opinion, however, of Mr. Justice Daniel, the all-important fact is developed, that the question of fraud, with respect to the power of attorney, had been taken from the jury by the ruling of the court. He says:

"It seems to me that there was error in the instruction of the court to the jury: that there was no fraud in the transactions by which the alleged title to the land in controversy had been obtained, or transmitted to the plaintiff."

This fact is of the highest importance. The opinion of Mr. Justice Daniel to which I have referred, and which manifests careful and special study of the questions connected with the power of attorney contains so clear a judgment on the subject, that I may conclude what I have to say on it by quoting a portion of the learned judge's remarks. He says:

"In the next place, with respect to the deduction of title from La Vega, to whom, it is said, a grant was made by the government, by the decrees first examined. The first step in the deraignment of this title is the paper, styled the power of attorney, from La Vega to Williams, dated May 5, 1832. The authenticity of this paper rests upon no foundation of legitimate evidence. It can not be considered as possessing the dignity and verity of a record, nor of a copy from a record. It is not shown that the laws of Texas required it to be recorded; and without such a requisition it could not be made, in legal acceptation, a record, by the mere will or act of a private person. This paper does not appear to have been placed on record; and if, in truth, it had been recorded in a proper legal sense, still there is no copy said to have been taken from a record, or certified by any legal custodian of the record or of the original document …

"It has been seen that this document is neither a record nor a copy from a record. The language of the instrument, and that of the certificate of Gonzales, alike contradict any such conclusion. The certificate declares it to be a copy of a private paper, and nothing more …

"The irregularities connected with this alleged power of attorney seem to me too glaring, and too obviously liable to gross abuse, and tend too strongly to injury to the rights of property, to be tolerated in courts governed by correct and safe rules of evidence."

Judgment was rendered in New Orleans in favor of the plaintiff in the suit of Lapsley vs. Spencer, as I have stated, on the 30th May, 1856. After the decision of this suit, it appears that in another of the Lapsley cases remaining on the docket, viz: Lapsley vs. Mitchell and Warren, a commission was taken out by the defendant to take the testimony of Tomas de la Vega of the La Vega grant, and of Jose Cosme de Castenado, the custodian of the archives at Saltillo, with reference to the power of attorney heretofore so frequently referred to, which purported to have been made from La Vega to Williams. These depositions were returned in March, 1857. In that of La Vega the deponent denies ever having signed any such paper as the power; and in that of Castenado, the custodian of the archives, the deponent swears that the alleged power of attorney was —

"Signed only by the alcalde, Don Juan Gonzales, and Don Jose Maria de Aguirre, and not by Don Rafael Aguirre or Don Tomas de la Vega, or the assisting witnesses, wherefore the said document can be of no effect; and that in verification of all that he has stated, he refers to the original documents, which exist in the archives under his charge."

This was the first public declaration made from Saltillo of the forgery of the document. Now, suddenly the case assumes a serious and startling aspect, and strikes dismay and terror into the ranks of the conspirators. Orders had been left at the court at New Orleans, that immediately on the receipt of the depositions of La Vega and Castenado there, that copies should be sent to Galveston. There can be no doubt, however, that the parties claiming under the power of attorney, and represented there, knew very well what the import of these depositions would be. Is it, indeed, to be supposed that they, with a property worth $300,000 at stake, which depended on this very muniment of title, should have neglected wholly, and for so long a time, to examine the archives at Saltillo, and inquire what was on record there?

The storm had burst, and the conspirators, in dismay, are compelled to face the loud denunciations of their guilt. Now they have to meet the brunt of the battle. The day of discovery and retribution has come; and collecting together, serrying their ranks, and summoning all their resources, they prepare desperately to resist the judgment that has overtaken them.

Now it is that Judge Watrous is observed to call to his aid all of his confederates. Now it is that the whole corps dramatique is summoned on the stage for the grand catastrophe. Now it is that the judge calls upon his confederates to stand by him, and to redeem the prices of his favor to them by the most unscrupulous of means, and most desperate of services.

Thus it is observed that the first step of the startled plotters is to gather around the judge, and attempt to protect the great head and front of the conspiracy. It is observed that in attempting the desperate defense they hesitate at nothing. It is observed that in seeking to cover the judge they expose themselves to new discoveries of guilt, and sink deeper into the mire of falsehood and fraud.

It will be instructive to note the parts which the different confederates of Judge Watrous take, and the length to which they go in seeking to establish a defense for him. To commence with League, one of the closest of his confederates: when examined, in the course of the Watrous investigation, he strives to make it appear that when the copies of the depositions taken at Mexico were received at Galveston, he had repeated conversations with Robert Hughes in relation thereto; but that Judge Watrous discouraged or forbade any conversation with himself on the subject. I will here read some of the passages from the testimony to this effect:

"Question. (by the chairman). You spoke of having received a copy of a deposition from the clerk at New Orleans. You received that in Galveston?

"Answer. Yes, sir. It was sent to Judge Hughes, not me.

"Question. Was Judge Hughes in Galveston at that time?

"Answer. I think he was.

"Question. What time was that?

"Answer. It must have been in the month of April, 1857.

"Question. You are certain that that communication was sent to Judge Hughes?

"Answer. I think it was.

"Question. Whom did you consult as to the propriety of going to Mexico for Gonzales?

"Answer. With Judge Hughes. I might have mentioned it to Judge Watrous; I think I did. He called; but whenever I attempted to say anything to him, he would reply, 'Go to Judge Hughes; I have nothing to do with it!' "

••••••••••

"A copy of the depositions taken in Mexico was sent to Judge Hughes; Judge Hughes sent for me intermediately, and read it over. Some of it was in Spanish; but he made it out.". . . .

"Question. Did you take from Judge Hughes any copy of the depositions taken in Mexico, impeaching the power of attorney?

"Answer. I took the substance, but not an exact copy.

"Question. You noted down on paper the substance.

"Answer. Yes, I noted it down, and submitted it to my Alabama friends.

"Question. Did you note that from the depositions before you?

"Answer. Judge Hughes noted it.

"Question. Judge Hughes put upon paper the substance of the testimony taken in Mexico?

"Answer. Yes; and I think that I added to it something.

"Question. How much space did the statement occupy upon paper?

"Answer. I can not recollect. Not a great deal.

"Question. Did you take that part to Alabama?

"Answer. I did."

Now, it appears, in relation to the testimony of Hughes himself, that at the time of the alleged conversation at Galveston, referred to by League, he (Hughes) was absent from his home at Galveston; that these two gentlemen could never have compared notes, as alleged, at the time of receiving the depositions; and that the first time that Hughes had' ever seen the depositions was in August, three months after League alleged to have been in conference with him on the subject of the power of attorney. Here is the testimony of Hughes, establishing these conclusions beyond a doubt:

"Question. When was Hale employed in the case of Lapsley vs. Spencer?

"Answer. I do not know, certainly; I was absent from home when information was received of the taking of the deposition of Tomas de la Vega, in Mexico; when I returned, I was informed of what had occurred. The deposition was shown to me, and I was informed that Mr. Hale had been employed to assist in the case. It was a short time after it had been taken — two or three months—that I received information of it." ... .

"Question. When did you first see the deposition of Tomas de la Vega?

"Answer. I saw it at the time I spoke of, when I returned home some time last summer, and when, as I said before, Mr. Hale was employed as assistant counsel; that was the first time I saw it; that was a week or ten days before the election on the first Monday in August."

Mr. League has unquestionably committed himself in that part of his statement which I have quoted. It seems to be a strange and impossible hallucination, that he should mistake conferences, which he undoubtedly had with Judge Watrous, on the subject of these depositions, and of the best means to defeat them, as having taken place with Robert Hughes, unless he regarded them as Siamese twins.

The most glaring contradictions appear in this man's (League's) testimony, as taken from day to day before the committee, exposing his desire not so much to develop the truth as to shield Judge Watrous, the great he'ad and director of the conspiracy.

In further contradiction of the statement he had made of conferences held exclusively with Hughes, it appears not only that Hughes could not have been a party to such conferences, but that League did actually converse and consult, at the time named, personally, fully, and intimately, with Judge Watrous himself, on the subject of the depositions taken in Mexico. The fact is drawn out of him, on an examination some days subsequent to that on which he denied having conferred with the judge on the subject, that he, the judge, advised that he should go and consult the Alabama parties relative thereto.

With respect to this advice, I may make a single suggestion. There is but one course that is probable that honest men would have adopted, in an alleged discovery, such as was communicated to Judge Watrous and his confederates, in the depositions taken at Saltillo. Supposing that these parties had no previous knowledge of the fact of the forgery of this power of attorney; would they not naturally and immediately have sought the archives for information and evidence, where the original must be, if any such existed? This would have shown an honesty of purpose. It is now to be seen what course they do adopt, other than that which was natural for innocent men to take; and I beg the especial attention of honorable Senators to this point, that they may determine whether the course of the parties evidenced or not an honest desire to arrive at the truth. League goes to see the Alabama gentlemen, at the suggestion of Judge Watrous. He sees Lapsley at Selma; tells him of the discovery made in the depositions taken at Saltillo; and the consequence is, that Lapsley gives him $2,500 to enable him to go to Mexico and "procure" testimony to sustain the alleged power of attorney.

Now, it is in evidence that Lapsley, who professes to be very careful in his negotiations, had exacted from League a warranty of title against the particular risk of the validity of this power. League was reputed to be worth some seventy-five or one hundred thousand dollars; and his warranty was the only security the parties had by which to save themselves. He goes to Lapsley, and tells him, in substance, " News has reached us that I am liable to you on the warranty." What does Lapsley say? Does he say: "I entered into the transaction believing that everything was bona fide. I will have nothing more to do with it; and must look to your warranty? No such thing. He says: " I release you from your warranty." He gives up and renounces the only chance which he and the parties he was to represent had to save themselves; but not only this, he gives to League $2,500 to pay his mileage to Mexico!

One other circumstance, too, is suggestive, in relation to this warranty against the power of attorney, the link in the title from La Vega. In Mr. Lapsley 's testimony, it appears that it had been greatly urged by Judge Watrous, at the time of the conveyance, that League had hesitated to sign the warranty, and that Judge Watrous had encouraged and pressed him to do it, saying: "You can sign it with perfect safety, Mr. League, because I am satisfied myself that the title is good." Yet the warranty, when so urged, and about which so much was then manifested, is found to be released at the very time that the validity of the link of title for which it was given, is called in question! and without which, Lapsley said, the bargain would fall through.

I will observe here, that in all that I have stated of the circumstances surrounding the alleged power of attorney from La Vega to Williams, to sell the land in controversy, I have not designed making any attempt to prove this document a forgery. That, I think, is indubitable. But my object has been to show the part taken by Judge Watrous and his agents to foist a forgery upon the poor settlers they were seeking to defraud. To accomplish this object, I now proceed to a continuation of the narrative, resuming at the point where League returns to Galveston, having been furnished by the Alabama parties with means to prosecute their designs in Mexico.

From the printed testimony in the Watrous case, it appears that the judge was fully acquainted by League with the communications and results of his interview with the Alabama associates. It was the judge who suggested the employment of the services of William G. Hale in the emergency. They are accordingly secured ; and no sooner so, than Hale calls to his aid John Treanor, to undertake the most unscrupulous and desperate scheme for the fabrication of evidence in Mexico, to suit their purposes. Here, it may be observed, are again introduced upon the stage the two parties who were united as principal and agent in the Cavazos case, to direct the suit by their affidavits and their collusive management, in which it appears that, by the judge lending himself to the scheme, they had been successful, Treanor, the man branded as one "without character or standing," is prepared for a trip to Mexico, to procure, on the best terms, such testimony as he can, to sustain the power of attorney; he is joined by League, and Francis J. Parker, a clerk of Judge Watrous' court.

It will be profitable to review the antecedents and relations of this man Parker, as it will be found that he figures in several important matters of fraud and chicanery, conducted through Judge Watrous' court. It will be recollected that reference was made to an order entered in Judge Watrous' court, for the exclusion, from the regular panel of jurors, of the citizens of four counties lying on the Rio Grande. From the marshal's returns in the comptroller's office, it appears that this order was strictly carried out until January, 1856, when it is discovered that it was violated in returning Mr. Francis J. Parker as one of the regular panel, at Galveston, and that he was the only citizen from the Rio Grande summoned in the face of the order, and with regard to whom the marshal had departed from the rule of the court.

Now, why was Mr. Parker "selected"? Why was he selected "two or three times"? An answer may be suggested by slightly reviewing the relations of this man to Judge Watrous, who was deeply interested, at least, in important questions pending in his court.

Parker was, in the first place, the deputy clerk of the United States court at Brownsville, over which Judge Watrous presided. He had also been appointed by the judge United States commissioner for Brownsville; and is now an itinerant commissioner on his mission to procure testimony in Mexico for the establishment of the forged power of attorney. It will be recollected that F. J. Parker was selected for jury service in this court. Edwin Shearer, also a deputy clerk, had been placed on the jury in the Ufford and Dykes case.

The progress of this man Parker, in acts of service for Judge Watrous, is next traced in his participation in the attempt made by the judge to prove up the forged power of attorney in the Lapsley cases. He appears to have been the selected custodian of this precious document, and to have accompanied to New Orleans the witness who had been obtained at an expense of $6,000.

Still further he may be traced, doing Judge Watrous' work, until at last he comes forward as a witness for Judge Watrous, before the Supreme Court of the United States, to sustain his honor in his act of corrupt oppression, depriving Mussina of his appeal in the Cavazos case.

But I will now revert to the course taken by the parties. League, Treanor, and Parker, in their mission to Mexico, with respect to the power of attorney. The three proceeded together as far as Monterey, about seventy miles from Saltillo; and from the former place, as if the movements of the party were again determined by the old anxiety to avoid notoriety and attention, Treanor proceeds alone to the scene of operations. On reaching Saltillo, it might be supposed that he would at once have consulted the archives in relation to the power of attorney. But instead of exhibiting an honest purpose; by proceeding at once to the archives, and comparing the copy which he held with the original, he directs his steps, first to the house of Gonzales, a former alcalde of the place, an old man, partially blind, and he exhibits the important document to him, and prompts him to give an opinion of its genuineness. A quarter of a century had elapsed since the document purports to have been made. The old man naturally suggests that he will go to the archives—of course, to examine the original. Mr. Treanor's reply is that he does not wish this; and suggests as a reason, "that the proof was to be taken, not for a Mexican, but for an American court." Subsequently, he (Treanor) does examine the archives; he goes there alone; and, it appears, for another purpose than that of examining the original of this power. And in answer to the inquiry if he had found anything there corresponding with the copy or testimonio which he held, and whether he compared them, replied, "I compared them not very particularly, but I saw they were very nearly equal." Not very particularly! why not? The matter of this power of attorney was the sole object of his mission to Saltillo. "Nearly equal" to the testimonio.

Such is his testimony before the committee of investigation. Strange, indeed, that Judge Watrous and his astute counsel did not think proper to ask. the witness (their witness) in what respect the original and the testimonio differed.

The proofs of the forgery were too plain. Treanor did not dare to take the deposition of old Gonzales, before the authorities of Saltillo, as in such a case, according to the law of Mexico, the officer taking the deposition would have been required to give notice to La Vega and other parties, whom it was his object to keep in utter ignorance of his machinations.

It therefore became necessary to take Gonzales away. But it was found the old man was not willing to leave. Here Hewitson, who resided at Saltillo, who had, by a deposition of his own at Galveston, sustained this forged document, and who, it has been shown, was a general partner in the system of fraud dealt out through the machinery of Judge Watrous' court, is found to intervene to effect the object of Treanor's mission. It is eventually, by his persuasions, and by that of $500 in money, that Gonzales is induced to accompany Treanor, six or seven days' travel, to Rio Grande City.

After Gonzales was got as far as Rio Grande City, his deposition was taken ex parte. League was bent upon making the most of this old man's testimony, to obtain which, it is proved, he has paid him at least $1,300, besides his expenses, and was desirous of taking the old man to New Orleans, as he said, to testify before the court there. Mr. Treanor, for whose able services it is also proved that League paid $1,300, over and above his expenses, and further sums not revealed, is appointed to prevail upon Gonzales to go to New Orleans. League assists in the persuasion by decoying the simple old man, as he himself states, by pictures of the "progress of civilization," which he would see by an extension of his travels to New Orleans. It appears, however, that the payment of seven or eight hundred dollars additional, which League said was to compensate the old Mexican, who was a tanner, for some hides left in his vats, proved more powerful in inducing him to go to New Orleans than the alluring picture of "civilization" with which he was promised to be amused. In his testimony before the committee, League says that he promised the old man, if he would go to New Orleans, to show him "a steamboat and a railroad." By a very wonderful coincidence, just as he was using this persuasion, "the steamboat came puffing up toward Rio Grande City." "How pretty!" he said; "we can go on that boat and be taken to New Orleans." But old Gonzales cared more for the hides, either absolutely or constructively, in his vats, than for taking "pretty" tours on "puffing steamboats." Mr. League then tries another temptation, by offering him seven or eight hundred dollars in the shape of compensation for his hides; and "by that means," says Mr. League in his testimony, "we got him to New Orleans."

