Jackson, De on were not hat does that to answer a but anything be respected, wer. How? well that the mis foot upon at the enemy mose qualities him the very estions of his world we see life friendly, petitors, and k to the olden an ostracizing s turn, is osgreat Roman elf exiled tompey, whose the beginning s and Cassius ed. General cott, and he uarreled with ment? It regreat leaders ny. hole idea in a y and Prince f battle sphere; reign 5." the principle. 1 perfect anson quarreled on had in his racter (withd such a suce best friend Jackson was Lieutenant General-Mr. Smith. supersede and thwart him. Many were the combinations formed by some of his officers in the course of the revolutionary war, to take from him the position he held, and to prostrate him as an officer. Even he had his quarrels. Where, then, are the arguments of my friend from Tennessee? What is this charge worth? Nothing-nothing. It is "stale, flat, and unprofitable." GENERAL WASHINGTON. The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. PoLk,] in his fine eulogy upon the character of General Washington, gravely and solemnly asks: "Will you make, by a solemn enactment of Congress, General Scott equal to General Washington?" This is an intimation, of course, that, as General Washington had once held the office of lieutenant general, no other man ought to hold it! Why, sir, it is true that General Washington was made, by act of Congress, a lieutenant general; but it was no elevation to him. It was positively a degradation; so understood and so acted upon afterwards by Congress. Sir, General Washington was not only a lieutenant general, but he was a President of the United States. Will you say, that because he happened to be President, it is a profanation of his character to make any other man President; and that because he happened to be a lieutenant general, it is a profanation of his character to make any other man a lieutenant general? I have as high an appreciation of the character of General Washington as any American citizen. But I do not despair of many Washingtons. It was not because he won great battles alone that he is revered; not because he was a great warrior, for there have been greater mere fighters, but it was because the battles he won were liberty's first battles, and because, in the moral grandeur of his character, he refused to take advantage of the popularity which his military achievements had acquired, to elevate and aggrandize himself. Now, I must pass from my honorable friend from Tennessee, giving to him for his motives the utmost patriotism in all his movements. I know that he does not intend anything wrong; and the gallant manner in which he fought for the bill just ills! Is that passed by this House, for the relief of Mrs. Worth, met with my approbation so heartily that I forgive him for the mistake which he has made in this. It is a great mistake in a small matter. GENERAL LANE, GENERAL WOOL, AND THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPOSITION. If it be adeneral JackWilkinson's evidence that ntleman from ? I now go to the honorable gentleman from Oregon, [Mr. LANE,] and propose to disarm him. I am glad he is not here, (I see his seat vacant,) because I can say freely how much I admire him— how great I believe him to be in arms-how largely the country is indebted to him for his eminent services in Mexico and Oregon-and how high the pillar of glory ought to be erected for him. I can say this in his absence, which I might be unwilling to say in his presence. But, on another account, I regret his absence. I must say something that I would rather say in his presence. I would show him how completely he has disarmed himself in his argument. is matter, by en, his own of the coungress to Gen1 gentleman him disarm attack upon eman, [Mr. pon General Washington hereby intithe hearts of story of his The gentleman from Oregon [General LANE] what I said. spoke of the necessity, under this resolution, of "General reorganizing the Army-of increasing its generals. his officers,' That is an important question, but no longer an at he meant open one. The Army, at least, must be increased; carts of his and a reorganization, as suggested by the gentletion to the man, could do no harm. Sir, if we continue to m Oregon, look forward to the acquisition of new territories, ry heart-a (and we do,)-if we intend to stand by the Monroe doctrine as to the foreign occupancy of American soil, (and we do,) our Army must be increased. Our conduct and designs cannot always be mere brag and bluster. Our continuous fillibustering is bound to bring about a fight after awhile. You will not only have to increase your armies, sir, but you must repair your navies. There should be new grades in the Navy, as well as new ships. Your little squadron of canoes must be changed into a great and respectable and powerful steam Navy to meet the exigencies of the day. ott-a man who knew nd military say?" I have the mander-intates. He not disarm fair answer ? Here is or of Gen cter. of Washthe hearts ven he had rtburnings wished to You remember, that the gentleman, [General LANE,] after making some suggestion about the consequence of the passage of this resolution as to the necessity of a reorganization of the Army, paused and commented upon General Wool, giving to him Ho. or REPS. in a splendid eulogy the glory of the battle of Buena Vista. General Wool may possibly deserve it. I have a high admiration of General Wool, and I wish him to have the last laurel, and more than the last, for all the honors that he has won in the service of his country. But what use have I for that