Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

will not, it is said, reimburse the expense which the proprietors of the paper would incur. The republication, then, in that point of view, is a favor to the Senate. What will be the consequence? Why, sir, at the next session you will be called upon to continue the publication of the debates and proceedings in the Intelligencer at the old rate. Taking the premises of the advocates of the resolution, I can see no other object than to reinstate the Intelligencer in the employment which it voluntarily declined. I am unwilling to take any step towards this result. But, sir, taking for granted that the suggested reason of this proposition is the real one, assuming that the true and only motive for bringing it forward and pressing it upon the Senate at the but of the session, when there is hardly a quorum present, is a patriotic desire to enlighten the people by placing before the largest possible number of readers our reported proceedings and debates, let me suggest a far better mode of accomplishing the object: order this republication in the National Era. Republishing in the Daily National Intelligencer our debates and proceedings, would be to spread them before some two thousand additional readers. If transferred to the Tri-Weekly they would reach four or five thousand more. Republished in the Era, they would reach twentyeight thousand additional readers. I do not say that all the readers of either paper will read these reports. Indeed, I apprehend that very few persons find time or inclination to go through them in whatever paper they may be found. I only say that if the real object of the resolution is to place them before the greatest possible number of persons, the Era is the proper paper for the republication. That is the paper, if any, in which the public interest would require it; for it has by far the largest number of readers. I believe I may safely say that it has, at this moment, a larger number of subscribers than all other papers in the city put together. It has probably three times as many as the Intelligencer, and more than three times as many as the Union. This is certain, unless the circulation of those papers has increased considerably within eighteen or twenty months. Then there is another consideration at once pertinent and important: That class of American citizens who read the Era

and act upon the principles which it promulgates and defends, is often spoken of here as wanting in liberal and enlightened patriotism and in proper devotion to the domestic institutions of the country. What could be more prudent or more benevolent than to give these numerous fellow-citizens of ours the means of correcting their errors by the perusal of the able and luminous speeches made here, in which the true political faith is illustrated and defended? Some of the speeches made by my friend from California, [Mr. WELLER,] might be extremely valuable in that point of view. It is possible that the great good to be anticipated from the circulation of sound doctrines among so many benighted persons might warrant a little stretch of patronage; I cannot say, however, that I would favor even that. I am content, upon the whole, that the readers of the Era shall be left to get their light as they get it now: to subscribe for such papers as they choose to subscribe for, and to correct their errors, if errors they contain, without the help of Congress. I only say that if the real object of the resolution is the widest and most beneficial diffusion of information in respect to debates and proceedings here, that object can in no way be so completely attained as by the republication of the reports of them in that paper, recommended above all others by its large circulation, and as highly as any other by the fairness and ability with which it is conducted. For myself, I repeat, I am against the whole system; I am against its perpetuation and extension, by the adoption of the resolution now before us. Instead of perpetuation and extension, I am for abolition. And I want to begin now. Before I take my seat, I mean to submit a motion to amend the resolution, by striking out all after the word resolved, and inserting an order to discontinue the publication of our proceedings in the Union after the present session. This will be a step in the right direction, and I have stated the reasons which make it especially proper that this step should be taken now. Hereafter, we may go further. For the present, I shall not object to the continuance of the existing system of reporting in one paper and by one corps of reporters. I shall, how

Special Session-Publication of Debates.

ever, vote for its complete abolition if proposed by
any other Senator, under the perfect conviction
that the whole business of reporting may be safely
left to private enterprise, and that everything said
here worth repeating, will be reported.

I beg leave to submit the following amendment:
That from and after the present session, the publication
of the proceedings and debates in the Union be discon-
tinued.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

DEBATES OF THE SENATE.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution in relation to paying the National Intelligencer for printing the debates of the Senate.

SENATE.

porting to one paper I go for the whole, that is for all fair papers, because I would not go for any mere partisan which had some idiosyncrasy in its temperament that would prevent its acting fairly.

Mr. RUSK. I was here when the present system of reporting was adopted. There was a good deal of discussion as to whether Congress should employ paid reporters to publish their debates. It was ascertained that under the old method which was pursued that of each gentleman reporting A message was here received from the President his own speeches-constant mistakes were occurof the United States, by SIDNEY WEBSTER, Esq.,ring as to what had been said by members, some his Private Secretary; and on motion by Mr. MAof which were charged to have been wilfully made, SON, by unanimous consent, the consideration of and others arose from the difficulty of reporting, the resolution was informally passed over, and the for it is a business which requires talent to make Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive correct reports. The matter was a good deal disbusiness; and after some time spent therein, the cussed. One system was adopted and abandoned, doors were reopened. and afterwards a committee was appointed, on the motion of the late Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Benton.] That Senator and myself were on the committee. We reported the present system of employing reporters. It is no speculation on the part of newspapers. We called before us practiMr. BUTLER. I have no time to discuss many cal printers, men on whom reliance could be of the topics which have been dwelt upon by the placed, and also those who were familiar with rehonorable Senator from Ohio. I assure that Sen-porting, and we settled the compensation at a fair ator that he by his speaking has rather changed living rate, which was seven dollars and fifty my mind. I was inclined to vote against the res- cents for reporting and publishing in the Union olution. I am satisfied now that I ought to vote and Intelligencer. They complained afterwards, for it and against the amendment, because if the and I think with just cause, that it hardly remuamendment be passed the effect of it will be to nerated them for the trouble and expense which give to the Globe the monopoly, the exclusive they incurred. It is a pretty expensive business, try. If you dispense with the Union, the Intelli- great deal of labor. Everybody knows the manprivilege of spreading our debates before the coun- for it requires a large corps of reporters, and gencer, and the Era, what is the result? The ner in which our debates have been reported under Globe is then the exclusive vehicle for spreading the system. the debates through the country, and that of course will increase its circulation. I opposed the conferring of the franking privilege upon the Globe. I have opposed all this system of bounty. My judgment is that there ought to be no hired reporters, though on that point, when on a former occasion we discussed this subject, several distinguished gentlemen, Mr. Calhoun amongst the rest, differed from me. I know that very distinguished men who represented minorities, said that they had not fair play and would not have unless they had some way of throwing out their speeches in every part of the Union. At that time there was an organization almost systematic in its character to exclude southern speeches from northern prints, and when they did go to the North it was with comments which always destroyed their effect. Since that perhaps the people at the North have read the speeches made by southern men in the Senate how far public opinion has been affected by it I know not-but the only way to reach the public mind-and I suppose public opinion is the tribunal by which this Government is to be controlled-is to throw out the debates impartially. So far from voting for the amendment limiting the circulation of the debates to the Globe and excluding the Union and Intelligencer, or confining it to the Globe and Union as is done at present, I see no reason why we should exclude the Intelligencer, which is an old paper, somewhat consecrated in my memory, for it was the first I ever saw, and I remember well carrying it from the post office. That was many years ago. I learned to read by its editorials; in 1812 and '13 I have been stirred by reading its columns, and I hardly ever see it now without having some associations called up with former and better times.

