Diary of George Templeton Strong: January 25, 1860

Wolcott Gibbs called by appointment tonight. We microscopized energetically, and the performances terminated with a very modest supper of chicken and hock. Gavitt was to have joined us but made default. We studied the Ross 1/12 objective and examined the circulation in the tail of a tadpole and a kitty fish, which I brought uptown with me from the little aquarium shop in Fulton street this afternoon. Results were satisfactory. My binocular is unquestionably an acquisition. It shews certain structures better than the Ross instrument.

The Rev. Mr. Bellows, who called at breakfast time this morning to ask after Mr. Ruggles, is my authority for the following diplomatic

Scene at the Tuileries. A State dinner. The Honorable Mr. Mason, F.F.V., (our Minister to France), and Don Somebody, the Spanish Ambassador, glowering at each other across the table, during intervals of deglutition, each timidly desiring to establish himself in rapport with the other.

Spain. Breaking the ice: “Parlez-vous français, M’sieu Masón?”

America. With effort: "Ung Poo.” (A pause) "Permit me, Sir, to ask whether you speak the English language?

Spain: "Small.” (Conversation closes.)

SOURCE: Allan Nevins and Milton Halset Thomas, Editors, Diary of George Templeton Strong, Vol. 3, p. 5-6

Congressman Albert G. Brown: The True Issue Stated, September 15, 1851

THE OTHER SIDE OF "THE TRUE ISSUE  STATED."

A PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY THE HON. ALBERT G. BROWN UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850.

Two pamphlets, of thirty-two pages each, have recently made their appearance in great numbers among the people. These publications are entitled "The True Issue Stated, by a Union Man," and they do me such gross injustice that I feel called upon to notice them. If the man in the mask, who styles himself "A Union Man," would throw off his disguise and appear in his real person, I should doubtless be spared the trouble of answering his gross perversions of truth. An exposure of his name and face would be the most conclusive proof that justice and fair dealing are not to be expected at his hands.

The author of these pamphlets introduces my name in various places and connections, and it shall be my purpose to show how grossly he has perverted, or attempted to pervert, my acts and words.

1st. Reference is made to the introduction of a bill by Mr. Preston of Virginia, to admit, as a state, into the Union, the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico (to wit, California, Utah, and New Mexico), and an attempt is made to produce the impression that I contemplated voting for this proposition. The truth is that I spoke against it, and no one can read my speech without seeing at once that I never could have voted for Mr. Preston's bill, without having it amended in its most essential features. I spoke on the 10th of February, 1849 (see page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe). In that speech I said:

"All our propositions were voted down as they were successively presented, and by that party which claims a right to undivided dominion over these territories. I never have, and never shall assent to the justice of this claim, and hereafter I will vote to maintain the rights of the South in their broadest latitude, unless I shall plainly see that by an honorable and manly surrender of a portion of these rights, peace may be secured, and the Union rescued from its present perilous condition."

It suited the purpose of "A Union Man" to leave this out. To have included it would have been to show the true temper of my speech—that I never would consent to give up the whole of the territories to the North. Then, as ever since, and before, I was ready to occupy the territories jointly with the people of the North, and if this could not be done, to divide them fairly. The North claimed the whole. "I never have, and never will, assent to the justice of this claim."

With amendments to Mr. Preston's bill, such as would effectually have insured the South justice in the territories, I would have voted for it; without these it never could have commanded my support.

"A Union Man" entirely overlooks the important fact that Preston's bill proposed to confer on the people of California, by act of Congress, the power to erect a state. I spoke against this at length, and yet the singular inference is drawn, that I ought to have voted for the admission of California, erected as she was into a state without the authority of Congress or of any other legislative body. It may be well seen how I could have voted to confer on the people of California the right to form a state government, and yet, how, without inconsistency, I should oppose her admission when she sought it on the authority alone of irresponsible and unauthorized persons. It did not suit the jaundiced eye of "A Union Man," to see the difference between the two propositions. Suppose I had even voted for Preston's proposition, to confer on the people of California the power to erect a state government, would it thence have involved me in an inconsistency to vote against the admission of a state, erected without authority, and by persons having no more right to do so than a nation of Hottentots? But the truth is, I did not vote for the one or the other of these propositions, nor did I contemplate doing so at any time.

I submit the following extracts from my speech on Preston's bill. Read them, and ask yourself what was "A Union Man's" intention in suppressing them:

"Here is a conquered people, possessing as yet, no political rights under our laws and Constitution, because not yet admitted to the rights of citizenship, and, what is worse, possessing no practical knowledge of the workings of our system of government, and knowing nothing of our institutions. The substantial question is, shall such a people give laws to our territories, and shape and mould their institutions for the present, and possibly for all time to come. * * * * The gentleman's bill gives to every white male inhabitant, over the age of twenty-one years, the right to vote, whether Spaniard, Mexican, Swede, Turk, or what not. * * * I submit to my honorable friend whether it would not be respectful, to say the least of it, towards his constituents and mine, to require these people, before they pass final judgment on our rights, to make an intimation in some form that they intend to become CITIZENS, as well as inhabitants of the United States." (See page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe, 1849.)

It will be seen from these extracts, and more clearly by reading the whole speech, what my opinion of Mr. Preston's bill was, and that without amendments, such as should have avoided my objections, and given the South a hope of justice, I never could have voted for it. I confess to have felt then, as at all times, before and since, a strong anxiety to see the question settled upon terms fair and just to all parties, and in this spirit I said in my speech on Preston's bill: "I am prepared to go to that point where conflicting interests and opinions may meet, and adjust this dangerous issue upon terms honorable to both sides, and without any undue sacrifice by either party." Preston's bill did not go to that point. I made my speech to show that it did not. If it had been so amended as to reach the point designated, then I should have voted for it. Without this, my speech shows that my vote would have been given against it.

2d. The second point made by "A Union Man," is based on what he calls the memorial of the Senators and Representatives from California. I know nothing of this memorial, and care less. My statement was made on the authority of eye-witnesses in the country at the time the so-called California constitution was formed, and upon the better authority of General Riley's published proclamation. Upon these I stated, what is true, that thousands of foreigners were authorized to vote, and that they did vote. I make no qualification to the general declaration that the constitution of California was made by unauthorized persons—that among them were foreigners not speaking our language, knowing nothing of our laws, and caring nothing for our rights.

3d. "A Union Man" next takes issue with me on my statement that "the fugitive slave bill," the same that is now the law of the land, is not, and never was, one of the "compromise bills." I repeat now, that it was not, and that it never was, a part of Mr. Clay's omnibus, or general compromise bill. "A Union Man" knows perfectly well, if he knows anything at all on the subject, that the fugitive slave bill, the one that passed, did not come from the hands of Mr. Clay, or the hands of any other compromise man. He knows that Mr. Mason of Virginia, a friend of southern rights, and a bitter opponent of the compromise, introduced this bill, and that it was supported and carried through the Senate and House of Representatives, by Southern votes, and that without the votes of Southern Rights Democrats, it never could have been passed through either House of Congress. He knows that the Fugitive Slave Bill got but thirty-three Northern votes, three in the Senate, and thirty in the House. All the rest, one hundred and forty-four in number, either voted against it, or fled from their seats to avoid the responsibility of voting. All these things "A Union Man" knows perfectly well. Why conceal the facts if he did not mean to deceive the people?

The Fugitive Slave Bill is not a gift from the North, either as a part of the Compromise or otherwise. It was introduced by an Anti-compromise Southern Rights Democrat, and it was carried through both Houses of Congress by Southern votes, and without the aid of the ENEMIES of the Compromise it never would have passed.

4th. The fourth point made against me is that I was a member of a committee in Congress that reported a bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia, in 1849. It is true that I was a member of the committee, made so by the Speaker, without my consent; but it is not true that I reported the bill, or even consented to its being reported. It is not true that I voted for it after it was reported, or ever consented or promised to vote for it.

In this, as in other cases, a "A Union Man" publishes what he calls extracts from my speeches, taking care to suppress every word that does not suit his purpose. Why were paragraphs like these left out:

Mr. Brown said, "he had always believed that in his representative character, he was called upon to represent the expressed will and wishes of the people of the District of Columbia, having, at the same time, due regard to the rights of the people of the several states, and to the restrictions of the Constitution of the United States." And again, he did not believe that the strong party in Congress had a right to pass any law for the District without respect to the wishes of the people of the District, and without respect to the Constitution and the rights of the people outside of the District, but that in all this branch of their public charge they should have an eye strictly to the Constitution and to the rights of the whole people." And then again: "In acting upon a petition from the people of this District, his first object was to inquire how far he might go and still remain within the limits of the Constitution, and then how far he might go without infringing upon the deed of cession from Maryland and Virginia. These limits being ascertained, he should be prepared to go for any law desired by the people of the District, which did not require these fixed limits to be transcended."

These passages have been omitted by a "A Union Man." He could not show them, without disclosing the fact that then, as now, I insisted upon an observance of the constitutional rights of the whole people. Were these rights respected when Congress enacted that the master's slave "should become liberated and free," if he took him to the District, "for the purpose of selling him?"

I extract again from the same speech:

Mr. Brown said: "If gentlemen desire it of him, he would now tell them that he felt the necessity, on the part of the South, of standing together upon every question involving the right of property in slaves, the slave trade, and Abolition in all its forms. He knew that they must stand together for defence: therefore, as the South vote so he should vote, till the pressure from without should be withdrawn. The South acted together upon the principle of self-protection and self-preservation. They stood for protection against destruction and annihilation. He knew not the motive which prompted this outward pressure; he felt its existence, and he knew that the South acted purely on the defensive; they merely warded off the blow directed against their peace-their lives. Such were his motives for voting with the South. And he now said to all who were opposed to him or his country, Withdraw your pressure; cease to to agitate this question; let us alone; do whatsoever you think be right without endangering us, and you will find that we, too, are ready to do right."

Mr. Brown trusted he had not been misunderstood; for it was known that, to a Southern member, this was a delicate question. He had expressed his honest views—views which he desired to carry out in good faith. He did very well know, that if the South were let alone—if they were not positively ill-treated, the North might be assured they would come up and do what was right. They stood together now for their own preservation, and nothing less than unity in their councils could be expected of them in the present crisis. If individual members did not always vote exactly according to their views of right upon these questions, it was because of this known, and now universally acknowledged, necessity of unity and concert among ourselves. When a sleepless and dangerous enemy stood at our doors, we felt the necessity of acting together. Let that enemy withdraw—let us out into the open sunshine, where we could look upon the same sun that you look upon—where the air, the land, the water, everything could be seen in common, and enjoyed in common—and we should be ready to meet you as brethren, and legislate with you as brethren. But so long as you keep up this pressure, these endless, ceaseless, ruthless assaults upon us, we must stand together for defence. In this position we must regard you as our enemies, and we are yours.

