35TH CONG....1ET SESS. official paper of this House, without any correction or qualification of the offensive terms! Was that fair, was it manly, was it just? Mr. Chairman, I will not undertake here properly to characterize such an act; but I will undertake to say that whenever I make a speech upon this floor and pronounce another, made by any colleague of mine, or any one else, to be unjust and untrue, prevaricating, and unworthy the gentleman who made it, I never will go out of this Hall and say that I did not mean to be personally offensive. Never, sir! And if, in the heat of debate and the excitement of discussion, I should use language toward a gentleman which upon cool reflection I was forced to consider unjust to him, never would I be found guilty of the injustice, the gross inJustice to him, the injustice to myself, of sending that speech abroad to the world without retraction or qualification. And yet, sir, with all his prating about fairness and justice, that is what my colleague did, after having made the retraction to which I have alluded, and made it in his own hand-writing, and over his own signature! Sir, the gentleman has applied to me a number of anecdotes by way of disparagement and ridicule. This, too, is a favorite mode of warfare with my colleague. Where a lawyer or a statesman would use an argument, my colleague applies, an anecdote; one gentleman on the other side was so deeply impressed with his ability in that way that he declared, (as I was informed,) during the delivery of my colleague's first speech, that he was "as good as a comic almanac." He has already acquired for himself the soubriquet of the funny Representative from North Carolina," and is fairly entitled to that of "the little joker. Let my colleague cultivate his talent and increase his fund of anecdote, and he may look forward with confidence to the time when he will be able to obtain an engagement as chief buffoon in some strolling circus. But, sir, I shall not follow his example in this regard either; if, however, my tastes and my sense of propriety led me to do so, instead of treating this enlightened assemblage of the people's Representatives to the stale anecdotes and coarse jokes which my colleague has indulged in, I would procure a copy of Joe Miller and read from its pages such as would be vastly more amusing, though a hundred times repeated, than any that my colleague has so far entertained the committee with. Now, sir, my colleague charges against me that I took the ground in my speech, that he voted in favor of the Green amendment, which was attached to the Senate bill when it came to this House, while I, at the same time, was found advocating the views of the Executive in regard to the principle of that amendment. He goes on further, and denies that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. QUITMAN] moved to strike out that amendment. He denies that I voted to strike it out. He denies emphatically that he voted against striking it out. Now, sir, what are the facts? First, does the Green amendment embody the doctrine which my colleague says is contained in the special message of the Executive? Does that amendment declare, as I understand the President to have said in his message, that the people of Kansas would have a right to alter and amend their constitution after they had been admitted into the Confederacy, without regard to the restrictions contained in that instrument itself? I ask the House if the Green amendment embodies that doctrine? I say it does not. The most that can be said of the first branch of the proposition contained in the Green amendment is, that it is a negative pregnant; while the second branch absolutely and unqualifiedly asserts that the Congress of the United States has no right to declare the construction of the constitution of a State. But have I sustained, in any speech which I have made, here or else where, the views of the President of the United States in regard to this particular doctrine? My colleague cannot show it in my speech. It is true that I commended that special message, as it had been commended throughout the length and breadth of the country by the conservauve and patriotic throughout the land. I approved of the general principles there set forth; but I did not approve, and I take occasion to say here that I do not now approve, the doctrine that the people can alter or ainend their constitution without ie. Personal Explanation—Mr. Shaw. gard to the restrictions contained in the instrument itself. HO. OF REPS. moved to strike out the Green amendment. That has become a matter of history; it is upon your record, and I ask you, and I ask the gentleman from Mississippi whether the effect of his motion was not to bring before the House the Senate bill without the Green amendment? Mr. QUITMAN. Certainly. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I must say I was surprised, when I read the speech of my colleague, to see the charge brought against the gentlemair from Mississippi, of being guilty of duplicity in bringing forward that amendment in the manner he did. If there is any one trait which stands out in bold relief in the character of the But suppose the Green amendment had contained that doctrine: how can my colleague object to it? Does it lie in his mouth to get up here or elsewhere and condemn it? And here let me say that my colleague has brought another charge of injustice against me on account of the reference which I made to his position in the Legislature of North Carolina, in relation to a similar question. Now, what was the position of my colleague as a Senator of the State Legislature of North Carolina? It is well known by intelligent gentlemen here that the constitution of that State declares that no convention of the people of Northgentleman from Mississippi, it is his directness, Carolina shall be called to amend the constitution of that State, except by a two-thirds vote of both branches of the State Legislature; and yet my colleague, as a member of the North Carolina Senate, supported and voted for the proposition of Governor Graham, which was intended to provide that the question of a convention to amend the constitution should be submitted to the people of the State by a bare majority of both branches of the Legislature; and if a majority of the people voted for a convention, then the people should proceed to elect delegates to amend the constitution, although that instrument itself says that no convention shall be called unless it is by a vote of two thirds of both branches of the Legislature. Mr. GILMER. Will my colleague allow me to correct him as to a matter of fact? Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I owe the gentleman no courtesy, and will not allow him to interrupt me, especially as I am sure the Chair will have the liberality to award him the floor at the close of my remarks, when he will have an opportunity to say all that he may desire. I say, then, that my colleague, in voting to sustain the proposition of Governor Graham in the Legislature of North Carolina, has himself sanctioned and approved the doctrine which he now denounces, but which I say is not set forth in the Green amendment. But if the special message of the President does contain this doctrine, which has now become so odious to my colleague; and if he has changed his course since he was in the Legislature, why have we not heard his thunder sooner? I have here an editorial article from the leading organ of the party to which the gentleman belongs-the Know Nothing party of North Carolina-in which, in speaking of the President's message and of this very doctrine which the gentleman so vehemently condemns, the following language is used. I quote from the Raleigh Register, of the 10th February, 1858: "According to promise we lay before our readers to-day the President's