of legislating for the Territories. How, then, can you now, after the short interval which has elapsed, abandon the ground which you took, and thereby virtually admit that the power of legislating, instead of being in Congress, is in the inhabitants of the Territories? How can you justify and sanction by your votes the acts of the Executive, which are in direct derogation of what you then contended for? But, to approach still nearer to the present time, how can you, after condemning, little more than a year since, the grounds taken by the party which you defeated at the last election, wheel round and support by your votes the grounds which, as explained recently on this floor by the candidate of the party in the last election, are identical with those on which the Executive has acted in reference to California? What are we to understand by all this? Must we conclude that there is no sincerity, no faith in the acts and declarations of public men, and that all is mere acting or hollow profession? Or are we to conclude that the exclusion of the South from the territory acquired from Mexico is an object of so paramount a character in your estimation, that right, justice, Constitution, and consistency must all yield when they stand in the way of our exclusion?

But, it may be asked, what is to be done with California? Should she not be admitted? I answer, remand her back to the Territorial condition, as was done in the case of Tennessee, in the early stage of the Government. Congress, in her case, had established a Territorial Government in the usual form, with a governor, judge, and other officers appointed by the United States. She was entitled, under the deed of cession, to be admitted into the Union as a State, as soon as she had sixty thousand inhabitants. The Territorial Government, believing it had that number, took a census, by which it appeared it exceeded it. She then formed a constitution, and applied for admission. Congress refused to admit her, on the ground that the census

should be taken by the United States, and that Congress had not determined whether the Territory should be formed into one or two States, as it was authorized to do under the cession. She returned quietly to her territorial condition. An act was passed to take a census by the United States, containing a provision that the Territory should form one State. All afterwards was regularly conducted, and the Territory admitted as a State in due form. The irregularities in the case of California are immeasurably greater, and offer much stronger reasons for pursuing the same course. But, it may be said, California may not submit. That is not probable; but if she should not, when she refuses, it will then be time for us to decide what is to be done.

Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I return to the question with which I commenced, How can the Union be saved? There is but one way by which it can with any certainty; and that is, by a full and final settlement, on the principles of justice, of all the questions at issue between the two sections. The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer but the Constitution; and no concession or surrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she has little left to surrender. Such a settlement would go to the root of the evil, and remove all cause of discontent; by satisfying the South, she could remain honorably and safely in the Union, and thereby restore the harmony and fraternal feelings between the sections, which existed anterior to the Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and forever settle the questions at issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union.

But can this be done? Yes, easily; not by the weaker party, for it can of itself do nothing, not even protect itself, but by the stronger. The North has only to will it to accomplish it - to do justice by conceding to the

South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled to cease the agitation of the slave question, and to provide for the insertion of a provision in the Constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South, in substance, the power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this Government. There will be no difficulty in devising such a provision one that will protect the South, and which, at the same time, will improve and strengthen the Government, instead of impairing and weakening it.

But will the North agree to this? It is for her to answer the question. But, I will say, she cannot refuse, if she has half the love of the Union which she professes to have, or without justly exposing herself to the charge that her love of power and aggrandizement is far greater than her love of the Union. At all events, the responsibility of saving the Union rests on the North, and not on the South. The South cannot save it by any act of hers, and the North may save it without any sacrifice whatever, unless to do justice and to perform her duties under the Constitution should be regarded by her as a sacrifice.

It is time, Senators, that there should be an open and manly avowal on all sides as to what is intended to be done. If the question is not now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever can hereafter be; and we, as the representatives of the States of this Union, regarded as governments, should come to a distinct understanding as to our respective views, in order to ascertain whether the great questions at issue can be settled or not. If you, who represent the stronger portion, cannot agree to settle them on the broad principle of justice and duty, say so; and let the States we both represent agree to separate and part in peace. If you are unwilling we should part in peace, tell us so, and we shall

know what to do when you reduce the question to submission or resistance. If you remain silent, you will compel us to infer by your acts what you intend. In that case, California will become the test question. If you admit her, under all the difficulties that oppose her admission, you compel us to infer that you intend to exclude us from the whole of the acquired territories, with the intention of destroying irretrievably the equilibrium between the two sections. We would be blind not to perceive in that case that your real objects are power and aggrandizement, and infatuated not to act accordingly.

I have now, Senators, done my duty in expressing my opinions fully, freely, and candidly, on this solemn occasion. In doing so, I have been governed by the motives which have governed me in all the stages of the agitation of the slavery question since its commencement. I have exerted myself, during the whole period, to arrest it, with the intention of saving the Union, if it could be done; and, if it could not, to save the section where it has pleased Providence to cast my lot, and which I sincerely believe has justice and the Constitution on its side. Having faithfully done my duty to the best of my ability, both to the Union and my section, throughout this agitation, I shall have the consolation, let what will come, that I am free from all responsibility..

5. THE SPEECH OF BENJAMIN R. CURTIS 1

Before the Senate of the United States, in defense of President
Andrew Johnson, accused of High Treason. Delivered
May 9, 1868

ON February 22, 1868, the House of Representatives recommended that Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, be impeached "of high crimes and misdemeanors in office," and, three days later, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham appeared before the Senate to announce the vote of the House and to give notice that in due time that body would present before the Senate "the particular articles of impeachment against the President and make good the same,'

The principal charge brought against President Johnson was to the effect that he had violated the Constitution and had overstepped the Tenure-of-Office Act in removing Edwin M. Stanton from his position as Secretary of War, to which he had been appointed by President Lincoln. It was also contended that the character of many of President Johnson's public speeches constituted a "high misdemeanor in office."

The House of Representatives appointed as the managers of the prosecution John A. Bingham, George S. Boutwell, James S. Wilson, Benjamin F. Butler, Thomas Williams, Thaddeus Stevens, and John A. Logan. The President selected as his counsel for the defense Henry Stanbery, Benjamin R. Curtis, Thomas A. R. Nelson, William M. Evarts, and William S. Groesbeck.

The case was presented for trial March 5, before the Senate "sitting on the trial of impeachment," the Honorable Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, acting as presiding officer. The trial proper began March 30.

The speech of Mr. Curtis, which follows, was delivered on April 9, and opened the President's defense. Regarding Mr. Curtis, James G. Blaine, in Twenty Years of Congress, writes:

Benjamin R. Curtis, when he appeared in the Impeachment case, was in the fullness of his powers, in the fifty-ninth year of his age. At forty-one he had been appointed to the Supreme Bench of the United States at the earnest request and warm recommendation of Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State. Mr. Webster is reported to have said that he had

1 From the Congressional Globe.