It is worthy of remark what boldness is displayed in the actions of League and Treanor, in attempting to assert the validity of this power of attorney on the personal testimony of this poor old man. Who is Gonzales, that his deposition should have such value? He is without official station; he is the custodian of nothing; without judicial favor, his oath can amount to no more than that of any other ordinary person.

League, Treanor, and Parker proceed with the witness to Galveston. Thus, it appears, he is brought to the residence of Judge Watrous, Robert Hughes, and William G. Hale. It appears that Gonzales is not sworn at Galveston; but he is put here in charge of Robert Hughes, who, in company with League and Treanor, carries him to New Orleans. In the testimony of Mr. League, from which I have just made some quotations, he makes the profession that his object in getting Gonzales to New Orleans was to introduce him before the court as a witness. But this is not done. The witness is taken before a commissioner, and makes another deposition; thus leaving without explanation the cause of the removal of Gonzales from Saltillo, for the purpose of taking his deposition.

On page 461 of the printed testimony in the Watrous case will be found the deposition of the witness Gonzales. On the examination in chief he makes out a pretty good story, and shows evidence of careful drilling. But the cross-examination which ensues reveals the most melancholy and painful case of depravity that is conceivable.

It is only with feelings of the strongest aversion that we can contemplate such an example of open falsehood, and glaring and painful contradictions in the testimony of a sworn witness. It is only on the cross-examination that the fact is drawn out from the old man, on presentation of the power of attorney to him, that he can not read it. His sight is so decayed that he has to acknowledge that he could not read the writing, unless drawn up in letters as large as those on a street sign, which was pointed out to him over the way.

It is to this trashy, miserable evidence of this poor old blind man, who was procured as a witness through Judge Watrous' suggestions, bribed with money, and drilled so far even as to make him suppress the fact of the decay of his sight; it is to this revolting example of the purchased and perjured evidence of an old Mexican dotard, that Judge Watrous, in his answer to the committee of investigation, has pointed with an air of triumph for his vindication, and for the proof of the genuineness of the forged power of attorney, and as "placing it beyond all controversy or debate." He (Watrous) is certainly more to be execrated for the defiance of truth and of decency, in endeavoring to impose such a conclusion upon the committee, than the poor Mexican driveller, who was seduced and moulded to his purpose by bribery.

To cap the climax of effrontery exhibited in the parade made of old Gonzales' testimony, but one circumstance was wanting, and that seems to have been supplied by that useful creature, John Treanor. At the same examination before the commissioner at New Orleans, he is actually introduced to testify to the respectability of the deponent, Gonzales. The further wonder appears that he gets his information from Hewitson.

And as to Hewitson's former deposition, to the genuineness of the power of attorney, a few words just here may dispose of the question of veracity, generally, of his statements. He had sworn, in the deposition at Galveston, that Gonzales was dead. Yet it appears from the testimony that Gonzales and himself lived in the same town, and were well acquainted with each other, "acquaintances of long standing!" It is not necessary to canvass the truth of Mr. Hewitson's statement after this revelation.

However, the monstrous contradiction introduced here affords another illustration of the boldness of Judge Watrous and his confederates in pressing the ends of their conspiracy. In 1855, Hewitson, who was, as I have stated, one of the heaviest suitors in Watrous' court, is at Galveston. At that time the Lapsley cases are in transitu, and are filed and tried, within sixty days, at New Orleans. In this emergency, it suited the purposes of Judge Watrous and his confederates, that Hewitson should come forward and swear that his townsman and neighbor was dead. Yet a little while after, it suiting their purposes, they have the extreme and almost incredible effrontery to introduce the formerly dead townsman and neighbor as a living witness, under a certificate of respectability obtained from Hewitson himself. Can there be any defiance of truth more extreme, more unblushing, and more revolting in its shamelessness than this?

So far, I have followed with patience the general narrative of this stupendous and far-reaching conspiracy, through its windings and devices. I have done this to show the ramifications of the plot, and to illustrate the boldness of the actors. That boldness I have shown to be especially displayed in the desperate attempts made to impose upon the courts a forged power of attorney, in the procurement and benefits of which forgery Judge Watrous was largely interested.

However, there is one simple and summary view of the whole matter, that to my mind is so conclusive of the fraud of the parties in the La Vega land transactions, that I can not conceive how a rational mind can require further proof of, or remain in doubt with respect to, the existence of corruption among the parties to the sale of this land. I will briefly express this view, and 1 will challenge upon it the judgment of this honorable body, whether there was fairness or fraud in the transaction,

I refer to the circumstance of the monstrous inequality between the amount of purchase money to be paid by Judge Watrous and his partners for these lands, and their actual value at the time of the sale. And I will start out with the well-settled principle of law, that a purchaser, with a notice of fraud in the sale on the part of those selling, becomes a party to the fraud.

Here, then, as the evidence shows, we see a body of sixty thousand acres of choice land, worth, at the time of sale, at least $100,000, with land scrip to the amount of "ten or twelve thousand acres," sold for the paltry sum of $6,200. This scrip had a cash market value at the time of the sale, nearly, if not quite, equal to the whole amount of the purchase money; but, located on a questionable title, its market value was much more, which would render the La Vega title an absolute donation to these parties. These lands were in the hands of trustees, Messrs. M. B. Menard and Nathaniel F. Williams. The. latter was the brother of Mrs. St. John, the party for whose benefit the sale was made; the other was one of the large land operators in Texas, and both were intimately acquainted with the value of property of this description. The title, also, had been derived through Samuel M. Williams, also a brother of Mrs. St. John, who was the actor in obtaining the title, and who knew all about it. If there was any defect in that title, he knew of it. If there was a reason for selling it cheap, he knew of it.

Further: it is to be noticed that shortly previous to the sale of this land, the case of Hancock vs. McKinney had been decided in the district court of the State, wherein a title, exactly similar to the La Vega title, as admitted by Judge Watrous himself, had been adjudged to be valid. So identical were the titles, as the testimony shows, that it may be considered that the adjudication was upon this very title, purchased from Williams by Judge Watrous and his partners.

Yet, under all these circumstances, this large body of land, worth $100,000 at least, and the title to which had just been declared valid by the district court of the State, is sold by gentlemen who are acting under the obligations of a trust, and who are well acquainted with the value of the land, for a few cents an acre! I ask, do not all these circumstances combine to show that there was a known and acknowledged defect in the title? They irresistibly point to the fact that Williams knew that there was no power of attorney from La Vega to perfect the title. They incontestably prove that it was a corrupt and speculative sale of defective title. Let me place this question before honorable Senators:

Suppose that the action of the trustees, Menard and Williams, or her other agents making this sale and conveyance, had been called into question by Mrs. St. John (for whose benefit the sale was made); suppose she had come into court and had said that the sale was not fair, and moved to set it aside: is there any court of equity in the land that would have refused the application? No. The inequality between the value of the land and the amount of the purchase money is too egregious to be overlooked. It is the very sign and badge of fraud to the transaction. It proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the knowledge of the parties of the defects of the title, and existence of a corrupt conspiracy to supply this all-important link, and without which it was wholly worthless, as subsequent events have shown, by a forged document, and by using Judge Watrous' court to sustain such forgrd muniment of title.

And, in this connection, it will te borne in mind that Judge Watrous not alone received one-fourth part of the purchased land at the trifling consideration named, but also, on a credit of five years, and to this day, after a lapse of eight years, has not paid, or been required to pay, one cent.

Moreover, there is another most important circumstance. I have stated that the grant in the Hancock and McKinney case and the La Vega grant were identical. The position of Samuel M. Williams was the same in both grants. He had sold the Santiago del Valle grant (which was involved in the Hancock and McKinney case), as the agent of Santiago del Valle, in the same manner as he had sold the La Vega grant as the agent of La Vega. Judge Watrous was also interested in the Santiago del Valle grant to the extent of some four or five thousand acres of land. He, the judge, was represented by Robert Hughes, who argued the case before the Supreme Court of Texas. Now, it appears that, in the Hancock and McKinney case, as in the Lapsley cases, there was no power of attorney from Santiago del Valle to Williams.

In the case of Hancock vs. McKinney, "it was admitted that Williams had authority to act for Del Valle." This is reported from the case — 7 Texas Reports. An opportunity to explain this singular admission was offered Hughes, the counsel of Judge Watrous, on his examination as a witness before the House committee. But what does he say?

"Question. Was the power of attorney from Santiago del Valle, authorizing Williams to sell, in the Hancock and McKinney case?

"Answer. I do not know. It is a long time since I saw that record."

Now, is it to be supposed that this active counsel in the case where his client and patron, Judge Watrous, was interested to the amount of four or five thousand acres of the most valuable land (situated immediately opposite to the seat of government), would have failed to recollect the existence of this all-important link in the chain of title? Thus, as in the case of Ufford and Dykes, so in the case of Hancock vs. McKinney, it is managed to obtain the admission, and to avoid all question as to the authority of Williams to sell the land.

So, it appears, that of the parties. Judge Watrous and his counsel, Robert Hughes, at least, went into the La Vega land speculation, their attention directed, especially directed, to the power of attorney from La Vega to Williams, which they had to look to as the principal link of title.

The investigation touching the official conduct of Judge Watrous, which was had in the Thirty-fourth Congress, was made in the most deliberate, painstaking, and thorough manner. Distinct votes were taken at different stages of the proceedings. Nearly the whole available time of the session was devoted to the examination of the records offered in support of the charges, which records in fact composed the entire evidence in the cases.

With respect to the charges assigned by Spencer, the committee found a verdict against the judge, and proclaimed that "he had given just cause ol alarm to the citizens of Texas for the safety of private rights and property, and of their public domain, and had debarred them from the rights of an impartial trial in the federal courts of their own district."

This judgment was followed up, and in its conclusions enforced by a moiety of the present Judiciary Committee, in whose elaborate and conclusive report the following finding of the facts is included:

"That while holding the office of District Judge of the United States, he engaged with other persons in speculating in immense tracts of land situated within his judicial district, the titles to which he knew were in dispute, and where litigation was inevitable.

"That he allowed his court to be used as an agent, to aid himself and partners in speculation in land, and to secure an advantage over other persons with whom litigation was apprehended. That he sat as judge on the trial of cases where he was personally interested in questions involved, to which may be added a participation in the improper procurement of testimony to advance his own and partner's interests."

Into the merits of the legal question, with respect to the appeal sought to be taken by Mussina in the Cavazos case, I do not propose to inquire. It is indispensable, however, to insure a clear understanding of the case, and to complete its history, to notice the matter, and to read here the judgment pronounced on this branch of the Watrous case by the following honorable gentlemen, composing a moiety of the House Judiciary Committee before alluded to: Messrs. Henry Chapman, of Pennsylvania; Charles Billinghurst, of Wisconsin; Miles Taylor, of Louisiana, and George S. Houston, of Alabama:

"And, finally, they are prevented from having the decision against them reviewed in the appellate court, by the failure of the judge to perform his full duty to them in facilitating the exercise of the right of appeal, given to them by law, from motives of public policy, for their own private advantage."

It appears that Mussina applied to the Supreme Court for a rule for a mandamus against Judge Watrous, who had, as he conceived, refused or defeated his application for an appeal, which was within the time prescribed by the law. To this Judge Watrous answered, and sustained his answer by the testimony of Cleveland, Parker, Jones, Love, and son. It is revealed in the testimony that William G. Hale was here in Washington, on the spot. Mr. Love, the clerk of Judge Watrous, says:

"Mr. Hale sent from Washington city a copy of Mr. Mussina's affidavit before the Supreme Court of the United States." " I got four or five affidavits, and enclosed them to Judge Watrous. All of us [i.e., Clevelnnd, Parker, Jones, his son, and himself, all creatures of the court] agreed in making the affidavits on our own recollection."

It is unnecessary to review the testimony of these witnesses before the House committee. A mere inspection of it will present the contradictions with which it abounds, and will show the changes and shifting of the witnesses, according as their recollections are refreshed from time to time by Judge Watrous. It would appear that on this testimony and the statement of Judge Watrous, the rule for a mandamus was denied. In a further part of the testimony taken in the Judge Watrous investigation, it is shown that the Supreme Court would not permit the truth of a judge's return, in a case of this nature, to be questioned; "that by the practice of the Supreme Court, it did not allow a question of fact to be raised on the return of any of the judges on a rule nisi for a mandamus, but took the judge's return as absolutely true in relation to the facts." I ask honorable Senators to pause here. I beg them to consider to what this question of appeal from Judge Watrous' court has reduced itself. I ask, has Judge Watrous proved himself the man of truth and honor, that his word should not be permitted to be questioned? Is he the man whose statement should not be gainsaid? Is he the man to be continued in a position where his statements are to govern and override all contradiction? Is he the man to remain on the bench?

It has been shown now what steps were taken by Judge Watrous and his court officers to baffle, and finally defeat, the appeal of Mussina.

Thus was the right of appeal, a right so absolutely recognized as essential to the interests of justice, and so important with reference to public policy, denied the petitioner. Such, indeed, was a fitting conclusion to the series of acts of collusion, tyranny, and oppression which had signalized the action of the judge in the celebrated Cavazos case.

As to the final act of collusion on the part of Judge Watrous and his confederates in preventing Mussina's appeal, the judgment of the committee in the Thirty-fourth Congress is so strong and clear, that if I could afford the time, I might comment at length upon the deliberate and atrocious circumstances that mark this last act in the Cavazos case.

But even apart from this, there appear additional reasons why an appeal was not taken in the Cavazos case, even if it had been possible; or why an attempt was not made at an earlier day, despite of the machinations to prevent it. There were reasons to esteem the record as partial, collusive, and false; and a party might well hesitate to risk his case upon such a record. He might well fear the effect of a made-up record ; and one made up, too, as the testimony would show, under the eye of William G. Hale, the chief actor in the scenes we have described.

But I conceive a special and particular reason to prevent a party from risking his rights on such a record as that in the Cavazos case. I allude here to one of the most open and barefaced acts of collusion possible to be imagined, having been countenanced by the judge, and put falsely upon the record, so as to operate to the particular prejudice and detriment of Mussina. This circumstance alone will furnish an ample explanation of Mr. Mussina's much-accused delay in taking an appeal.

It appears that by collusion, and in defiance of law and justice, Robert H. Hord was called by the complainants, and made a witness for them, on the trial of the Cavazos case. Thereupon, having been sworn on his voir dire to testify as to his interest, the solicitor of Jacob Mussina, one of the defendants, put the following questions to him:

"Have you, or have you not, any understanding or agreement with the complainants, or either of them, or their agent or solicitors, in relation to the determination of this cause, or of any of the matters involved therein, adverse to any interest or right claimed by Jacob Mussina in any property or rights involved in this suit? Are you, or not, interested in any such understanding or agreement?"

This question Mr. Hord refused to answer, and, thereupon, the court decided "that the question need not be answered."

As to this ruling of the court, the committee of the Thirty-fourth Congress say unanimously:

"The court permitted Robert H. Hord, counsel for defendants, and witness covertly interested, to testify at the hearing of said case, and sustained his refusal to answer the following proper and legal question, intended to show that he had a collusive interest adverse to Jacob Mussina."

And a moiety of the committee of the present Congress sustain this view by the following declaration of judgment:

"The refusal of the judge to compel the witness (Hord) to answer the questions propounded to him by Mussina's counsel, and then permitting the witness to testify to a fact material to the issue, and in opposition to Mussina's interest, was, we think, in violation of law.

"The action of the judge, in the instance spoken of, seems to be subversive of ail recognized principle, and to admit of no excuse."

The testimony of Hord, which the court admitted, was of great importance. It went to the main question of the genuineness of the title of complainants. His testimony was important, as against Mussina, and others of the defendants: and it further appears that with Mussina he had held the most confidential relations, having been his agent and attorney.