message recommending to the favor of Congress the Lecompton constitution. We are not inuch given to paying compliments to Democrats, and rarely indeed do * * * * * they deserve any at our hands. We hope, however, we can do justice, and it is in a spirit of fair dealing that we say that Mr. Buchanan's message is a most excellent one." "Besides all this, as the President very well contends, as soon as Kansas is admitted as a State, she can call another convention to make another constitution, and it can then be ascertamed whether the friends or opponents of slavery are in the minority in the State. This seems to us exceedingly simple and plain, and the furious opposition to the President's views can only be accounted for by the fact that certain politicians in Congress desire to prolong this agitation for their own purposes, and with a view likewise of asserting, if pos sible, the principle that slavery shall not spread beyond its present limits. As a citizen of the United States, thien, and a lover of law and order, and as a citizen of the South, and mindful of her rights, we do most earnestly desire to see Kansas admitted with the constitution she pre ents, and let ber future struggles, if any shall ensue, be carried on upon her own soil as a sovereign State, and be settled by her own citizens. Then, and not before, wid her matters cease to be so many fire-brands, threatening the destruction of the Union," There, sir, is the same doctrine held by the leading organ, in North Carolina, of the gentleman's own party, and I have never yet heard any denunciation of that article by my colleague or any member of his party at home. But after the gentleman had concluded to oppose the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, he finds that this is an odious doctrine, and one which ought not only to condemn the President, but the Democratic party also, and me too, who never adopted it! Now, sir, as to my colleague's denial that the gentleman from Mississippi [Me. QUITMAN]; his straightforwardness, and the moral courage and boldness with which he marches up to every question which it is his duty to meet: he is not the man who would lend himself to any such course as that charged by the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. QUITMAN. It was only yesterday that I read the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. GILMER,] and I have been thinking very calmly upon the question whether I should notice them or not. I will not, at any rate, take the time to do so now. Perhaps I may notice them, and I may think them unworthy of notice. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I was saying that the record will show that the gentleman from Mississippi moved to amend the bill then before the House, by submitting the Senate bill without the Green amendment, as an amendment to the Crittenden bill, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MONTGOMERY.] The effect of that would have been to have brought before this House the Senate bill with the Green amendment, and the Senate bill without the Green amendment. Now, sir, I voted for the proposition of the gentleman from Mississippi, and my colleague voted against it; and I repeat, that I have done him no injustice in placing him in the position that I did. But my colleague says he voted against the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. QuitMAN,] not because he was in favor of the Green amendment, but because the success of that motion would have defeated the Crittenden bill, which he was in favor of; and that I was unjust towards him in not stating that fact. To show how much justice there is in this charge, I will be excused, I trust, for quoting a brief extract from my speech, which will be a sufficient answer to the gentleman's accusation: "But the gentleman may say that he voted against the Green amendment in order to save, if possible, the House bill. I do not by any means admit that he can thereby find a sufficient justification of his vote; but Lam willing, for the sake of the argument only, to give him the benefit of that position; and now let us see whether he is justifiable in taking the Crittenden amendment in preference to the Senate bill." My colleague, in his speech, stated that I read from the Lecompton constitution, to prove that that instrument prescribed a proper qualification for voters; for the purpose, as he supposed, of having it go abroad that the Crittenden bill, for which he voted, contained no such safeguard. If the gentleman read my speech carefully, he must have known that I read from that constitution for no such purpose; and the same injustice, which he has improperly, and without the least cause, charged against me, of perverting and misrepresenting his arguments, he has committed against me, in this, as well as in numerous other instances. I showed that by the Lecompton constitution, aliens were prohibited the right of suffrage. I went on then to show that by voting down that constitution, as the gentleman endeavored to vote it down, and by passing another bill, the Crittenden bill, by which the people of Kansas would have been authorized by my colleague to vote upon the Lecompton constitution, and if they saw fit to reject it; (and the whole tenor of his argument, from one end to the other, was to the effect that that constitution was not the voice of the people of Kansas, and that if submitted to them, they would vote it down;) they would then have power under the Crittenden bill to make another constitution, in which they might, and in all probability would, ingraft the doctrine of alien suffrage; yes, even free-negro suffrage-and I was warranted in saying that; for the Leavenworth 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. constitution, then recently made and published, was said to contain, not only the principle of alien suffrage, but of suffrage to free negroes; and that constitution, thus authorized, would entitle Kansas to admission into the Union. That was the argument I made; and my colleague, unable to meet it, has only sought to pervert it. But the gentleman says I accused him of taking the position that if the Lecompton constitution should be voted down, the people of Kansas would seize upon eighty millions of the public lands. Is there anything of that kind to be found in my speech? If so, I call upon the gentleman to bring it forward and present it to the House and the country. Did I say any such thing? I said nothing of the kind; and I think my colleague must know that that was not what I said. He knows, if he has carefully read my speech, which he has in his possession, I said that in the Lecomption constitution there was ample and sufficient guarantee to secure to the several States their interest in the public domain lying within the borders of Kansas; and that, if the people of Kansas came in under that constitution, the rights of all the States-North Carolina as well as the rest-would be amply secured. I said that if my colleague should succeed in voting down that constitution, if he should succeed in passing the bill he was advocating, he would place it in the power of the people of Kansas to seize upon and appropriate to their own use every single acre of the public domain within their borders. How did I prove it? By showing that if the people should vote down the Lecompton constitution, they would be authorized by the Crittenden bill to frame another constitution; and without any terms or conditions precedent in regard to the public domain, or anything else, they were to be inducted into the Union by the mere ipse dixit of the President of the United States, and there would be no remedy to us if they should assert their right to the public lands, even to every acre within their limits. The gentleman, in his speech, quotes an extract from a letter of Senator Davis, of