Mr. Davis asked what he meant exactly.

Mr. Fessenden. Free labor is independent, and tends to promote the wealth and manliness of the laborer; while slave labor tends to degrade and impoverish the laborer, to diminish his comfort, and be little his character. Where slave labor exists, it tends to degrade the free labor on the same soil. I understood the senator to say that the Republican party desires to make war upon slavery in the states. I deny the charge; and there is nothing in his speech to substantiate it. We hold, as we have always held, that the slaveholder has no right to go with his slaves into free territory, unless there is some law there to authorize it. The northern Democracy were the ones who really inflamed the South against the North. The men or papers that asserted that the Republican party were warring against any rights of the South, were guilty of calumny. We hold to the

opinions of the fathers, and can not be warring on their rights. The early men of the Republic thought that, by restricting slavery, it would die out. They wanted it to die. That is the position of the Republican party. We have been told, if we elect a man of our views President, the Union will be dissolved. While the senator was devising means to repress the invasion of one state by another, he might have suggested a provision for the threatened contingency.

About the time threats to dissolve the Union were so frequently made by southern members of congress, the legislature of South Carolina appointed a Mr. Memminger a commissioner to visit the legislature of Virginia, which he addressed at great length on the subject of his mission; the object of which, as stated by himself, was: 1. To express the cordial sympathy of South Carolina with Virginia in the existing circumstances; 2. To communicate the desire of South Carolina to unite with Virginia in measures for their common defense; 3. To request Virginia to appoint a conference of the southern states, and to send delegates to the same.

This movement probably contemplated a dissolution of the Union— a measure which South Carolina hesitated to undertake alone. Mr. Memminger suggested, in his address, a change in the Federal Government as a means of rendering a continuance in the Union tolerable to the South; a plan said to have been once suggested by Mr. Calhoun. The proposed alteration of the constitution was the election either of two Presidents, or two Senates, one in the slave states and the other in the free states, and each was to have a negative or veto upon the acts of the other. The framers of the constitution deemed a single executive indispensable to a prompt and an efficient administration. Divided in opinion as they would probably be, not only upon the slavery question, but upon others, disputes would

arise, and the administration of the government would be subject to injurious delays, or perhaps to total obstructions. No arrangement could be devised more likely to produce discord between the two sections of the Union; and it can hardly be presumed that Mr. Memminger, or those who appointed and commissioned him, believed such a proposition would be accepted by any considerable number of states, North or South, unless with the view to a dissolution of the Union. When it is considered that the Federal Government had for many years acceded to the demands of the southern states, and that all its branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, were still favor ably disposed to southern interests, it may be fairly presumed that the project was prompted by the apprehension of a loss of power, indicated by the rapid growth of the Republican party; or, having been made an alternative to the dissolution of the Union, to which there was not the least probability that other states would assent, its general rejection would afford a pretext for secession; or it may have been hoped that a convention would frighten the North, and prevent the election of a Republican President.

BILL

CHAPTER LXXXIII.

FOR THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS.-HOMESTEAD BILL OF 1860.-INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT FRAUDS.--REPORT ON JOHN BROWN'S INSURRECTION.

IN the house, February 15, Mr. Grow, of Pa., introduced a bill for the admission of Kansas under the Wyandotte constitution, which was referred to the committee on territories. On the 29th of March, the majority of the committee, through Mr. Grow, reported in favor of admission. On the 11th of April, he demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill, which having been seconded, and the main question ordered, the bill was passed: Yeas, 134; nays, 73.

Of those who voted in the affirmative, there were 103 Republicans; 22 Democrats, (all from free states ;) 6 Anti-Lecompton Democrats; 3 Americans. Of those who voted in the negative, there were 55 Democrats, (3 from free states ;) 18 Americans, all from slave

states.

In the senate, February 21, Mr. Seward introduced a bill for the admission of Kansas under the Wyandotte constitution. On the 29th, he addressed the senate in support of the bill.

On the 5th of June, the bill was taken up.

Mr. Green, of Mo., opposed the bill. He objected that Kansas had not the requisite population, denying that she had one hundred thousand. He objected also on the ground of boundaries. Kansas had made herself into a state in defiance of the action of congress, and had not so demeaned herself as to justify their winking at her course. He proposed to change the boundaries, and submit the question to a vote of the people.

Mr. Collamer, of Vt., thought there was no ground for the sweeping remarks of the serator against the people of Kansas, and that his history of their actions was fallacious. The facts showed that she had about one hundred thousand people. He thought this attempt to change the boundaries, and present an entirely new issue, was intended as a way of getting rid of the question.

[It may be proper here to state, that the Western part of the territory embracing Pike's Peak, is separated from that portion which composes the present state, by a woodless, waterless desert of one hundred miles or more in breadth, almost, if not altogether uninhabitable ; on account of which the people of the West were opposed to being included in the state of Kansas, as it would be impossible to participate with the people of the Eastern part in the government. The opponents of admission asked also to annex a portion of Nebraska, up to the river Platte, thus taking about one-third of the breadth of that territory.]

Mr. Wigfall, of Texas, declared he would not vote for the admission of this so-called state, under any circumstances. He objected to the moral character of the people, and was unwilling Texas should associate with such a state.

Mr. Wade, of Ohio, in opposition to Mr. Green's amendment to change the boundary (taking in Pike's Peak,) said the effect of the amendment would be to defeat the bill.