reference? The opinions expressed by the honorable gentleman from Oregon, [General LANE,] were the opinions of a distinguished military chieftain, and they are entitled to credit as coming from such a source. I propose to answer him with his own witness:-and I now call the attention of the committee to the HISTORY OF THE PROPOSITION with reference to the establishment of the grade and title of lieutenant general. It has been pending many years in Congress, and is not offered now as a mere salvo to General Scott. I would scorn to make such an offer to such a man. His consolation may be found in the speech of an old Roman, who, upon being defeated for Consul, rejoiced that Rome had in her limits one greater man than himself. But as to the history of this resolution, in connection with General LANE's eulogy upon General Wool: "July 29, 1850, Hon. Mr. CLEMENS Submitted the following: "Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be 'instructed to inquire into the expediency of conferring, by Jaw, the brevet rank of lieutenant general on Major Gen'eral Winfield Scott, with such additional pay and allowFances as may be deemed proper, in consideration of the dis'tinguished services rendered to the Republic by that officer 'during the late war with Mexico.' "Eight days later that resolution was referred to the Senate's Military Committee. "On the last day of the session, September 30, 1850, Hon. JEFFERSON DAVIS, chairman, reported the following resolution on the same subject: "Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, requested to refer to an army board of officers, to be designated by him, the following questions, 'viz : "Is it expedient or necessary to provide for additional "grades of commissioned officers in the Army of the United 'States? If so, what grades, in addition to the present or'ganization, should be created?" "In pursuance of this request the President of the United States, by order, December 2, 1852, appointed a board of officers-Generals Jesup, (President,) WooL, Gibson, Totten, Talcott, Hitchcock, and Colonel Crane, who reported, unanimously, as follows: "Under the first inquiry referred to it, the board is of opinion that it is expedient to create, by law, for the Army, 'the additional grade of lieutenant general, and that when, in the opinion of the President and Senate, it shall be 'deemed proper to acknowledge eminent services of offi'cers of the Army, and in the mode already provided for in 'subordinate grades, it is expedient and proper that the grade of lieutenant general may be conferred by brevet.' "December 17, 1850, that report was laid before the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs,' &c. "January 25, 1851, Hon. Mr. SHIELDS, chairman, &c., reported a joint resolution in conformity with the recommendation of the Military Board." You will see from this that the President of the United States, in compliance with the request of the Senate, appointed a board of Army officers to examine the matter. That board consisted of the following gentlemen: Jesup, WooL, Totten, Talcott, Hitchcock, and Colonel Crane. Recollect that General Wool, the man who was so much eulogized by the honorable Delegate from Oregon on yesterday, was placed on that board; and you have this report recommending, in the fullest possible manner, the passage of this proposition." I ask if the gentleman from Oregon [General LANE] is not partially disarmed by his own eulogized witness? General Wool is a regular officer of the Army; bred in the Army-a Major General, having earned the distinction by long service in camp. I have shown you that he recommended, after solemn investigation and examination, the adoption of this new military rank. Now I propose to offset the opinion of the gentleman from Oregon against this resolution, with the opinion of his own great witness, General Wool, in its favor. And General Wool is a Democrat of the first water. Mr. HALL, (in his seat.) What sort is that? Mr. SMITH. The phrase is applicable to a diamond-a diamond of the first water-purest. There is your answer. General Jesup was the President of this board of inquiry. He, too, is a Democrat of the first water-an old soldier-beginning life in arms with General Scott; bred in the camp, his opinion is entitled to weight-much weight. And doubtless those other gentlemen of the board are greatly distinguished and learned in NATIONAL INGRATITUDE-RET MOman, national ingratitud is rages for the medal; in the stud Your mere politician may plod d and peril demand to be pa ven the deserts of a military m the kind attention of th deine to show you that wi Government than ours: Je of Wellington was promot APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. Erategics of war. In the gentleman from e of the country and n fully. The Conappreciated General guished officers who Duntry. But that is sage of this resoluen McCullough, the rably alluded to by r. LANE] on yesterpose this resolution? the country be unit any reason why nother? That would e fact that the couny is no reason that o do it. Congress uty in this matter. good a time as any, opinion, at a very -REWARDS. atitude will always on. If you refuse ■, you make them anting for honors ey may desert your essity of throwing re untried soldiers. of princes, is to reve and desire of ret. It is exhibited in upturned to receive the school-boy in e student who trims up the last drop of t; and in the man success of his first ivalry, what was a knighthood withd "reward," emword-excelsior, common places of = loftiest pursuits. , and what would lod through life, only expect a seat nless he has exmmon luck, that