I shall vote for the proposition, and I shall vote for it distinctly upon the ground that I go for free, fair, and impartial discussion; and I am willing to make the Intelligencer one of the vehicles for throwing our debates out to the country, because I believe it to be a tolerably fair paper. At any rate it conducts itself with dignity. I do not think the Era ought to lose the simplicity of its character. Let it be confined to its own business. But I have no idea that a paper like the Intelligencer should be excluded when others are included. My judgment would be to have no official reporting, but to let the different papers take the debates and use them as they can. I know there are many who differ from me, and think that that node would operate unfairly to the minority, and that in regard to public opinion the majority would have the advantage in the contest. I do not know whether it would or not, but if you give the re

The Intelligencer, as has been stated, declined the business, and now I understand the resolution before us to amount to this: that for publishing the debates they shall be paid four dollars per column, striking off three and a half for the reporting. I am not prepared to say that it is not better to have but one corps of reporters, but I think it is not, for when there are two corps one acts as a check upon the other. At any rate as it now stands we are paying two establishments for the publication of our debates, the Globe and the Union. One of them is a neutral paper, while the other belongs to the party that is in the majority in the Senate and in the country. The Intelligencer, which is read by a large number of the opposite party, is excluded from publishing the debates, and its party is excluded from the benefit of reading them. I do not agree with the Senator from Ohio by any means, that this is a job for the printers; nor do I agree with him that there is such a vast deal of trash thrown out in the way of public speeches; and if it were so I think the further and wider it is published the better, because it will bring the people to the correction of the evil. I think the further and wider we extend the intelligence of our proceedings here, what gentlemen do and what they say, the better it is. It will have a salutary influence upon us, and according to my conception it will have a beneficial influence on the country.

What is the question before us? Here is the Democratic party, which is in the majority, paying one paper that is clearly a Democratic paper, and paying another, the editors of which everybody knows to be Democratic, although its editorials do not pertain to party matters, and we are asked also to pay the Intelligencer, a Whig paper, and one of the oldest in the country, and allow me to say, for I have read it a great deal, one of the fairest I have seen, when it comes to a statement of facts in regard to public men. I do not believe in the doctrines which it inculcates and advocates, but I have seen no unfairness in it in regard to public men. It is one of our oldest papers, and as the Senator from South Carolina has said, it is associated with earlier and, I agree with him, better days, when there was more principle and less patronage connected with parties than there is at the present moment. Now the question is are we willing to pay that paper for publication? We are not asked to pay for a corps of reporters. I hope we will do it. I hope the Senator from Ohio will consent to it. The Intelligencer is taken by a large number of highly respected people throughout the country. All the leading Whigs, all the old men, and a great many Democrats take

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

heart to refuse.

[ocr errors]

it. I think it is nothing but right; I think it is
but an act of justice; and, sir, I think it is but an
act of magnanimity which I cannot find it in my
Mr. WELLER. I did intend to say a word or
two in reply to my friend from South Carolina,
but as he seems to be in so witty a mood to-day,
I am afraid of provoking a reply. [Laughter.]
At all events, the safer course is to let him pass.
However, I want to say a word or two in regard
to this question. In my judgment, it is not a ques-
tion of magnanimity at all. It is a question of jus-
tice. We who are in the majority here, have our
debates published in the paper which is recog-
nized as the organ of the Democratic party of the
country. Now, I ask whether the Senators who
are in a minority on this floor have not a right to
have their views disseminated through the paper
which they recognize as their organ? That is a
matter of justice. I wish to say nothing upon this
floor which I am not as willing should be read by the
Whig party as by the Democratic party. Besides,
if Senators who are in the majority will look at
this question, they will see that by the publication
of Democratic speeches in Whig newspapers they
may reach Whig hearts and induce them to turn I
from the error of their ways and come into the
Democratic party. How can Democratic Sena-
tors here who are daily enlightening the Senate
upon the great principles which are involved be-
tween the political parties expect their learned
discussions to reach the Whig heart unless they
are republished in the Whig organs? Therefore,
believing that the great body of that party stand
in need of information, and that the readiest way
of getting them enlightened upon these questions
is to republish our debates in the Whig newspa-
pers, I shall vote for the resolution; for, as I have
said already, I believe it is but an act of justice.
You have no right, because you are in the majority
here, to select one of your party organs, and say
that all the transactions of the Senate shall be pub-
lished in it exclusively. There are a vast multi-
tude of ignorant men in the country who are
readers of the National Intelligencer, and other
Whig papers, and who stand in need of inform-
ation. [Laughter.] It is a matter of justice,
as well as policy, that in dispensing your patron-
age, you should look to their interests as well as
to your own political friends. If I were to select
one paper in which to publish the debates, I would
select the National Intelligencer, because the Dem-
ocratic party is already sufficiently enlightened,
[renewed laughter,] while the Whig party stands in
need of information. How many Whigs, unless
some provision of this sort be made, will ever read
the learned speeches of my friend from South Car-
olina?-and he never speaks without displaying
great ability, and oftentimes great wit and humor,
which is sometimes considered by the people as
more important than wisdom. [Mr. BUTLER rose,
evidently desirous to obtain the floor.] Mr. Presi-
dent, I am really afraid of provoking my friend
from South Carolina. [Laughter.] If I have not
already done so, I will stop.