These, and other kindred expressions, were meanly suppressed, because it would not do to disclose the fact, that then, as now, I stood by the South, and with the South, in the defence of Southern interests, Southern rights, and Southern honor.

This bill of 1849, which I did not introduce, did not in any way support, and for which I never would have voted, except (as stated at the time) in company with the great body of southern members, and not then, unless certain constitutional impediments had been first removed—this bill only punished the overt act of selling or offering to sell, by the fine and imprisonment of the master or owner of the slave. The bill, as passed into a law, by the Compromisers, punishes the "purpose" or intention to sell by setting the slave free. It is the act of setting the slave at LIBERTY, because his master intends to sell him, that I complain of, as the special outrage inflicted by this Compromise.

These are the material points made against me in pamphlet number ONE. The positions against me in the second number are:

1st. That I voted, on two occasions, with certain Abolitionists in Congress—first, on the Utah bill, and next on the Texas boundary bill. For both of these votes I had good and sufficient reasons, and I have so often given them to the public that I deem it useless to repeat them at length. Let a very brief statement suffice. And first, as regards the Texas boundary bill. This bill, and that to give a territorial government to New Mexico, were included in one proposition. I could not, therefore, vote for, or against the one, without voting for or against the other. The Abolitionists desired to take from Texas about 80,000 square miles of the territory south of 36° 30′, and pay her nothing; I was not willing to give up one inch of territory south of that line, or pay anything if it was taken; and hence, for very different reasons, we were brought together in voting against a proposition to take forty-four thousand square miles of territory, and pay ten millions of dollars. And then, as regards Utah. This was the last of the territorial bills that came up for consideration, and for many reasons I did not think it a matter of much consequence. If justice had been done us in the other territories, I might have voted for this bill. Utah lies entirely above 36° 30′, and if our rights had been respected south of that line, I should not have contended against giving up the territory north of it. But if our rights were not acknowledged south of the line, I would not voluntarily abandon our claim north of it. As many Free-Soilers as felt willing to risk the Mexican law abolishing slavery in the territories voted for this Utah bill. Those who insisted upon the Wilmot proviso, in terms, voted against it. But since the bill has passed they are all satisfied, and they will remain so as long as the Mexican law has the EFFECT of excluding slavery, and whenever it fails in that effect, if it ever does, they will fall back upon the Wilmot proviso. These territories, Utah and New Mexico, were organized with the distinct understanding among all northern men, and with many southern men, that slavery was already excluded by the law of Mexico. And without this understanding, it is well known that northern senators and representatives would not have voted for these bills. I could not, and would not make myself a party to such an understanding, and for this, as well as for other reasons, I voted against these territorial bills.

Why was not this Mexican law repealed? I will show the reason; and I will show, moreover, that "A Union Man" acts the hypocrite when he charges it as a FAULT against me that I voted with the Abolitionists. Is not "A Union Man" the friend of General Foote?—and, if so, how does he excuse such votes as the following? Colonel Davis introduced an amendment, as follows, the design of which was to repeal the law of Mexico—abolishing slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico. Here is Davis's amendment:

"And that all laws and usages existing in said territory, at the date of its acquisition by the United States, which deny or obstruct the right of any citizen of the United States to remove to and reside in said territory with any species of property legally held in any of the states of this Union, be and are hereby declared null and void.”

The following is the vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Underwood, and Yulee—22.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Pearce, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Upham, Wales, Walker, and Whitcomb—33.

It will be seen that twenty-two senators voted for this amendment—all of them from the South, and that thirty-three voted against itamong them CHASE, HALE, HAMLIN, SEWARD, and every other Free-Soiler and Abolitionist in the Senate, and it will be further seen that GENERAL FOOTE voted in the same list with these Free-Soilers and Abolitionists.

Nor is this all. On the 28th of August, 1850, Mr. Atchison moved to lay the bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia on the table. GENERAL FOOTE voted with Hale, Chase, Baldwin, and other Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, against laying it on the table.

And again, on the 10th of September, 1850, the question being on striking out the first section of this same bill, GENERAL FOOTE again voted with Chase, Hamlin, Seward, and other Free-Soilers, against striking it out. Here is the first section of the bill:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-one, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slave whatever for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of being placed in depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other state or place to be sold as merchandise. And if any slave shall be brought into said district by its owner, or by the authority or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall, thereupon, become LIBERATED AND FREE."

The following is the vote on the motion to strike out this section:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Berrien, Butler, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Underwood, Yulee—18.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Bright, Chase, Clay, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Ewing, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Wales, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop—30.

It will be seen that all the ayes are from the South, and that "A Union Man's" favorite candidate for governor voted again with the Abolitionists.

My object in presenting these votes of General Foote, is not to criticise them, but to show the hypocrisy of "A Union Man," who holds up my votes, and invokes the condemnation of my constituents upon them, whilst he carefully avoids the like votes of his own favorite candidate. If it be a sin in me to have voted with Giddings and Tuck, is it any less a sin in Foote to have voted with SEWARD and HALE?

But to proceed to point No. 2. This pamphlet contains what purports to be extracts from my speeches, and in making them up to suit his purposes, "A Union Man" has been guilty of the grossest frauds. He not only suppresses material parts of my speeches, without which, he well knows, the other parts will not be understood, but he divides paragraphs, sticks the divided parts together, drops sentences, and leaves out whatever does not suit his purposes, and all with the intention, as he well knows, of misleading the public. In all my life, I have never seen truth so grossly perverted, or falsehood and slander more impudently suggested.

The intention of this writer is to show that I am a Disunionist. To this charge I give the LIE direct, and leave this masked calumniator to his farther proof. On this point I select, at random, the following paragraphs from my speeches, and ask an indulgent public why these things have been suppressed, if the intention of "A Union Man" was not fraudulent? If it was not his purpose to impose upon the public, why did he suppress the truth? From my speech on Preston's bill, February 10th, 1850, page 120, Appendix Congressional Globe:—

"Let it (the Union) fulfil the high purposes of its creation, and the people will preserve it at any and every sacrifice of blood and treasure, and nowhere will these sacrifices be more freely made than in the South."

"The Union of these states rests on a foundation solid and sacred, the affections of the people of all the states. Be careful how you tamper with that foundation, lest you destroy it, and thus destroy the UNION itself. Let the Union dispense equal and exact justice to all-special favors to none, and not one murmur of complaint will ever come up here from the patriotic sons of the sunny South.' We despise injustice of every kind. In the emphatic words of a distinguished chieftain, 'we ask no favors and shrink from no responsibility.”

Why did "A Union Man" pass over these and other like expressions in that speech?

"A Union Man" commences one of his extracts with the words, "Have we any reason to fear a dissolution of the Union?" and then has the meanness to suppress these words, which are next after them, in the same paragraph, and in actual connection with them: "Look at the question dispassionately, and answer to yourselves the important question, can anything be expected from the fears of the southern people?" Why were these words left out? Simply, because to have shown them would have been to show that I had but warned the North not to calculate on the cowardice of the southern people.

And again, in the same paragraph, these words are left out: "We have not been slow in manifesting our devotion to the Union. In all our national conflicts we have obeyed the dictates of duty, the behests of patriotism-our money has gone freely, the lives of our people have been freely given up, their blood has washed many a blot from the national escutcheon, we have loved the Union, and we love it yet, but not for this, nor a thousand such Unions, will we suffer DISHONOR at your hands."

And again, these words are extracted, "I tell you, sir, sooner than submit, we would dissolve a thousand such Unions as this," and with this "A Union Man" stops. Why did he not include the very next words, "Sooner than allow our SLAVES to become our MASTERS, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears dig for ourselves honorable graves." Why were the first words taken and the next left out? Because, if all had appeared, it would have been seen that it was bondage to our own slaves that I gave warning we would not submit to. It did not suit "A Union Man" to tell the truth, and so he LIED, by suppressing the truth.

Again, "A Union Man" extracts a part of a paragraph as follows:— "Whether the people will submit to this high-handed proceeding (the admission of California), I do not know; but for myself, I am for resistance," &c. Here I charge that this writer not only garbles my speech, but by inserting the words (the admission of California), he suggests a positive falsehood. These words were not used by me, do not appear in the printed copy of my speech, and were interlined by this writer for no other purpose than to suggest a falsehood. The "highhanded proceeding" alluded to by me, had no reference to the admission of California, but referred directly to the conduct of the President of the United States, as was stated at the time, in attempting "to make a new state without the aid of Congress, and in defiance of the Constitution." This was the "high-handed proceeding" which I pledged myself to "resist," and that pledge I have redeemed to the utmost of my ability. This whole speech will be found on page 258 to 261 Cong. Globe, 1850.

In addition to the above, I beg leave to submit, from the same speech, the following extracts. Why did "A Union Man" omit them?—

"Oh! gentlemen, pause, I beseech you, in this mad career. The South cannot, will not, dare not submit to your demands. The consequences to her are terrible beyond description. To you forbearance would be a virtue-virtue adorned with love, truth, justice, patriotism. To some men I can make no appeal, * * * but to sound men, just men, patriotic men, I do make an earnest appeal, that they array themselves on the side of the Constitution, and save the Union. Let those who desire to save the Constitution and the Union, come out from among the wicked, and array themselves on the side of justice-and here in this hall, erected by our fathers, and dedicated to liberty and law, we will make new vows, enter into new covenants to stand together and fight the demon of discord, until death shall summon us to another and a better world." * * * * *

"Before the first fatal step is taken, remember that we have interests involved which we cannot relinquish, rights which it were better to die with than live without. The direct pecuniary interest involved is twenty hundred millions of dollars, and yet the loss of this is the least of the calamities you are entailing upon us. Our country is to be made desolate, we are to be driven from our homes-the homes hallowed by all the sacred associations of families and friends, we are to be sent like a people accursed of God to wander through the land, homeless, houseless and friendless, or what is ten thousand times worse than this, than these, than all, remain in a country now prosperous and happy, and see ourselves, our wives and our children, degraded to a social position with the black race. These, these are the frightful, terrible consequences you would entail upon us. I TELL YOU, SIR, SOONER THAN SUBMIT, WE WOULD DISSOLVE A THOUSAND SUCH UNIONS AS THIS-Sooner than allow our slaves to become our masters, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears, dig for ourselves honorable graves."