is pect to climb; but aper bullets,) he groceries.) But paid in pleasures the difference beman and a mere the committee, I irman, that all the eginning of time, Ling their military I must crowd the ase, while I make deceased Duke of much of the attenO recently. PROMOTIONS. ith less military chievements and ke of Wellington times more than e age-but under Deral, and a more I mean as to miliecret is known to know the sources t secret is the reary heroes. The ed at a very early - movement upon promotion. He Indies, and after ade by grade, he 2d of April, 1802. s when he was a Lieutenant General-Mr. Smith. shal in 1813. This is rapid promotion for a military man, and he sometimes received two or three promotions for a single military display. The achievements of Wellington in the East deserve but the name of mere military skirmishes. He there contended with untutored barbarians, yet he was made a field marshal before 1813. After his return he had the marshals of France to contend with. He won some very clever victories in France, but nothing more brilliant than we see in the career of General Scott, except the battle of Waterloo. I will read as a matter of curiosity a list of the promotions of the Duke of Wellington. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] yesterday said something about hereditary titles and the heraldry of nobility. In referring to the promotions of the distinguished Duke, of course I do not wish to follow the example of England in conferring titles of nobility, but I wish merely to show that his promotions were given on account of military achievements: "His commission of colonel was conferred on the 3d of May, 1796; that of major general, 2d of April, 1802; of lieutenant general, 25th April, 1808; of general in Spain and Portugal, 31st July, 1811; of field marshal, 21st June 1813." These promotions followed his skirmishes in the East, and before his achievements in France "He embarked for Europe on the 10th of March, 1805, the Trident frigate, after having received, from the officers of the army he had commanded, the merchants of Calcutta, and the native inhabitants of Seringapatam, highly gratifying and substantial tokens of admiration and esteem. The officers of the Army subscribed for a gold vase, to be in scribed with the name of his great victory, Assye; this was subsequently changed to a service of plate; the merchants of Calcutta presented him with a sword valued at a thousand guineas; and, a far more honoring tribute than these, the native people of Seringapatam presented him with an address, containing a prayer to the God of all castes and colors,' to bless and reward him for his just and equal rule in the Mysore. He had been previously, on the 1st September, 1804, created a Knight Companion of the Bath, and was consequently now Sir Arthur Wellesley, K. C. B." Soon after he was voted a sum of £200,000 sterling. But here to-day, in the American Congress, you have stickled at voting fifty dollars a month to the widow and children of General Worth, one of the most gallant officers of your Army. That is American gratitude? How soon you forget your great battles. I remember a place called Monterey. There was once a fight there, thought at the time to have brought some glory to the American arms. I remember a leader after long and continuous fighting, storming the Bishop's castle, with his bright sword and red plume flashing amid the smoke and fire of the furious conflict, himself heading the charge, and closing a great victory. That was General Worth. Will you count by dollars and cents the value of such glorious deeds, and pause at the proposition to take adequate care of the widow and orphans of such a hero? But let us go on with the history of the promotions of the Duke of Wellington. For the battle of Talavera, "On the 10th of February, 1810, the Commons voted Lord Wellington a pension of £2,000 a year, with succession for two generations." "On the 12th of August following, Wellington made his triumphant entry into Madrid amidst the acclamations of the inhabitants, and was immediately afterwards appointed generalissimo of the Spanish armies. On the 18th of the same month he was created Marquis of Wellington by the Prince-Regent of England." * * "In the beginning of 1813, the Marquis of Wellington, upon whom the colonelcy of the royal regiment of Horseguards had been previously conferred, was created a Knight of the Garter. He visited Cadiz, and sailed thence to Lisbon, where he was received by the population with great enthusiasm." * * "Honors and rewards were thickly showered about this time upon the triumphant British general. One hundred thousand pounds for the purchase of an estate had been voted him by the English Parliament, and he was now created by the Spanish authorities Duque de Ciudad Rodrigo, and a grandee of Spain of the first class. The estate of Soto de Roma, of which the un happily celebrated Prince of Peace had been despoiled, was bestowed upon him by the Cadiz Cortes, in testimony of the gratitude of the Spanish nation.' He accepted the gift, but the proceeds of the estate were devoted during the war to the public service." HO. OF REPS. 57 subscribed to the parliamentary roll, the patents of all his titles having been first read by the officer of the House." Well, sir, I could go on with a still longer list of these promotions. It is true that Wellington was an English general, but I apprehend that he was no better than an American general. He achieved these high honors by his military exploits alone. "On the final evacuation of France on the 1st of November, 1818, he returned to England, and