Mr. BUTLER. I do not like to be back-bitten to my face. [Laughter.]

Mr. WELLER. I have nothing more to say except that I shall certainly vote for the resolution. If you had taken the vote in the outset, I would have voted the other way-I believe I did. I was voting with some gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber [the honorable gentleman was standing on the side of the Chamber usually occupied by the Whig Senators] who think that all our debates should be published in the Democratic organ, and it struck me that this was an effort to give a little of the Federal patronage to a Whig newspaper, and on principle I would be as the Irishman said fore-nint that; but when I come to look at the question for myself, and apply the rules of justice by which I wish to be governed in all cases to it, I feel myself obliged to vote for it.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. For once, I find myself in Free-Soil company. I think the Senator from Ohio is right in the course which he has taken. As to the question of justice, I will say to my friend from California that when this thing originated, everybody said it was right to pay the Intelligencer as well as the Union, for the publishing of the speeches to go out pari passu. That state of things continued to exist just so long as the Intel

[blocks in formation]

work better. But what we want, if we want any

authentic account of our proceedings by one responsible body of reporters, which will stand for all time, and which cannot be contradicted or val ried by a reference to any other reports under similar sanction.

One corps of reporters will cost enough, as 1 have already shown. It will cost at least $50,000 for the Senate during the long sessions, and I do not know how much for the House.

The Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. BORLAND,] very well says that whatever may be the merits of a proposition to employ the Intelligencer in future, there is no propriety in paying for the republication of old debates already reported. Who believes that the speeches will be read, if we reprint them? The session has passed away: the interest in the debates has gone.

I think, Mr. President, that the whole system had better be discontinued, and that we had better make the beginning now. I propose to commence with the Union, because it is the paper which represents the majority in this Chamber, and for which the majority have sufficiently cared by giving to its proprietor the public printing. They have given him a fortune in that office, and I see no reason for making a larger addition to it, in the shape of compensation for publishing our proceedings.

ligencer found it to be profitable to publish the
debates. It very soon found that it was not profit-reporters under the sanction of the Senate, is an
able, and it thereupon notified us that it declined
to continue the publication of them. A Senator
from New Hampshire [Mr. NORRIS] then offered
a resolution to substitute the Daily Globe for the
Intelligencer; and the question now is, the Intelli-
gencer having thrown up its contract, and we hav-
ing substituted the Globe in place of it, whether we
will go on and pay a third paper for publishing our
proceedings-that third paper having declined the
expense of reporting and publishing them already.
It seems to me that it would be clearly improper.
As to what has been said of the character of the
Intelligencer, I indorse it all. I regard it as one
of the most respectable papers, and it is published
by some of the most respectable gentlemen in the
country. I do not know that I have ever seen it
descend to scurrility. I regretted to see it throw
up its contract. I wished to see it continued; and
if our system of reporting is continued, I wish, not
that the Globe shall do the reporting, but that the
Intelligencer, at the beginning of the next session,
when it may be willing to meet the expense, shall
do it. I wish that the two party papers should
continue the reporting. I am, with the Senator
from Ohio, against the whole system. The amount
that has been paid for it, shows that it ought to be
discontinued. It is one of those expenditures
which has grown up in late days, commencing no
further back than 1846, which ought to be dis-
pensed with. It will, like the system of extra
compensation, go on increasing until paper after
paper will come in and ask to be paid for publish
ing the proceedings, and the whole thing will go
by the board. These debates can be obtained very
easily now. Here is the Globe, or Appendix,
which can be got for one dollar and fifty cents,
with the speeches of every member of Congress.
In addition to paying for the publication in the
Daily Globe and Union, we pay for the publication
in the Congressional Globe itself, and we have
given to it the franking privilege throughout the
whole country. Every time this thing comes up to
get money out of the Treasury, it is made a question
of disseminating information among the people
a question of enlightenment; and we have it now
raised in regard to speeches which were made long
since, and published in the Intelligencer to the ex-
tent to which it was profitable at the time, and to
no greater extent. I shall vote against the reso-
lution.

Mr. CHASE. If this were a simple question of magnanimity I might agree with the Senator from California, but I regard it as a question of public duty. I think that those who advocate economy in public expenditures, and the reform of abuses in the Government, have now a chance to show the sincerity of their faith by their votes. I have not said a word against the National Intelligencer. It is ably conducted. It is a staid, decorous, conservative, highly respectable paper. Conservatism is always respectable; progress is sometimes too earnest, too emphatic, energetic, to be respectable, in the conservative sense of the word.

But, sir, what have we paid already to this paper? We have paid the Union, under the resolution of August 18, 1848, $49,123 18. We paid the Intelligencer up to the time when it voluntarily discontinued its contract, $30,428 54. These are large sums. As the Senator from Iowa justly observed when the Intelligencer voluntarily discontinued its contract, we substituted the Globe for it, and the simple question now is whether we shall reinstate the Intelligencer in the employment which it abandoned and thus have three corps of reporters, and three printers at the next session instead of two. I have already said I am perfectly willing to give up the whole system as an unsuccessful experiment. I do not think it desirable to continue it at all; and I will go with any gentleman who may propose its abolition. But if we are to have a system at all, certainly we want but one corps of reporters. We do not want two; much less do we want three. Every Senator who looks at the reported proceedings in the two papers now employed will find frequent discrepancies. These are unavoidable when two distinct corps are employed. The reporters of both papers are as able and accomplished men as are to be found in their profession; none could do their

So far as the dissemination of information is concerned, I have shown the Senate already that if you wish to place the speeches of Senators before the greatest number of readers, and especially if you want to correct opinions which most of the gentlemen here regard as heretical, there is another paper to which your regards should be extendeda paper which has a greater circulation than all the other papers in this city put together. Its readers are scattered through the whole country. It is read North; it is read South; it is read abroad; it is read by a class of citizens who, in the judgment of many Senators, especially need to be enlightened. If you are going to undertake the correction of Whig judgments by the republication of old speeches, is it not worth while to go a little further and try the efficacy of the process upon these Independent Democrats? A Senator near me seems to demur to this name. It is the right name. Other designations, I know, are more common here and elsewhere. They are most frequently used by those who fear the growing conviction among the people that the sincerest and deepest devotion to Democratic principles is found among the opponents of slavery, and that they are best entitled to the name of Democrats who most faithfully carry out the doctrines of Democracy. But if all this is a mistake, and these voters are indeed visionaries and errorists, why not give them the light of your debates? They go for too much reform. They go for too much progress. They are in too great haste, gentlemen think, to bring about the political millennium. Now, place your speeches before them. Correct their errors. Disabuse them of their false impressions. If you succeed as well as you seem to have succeeded with the Whigs, (for it is hard to distinguish one of the Baltimore platforms from the other,) what an era of peace and harmony and union we shall have!