Mississippi, written on 14th May, 1858, to sustain his position. In doing so, however, he attributes to him language which is not to be found in the extract which my colleague quotes. Nor is it to be found in any other portion of that letter. He says that Colonel DAVIS lays down the principle that the "condition precedent" must be contained in the "act of admission. This is an unauthorized amendment to Colonel DAVIS's letter, made by my colleague for a purpose which must be obvious to every one-it was absolutely necessary to make out his case. Here, sir, is the extract which my colleague quotes and adopts: "The consequence of admitting a State without a recognition precedent of the rights of the United States to the public domain, are, in my opinion, the transfer of the useful with the eminent domain, to the people of the State thus admitted, without reservation. As you will see, Colonel DAVIS does not say that the "condition precedent" must be in the "uct of admission.' He says no such thing. But my colleague demands, with an air of triumph, what safeguard there is in the Senate bill for the admission of Kansas, for the security of the public domain in that Territory, which the Crittenden bill does not also contain? and in this connection, and with a flourish of trumpets, he quotes a clause from the Crittenden bill, and with an air of complacency adds, "I shall append to my speech the Minnesota bill, which contains no such guarantee and no security whatever." Now, sir, if my colleague was able to meet the argument I made, why did he resort to the artful dodge of drawing his parallel between the Senate bill and the Crittenden bill, or the Minnesota bill, instead of meeting the point I distinctly made as to the power he proposed to confer upon the people of Kansas, to absorb and appropriate the public lands in case they should chose to vote down the Lecompton constitution, which was to be submitted to them for ratification or rejection by the Crittenden bill for which he voted? and the whole scope of his argument went to show that if submitted to them, they would vote down that constitution; his main objection to the admission of Kansas, under the Lecompton constitution, being that it was not the will and the voice of the people of that Territory. Now, sir, strange as it may seem, my colleague 11 Personal Explanation-Mr. Shaw. in his desire to sustain his unfounded charge against me, that I had surrendered the rights of the United States to this public domain, by my vote for the Minnesota bill, which he voted againstadopts the very principle which I asserted in my speech of the 20th April, by which I showed, that by conferring upon the people of Kansas, as he proposed to do by his vote for the Crittenden bili, the right to frame a new constitution and be admitted into the Confederacy by the proclamation of the President, without any condition precedent to secure the right of the Government to the public lands in Kansas-my colleague, has clinched the argument I made against him on that point. I repeat, I undertook to prove, and did prove, to my own satisfaction, at least, that the people of Kansas would have been enabled, had my colleague succeeded in his effort to defeat the Lecompton constitution and carry through the Crittenden bill, to seize upon every acre of the public lands in that Territory; and my logical and sagacious colleague has fully sustained my point by adopting the very principle upon which I based the whole argument. Now, in reference to the charge that I voted for the bill to admit Minnesota, which, he says, does not contain one word by which the Government is secured in the public lands. Has my colleague put this case fairly? Has he sustained the grave charge he makes against me, of having abandoned the rights and surrendered the interests of North Carolina in the public lands in Minnesota? Sir, has he told the whole truth in the matter? In his schoolboy days, my colleague learned the Latin maxim, "suppressio veri”—but, sir, I have said I will not bandy epithets with my colleague, and I will not finish the sentence. I will recall what I have said. My colleague may not have read the enabling act," by which the last Congress authorized Minnesota to form a State constitution preparatory to her admission into the Union; he may have voted against her admission without having informed himself of the facts in the case. Now, sir, I shall quote the proviso contained in the fifth clause of the fifth section of the enabling act, by which ample security was made for the rights of the Government in the public domain. Here is the proviso: "Provided, The foregoing propositions herein offered are on the condition that the said convention which shall form the constitution of said State, shall provide by a clause in said constitution, or an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof, and that no tax shall be imposed on lands belonging to the United States, and that in no case shall non resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents." And here I am reminded by the chairman of the Committee on Territories [Mr. STEPHENS] that the constitution of Minnesota ratified and confirmed this land provision. I quote here the third section of the second article of that constitution: "The propositions contained in the act of Congress entitled An act to authorize the people of the Territory of Minnesota to form a constitution and State government preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States,' are hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and shall remain irrevocable without the consent of the United States; and it is hereby ordained that this State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same, by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title to said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and no tax shall be imposed on lands belonging to the United States, and in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents." Now, I submit to you and the committee, I there is the smallest degree of fairness or justice submit to the people of North Carolina, whether in the gentleman's charge against me as to this matter. Another charge alleged against me by the gentleman from North Carolina is, that I had done him the injustice to place his opposition to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, upon the ground' that she would thereby be admitted as a slave State. Is there any such charge in my speech? My colleague cannot show it. I made no such charge. I said: "He bases his opposition to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, in other words, to her admission as a slave State, upon three points of objection: first, that the Green amendment affirms the right of a ma HO. OF REPS. jority of the people to change the constitution at any time they please; and that, by the establishment of that prici ple, slavery may be excluded whenever a majority of the people choose; second, that the population of Kansas is not sufficient to entitle her to admission; and, third, that the constitution framed at Lecompton is not the will of the people of that Territory." Now, sir, is that charging him with opposition to the admission of Kansas, because she would come in "as a slave State?" My charge against him was that while Kansas was as much a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina, under the Lecompton constitution," by voting down that constitution, and enabling the people of Kansas to frame another, if the opinion he gave as to the will of the majority in that Territory was correct, slavery would be abolished, and she would become a free State. I shall not stop here to make an argument upon this point. Everybody knows that the seventh article of her constitution established slavery by every guarantee that could be thrown around that