It appears further, from the testimony before the committee, that long before Mr. Hord was thus examined as a witness, he had made a collusive agreement with the man Treanor, who was acting as the agent of the complainant, Cavazos, and who now called him as a witness. It is shown in the testimony that Hord held an instrument of writing, purporting to be a sale, or contract of sale, to himself and partner, of the town tract of Brownsville, which was tlie principal subject-matter of the suit, which was signed by John Treanor, as agent for Cavazos and wife; and the suit was continued, and Hord offered as a witness, simply to carry out this fraudulent arrangement.

This revelation is not only important, as going to show the collusive interest of the witness Hord, but it throws further light upon the wretched system of fraud to which Treanor, this useful agent and witness of Judge Watrous, was a party.

It would seem to be an excess of oppression, thus through collusive management to use a party as a witness against his client and friend, and to deny him the privilege of examining such witness as to that collusion. But the record is falsified still further to take advantage of this testimony; and Mussina is to be bound hand and foot, so as to preclude all possibility of his contesting his rights upon a fair and honest record. Not satisfied with foisting upon the case the testimony of Hord, as a witness of the complainant, the "statement of proceedings," which is signed by Love, the clerk of the court, makes it appear that this testimony of Hord had been offered by Mussina, and other of the defendants. Love, in his testimony before the committee, in answer to the question, "By whom was the original statement of proceedings made?" says:

"I do not know certainly; but I believe the original was presented to the clerk of the court by Mr. Hale, for him to verify by the indorsements

on the papers filed."

Thus is falsehood added to falsehood; thus is the truth of the record prostituted to collusive designs; and at last, by its falsification, is Mussina left without anything on which to hang even a hope for the recovery of his rights.

Indeed, every circumstance about the record was calculated to inspire suspicion of its integrity. The translations of some of the most important documents in the case had been made by Hale; and although he was not sworn, he was allowed to withdraw the original documents from the file; the translations which he substituted were admitted by the court; and thus again was the record of the case governed by this colluding and unscrupulous attorney, who holds an absolute conveyance for the larger portion of the property.

No wonder that Mussina was unwilling to trust to the integrity of the record thus made up under the eye and direction of his adversary. Nor does he appear to have been timorous without reason. Sir, it appears by the testimony before the late investigating committee, that, in a suit which he instituted in New Orleans, against the parties who had colluded in Judge Watrous' court, to despoil him of his rights, a false record was sent up from Judge Watrous' court; false, too, in the most important and vital particular. In the examination of the record, it was found that an affidavit had been falsified by striking from the very middle of it an important portion of the evidence. Against men who dared thus to do an open act of infamous crime, Mussina had to contend from first to last. Other and glaring evidences of collusion are to be seen in this "statement of proceedings," and, indeed, throughout the record as sent up to the Supreme Court.

It appears that the judge's partnership speculations were of the most various kinds. He not only was interested in the fraudulent certificate business; he not only engaged in speculations with a company of professional dealers in real estate; but he had other partnerships by which to sustain his fortunes. He taxed his ingenuity in contracting partnerships of every description.

The testimony shows that he even obtained partners in the ownership he claimed of a patent for curing beef, and of an extensive beef-curing establishment.

But it is found that he went into another partnership of much more questionable honesty than the beef-curing speculation. He became connected with Dr. Cameron in a silver mine of Mexico. This partner was a principal litigant in his court, and had heavy suits pending therein to large tracts of land under Mexican grants; of course it became the judge's interest that his partner should harvest his means; and to the extent of this interest, he necessarily vacated his office.

I must here advert briefly to another gigantic speculation with which Judge Watrous is shown to have been connected. I refer to what is known as Peters colony; which was a contract of colonization of more than ten thousand square miles of land in Texas. William G. Hale, in his correspondence with Judge Watrous, from which I have already read, makes allusions to the progress of negotiations on the subject. In his letter, dated March 14, 1847, to Judge Watrous, he remarks,

"We have had a long interview with Mr. Hedgecoxe (the agent of Peters colony grant), and are arranging matters."

It further appears that the Hon. Caleb Gushing was employed as the attorney for this association, which is known to have numbered among its members men of the highest station and most powerful influence in the land; and that when elevated to the high office of Attorney-General of the United States, he gave an extra-judicial opinion in favor of the claim of the company, which will be found in the published opinions of the Attorney-Generals.

It was this former attorney for the association, with which Judge Watrous was connected, who was called to his aid when pressed by the investigation before the committee of the House, and who acted as his counsel and defender throughout that emergency. I mention this only to illustrate the ramifications and varieties of the influences brought to sustain Judge Watrous whenever occasion required, and the extent of which baffles imagination, and leaves us at a loss what to conjecture.

I will here bring to the notice of this honorable body a letter addressed by one of the managers of Peters colony grant to Judge Watrous after his elevation to the bench:

"Louisville, Kentucky, January 15, 1847.

"Dear Sir:—I am just in receipt of your letter of the 22d ultimo, and upon presenting it to the trustees of the company who manage its affairs, they instructed me to say to you that the transfer of their cause by you to Messrs. Johnson and Hale, meets their entire approbation. Relying upon their knowledge of your own ability to select for them, they have addressed a note to Messrs. J. and H., but if it should not reach them, please do us the favor to say to them that their selection is satisfactory, and that we hope they will investigate the matter thoroughly for trial. Our agent in the grant, upon whom the process will be served, is Mr. Henry O. Hedgecoxe, McGarrah's post-office, Texas—the county I do not know, as the grant has been divided within a year into three counties. If they require any information from us, we shall promptly give it to them. I am pleased to learn that you have received and accepted the appointment of judge of the Federal court of Texas. I do you but justice when 1 say that I believe, from the reputation you have among those whom I know to be competent to decide, that you deserved the appointment; and I am also satisfied that, if our case should come before you, we shall have both law and justice rendered us, so far as it is dependent on your decision.

"Please accept my best thanks for your attention and communication, and believe ine, very respectfully, etc.,

The fact is thus revealed that Judge Watrous had been counsel in this case before going on the bench, and that in assuming the judicial office, he had turned over the business he had been managing to Hale and Johnson, the attorneys he had imported into Texas to aid in the accomplishment of his purposes. The writer of this letter, one of the persons who had employed the judge in this case, congratulates him on his promotion to the bench, and says:

"I am also satisfied that if our case should come before you, that we shall have both law and justice rendered to us, so far as it is dependent upon your decision."

Thus writes the client to his lawyer who had been made judge, and who is congratulated on the justice with which he will decide the case in which he had been counsel.

It may well be imagined v/hat influences this conspiracy must have possessed itself of and wielded for evil, when it is seen how a memorialist who dared to ask for the impeachment of Judge Watrous has been hunted, traduced, and threatened, to deter him from the prosecution of his remedy before Congress. Leading presses have been subsidized to devote their columns to his abuse, and to the circulation of absurd slanders. Great influences must certainly have been employed to procure this wholesale and unqualified personal abuse, when we reflect upon the indorsements Mr. Mussina has received with respect to the truth and justice of his complaints. The assertion of his wrongs has been sustained by the unanimous report of one committee of Congress; the findings of this committee have again been indorsed by a moiety of the present House Judiciary Committee, and those of this committee who dissented have been willing to admit that they had not examined the charges assigned by Mussina with care. With such indorsements of his verity, and the fact being considered, too, that the judge he accuses had been previously charged by the sovereign State itself, what influences may we not imagine to have been employed to so pervert the truth?

In the history I have stated of the conspiracies, collusions, and frauds in which Judge Watrous was an active party, I have not attempted to comprehend all the malfeasances of the judge. The record of these might be greatly extended. But I have only intended to give a sketch of the most prominent and notorious of his misdeeds. In doing this I think I may claim that I have not indulged in mere assertions, nor in any statements, unless sustained and accompanied by the evidence. I think that I have not commented with violence upon any of the revelations of the judge's offenses. I have had no disposition to indulge in denunciations, and I have sought only to marshal the facts for the calm consideration and judgment of this honorable body. With respect to the malfeasance of the judge in the cases of Mussina and Spencer, I have been governed in my statements by the letter of the testimony taken by the House committee in the investigation of his conduct. I have followed this testimony strictly, I believe, and with no other anxiety than that of arriving at those legitimate conclusions of fact which it inevitably leads to and warrants.

In drawing to a close the brief history I have attempted to narrate of the frauds which were conceived, set on foot, and promoted by Judge Watrous and his confederates, a portion of whom, at least, are known, it will be well to make a slight review of the principal facts, so as to hold clearly in the mind correct and proportionate ideas of the vast conspiracy, of the details of which I have spoken at length.

It appears that the company was organized on a scale of most extraordinary extent; and that its ramifications, as far as known, reached from State to State, to the most distant points of the Union, and that, as far as they are unknown, they may well be imagined to extend to existing sources of power anywhere in the country. The objects about which this combination was employed have been shown to have been of the most comprehensive and varied character. But seldom, indeed, has any record of crime offered more convincing proofs of guilt, or displayed more numerous and more ingenious varieties of transgression, than that written in the history of the Watrous conspiracy.

Every object that cupidity could devise, or that fraud could suggest, seems to have been embraced in the designs of this stupendous company. It was its object to plunder the public domain of Texas, to seize upon it by fraud and forgery, and to fasten upon whole communities the most audacious frauds ever sought to be practiced upon State or people.

It was its object to deal in fraudulent land certificates, and to sustain these dealings by corrupting and seducing the courts, thus adding crime to crime. It has been seen that the most open propositions of corruption were made, and the traffic was carried on with the direct countenance and assistance of Judge Watrous, whose agent explored the bar-rooms and groggeries of the State for customers.

It was its object to conceal their operations, and especially to remove them from the action of Texan juries. For this service it has been shown how the machinery of Judge Watrous' court was employed, and how in that court the great suit of Phalen vs. Herman, seeking to substantiate these worthless certificates, was instituted, and removed out of the State in less than seventy-two hours, and that done out of term-time.

It was its object to plunder private property, and to secure to its members vast bodies of lands in Texas, and to despoil the settlers of their just and hard-earned rights.

It was its object to acquire interests in land within the jurisdiction of Judge Watrous' court; to further these speculations by the corrupt use of that court; and through its protection to escape responsibility to Texas juries.

It was its object to have the federal court absolutely subservient to its designs; and for this purpose servile juries were sought to be selected, and an order made by Judge Watrous to exclude from jury duty citizens of four counties, which counties embraced the chief portion of the company's known field of operations.

It was its object to impose upon the courts a forged muniment of title to a vast estate, and to sustain the forgery by perjured and purchased testimony. The whole history of the forged power of attorney is overwhelming in its evidence of the black and redoubled crime of Judge Watrous and his confederates, in seeking to sustain a forgery of the most monstrous description, by devices of fraud, by bolder acts of bribery, and, at last, by direct subornation of perjury.

It was its object to betray suitors in Judge Watrous' court, by collusion between the court and counsel, and between opposite counsel, and to divide out among themselves the gains.

It was its object to oppose all unfriendly parties who attempted to sue in the federal court, and, through the favor of this judge, to practice revenge upon them, to strip them of their rights and to mock them.

All these stupendous and vile objects were sought to be accomplished through the subserviency of Judge Watrous' court, and by the aid of the corrupt appliances he possessed. The whole conspiracy centered in him; and for the sum of all its wrongful acts he is to be held responsible.

How shall this fearful responsibility be exacted? This honorable body can not do it; it can not administer the punishment, or series of punishments, that the black record calls for. But although it can not visit a felon's doom upon the culprit, it may banish him from the offices of the State. The least it can do is to deprive of further opportunities of further wrongs a judge who has disgraced his station and defiled his ermine and stricken dismay in the hearts of the people. This is all that is asked for: simply that Judge Watrous' opportunities, as a judicial officer, of continuing with impunity his offenses, may be limited by the passing of the bill I have offered. And in making this least request, I appeal for your compliance in the name of a noble, outraged people; and in the name of interests which are even higher in their appeal to you — those of the honor of this Government as residing in the character of our federal judiciary.

Mr. President, I shall for only a few moments longer occupy the attention of the Senate. This has been a most extraordinary case. It is one that appeals to the integrity, to the consideration, and to the reflection of the Senate. These disclosures of criminality, the evidence furnished by his confederates, the extraordinary character of his judicial decisions, his tyranny, his unprecedented despotism in judicial action — all these things seem to present it as the only alternative that we should get rid of this man in some way.

Why, sir, the temptations of twenty-four million acres of public domain and the corrupting influences of a combination so extensive and extraordinary as this has been, are calculated to engulf all the interests of the State. There is a mode of remedy that has heretofore been resorted to, and can be again. By consolidating the two judicial districts of Texas into one, we can get rid of this intolerable incubus; we can divest ourselves of this calamity. Texas, in all that she has ever felt in her days of extreme excitement to the present day, has never felt so keenly the afflictions of revolution as she feels this moral curse and this judicial iniquity upon her. She has passed through many trials, but none that compare to this. This promises an interminable duration: we know not when we are to get rid of it. Twenty-four million acres of land ! there is magic in its sound — magic in the number of acres. It is a kingdom; it is an empire worth fighting for; and it will be fought for; and it admits of divisions and subdivisions. Where it is to go, through what ramifications it is to run, no one knows. No one knows the artifice that is now used, and the means that are to be employed in these and other speculations in Texas referred to. Sir, rid us of this man; give us an honest judicial officer. The people of Texas, of AngloSaxon descent, are an honest people. It is that which causes them to feel this curse with tenfold wretchedness. They are not capricious. No other people, with the manifest outrages that have been there committed, would tolerate this man to sit on a judicial bench, and to remain in a position where he could soil his ermine, and attach infamy to his office. Sir, our people have been always submissive to law, or enough of them to maintain the solidity of our community; and though men have gone there in other days — and I was among the first emigrants— who may not have lived here under the most favorable and delightful circumstances, yet they have united all their energies, they have made themselves a people, and they deserve to be considered as such.

The gentlemen who have thought proper to reflect on their character, and even this judge himself, would find that they themselves would come up to a very low standard of Texan morality, I insist that we be relieved from this judicial monster, that has disgraced the judicial system of our Government more than any man has ever before done, and whose crimes are but partially exposed to the public, notwithstanding he has sunk deep, deep in the slough of infamy. I wish this bill read.

SPEECH REFUTING CALUMNIES PRODUCED AND CIRCULATED AGAINST HIS CHARACTER AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMY OF TEXAS.

Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 28, 1859.

Mr. Houston. Within a very few days, Mr. President, my political life will terminate. Previous to that event, I deem it due to myself, and to the truth of history, as well as to posterity, that I should be indulged in vindicating myself against uncalled-for charges and unjustifiable defamation. Were it necessary, in retiring from official position, to cite illustrious examples for such a course, I could cite that of General Washington, who felt it necessary, with his large, his immeasurable renown, to offer a refutation of anonymous calumnies which had been circulated against him, and to specify the particular facts in relation to them. I find, too, that General Jackson, in his lifetime, deemed it proper to file a vindication of himself, which was not disclosed until after his decease. Not wishing to place myself in a category with these illustrious men, I nevertheless feel that it is due to myself that I should vindicate my character from the attacks that have been made upon me. Within the next month, I shall have served my country, with few intervals, for a period of forty-six years. How that service has been performed, 1 leave to posterity to determine. My only desire is, that truth shall be vindicated, and that I may stand upon that foundation, so far as posterity may be concerned with my action, that they may have an opportunity of drawing truthful deductions. Either of the illustrious patriots referred to might have spared much of their world-renowned distinction, and yet have had a world-wide fame left. More humble in my sphere than they were, more circumscribed than they, I feel that it is the more necessary for me to vindicate what may justly attach to me, from the fact that I leave a posterity, and from that circumstance I feel a superadded obligation. Neither of those illustrious men left posterity. I shall leave a posterity that have to inherit either my good name, based upon truth, or that which necessarily results to a character that is not unspotted in its public relations. I have been careless of replying to these things for years. I believe no less than ten or fifteen books have been written defamatory of me, and I had hoped, having passed them with very little observation, that, as I approached the close of my political term, and was about to retire to the shades of private life, I should be permitted to enjoy that retirement in tranquillity; that my defamers would not pursue me there with the rancor and hatred with which they pursue an aspiring- politician whom they wish to sink or depress. I could see no reason for their continued efforts to detract from my fairly-earned reputation.

Mr. President, these were fond anticipations, and they were delightful to cherish. I entertained them with cordiality; they were welcome to my heart. But I find recently, and that is it to which my observation is immediately directed, a production purporting to be a Texas Almanac, which contains what is said to be a narrative of the "campaign of San Jacinto." It has a name attached to it, and purports to be taken from the diary of a gentleman who has the prefix of "Doctor" to his name, to give it weight in society. The individual is unknown. He is a poor dupe, ignorant, I presume, of the contents of the paper which bears his name. It is possible that he never knew a word it contained. It would be difficult to think otherwise; for one avenue to his understanding, he being profoundly deaf, has for many years been closed, and he has given a positive contradiction to the parts of his paper that were considered the most pointed and important.