Mr. President, the Senator from Texas [Mr. RUSK] takes exception to my remark, that a great deal of trash goes abroad under the name of debates and proceedings of the two Houses of Congress. I may have used too strong a word; and certainly I did not mean to characterize the speeches of Senators as trash. When Senators speak, I listen always with respect, often with interest and instruction. Many speeches made here are able, important, and permanently valuable. But who does not know, also, that much goes into their reports, which is of no value and no interest? How much that is trivial, how much that is absolutely frivolous takes place here and finds its way into the reports? I have no desire that all this should go abroad. It does not enhance the dignity of the Senate. I fear, indeed, that the reputation of this body has not improved in the judgment of the country since this system of reporting was adopted. If it be extended, if reporter be added to reporter, and printer to printer, and job to job, you may rest assured that

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

it will go down under precisely the same public odium which has overwhelmed constructive mileage and extra compensation.

Mr. DODGE, of lowa. I move to amend the amendment by adding "and Globe."

Special Session-Publication of Debates.

that newspaper by making it the publisher of any portion of the debates of the Senate. I know of no practical good which the publication in that paper can produce to the country. I cannot consent to encourage either directly or indirectly a press which advocates doctrines calculated to distract and divide the Union. That paper is the organ of a faction which has already done much to Mr. CHASE. I move to amend the resolution disturb the harmony of the States, and weaken the by inserting after the words "National Intelligen-bonds which bind them together. The patronage cer," the words "National Era;" and on the amendment I ask for the yeas and nays.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected; and the question recurring on the amendment, it was rejected.

On a division of the question on ordering the yeas and nays, only four Senators rose in its favor, and

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STUART in the chair) decided that they were not ordered. Mr. CHASE. I ask for a count on the other side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair does not think that necessary. It requires one fifth of a quorum to order the yeas and nays, and four Senators are not one fifth.

Mr. CHASE. I apprehend it is the duty of the Chair, whenever any Senator calls for a division upon any question, to have it. That application is not to be limited to the mere ascertainment of the existence of a majority in favor of any proposition. It requires a majority to carry a proposition. It requires one fifth of the Senators present to entitle the Senator who demands them to the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opinion of the Chair is, that upon any question which requires a quorum to act upon it, it requires one fifth of a quorum to order the yeas and nays; upon a question which does not require a quorum to decide it, as to adjourn from day to day, one fifth of the Senators present can order them.

The question being taken on the amendment, there were, on a division-ayes 2, noes 24; no quorum voting.

Mr. RUSK. I hope the Sergeant-at-Arms will be directed to request the attendance of absent Senators. I do not like to see a thing defeated in this way.

Mr. CHASE. I am sorry that the Senator from Texas does not like to see this thing defeated in this way; but this resolution is supported upon the ground of placing information before people who need to be enlightened by Democratic speeches. Now, I only say that if this is the real ground of the resolution, consistency requires the selection of the paper which has the greatest number of readers, and that paper is the National Era. The resolution is also sustained upon the ground of courtesy to a minority. Now, undoubtedly the readers of the Era, I mean of course those who accept the political faith advocated by it, are in a minority. Possibly, at the present moment they are in a smaller minority than the Whigs.

A SENATOR. Are you sure? Mr. CHASE. I rather think so. [Laughter.] There has not been a count since the late election, and I cannot be absolutely certain. We are increasing, and the Whigs are decreasing. [Laughter.] If, then, the argument of courtesy to a minority is good, why not extend it to that minority which is represented by my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] and myself? I appeal to the magnanimity of the Senator from Texas. I know his generosity; I know his fairness. I do not see how he can gainsay this practical application of his own principles which I commend to him. I hope he will reconsider his position and award to the liberal, growing, independent Democratic minority the same courtesy which he is so ready to extend to our Whig friends.

Mr. WELLER. It seems to me that the Senator from Ohio has given a new name to the old Abolition party. Everybody knows, or ought to know that the party to which he alluded is the Abolition party. He designates it as the Independent Democratic party! I know of no such organization. And as to the Abolitionists, it is utterly impossible by the publication of any debates here to change the minds of the readers of the National Era. It would be casting "pearls before swine." Like Ephraim of old, they are "joined to their idols." We had better, therefore, "let them alone." [Laughter.] I am not disposed to give any consequence or importance to

of the Senate should not be so distributed as to aid in this unhallowed work.

All that I desire to say to the Senator from Ohio is, that I could not understand his assertion when, the other day, he claimed to be the representative of the great Democracy of Ohio! Does he suppose that the Democracy of that State will recognize that Abolition journal as its organ? Do they look into that paper for the purpose of finding their political creed? Do they examine it for the purpose of determining what the honor and justice of the country may demand from them? If, sir, they do, then, as I said upon another occasion, I was a false representative of that party in the memorable gubernatorial campaign of 1848. But now I am enabled to comprehend the Senator. The Independent Democratic party! Sir, there never has been any other party, known as the Democratic party, but the Independent Democratic party-a party that was founded upon principlesprinciples which they believed to be inseparably connected with the prosperity and happiness of the country. It was always independent, because it sought to stand aloof from all factions and all cliques, and to look with an eye alone to the well fare and happiness of the whole people-a party who have labored from the beginning to perpetuate the Union by securing to each section of the Confederacy the undisturbed enjoyment of its constitutional rights-a party who are content with the Constitution given them by their fathers.