institution. It was opposed by the Black Republican party upon that ground. The President announced the fact in his special message, that Kansas was as much a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina, and my colleague labored throughout his whole speech to prove that the people of Kansas would vote down the Lecompton constitution if we submitted it to them, and would, as certainly, frame a free-State con stitution in its stead. But, sir, my colleague says he was unwilling to bring Kansas into the Union by unfair means; he would not countenance the "shuffling" by which an "unnatural emigration" was forced into Kansas; he would not force upon an unwilling people a constitution which they were opposed to. Yes, sir, my colleague had such an abhorrence for the "shuffling which had been witnessed in Kansas;" he was so much opposed to that sort of shuffling by which an unnatural emigration had been forced into that Territory; he was so honest, so fair, and so just, he felt constrained to vote against a constitution which made Kansas a slave State, and which had come to us sanctioned by all the forms and requirements of law; and, at the same time, to use every effort in his power to en able those "shufflers" and Free-Soilers, who had been brought into Kansas by an “unnatural emigration," to frame a new constitution, by which all the South had gained, in the long struggle in Kansas, would have been lost. And why did he do that? Because the gentleman was too fair, too just, and too honest to force upon a reluctant people a constitution which was not their will and their choice. Because that cou stitution had not been submitted to the people of Kansas for their ratification or rejection. That was colleague (in his own estimation) in putting himself the chief ground of objection which justified my in opposition to the whole body of southern Dem ocrats in the Senate and in the House, supported by a majority of northern Democratic members and Senators, and by one half the members of his own party from the South; because the people of Kansas had not had an opportunity of voting at the polls for the ratification or rejection of that constitution. When, let me ask my colleague, did this new light dawn upon him? When did he find out that justice and honesty and fair dealing to the people of Kansas required that the Lecompton constitution should be submitted to them for ratification or rejection? Sir, I say that he had not made that notable discovery when he received the votes of the people of North Carolina which secured to him the seat which he occupies upon this floor. During his canvass he proclaimed everywhere to the people of the fifth congressional district of North Carolina, that President Buchanan was unworthy the confidence of the southern people, because (as he said) he had instructed Governor Walker to see that the constitution of Kansas was submitted to a vote of the people of that Territory. He declared that, if the Lecompton constitution was submitted to the people of Kansas for ratification or rejection, the last hope of the southern people for the admission of a slave State north of 36° 30' would be gone forever. I say, when did my colleague make this extraordinary discovery? As late as the day when Judge DOUGLAS made his speech, in December last, my colleague had not received this new light! So far from it, he 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. did not hesitate to say that he was in favor of the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, without its being submitted to the people. It was not until a still later period that he made the discovery, and his conversion appears to me almost as strange, as extraordinary as that of St. Paul. When did that light beam upon him? I have said it was not in December last; but, sir, when the struggle came on, when the two parties were arrayed against each other here-the South for Lecompton with slavery, on the one hand, and my colleague, with his five southern coadjutors, with the whole Black Republican party, on the other-then it was that this new light dawned upon him. Then it was that my colleague turned from us, in our hour of need, and went over to the enemy, and cast his vote against us. But, sir, after that vote had been cast, and the enemies of the South were rejoicing over the victory they had achieved, an effort was made to raise a conference committee, to see if some plan could be agreed upon by which Kansas might be brought into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, and peace thereby restored to the country. My colleague had admitted the urgent necessity of settling the question and relieving the country of the fearful excitement and the dangerous agitation which had so long prevailed. How did he vote then upon the motion to raise that committee? Did he come forward in a spirit of conciliation and compromise, and say to those with whom he had differed, "I have not been able to agree with you as to the Senate bill; but I see the necessity of getting rid of this vexed question, and I will vote for a conference committee, with the hope that some plan may be agreed upon to which I may be able to give my support?" No, sir; no such thing! When the two parties in this House were arrayed against each other, nearly the entire southern delegation on the one side, and the whole body of Black Republicans upon the other, while the question was in imminent doubt, my colleague came forward and said, by his vote, "I will permit no further effort to be made to settle this question; here the matter shall stop.' And, sir, had it not been for the casting vote of the Speaker of this House, my colleague would have been successful; the Kansas question would still be open; still a source of trouble and danger. But, sir, we prevailed over my colleague and his coadjutors; the conference committee was raised; and a bill reported to this House which received the support of my colleague; and therefore stands a record evidence against him on account of his vote against the conference committee which framed it! But my colleague says that I applied the phrase "unparalleled outrage" to the position which he occupied upon the Kansas question. What I said was that the gentleman's position was injurious to the rights of his own section; and I proved it by quoting against him authority which he could not question the Raleigh Register-which had denounced the opposition to the admission of Kaysas under the Lecompton constitution as unparalleled outrage." Does my colleague deny that the phrase was so applied by that journal? I will here quote the article so that others may see whether I was warranted in the assertion: an "The President establishes by undoubted proof that the constitution of Lecompton was made according to the Constitution and the laws, and this being the case, what earthly pretext will Congress have for even hesitating about accepting it, and admitting Kansas as a State? What right has that body to look behind a full compliance with law, and say to the people of Kansas, you ought to have done this or that? The idea is patently and egregiously absurd, and known to be so by the unscrupulous men who urge it. What if a majority of the voters of Kansas did not take part in the formation of the constitution? Whose fault was that but their own? They had unlimited opportunities to vote, and if for factious and rebellious purposes they chose not to exercise their right of suffrage, are they to be allowed to take advantage of their own laches, of their own wrong? "Never was there a clearer case submitted to the judgment of intelligent men than this of Kansas; and if her constitution, as submitted, shall be rejected, it will be an unparalleled outrage, not on the South alone, but on the Constitution, the laws, and common sense. It will establish a principle which