Mr. Hunter, of Va., moved to postpone the subject, and take up the army bill.

Mr. Trumbull, of Ill., opposed the motion. He should keep the Kansas bill before the senate till it was finally disposed of. It was more important than the appropriation bills, which appeared to be kept back in order to interrupt other important business..

Mr. Seward, of N. Y., hoped the friends of Kansas wonld let a vote be taken, so that the responsibility might lie where it belonged.

The vote to postpone and take up the army bill was then taken : Yeas, 33; nays, 27. A strict party vote, except that Messrs. Pugh, of Ohio, and Latham, of Cal., both Democrats, voted with the Republicans.

Mr. Trumbull called attention to the fact, that Mr. Bigler, of Pa.,

had desired to postpone the Kansas bill, because the senate was not full. It appeared that sixty votes had been cast, with two paired off, (Douglas and Clay,) showing the fullest vote of the session The effect of the vote just taken was equivalent to the defeat of the Kansas bill, and the senator must have known the effect of his vote.

Mr. Wigfall desired to call attention to the fact that the house bad once defeated the army bill, because it did not want the army used against the Black Republican thieves and murderers in Kansas.

On the 7th of June, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, moved to take up the Kansas bill Yeas, 27; Bigler and Pugh, Democrats, voting with the Republicans; nays, 32-all Democrats.

Both houses adjourned, leaving Kansas still in the condition of a territory..

A few months previous to the defeat of the Kansas bill, the legis lature of Kansas passed a bill for the abolition of slavery in the territory. The bill was vetoed by Gov. Medary. Certain newspaper editors having expressed a desire for the passage of the bill" to test Gov. Medary," and advised, if he should veto it, "to pass it over his head," he said, in his message returning the bill: "The bill appears to be more political than practical; more for the purpose of obtaining men's opinions than for any benefit or injury it can be to any one. Always willing to accommodate political opponents as well as friends on politics or any other subject, I accept the invitation with pleasure, and offer this as an apology for the extent I may go in satisfying so generous a demand."

The attempt, several times defeated, to pass a Homestead bill, was repeated at this session. A few days after the organization of the house, Mr. Grow, of Pa., introduced a bill similar to that which was defeated at the previous session. It was reported to the house on the 6th of March, 1860, by Mr. Lovejoy, from the committee on public lands, and committed to the committee of the whole.

The bill proposed to give to any head of a family, or to any citizen, or to any one having declared his intention to become a citizen, one hundred and sixty acres of land, upon which said person may have filed a preemption claim, or which may be subject to preemption at $125 per acre, or eighty acres at $2.50 per acre.

The vote to refer the bill to the committee of the whole was, on motion of Mr. Lovejoy, reconsidered, March 12th, under the operation of the previous question, 106 to 67. Mr. Lovejoy moved that the bill be engrossed and read a third time. Mr. Branch, of N. C., moved to lay the bill on the table. Lost, 62 to 112; the yeas being all from the South, except Mr. Montgomery, Democrat, of Pa., and the nays all

HOMESTEAD BILL OF 1860.

1029

from the North, except Mr. Craig, Democrat, of Mo. The bill was then read a third time and passed, 115 to 65. Of the yeas, 87 were Republicans; 22 Democrats; 5 Anti-Lecompton Democrats; 1 American-all from free states, except Mr. Craig, Dem., of Missouri. Of the nays, 48 were Democrats, and 17 Americans—all from slave states, except Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania.

The bill was sent to the senate, and referred to the committee on public lands. Mr. Johnson, of Tenn., the chairman, reported a substitute for the house bill, granting homesteads to actual settlers, at 25 cents per acre, but not including preemptors then occupying public lands. Mr. Wade moved to amend by substituting the house bill, which was lost, 26 to 31. The yeas were all Republicans, except Douglas, Rice, and Toombs. The nays were all Democrats.

The

On the 10th of May, Mr. Johnson's bill was passed, 44 to 8. house refused to concur, and the senate refused to recede. A committee of conference of the two houses agreed upon some slight amendments. The senate bill was so amended as to protect settlers for two years from land sales, and allowing them to secure their homes at one-half the government price, or 62 cents per acre. The bill restricted settlers to land subject to private entry; that is, land remaining from that which had been exposed to public sale, after speculators have taken what they were pleased to purchase. This provision was so altered as to add to these refuse lands one-half of the surveyed public lands which had not been open to public sale; this half to consist of the odd-numbered sections, so as to leave section sixteen of every township, which is reserved for school purposes. The bill restricted the benefit of its provisions to heads of families, who, after having occupied the land five years, might purchase at 25 cents an acre; single men over 21 years of age being excluded. One or two other provisions were modified. In this shape it was accepted by the friends of the house bill, on the principle, as Mr. Grow said, that "half a loaf is better than no bread."

The house then agreed to the report of the committee, 115 to 51. The nays were all from the slave states.

The senate agreed to the report, 36 to 2; more than one-third of the senators being absent or not voting.

The bill was sent to the President, who, on the 23d, returned the bill to the senate with his veto.

One of the President's objections to the bill was its supposed unconstitutionality. Allowing the settler to pay 25 cents an acre at the end of five years-being equal only to about 18 cents at the time of taking possession-was but little better to the government than a ratuity. But the bill provided, that lands unsold after having be ɔ