soon afterwards entered Lord Liverpool's cabinet as master-general of the ordnance. An extra grant of £200,000 was voted him in 1815, making in all £700,000 in money, besides the pension of £2,000 a year, and many lucrative appointments bestowed upon him by the Government-an amount of pecuniary reward as unexampled as the military services it recompensed." I do not mean to say that the history of these promotions forms an argument conclusive in favor of the passage of this resolution, but is it anything extraordinary that we should ask for its passage? Is this the first time that an effort has been made to reward an American chieftain. Eleven thousand acres of land were donated to Lafayette by the Congress of the United States, and $200,000 in money besides. It is true that Lafayette afforded us very great aid in the great struggle which made us free. I do not offer this as an argument why this resolution should pass, but I ask, in connection with the fact, if it is extraordinary that this proposition should be made to an American Congress. I believe I stated that leaving out the battle of Waterloo, I would place General Scott and his battles beside Wellington and his battles. It is not my business to eulogize General Scott; I leave that to other hands; but I cannot forget the history of the country. From Queenstown to the City of Mexico his military achievements have been of the most brilliant, striking character, with few and unimportant reverses. It has been recorded by great men, that the career of General Scott in Mexico, or at least of his army, was unparalleled in modern history. COMMANDERS-IN-CHIEF NOT EXPECTED TO EXPOSE THEMSELVES. But some gentlemen say that General Scott was not in the battles at all, that he did not smell gunpowder, and that he was not on the field of danger. I know nothing about the truth of that, but I know that in modern times it is not expected that a commander-in-chief should expose himself, except at times of great emergency. In days of old, when it was a hand-to-hand, hip-and-thigh, and sword-to-sword conflict, then it was necessary and customary for the Cæsars, Alexanders, and Timoleons to mingle in the thickest of the fight; but in modern times, after a man establishes his character for courage, as Napoleon did at Lodi, and Scott at Lundy's Lane-when such men are intrusted with the chief command of armies, they are not expected to mingle directly in the fight. It was the boast of Napoleon Bonaparte, in his old age, that he very rarely had to go into battle. Said he, “I won my battles by my eye, and not by my arms. Lundy's Lane and Chippewa form a fair offset to Lodi. General Scott established a character of courage. It was not necessary that he should expose himself, as commander-in-chief, unless the peril of the occasion required it. I do not care if he was not in the battles. His commands, his strategics, carried out by his gallant officers, gained the battles. Common custom, common decency gives him the honor of the victories, while it takes nothing from any man-not a single laurel which may have been won in the thicker conflict. At the battle of Waterloo, Wellington and Napoleon were both out of danger most of the time, according to true history. It was their duty to be. The fate, not only of France, but of England and all Europe depended upon the decision of the contest. Why, in such an emergency, should the chief be exposed to danger? Napoleon had his place of elevation from which to take his observations, and his commands were given to his subordinates according as the aspects of the field authorized. Sir, an impetuous man is never fit for a chief command. Napoleon knew very well where to place Murat the bead oče division but at the head of f historians or General Scott o the gratitude He has enriched ent by books of ad scientifically Napoleon infiwrote, whether Ise. But, as I → eulogize Gen Acquisition of Cuba-Canada-Mr. Bell. Democrats choose for themselves, and pardon me if I do the same for myself. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. How did Adams, of Mississippi, vote? Mr. SMITH. He voted against the resolution. Mr. HARRIS, of Tennessee. How did Mr. Seward vote? [Laughter.] Mr. SMITH. I did not inquire. [Renewed laughter.] I was only looking for Democrats. I wanted to show a Democratic side of the case; that was my argument, and I have not named them all. I find here, Mr. SOULE, another distinguished Democrat, voting for this resolution. And nearly all the Democratic States who voted for General Pierce, have voted, by their Senators, for this resolution! L QUESTION? ojection to this deceive themey think otherWell, now, Mr. Chairman, in this aspect of the ott's detractors case, I ask the Democracy what they expect to eches, and that make by opposing this resolution? What great am not dispu"play the fid-political effect is this opposition to achieve? -n a great city." al speeches, but etter. itical aspect of acy in all kindbusiness of this, . I speak it as challenge any s with me upon policy. But I on. Let us inquestion in the VOTING FOR THE senatorial vote] tandard Demofor this bill in 1, the President outh Carolina; nguished chief; ma, the mover ung statesman, Mexico; a man er among Senaacy has never s of faction. I 1 Carolina; is it legation in this ution? I come ung in Democson! I come hen to Hunter, r. Hunter as a s a prospective nly of the Decouncils of the ashamed now, to sit side by ere is Mason, a delegation do n to this resoa party quesa hero worthy emocrat. He neral Shields, Senator, but a ly, received at eights-living rved by a mirpraises of his council of