may be carried out to the utter destruction of all popular government." But the gentleman from North Carolina says that the conference committee bill is substantially the same as the Crittenden bill, and that I came upon his platform when I voted for the former. I shall not now step to discuss this question; the || Personal Explanation—Mr. Shaw. facts have gone to the people of the country, and they have all the information necessary to enable them to come to a correct conclusion; and I doubt not that they will render a just verdict. When the gentleman tells me that the conference bill is as great an outrage as the Crittenden bill, I will say to him that I am supported by almost the entire body of Representatives from the South, both in the Senate and in the House; I am supported by a majority of the conservative and patriotic Democrats of the North in this House and in the Senate. If I wanted other evidence to prove to my mind that, in voting for that conference bill, I was committing no outrage upon my own State and upon my own section, it would be enough, and more than enough, for me to know that I voted in direct opposition to every Black Republican in this Hall and in the other branch of Congress. If the conference bill was substantially the same as that for which my colleague contended, why did not Governor Crittenden and Governor Bell have the sagacity to learn the same fact? Is the mental vision of my colleague so much more acute than that of the two gentlemen from Kentucky and the three gentlemen from Maryland, in this House, that they, too, could not see it? Yet, of all these gentlemen of his own party, who set out against us upon the ground that the bill which we voted for did not submit the Lecompton constitution to the people of Kansas, only one, and that my colleague, could so far look into the merits of the question as to see that the conference bill was precisely the thing he had been contending for. I have not time to notice all the points my colleague made in his speech. I regret that I have not. I must pass over other points to notice the charge that he makes, that I persisted in representing that he received the congratulations of the senior member from Ohio, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] and his Black Republican allies on that side of the House. At the conclusion of my speech of the 20th day of April, in indicating the fact that the speech of the gentleman received the approbation and applause of the Black Republicans in this Hall, I said that the senior member from Ohio approached my colleague, and congratulated him. I saw him leaning towards my colleague, and, as I thought, shaking both of his hands. He was congratulated by a large body of Black Republicans of this House. The gentleman is surprised that I should persist in making this charge. He need not be surprised at all, for I intend to prove it. Why, sir, that strange and extraordinary spectacle which I witnessed on that occasion, and which was witnessed by a large portion of the members upon this side of the Hall, so wrought upon the patriotic indignation of the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. HOUSTON,] that he cried out to the senior member from Ohio to kiss my colleague. More than that, my friend from South Carolina [Mr. MILES] having obtained the floor at the conclusion of my colleague's speech, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HOUSTON] addressed the Chair, and requested the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. MILES] to suspend his remarks until the Black Republicans had finished congratulating the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. GILMER.] That will be found by any gentleman who is curious enough to make the Investigation in the official report of the proceedings of that day. Mr. BINGHAM. Will the gentleman allow me to say a word? Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. No, sir. My colleague declares that he received no congratulations from the senior member from Ohio such as I have described, nor any congratulations of any kind. Here at least he is at issue with the former member from the third district of Ohio, (Mr. Campbell,) who distinctly admitted that he congratulated my colleague and took three or four hundred of his speech, and was sorry he did not take more. I suppose that every intelligent gentleman understands, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts that have been made to restrict and limit this question to the single fact as to whether the senior member from Ohio did shake hands with, and offer words of congratulation to, my colleague, that the point, and the essential point, made by me was, that my colleague's speech received the Ho. OF REPS. approval of the Black Republicans in this House that was the gravamen of the charge. Before I conclude, I shall take occasion to call upon gentlemen on this side of the Hall, whose attention was called to the “congratulating scene" of which I spoke, to state their recollection of the affair, and I shall be content to leave it to them to say whether my colleague did, or did not, receive the "congratulations of the senior member from Ohio, and his Black Republican allies." As to whether they manifested their approval of my colleague's speech, I have here a list of subscribers to it; and if the committee will so far indulge me, I beg leave to read the list, in order that the country may know whether the statement which I made as to the approval of that speech by the Black Republican party is true. Here is the list: J. Morrison Harris... 500 C. J. Gilman............................ ..100 .......300 200 A. E. Roberts... 200 E. P. Walton....... 200 E. Joy Morris... .200 400 ..300 200 H. E. Royce...... 100 300 G. A. Grow.... 200 S. M. Burroughs. 200 C. B. Hoard... 200 J. M. Parker.. 200 200 200 100 .200 S. G. Andrews........ 200 John P. Hale........ And to these may be added the name of the immaculate member from New York, [Mr. MATTESON,] who, out of his hard earnings, subscribed for five hundred copies. Mr. MORRIS, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman also put in his speech the list of subscribers to Senator HAMMOND's speech? Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. Every one understands why the gentleman and his allies circulated Senator HAMMOND's speech. The gentleman need not bring that up here, for I can tell him that the people of North Carolina, are not quite so green as my colleague seems to think many of them are. In his first speech he said he was told by a friend that many of the people were like a nest of young birds-tap on the tree and they will open their mouths and swallow the worm." Let me tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the birds of North Carolina are not simple enough to open their mouths for any such worm as that which he offers them. Mr. COMINS. You have not read my name there. Put it down for one thousand. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. What is the gentleman's name? Several MEMBERS. COMINS, of Massachusetts. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. Mr. COMINS takes one thousand copies. I hope the reporter will put that down. Mr. CLARK B. COCHRANE. Has the gentleman read all the names of the subscribers? Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. Yes. Does the gentleman want to put his name down? Mr. CLARK B. COCHRANE. No, sir. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. If the edition of my colleague's first speech be exhausted, the gentleman may be able to obtain some of his last one, and I doubt not it will answer as useful a purpose as the first. Mr. MORGAN. I would say to the gentleman from North Carolina that we on this side of the House subscribed for more copies of Mr. GARTRELL'S speech. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I have failed for want of time to notice all the points which my colleague made in his speech. I do not, however, deem it at all necessary or important. I would, if I had time, state here what is the political character of each of the gentlemen who have subscribed for my colleague's speech, in order that every citizen of North Carolina, whether he be a reading man or not, may know whether the statement that I made as to my colleague's speech receiving the commendation of the Black Republican party of the country was true or not. Having said thus much, Mr. Chairman, by = 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. way of putting an end now, henceforth, and forever to the question, I call upon gentlemen here who witnessed the same scene that I did, to state what they saw, and what their recollection of it is. Mr. LEITER. Mr. Chairman Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. My time is not out, and I do not give way to the gentleman from Ohio. But I do not want an ex parte case made up here. I am perfectly willing to hear him or any other gentleman make a statement in regard to the matter, after the gentlemen to whom I have referred shall have made their statements. Mr. LEITER. I am obliged to the gentleman; but I never take any other gentleman's controversies off his hands. I have as much of that kind of matter as I can attend to. If the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. GILMER] wants to reply to his colleague, I will yield the floor to him, provided I can have it afterwards. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I did not yield to the gentleman from Ohio; and I now call upon gentlemen here to state whether I have described the scene following the delivery of my colleague's first speech truly or not? Mr. LEITER. I beg the gentleman's pardon. I thought he was through. Mr. HOUSTON. I desire to say that as far as I witnessed the exhibition, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. SHAW] has described it substantially, as I believe it took place. I was in my seat at the time the speech of the gentleman [Mr. GILMER] was delivered, especially when his remarks came to a close. Several of the Black Republicans did congratulate the gentleman, [Mr. GILMER,] and I distinctly remember seeing Mr. GIDDINGS approach the member from North Carolina, [Mr. GILMER,] after he had taken bis seat. I will not say that he took hold of his hand; but my impression at the time was that he did so; and if I were to speak alone from what I saw, I should have so stated unhesitatingly at the time, as is evident from my exclamation. It is due to myself to say that the remark made by me was not intended to do more than express my own feelings of the scene that was being enacted between the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. GILMER,] and the Black Republicans. I did not expect to see it in the newspapers. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I beg leave to call upon the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. STEVENSON.] Mr. HORTON. Is this in pursuance of any rule of the House? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time is not out. Mr. HOUSTON. I desire now that other gentlemen, whether they agree or differ with ine, should state their recollection of that scene. The gentleman from North Carolina is entitled to the floor, and can yield it for a statement. Several MEMBERS on the Republican side. Go ahead! Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I desire to call on several other gentlemen for their state ments. Mr. LEITER. Is it understoood that I have got the floor? If not, I make the point that the time of the gentleman from North Carolina has expired. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has the floor. Mr. HOUSTON. The Chair, and not the gentleman from Ohio, keeps the time. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I yield the floor, now, to the gentleman from Kentucky. [Here the hammer fell.] NOTE. Having been prevented, by the expiration of my hour, and the objections which were made, from calling out any other statements, I append the following: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 3, 1858. At the request of Hon. II. M. SHAW, I state that I was in the House of Representatives, on the 30th day of March, when his colleague [Hon. Mr. GILMER] delivered a speech upon the questions connected with the admission of Kansas as a State. At the conclusion of the speech, a number of "Republicans," from different parts of the Hall, crowded around the seat of the honorable member from North Carolina, and congratulated him. Hon. Mr. GIDDINGS, of Ohio, was in the Hall, at the conclusion of the speech. He approached, with others, the scat of Hon. Mr. GILMER, and i Personal Explanation-Mr. Gilmer. supposed, at the time, he congratulated him; and I should I have stated what I saw upon that occasion, and the im- I concur in the above. GEORGE S. HAWKINS. C. L. VALLANDIGHAM. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Ho. OF REPS. simply state that when I made my speech upon this subject of Kansas and Lecompton, I aimed, as far as I could, (and I think I succeeded,) at making a speech in which there were no offensive personal allusions-a speech that, I conceive, was acceptable to most southern gentlemen, and to the conservative gentlemen from the North. My colleague, [Mr. SHAW,] twenty days thereafter, in my absence, made a reply to it; and I submit to his own good sense, and I submit to the sense of the committee, and to all who may have read his speech, whether, instead of answering the views which I had respectfully submitted to the consideration of the House and the country, without offense to any one, he did not in his speech reply to the ad hominem, as if my having done this or that, having helped a poor Irishman, or having voted this way, or that way, in the SPEECH OF HON. JOHN A. GIL MER, Legislature of North Carolina, had anything to do OF NORTH CAROLINA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the Mr. GILMER said: with the great questions that were then before us? And if my colleague, having thus attempted by a speech to affect me politically, in the estimation of my constituents, has found, from my reply, that he has gained nothing by it, but on the contrary, that he is about to lose by it, I would simply say, here, with all good humor, and with all respect, that I do not think it becomes him to get into this fever, this excitement, this fury, this evident state of dissatisfaction; for I can assure my colleague that I am down with no such complaint. Mr. CHAIRMAN: There seems to be some in- Several MEMBERS. It was withdrawn. Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. GOODWIN. I will say that I was in my Mr. BINGHAM. I take the liberty of saying that I believe the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. SHAW] was present when my colleague, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] in his hearing, and in the hearing of the House, said that he never congratulated Mr. GILMER on that occasion, or on any other, about his speech; and I submit to the House and to the country if, after hearing that statement of my colleague, it is not, to say the least of it, a departure from those rules which ordinarily govern gentlemen, for the gentleman from North Carolina, in the absence of my colleague, to raise a question of veracity with him, especially on a subject which he knows nothing about? Mr. GILMER. I think I recollect seeing the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] somewhere near me at the time. If he is in the House I should be glad to hear his recollection of what occurred. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I trust that if the committee has no more important business than this, we shall rise. sessions for debate, I was then ready to proceed, but could not, by the House refusing to go into committee, for which refusal he voted. I waited till Saturday evening, when I obtained the floor; but as my colleague was not then present, I postponed my remarks still further, until Monday evening, for the express purpose of giving him an oppor tunity to be here. He says he did not receive the notice. I proceeded. With regard to the printing of my speech, my colleague will find, by reference to the Globe, that it occupied its regular place in the proceedings, and appeared at the earliest possible moment. But such was my anxiety to pub lish it that I had it printed elsewhere, at my own expense; and if it did not fall into the hands of my colleague, it was in the hands of many gentlemen here before it was published in its regular order in the official proceedings in the Globe. But all this is catching at small things; and I express my belief, with all becoming respect, that they had better be left out in discussions of this kind. I expect to gain nothing by such. I think my colleague will find that the people of North Carolina, before whom we have both to appear, will take very little notice of these small matters. My colleague, it seems, would get me into some controversy with the venerable gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. QUITMAN.] In that I trust he will be disappointed; for I say here, as I have often said in relation to the gentleman from Mis sissippi, that I had esteemed and venerated him as much as any man whose acquaintance it has been my fortune to make since the commencement of this Congress. He may get him momentarily into some excitement, which, on reflection, I am sure will soon pass away. I expressed my views as to how those who desired to have the Green amendment stricken out of the Senate bil could have proceeded so easily to do it; and in this, I indulged in the usual freedom of political criticism. But upon that particular subject I think I have been heard enough; and I think I have been heard in such a manner that my people, at least, and all North Carolina, will be well satisfied given of that subject. Was the amendment of with the history and explanation which I have the venerable gentleman from Mississippi to strike out the Green amendment? Let us see. First, we had the Senate bill. The first amend ment was to strike out the Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the Crittenden-Montgomery amend ment. What was the amendment of the gentleamendment for both the Senate bill and the Crit man from Mississippi? It was to substitute his I will tenden bill-to throw the Crittenden bill entirely Mr. GILMER. Well, I will let that pass. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to inflict a speech upon the committee-very far from it. 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. aside. Had it been written out no mention of the Green amendment would appear in it. It was a substitute both for the Senate bill and for the Crittenden-Montgomery bill. In his amendment, I repeat, nothing would be said about the Green amendment, suppose it written out. What was the vote? Those who preferred the adjustment of the difficulty by means of the CrittendenMontgomery amendment, and were opposed to the Green amendment, to support the Quitman amendment would have had to vote against their own favorite bill, in order to have got at the Green amendment. In my reply I asked why the motion was not made simply to strike out the Green amendment from the Senate bill? To this no answer is given. My colleague does not doubt, no man doubts, if the amendment had been first made to strike out the Green amendment from the Senate bill, that motion would have been successful. Then what would have been the next vote? It would have been a vote deciding between the Crittenden-Montgomery bill on the one side, and the Senate bill, thus stripped of the Green amend ment, upon the other side. When the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MARSHALL] brought that fact to their attention, and asked that the previous question should be withdrawn, that this motion might first be made, so as to place all in their true and proper position, why did not my colleague and those of our southern friends who wanted the Green amendment stricken out yield to him, that the question might be submitted in that shape? Nothing could be gained effectually in putting the motion in the shape in which it was put, and everything could be gained by putting it in the simple, plain shape of striking out the Green amendment; and then the vote would have been between the two propositions as I have stated. Personal Explanation-Mr. Gilmer. stance, "no convention shall be called by the Legislature, except by the concurring vote of two thirds of both Houses," &c This amendment, thus made-explained more fully by the debates sustains, as I conceive, all the views I have ever maintained for the power of the people of North Carolina over their constitution." But how does any difference of opinion on this sustain my colleague? Did I ever talk of sustaining the doctrine that, in a new State, or in an old State, a convention, called in one way or the other, could fairly give the Legislature the power to make a discrimination between property? I never did at any time. I never maintained the doctrine that a convention can justly give the Legislature power to give security to one species of property in preference to another-never. All this, however, I more fully explained before. A word now about the eighty millions of public lands. The fault which I found with my colleague's speech was, that he stated that I voted against the necessary provisions to protect the Government in her right in the public lands within the confines of Kansas, without noticing the fact that the same safeguards were contained in the Crittenden-Montgomery bill that were in the Sen ate bill. I understand my colleague now to say that he was misunderstood; that what he meant was, that inasmuch as the people of Kansas might vote down Lecompton, and proceed to form a new constitution, and in the formation of this new constitution they might claim a right to these lands, that would be effectual against the title of the United States Now, let me show how erroneous this position is. All Congress can do is to put a proper safeguard into the bill on which the State is to be admitted. Suppose, for instance, that Minnesota, or any other State having public lands within it, comes into the Union with proper provisions in the act of admission as to the rights of the United States in the public domain, and afterwards the people of that State should change their constitution and put in a clause declaring that all the public lands within its borders should be the property of the State: how would this affect the Government title? The position of my colleague is, if I understand him, that a subsequent alteration of the State constitution could take away the title of the United States to the public lands in that State, when express provision against it is in the admitting act-if the admission afterwards should be by proclamation. But, sir, I presented the views of the gentleman from Mississippi, [Senator Davis,] and quoted from his letter. My colleague must admit that I quoted properly. It declares, But I desire to say no more upon that subject. I understood the greater portion of the speech of my colleague, of the 20th of April, to be a defense of the doctrine contained in the executive Lecompton message. I directed my remarks to the doctrine contained in the message. In order that there should be no difficulty upon that question, I quoted the very identical doctrine in that message with which I found fault and dissented from, and upon which the Green amendment rested for explanation-the executive message