The object was to assail my reputation, and to show that the battle of San Jacinto, and all the preceding acts of generalship connected with that event, had been forced upon the General, and that really, on that occasion, he had acted with a delicacy unbecoming a rugged soldier. This is the design. How far it will be successful, I do not pretend to say; but it is strange that such a mass of this work should be produced. I perceive that no less than twenty-five thousand copies of it are- to be circulated in the character of a book. It would be rather imposing, bound in cloth or leather, but in paper it is not so very important; but still there is something very ostenisibIe about it.

My object, on this occasion, will be to show the true state of facts connected with that campaign, and with the wars of Texas. It is a subject which I had hoped was passed by forever, and would never again come under review, particularly my having had any connection with it. I had desired that it would cease forever, so far as I was concerned, and that I should never be placed in a position in which I should seem to be fighting my battles over again. They have not been so numerous, or so illustrious, that I should recall them with any more pleasure than that which arises from having rendered yeoman service to my country, and rendered every duty that patriotism demanded. I had hoped, therefore, that I should be spared this occasion of presenting myself before the public. In treating of the subject now, I will speak of the General and Commander-in-chief in the third person, for I do not like the pronoun I, so often repeated as would otherwise be necessary, and I shall give it that character which I think will be most seemly and acceptable.

It is necessary, in the first place, to announce the fact that, on the 2d of March, 1836, the declaration of Texan independence was proclaimed. The condition of the country at that time I will not particularly explain; but a provisional government had existed previous to that time. In December, 1835, when the troubles first began in Texas, in the inception of its revolution, Houston was appointed Major-General of the forces by the consultation then in session at San Felipe. He remained in that position. A delegate from each municipality, or what would correspond to counties here, was to constitute a Government, with a Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Council. They had the power of the country. An army was requisite, and means were necessary to sustain the revolution. This was the first organization of anything like a Government, which absorbed the power that had previously existed in committees of vigilance and safety in different sections of the country. When the general was appointed, his first act was to organize a force to repel an invading army which he was satisfied would advance upon Texas. A rendezvous had been established, at which the drilling and organization of the troops was to take place, and officers were sent to their respective posts for the purpose of recruiting men. Colonel Fannin was appointed at Matagorda, to superintend that district, second in command to the General-in-chief; and he remained there until the gallant band from Alabama and Georgia visited that country. They were volunteers under Colonels Ward, Shackleford, Duvall, and other illustrious names. When they arrived, Colonel Fannin, disregarding the orders of the Commander-in-chief, became, by countenance of the council, a candidate for commander of the volunteers. Some four or five hundred of them had arrived, all equipped and disciplined; men of intelligence, men of character, men of chivalry and of honor. A more gallant band never graced the American soil in defense of liberty. He was selected; and the project of the council was to invade Matamoras, under the auspices of Fannin. San Antonio had been taken in 1835. Troops were to remain there. It was a post more than sev'enty miles from any colonies or settlements by the Americans. It was a Spanish town or city, with many thousand population, and very few Americans. The Alamo was nothing more than a church, and derived its cognomen from the fact of its being surrounded by poplars or cotton-wood trees. The Alamo was known as a fortress since the Mexican revolution in 1S12. The troops remained at Bexar until about the last of December.

The council, without the knowledge of the Governor, and without the concurrence of the Commander-in-chief of the army, had secretly sent orders authorizing Grant and others to invade Matamoras, some three hundred miles, I think, through an uninhabited country, and thereby to leave the Alatno in a defenseless position. They marched off, and left only one hundred and fifty effective men, taking some two hundred with them. Fannin was to unite with them from the mouth of the Brazos, at Copano, and there the two forces were to unite under the auspices of Colonel Fannin, and were to proceed to Matamoras and take possession of it. The enemy, in the meantime, were known to be advancing upon Texas, and they were thus detaching an inefficient force, which, if it had been concentrated, would have been able to resist all the powers of Mexico combined. The Commander-in-chief was ordered by the Governor to repair immediately to Goliad, and if the expedition surreptitiously ordered by the council should proceed to Matamoras, to take charge of it. Under his conduct it was supposed that something might be achieved, or at least disaster prevented.

The council, on the 7th of January, passed an edict creating Fannin and Johnson military agents, and investing them with all the power of the country, to impress property, receive troops, command them, appoint subordinates throughout the country, and effectually supersede the Commander-in-chief in his authority. As I said before, he was ordered to repair to Copano. He did so. While at Goliad, he sent an order to Colonel Neill, who was in command of the Alamo, to blow up that place and fall back to Gonzales, making that a defensive position, which was supposed to be the furthest boundary the enemy would ever reach.

This was on the 17th of January. That order was secretly superseded by the council; and Colonel Travis, having relieved Colonel Neill, did not blow up the Alamo, and retreat with such articles as were necessary for the defense of the country; but remained in possession from the 17th of January until the last of February, when the Alamo was invested by the force of Santa Anna. Surrounded there, and cut off from all succor, the consequence was they were destroyed; they fell victims to the ruthless feelings of Santa Anna, by the contrivance of the council, and in violation of the plans of the Major-General for the defense of the country.

What was the fate of Johnson, of Ward, and of Morris? They had advanced beyond Copano previous to forming a junction with Fannin, and they were cut off. Fannin subsequently arrived, and attempted to advance, but fell back to Goliad. When the Alamo fell, he was at Goliad. King's command had been left at Refugio, for the purpose of defending some families, instead of removing them. They were invested there; and Ward, with a battalion of the gallant volunteers of whom I have spoken, was sent to relieve King; but he was annihilated. Fannin was in Goliad. Ward, in attempting to come back, had become lost or bewildered. The Alamo had fallen. On the 4th of March the Commander-in-chief was re-elected by the convention, after having laid down his authority. He hesitated for hours before he would accept the situation. He had anticipated every disaster that befell the country, from the detached condition of the troops, under the orders of the council, and the inevitable destruction that awaited them; and to this effect had so reported to the Governor, on the 4th of February.

When he assumed the command what was his situation? Had he aid and succor? He had conciliated the Indians by treaty whilst he v/as superseded by the unlawful edicts of the council. He had conciliated thirteen bands of Indians, and they remained amicable throughout the struggle of the revolution. Had they not been conciliated, but turned loose upon our people, the women and children would have perished in their flight arising from panic. After treaty with the Indians he attended the conventions, anrl acted in the deliberations of that body, signing the declaration of independence, and was there elected. When he started to the army, the only ho|)e of Texas remained then at Gonzales. Men with martial spirit, with well-nerved arms and gallant hearts, had hastily rallied there as the last hope of Texas. The Alamo was known to be in siege. Fannin was known to be embarrassed. Ward, also, and Morris and Johnson, destroyed. All seemed to bespeak calamity of the most direful character. It was under those circumstances that the general started; and what was his escort? A general-in-chief, you would suppose, was at least surrounded by a staff of gallant men. It would be imagined that some prestige ought to be given to him. He was to produce a nation; he was to defend a people; he was to command the resources of the country, and he must give character to the army. He had, sir, two aides-de-camp, one captain, and a youth. This was his escort in marching to the headquarters of the army, as it was called. The provisional government had become extinct; self-combustion had taken place, and it was utterly consumed.

The general proceeded on his way and met many fugitives. The day on which he left Washington, the 6th of March, the Alamo had fallen. He anticipated it; and marching to Gonzales as soon as practicable, though his health was infirm, he arrived there on the 11th of March. He found at Gonzales three hundred and seventy-four men, half fed, half clad, and half armed, and without organization. That was the nucleus on which he had to form an army and defend the country. No sooner did he arrive than he sent a dispatch to Colonel Fannin, fifty-eight miles, which would reach him in thirty hours, to fall back. He was satisfied that the Alamo had fallen. Colonel Fannin was ordered to fall back from Goliad, twenty-five miles to Victoria, on the Guadaloupe, thus placing him within striking distance of Gonzales, for he had only to march twenty-five miles to Victoria to be on the east side of the Colorado, with the only succor hoped for by the general. He received an answer from Colonel Fannin, stating that he had received his order; had held a council of war, and that he had determined to defend the place, and called it Port Defiance, and had taken the responsibility to disobey the order.

Under these circumstances, the confirmation of the fall of the Alamo reached the general. Was it policy to give battle there against an overwhelming force, flushed with victory and the massacre of the Alamo? Was it wisdom in him to put upon the hazard of a die three hundred and seventy-lour men, in the condition in which his troops were, against ten thousand choice, victorious troops of Mexico, backed by a nation of eight million people, when he had only to rely upon the voluntary casualties that might exist to sustain him? What did he do when he first went there? He ordered every wagon but one to be employed in transporting the women and children from the town of Gonzales, and had only four oxen and a single wagon, as he believed, to transport all the baggage and munitions of war belonging to Texas at that point. That was all he had left. He had provided for the women and children; and every female and child left but one, whose husband had just perished in the Alamo; and, disconsolate, she would not consent to leave there until the rear-guard was leaving the place, but invoked the murderous hand of the Mexicans to fall upon and destroy her and her children.

Though the news of the fall of the Alamo arrived at eight or nine o'clock at night, that night, by eleven o'clock, the Commander-in-chief had everything in readiness to march, though panic raged, and frenzy seized upon many; and though it took all his personal influence to resist the panic and bring them to composure, with all the encouragement he could use, he succeeded. An example of composure himself, he at last got the excitement allayed, but not until twenty-five persons had deserted and carried panic with them to the eastern section of the country, as far as the Sabine, announcing the fall and massacre of the Alamo, and the massacre of the troops. He fell back, but fell back in good order.

An incident that I will mention, of the most unpleasant character, occurred on leaving Gonzales. On that night, about twelve miles from there, it was announced to the general that the Mexicans would suffer; that a barrel of gin and a barrel of wine had been poisoned with arsenic, and that, as they came to consume it, it would destroy them. I presume no man ever had such feelings of horror at a deed being perpetrated of this kind, from which all the waters of the Jordan could not cleanse the reputation of a general. But, fortunately, the rear-guard, without ditection, set fire to the place on leaving it, and at Peach creek, fifteen miles from that place, ere day dawned, explosions were heard which produced some excitement in camp, where it was supposed to be the enemy's artillery; but the general rejoiced in it, as he knew, from the difference in the explosion, that it was not artillery, but the poisoned liquor. That is one incident that occurred, among other distressing events.

At Peach creek, fifteen miles from Gonzales, he met a reinforcement of one hundred and twenty-five men; but out of these one hundred and twenty-five men, ere morning, twenty-five had again deserted, owing to the terrible details that were brought of the massacre of the Alamo. With that addition, his force only amounted to four hundred and seventy-four men that remained with him. The next day he met a detachment of thirty-five men, and anticipating that he would make a stand at the Colorado, as he found it impossible to make a stand, at Gonzales, appointed an aide-de-camp, Major William T. Austin, and dispatched him for artillery to the mouth of the Brazos, for the purpose of enabling him, on arriving at the Colorado, to make a stand—for he had not a single piece of ordnance, not a cartridge, or a ball. The aide-de-camp departed with an assurance that within seven or eight days he would have it on the Colorado, at Beason's. In the meantime, and to show that the general was not a fugitive, or that he was not disposed to expose any one to hazard, he was informed on the Nevada, fifteen miles from the Colorado, that a blind woman, with six children, had been passed by, as she was not residing on the road, but off at a distance. He immediately ordered two of his aides-de-camp, with a company of men, to go and bring her up, and made a dilatory march until she joined them on the west side of the Colorado. He then halted at the Colorado for days, until the last hoof and the last human being that was a fugitive had passed over. He had permitted none to remain behind, exposed to the ruthless enemy.

There he remained, until the news of Fannin's disaster came. Fannin, after disobeying orders, attempted on the 19th to retreat, and had only twenty-five miles to reach Victoria. His opinions of chivalry and honor were such that he would not avail himself of the night to do it in, although he had been admonished by the smoke of the enemies' encampment for eight days previous to attempting a retreat. He then attempted to retreat in open day. The Mexican cavalry surrounded him. He halted in a prairie, without water; commenced a fortification, and there was surrounded by the enemy, who, from the hill-tops, shot down upon him. Though the most gallant spirits were there with him, he remained in that situation all that night, and the next day, when a flag of truce was presented; he entered into a capitulation, and was taken to Goliad, on a promise to be returned to the United States with all associated with him. In less than eight days the attempt was made to massacre him and every man with him. I believe some few did escape, most of whom came afterward and joined the army.

The general fell back from the Colorado. The artillery had not yet arrived. He had every reason to believe that the check given to General Sesma, opposite to his camp on the west side of the Colorado, would induce him to send for reinforcements, and that, Fannin having been massacred, a concentration of the enemy would necessarily take place, and that an overwhelming force would soon be upon him. He knew that one battle must be decisive of the fate of Texas. If he fought a battle, and many of his men were wounded, he could not transport them, and he would be compelled to sacrifice the army to the wounded. He determined to fall back, and did so, and on falling back received an accession of three companies that had been ordered from the mouth of the Brazos. He heard no word of the artillery, for none had reached there, nor did it ever start for the army, and it was years before he knew that his orders had been countermanded, and his aide-de-camp withdrawn from him. He wishes to cast no reflection upon the dead. I shall not enter into that, but the general's orders were not executed; they were countermanded; and the opportunity of obtaining artillery was cut off from him. He marched, and took position on the Brazos, with as much expedition as was consistent with his situation; but at San Felipe he found a spirit of dissatisfaction in the troops. The Government had removed east. It had left Washington and gone to Harrisburg, and the apprehension of the settlers had been awakened and increased rather than decreased. The spirits of the men were bowed down. Hope seemed to have departed, and with the little band alone remained anything like a consciousness of strength.

At San Felipe objection was made to marching up the Brazos. It was said that settlements were down below, and persons interested were there. Oxen could not be found for the march, in the morning, of a certain company. The general directed that they should follow as soon as oxen were collected. He marched up the Brazos, and, crossing Mill Creek, encamped there. An express was sent to him, asking his permission for that company to go down the Brazos to Fort Bend, and to remain there. Knowing that it arose from a spirit of sedition, he granted that permission, and they marched down. On the Brazos, the efficient force under his command amounted to five hundred and twenty. He remained there from the last of March until the 13th of April. On his arrival at the Brazos he found that the rains had been excessive. He had no opportunity of operating against the enemy. They marched to San Felipe, within eighteen miles of him, and would have been liable to surprise at any time, had it not been for the High waters of the Brazos, which prevented him from marching upon them by surprise. Thus, he was pent up. The portion of the Brazos in which he was became an island. The water had not been for years so high.

On arriving at the Brazos, he found that the Yellow Stone, a very respectable steamboat, had gone up the river for the purpose of transporting cotton. She was seized by order of the general, to enable him, if necessary, to pass the Brazos at any moment, and was detained with a guard on board. She remained there for a number of days. The general had taken every precaution possible to prevent the enemy from passing the Brazos below. He had ordered every craft to be destroyed on the river. He knew that the enemy could not have constructed raits and crossed; but, by a ruse, they obtained the only boat that was in that part of the country where a command was stationed. They came and spoke English. The boat was sent over, and the Mexicans surprised the boatmen and took possession of it. There on the east side of the river retreated, and thus Santa Anna obtained an opportunity of transporting his artillery and army across the Brazos. The general anticipated that something of the kind must have taken place, because his intelligence from San Felipe was, that all was quiet there. The enemy had kept up a cannonade on the position across the river, where over one hundred men were stationed. The encampment on the Brazos was the point at which the first piece of artillery was ever received by the army. They were without munitions; old horse-shoes, anri all pieces of iron thiat could be procured had to be cut up; various things were to be provided; there were no cartridges, and but few balls. Two small six-pounders, presented by the magnanimity of the people of Cincinnati, and subsequently called the " twin sisters," were the first pieces of artillery that were used in Texas. From thence, the march commenced at Donoho's, three miles from Groce's. It had required several days to cross the Brazos with the horses and wagons.