Is there a southern heart that does not throb a fervent response to these sentiments? and is there an honest eye that does not detect the baseness which prompted "A Union Man," when he tore from this paragraph the single sentence: "I tell you, sir, sooner than submit, we would dissolve a thousand such Unions as this?" Did he not know that he was perpetrating a fraud? On the same page from which this extract is taken, the following may be found. Does any one suppose it escaped the eye of "A Union Man?"

“I repeat, we deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution-reverencing the Union-holding in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of our common and illustrious ancestors, there is no ordinary ill to which we would not bow sooner than dissolve the political association of these states. If there was any point short of absolute ruin to ourselves, and desolation to our country, at which these aggressive measures would certainly stop, we would say at once go to that point and give us peace." And again

"I warn gentlemen if they persist in their present course of policy, that the sin of disunion is on their heads, not ours. If a man assaults me, and I strike in self-defence, I am no violator of the public peace. If one attacks me with such fury as to jeopardize my life, and I slay him in the conflict, I am no murderer. If you attempt to force upon us sectional desolation, and-what to us is infinitely worse social degradation, we will resist you, and if in the conflict of resistance the Union is dissolved, we are not responsible. If any man charges me with harboring sentiments of disunion, he is greatly mistaken. If he says that I prefer disunion to sectional and social degradation, he does me no more than justice." * * *

"Do not mistake me; I do not say that our exclusion from the territories would of itself justify disunion. I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition of the slave trade among the states, would justify it. It may be, that not one, or two, nor all of these combined, would justify disunion. These are but initiatory steps, they lead you on to the mastery over us, and you shall not take these steps."

I might show many other extracts from this same speech, but surely these may suffice. To those who would know more about it, I would say, "Look to the Congressional Globe, of January 30th, 1850, page 257, and read the whole speech. The book may be found in the office of the Probate Clerk, where I caused it to be placed for your inspection."

If more shall be desired in refutation of the slander, that I sought dissolution of the Union, allow me to present an extract from my speech of August 8, 1850, page 1550 Cong. Globe. And here let me remark that when these speeches were made, no murmur of complaint was heard against them. Then they were patriotic enough; now they are rank treason, according to my enemies.

“There is one other matter to which I must advert. It is become quite too common of late, for certain political censors, in and out of Congress, to speak of southern men who demand justice for the South, as ultras; and if we persist in our demands, and can neither be bribed or brow-beaten into acquiescence with northern wrongs, the next step is to whistle us down the wind, as traitors and disunionists. It is not because I fear the effects of charges like these on the minds of my constituents, that I now speak. They have known me for many long years. I have served them here and elsewhere, and if there is any earthly power to persuade them that I am a disunionist, or a traitor to my country, I would scorn to receive office at their hands. I allude to charges like this, that I may hold them up to public scorn and reprobation. The miserable reptiles who ating the South, while they nestle in her bosom, are the authors of these base calumnies. Sooner or later they will be spurned as the veriest spaniels who ever crouched at the footstool of power."

So I spoke on the 8th of August, 1850, and so I say now. It is by such reptiles as this "Union Man," that the South is stung; and when the South learns to plant her foot upon them and crush them, she may look for justice, and not till then.

A speech made by me at "Ellwood Springs," in November, 1850, has been the subject of extensive misrepresentation and slander. “A UnionMan" could not of course speak the truth in regard to it.

He leaves out sentences, and puts others together to suit his own false purposes. For instance, he makes me say "this justice was denied us in the adjustment bills that passed Congress." "I am for resistance; I am for that sort of resistance which shall be effective and final." These two sentences are more than two entire pages apart in the speech as delivered by me, and have no relation to each other. The words "this justice was denied us in the adjustment bills which passed Congress," are immediately followed by the words, "But we are not to infer that the fault was either in the Union or the Constitution. The Union is strength, and if not wickedly diverted from its purposes, will secure us that domestic tranquillity which is our birthright. The Constitution is our shield and our buckler, and needs only to be fairly administered to dispense equal and exact justice to all parts of this great confederacy." Why were not the words extracted as they were spoken? Why put two sentences together taken from different pages, having no relation to one another, and leave out all that was said in connection with the one and with the other? Was there ever a more impudent attempt at fraud and imposition?

This writer says, I demanded justice for every state and for all sections, and that I added, "If the Union cannot yield to the demand, I am against the Union. If the Constitution does not secure it, I am against the Constitution." And he would, from his manner of stating what I said, leave the inference that I was against the Union and the Constitution, because they had not secured us justice. I said, in this precise connection, "We are not to infer that the fault is in the Union, or the Constitution. The Union is strength, and the Constitution is our shield and our buckler." But it did not suit the purposes of "A Union Man" to quote these words. He could not have seen the words that he did quote without seeing these also; they were, therefore, intentionally omitted.

It is asserted that I made certain demands of the federal government, and took the ground if these demands were not complied with, "all connection with the Northern States ought to be dissolved." The demands are not set forth, and the reader is left to infer that there was something monstrous and unreasonable in these demands. The truth is, that

I have demanded nothing, have proposed nothing, but what the southern friends of the compromise say we now have. All I ask is that they will join us in procuring from their northern friends, an acknowledg ment that their interpretation of the compromise is right. Here are the demands; is there anything unreasonable or unjust in them?—

"We should demand a restoration of the laws of Texas, in hæc verba, over the country which has been taken from her and added to New Mexico. In other words, we should demand the clear and undisputed right to carry our slave property to that country, and have it protected and secured to us after we get it there; and we should demand a continuation of this right and of this security and protection.

“We should demand the same right to go into all the territories with our slave property, that citizens of the free states have to go with any species of property, and we should demand for our property the same protection that is given to the property of our northern brethren. No more, nor less.

“We should demand that Congress abstain from all interference with slavery in territories, in the District of Columbia, in the states, on the high seas, or anywhere else, except to give it protection, and this protection should be the same that is given to other property.

“We should demand a continuation of the present fugitive slave law, or some other law which should be effective in carrying out the mandate of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves.

"We should demand that no state be denied admission into the Union, because her constitution tolerated slavery."

Is there anything asked for in all this which the friends of the compromise are not constantly insisting we now have? And yet the writer of this pamphlet falsely asserts that I have demanded a repeal of the compromise, and the substitution of other legislation in its place. No such thing is true. I have only asked that the friends of the compromise at the North should execute it as its southern friends say they understand it; and why shall southern men shrink from this demand if they are sincere in their declarations? They know perfectly well that their interpretation is repudiated by their northern allies, and therefore it is that they shrink from the test of making the demand.

Mississippi has declined making any demands, and of course my proposition falls to the ground. No one could suspect me of the extreme folly of urging these or any other demands, after the state had decided that she would do nothing.

I present these extracts from the Ellwood Springs speech:

"I have great confidence that the government may be brought back to its original purity. I have great confidence that the government will again be administered in subordination to the Constitution; that we shall be restored to our equal position in the confederacy, and that our rights will again be respected as they were from 1787 to 1819. This being done, I shall be satisfied-nothing short of this will satisfy me. I can never consent to take a subordinate position. By no act or word of mine shall the South ever be reduced to a state of dependence on the North. I will cling to the Union, and utter its praise with my last breath, but it must be a Union of equals; it must be a Union in which my state and my section is equal in rights to any other section or state. I will not consent that the South shall become the Ireland of this country. Better, far, that we dissolve our political connection with the North than live connected with her as her slaves or vassals. The fathers of the republic counselled us to live together in peace and concord, but those venerable sages and patriots never counselled us to surrender our equal position in the Union.

Let me say to you, in all sincerity, fellow-citizens, that I am no disunionist. If I know my own heart, I am more concerned about the means of preserving the Union, than I am about the means of destroying it. The danger is not that we shall dissolve the Union, by a bold and manly vindication of our rights; but rather that we shall, in abandoning our rights, abandon the Union also. So help me God, I believe the submissionists are the very worst enemies of the Union."

Why was all this passed over in silence?

I might show how, in many other instances, I have been treated with the same gross injustice which has marked those that I have now pointed out; but to pursue the subject farther would be tedious and unprofitable.

"There are my speeches, and there my votes, I stand by and defend them. You say for these my country will repudiate me. I demand a trial of the issue." This was my language in the first speech made by me after my return from Washington. I repeat it now. I said then, as I say now, that the charge laid against me that I was, or ever had been, for disunion or secession, was and is FALSE and SLANDEROUS.

I stand by my votes as they were given, and by my speeches as they were made. I am not responsible for speeches made for me by others; nor will I consent to be tried on the motives which my enemies charge to have influenced my votes. It is easy to publish garbled extracts

from any man's speeches, and it is quite as easy to attribute to any man bad motives for his votes. I am not to be tried, thanks to a free government, in a STAR CHAMBER, before perjured judges, but at the ballot box, by a free people.

I am not surprised to find myself assailed with malignity, and least of all does it surprise me that these assaults come from Natchez. I was never a favorite with certain men in that city, and if it should ever fall out that they speak well of me, I shall indeed wonder what great sin I have committed against republican institutions.

When I heard that a large sum of money had been subscribed by my enemies, and that my defeat was one of the great ends to be obtained by it, I conjectured that the old Federalists were on their walk, and that a plentiful shower of slander and defamation might be expected. I have not been disappointed. These attacks will, no doubt, be kept up until after the election, and many of them will, necessarily, go unanswered. I cannot be everywhere in person, and I have not the means of publishing and circulating documents against this regular combination, controlling, as it does, its thousands and its tens of thousands of dollars.

It ought to be borne in mind how easy it is to misconstrue and misrepresent the acts and speeches of a public man. Taking into account the length of time that I have been in the public service, it is rather a matter of surprise with me that my enemies have found so little to carp at. The circumstances under which I have spoken or acted are, of course, very conveniently forgotten, and nothing is remembered but such words or acts as may be turned to my disadvantage. These are eagerly seized upon by my enemies, and held up to public gaze; and if the public indignation fails to rise, they then torture my words, and give them forced constructions, so as to make me say what, indeed, I never thought of saying. No man ever yet spoke so explicitly as to escape the misconceptions of the weak, or the misconstructions of the corrupt and designing. Not even the inspired writers have escaped this common fate. The Atheist proves, to his own satisfaction at least, that there is no God, and, taking the Bible for his text, he undertakes to prove that the Bible is a fiction. Volney, Voltaire, and Tom Paine, have each made his assault upon the divinity of the Saviour; each has had his proselytes; and each based his argument upon the words of inspired writers. These things being true, what folly it is for an ordinary man to hope for escape from false interpretations, misconstructions and misrepresentations! I know my own meaning better than any other man, and after sixteen years of public service, during all of which time I never practised a fraud or deception upon the public, I confront my enemies, and tell them they SLANDER me, when they charge that I am now, or ever have been, the SECRET or OPEN advocate of disunion or secession.