the the characterman! What ocratic measo this picture, mocrats. If this picture. favor of this Who were the hem. I speak as a competst. He voted There was something said about magnanimity yesterday. I understood the word magnanimity to be scoffed at, scorned, and scouted in this Hall; but still it remains in the vocabulary of our language, and has a meaning. I heard a gentleman here yesterday use the word "whipped," as applicable to General Scott. If that word (meaning,|| as it does, to lacerate with stripes) was carefully selected, I think it was ungenerous to use it. Was it liberal, I ask, to go through the vocabulary and select such a degrading phrase? Why not say "defeated?" Everybody understands that, and it would have been respectful. t to the name voted against Democrats. st it. Now, it down with d ATCHISON e yourselves Let southern Well, you have defeated General Scott in an open conflict, and what do you propose to do now? He is not asking anything at your hands. The Democracy at the other end of the Capitol, headed by the Military Committee and advised by a board of distinguished officers of the Army, who were selected at the Senate's request, are asking this honor for General Scott. He is your defeated competitor. How will you treat him? Will you imitate the ancients who put Regulus in a spiked barrel and rolled it down hill? Will you imitate the Romans who chained Jugurtha to the wheels of the triumphal car and dragged him through the streets of Rome and thrust him into a dungeon? Will you send him to a far-off island in the ocean, under a perpetual guard, as the British did the grand Napoleon? How will you treat him? Do you remember the anecdote told of Alexander and Porus, familiar to the school children of the day, but which may be forgotten by politicans: When Alexander defeated and overthrew Porus, the Indian king was brought a prisoner to the conqueror and asked how he desired to be treated? You all remember the answer: "Treat me like a king." The gallant response will never be forgotten. The reward of the gallant response will never be forgotten. He was treated like a king. How will you treat General Scott? Why, treat him like a hero, as he is. Sir, in all the speeches that have been made here, on this subject, I have not heard a solitary substantial objection to the passage of this resolution. Ah! but gentlemen say he has got glory enough. He has got the history-the record-the "brevet of glory." REWARDING THE DEAD. Ho. OF REPS. Despairing of an immortality which he had really achieved, in the bitterness of his last moments, he dictated his own epitaph: "Here lies one whose name was writ in water!" Sir, if you have any rewards to give, let them be given in time. But you stickle at the pay. Oh! yes-the pay. Well, I do not believe the resolution, in its present shape, would carry pay with it. The pay, if any, must be provided hereafter; but that is a small matter. Many of you, gentlemen, who oppose this resolution upon the ground that it carries extra pay with it, voted last session to give five millions of dollars to a mere steamboat monopoly, to fatten a few New York SNOB PRINCES, and yet now you quarrel over the prospective pay which this grade will probably carry with it. Sir, if it carries the pay, it is right. Give him the money-give him the pay-give him the rank-let your economy be better directed. Well, there is something in that. "The brevet of glory" is a beautiful and poetical phrase, for which 1 am indebted to my young friend from Virginia, [Mr. CLEMENS,] in an incidental remark. We know that when General Scott goes to the grave, he will be rewarded. We cannot look upon the monuments springing up around us in this city, in memory of the great heroic DEAD; we cannot look forward to what is to happen here on the eighth of January, (the inauguration of the Jackson statue,) without being convinced that when he is dead, he will be rewarded. But reward him while he lives. The eyes of the dead cannot see these lofty pillars of renown. The ears of the dead cannot hear the shouts of the living millions. Give him his reward while he needs it. He has now all the advantages of posterity. Posterity is to him, as it is to all, a dream, a fiction to be realized by imagination, if realized at all. What a satire upon the practice of mankind to neglect merit, is found in the touching incident of the death of the young poet, Keats, who died of a crushed heart, from the scorn of a cold world. I see, Mr. Chairman, from the impatient wag of your hammer, that my hour is about expiring. How much time have I? The CHAIRMAN. Only two minutes. Mr. SMITH. Then I omit many things, and must pay my respects to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER.] He talked yesterday about the heraldry of nobility," and titles, and mock legislation, and moved an amendment, to insert the word "lord," so as to make it read "Lord Lieutenant General Winfield Scott." Well, now, I merely want to suggest as an amendment to that, the better to suit the taste of that gentleman, to insert after the words "lord lieutenant general," the words "Louis Kossuth alias Alexander Smith." [Great laughter, and cries of "Bravo!""Bravo!"] The gentleman [Mr. CARTTER] was a hero in the Kossuth contest in this House. Was that mock legislation or not? A member of Congress and a native of this country, advocating the rewarding of a mere runaway governor with honors unheard of and unprecedented before in this Hall, inducing the Congress of the nation to stand up uncovered in the gorgeous presence of that arrogant foreigner, to get a peep at his sword, and a far off-vision