If the Democracy of that great State have become abolitionized; if they have abandoned the safe and sound constitutional principles which they so zealously sustained in the olden times; if they have thrown themselves into the arms of a miserable faction, then the Senator from Ohio may claim to be their true representative. But, sir, such is not the fact, and therefore it was that I affirmed that he was not the representative of any portion of the Democracy of that State which I regard as sound. In sustaining the Abolition organ he surely does not represent them. I regard him as the exponent of a faction. I regard him as belonging to a clique-to a faction that has been organized for the purpose of destroying the peace and tranquillity of the Union; and if they succeed in carrying out their measures, the result must be the inevitable dissolution of the Government. I have been provoked, I grant I have been provoked, because he comes here and claims to be the representative of the Democracy of my native State, with which I was so long identified previous to my removal to the Pacific. That he should claim to be the representative of that Democracy, that he should claim that the views which he entertains upon all these political questions are the sentiments of those with whom I have spent nearly the whole of my life, and with whom I have battled in the fiercest contests known in the history of any State, has provoked me I admit. I have not lost my temper however, for I claim to be a good-natured man and not easily moved. I have endured this with a good deal of philosophy. I have sometimes felt myself called upon to speak, because I was the only native of Ohio upon the floor of the Senate; and if I could not be allowed to vindicate her reputation from what I considered the foulest aspersions, I could not tell to whom she would look for it. I repudiate now publicly the idea that the Senator from Ohio represents that portion of the party with which I was connected when I was a resident of that State. He may be the true and faithful_representative of what is usually known as the Connecticut Reserve in Ohio. It is the hot-bed of Abolitionism, and the hardest place any democratic christian ever went into. [Laughter.] They are a peculiar people, a very remarkable people; and therefore I am free to admit that my friend from Ohio-for he is my personal friend, and I would not disturb a hair of his head-is their representative; but at the same time,

SENATE.

I say in all courtesy, that he must allow me to repudiate the idea of his representing the Democracy of that State. In the name of the sound and true men of Ohio, I deny that he is entitled to this position.

Now, Mr. President, I do not know that I should have said anything upon this occasion or engaged in this unprofitable debate if it had not been for the fact that we have no public business to transact. I would not have been justifiable in imposing remarks of this character upon the Senate, if there had been any public business before us demanding action; but everybody knows that there is nothing for us to do. We are only waiting on the Executive for political victims. The Senator from Ohio has been speaking to-day with no other view perhaps than to spread his speech out in the columns of the Globe. I am willing that it shall go there; and whenever he makes a speech in the Senate, and gives me an opportunity to make a short reply, I will contribute a small amount towards its free publication in the National Era, in order that his constituents upon the Connecticut Reserve may have the opportunity of perusing it. They have a strong ailection for me in that region. [Laughter.]

Mr. CHASE. The honorable Senator from California has shown his regard to the State of Ohio in one mode; I have shown mine in another. I was not born in Ohio. I went to the State in my boyhood, from New Hampshire. 1 identified my fortune with those of her people. I have witnessed, and so far as lay in my power, have contributed to her development and growth. She has become a great State. I am proud to be numbered among her sons. Her honor and prosperity are very dear to me. The Senator from California was born in the State; but he left it in the prime of his manhood, and became a citizen of California. He became a citizen of the State by accident-I by choice. I abide-he has departed. Departing, he left behind him many who regret his absence. His regrets on account of separation are probably mitigated by the reflection that he is no longer in any degree responsible for the action of "that abolition State.

Mr. President, the honorable Senator has said that the publication of these debates in the National Era, would be" casting pearls before swine." The honorable Senator seems to be learned in Scripture. He has studied it at all events so far as to be able to make a quotation; but I submit to the candid judgment of the Senator, whether, in point of fact, and so far as their intercourse with gentlemen here or elsewhere is concerned, the readers of the Era are more entitled to that designation than the readers of other papers, which I will not name. The readers of the Era are very numerous-perhaps not less than a hundred thousand. They constitute a pretty large proportion of the thinking men and women of the country. They are independent in their judgments-not apt to follow leaders, unless they know who they are and where they are going. They form their own opinions; and what is most wonderful, they adhere to them in a minority, just as firmly as when in a majority. It is this peculiar trait of fixed adhesion to their principles, which some persons, who desire nothing so much as to be in the majority, and dread nothing so much as to be in a minority, call fanaticism.

My friend from California and I have also different reasons for our different degrees of attachment to Ohio. He ran for Governor; he ran well; but he was beaten. I was a candidate for Senator, and was elected.

Notwithstanding my election he denies my right to represent the Democracy of the State. Now, I have never claimed to represent, in a strict party sense, that great and powerful organization which we know at home as the Old Line Democracy. I have acted with it when I could do so consistently with my known principles; but I have never abandoned my position as an Independent Democrat. I happen, however, to be the only representative the Democracy of Ohio has in this Chamber; and I will say, with whatever zeal and energy and fidelity the Senator from California has represented his constituents, he has not exceeded my devotion to the interests and the honor of mine. There are differences of opinion in Ohio. To some my opinions are doubtless less acceptable than those

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

of the Senator from California. I do not think them the less sound on that account. They are mine the result of my own examination and my own reflection. I am ready to defend them whenever assailed, wherever questioned.

The Senator has referred to some remarks of mine made lately in Executive session. I do not complain of this. What I say in Executive session I am willing to have repeated anywhere. But then, as now, instead of claiming to represent the organization known as the Old Line Democracy of Ohio, I distinctly disclaimed all right to speak for it as a member of the party, because while I sympathized with the vast majority of those fellowcitizens of mine in all their generous devotion to the union of these States, while I rejected as they did many of the doctrines and opinions promulgated at Baltimore as anti-Democratic and antiprogressive, I did not feel myself at liberty to go with them in support of the nominees of the Convention. I claimed for the faith and opinions of Ohio all the respect and all the deference which is accorded to the faith and opinions of Virginia; and I refused to support candidates nominated upon a platform constructed as if in the very wantonness of contempt for the settled convictions of the people of my State, and declared to be such by successive Democratic Conventions for the last five years. If voting for Convention nominees is all that is necessary to make a Democrat; if Democracy is nothing more than unreasoning and unreasonable devotion to organization without regard to principles or measures, I certainly make no pretension to the name or character. But, sir, if holding in deep reverence and with earnest faith the old maxims of Democracy; if belief with Jefferson that all men are created equal, and are entitled to equal rights; if an honest recognition of the duty of carrying out these fundamental principles into their practical application, resolutely and without reserve; if fearless advocacy of economy and reform of abuses at home, and generous sympathy with the oppressed abroad; if earnest endeavors to advance our country upon the line marked out by our forefathers to the great destiny which fidelity to American principles will assuredly secure for her; if devotion to the Constitution and the union of the States; if these elements make a Democrat, I claim to be as good a Democrat as any I see upon this floor. I shun no scrutiny of my political opinions or acts. I am quite willing to have my title to the appellation of Democrat compared with that of any other Senator. I should not be surprised if some who challenge my Democracy, were to come out upon such a comparison a good way behind me.

