MR. BROWN said he
had taken no part in the debates on the question of admitting the delegate from
New Mexico, nor did he intend to participate in this discussion at any great
length.
The honorable
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gentry] had announced the principle which had
governed his vote in favor of Mr. Smith, as a delegate from New Mexico, and had
informed us that he should govern himself by the same principle in voting for
Mr. Babbit, the delegate from Deseret. To the correctness of the honorable
gentleman's theory, Mr. B. made no sort of objection, and if the theory was
applicable to the matter in hand, he should be found voting with the gentleman
from Tennessee.
The honorable
gentleman says, it is a part of the early theory of our government, that,
whenever you govern a people, you should grant them representation. No one
could mistake the meaning of the gentleman. He meant to assimilate this case to
that of our colonial forefathers, and to assume that, as they complained with
justice of the British Crown for governing them without giving them
representation, the people in New Mexico and Deseret may justly make the same
complaint of us. The colonies were governed. The Crown sent them governors,
secretaries, judges and tax-gatherers. It required the acts of their local
legislatures to be sent home for approval. It governed them with most despotic
sway; but do we govern New Mexico and Deseret? How, sir, in what manner have we
governed these territories? We have steadily refused them all governments. The
ægis of our protection has not been extended over them. We have sent them
neither governors, secretaries, judges nor tax-gatherers. We have taken no
cognisance of them, or of their condition. This state of things ought not so
long to have existed. It was the solemn duty of Congress to have taken these
people under its care to have extended over them the shield of the Constitution—to
have given them laws and government. It was a reproach to Congress that all
this had been neglected or refused. He (Mr. B.) took his due share of this
general reproach. It had been the misfortune of himself and of others, that
they could not agree on a form of government proper to be granted. It had been
the misfortune of the people who were now seeking this informal admission on
the floor of Congress, that these differences of opinion existed. But were we
on that account to set all precedent at defiance, disregard the law, and
trample the principles of the Constitution under foot? He could not agree to
this. He stood ready now, as he had stood from the beginning, to vote a proper
republican form of government to these territories-to fix for them proper metes
and bounds; and this being done, he should vote for the admission of delegates
from each.
Mr. B. said he
disclaimed all sectional feelings in the votes he was giving. He had taken
ground against the admission of Mr. Smith when he avowed himself a zealous
pro-slavery advocate. He based his opposition then, as now, on the ground that
the laws of the United States and the Constitution had not been extended over
the territory; that no territorial government had been established; that
nothing had been done which gave to New Mexico any legal right to have her
delegate on the floor of Congress. When Mr. Smith changed his position, and to
propitiate certain influences, he turned Free-Soiler, and published a vulgar
tirade against the South, he (Mr. B.) had not changed his position. He voted
against him, as he had originally intended to do. He should now vote against
Mr. Babbit, albeit he was understood to be at least not unfriendly to the
South.
He could not consent
to admit every one to a seat on this floor who comes here and demands
admission. If the people on Tiger Island should send us a delegate, he would
vote against him. If John Ross or Peter Pitchlyn ask admission from the
Choctaws and Cherokees, he would vote against them. If the hunters and trappers
on the Rocky Mountains should send their delegate here, he would vote against
him.
In all this
proceeding he should govern himself by no sectional feeling, but by the
sternest principles. Whenever delegates came here, as they had come in the
earlier and better days of the republic, from Ohio and Mississippi, from
Alabama and Indiana, from Arkansas and Michigan, and, indeed, from all the
territories, he should vote to admit them, and ask no questions as to whether
they or their constituents were for or against slavery.
He would not pursue
this subject. He had risen simply to reply to a remark of his friend from
Tennessee. He feared that the popular idea that government and representation
should go hand in hand, when propagated by a gentleman so distinguished as the
honorable member from Tennessee, and coupled with the question in hand, might
mislead the public mind. He had, therefore, felt bound to point out the clear
distinction between the case before us, and the one assumed by the gentleman to
exist.
He concluded by
repeating that, whenever delegates presented themselves from territories formed
by the United States, and elected according to law, he should vote for their
admission. Beyond this he would not go.
SOURCE: M. W.
Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon.
Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 192-4