General Rusk had arrived in camp on the 4th of April. He was then Secretary of War—Colonel Rusk—and as a friend of the Commander-in-chief, he was received. He was superseded, and Mr. Thomas was acting Secretary of War. He remained with the army. The Commander-in-chief camped three miles from the Brazos timber, and with unusual vigilance preserved the forces together, only a few deserting. They were then east of the Brazos, and the settlements were east of them. He remained only that night. The road from San Felipe, situated below the army on the Brazos, led to eastern Texas or the Sabine. The road to Harrisburg crossed it at right angles going south. The general had provided a guide acquainted with the country, as it was a portion in which he had never been. The morning came. Arrangements were made early. Some embarrassments arose for want of animals for artillery; but soon they were in readiness, and as the troops filed out in the direction of Harrisburg, without an intimation being given to any one, two companies that had been stationed at San Felipe, and below that, on the Brazos, and ordered to concentrate at Donoho's, arrived. The officers were sullen and refractory; they had "not eaten." Some conversation took place. They asked if no fighting was to be done. They were told fighting was to be done; they need not be uneasy about that; the enemy have crossed below. At that moment a negro came up and said he had been made a prisoner by the enemy and was released, and announced the fact that Santa Anna had crossed the Brazos and was marching to Harrisburg. These companies were ordered into line. One of them obeyed; the other objected to going, as they had had no refreshments. The whole management, and the entire responsibility of every movement at that time, devolved upon the general. He told the refractory captain, whom he had known for many years, to march directly to the Trinity and protect the women and children if the Indians should prove turbulent; and, at all events, to kill beef for them, and see that their supplies were sufficient. The general acted upon no orders given to him during the campaign; but assumed the sole responsibility of all his acts.

The march to Harrisburg was effected through the greatest possible difficulties. The prairies were quagmired. The contents of the wagons had to be carried across the bogs, and the empty wagons had to be assisted in aid of the horses. No less than eight impediments in one day had to be overcome in that way. Notwithstandmg that, the remarkable success of the march brought the army in a little time to Harrisburg, opposite which it halted. Deaf Smith, known as such—his proper name was Erasmus Smith—had gone over by rafts with other spies, and, after crossing, arrested two couriers and brought them into camp. Upon them was found a buckskin wallet, containing dispatches of General Filosola to General Santa Anna, as well as from Mexico, and thereby we were satisfied that Santa Anna had marched to San Jacinto with the elite of his army, and we resolved to push on. Orders were given by the general immediately to prepare rations for three days, and to be at an early hour in readiness to cross the bayou. The next morning we find that the Commander-in-chief addressed a note in pencil to Colonel Henry Raguet, of Nacogdoches, in these words:

"Camp at Harrisburg, April 19, 1836.

"Sir:-— This morning we are in preparation to meet Santa Anna. It is the only chance of saving Texas. From time to time I have looked for reinforcements in vain. The convention adjourning to Harrisburg struck panic throughout the country. Texas could have started at least four thousand men. We will only have about seven hundred to march with, besides the camp guard. We go to conquer. It is wisdom, growing out of necessity, to meet the enemy now; every consideration enforces it. No previous occasion would justify it. The troops are in fine spirits, and now is the time for action."

••••••••••

"We shall use our best efforts to fight the enemy to such advantage as will insure victory, though odds are greatly against us. I leave the result in the hands of a wise God, and rely upon His providence.

"My country will do justice to those who serve her. The rights for which we fight will be secured, and Texas free."

This letter was signed by the Commander-in-chief.

A crossing was effected by the evening, and the line of march was taken up. The force amounted to a little over seven hundred men. The camp guard remained opposite Harrisburg. The cavalry had to swim across the bayou, which is of considerable width and depth General Rusk remained with the army on the west side. The Commander-in-chief stepped into the first boat of the pioneers, swam his horse with the boat, and took position on the opposite side, where the enemy were, and continued there until the army crossed. The march was then taken up. A few minutes, or perhaps an hour or so of daylight only remained. The troops continued to march until the men became so exhausted and fatigued that they were falling against each other in the ranks, and some falling down from exhaustion. The general ordered a halt after marching a short distance from the road to secure a place in a chaparral. The army rested for perhaps two hours, when, at the tap of the drum given by the general, they were again on their feet, and took up the line of march for San Jacinto, for the purpose of cutting off Santa Anna below the junction of the San Jacinto and Buffalo bayou. It was necessary for Santa Anna to cross the San Jacinto to unite with the Mexicans in Nacogdoches county, and incite the Indians to war. Santa Anna had provided a boat through the instrumentality of Texans who had joined him, and was in readiness to cross. He had marched down to New Washington, some seven or eight miles below the San Jacinto, and was returning to take up his march eastward. After sunrise some time, the army having halted to slaughter beeves and refresh, the signal was given that our scouts had encountered those of the enemy; eating was suspended, everything packed, and we were on the march. We marched down to the ferry of San Jacinto, and there halted. There was no word of the enemy. About half a mile or a mile up the bayou, where the timber commenced, we fell back and formed an encampment in the timber, so as to give security from the brow of the hill, as well as the timber that covered it, at the same time running up the boat which he had provided, and securing it in the rear of our encampment.

That was the position taken. The artillery was planted in front, for it had never been fired, and the enemy were really not apprised that we had a piece. The troops were secured so as to expose none but the few artillerists to view. There were but eighteen of them, and nine were assigned to each place. The enemy, within about three hundred yards, I think, took position with their artillery and infantry, and opened fire from a twelve-pounder. It continued until evening. It did no execution, however, with the exception of one shot. Colonel Neill, of the artillery, was wounded, though not mortally. That was the only injury we sustained. At length Santa Anna ordered his infantry to advance. They were advancing, when our artillery was ordered to fire upon them; but they being so much depressed, it passed over their heads and did no injury; but they returned in such haste and confusion to their encampment that it inspirited our troops, and caused the welkin to ring.

Upon our left a company of infantry was, by Santa Anna, posted in an island of timber, within one hundred and fifty yards of our encampment. An officer desired the general to let him charge, which was readily conceded. He wished to, and did, make the charge on horseback, though not in accordance with the general's opinion. It proved a failure; which will be explained hereafter.

The enemy, after receiving some injury from the discharge of our artillery, fell back to the heights of San Jacinto, and commenced fortifying.

In the evening the general ordered a reconnoitering party, under Colonel Sherman, to reconnoiter; but they were ordered not to go within the fire of the enemy's guns, or to provoke an attack; but if he could, by his appearance, decoy them into the direction of a certain island of timber, they would be received there by the artillery and infantry that had been ordered to be in readiness to march to that point. No sooner was he out of sight than a firing commenced, with a view, as Sherman himself declared, to bring on a general action, in violation of the general's orders. Confusion was the result of it. Two men were wounded in our line. A confused retreat took place; and the consequence was that two gallant men were wounded, and one subsequently died of his wounds. This was done in direct violation of the general's orders; for it was not his intention to bring on a general action that day. The guards that night were doubled. The next day, about nine o'clock, troops were discovered advancing along the prairie ridge, in the direction of the Mexican encampment, which produced some excitement. The general, not wishing the impression to be received that they were reinforcements, suggested that it was a ruse of the Mexicans: that they were the same troops that were seen yesterday; that they were marching around the swell in the prairie for the purpose of display, because they were apprehensive of an attack from the Texans. He sent out two spies secretly—Deaf Smith and Karnes— upon their track; with directions to report to him privately. They did so, and reported that the reinforcement which the enemy had thus received amounted to five hundred and forty.

Things remained without any change until about twelve o'clock, when the general was asked to call a council of war. No council of war had ever been solicited before. It seemed strange to him. What indications had appeared he did not know. The council was called, however, consisting of six field officers officers and the Secretary of War. The proposition was put to the council, "Shall we attack the enemy in position, or receive their attack on ours?" The two junior officers—for such is the way of taking the sense of courts in the army — were in favor of attacking the enemy in position. The four seniors and the Secretary of War, who spoke, said that " to attack veteran troops with raw militia is a thing unheard of; to charge upon the enemy, without bayonets, in an open prairie; had never been known; our situation is strong; in it we can whip all Mexico." Understanding this as the sense of the council, the general dismissed them. They went to their respective places.

In the morning the sun had risen brightly, and he determined with this omen, "To-day the battle shall take place." In furtherance of that, he walked to the bayou near where he had lain on the earth without covering, and after bathing his face, he sent for the Commissary-general, Colonel Forbes, and ordered him to procure two axes, and place them at a particular tree, which he designated in the margin of the timber. He sent for Deaf Smith, and told him at his peril not to leave the camp that day without orders; that he would be wanted, and for him to select a companion in whom he had unbounded reliance. Kis orders were obeyed. After ihe council was dismissed the general sent for Deaf Smith and his comrade. Reeves, who came mounted, when he gave them the axes so as not to attract the attention of the troops. They placed them in their saddles, as Mexicans carry swords and weapons, and started briskly for the scene of action. The general announced to them: "You will be speedy if you return in time for the scenes that are to be enacted here." They executed the order, and when the troops with the general were within sixty yards of the enemy's front, when charging, Deaf Smith returned and announced that the bridge was cut down. It had been preconcerted to announce that the enemy had received no reinforcement. It was announced to the army for the first time; for the idea that the bridge would be cut down was never thought of by any one but the general himself, until he ordered it to be done, and then only known to Smith and his comrade. It would have made the army polemics if it had been known that Vince's bridge was to be destroyed, for it cut off all means of escape for either army. There was no alternative but victory or death. The general who counsels will find, that in the "multitude of counsel there is confusion." It has been denied that the bridge was cut down by order of the general. It was said to be the promptings of Deaf Smith. It has been in these latter days that these calumnies are circulated. I will show, I think, from very good authority, that it has remained uncontradicted for nearly twenty years; for here it is. It was announced in the official report of the battle, in which the commanding general says:

"At half-past three o'clock in the evening I ordered the officers of the Texan army to parade their respective commands, having, in the meantime, ordered the bridge on the only road communicating with the Brazos, distant eight miles from our encampment, to be destroyed, thus cutting off all possibility of escape."

"I ordered them " is the language that is used in the official report of the general, that has remained uncontroverted until this time. It will be discovered, from incontestable evidence of the most honorable and brave amongst men, that the individual who gave origin to this calumny, was the very identical creature who proved recreant on the field. The Commander-in-chief, however, felt no disposition to censure any one. He felt that there should be an amnesty in

consideration of the glorious results of the battle. He wished not to censure any one, but gave all praise, and gave some too much. I ask the Secretary to read this letter.

The Secretary read as follows:

"Washington, September 17, 1841.

"Dear Sir:—You wish to know of me, what I know of the conduct of Colonel Sidney Sherman, before and after the battle of San Jacinto. On our march to that place. Colonel Sherman often asked me if I had heard you speak of him. I informed him that I had heard you speak of him, and always in the highest terms of praise. I thought he looked disappointed. There was mutiny and discontent in the army, created, as I believed, by those who wished to put you down; and I believed that Colonel Sherman was one of the most active in creating disturbance, as I will have occasion to show.

"Various councils were held on the Brazos, as well as on the march to San Jacinto, for the purpose of opposing or destroying your authority. Colonel Sherman, I am satisfied, was among the most active of those who sought to destroy you. On the 20th of April, the day before the battle of San Jacinto, you gave Colonel Sherman orders to charge on an island of timber, on the left of the artillery, with two companies of his regiment, for the purpose of routing some Mexicans who were in the timber. He wished you to let him charge on horseback, which you reluctantly granted. As he approached the enemy they fired and killed one horse of his command, and the whole command came galloping back to the camp. In the evening, when the enemy had withdrawn to where they fortified, at his request, you ordered Colonel Sherman to take the cavalry and reconnoiter the enemy, and if he could decoy the enemy's cavalry to a certain island of timber, that the artillery and infantry should be there to sustain him, but by no means to approach within gun-shot of the enemy's infantry or line.

"I was present when you gave the orders to Colonel Sherman, and soon after he came to me and asked me if I would sustain him, as he had determined to bring on a general engagement, contrary to your orders. At the same time, the officer with him said he had agreed to sustain him with his command. I replied that I knew it was contrary to your orders to him, for I heard you give them to him; but, if a general engagement was brought on, my regiment would be under arms, and I would support him; for you had ordered me to have the men under arms. He departed, saying he would depend on me. He soon commenced firing after he was out of sight of our camp; and, as it had not been expected from the orders given by you to him, there was great stir in the camp. I started with my command, and in marching a short distance, I saw the cavalry returning with two wounded men. In the meantime, Colonel Wharton, from you, ordered me not to advance, but to wait further orders. You afterward ordered me, with my command, back to our camp, and showed evident dissatisfaction with Sherman for disobeying your orders, in attempting to bring on a general engagement, when you did not intend it should be done. It was then late in the evening of the 20th.

"After the arrival of General Cos' command, next morning (21st), and I think it was between twelve and two o'clock, I was summoned to attend a council of war. I attended with six other field officers, when you told us the object of our being called together. You asked the council 'whether we should attack the enemy, or remain in our position and [let] the enemy attack us.'

"The officer lowest in rank voted first, and so on, tmtil all voted. Only two out of the seven voted for attacking the enemy. The balance voted in favor of awaiting the attack upon us. They said that we had not bayonets to charge with, and that it was through an open prairie; that our position was strong, and in it we could whip all Mexico.

"When you received the sense of the council, you gave no opinion, but dismissed the members. Soon after, I was riding out to graze my horse and take a look at the enemy. You spoke to me, and asked me my object in riding out. I told you, when you said, 'Do not be absent. Colonel, more than thirty minutes, as I will want you.' I did return in less than a half hour; you requested me to see my captains and men, and ascertain their feelings about fighting. I reported favorably, and said they were anxious to fight, or they told many lies. You ordered the troops to be paraded; the second regiment, called Sherman's, as he was Colonel, and myself Lieutenant-Colonel. Soon after you ordered the parade. Colonel Sherman, in company with Colonel Burleson, came to me, and asked me if I intended to obey your orders, and if I did not think it would be better to wait until next morning, just before day, and make the attack. Sherman went on to say that whatever I said should be done. I told him that I would fight, if you said so, and that I would follow you to h——l, if you would lead, in defending Texas. They then left me. When Colonel Sherman and myself were mounted, at the head of the regiment, he asked me if I would take command that day, as I had some experience in fighting, and he never had been_ in a battle. I thanked him kindly, saying that I would do so, and after we were ordered to advance, he rode with me until the enemy commenced firing upon us. Colonel Sherman then left in great haste for a small island of timber, about three hundred yards distant, in the rear of our left wing, where he secured himself, and remained there until the enemy had all fled. As I returned from the pursuit of the enemy, I met him coming up with some stragglers.

"This statement is made principally from notes taken during the campaign, and from facts within my recollection, as though they had passed yesterday. I have forborne to state anything about Colonel Sherman's conduct in disposing of, and appropriating the spoils privately to his own use; but, should it be necessary at any future day to do so, I am fully prepared.

"I am your friend, etc., Joseph L. Bennett.

"General Sam Houston, Washington, Texas."

Mr. Houston. Mr. President, this is one of the gentlemen who have been most active in contributing to the contents of this almanac, as I have been informed, and one to whom the calumny has been traced. This is not the only evidence that I have in relation to that gentleman; and I will make one statement, as it is a fact that is important in relation to the calumnies to which I am responding: that this letter has been in the possession of Colonel Sherman since 1843. He was furnished with a copy of it; and, during several years of Colonel Bennett's life, he never called for explanation, nor did he ever confront Colonel Bennett when he went where he was, but slunk from his presence, and cowered before him. Since his decease, Sherman has been busily engaged in propagating every slander against the Commander-in-chief that malice could devise; and, though challenged and invited to publish (he letter of Colonel Bennett, he has thought proper to rest under all the imputations of cowardice heaped upon him, and finds consolation, I presume, in trying to place others in his own category. Now, as this comes in at this particular point, I have another letter that I think proper to submit. It is very short, and I asked the Secretary to read it.

The Secretary read it, as follows:

"Walker County, November 2, 1857.

"General Houston:—Seeing that you have been attacked by persons on pretense that they have been in the battle of San Jacinto, and wish to injure you by false charges, I feel it my duty to give you a statement of what I know to be correct.

"I joined the army on the Colorado, and in its march to San Jacinto I joined Captain Hayden Arnold's company, of the second regiment, commanded by Colonel Sherman. Captain Arnold's company was the first in the regiment in the charge upon the enemy in battle. I was the fifth or sixth man from Colonel Sherman. While we were advancing upon the enemy's lines, and before any firing had taken place. Colonel Sherman called out in an audible voice, 'Halt.' At that moment Lieutenant-Colonel Bennett, who was close by, hallooed out, 'This is no time to halt; push on, boys, the enemy is right here in this little timber, push on'; and advanced in front of the command. In casting my eye on Colonel Bennett a moment afterward, I saw General Rusk near to him. Colonel Sherman halted where he gave the order ' to halt,' and I never saw him again until after the battle was over. I then saw him coming up in the rear with some stragglers, at the ravine where the army halted in pursuit, and the place from which you ordered Captain Turner's company back to guard the spoils.