The Senator from California tells us that the party represented by the National Era is the Abolition party, and that this party is vainly endeavoring to appropriate the name of Democracy. Why, Mr. President, it is the party which was organized at Buffalo in 1848. The President has appointed a number of gentlemen who were of this party in 1848, to high stations, and the Senate has manifested its accustomed liberality and good sense by confirming these nominations. I do not know that these gentlemen have recanted anything they said in 1848. It is true that the gentlemen thus nominated and thus indorsed, resumed their positions last year within party lines, and have voted for the nominees of the Baltimore Convention. But, I repeat, they have not recanted their opinions of 1848. Now, the party which was organized in that year has ever since been known as the Free Democracy or the Independent Democracy. For one, I like the last designation best, because it expresses best my idea of the organization; but I care little which is used. Certain it is that by one or the other the party has always been distinguished in the resolves of its public meetings and the proceedings of its convention. The great body of voters who compose this organization, and whose numbers increase from day to day, claim to be Democrats, because they hold in good faith all the cardinal maxims of the Democratic faith, and insist on their impartial application to all questions. They call themselves Independent Democrats, because they reject the dictation of the slave power. Courtesy and fairness, one would think, require that they be called by the name under which they choose to be known. If Senators, however, think proper to persist in

[blocks in formation]

orable bargain when a great party gets down upon its knees to some faction, and agrees to parcel out the offices. It was indeed humiliating to see a great party placed in this position. They were compelled, therefore, to go over to these three or four who were adhering to the Senator from Ohio, It was by a combination, an unhallowed combination between the Democracy of that day and the Free-Soilers that elevated the Senator to the place he now holds in this Chamber. If that be a matter for my friend to boast of, while he reminds me of my defeat, he is entitled to all the glory resulting from it. By such means I too could have succeeded. One word of conciliation to the Abolitionists, and I would have been Governor. I was beaten, but not disgraced. In the last campaign in Ohio he attached his fortunes to John P. Hale, and sustained him and his political platform. He utterly "repudiated and spit upon the Baltimore platform. He could not support General Pierce, because he was nominated upon a platform which, in his judgment, destroyed all those principles which were dear to the Abolition heart. How many votes were cast along with that Senator in Ohio? Some thirty thousand. In the meanwhile the great Democratic party of that State recorded their votes in favor of General Pierce, thereby ratifying, confirming, and sanctioning the Baltimore platform. Does he represent the De

calling them Abolitionists, it will do no harm.
Mere names are of little consequence. Gentlemen
may call me an Abolitionist if they choose, and I
will promise not to be at all angry. The name
would simply identify me in sentiment and opin-
ion with some of the greatest and best men which
ever lived, both of our own and other lands. It
need not at all surprise gentlemen if that very
name which they apply as a brand of reproach,
should become, at no distant day, a crown of
honor. I prefer, however, to designate the po-
litical organization of the opponents of slavery
extension and nationalized slavery by the name
which they assume for themselves. They will
not find it difficult to establish their title to the
name of Democrats, by any test which does re-
solve Democracy into a blind and servile adherence
to organization without regard to principles. Here
sit around me gentlemen who call themselves
Democrats and representatives of the Democratic
party of the country. I do not challenge their
title to the name or character. I find myself gen-
erally voting with a majority of them; but how
very wide are their diversities of opinion! There is
hardly a question upon which they do not differ.
There is perhaps no question upon which I do
not vote with the majority of them as often as any
one of themselves. Even upon that question
which seems to rise up every where with a sort of
omnipresence, challenging investigation and solu-mocracy of Ohio? The Democracy of Ohio are
tion, how little agreement is there! Sir, there is
no question of principle, there is no measure of
policy upon which the Senators who compose the
Democratic majority in this Chamber are unani-
mous. They agree absolutely in nothing except
in supporting the same candidates for President
and Vice President, in other words, the same dis-
pensers of the vast patronage of the Government.
And has it come to this, that in the nineteenth cen-
tury, and past its noon, that a party organization
is maintained upon the sole ground of organiza-
tion and the support of convention nominations,
and not by its recognition of any great universal
principles applicable to the solution of all ques-
tions, and boldly applied in the solution of all?
Sir, you may depend upon it that if this be so,
the dead level of political stagnation has been
reached, and that the great Democratic party which
was organized under Jackson, is hastening to its
decay and dissolution. The very moment the
people become convinced that a great permanent
comprehensive principle does not lie at the base of
your action, animating, controlling, and directing
it all, you will lose the confidence of the people; and
when the confidence of the people is gone, the
date of dissolution will not be distant.

content to take General Pierce with his principles as avowed by the Baltimore Convention; but the Senator utterly repudiates that, and that portion of the people backing him in his repudiation were thirty thousand, while the majority for General Pierce were, in the whole State, some eighteen thousand or twenty thousand. Therefore I had a right to assume that the Senator from Ohio did not represent the wishes of the people there, when some three hundred and fifty thousand votes were cast in that campaign, and the whole number who acted with the Senator was only thirty thousand. Therefore he represents thirty thousand, a large portion of whom are in the Connecticut Reserve. He is the exponent of their principles, and not the principles of the Democracy. He directed all his efforts to defeat General Pierce; he denounced the sentiments of the Convention which nominated him, and now he claims to represent the Democracy of Ohio! Is not such a claim absolutely ridículous?