of the train of monkeys that made up his foreign suite. The same gentleman, on this occasion, speaks against a resolution conferring on one of his own countrymen a mere military badge of honor, which is dearer to a soldier's heart than anything except a victory! Sir, I think the gentleman from Ohio is a proper man to talk about the "heraldry of nobility," and "mock legislation." ACQUISITION OF CUBA-CANADA. SPEECH OF HON. HIRAM BELL, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, In the Committee of the Whole on the state of the 320 CONG.....2D SESS. terative branch of this G ta favor of taking possessi which we admit we have no rig on of which we have not t I ask you, Mr. Chairma www of the present Democratic c ate of war with Spain? N y, we are at peace, and profi relations toward that Gove De, we to have an opportu past it is said upon this fi d'untry are in favor of? A pretext for a disturbance War, it would seem to look fect would such a state resar sational character, but to tion of all christendom? I the Representatives of this 1 , and especially of the State f protest against all such do 14,-and in doing so, I would d throughout the length a We hear it said in high places t elves by the acquisition f we were to assume that we were yasessors of Caba, would it not Et us before we settled down upo bis our manifex destiny as a n ain how we are going to acquire Pure that island by conquest or te peaceful arrangements? The se questions requires us to loo Government must adopt to acco cheet by either means. The frst is, is it the interest o pursue the course of ented by and carried out in the Washington, and the fathers of tinued from the organizatio down to the present time that course of policy whic posterous as a nation, and 1 he wide and boundless ocean gest? We must adopt o Farr, what, in former times, can, the democratic, th and interests of this country stration of the Governm colonial possessions soug galliances with any nation picy beneficial to the Rep psite policy was inculcat ried out by the framers of the pursuit of that policy to be what it is, where to be known as an A er he may be found. In he world he may be, those s ther ample folds, protect hi is rights. I say the advoc must adopt one of thes Jr. If they are in favor of ry of Washington, and of ch y of the country, and seek on of our territorial limits withholding the necessa tion of the interests of ou Tave the first claims upon sympathies, and who a Mr. CHAIRMAN: I presume I shall not trespass upon the time of this committee beyond the usual time allotted upon such occasions. I rise now mainly for the purpose of entering my protest before this House, and before the public, in relation to some positions which have been assumed as admitted by honorable members of this House. And I should not consider that necessary, were it not for the fact, that upon former occasions, the popular acquiescence in opinions in relation to, and constructions of former acts of Congress have been considered as an assent to those declarations. We have been told by honorable members of this House, that the people of this country were for annexation of Cuba; that they were for progress; that they were for the extension of the country; and even some have gone so far, without a limit as regards time, as to express themselves in favor of taking the balance of Mexico. That may all be right; but I would inquire of honorable gentlemen who entertain those sentiments, and send them abroad, upon what pretext are we to acquire this territory? Why are we talking about the conquest of Cuba? Perhaps some gentlemen may say that they are not in favor of a war; why, then, are we the representatives of this nationsending abroad to the world an expression of or control,if they are prepar Afror of changing the policy Government, that o right, and to the not the shadow of a airman, if that is a atic creed? Are we ? No, sir. On the professing the most Government. How, portunity of accomhis floor the people ? Are we to hatch nce with that counlook like it. And, state of things have -ut to dishonor it in ? I stand here, as this House, of this tate from whence I h doctrines. I tell would wish to send gth and breadth of se are not the sentintry. They never people, and I trust ces that we are to we are to aggrantion of that which of which there is have any right to say it is our desestiny! Why, sir, ers, and I believe but I would like to Tisk the future polhe pretended reveors? If not, shall unlimited annexalea of "destiny," oundation as those class just referred . Chairman, if we olicy which is sug· manifest destinyere to become the not be well to cast upon the fact that nation, and asire it? Are we to tor by treaty, or The consideration look at the policy ccomplish the pro Acquisition of Cuba-Canada-Mr. Bell. the doctrines of Washington and Jefferson, and Again, I would request of those persons who ad- tion? To answer this question I need only refer you,|| sir, to those who live nearest, to those who appear to be the best informed, and residing in the southern States, to candid men, who say that they consider that the acquisition of Cuba, whether peaceably or by conquest, would be an injury and a curse to this Government. Have they not reason to suppose so? Would Cuba come into this Union as a slave State, or as a non-slaveholding State? And that, sir, brings up the great question, the agitation of which has heretofore endangered the perpetuity of this Union, as we have been told, and which we have no reason to doubt, considering the authority from which it comes, and considering the evidence which we have all