"Your obedient servant,Philip Martin.

"General Sam Houston, Huntsville, Texas."

Mr. Houston. This evidence, Mr. President, seems to account for the anxiety that Sherman entertains to place his conduct in such a light as to get rid of the deserved charge of cowardice, and ordering a halt before he fled from the field, and attach the imputation which he deserves, to the Commander-inchief. This is the gratitude he returns. But, Mr. President, it is proper to remark, that previous to the order for the demolition of the bridge, and during the early part of the day, two officers came to the Commander-in-chief and asked him if it would not be well to construct a bridge across the bayou, immediately opposite the encampment, which was, perhaps, some seventy or a hundred yards wide at tide-water. The general, to get rid of them, remarked, "Is there material?" and told them to see. They went, and after returning, reported that, by demolishing Governor Zavala's house, a bridge might be constructed. The general observed to them, that other arrangements might suit better, and cast them off. So soon as the general supposed the bridge was destroyed, or cut down, he ordered Colonel Bennett to go around to the captains and men of Sherman's regiment, to see what their spirits were; whether they were cheerful, and whether he thought them desirous for a battle. Colonel Bennett reported favorably. They were ordered to parade. The plan of battle is described in the official report of the Commander-in-chief, to be found in Yoakum's History, one of the most authentic and valuable books in connection with the general affairs of Texas, that can be found; in which nothing is stated upon individual responsibility; everything in it is sustained by the official documents.

With the exception of the Commander-in-chief, no gentleman in the army had ever been in a general action, or even witnessed one; no one had been drilled in a regular army, or had been accustomed to the evolutions necessary to the maneuvering of troops. So soon as the disposition of the troops was made, according to his judgment, he announced to the Secretary of War the plan of battle. It was concurred in instantly. The Commander-in-chief requested the Secretary of War to take command of the left wing, so as to possess him of the timber, and enable him to turn the right wing of the enemy. The General's plan of battle was carried out. About all the silly and scandalous charges made against the general, as to ordering a halt during the action, and after he was wounded, leaving the field, I will examine the facts, known to the army, and every brave man in it. I will, as authority, refer to the report of the Secretary of War, General Rusk, and see what he says in relation to that. In his report to the President ad interim, he says:

"Major-General Houston acted with great gallantry, encouraging his men to the attack, and heroically charged, in front of the infantry, within a few yards of the enemy, receiving at the same time a wound in his leg."

This is the testimony of General Rusk, in relation to one of the calumnies that have been brought forward and paraded by the maligners of the Commander-in-chief. Again, to show that the General was not laggard throughout the action, we find the attestation of as gallant a man as lives. General Benjamin McCulloch. He says:

" At the battle of San Jacinto, I was in command of one piece of artillery. The fire from it opened upon the enemy about two hundred yards distant. We advanced after each discharge, keeping in advance of the infantry, until we were within less than one hundred yards of their breastworks, at which time I had aimed the gun, but was delayed in firing for a moment by General Houston, who passed across, some thirty yards in front of the gun, and was at that time nearly that distance in advance of every man in that part of the field. After this, I saw him advancing upon the enemy, at least one-third of the distance between the two armies, in front of Colonel Burleson's regiment, when it was not more than seventy or eighty yards from the enemy's breastworks. About this time, the enemy gave way, and the route became general.

"My recollections of the battle of San Jacinto.

"February 28, 1858.Ben. McCulloch."

Now, I merely read these documents to show the refutation which is given to these calumnies, and that they may become a record, and placed in the annals of the country while I am living, and not leave it to other hands to finish a work which Providence has accorded to me. I will, in concluding this point, read the testimony of General Rusk, to show that the Commander-in-chief remained on the field, and continued in pursuit of the enemy until his horse, pierced with five balls, fell under him.

Extract from a letter of General Rusk to William B. Stout, relative to the conduct of General Houston, in the battle of San Jacinto:

"As to the halt spoken of, I know of none ordered by General Houston, except at the bog, or quagmire, after the Mexicans were defeated and in full retreat. At that point, I met with the general for the first time after he was wounded. The men were entangled and in confusion; the General ordered a halt to form the men."'

From this time no hostile gun was fired. The last detachment of the enemy immediately surrendered. This was not in the onset of the action; but when it was over. Mr. Sherman displayed his prudence in the onset of the action, and secured his person beyond the reach of danger. Thus far, Mr. President, I have referred to documentary evidence that may be relied on, to establish the conduct of the general, which may be found in one of the most authentic histories of Texas; one written with good taste, succinct and instructing in its character, and giving a good idea of the object for which it was designed—Yoakum's History of Texas. It is a work with which the Commander-in-chief had no connection, never having seen a page of it in manuscript in his life. His object has not been to write history, or to supervise its composition. His only object has been to vindicate himself against the calumnies that have been brought forward, and got up recently, for the purpose not only of attacking him, but assailing every man who was friendly to him, and that by individuals whose malignity has been bitter; whose hostility to the cause of Texas, and to everything like the establishment of good government, has been notorious and proverbial in Texas. The author of this almanac, Willard Richardson—I must immortalize him—if reports be true, and I have no reason to doubt them, had he been assigned to his proper place, would have been dignified by a penitentiary residence before this time, owing to the peccadilloes with which he was charged. Although they have been smothered and done away with, his character is not vindicated to the world. He still goes on from sin to sin, from abuse to slander. Sir, I have no disposition to animadvert more; but could the characters of these individuals, and the motives which prompted them, be known, it would not have been necessary for me to occupy the time of the Senate on this occasion; or to give a thought to what has transpired, in relation to the Commander-in-chief of the army of Texas. I find, however, that bitter, that undying hostility to him, that will not perish even with his life; and I have no doubt the very creatures that are hunting him now, would hunt him, if they could, beyond the grave. No longer than last night—and I regret, exceedingly, to advert to it—I received a letter from a respectable gentleman in New York, containing an item that I must pay some attention to. I hate these trivial things; but yet they bear an import with them that seems to claim my attention. He says:

"Port Chester, Westchester County, New York,	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$
"February 24, 1859.

"My dear General:— Chagrined and mortified, I sit down to tell you of the burning disgrace that has, this evening, been given to your well-earned fame. Reverend James H. Perry, D.D., of New York, delivered in a lecture in the Methodist Episcopal Church, this evening, the most bitter remarks respecting your bravery and honor that ever passed human lips. The subject was 'The battle of San Jacinto; its causes and consequences.' Mr. Perry informed his large and intelligent audience that he was prompted by patriotic motives to enlist in the Texan cause; that he visited you at your camp, with letters of introduction, and was admitted a member of your staff. Without repeating the details of the battle, in which he took occasion to say that every advance movement of the army was without your consent, and only made by the wiser and more patriotic manifestations of the army, in which you were obliged to acquiesce, he closed by a peroration that astonished and wounded every person present. He said: 'I wish it to be understood, for I speak what I do know, that the battle of San Jacinto was fought, and the victory was achieved, in spite of General Houston, and the wreath that now encircles his brow as the hero of that battle has not in it one green leaf.'

"I would not, my dear general, call your attention to this subject but for the reason that the details of the lecture are to be given elsewhere at the North; and, being a young man at the time the battle was fought, my whole theory of the ' auses and consequences,' and the part taken by yourself, has been utterly destroyed, so far as the reverend doctor could do it. May I inquire if you remember James H. Perry as your aide-de-camp, and what the part he took in the battle of San Jacinto? Your answer will not only gratify me, but hundreds who listened to the defamations of your honored and cherished renown.

"I am, very sincerely, your attached friend,

"General Sam Houston —————.———"

Now, Mr. President, for twelve years this gentleman has been sedulously engaged in defaming the character of the Commander-in-chief, or attempting to do it. I was apprised of it before. Gentlemen of his denomination, of high respectability, assured me that a stop would be put to it. I see that he has broken out in a fresh place. It is necessary that I should give some of my knowledge of his character.

He came to the camp on the Colorado with letters of introduction from the President and other members of the Cabinet to the Commander-in-chief, recommending him as a graduate of West Point, or having been a student there. Being a good-looking gentleman, plausible in his manner, unembarrassed by diffidence, not very cultivated, still would do very well for a soldier or officer, his appearance being fine, the general appointed him a member of his staff. Shortly after, reports came on very detrimental to him. The general was not apprised of them, and ordered him to drill Colonel Burleson's regiment. Colonel Burleson objected to his drilling his regiment, for the reason that he did not consider him a man of good character; that he had come to New Orleans with his wife, or some other woman, as was reported, and taking a free yellow girl from the North, he had attempted to dispose of her, as a slave, in the South, and some difficulties originated from the fact. His "patriotism " that he speaks of, which caused him to enlist in the cause of Texas, I rather suppose, from the influence of disagreeable circumstances, prompted Iiim to seek a refuge in Texas. He came there. That was the reverend gentleman. He continued there, in his position as staff officer, until the arrival of the army on the Brazos.

An order was given by the general that no one should communicate from camp without the communication passing the general's eye; and whenever an express was to leave camp the letters were to be brought to him, so that he might know that nothing detrimental to the army should go out, or that anything necessary to be concealed would be disclosed to the world. An express was about to start. A letter of Major Perry, that then was, was brought to the general. It was sealed. He opened it, and found it contained the grossest defamation and slander of himself; he sent for Major Perry; he gave the letter to the Assistant Inspector-General, and told him to read it to Major Perry; it was so done. Major Perry, when asked by the Commander-in-chief what bethought of it, observed, it was stronger than he imagined, and may be it was wrong. He then said, "Go to your duty, sir; I do not care for all the spies in the world if they will tell the truth."

Perry remained in camp, still attached to the staff, and when they arrived at Harrisburg he passed over Buffalo bayou with the spies. On the march to San Jacinto he was taken under suspicious circumstances—having left the line of the Texans. He was taken by Captain Karnes and private Seacrist, of the spies, and brought to the general. They reported that he had changed his horse's caparison, also his musket for an escopet, and they believed he had communication with the enemy. The general ordered him to be disarmed and sent to the guard fire. Karnes said, "General, are you not going to execute him?"

"No, Karnes," replied the general, "I have no leisure at this time to look into the matter." "Sir," said he, " if we had known that you would not have instantly executed him, you would never have been troubled with him; he is a traitor and a spy."

That was on the 20th. He remained under guard until the morning of the 21st. He sent the general a message, which is not precisely recollected. The general gave orders to restore his arms, giving him an opportunity to wipe off the stigma that he had placed upon his character, and gave him leave to go into the battle; whether he did or not is not known to me. When I heard of his conduct, the general might have apprehended that he would have been the first object for him to assassinate; but he defies a traitor, a spy, or an assassin, if he can confront him. This is the Rev. James H. Perry, D.D. His letter from the Brazos shall be published after I return to Texas. It shall appear in the New York Herald. It will vindicate all I have said.

He says, in his letter from camp, that the general was not in the habit of drinking ardent spirits, but was a confirmed opium-eater. I believe there never was one of them cured, and the general looks very little like an opium-eater. His correspondent was the notorious Robert Potter, of North Carolina, who was Secretary of the Navy in Texas. The general had no hand in making him so. He was the gentleman with whom the reverend doctor corresponded. He acknowledges himself his spy and pimp upon the general, and they were a most worthy pair.

These are some of the circumstances that I have felt it my duty to state in vindication of the Commander-in-chief I think it is a duty that a man owes, after he has passed his life pretty much in the service of his country, and is about to retire from that service, that he should do a little redding up, and arranging of matters which posterity may not so well comprehend without explanation. I will call the attention of the honorable Senate to one fact; and I will ask, why was the council called, and why was it desired? Because the indications were clear that the Commander-in-chief intended that day to engage the enemy; that his arrangements, though silent, indicated his purpose. There were persons who censured his conduct from time to time, and charged him with cowardice. He was charged with retreating from Gonzales, and from the Colorado, and under a pressure of circumstances crossing the Brazos, with a design to cross the Trinity, and go east. Why did they not then call a council to counteract his designs? Why did they not interpose to prevent these things if they believed them? No council of war was asked for until on the eve of battle, and the gentleman who was the first to flee from the field, and who was charged with appropriating the spoils privately, was most active in that council. The spoils are a matter of some import. Is it supposable that Santa Anna, with his Mexican ostentation, would march at the head of the finest army ever marshaled in Mexico and not have with him plate and jewels becoming the condition of a man whose sway was absolute, and whose expectation on his return was to assume the imperial purple and the scepter of the Mexican monarchy? What ever became of these spoils? The Commander-in-chief of the Texas army decreed the spoils to the army. Nor did he ever receive the value of one cent. Colonel Sherman was appointed president of the board to manage and distribute the spoils to the troops. Colonel Bennett has thrown some light upon that subject, and had he been called on by Colonel Sherman, after he charged him with appropriating them, it appears from his letter that he could have given much insight into the affair. Not one dollar's v/orth of the plate was ever produced, but the stragglers who lagged behind had enjoyed the opportunity of concealing them until a better time was afforded to them to carry them away.

They have charged the Commander-in-chief with having more troops than he reported. Seven hundred on the Colorado was the number, according to the statement of Colonel Burleson, as he supposed. The General in-chief never reported more than six hundred and thirty-two; his efficient force never exceeded over seven hundred troops at any one point. At all events, such was the result of the campaign that all the wisdom of man could not have rendered it more successful and beneficial to the country. Had he been drawn into action by indiscretion, and the attempt to force a battle, the bridge at Vince's would not have been cut down, which prevented the escape of the enemy; the enemy would have escaped '. Santa Anna would have reached his reserve force of four thousand men on the Brazos. But by cutting off their retreat, by the Commander-in-chief's own design of destroying the bridge, and leading his troops into action at the proper time, he secured for Texas all that wisdom and valor could have done, whether he exercised them or not.

The Commander-in-chief is charged with receiving orders from the Secretary of War to march upon Harrisburg. He never received an order from the Secretary of War. By reference to this volume, containing the historical facts, it will be seen that he never intimated that he would march toward the Trinity, but gave orders to the troops to unite at Donoho's. That indicated his design to advance in pursuit of the enemy to Harrisburg. He was resolved never to pass the Trinity; and if he were to perish, it should be west of that boundary. Would he have submitted to the orders of the Secretary of War, who was suspended, or any one in his place, unless it was under the written order that would vindicate him to the world and to posterity? No written order is pretended for anything he had done; and the Secretary of War, acquiescing in his competency and his ability to command, never interfered with his designs in the smallest punctilio. Thus has it been, Mr. President, that I have been driven to this recourse. I had no design, indeed I had no wish, but to pass from public life quietly and without interference. I know that I have not presented the facts in that succinct and lucid manner that I ought to have done; yet I have presented such points as I think essential, though they are documentary, and more than I would have desired, to vindicate the Commander-in-chief in the position he has taken, and to show to the world that these calumnies, so recently circulated, are prompted by the deepest malignity, and by persons whose vices, could they be known, would sink them below the observation of all the virtuous and wise. This individual in the North who is seeking to illumine the world with his lectures, will find a new subject furnished him on this occasion.

Now, Mr. President, notwithstanding the various slanders that have been circulated about the Commander-in-chief, it is somewhat strange that the only point about which there has been no contestation for fame and for heroic wreaths, is in relation to the circumstances connected with the capture of General Santa Anna. When he was brought into the camp and the interview took place, the Commander-in-chief was lying on the ground. He did not lie as generals usually lie, for they have comforts. The night before the battle he had lain on the cold ground, without a blanket, his saddle for his pillow, without covering, in the bleak norther that blew that night. He was no better off after the battle. Nor had he ever had a tent or canopy over his head that he could claim, as General-in-chief, save the blue canopy of heaven. He had not one dollar in his pocket, nor a military chest, for he never received one while in command of the army. His personal and moral influence in the army held it together; for there was no Government, and all of hope that remained was centered in him, as the Government expressed it, for there were no other means. But, sir, when Santa Anna was taken and brought into camp, the general was dozing, after having had a sleepless night from suffering; his wound was severe. Lookmg up he saw Santa Anna, who announced to him in Spanish: "I am General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, President of the Republic of Mexico, and a prisoner at your disposition." Calmly and quietly it was received. The hand was waved to a box that stood by, and there Santa Anna was seated. After some time, with apparent emotion, but with great composure to what 1 had expected, under the circumstances, he proposed a negotiation for his liberation. He was informed that the general had not the power; that there was an organized civil government, and it must be referred to them. Santa Anna insisted upon negotiation, and expressed his great aversion to all civil government. The general assured him that he could not do it. He then observed to the general something like this: That he could afford to be generous; that he was very fortunate; born to no common destiny; that he had conquered the Napoleon of thi West,

The Commander-in-chief adverted to his conduct at the Alamo, as well as the massacre of Fannin and his men at Goliad. The first he sought to justify on the ground that it was in accordance with the rules of war. The second he excused himself for, assuring the general that he was not aware of any capitulation between General Urea and Colonel Fannin, and if he lived to regain power, he would make an example of Urea.