The Senator has said, too, that the Democratic party at the present session have indorsed some of the unrecanting Free-Soilers of 1848. When? The Democratic party, with that manliness and independence which I trust will always characterize them, avowed their principles through the Baltimore Convention to the world: they desired no man to take their candidate; they sought no concealment; they desired no one to take their candidate with a "generous confidence "-without the platform. They proclaimed their principles; they inscribed them upon their banner; they placed that banner in the hands of their candidate; they were so plainly written, that he who runs might read, and a wayfaring man, though an Abolitionist, need not err therein. [Laughter.] This was fair and manly upon our part. No man was called upon to sustain our candidate, unless he cordially, sincerely, and heartily responded to the principles incorporated in the platform. A very large majority of the people whom the Senator pretends to

Mr. WELLER. The Senator from Ohio is very much mistaken in supposing that I cherish any unkind feelings towards his constituents, because of my having been a defeated candidate for Governor in 1848. The history of that campaign is well known to the country. It was the only occasion in that State when the Abolition party did not unite upon a candidate of their own. I was so odious to them and their principles, that they united upon my opponent, and with the union of the Abolitionists and the Whig party they beat me some three hundred votes out of a popular vote of three hundred thousand. If I had remained at home and concealed my views upon the " Wilmot proviso" from the public eye, I should have succeeded beyond all doubt. This I well knew at the time, but I traversed the whole State and pro-represent, did respond to them; and all of those claimed my opinions fully and freely everywhere, preferring defeat to a dishonorable victory. I would scorn to hold any office by concealing my principles from the people.

But the Senator says that that election which resulted in my defeat placed him in the Senate. I know exactly how he was elected, and I should have supposed he would scarcely boast of such a victory. I understand the history of that election. The Senator had some three or four Abolition friends in the Legislature who held the balance of power between the Whig and Democratic parties; they had the power to control the action of the Legislature; they exercised it. They required an agreement as to the officers to be selected before an election for Senator could be had. They required them to enter into a bargain; and if he will allow me to say-and I say it with all proper respect a dishonorable bargain; for it is a dishon

||

men who were confirmed by the Senate of the United States who went with the Free-Soil party in 1848, came in at that contest, and gave in their adhesion to our principles by voting for our candidate; and all that we have said, therefore, in the ratification of the nominations alluded to, is that those who came back, and in good faith subscribed to our principles and supported our candidate, were entitled to a share of the Federal patronage. There has been no man confirmed who would dare to avow to the world the political principles which actuate the Senator from Ohio. Has an Abolitionist been confirmed-any of those who united with him in the last contest? Not one of them. Has any of them been sent in by the President of the United States? No, sir; and they never will. The President has no sympathies with the faction to which the Senator belongs.

The Senator says that this Administration has

[ocr errors]

32D CONG.....3D SESS.

taken men back into the Democratic party who have never abandoned the principles of the Buffalo platform of 1848. Sir, we judge them by their action. When they support our candidate and our principles fairly and manfully, we have a right to assume that they have seen the error of their ways, and have come back into the Democratic party. They could not support General Pierce without indorsing the principles upon which he was nominated. To proscribe a class because of their offenses of 1848, would be manifestly unjust. Wise men change their opinions; fools never do.

Now, Mr. President, I did not desire to have said anything in this discussion. I should not have been provoked to enter into it but for the repeated remarks of the Senator from Ohio, to the effect that he represents the Democracy of that State. With all respect to him, I claim that I am a much better representative than he is. In the last canvass in that State, it gave a large majority for the man whom I voted for, and who stood upon the principles I avowed; therefore I have a right to claim to be a better representative of the Democracy of that State than he is. When I come to analyze principles I am not willing to regard him as anything else than an Abolitionist. I have so regarded him from the beginning. I have known him in olden times. I have known him when he was canvassing the State in a hopeless minority, as he always will be in Ohio, for there is a vast amount of intelligence there, particularly off the Connecticut Reserve. [Laughter.] There will always be a majority there against the principles he avows; and you will never find in that goodly State a majority who will be willing to indorse the sentiments which have been oftentimes expressed here upon a particular question by the Senator who is accidentally here now.

Mr. President, I have said perhaps more on this subject than I ought to have said, but there are particular reasons why I have felt myself called upon to vindicate the character, and the honor, and the truth of the Democracy of Ohio. I owe them a deep debt of gratitude for the manly firmness with which they sustained me in one of the fiercest battles ever fought. Although I have found a home in a far distant land, I can never forget the brave and gallant spirits who gathered around me in 1848. I never can desert them.

In a social point of view, I should be sorry, sir, to lose the Senator from Ohio; but unless he abandons his errors and renounces his heresies, his political days are numbered. It is not probable that a contingency will ever occur again when a great political party will be willing to throw itself into the hands of a few Abolitionists, and sacrifice principle in order to obtain place. It is not often that such things occur, and therefore I count with a good deal of certainty upon the fact that, in two years from this time, the place that now knows him will know him no more forever. [Laughter.] He will go into the shades of private life, where he can have an opportunity of reflecting upon the errors of his past life. He will have ample time to show his philanthropy by devising some plan to improve the moral and political condition of our black population. His philanthropy takes in the whole family of man, black and white, and in retirement he may be able to do something to immortalize his name. I am sure his heart is right, but his head is awfully turned. There is evidently something wrong in that region. [Laughter.] He is obstinate; and having started wrong, the further he goes the worse it is. If he will repent in sackcloth and ashes, if he will renounce his errors, and promise to walk for the future in the path of Democracy and truth, we will allow him to take a place amongst us. I have some hopes of him, for

"While the lamp holds out to burn,

The vilest sinner may return." [Laughter.] Mr. CHASE. This discussion, so far as it has assumed a personal character, is certainly not of my seeking. I have no disposition, however, to shun any responsibility which it may impose. It commenced in an effort to give a portion of the public patronage to the National Intelligencer, for no reason under the sun, that I can see, except to show the magnanimity of the majority in this Chamber towards the political paper of a minority. It seems to terminate in a discussion of the

Special Session-Publication of Debates.

action of political parties in Ohio, and of some personal matters which concern myself.