I am no more a secessionist, because I think a state has a right to secede, than are my enemies revolutionists, because they maintain the right of revolution.

In days gone by, I denounced the United States Bank, the protective tariff, and other acts of the general government, without incurring the charge of being a disunionist. I opposed and denounced the compromise, but I did not thereby make myself a disunionist. I thought, in the beginning, that it inflicted a positive injury upon the South, and I think so now. This opinion is well settled, and is not likely to undergo any material change. I gave my advice freely, but never obtrusively, as to the course which I thought our state should pursue. That advice has not been taken. Mississippi has decided that submission to, or acquiescence in, the compromise measures, is her true policy. As a citizen, I bow to the judgment of my state. I wish her judgment had been otherwise; but from her decision I ask no appeal. Neither as a citizen nor as a representative, would I disturb or agitate this or any other question after it had been settled by the deliberate judgment of the people.

I never have, and I never will introduce the subject of slavery into Congress. When it has been introduced by others, I have defended the rights of my constituents, and, if re-elected, I will do so again.

In the approaching election, I ask the judgment of my constituents on my past course. I claim no exemption from the frailties common to all mankind. That I have erred is possible, but that the interests of my constituents have suffered from my neglect, or that I have intentionally done any act or said anything to dishonor them in the eyes of the world, or to bring discredit upon our common country, is not true. In all that I have said or done, my aim has been for the honor, the happiness, and the true glory of my state.

I opposed the compromise with all the power I possessed. I opposed the admission of California, the division of Texas, the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and I voted against the Utah bill. I need scarcely say that I voted for the Fugitive Slave bill, and aided, as far as I could, in its passage. I opposed the compromise.

I thought, with Mr. Clay, that "it gave almost everything to the North, and to the South nothing but her honor.'

I thought, with Mr. Webster, that the “South got what the North lost-and that was nothing at all.’

I thought, with Mr. Brooks, that the "North carried everything before her."

I thought, with Mr. Clemens, that "there was no equity to redeem the outrage.”

I thought, with Mr. Downs, that "it was no compromise at all." I thought, with Mr. Freeman, that "the North got the oyster and we got the shell."

I thought, at the last, what General Foote thought, at the first, that "it contained none of the features of a genuine compromise."

And finally, and lastly, I voted against it, and spoke against it, BECAUSE it unsettled the balance of power between the two sections of the Union, inflicted an injury upon the South, and struck a blow at that political equality of the states and of the people, on which the Union is founded, and without a maintenance of which the Union cannot be preserved.

I spoke against it, and voted against it, in all its forms. I was against it as an Omnibus, and I was against it in its details. I fought it through from Alpha to Omega, and I would do so again. I denounced it before the people, and down to the last hour I continued to oppose it. The people have decided that the state shall acquiesce, and with me that decision is final. I struggled for what I thought was the true interest and honor of my constituents, and if for this they think me

worthy of condemnation, I am ready for the sacrifice. For opposing the compromise, I have no apologies or excuses to offer; I did that which my conscience told me was right, and the only regret I feel is that my opposition was not more availing.

A. G. BROWN.

GALLATIN, September 15, 1851.

NOTE.—As the district will, no doubt, be flooded with all manner of publications, and traversed by all sorts of speakers, I must again remind my friends that the Congressional Globe, containing a perfect record of all my votes, speeches, motions and resolutions, may be found in the clerk's offices of each county. It was placed there by me for inspection, and by it, as the official record, I am willing to be tried. When my enemies are found peddling newspapers and pamphlets, without names, giving accounts of my actings and sayings, I hope my friends will appeal to this record, and insist that I shall be tried by that, and not by the statements of my enemies.  A. G. B.

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. 233-46

Congressman Albert G. Brown’s Speech on the Ewing Investigation, September 11, 1850

In the House of Representatives, Wednesday, September 11, 1850,—On the report of the Select Committee appointed April 22, 1850, to examine into certain official acts of Thomas Ewing, late Secretary of the Interior, and in reply to Mr. VINTON of Ohio, Mr. BROWN said:

MR. SPEAKER: It is with extreme reluctance that I venture, at this late period of a protracted session, to address the House. I feel called upon, however, by an imperative sense of duty, to make a brief response to the speech which the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton] has just now concluded, and to that end I crave the indulgence of the House.

Before proceeding to the consideration of the subjects embraced in the report and resolutions, allow me to advert for a moment to the manner in which that report and the accompanying resolutions were received in this House.

Now almost five months since, a series of resolutions were passed by the House of Representatives directing an inquiry into the official conduct of the then Secretary of the Interior, Thomas Ewing. A select committee was appointed, and they were charged with the direction and prosecution of these inquiries. They entered upon the discharge of the duties assigned them. It was then spring, the summer has come and gone, and here in the beginning of autumn your committee have concluded their labors. They bring their report, and lay it upon your table, and through their chairman they ask for it that courteous and respectful consideration which has been uniformly awarded to all reports coming from committees of this House. They ask that the report may lie upon the table and be printed, and that a day may be fixed for its consideration. This has been denied. A judgment is evoked in advance of all consideration or reflection; without reading, without printing, before a single member has had an opportunity of examining the report, a judgment is asked. On its first introduction into the House, the gentleman from Ohio, himself a member of the committee, calls upon the House to pass its judgment. How well he has succeeded in this, the House and the country already know.

Why, sir, was the gentleman from Ohio so impatient to have this report acted upon, or rather slurred over? Was there any important public interest suffering, or likely to suffer by a little delay? No, sir; another and a very different interest was to be protected by smothering this report. The conduct of a distinguished friend, political and personal, of the gentleman, had been criticised and justly censured; important and startling facts had been brought to light. The existence of these facts was wholly inconsistent with the idea of a faithful and proper administration of the Department of the Interior, and it was necessary to give them the go by—to bury them, if possible, among the unpublished and useless papers which accumulate during a long session of Congress. The gentleman was familiar with all the facts. He had attended upon the committee for more than four months. He knew what the report and the papers contained; and I take it upon myself to say, that in opposing the motion to print, and in insisting upon bringing the House to an immediate vote on the resolutions, he took a course which his experience assured him could result in nothing less than an acquittal, without a trial, of Mr. Ewing.

Mr. VINTON said he had insisted upon an immediate consideration of the report because to postpone it would have been equivalent to doing nothing, as it would never again have been reached.

Mr. BROWN. That excuse shall not avail the gentleman. If he had been anxious to have a fair hearing, why not have asked to make the subject the SPECIAL order for some subsequent day? Then it would have certainly come up for consideration. No, sir, the gentleman's knowledge of the facts assured him that it would not do to risk a fair investigation, and his tactics were employed to hurry on a decision before the House could be informed of these facts. The gentleman knew very well that if members could be forced to a vote without a knowledge of the facts, they would acquit the Secretary. They would do this on the well-known ground that all men are presumed to be innocent until their guilt is established. His legal acumen was not severely taxed to discover that if the facts could be withheld until a vote could be exacted, the presumption of innocence would be strongly in favor of the accused.

Mr. VINTON said, he had consented to the printing of the report.

Mr. BROWN. I know that; I know the gentleman made a virtue of necessity, and consented to have the report printed after his course had been assailed by the chairman of the committee [Mr. Richardson]. But what was the gentleman's first movement? To oppose any postponement of the subject, even to allow the report to be printed. He succeeded in defeating the postponement, and we have been actually forced into the consideration of the whole subject, and are now considering it, when not a member, save those on the committee, has ever seen the report or knows anything of the real state of the facts. The gentleman now makes a merit of consenting to have the report printed. In the course of some days it will have been published. In the mean time the House will be called on to vote. We shall have the verdict first, and the evidence submitted to the jury afterwards. This, to say the least of it, will be rather an irregular proceeding.

The gentleman, with the adroitness of a politician of twenty or more winters, laid his whole scheme so as to give it the best possible assurance of success. It is far from my purpose to charge the gentleman with dishonorable conduct. But really, sir, there is something about this transaction which excites my curiosity, and seems to invite the most rigid scrutiny. The gentleman from Ohio will correct me, if I err in my relation of the facts. He went to the chairman of the committee and obtained the report of the majority before its delivery to the House, as he said (and no doubt truly), to prepare a minority report. It became important to have the report copied, and though the capitol was full of clerks, and though the streets were crowded with persons seeking employment, the gentleman could find no one to copy this report but young Mr. Ewing, the son of the ex-Secretary, whose conduct had given rise to and had been criticised in the report. The first we hear of the report, it is in the hands of Mr. Ewing; next Senator Mason, of Virginia, has it; and then a copy is handed round among the Virginia members on this floor. All this was before the report had been made to the House, and without the knowledge of the chairman or any member of the majority of that committee. Now, sir, I want to show the effect of this proceeding.

Mr. VINTON. I have already stated that I had nothing to do with furnishing the Virginia members with copies of that report.

Mr. BROWN. I recollect the gentleman's disclaimer, and do not mean to impugn his veracity. He placed the report in the hands of young Mr. Ewing; he, of course, showed it to his father, and he to the Virginia senators and representatives. The gentleman gave it a particular direction, and he was shrewd enough to know where it would land. But why, you are ready to ask, was it shown to the Virginia members? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker; a particular object was to be accomplished. The report was to be smothered. The gentleman was all-powerful with his Whig friends. He could bring them up to the work with a pretty united front. There might be some bolters, however, and if there was not, the party was a little too weak to carry out the scheme. Besides, it would give the whole thing a partisan look, if the Whigs went in a body for smothering, and the Democrats against it. It became necessary to have some Democratic allies. The report contained a severe criticism on certain important Virginia interests. The gentleman, with a skill and diplomacy, worthy of Talleyrand, went to work to secure these allies in the persons of the Virginia members. The report was very quietly, if not secretly circulated among them. They saw the assault on the Virginia interests—the scheme took. The vote was taken; the great body of the Whig party voted with the gentleman, and all the Virginia Democrats went over to his standard. He carried his point, and here we are precipitated into a discussion, before anybody save the favored few, have seen the report or know anything of its contents.

(Here Messrs. Seddon, Millson, Bayly, and McMullen, all of Virginia, severally interposed, and said that they had not been influenced in the votes given by anything said in the report against the Virginia interests.)