The Commander-in-chief after awhile asked him if he wanted refreshment. It was ordered. He was asked if he wished his marquee, if he desired his camp baggage, if he wished his aide-de-camp. He expressed great pleasure at the proposition, but looked doubtful as to whether it could be so. They were ordered. Colonel Almonte went and selected his baggage. His keys were never asked for; no search was made. He was treated as a guest. No indignity was offered him by the Commander-in-chief. To be sure, there was some turbulence of feeling in camp, but no rude manifestations. Under these circumstances it was that Santa Anna was received. Propositions were made to the Commander-in-chief that he should be executed, but they were repelled in a becoming manner. No one has sought to claim the honor of saving him on that occasion; and did the general feel a disposition to claim any renown, distinction, or fame, for any one act of his life, stripped of all its policy, he might do it for his conduct on that occasion.

But, sir, there was reason as well as humanity for it. While Santa Anna was held a prisoner his friends were afraid to invade Texas, because they knew not at what moment it would cause his sacrifice. His enemies dared not attempt a combination in Mexico for invasion, for they did not know at what moment he would be turned loose upon them. So that it guaranteed peace to Texas so long as he was kept a prisoner; and for that reason, together with reasons of humanity, his life was preserved. It is true, he had forfeited it to the laws of war. Retaliation was just; but was it either wise, or was it humane, that he should have perished?

The Commander-in-chief, on that occasion, was not aware that he had the approval of Holy Writ for the course he adopted—though he subsequently became apprised of the fact; for we find that, after Elisha had smitten the Syrians and conducted them into the midst of Samaria, and had ordered their eyes to be opened, the King of Israel, Jehoram, said to the prophet: "My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them?" And he answered: "Thou shalt not smite them; wouldst thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master." Sir, that sanctioned the course of the Commander-in-chief on that occasion; and though he was not as familiar witii the subject as he ought to have been, yet, when apprised of it afterward, he was rejoiced to know that he had the authority of Holy Writ for his conduct.

I should not have felt it necessary to reply to the attacks that have been made upon me, were it not that I am to leave a progeny, that might, at some future time, be called on to know why a response was not given to these fabrications, and the denial given to them. There is not one word of truth contained in all the calumnies in this book, or of others, except one, and that is, that the Commander-in-chief never communicated his counsel to any one. That is true, and it is the only truth in this or other books on the "campaign of San Jacinto."

How could the general permit his designs to be known when mutiny and sedition were rife in camp, and when combinations were formed to thwart every measure that wisdom and prudence could devise, up to the very hour that the troops were formed for battle?

The truth of history has been perverted, and the opposite has been asserted. Contributions of material have been made to this almanac; it was concocted and arranged, and then given to the world in such a shape that the dissemination of the calumny throughout the United States must affect the individual to whom it was directed, and make some impression upon him, and destroy his reputation.

Good reasons have actuated me on this occasion. The character of the individuals who have propagated these slanders against the Commander-in-chief are such as are not known to the public at large, and might have weight in society that would poison the true source of history, and subserve, to some extent, their unworthy ends; when, if their characters were known, truth would receive no detriment from their statements.

I regret, Mr. President, that I could not have prepared my matter more at leisure; for it is but a few days past since I contemplated addressing the Senate on this subject. I should then have done it with more pleasure, and with less detention of the honorable body; but this is the last occasion on which I ever expect that my voice will be heard in this Chamber; never again shall I address the President of this body.

Mr. President, in retiring from the duties which have sat lightly upon me in this Chamber since I have been associated with it, though changes have taken place, and successive gentlemen have occupied the seats in the Senate, I have believed, and felt it my duty, to cultivate the relations of good feeling and friendship with each and every gentleman, and I hope the same cordial respect will continue to obtain in this body. I know the high and important duties that devolve upon Senators, and I have confidence that their attention and their great abilities will be called to the discharge of those duties; that they will, on great national subjects, harmonize so as to give vigor to, and cement our institutions; and that they will keep pace in their efforts to advance the country with the progress that seems to invite it onward. My prayers will remain with them, that light, knowledge, wisdom, and patriotism may guide them, and that their efforts will be perpetually employed for blessings to our country; that under their influence and their exertions the nation will be blessed, the people happy, and the perpetuity of the Union secured to the latest posterity. [Applause in the galleries.]

 

---

 

ADDRESS AT THE UNION MASS MEETING, AUSTIN, TEXAS,

ON THE 22D OF SEPTEMBER, 1860.

Ladies and Fellow-Citizens:

I had looked forward and with many pleasing anticipations to this occasion, as I always do to a meeting with my fellow-citizens, hoping that no untoward circumstance would arise to prevent my giving full utterance to my sentiments on the political topics of the day; but ill-health has overtaken me, and I have, against the advice of my physician, arisen from a sick-bed to make my apology for not being able to fill my appointment; but being here, I will endeavor to say a few words in behalf of the Union, and the necessity of union to preserve it, which I trust will not fall unheeded. The condition of the country is such, the dangers which beset it are so numerous, the foes of the Union so implacable and energetic, that no risk should be heeded by him who has a voice to raise in its behalf; and so long as I have strength to stand, I will peril even health in its cause.

I had felt an interest in this occasion, on many accounts. It is said a crisis is impending. The clamor of disunion is heard in the land. The safety of the Government is threatened; and it seemed to me that the time had come for a renewal of our vows of fidelity to the Constitution and to interchange, one with the other, sentiments of devotion to the whole country. I begin to feel that the issue really is upon us, which involves the perpetuity of the Government which we have received from our fathers. Were we to fad to pay our tributes to its worth, and to enlist in its defense, we would be unworthy longer to enjoy it.

It has been my misfortune to peril my all for the Union. So indissolubly connected is my life, my history, my hopes, my fortunes, with it, that when it falls, I would ask that with it might close my career, that I might not survive the destruction of the shrine that I had been taught to regard as holy and inviolate, since my boyhood. I have beheld it, the fairest fabric of Government God ever vouchsafed to man, more than a half century. May it never be my fate to stand sadly gazing on its ruins! To be deprived of it, after enjoying it so long, would be a calamity, such as no people yet have endured.

Upwards of forty-seven years ago, I enlisted, a mere boy, to sustain the National flag and in defense of a harassed frontier, now the abode of a dense civilization. Then disunion was never heard of, save a few discordant notes from the Hartford Convention. It was anathematized by every patriot in the land, and the concocters of the scheme were branded as traitors. The peril 1 then underwent, in common with my fellow-soldiers, in behalf of the Union, would have been in vam, unless the patriotism of the nation had arisen against these disturbers of the public peace. With what heart could these gallant men again volunteer in defense of the Union, unless the Union could withstand the shock of treason and overturn the traitors? It did this; and when again, in 1836, I volunteered to aid in transplanting American liberty to this soil, it was with the belief that the Constitution and the Union were to be perpetual blessings to the human race,—that the success of the experiment of our fathers was beyond dispute, and that whether under the banner of the Lone Star or that many-starred banner of the Union, I could point to the land of Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson, as the land blest beyond all other lands, where freedom would be eternal and Union unbroken. It concerns me deeply, as it does every one here, that these bright anticipations should be realized; and that it should be continued not only the proudest nationality the world has ever produced, but the freest and the most perfect. I have seen it extend from the wilds of Tennessee, then a wilderness, across the Mississippi, achieve the annexation of Texas, scaling the Rocky Mountains in its onward march, sweeping the valleys of California, and laving its pioneer footsteps in the waves of the Pacific. I have seen this mighty progress, and it still remains free and independent. Power, wealth, expansion, victory, have followed in its path, and yet the ægis of the Union has been broad enough to encompass all. Is not this worth perpetuating? Will you exchange this for all the hazards, the anarchy and carnage of civil war? Do you believe that it will be dissevered and no shock felt in society? You are asked to plunge into a revolution; but are you told how to get out of it? Not so; but it is to be a leap in the dark—a leap into an abyss, whose horrors would even fright the mad spirits of disunion who tempt you on.

Our forefathers saw the danger to which freedom would be subjected, from the helpless condition of disunited States; and, to "form a more perfect Union," they established this Government. They saw the effect of foreign influence on rival States, the effect of dissensions at home, and to strengthen all and perpetuate all, to bind all together, yet leave all free, they gave us the Constitution and the Union. Where are the evidences that their patriotic labor was in vain? Have we not emerged from an infant's to a giant's strength? Have not empires been added to our domain, and States been created? All the blessings which they promised their posterity have been vouchsafed; and millions now enjoy them, who without this Union would to-day be oppressed and down-trodden in far-off foreign lands!

What is there that is free that we have not? Are our rights invaded and no Government ready to protect them? No! Are our institutions wrested from us and others foreign to our taste forced upon us? No! Is the right of free speech, a free press, or free suffrage taken from us? No! Has our property been taken from us and the Government failed to interpose when called upon? No, none of these! The rights of the States and the rights of individuals are still maintained. We have yet the Constitution, we have yet a judiciary, which has never been appealed to in vain—we have yet just laws and officers to administer them; and an army and navy, ready to maintain any and every constitutional right of the citizen. Whence then this clamor about disunion? Whence this cry of protection to property or disunion, when even the very loudest in the cry, declared under their Senatorial oaths, but a few months since, that no protection was necessary? Are we to sell reality for a phantom?

There is no longer a holy ground upon which the footsteps of the demagogue may not fall. One by one the sacred things placed by patriotic hands upon the altar of our liberties, have been torn down. The Declaration of our Independence is jeered at. The farewell counsels of Washington are derided. The charm of those historic names which make glorious our past has been broken, and now the Union is no longer held sacred, but made secondary to the success of party and the adoption of abstractions. We hear of secession—"peaceable secession." We are to believe that this people, whose progressive civilization has known no obstacles, but has already driven back one race and is fast Americanizing another, who have conquered armies and navies,—whose career has been onward and never has receded, be the step right or wrong, is at last quietly and calmly to be denationalized, to be rent into fragments, sanctioned by the Constitution, and there not only be none of the incidents of revolution, but amid peace and happiness we are to have freedom from abolition clamor, security to the institution of slavery, and a career of glory under a Southern Confederacy, which we can never attain in our present condition! When we deny the right of a State to secede, we are pointed to the resolves of chivalric South Carolina and other States; and are told, "Let them go out and you can not whip them back." My friends, there will be no necessity of whipping them back. They will soon whip themselves, and will not be worth whipping back. Deprived of the protection of the Union, of the aegis of the Constitution, they would soon dwindle into petty States, to be again rent in twain by dissensions or through the ambition of selfish chieftains, and would become a prey to foreign powers. They gravely talk of holding treaties with Great Britain and other foreign powers, and the great advantages which would arise to the South from separation are discussed. Treaties with Great Britain! Alliance with foreign powers! Have these men forgotten history? Look at Spanish America! Look at the condition of every petty State, which by alliance with Great Britain is subject to continual aggression! And yet, after picturing the rise and progress of Abolitionism, tracing it to the Wilberforce movement in England, and British influence in the North, showing that British gold has sustained and encouraged Northern fanaticism, we are told to be heedless of the consequences of disunion, for the advantages of British alliance would far over-estimate the loss of the Union!

How would these seceding States be received by foreign powers? If the question of their nationality could be settled (a difficult question, I can assure you, in forming treaties), what do you suppose would be stipulations to their recognition as powers of the earth? Is it reasonable to suppose that England, after starting this Abolition movement and fostering it, will form an alliance with the South to sustain slavery? No; but the stipulation to their recognition will be, the abolition of slavery. Sad will be the day for the institution of slavery, when the Union is dissolved, and with war at our very doors, we have to seek alliances with foreign powers. Its permanency, its security, are coequal with the permanency and the security of the Union under the Constitution.

When we are rent in twain, British Abolition, which in fanaticism and sacrificial spirit, far exceeds that of the North (for it has been willing to pay for its fanaticism, a thing the North never will do), will have none of the impediments in its path, now to be found. England will no longer fear the power of the mighty nation which twice has humbled her, and whose giant arm would, so long as we are united, be stretched forth to protect the weakest State, or the most obscure citizen. The State that secedes, when pressed by insidious arts of abolition emissaries, supported by foreign powers, when cursed by internal disorders and insurrections, can lay no claim to that national flag, which when now unfurled, ensures the respect of all nations and strikes terror to the hearts of those who would invade our rights. No! Standing armies must be kept—armies to keep down a servile population at home, and to meet the foe which at any moment may cross the border, bringing in their train ruin and desolation. Do you wish to exchange your present peaceful condition for the day of standing armies, when all history has proved that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty? Behold Cuba, with her 20,000 lazy troops, eating the substance of the people and ready at the beck of their masters to inflict some new oppression upon a helpless people; and yet, without a standing army, no State could maintain itself and keep down its servile population.

It is but natural that we all should desire the defeat of the Black Republican candidates. As Southern men, the fact that their party is based upon the one idea of opposition to our institutions, is enough to demand our efforts against them; but we have a broader, a more national cause of opposition to them. Their party is sectional. It is at war with those principles of equality and nationality upon which the Government is formed, and as much the foe of the Northern as of the Southern man. Its mission is to engender strife, to foster hatred between brethren, and to encourage the formation here of Southern sectional parties equally dangerous to Southern and Northern rights. The conservative energies of the country are called upon to take a stand now against the Northern sectional party, because its strength betokens success. Defeat and overthrow it, and the defeat and overthrow of Southern sectionalism is easy.

I come not here to speak in behalf of a united South against Lincoln. I appeal to the nation. I ask not the defeat of sectionalism by sectionalism, but by nationality. These men who talk of a united South, know well that it begets a united North. Talk of frightening the North into measures by threats of dissolving the Union! It is child's play and folly. It is all the Black Republican leaders want. American blood, North nor South, has not yet become so ignoble as to be chilled by threats. Strife begets strife, threat begets threat, and taunt begets taunt, and these disunionists know it. American blood brooks no such restraints as these men would put upon it. I would blush with shame for America, if I could believe that one vast portion of my countrymen had sunk so low that childish threats would intimidate them. Go to the North, and behold the elements of a revolution which its great cities afford. Its thousands of wild and reckless young men, its floating population, ready to enter into any scheme of adventure, are fit material for demagogues to work upon. To such as these, to the great hive of working population, the wily orator comes to speak in overdrawn language of the threats and the words of derision and contempt of Southern men. The angry passions are roused into fury, and regardless of consequences they cling to their sectional leaders. As well might the Abolitionists expect the South to abandon slavery, through fear that the North would go out of the Union and leave it to itself. No, these are not the arguments to use. I would appeal rather to the great soul of the nation than to the passions of a section. I would say to Northern as well as Southern men, " Here is a party inimical to the rights of the whole country, such a party as Washington warned us against. Let us put it down "; and this is the only way it can be put down.

The error has been that the South has met sectionalism by sectionalism. We want a Union basis, one broad enough to comprehend the good and true friends of the Constitution at the North. To hear Southern disunionists talk, you would think the majority of the Northern people were in this Black Republican party; but it is not so. They are in a minority, and it but needs a patriotic movement like that supported by the conservatives of Texas, to unite the divided opposition to that party there and overthrow it. Why, in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey alone, the conservatives had a majority of over 250,000 at the last Presidential election, and in the entire North a majority of about 270,000.^[1] Because a minority at the North are inimical to us, shall we cut loose from the majority, or shall we not rather encourage the majority to unite and aid us?

I came not here to vindicate candidates or denounce them. They stand upon their records. If they are national, approve them; if they are sectional, condemn. Judge them by the principles they announce. Let past differences be forgotten in the determination to unite against sectionalism. I have differed with all three of the candidates; but whenever I see a man at this crisis coming boldly up to the defense of the Constitution of the country, and ready to maintain the Union against its foes, I will not permit old scores to prejudice me against him. Hence I am ready to vote the Union ticket, and if all the candidates occupy this national ground, my vote may be transferred to either of them. This is the way to put Mr. Lincoln down. Put him down constitutionally, by rallying the conservative forces and sacrificing men for the sake of principles.