around us. We cannot shut our eyes, nor can we close our ears to the evidence on all hands which convinces us that the reagitation of similar questions must shake the nation to its center. Why, sir, there is hardly any one who con- tor the duty of , this nation has every citizen is merican citizen, whatever quarter tars and stripes, m, and secure to ates of this new two courses of abandoning the inging the entire by conquest the , and as a consey protection and people at home, our Government e already under | to say they are Mr. Chairman, I would not pretend to say but what the time may come when it may be necessary for this country to hold Cuba; and not only Cuba, but other islands of the ocean, and other countries. I do not know why we should have our attention so exclusively turned to the Island of Cuba. Why, sir, what is there in that island that should absorb our whole attention? If we could have her peaceably, and at our own option, and take her to-day, would it be a blessing to us? I think not. I am bold to declare that I believe that if we could have Cuba without war, with all the advantages and disadvantages to this Government, it would be a curse-an injury, and prejudicial to our institutions. But, sir, I wish to read the opinions of a south Ho. or REPS. as described in his own language, of his opposi be acquired peaceably. His language is as fol, lows: "Besides, in what condition would Cuba be to justify her admission into the Union? There is a white population, native to the island, or permanently settled, amounting to near six hundred thousand, (double that of the white population of South Carolina, in a territory little larger than our State,) not one of whom ever exercised a political franchise, or ever took a share in public affairs, other than to submit to the power and shout around the chariot wheels of established authority. We propose to drive out all those who have ever held rule; and of those who have heretofore only had experience of unquestioning submission, we propose to make a democratic republic, and this in the face of two hundred thousand free blacks, and four hundred thousand slaves, freshly imported from Africa. Among all the recent abortive attempts at free governments in Europe, was there a single one commenced under such desperate auspices as this? Is it not absolutely certain that to preserve order in such a community, an army would be necessary? And where there was an army for the purpose of domestic peace and civil rule, could there be a State? Would we admit into the Union a State which had no power of self government, but was in the hands of the United States Army and Navy?" Here, Mr. Chairman, is the opinion of a southern man, who is well acquainted with the character, the condition, the habits, and the feelings of that people. He says that they are unfit to be attached to this Government, and that those who lay any claims to intelligence and information, are of that class who would be banished from the island, whenever it changed its government. It is now proposed by the advocates of that measure, that we shall take that class of popula tion, and make them a part and parcel of this country a class of people worse than slaves, more vicious and less informed-and that is claimed by some to be democratic doctrine. What, attach a class of people, that so far as they have any knowledge, are antagonistic in their principles, their prejudices, and their feelings, to every principle of this republican Government! They come in as copartners! That, sir, may be the democracy of the present day, but it was not the doctrine of our forefathers. But, sir, there is a country and there is a people competent for self-government, that are prepared to take upon themselves the responsibilities of freemen, and which we may find for our interest to receive among us-I mean peaceably-and allow them to become a part and parcel of this country, and I care not how soon. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the whole British possessions upon the north, containing an area of two millions two hundred and fifty-two thousand three hundred and ninetyfive square miles. There is something worth looking at. here are two millions six hundred and fifty-two thousand of people, bone, as it were, of our bone, flesh of our flesh, deriving their origin from the same Anglo-Saxon source, a large class of them disciplined in that school which is calculated to train them up as independent freemen, and all anxious and ready to come into the possession of the enjoyment of those great principles which we are now enjoying. I say it may be for our advantage to acquire that country and that people, if we can peaceably. They are near three millions, scattered over a large territory, sufficient in extent to make several States, and possessing as healthy a climate, and a large part of it as rich a soil as any in the world. Then, sir, by the accomplishment of that matter, and the attaching it as a part of this Union, you banish all the vast expense of maintaining fortifications upon your northern borders, and save the millions of dollars now thrown away in keeping up your custom-houses upon the borders of the North; you give to yourself the free navigation of that mighty stream of the North, the St. Lawrence. You give to yourself the sole control and command of that channel, and of that bay at its mouth, with the great chain of lakes or inland seas which nature has formed for a ready and direct communication and navigation for the commerce of this northern territory to the ocean; and you welcome near three illions of people, who are like brethren, into this family, to form a part and parcel of this Republic, thereby adding strength and vigor to the body-politic. Here, sir, is something worth turning the attention of this nation to. Great Britain can have no object in holding the rule over these northern colonies, except national pride. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. with you for this ry on the north on and commer y foot of soil in known to those ntier, that land y as land within by a line of the ur townships, is much as the land what portion of t in the accomStates of Ohio, ermont, Maine, and New York? eat lakes to the territory under mt, instead of the accomplishment then this Union, e. The annexa on (to use terms d, and it will ere e will not arrive or this nation to or possession of cory, for the purour maritime inshould that time ut by European r rights by any her continents, I ish this Govern nces as our na Acquisition of Cuba-Canada-Mr. Bell. citizens and their property, under their local in- Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. If similar Mr. BELL. I will endeavor to answer the gentleman's question. He asks me, because we have been liberal, and gone almost beyond the bounds of patriotism-because we have heretofore compromised our prejudices and feelings for the purpose of maintaining the integrity and good feeling of this country, that we shall do the like again. I am not prepared to say what I would not do to preserve this Union, but I would avoid testing the local prejudices of the different sections of this country. When you see breakers ahead, keep the craft near the shore. That is the policy we adopt as individuals, and which we should carry out as a nation. Whenever the question of the annexation of Cuba arises, it will not come alone: it will be accompanied by the question of the annexation of the vast territory to the north, and it may be that the equipoise of additions of territory will do away with apprehended danger. But, sir, I would avoid the alternative of making the experiment. Mr. Chairman, my honorable friend from Georgia on a former occasion, if I understood him correctly, to quiet the fears that some honorable members might have as to the danger to be apprehended from the annexation of Cuba, said that the principle settled in the compromise act would apply and extend to the acquisition of other territory than that Congress was then acting upon. I enter my protest against any such construction. Nothing was settled by that act but what had reference to the territory then acquired. [Dec. 10, HO. OF REPS. passed by Congress since this Constitution was Mr. BELL. I repeat, again, that the settle- But, sir, what says the third and fourth sections of the fourth article of that Constitution that my honorable friend has referred to? SEC. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State. SEC. 4. The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. require; and if y citizen of our -in the advocacy lar measure, to ible time; and I e, and especially n of Cuba, that ward of such a of this country; estion of slavery opulation of the a representation e States of New nd, Connecticut, ; or equal to that o the entire repAnd the annexslave representational members. y desire-and I desire that the lly administered rotection to the as well as to ern States, their Mr. BELL. I understand the gentleman now as I did before. I did not aim to misrepresent him. But where does he get his authority for that assumption, that the Congress preceding this was more wise, patriotic, and had more enlarged views, or were more devoted and attached to this Government and its institutions, than that Congress which framed, adopted, and established the ordinance of 1787, for governing the territory northwest of the river Ohio? Let the fruits of that ordinance speak. Let that mighty Northwest, with its teeming millions of population and its wonderful improvements, speak as to the result and the benefits of that ordinance. There we have an evidence of the fruits and benefits of the wisdom of that ordinance, which said that no slave should live north west of the Ohio river. Then, sir, according to my construction of that instrument, Congress has full power over her territory to prohibit slavery or not, as the wisdom of that body may determine, and that right has never been changed or taken away by the action of Congress or the people, by any change in our organic law. Mr. STEPHENS. Perhaps the gentleman was never a friend to it. Mr. BELL. My honorable friend from Georgia knows that I had not the honor of a seat in this House at that time. Had I been a member here at the time-for I have nothing to conceal, and those who know me here will give me that credit, at least-I should not have voted for all of those measures known as the compromise acts. Mr. STEPHENS. That is what I expected. Mr. BELL. There is nothing new about that. But, sir, if the question was now pending whether that law, which was considered the most objectionable, should now be repealed, I should say no. As I have said to my constituents, give us peace, give us quiet, although there are some things in that act which I believe wrong, and contrary to principles of justice. But I would forego those objections, and I would not agitate the subject. I would not now repeal the act, but give it a fair Mr. STEPHENS. That ordinance was not trial. C 32D CONG.....2D SESS. Mr. STEPHENS. What are Mr. BELL. I have not time TOU Chairman, there are some o Some honorable members have as Taylor's, in regard to our fore at should only be expected pre The imphant party in the last carried out by the incoming |