Mr. BROWN resumed. I certainly never meant to say that honorable gentlemen would knowingly and wilfully give an improper vote merely for the sake of sustaining an unjust local claim. But we all know that the representative is not the most impartial judge of the rights of his own constituent. Indeed, sir, the interest of the constituent is almost inseparable from the prejudices and predilections of his representative. The gentleman from Ohio well understood this, and he rightly conjectured that if it came to the knowledge of the Virginia delegation that certain important Virginia claims had been condemned in this report, the allegiance of that delegation might be relied on.

I am far from assailing the motives of the members from Virginia; but I cannot help remarking that it is a little singular that they were found separated from their political friends on this question. It is doubtless all right and fair, but it never happened so before. If one, or two, or three had gone over, my astonishment would not have been excited. But when they went in a body, I could not help inquiring into the cause of so important and significant a movement. I acquit the delegation of all improper motives, but I still think these Virginia claims had something to do with their votes against postponing the consideration of this report until such time as would afford every member an opportunity to examine into the facts.

I have been surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the grounds taken by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton], against a further consideration of the grave and important matters set forth in the report of the majority of this committee. To my mind, it looks very much like special pleading, for the purpose of avoiding a fair trial on the merits of the case. The gentleman was a member of the committee. He attended its sittings regularly. He saw the committee toiling from day to day, through the long months of summer, in collating the facts set forth in the report. He took a deep interest in the proceedings of the committee, and participated actively in all its labors. Yes, sir, he was here when the committee was raised. He was here when the inquiries were directed by the House. He went on the committee, performed his due proportion of the work, saw the report prepared after four months and more of toil, and then for the first time he discovers that the House has no jurisdiction of the case—that the House was attempting to resolve itself into an appellate court for the revision of judicial decisions made by the executive officers of the government. Did the gentleman make this wonderful discovery himself, or was it the offspring of some other genius? Possibly the younger Mr. Ewing, when copying the report, may have found it out. It may be, that some or all of the Virginia delegation discovered it, or, what is just as likely, ex-Secretary Ewing himself may have first started the new idea. To whomsoever the paternity of the grand conception may belong, I repudiate it as spurious. What, sir! may an executive officer go on from year to year allowing spurious and unjust, grossly unjust and illegal claims against the government, and paying them too, without law or semblance of law to sanction his conduct? and must we, the representatives of the people, fold our arms in quiet, and be silent because we have no power or right to inquire into the official conduct of an executive officer? If, sir, the conduct of the ex-Secretary had not been in the highest degree reprehensible, we should have heard nothing of this plea to the jurisdiction. Conscious innocence would not thus shrink from a fair investigation. It is precisely because these transactions will not bear the light of open day, that attempts are being made, and combinations formed, to bury them in this House under the hollow pretence that we have no jurisdiction. Why was not this discovery made five months back, when the investigation was ordered? Why was it not made during the four months and a half that the committee was sitting? Why was it never made until it was seen that an impartial investigation would result in a condemnation of these transactions?—in a condemnation which would arrest such proceedings in future, and thereby save millions to the treasury.

I now tell the House that if the conduct of the late Secretary is not distinctly rebuked, and his decisions repudiated, millions of dollars will be taken from the national treasury without law and without the knowledge or sanction of Congress. If we, the guardians of the treasury, are to stand by and witness these proceedings in silence, because the gentleman from Ohio says we have no jurisdiction, no power to arrest them, why, then, be it so; I take water and wash my hands of them.

How long is it since the gentleman from Ohio found that Congress could not inquire into the conduct of an executive officer? During these fifteen years or more that he has held a seat on this floor, has he ever, in a single instance, voted against an inquiry into the conduct of any Democratic executive officer? Never, sir, never. I challenge the gentleman to a trial by the record, and dare the assertion that he never, in all his life, voted against an inquiry into any alleged misfeasance or malversation in Democratic office-holders. But now, when a Whig secretary is arraigned—when the personal and political friend of the gentleman is charged with illegal and improper conduct, he steps boldly forward, and says, "Stop; touch not mine anointed." You may inquire into the conduct of Democrats, but Whigs are sacred against such impertinent and officious intermeddling.

The gentleman found power in this House to appoint the "Bundelcund committee," and to send them around the world on a voyage of discovery. He could delegate to that committee power to pry into the private and official conduct of every Democrat in and out of office. He could confer upon them the right to propound impertinent inquiries to the editor of the Union, and to Mr. Sengstack, as to how they conducted their private affairs, as private citizens; and he could even find the power to bring these gentlemen to the bar of the House and punish them for contempt, because they refused to disclose their private transactions to the "Bundelcund" inquisition. But he can find no power in Congress to inquire whether Mr. Ewing has or has not paid money from the treasury without the sanction of law.

Mr. VINTON said he had not voted for the arrest of the editor of the Union and Mr. Sengstack. He did not vote at all.

Mr. BROWN. The gentleman did not vote at all. His party voted, and his judgment approved their votes. I ask him if it did not?

Again, sir, the gentleman voted last year to inquire into the conduct of the then Secretary of the Treasury, Robert J. Walker. Where did he get his authority for that? Is the official immunity of a Democratic Secretary of the Treasury less than that of a Whig Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. VINTON. That inquiry was sent to a standing committee of this House; this to a select committee.

Mr. BROWN. That is rather too refined for my comprehension. I thought the plea was to the jurisdiction—to the power of the House to direct the inquiry. Now, it seems the House may direct the inquiry, if it only employs the proper committee to conduct it. And pray, sir, let me ask the gentleman what powers may this House confer on standing committees, which it may not in a like degree confer on a select committee? Neither has any power other than that which it derives from the House, and either may receive all the power which the House can confer-and one of them in as high a degree as the other. The gentleman will have to look about him for some better excuse than this to justify his vote to inquire into Secretary Walker's alleged misconduct, and his speech today against inquiring into Mr. Ewing's official short-comings.

But my hour is running out, and I must hurry on to a brief investigation of the facts set forth in the report itself.

And first of the case of G. W. and W. G. Ewing: Large sums of money were paid these persons, who were traders among the Indian tribes in the west. The money thus paid was clearly due from the government to the Indians. In this I agree perfectly and entirely with the gentleman [Mr. Vinton]; but I cannot concur with him that it was rightfully paid to the Messrs. Ewing. A critical investigation of the claims of these traders cannot fail to convince every one of certain important facts: the first and most important is, that the demands were enormously large, springing up as by magic from a paltry sum of a few hundred dollars, to many thousands, and that without there having been any additional dealings between the parties. In many instances, the items composing the accounts were never given, but a demand rendered for a large sum in round numbers. In the second place, the transactions were all of an individual character; the sales, if any were made, were all made to individual Indians; whereas, the demands for payment were against the tribes or nations; thus rendering a whole people responsible, without their consent, for the foolish and improvident acts of a few individuals. Nay, more than this, it was placing the funds of a tribe of ignorant savages at the mercy of these speculators and traders. Every one knows that intelligent and shrewd white men can go among the Indians, and with a few red blankets, or with strands of beads and other trinkets, make accounts on a credit with them to any amount. And we all know, that if the United States will undertake to pay such accounts out of the trust funds belonging to the savage tribes, there will be found unprincipled men enough to present demands for millions. The third point to be considered in this matter is, that Secretary Ewing ordered the payment of these demands without sufficient proof of their justice, even against the individual Indians, and in total disregard of the rights of the savage tribes. It is true that large sums are now suspended to await the action of the House on this report. If the committee is sustained, justice will be done the Indians, and if not, their funds will be recklessly squandered in paying the demands of the Ewings, and other traders and speculators.

One of my colleagues on the committee proposes to address the House more particularly on this branch of the investigation, and to him I leave the further task of pursuing the facts and law of this case. I will not dismiss it, however, without calling attention to the position of the gentleman from Ohio.

If I correctly understood the gentleman's position, it was, that inasmuch as the government owed the money, it could make no difference whether she paid it to the Indians or to the traders. If he means by this that it makes no difference so far as the money is concerned—no difference in a pecuniary point of view, I quite agree with him. But the gentleman very well understands that there are other and higher questions involved than the mere matter of discharging a pecuniary liability. Viewed only as a question of dollars and cents, it is a little important, it is true, that the money when paid should pass into the proper hands. An error like this might be committed, and, with civilized and enlightened nations, it could be repaired by simply paying the money again. But how is it, sir, with the Indian tribes? The government has obtained their confidence; they have consented that we shall hold their funds in trust. By and by they will send up a deputation to see their great father, the President, and receive their money. They will be told that the money has been paid to white men, and they will feel cheated; distrust will take the place of confidence. They will sigh for revenge. They will fly to arms; and the next intelligence from the west will be that the tomahawk and scalping knife have been taken up, and that our frontier settlers are flying from their homes and seeking safety. Tell me not, sir, that it makes no difference to whom the money is paid. Let the gentleman look into this matter, and he will find that the paltry question as to whether we shall pay this money once or twice sinks into insignificance in comparison with the other and greater questions of morality and safety. I hold that it is in the highest degree immoral to execute a sacred trust for an ignorant savage in a way to suffer him to be cheated by the white man. And I know, sir, it will be found highly dangerous to our frontiers to lose the confidence of these Indians, and to drive them to acts of revenge for the wrongs of the government in misapplying their money. I think, sir, that the Secretary did wrong in paying the claims of the Messrs. Ewing, and as the departments are only awaiting your action to determine whether they will pay other like demands, I hope they may be correctly advised by a vote of this House.

The second in the series of resolutions referred to the select committee, directs them to inquire "whether the Secretary of the Interior reopened and paid interest, to the amount of thirty-one thousand dollars, on the pension granted to Commodore James Barron, for services rendered in the Virginia navy during the revolutionary war, after the principal had been fully paid and discharged; and if said interest was paid, was it simple or compound; who was the agent or attorney for said claim; and the authority for such claim, if any."

This inquiry has been prosecuted, and a conclusion arrived at which seems to me to be fully justified by the facts.

It appears from the recorded evidence, that James Barron was a commander in the Virginia (state) navy, from 1775 to the close of the revolutionary war, and that he died in 1787.

In May, 1779, the state of Virginia, by an act of her legislature, promised half pay for life to all officers in the state and continental (ARMY) line, who should serve to the close of the war.

In 1780, she extended the benefits of this act to the officers of the navy, who should serve during the war.

It is clear, therefore, that Commodore Barron was entitled to half pay for life, or from the close of the war to his death in 1787.

In 1790, long after the close of the war, and three years after the death of Commodore Barron, Virginia, by another act, gave to officers of the army, and they alone, five years full pay and interest, in commutation of half pay for life.

The benefits of the act of 1790 being confined to officers of the army, and they alone, it is clear that Barron, who never was in the army, was never entitled to commutation.