giving meaning, force, and effect, to this Green amendment. I have, as to this, not heard my colleague distinctly and really; I do not understand to day whether he approves of that doctrine or not; though, if have heard and understood him correctly, he says he does not approve of that portion of the message. Then, I submit with great deference, that my colleague ought to have let my argument on that subject pass with his ap-in substance, that unless you provide in the act proval, and himself argued somewhat against that doctrine of the President; and not have devoted himself so entirely to other matters in the speech which I made, and matters foreign, and to which no allusion had been made by me. One word now as to the vote which he said I gave in the Senate of North Carolina. I desire that what he quoted and stated as to the provisions of the constitution of North Carolina shail appear in his speech just as he spoke it here today; because, when it shall be compared with the constitution of North Carolina, there will be found, I conceive, a very material difference between his quotation and the constitution itself. We had a convention to amend the constitution of North Carolina, in 1835. It was called by an enabling act, the people being first consulted. They declared in favor of a convention, and delegates were elected. Amendments were made by that convention, and the people ratified their action. 1 In that convention the committee reported, in substance, that no convention should be called, except in the manner stated by my colleague. speak from memory. But according to the register of the debates of the convention, complaints were made of the phraseology of the draft of the constitutional amendment first proposed, as to calling a convention in the future. Whereupon a very important amendment, materially changing the language as to the call of a convention, was made the first draft being, in substance, "that no convention should be called, except by the concurring vote of two thirds of both Houses." The amendment made, this section read in sub of admission proper safeguards as to the title of the United States to the public lands in a State, the Genera! Government loses its control over those public lands. But my colleague flies instantly to something else to get out of that difficulty; and says the remedy is contained in the enabling act. I read the views and position of the Senator from Mississippi, and showed that they must be provided for. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. Mr. Chair man Mr. GILMER. My colleague would not extend this courtesy to me, and I cannot yield. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I only wish to interrupt my colleague to correct him in his statement. The Senator from Mississippi did not say that. He did not say the condition precedent must be contained in the act of admission. He is so reported in my colleague's speech, but he did not say that Ho. OF REPS. than to guard against it in the act of admission? If the State afterwards sees proper to call a convention and amend its constitution, the difficulty which my colleague seems to labor under would arise in every case. I mention this to my colleague to show how anxious he is to point out defects, and indulge in fault-finding. He says that, by quoting the letter of the honorable Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. DAVIS,] I clinch the argument on his position, and in his favor, on his vote to admit Minnesota without a provision protecting the United States in her rights to the public domain within the confines of that new State. Very different, in truth, if there be anything in his own position a sumed against me. am free to admit that my great objection to the admission of Minnesota was the alien universal suffrage which her constitution tolerates, and which is not denied. My colleague is down upon me about my former views as to the admission of Kansas with the Lecompton constitution; talks enigmatically, and charges more than I recollect. I do not recollect about the canvass. I do not deny, however, that previous to my coming to Congress, I did entertain and express different views in relation to Kansas and Lecompton to those I formed and acted upon after investigating and becoming familiar with the whole facts. The time, I presume, is not material. I am free to admit, that had I not become well satisfied that serious difficulties would likely, inevitabl1, and without gain or benefit to my section, arise to the peace and quiet of the Union, I would have been as ready and as anxious as any other to admit Kansas with the Lecompton constitution, unconditionally. But I came here to confer, investigate, and to legislate for the best interests of my country. I came here to give that vote which I thought would be best for the North, best for the South, best for the East, and best for the West; and when I had made a full investigation of the subject so far as I could, I found things very different and came honestly to the conclusion, without any reference to any section of this country, that a bill containing the provisions such as the bill I have advocated and sustained, was best calculated to quiet the country finally and forever. I gave it my heart, I gave it my hand, I gave it my cordial and honest support. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. Will my colleague permit me to ask him a question? Mr. GILMER. My colleague will recollect how he answered me when I asked the same privilege. I must reply to him in the same way. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I would be glad to know whether, my colleague denies that the submission of the Lecompton constitution to the people was a question in the last canvass? I understood him to say that he took no position in regard to that question. If the gentleman denies what I have said, I am prepared to prove it. I say this now, because it is not my purpose to reply to him Mr. GILMER. My colleague will interrupt me whether I will or not. I admit that I was, with others at the South, who believed that there was no necessity for a submission of the Lecompton constitution to the people, for that, I then believed that it was to be submitted for the sole and improper purpose unfairly to get rid of slavery. Had such been the true state of things, and that Lecompton admitted slavery, the question, no man would have more readily stood up for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. My colleague says that I had indicated my Mr. GILMER. I cannot yield. My purpose anxiety to get rid of this question. Never did he was to try my colleague by his own assumed rule, state a greater truth. I was anxious, and have and by the opinion of Senator DAVIS. I under- been anxious since the difficulty arose, that the stand my colleague now to say, that what he question might be got rid of without harm to the meant by the remark in his opening speech, that peace and interests of the country, or the sacrifice I had not been faithful against alien suffrage, con- of any principle. I presume that my colleague sisted in this: that the inhabitants or citizens of desired the same thing. I presume that all genKansas might, under the Crittenden-Montgom-tlemen who voted honestly on this question here ery bill, for which I voted, in case they voted down the Lecompton constitution, make a new one, in which they might tolerate alien suffrage. Now let me examine that position for a moment. What more can Congress do to provide safeguards against the exercise of the right of alien suffrage desired and aimed at the same thing. And I repeat here, that the course I have pursued on this subject, whether southern men were with me or is an honest one. Inasmuch as our southern friends have come, substantially, in the bill which was passed, upon my identical plat against me, |