The Senator from California has thought proper to refer to the local politics of my State, and to the events which resulted in my election to the seat which I now hold. And now let me say to him, and to all who concern themselves in these things, that so far as I have had any share in any political action in Ohio, I stand ready to meet the fullest and the most searching scrutiny. Sir, I have no political secrets. My public life has been so plain, so open, that he who runs may read its record. No man can truthfully say that I have ever deviated, upon any occasion or under any influence, by the breadth of a hair, from the path which fidelity to my long-cherished principles required me to pursue. It is true that I have acted in a minority. The time has been when I have stood almost alone. Some years ago, when I first promulgated those political principles which have ever since determined my action, I found few sympathizers or supporters. But I knew these principles to be sound. I believed them to be important; and I did not shrink from their defense then any more than I shrink from it now when their abstract correctness is generally admitted, and their practical application is resolutely demanded by tens of thousands of voters at the ballot-box. And let me say to gentlemen that they are indulging a vain dream if they fancy that these principles are to die out of the hearts of the people. They will go on conquering and to conquer. You may depend upon it that the faith of freedom is neither dead nor dying. You may depend upon it that it has lost nothing of that vital energy which has already overcome so many prejudices and changed so many convictions. The advocates of that faith shrink from no discussion. They desire it rather. They court investigation. They challenge scrutiny. They know that the more their principles and measures are examined and scrutinized the more they will commend themselves not only to the warm and generous affections, but to the sober and deliberate judgments of the American people.

SENATE.

influence of patronage will succeed, I cannot say. But we know it is made, and we know too that it is the most common thing in the world, when two parties, or two sections of one party, having some common objects, unite to form a majority over a third party hostile to these objects, to divide the offices which that majority has to fill between the sections which compose it. Now, it so happened that in the Legislature of Ohio, in 1848-'49, no party had a majority; the Independent Democrats were, it is true, few in number; but the Old Line Democrats, though more numerous, were not numerous enough to effect anything by themselves. Under these circumstances that which was most natural took place-the Independents and Old Line Democrats united. But there was-and I am proud to say it no sacrifice of principle on either side. The Old Line Democrats voted for me because they knew me to be sound in the Democratic faith, though independent in party action. The Independent Democrats voted for Old Line nominees for supreme judges, who, though they differed from them in party action, yet shared their general opposition to the extension and nationalization of slavery. Let the Senator make all he can of this. I see nothing in it to lament. I can appeal confidently to my whole course here to justify the confidence reposed in me. Nothing has transpired in the history of either of the eminent gentlemen elected to other offices at the same time, to make Independent Democrats regret the votes they cast for them. Many members of the Legislature who participated in these elections have since received distinguished proofs of the public confidence; and a succession of Democratic victories instead of the succession of defeats which had for years marked the previous history of the Democratic party, has attested the wisdom of the Old Line Democrats who recommended, or adopted, or approved the union.

Sir, I do not so highly value a seat here that I would sacrifice one jot or tittle of my personal independence to obtain or to retain it. Nor would I surrender any political principle to come or to remain here. The prophecy of the Senator from California may be fulfilled. It is very possible that I may not be reëlected. I shall have as little to regret in that event as any man. I am entirely willing, whenever the people of my State indicate that such is their pleasure, to retire from the scene. I have said on another occasion, and to my Democratic constituents, that a private is not less acceptable to me than a public station. I said it sincerely and honestly. I have ever preferred— and all the acts of all my life will prove it-action with a minority in defense of principles, to action with a majority, and to any position which a majority can confer, in disregard of principles.

I have said that I represent the true sentiments of the people of Ohio. I have never said that I represent a majority party organization. The Senator from California tells us that he has been

And now, sir, let me further say that there is nothing in the circumstances of my election which I desire to withdraw from scrutiny here or elsewhere. The Senator from California may, if he sees fit, stigmatize the action of the Old Line Democratic members of the Ohio Legislature-and every one of whom, by the way, had just before supported him for Governor—as dishonorable. I never thought it so. There happen to be two Democratic parties in my State. The political platforms of both are substantially the same; but one insists upon the national recognition and adoption of its principles as the condition of support to national nominees; the other has hitherto supported national nominees without any such condition. The former is known as the Independent or Free Democracy; the latter as the Old Line Democracy; and many who act in the Old Line hold the State plat-provoked by my claim to represent that Demoform very cheap, and sympathize strongly with those who are known in other States as Hunkers; there are more, however, with whom the principles of the State platform are a cherished faith, and who of course sympathize more strongly with the Independent Democracy. Some two years ago, when no national election was pending, when the Old Line Democracy was in opposition to the National Administration, and of course not responsible for any proslavery action, many of the Independent Democrats, myself among them, supported the Old Line nominations. At this election, the Old Line ticket was elected by a large majority over all opposition. Upon no other occasion, for many years, has the Old Line State ticket received an absolute majority.

A SENATOR. How was it at the last presidential election?

Mr. CHASE. The Independent Democrats unanimously supported their own ticket, and the Baltimore nominees lacked fifteen thousand votes of an absolute majority. Well, sir, there has been in New York a union of the Barnburners and Hunkers; and no small pains is taken at the other end of the Avenue, and at this, to cement and consolidate this union. We have witnessed a pretty careful distribution and adjustment of the offices with this view. How the attempt to harmonize these discordant elements by the potent

||

cratic party in Ohio which voted for him as Governor. I have never made any such claim. If he has been provoked, he has been provoked without occasion. I have never assumed any other position than that which I take now. I represent Ohio-the people-not a mere party organization. I have no doubt at all that my political principles are the political principles of a large majority of that people, however their expression may be restrained or modified by party policy. There is not, for example, a sentence in the whole platform of the Old Line Democracy from which I dissent. I have maintained its principles, and have defended its policy every time I have addressed my constituents in whatever part of the State. I shall continue to do so. All I ask of the Old Line Democracy of Ohio is to carry out inflexibly and without reserve the principles of their platform. The chief, if not the only point of difference between me and them, is that I cannot consent, for the sake of party union and a party victory, to support national candidates who reject those principles-the nominees of a Convention who trample upon and spurn them.

I know just as well as the Senator from California that those who concur in the support of candidates nominated upon a platform, are generally supposed to unite in approbation of it. But I know also, and the Senator knows just as well as

« PoprzedniaDalej »