And so indeed it seems to have been determined. For in 1823, his administrator, in pursuance of a judgment rendered by the superior court of Henrico county, demanded and received of the state of Virginia, $2008.52, that being the amount of Commodore Barron's half pay for life, under the act of 1780.

To a plain man of common understanding, it would seem that here was a full settlement of the Barron claim. He was entitled to half pay, and that alone, and his administrator, thirty-six years after his death, applied for and received it in pursuance of the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. It never was optional with naval officers to take either half pay for life, or in lieu thereof five years' full pay with interest. This was a benefit extended to officers of the army, and them alone. But suppose for a moment that officers of the navy had, by the act of 1790, been placed on the same footing with officers of the army, and that it had been left to their choice to take either half pay for life or full pay for five years and interest. Suppose, I say, that this had been the law. Did not the administrator of Commodore Barron, in 1823, make his election, and take the half pay for life? Such sir, is the recorded fact.

The truth is, that in 1823, there was no pretence set up by the representative of Commodore Barron that he was entitled to anything more than half pay for life. This was all that was claimed, and this was paid. The Commodore had been dead thirty-six years, and the state of Virginia paid off and discharged to his administrator the only demand which his administrator pretended to render against the government of that state.

The next point of inquiry is, how came the United States responsible for the debts of Virginia in this regard?

The acts of Virginia, passed in 1779 and 1780, were intended to promote the cause of independence, and they no doubt had the effect of continuing in the service many valuable officers whose private fortunes had been greatly reduced, and who, but for the assurances thus held out, would have been compelled to look for the means of subsistence in their declining years, elsewhere than in the army and navy of an impoverished colony. The act of 1790 was passed after the close of the war, and it was not, therefore, intended to promote the cause of the war. It is perfectly clear, that the liabilities incurred by Virginia under her acts of 1779 and 1780, were war debts, and properly chargeable to the account of a national revolution. It is equally as clear, that her liabilities under the act of 1790, were not incurrred in promoting or assisting the cause of independence; and however creditable to her generosity and magnanimity the act may have been, the liabilities could, in no proper sense, be charged to the war debt. It was not called for by exigencies of the public service. It was, in fact, an act of generosity—a gratuity.

I by no means say that the United States ought not to perform acts of generosity-of gratuitous service. She has performed many such, and they stand to her credit. I trust she may perform many others. But did she in this instance undertake to relieve Virginia from the payment of the gratuity or the bounty promised by her in her act of 1790? She did not.

In the year 1832—fifty-two years after the act of the Virginia legislature granting half pay for life, forty-five years after the death of Commodore Barron, and nine years after Virginia had paid to his administrator the half pay for life due him at his decease—the Congress of the United States passed an act, the third section of which is in these words:—

“SECTION 3. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed and required to adjust and settle those claims for half pay of the officers of the aforesaid regiments and corps, which have not been paid or prosecuted to judgment against the state of Virginia, and for which said state would be bound on the principles of the half-pay cases already decided in the Supreme Court of Appeals of said state; which said sums of money herein directed to be settled and paid, shall be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated by law.”

Now, sir, is there one word in this act which can be construed or tortured into a remote intimation that the United States meant to do anything more than to assume the war debt—the half-pay—as described by Virginia in the acts of 1779 and 1780? There was a manifest propriety in the United States assuming this liability. It was incurred in the prosecution of a common cause, and it was right and proper it should be paid from a common treasury. But I utterly deny that this government ever did undertake to pay commutation, or anything more than the half-pay for life to officers of the Virginia navy; and if she did, I call upon the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Virginia to point out the act.

I rest the case on these points:

1. Virginia undertook to pay her naval officers who served to the close of the war half-pay for life. She never did agree to give them commutation, or any other pay in lieu of this half-pay.

2. If Virginia had left it optional with naval officers, as she did with army officers, to choose between the commutation or five years' full pay and the half-pay for life, then Barron's administrator made his election in 1823, and took the half-pay.

3. The United States, for sufficient reasons, never did undertake to assume Virginia's liabilities for commutation, but only for the half-pay due her army and naval officers.

4. Virginia paid Barron's administrator his half-pay in 1823. The United States assumed the debt; and when she had returned to Virginia the $2008.52 paid by her to Barron's administrator, the transaction was closed and the business settled.

We are next to inquire when and how this matter came to be reopened, and how it was again closed.

July 21, 1849, twenty-six years after the payment to Barron's administrator, and sixty-two years after the death of the commodore, James Lyons, of Virginia, a distinguished lawyer, and leading political friend of the ex-Secretary of the Interior, preferred a claim against the United States for commutation, or five years' full pay, with interest, in lieu of the half-pay received by the administrator in 1823. This claim was promptly rejected by the Commissioner of Pensions.

An appeal was taken by Mr. Lyons, and the case was reviewed by Mr. Secretary Ewing. He had doubts. Yes, sir, he had doubts, and he referred the case to Mr. Attorney-General Johnson for his legal opinion. Mr. Johnson thought the money ought to be paid, and then Mr. Ewing thought so, too; but for what reason they, or either of them, came to such a conclusion, we are left in profound ignorance. Neither has ever deigned to give the slightest intimation of the wonderful process of reasoning by which they manage to mulet the United States for $32,000, and to throw this large amount into the hands of their friend, Mr. Lyons.

I have said the Commissioner of Pensions promptly refused to pay this money, and so he did. He continued so to refuse until he was peremptorily ordered by Mr. Secretary Ewing to pay it. The order was given December 31, 1849, and seems to have been as novel in its character as it was peremptory in its tone. The Commissioner thus speaks of it in an official paper now before us:

"I accordingly certify, under an order from the said Secretary, that commutation of five years' full pay is due, and interest thereon up to this date. The amount of commutation is $4258.31 1/3; interest is to be calculated at six per centum per annum on this sum from the 22d of April, 1783, to the 15th day of December, 1823; add the amount of the interest up to December 15, 1823, to the commutation, and deduct from the total of those sums the amount paid in December, 1823, viz: $2008.52; and upon the balance struck calculate the interest from that time up to the present date."

In pursuance of this order, the account was stated as follows:

Commutation	$4258.31
Interest to December 15, 1823	10,385.83
Interest from December, 1823, to January 2, 1850	19,382.50
	34,026.64
Paid by Virginia	2,008.52
Total	32,018.12

This large sum was accordingly paid to Mr. Lyons. If you will be at the trouble to examine the mode of calculation, you will be at no difficulty in seeing that the interest has been compounded.

The compounding of the interest is admitted. No one pretends to deny this. Mr. Ewing says himself that it was compounded, and he informed the committee that he had called upon Mr. Lyons to refund, and that the gentleman had refused.

The decisions of this executro-judicial tribunal cannot be reviewed, we are told by the gentlemen from Ohio and Virginia [Messrs. Vinton and Bayly]. I should like to know if it is the opinion of these learned gentlemen that a court, after rendering judgment, and enforcing it too, as in this case, to a payment of the money, may then sit as a court for the correction of its own errors, and order the plaintiff to pay back the money which he has received in due course of law? And if not, how long do they think it will be before Mr. Lyons will return to the treasury the compound interest which his friend Ewing awarded him in this case? There is but one remedy for outrages like this, and that is, to hold the guilty judge up to public condemnation.

In deciding this Barron case, Messrs. Ewing and Johnson, without justice, law, or reason, overturned the uniform current of decisions of all their predecessors, and of the Supreme Court of Virginia, for nearly twenty years; and for the truth of this assertion I refer to the Virginia Reports in like cases, and to the decisions and opinions of the Secretaries and Attorneys-General since 1832.

The end of this business is found here: The United States, in 1832, undertook to pay to Virginia $2008.42, that being the amount of Commodore Barron's half-pay for life, and in 1850 she is compelled by Mr. Secretary Ewing to pay $32,018.12, for commutation and interest, simple and compound, a sum which neither she nor Virginia ever agreed to pay in whole or in part. If this decision is not rebuked by a vote of this House, not less than two to three millions of the public money will go in the same way.

One other point in this connection, and I shall have done with this Barron claim. The inquiry naturally arises, where did Mr. Ewing get the money to pay this claim? It was taken, like the Galphin money, from appropriations intended for other purposes, and then Congress was asked to sanction it, by voting through a deficiency bill. No wonder this deficiency for the last year run up to four or five millions of dollars. Secretaries abstract $32,000 for one purpose, $56,000 for another, $230,000 for another, and Heaven only knows how much besides. Such lawless profligacy would bankrupt the treasury, if there was a stream of liquid gold flowing into it from morning till night.

The only remaining subject of inquiry is embraced in the third resolution, and has reference to a large sum of money paid to Dr. William M. Gwin, out of a trust fund belonging to the Chickasaw tribe of Indians.

The Chickasaws inhabited the northern part of Mississippi, and in the year 1834 ceded their lands to the United States; and without entering into any minute details of their several transactions, I may state simply that the United States retained a certain part of the proceeds of the cession in trust for the benefit of the Indians. This fund was to be expended in such manner and for such purposes as the Indians should direct. In 1837 the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and as now appears, without any sufficient authority from the Indians, despatched Lieutenant Seawright, of the army, to Cincinnati, to purchase provisions and provide transports for a party of emigrating Chickasaws, they having signified their disposition to remove West. Seawright expended for these purposes about $144,000. The Indians received benefits to the amount of $32,000, or about that sum, and, as the whole expenditure was without their authority, they refused to be charged with the remaining $112,000. The officers of the treasury, however, charged the whole sum to the general Chickasaw account, and the Indians were notified accordingly.

This is the foundation, briefly stated, of the claim about which the committee were charged to inquire.

It seems that in the year 1844, Dr. Gwin, then a citizen of Mississippi and now a Senator from California, went among the Chickasaws in the West. He entered into a contract with these Indians, and was empowered by a portion of them (who professed to act for the whole) to conduct certain fiscal operations of theirs with the United States. The written agreement with the Indians was exhibited by Dr. Gwin to the accounting officers at Washington, and he entered upon and discharged some of the duties devolved upon him as the agent or attorney of the Chickasaws.

A misunderstanding sprung up concerning this agreement. It bore, among many others, the name of Ish-ta-ho-ta-pa, the King. This chief wrote to the Secretary of War that he had never signed such a paper, and that if it bore his name it was without his authority. Dr. Gwin, on having his attention called to the subject, admitted that the King did not sign the paper, but that another person, who represented that he had authority, had signed for him.