But if, through division in the ranks of those opposed to Mr. Lincoln, he should be elected, we have no excuse for dissolving the Union. The Union is worth more than Mr. Lincoln, and if the battle is to be fought for the Constitution, let us fight it in the Union and for the sake of the Union. With a majority of the people in favor of the Constitution, shall we desert the Government and leave it in the hands of the minority?' A new obligation will be imposed upon us, to guard the Constitution and to see that no infraction of it is attempted or permitted. If Mr. Lincoln administers the Government in accordance with the Constitution, our rights must be respected. If he does not, the Constitution has provided a remedy.

No tyrant or usurper can ever invade our rights so long as we are united. Let Mr. Lincoln attempt it, and his party will scatter like chaff before the storm of popular indignation which will burst forth from one end of the country to the other. Secession or revolution will not be justified until legal and constitutional means of redress have been tried, and I can not believe that the time will ever come when these will prove inadequate.

These are no new sentiments to me. I uttered them in the American Senate in 1856. I utter them now. I was denounced then as a traitor. I am denounced now. Be it so! Men who never endured the privation, the toil, the peril that I have for my country, call me a traitor because I am willing to yield obedience to the Constitution and the constituted authorities. Let them suffer what I have for this Union, and they will feel it entwining so closely around their hearts that it will be like snapping the cords of life to give it up. Let them learn to respect and support one Government before they talk of starting another. I have been taught to believe that plotting the destruction of the Government is treason; but these gentlemen call a man a traitor because he desires to sustain the Government and to uphold the Constitution.

Who are the people who call me a traitor? Are they those who march under the national flag and are ready to defend it? That is my banner! I raised it in Texas last summer, and when the people saw shining amid its stars and stripes, " The Constitution and the Union," they knew it was no traitorous flag. They rallied to it; but these gentlemen stood aloof. I bear it still aloft; and so long as it waves proudly o'er me, even as it has waved amid stormy scenes where these men were not, I can forget that I am called a traitor.

Let those who choose, add to my watchword, "the enforcement of the laws." If they maintain the Constitution and the Union, the enforcement of the laws must follow.

But, fellow-citizens, we have a new party in our midst. They have deserted the old Democracy, and, under the lead of Mr. Yancey, have started what they call a Southern constitutional party. They say that they could not get their constitutional rights in the national Democracy; and because the platform was adopted which they all indorsed and under which they all fought in 1856; they seceded. It will be recollected that I objected to that platform in 1856; but I was declared to be wrong. They all denounced me then; but now they suddenly see that the platform won't do, and they secede to get their constitutional rights. They are the keepers of the Constitution; they don't want anything but the Constitution, and they won't have anything but the Constitution. They have studied it so profoundly that they claim to know better what it means than the men who made it. They have nominated Southern constitutional candidates, and have men traveling about the country expounding the Constitution; and yet there is scarcely one of them but will tell you that, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Lincoln may be elected in the mode pointed out by the Constitution and by a constitutional majority, they will not submit. You hear it from the stump, you read it in their papers and in their resolutions, that if Mr. Lincoln is elected the Union is to be dissolved. Here is a constitutional party that intends to violate the Constitution because a man is constitutionally elected President. Here is a constitutional party that proclaims it treasonable for a man to uphold the Constitution. If the people constitutionally elect a President, is the minority to resist him? Do they intend to carry that principle into their new Southern Confederacy? If they do, we can readily conceive how long it will last. They deem it patriotism now to overturn the Government. Let them succeed, and in that class of patriots they will be able to outrival Mexico.

But who are the teachers of this new-fangled Southern constitutional Democracy? Are they not men like Yancey and Wigfall, who have been always regarded as beyond the pale of national Democracy? Transplants from the South Carolina nursery of disunion. Whenever and wherever the spirit of nullification and disunion has shown itself, they and their coadjutors have been found zealously at work. They have been defeated time and again; but like men who have a purpose, they have not ceased their efforts. No sacrifice of pride or dignity has been deemed too great if it assisted in the great purpose of disunion. What if they assailed the Compromise of 1850. They indorsed it in the platform of 1852. From nonintervention they turn to intervention! From the peculiar advocates of State Rights, denying the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, they become the advocates of the Supreme Court as an arbiter, and shout for the Dred Scott decision. Anything for disunion! They can as readily dissolve the Union upon one issue as another. At the Nashville Convention they determined to dissolve it unless the Missouri Compromise line was extended to the Pacific. In 1854 they deemed the existence of this line a cause of separation, and demanded its repeal. The admission of Kansas was the next ultimatum, and now it is the election of Mr. Lincoln. Should they fail, it will then be the adoption of the Slave Code and the repeal of the laws making the Slave Trade piracy.

These men of convenient politics intend to hang the peaceable and law-loving citizens of the country if they take office under Lincoln. You are to have no postmasters, no mails, no protection from the United States army, no officers of the Government in your midst, for fear of these Southern constitutional Democrats. One of them. Col. Wigfall, your illustrious Senator, said upon the northern line of Virginia some tinie since, that if Lincoln was elected I would be one of the men who would take office, and have to leave Texas to keep from being " tarred and feathered." And this is the kind of talk by which men are to be driven into resisting the constituted authorities, and yielding their liberties into the hands of these Southern constitutional Democrats. Now let me ask whether the most humble citizen, who deems it his duty to obey the laws, has not an equal claim to consideration with these men? Whenever the time comes that respect for the Constitution of our fathers leads to the scaffold or the block, he who falls a martyr in its defense will have a prouder fate than those who survive its destruction to share the ruin that will follow.

What do these men propose to give you in exchange for this Government? All are ready to admit their ability to pull down, but can they build up? I have read of the glory of a Southern Confederacy, and seen the schemes of rash enthusiasts; but no rational basis has been presented—none that would sustain a government six months. They take it for granted that because the Union has self-sustaining powers, they need but call a Southern Convention, secede, set up for themselves, and all will go on smoothly. But where are their Washingtons, their Jeffersons, and Madisons? Where is the spirit of sacrifice and patriotism which brought the Union into existence, and maintained it amid privation and danger? Look at the men who are crying out disunion, and then ask yourselves whether they are the men you would choose to create a new government? Do they combine that wisdom, prudence, and patriotism which would inspire you with confidence and lead you to trust the destinies of a nation in their hands? Where are the proofs of their patriotism? Point to one of them, leading this secession movement, who has ever raised his arm or bared his bosom to the foe, in defense of the honor of his country, save Jefferson Davis; and even he, whose chivalrous bearing in battle, does not excuse trifling with the safety of the Union, is thrown in the background by the impetuous Yancey, Wigfall, Keitt, and Rhett.

If the wisdom of the past century combined has not sufficed to perfect this Government, what hope can we have for another? You realize the blessings you have: give them up and all is uncertainty. Will you have more protection to your property—more rights, and have them better protected? We now have all that we ever could have under any government, and notwithstanding all the complaints we hear, they are as perfect as at any time since the formation of the Government. Because we carry the question of niggerism into national politics, and it engenders bad feeling, it is no reason for believing that our rights are invaded. We still have the institution of slavery. All the legislation on the subject for the past twenty years has been to secure it to us, so long as we may want it. It is our own, and the North has nothing to do with it. The North does not want it, and we have nothing to do with that. Their customs are their own. They are guaranteed to them just as ours are to us. We have the right to abolish slavery—they have the right to establish it. It is our interest to have it. Climate, soil, association—all make the institution peculiarly suited to us. If it were to their interest, the people of the North would have it. Even in Massachusetts, as I told them a few years since in Boston, they would have it yet, but for the fact that it would not pay. Now, when the "cotton States " are "precipitated into a revolution," and the Southern Confederacy is formed, is the idea of State Rights to be maintained, or is there to be a centralized government, forbidding the States to change their institutions, and giving peculiar privileges to classes? I warn the people to look well to the future. Among the unsatisfied and corrupt politicians of the day, there are many who long for title and power. There are wealthy knaves who are tired of our simple republican manners; and they have pliant tools to work upon in the forum and with the pen. So long as the Union lasts, the masses need not fear them—when it falls, aristocracy will rear its head.

Whenever an encroachment is made upon our constitutional rights, I am ready to peril my life to resist it; but let us first use constitutional means. Let us resist, as our fathers did, with right on our side. They exhausted all legal means of remedy first. When submission to tyranny or revolution was all that was left them, they tried revolution. It was the same in Texas. The people fought to uphold the Constitution of 1824. When it was again violated, they sent petitions to the Central Government. Their agent was imprisoned, and an army was sent to disarm them. Then they raised the standard of revolution. In the share I have borne in these things I claim nothing more than the right to love my country in proportion as I have done my duty to it; but I may ask, what higher claim have these men, who would inaugurate revolutions before their time?

My weak condition warns me against giving vent to feelings which will come up when I behold the efforts of whipsters and demagogues to mislead the people. Here in Texas they convert the misfortunes of the people into political capital. Property has been burned in some instances, and here and there a case of insubordination has been found among the negroes. Occasionally a scoundrel has attempted to run a negro off to sell him; and all these things are charged to abolitionism. Terrible stories are put afloat of arms discovered, your capitol in flames, kegs of powder found under houses, thousands of negroes engaged in insurrectionary plots, wells poisoned, and hundreds of bottles of strychnine found. Town after town has been reported in ashes, and by the time the report has been found to be false, some new story to keep up the public excitement has been invented. The people of the South have been filled with horror by these accounts, and instead of Texas being looked upon as the most inviting spot on earth, they turn from it as from a land accursed. Who will buy land here, so long as these things continue? What Southern planter will emigrate with his slaves to such a country? If there was a cause for it, we could bear it without a murmur; but there has been no cause for the present state of feeling. We all know how every occurrence has been magnified by the disunion press and leaders and scattered abroad, and for no other purpose than to arouse the passions of the people and drive them into the Southern Disunion movement; for if you can make the people believe that the terrible accounts of abolition plots here are true, they will be ready for anything, sooner than suffer their continuance. Who are the men that are circulating these reports, and taking the lead in throwing the country into confusion? Are they the strong slave-holders of the country? No; examine the matter and it will be found that by far the large majority of them never owned a negro, and never will own one. I know some of them who are making the most fuss, who would not make good negroes if they were blacked. And these are the men who are carrying on practical abolitionism, by taking up planters' negroes and hanging them. They are the gentlemen who belong to the duelling family that don't fight with knives, but choose something that can be dodged. Some of them deserve a worse fate than Senator Wigfall would visit on me; and, sooner or later, when the people find out their schemes, they will get it. Texas can not afford to be ruined by such men. Even the fact that they belong to the Simon Pure Constitutional Democracy will not save them.

I look around me and behold men of all parties. I appeal to you, old line Whigs, who stood by him of the lion heart and unbending crest, gallant Henry Clay. I ask you, did you ever hear from his lips a word disloyal to the Constitution and the Union? Did he ever counsel resistance to the laws? Gallantly he led you on, inspired you with devotion to his fortunes and principles. When defeat overwhelmed you and him, did he ever seek to plunge the country into a revolution? In all that glorious career did Henry Clay ever utter a word of treason? No! There was a broad spirit of nationality pervading his life. While unbending, so far as his political views were concerned, there was a conservatism in his character which elevated his patriotism above considerations of party and made him a man for the whole country. You may say I was opposed to Clay while he lived. True, I was on questions of ordinary politics; but the barriers of party never divided us when the good of the country was at stake. There were national issues when his great mind bent all its energies for but one end, and that the glory and perpetuity of the Union. There were corr^mon sentiments, which had come down from the patriots of the revolution and the founders of our Government, to which he and I could subscribe. Whenever these were at issue, 1 beheld him the champion of the Union driving back its foes by the power of his eloquence. Would that the tones of that voice of his could once more fall upon the ear of the people and thrill the national heart. Treason, secession, and disunion would hide themselves as of yore. He was the Ajax whose battle-axe glistened aloft in the thickest of the fight for the compromise of 1850. Whenever we saw his helmet plumes proudly waving, we knew that the battle was going well. Old Whigs recollect who were his foemen then! Behold them now swelling the ranks of disunion! With the memory of your gallant leader before you, will you go with them? I stood with Clay against Yancey and his coadjutors. The same illustrious Wigfall, who now denounces me as a traitor upon my native soil, then proclaimed Houston and Rusk as traitors for their support of that measure. But the people condemned them, just as they will condemn them now. The conservatism of the land rose against them just as it is rising now. They were rebuked, and the country had peace until the Nebraska and Kansas bill came—that charmer, which was to bring peace, security, and power to the South. Scarce a ripple was seen on the popular current when it came. I saw the storm gathering as it passed and strove to arrest it. Would that I could have been successful; but yet you cast me off. I do not taunt you with the results. My last prediction has been fulfilled. It has broken up the party. Those who denounced me as a traitor for voting against it, were the first to deny the bargain they had made and to break with their Northern friends in reference to its construction, when its construction was as well known at the time of its passage as then. I proclaimed my opposition to it on account of the power it conferred on the Territories. And yet the men who then denounced me, now denounce their Northern friends for holding them to the bargain. They denounced me for voting with the Abolitionists; but it was forgotten that the illustrious men of the South stood side by side with Seward, Hale, Giddings, and the rest, against Henry Clay, in the battle for the compromise. I saw then how extremes could meet. Their affiliations were so close that I was reminded of the Siamese twins; and yet they were never branded as traitors.

I have appealed to the old Whigs. Let me now invoke the shade of Andrew Jackson and ask Democrats whether the doctrines which in these latter days are called Southern Constitutional Democracy, were democracy then? Men of 1832, when flashed that eagle eye so bright, when more proudly stood that form that never quailed, as when repelling the shock of disunion? Jackson was the embodiment of Democracy then. He came forth in the name of the people and fought these heresies which are now proclaimed here as democracy. Democrats, you remember! Whigs, you remember! how Clay and Webster aided Jackson to put down nullification and secession! Will you stand back now, when both are openly avowed by sectionalists North and South?

I invoke the illustrious name of Jackson and bid you not prove recreant to his memory. To those who plot the ruin of their country. North or South, that name brings no pleasant remembrances; but to the national men of long service, to the young men who have been reared to love that name, I appeal. The same issue is upon you that was upon him. He stood with the Constitution at his back and defied disunion. Let the people say to these abolition agitators of the North, and to the disunion agitators of the South, "You can not dissolve this Union. We will put you both down; but we will not let the Union go!"

Now, mark me, I do not call all those Democrats who are in the ranks of this Southern Constitutional party. I do not proclaim their candidates to be disunionists. You have their records and present declarations, and can judge for yourselves. There are good and loyal men to be found in this party, and I would not charge them wrongly.

••••••••••

No, my fellow-citizens, I do not say that all these Southern Constitutional Democrats are disunionists; but I do say, that all the Southern disunionists are Southern Constitutional Democrats.

I can speak but little longer; but let my last words be remembered by you. When I look back and remember the names which are canonized as the tutelar saints of liberty, and the warnings they have given you against disunion, I can not believe that you will be led astray. I can not be long among you. My sands of life are fast running out. As the glass becomes exhausted, if I can feel that I leave my country prosperous and united, I shall die content. To leave men with whom I have mingled in troublous times, and whom I have learned to love as brothers—to leave the children of those whom I have seen pass away, after lives of devotion to the Union—to leave the people who have borne me up and sustained me—to leave my country, and not feel that the liberty and happiness I have enjoyed would still be theirs, would be the worst pang of death. I am to leave children among you to share the fate of your children. Think you I feel no interest in the future for their sakes? We are passing away. They must encounter the evils that are to come. In the far distant future, the generations that spring from our loins are to venture in the path of glory and honor. If untrammeled, who can tell the mighty progress they will make? If cast adrift—if the calamitous curse of disunion is inflicted upon them, who can picture their misfortunes and shame?

1. In the six Northern States—New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, and Wisconsin—where elections have been held, the Republicans have gained over the State elections of 1856, 37,145. Leaving out Connecticut, where the gain is 37,715, owing to the fact that the Black Republicans had not organized for the State election in 1856, there has been a falling off. As compared with the Presidential vote of 1856, they stand:

   1856.	1860.
   Republican. . . . . . . . . . 265,357	Republican. . . . . . . . . . 254,875
   Opposition. . . . . . . . . . 186, 121	Opposition. . . . . . . . . . 215,670
   Black Republican majority in 1856	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79,236
   Black Republican majority in 1860	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39,205
   Opposition gain	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40,031
   Popular vote of 1856	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .451,478
   Popular vote of 1860	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .470,545

   It will thus be seen that on a gain in the popular vote of 19,067, the Black Republicans fell off 40,031.