A letter signed W. A., and understood to be from William Armstrong, late General Indian Agent West, dated Choctaw Agency, 12th October, 1846, and now on file among the official papers, thus speaks of this transaction:

“I received at Nashville your letter informing me of Dr. G's movements. I was not a little surprised to hear that he came so near succeeding in the Chickasaw claim. The fact is, the whole affair was wrong. I had no idea when Dr. G. first came over to the Chickasaws, what his business was."

The matter was variously canvassed, and in the end the contract was rescinded. The paper or contract seems to have been given up or destroyed, and a new contract was entered into. It was under this new contract that the claim of which I am about to speak was paid. I have spoken of the first contract only because it was the basis of Dr. Gwin's transactions with the Indians, and hence became intimately associated with the history of the case. I now dismiss it, and shall hereafter speak only of the second contract. This last paper is among the documents now on my desk; but as it is without date, I am unable to say when it was executed. It will become important in the course of this investigation to fix its date, and I shall have recourse to other testimony for that purpose.

Before entering into a further examination of this case, I must pause to settle a small account with the MINORITY of the committee. In their report I find this remarkable and strong language:

"There is no evidence whatever among the records of the department to sustain the finding of the committee that this claim was rejected by the proper officer, and reopened and allowed by the Secretary of the Interior; indeed the finding is directly contrary to the recorded fact."

In this they make a direct issue with the majority, and I shall have recourse to the official papers to test the question as to who is right and who is wrong.

The first trace that I find of this case in its progress through the departments, is in the Second Auditor's office. On the 8th of September, 1846, J. M. McCalla, Second Auditor of the Treasury, certified that there was due W. M. Gwin, $56,021.49. This certificate was sent to the Second Comptroller, and the next trace of it is found in the letter which I now read:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,                     

SECOND COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, Sept. 9, 1846.

SIR: The Second Auditor of the Treasury, on the 8th instant, reported to me an account in favor of William M. Gwin for $56,021.49, chargeable upon the appropriation for carrying into effect treaties with the Chickasaws, under the act of April 20,1836.

As this claim is "connected with Indian affairs," and calls for an expenditure from an appropriation under the charge of the War Department, it should have been transmitted to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for ADMINISTRATIVE EXAMINATION, under the 3d section of the act of July 9, 1832, and the fifth paragraph of "Revised Regulations No. 1, concerning the execution of the act of July 9, 1832, providing for the appointment of a Commissioner of Indian Affairs."

In order that the claim may receive the proper administrative examination as required by law, I herewith transmit all the papers received from the auditor connected therewith.

With entire respect, &c.,

ALBION K. PARRIS, Comptroller.

Hon. W. MEDILL, Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

Need I go further, to show that the Indian Bureau had been improperly passed by in the presentation of this claim? That faithful and intelligent officer, of twenty-odd years' experience, A. K. Parris, sent it back to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for that administrative examination which the case required, and without which it could not properly be paid.

I shall not undertake to trace its history from that day, September 9, 1846, to March 12, 1850, when it was finally paid by order of Thomas Ewing, Secretary of the Interior. Suffice it to say, it was a history of stern resistance and constant protests, on the part of the Indians and their attorneys, against its payment. Indeed, sir, their arguments, protests, and remonstrances are scattered through this immense mass of papers on my desk, like the beacon-lights along a difficult and dangerous shore.

The minority of the committee, with a boldness which seems to defy contradiction, says: "There is no evidence that this claim was rejected by the proper officer. Indeed the finding is directly to the contrary." Now, sir, if this be true, how came it that this claim was not paid? How did it happen that it lay in the Indian office from the 9th of September, 1846, to the 12th March, 1850? How came it to lie there until the close of Mr. Polk's administration, and until the reign of the "Galphins" had fairly begun? We shall see. I beg to invite the attention of the House to certain papers, which being among those officially communicated, could not have escaped the critical eye of the gentleman [Mr. Vinton] under whose auspices the minority report was prepared.

The first paper in this large mass before me is a letter from William Medill, late Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to Thomas Ewing, Secretary of the Interior, detailing the history of this case. It bears date June 27, 1849. In one place the writer says:

"Of the $112,042 99-100 found due the Chickasaws, William H. Gwin, Esquire, claims the enormous sum of one-half for his services or instrumentality in recovering the amount, under an alleged contract with those Indians. Without dwelling upon the extraordinary extravagance of this demand, which is sufficiently apparent by the mere statement of it, I would remark, that notwithstanding the peculiar position of the Chickasaws, they, like other Indians, are the wards of the government, and no such contract or agreements are valid or binding unless sanctioned by the department."

And again, in speaking of the fund out of which it was proposed to pay this “enormous sum,” he says:

"I am of the opinion that it could not properly be used towards repaying the Chickasaws the amount found due to THEM by the accounting officers: and so the Secretary of War, as I understand, decided when the report of these officers of the result of their adjustment of the account, and the amount found due the Chickasaws, was presented to him in September, 1846, for a requisition for $58,124.14, to be taken from the removal and subsistence fund. HE CERTAINLY PEREMPTORILY REFUSED TO ISSUE THE requisition."

And again:

"This being the case, it is not seen how any portion of it could legally or properly be used towards paying the Chickasaws the amount found due THEM.* In my judgment, this can only properly be effected through an appropriation therefor by Congress."

Does all this look like there had been no rejection, no refusal to pay? Does it look as if "the recorded fact was exactly the contrary?"

Now, let us turn over to page five of this great book of manuscript before me, and here we find an order from W. L. Marcy, Secretary of War. It is dated October 1, 1846, about twenty-two days after this case had fallen into Medill's hands, and is addressed to William Medill, Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Mr. Medill, in handing over the papers in this case to Secretary Ewing, says, referring to this order:

"The rule of action which has governed the Executive in cases of contracts with Indians, as well as powers of attorney procured from them, you will find embodied in the accompanying order of the Secretary of War of October 1, 1849."

Here is the order:

"The practice which has heretofore prevailed, to a considerable extent, of paying money due to Indians on powers of attorney given by them, is wholly inconsistent with the duty of government to pay over to them, promptly and without abatement, whatever may be due to them under any treaty or law; or for any claim whatever to which they may be justly entitled. Agents are appointed, and by the government, to attend to their business for them, and they should be the medium of all their communications with the government, whether in relation to any claim they may have, or to their wants or wishes upon any other subject.

"W. L. MARCY, Secretary of War."

How could the minority of the committee, with this record before them, deny that there had been any adverse decision, and even intimate that the decisions had been in favor of the claimant? First, we have the admitted fact, that the claim was submitted to Mr. Medill in September, 1846; that for more than three years he did not pay it; and that he went out of office without paying it. Second, we have his letter before he left the office, assigning his reasons at length for not paying it; and thirdly, we have Secretary Marcy's order, so pointed and positive that this claim could never have been paid without violating that order. And yet, gentlemen say there has been no decision. Nay, sir, they even assert that the decision has been in their favor.

“They must have options sharp I ween,

To see what is not to be seen.”

I pass from the consideration of this point, and return to the second contract, which we have seen is without date, but which is found to have been in the Second Auditor's office as early as 8th September, 1846. It may have been there some days earlier.

By the terms of this contract, which I have before me, Doctor Gwin was to have for his services, as attorney for the Indians, various large sums of money, and among others, one-half of all that should be recovered from the United States on account of provisions purchased at Cincinnati in 1837. The sum thus recovered, or which, I should rather say, was found to be due on a fair settlement of the Chickasaw account, was $112,042.99. One-half of this sum was, of course, $56,021.49, and this was the sum claimed by Doctor Gwin. The report and resolutions have no relation to any other payment to Doctor Gwin, and I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to this fifty-six thousand dollars-dismissing the others with the single remark that they were paid. We have already seen that the Second Auditor, McCalla, passed this claim and sent it down to Second Comptroller Parris on the 8th of September, 1846. We have also seen that the comptroller sent it on the day following to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, where it properly belonged, for administrative examination. We have seen that it remained there to the close of Mr. Polk's administration, and we have seen the reasons why it was not paid. Let us now pursue the thread of its remarkable history during the three years and more that intervened between its falling into Commissioner Medill's hands and its final payment by order of Thomas Ewing, Secretary of the Interior.

Within a day or two after the claim was passed by Second Auditor McCalla, Doctor Gwin transferred it, for value received, to Messrs. Corcoran & Riggs, bankers in this city.

Various protests of the Indians and their attorney, together with other papers, are found on file. But no effort seems to have been made on the part of the claimants to change the determination of Commissioner Medill and Secretary Marcy. Early in 1849, and after the new cabinet were fairly under way, the claimants seem to have renewed their labors. A long resting spell had imparted to them new energy, and they pursued the case with an earnestness and zeal worthy of a better cause. I pass over much that was said and done between the 4th of March, 1849, and the 30th of June of that year, and resume the history with the following letter:

WASHINGTON CITY, June 30, 1849.

SIR: I have just been informed that an effort is being made to transfer an appropriation now standing on the books of the treasury "for the removal and subsistence of Indians," to the appropriation "for carrying into effect treaties with the Chickasaws," with a view of asking the payment or contract made by certain Chickasaw Indians with Dr. Wm. M. Gwin. I most respectfully ask the suspension of your action in the matter until I can have time to file a protest on behalf of the Chickasaw nation, and state the reasons why the claim should not be paid without being transmitted to the Chickasaw Council for their approval.

With great respect, your obedient servant.

JOSEPH BRYAN.

HON. T. EWING, Secretary, &c.

It will be remembered that Mr. Bryan was the attorney of the Indians, regularly employed to resist the payment of this claim.

On the 2d of July, 1849, Mr. Bryan filed the protest alluded to in the letter just read, and from that protest I read the following extract:

"I deem it altogether needless at this time to go into a history of the transaction, as the protest of the agent, Colonel Upshaw, was filed by me in the Indian Office, which purported to explain the whole matter, and which had the effect of stopping the action of the War Department in the matter, and prevented the payment of the claim under the DECISION OF THE LATE SECRETARY OF WAR, GENERAL MARCY. Since that time no effort that I am aware of has been made to procure its payment until now."

Nothing daunted, the claimants pressed their suit with increased energy, and by way of showing the nature of the opposition and the character of the obstacles thrown in their way, I beg leave to read two or three short papers found among the files now before me. It is impossible that these papers should have been overlooked by the most careless searcher after truth in this case. On the 14th of July, 1848, Colonel Pitman Colbert, a distinguished man among the Chickasaws, wrote to Commissioner Medill the letter from which I read an extract:

"I present myself and respectfully request to be informed of the amount of money received by Dr. W. M. Gwin, by virtue of a power of attorney from the Chickasaw commissioners; also a copy of that power of attorney, as it is important for my object to know the names of the persons who made and constituted Dr. Gwin the financial agent of the Chickasaws; and whether or not said Gwin has not attempted to draw other sums of money by virtue of said power, since it became notorious that his power was revoked by the universal condemnation of the Chickasaw people; together with any other information relating to this matter that may be in possession of your department."

On the 28th of February, 1849, a delegation from the Chickasaw nation thus wrote to Secretary Marcy. After speaking at some length of their claim for $112,042.99, they say:

"But we found in connection, however, with this claim, that an agreement has been filed between William M. Gwin on the one part, and the chiefs, headmen, and warriors on the other part, by which it appears that one-half of said claim was to be paid to said William M. Gwin, for his services in obtaining an adjustment of the claim by the government, and on this agreement the Second Auditor has allowed William M. Gwin $56,021.49, being the one-half of $112,042.99 as stated. This account is now suspended in your office, as we are informed, and we are bound to thank you for delaying the matter thus far, although it is important to our people that they should be in annual receipt of the interest upon this sum which is justly due the Chickasaw nation."

Such is the character of all the papers in this great mass, numbering more than five hundred pages. The Indians, from the beginning to the ending, sternly and steadily resisted the payment of this demand. It is among the most remarkable circumstances connected with the case, that there is not one particle of Indian testimony to sustain it-not a single Indian of the whole tribe has ever been found to endorse its justice, or to say it ought to be paid. Their testimony is uniformly and unitedly against it. Their sense of its injustice may be gathered from the paper which I now read:

A PROTEST.

Be it enacted by the General Council of the Chiefs and Captains of the Chickasaw tribe of Indians, That the following protest be adopted, and copies of it be transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury and to the Secretary of the Home Department at Washington city:

The chiefs, captains, headmen, and warriors of the Chickasaw tribe of Indians in full council assembled, have learned that Dr. William Gwin has filed in the Treasury Department of the United States, at Washington City, an account against the Chickasaw fund, for $56,021.49, which account we understand, is based upon an agreement which, it is pretended, was made between the said Gwin and the Chickasaw tribe of Indians. This agreement, if any such exist, was made by some of our commissioners or chiefs in a private manner, without the knowledge or consent of our nation in council, and has never been recognised, ratified, or confirmed by a general council of our tribe, and without this it cannot nor ought not to be binding upon our people. Our tribe cannot be bound by the acts of any individuals of the same, unless a special power for this purpose has been delegated to them by a general council.

The tribe of Chickasaws, in full council assembled, after deliberation, repudiate the action of the individuals who entered into that agreement, if any was made, and deny that they had any authority to bind our people.

We therefore solemnly protest against the payment of that account out of the Chickasaw funds, as, in justice to our people, we are bound to do.

Done in open council of our tribe, and attested by our signatures, at Boiling Springs, Chickasaw District, July 13, 1849.

Joel Kemp,

Captain STROSS, pro wag, his X mark,

Captain PARKER, his X mark,

Captain NED, his X mark,

HOTCHIE, his X mark,

LOUIS, his X mark,

JERRY, his X mark,

ELBUB NU TURKEY, his X mark,

WILLIAM JAMES, his X mark,

ENAH NO TI CHU, his X mark,

JACK UTTUBBY, his X mark,

JOH TU CHUCK ATTIEA, his X mark,

VIBBIT UN OYUH, his X mark,

ELOSS AMBY, his X mark,

BILLY, his X mark,

PITMAN COLBERT,

LEMUEL COLBERT,

JACKSON FRAZIER,

ISAAC ATBERTEAUR, his X mark,

President of the Council.

EDUMUND PECKERS, his X mark,

Chief, Chickasaw Dirstrict C. N.

Attest: CYRUS HARRIS, Clerk Chickasaw District.

Now, sir, I humbly submit, that all this mass of testimony, together with a great deal more which I have neither time nor patience to read, should, at least, have put the Secretary on his guard. It should have been sufficient to elicit the most searching investigation into all the facts. We shall presently see whether it had that effect.

I said, sometime since, that the contract was without date, and so it was; other testimony was resorted to to [sic] fix its date. A Mr. Charles Johnson, in a long affidavit now before me, gives somewhat in detail a history of Dr. Gwin's contracts with the Indians. It seems, that a general council had been called to obtain a ratification of Dr. Gwin's last agreement with a part of the Indian commissioners. There was great dissatisfaction among the people. Johnson concludes his affidavit thus:

"On the day the council met, the commissioners, in a body, resigned. I was not present, but understood there was much excitement. The power of attorney given to Dr. Gwin, in November, 1844, was said to be the main cause. Some two weeks after the commissioners resigned, they came to Fort Washita, and then signed the new power of attorney. In consequence of there having been much said respecting the papers, I requested them to permit me to take both powers to Major Armstrong, and gave them my word that the old one should be destroyed. I returned them both into the hands of Major Armstrong, who, in my presence, destroyed the old one. Colonel Upshaw, Chickasaw agent, saw all the papers, and disapproved of both powers of attorney. At the time this affair took place, I was a trader in the Chickasaw country.

CHARLES JOHNSON.

"CITY OF PHILADELPHIA," ss. Sworn and subscribed before me this 29th day of January, A. D. 1850.

“C. BRAZIER,          

Ald. and Ex-officio Justice of the Peace.”

No wonder this power of attorney is without date. Signed officially by the commissioners two weeks after they had been compelled to resign, it would not have looked well to date it. No wonder the Indians in general council repudiated it, and said it had been executed without authority and in a private manner. Can it be, Mr. Speaker, that Messrs. Ewing and Johnson, in deciding to pay this money, could have overlooked papers like these?

But, sir, the case does not stop here. This paper, thus executed, was lost; yes, lost. A COPY was presented by Mr. Corcoran, of the firm of Corcoran & Riggs, to whom Dr. Gwin had transferred the claim, and on this copy, thus presented, the money was paid.

Mr. Corcoran swore, to the best of his belief, that it was a correct copy. But there were subscribing witnesses, some six or eight of them, white men and Indians. And I do not learn that an attempt was ever made to obtain their testimony that the copy was correct.

The gentlemen from Ohio and Virginia [Messrs. Vinton and Bayly] have dilated at great length, and with much eloquence and learning, on this, as an adjudicated case. We have been exhorted not to lay our profane hands on the sanctity of a judicial decision. We must needs let this thing pass, because it is res adjudicata. Let me ask the learned, gentleman if there is a court in the civilized world where the plaintiff could introduce the bare copy of the most important paper, upon no other than his own affidavit as to its correctness, and that, too, when there were a dozen or more subscribing witnesses? This a judicial proceeding, indeed! This the sacred ermine we are exhorted not to profane! I have about the same respect for such "judicial proceedings" that I have for a "Choctaw council," and about as much reverence for this sort of ermine as I have for an Indian blanket.

Well, sir, the case had progressed to this point, when Mr. Ewing determined to pay it; but with that true cunning which is a part of himself, he determined to put the Attorney-General between him and danger; so he called on him for his legal opinion. And here is the opinion of the learned gentleman, in all its length and breadth, height and depth. See it, sir, in all its vast proportions—its latitude and longitude, and be silent while I read, all ye ends of the earth! Listen!

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE,          

WASHINGTON, January 3, 1850.

SIR: In the cases of the claim of the Chickasaw nation against the United States, and of Messrs. Corcoran and Riggs, as assignees of William M. Gwin, submitted by you to this office, I have formed an opinion, after careful consideration, which my other engagements prevent my doing more at this time than barely stating. Should it be your wish, I will avail myself of the very first leisure to assign my reasons.

1st. I am of opinion that the account of the nation is to be considered now as having been properly opened and restated, and that the balance found due by the accounting officers of $112,842, is properly chargeable to the appropriation for the subsistence and removal of Indians.

2d. That the last contract with William M. Gwin, assigned to Corcoran and Riggs, is valid, and that out of the fund payable to the Chickasaws under the first head, whatever balance is due under that contract, should be paid to Corcoran and Riggs.

With regard, your obedient servant,

REVERDY JOHNSON.

Hon. T. EWING.

Shades of our fathers defend us! Was there ever such an opinion in such a case? Here is a case involving an immediate payment of $112,842, and contingently a vastly larger sum. A case which has been decided against by some of the purest officers and ablest lawyers in the Union. Its history covers a period of some twelve or fourteen years, and is written on five hundred pages of foolscap, and the Attorney-General disposes of it in two short sentences: "I am of opinion that it ought to be paid." "I think Corcoran and Riggs ought to have half the money." There it is, well and nobly said. This learned opinion convinced the distinguished Secretary, and he penned this important paper Veni, vidi, vici. See, sir, it is short, and exactly to the point. To use the poetic phrase of Mr. Winthrop, "it is as brief as the posy on a lady's ring." Harken! all yea of little faith!

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,        

January 4, 1850.

The account will be stated, and the payment made in accordance with the Attorney-General's opinion within.

T. EWING, Secretary.

This had well-nigh ended the whole matter; but the Chickasaws were importunate. They interposed Johnson's affidavit and other like documents. Ewing hesitated; the thing looked barefaced. He may for once in his life have felt that there was such a thing as conscience. Again he called the learned Attorney-General to his aid, and that distinguished functionary, with a promptitude and power which few men can master, responded in the following learned, powerful, and convincing argument:—

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE,          

7th March, 1850.

SIR: In compliance with your request of the 8th January last, I have reexamined the cases of the Chickasaw nation against the United States, and of Corcoran and Riggs, assignees of William M. Gwin, upon which I gave you an opinion on the third of that month, and have most carefully considered the additional evidence and the arguments of the counsel for the parties concerned, and see no reason to change the opinion referred to.

Indeed the effect of the recent evidence is to satisfy me more fully, that that opinion was right; and I therefore again advise you accordingly.

The press of business upon me still continuing, I must wait until the final adjournment of the Supreme Court before I can give in detail the reasons which have led me to the conclusion to which I have come. Should you then desire it, they will be submitted with pleasure.

I have the honor to be, with great regard, your obedient servant,

REVERDY JOHNSON.

Hon. THOMAS EWING, Secretary of the Interior.

This was conclusive; the Secretary was overcome; the attorneys stood aghast; the Indians were floored; the money was paid; Corcoran and Riggs felt comfortable; Dr. Gwin was satisfied, and the scene closed. I drop the curtain over the transaction with this single remark: Before many years shall have passed by, we will be called on to refund this money to the Chickasaws.

_______________

* Let me remark here, that in speaking of the amount due them, the commissioner means the whole sum, $112,000, and includes, of course, the $56,000 claimed by Dr. Gwin.

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. 215-33