I have never sought to trample upon the rights of citizens of the southern states. I have my idea about slavery in the territories, and at the proper time and in the proper way I am willing to discuss the question. I never made but one speech on the subject of slavery, and that was in reference to what I regarded as an improper remark made by President Pierce in 1856. I then spread upon the record my opinions on the subject; and I have found no man to call them into question. They are the opinions of the body of the Republicans.

They are the opinions which I now entertain. Gentlemen are at liberty to discuss these questions as much as they choose, and I will bear my share of the responsibility for entertaining those opinions. But I now speak to my personal record. . . .

"Again these gentlemen, while publishing in their speeches all over the country that I am in effect a traitor, etc., by implication, it is true, disavowing, as I am glad to say each of them have done, any design to be personally offensive, but in a way which answers the same purpose; yet when called upon to show proof or specifications, they fail to do so; and the only act for which I have been arraigned before the American people is that, in a moment when I was sitting here, busy at my desk, and one of my friends, and late a Member of this House, came to me and asked me to sign a paper recommending the publication of a political tract; that, when I authorized my name to be put to that recommendation, by that very act I became a traitor and would place the torch in the hands of the incendiary.

I say this is not fair argument. And I again repeat that if the Member from Missouri (Mr. Clark) desires to know what my sentiments are in regard to the extracts read at the clerk's table, the only portion of the Helper book I have seen or read, I will give them if he will remove a menace from me. I never did do anything under menace. I never will. It is not in my blood and these gentlemen cannot put it there."

Mr. Clark rose to speak, but I continued:

"The gentleman will excuse me, I have, so far as I am concerned in this contest, been quiet and patient. I desire to see an organization of the House opposed to the administration. I think it is our highest duty to investigate, to examine and a.n.a.lyze the mode in which the executive powers of this government have been administered for a few years past. That is my desire. Yes sir, I said here, in the first remark I made, that I did not believe the slavery question would come up at all during this session. I came here with the expectation that we would have a business session, that we would a.n.a.lyze the causes of the increased expenditures of the government and the proper measures of redress and retrenchment.

I did not believe that the slavery question would come up, and but for the unfortunate affair of Brown at Harper's Ferry, I did not believe there would be any feeling on the subject. Northern Members came here with kindly feelings, no man approving the foray of John Brown and every man willing to say so; every man willing to admit it as an act of lawless violence. We came here hoping that, at this time of peace and quiet, we might examine, inquire into, and pa.s.s upon, practical measures of legislation tending to harmonize the conflicting elements of the government and strengthen the bonds of Union. The interests of a great and growing people present political questions enough to tax the ability and patriotism of us all.

"Such was our duty; but the moment we arrived here--before, sir, we even had a formal vote,--this question of slavery was raised by the introduction of the resolution of the gentleman from Missouri.

It has had the effect of exciting the public mind with an irritating controversy. It has impaired the public credit and r.e.t.a.r.ded the public business. The debate founded upon it has been unjust, offensive, wrong, not only to the Republicans here, not only to those with whom I act, but to all our common const.i.tuents, north and south. The gentlemen who have advocated that resolution have stirred up bad blood, and all because certain gentlemen have recommended that a compilation be made of a book. Even yet we may retrieve the loss of valuable time. We could now go to work, organize the House and administer the powers of this House with fairness and impartiality.

"In conclusion, let me say that by no act or effort have I sought the position I now occupy before the House. The honor was tendered me by the generous confidence and partiality of those with whom it has been my pride to act, politically. Their conduct in this irritating controversy has justified my attachment.

"If I shall ever reach the speaker's chair, it will be with untrammeled hands and with an honest purpose to discharge every duty in the spirit which the oath of office enjoins; and to organize the House with reference to the rights and interests of every section, the peace and prosperity of the whole Union, and the efficient discharge of all the business of the government. And whenever friends who have so gallantly and liberally sustained me thus far believe that my name in any way presents an obstacle to success, it is my sincere wish that they should adopt some other.

Whenever any one of my political friends can combine a greater number of votes than I have been honored with, or sufficient to elect him by a majority or plurality rule, I will not stand in this position one hour; I will retire from the field, and yield to any other gentleman with whom I act, the barren honors of the speaker's chair; and I promise my friends a grateful recognition of the unsolicited honor conferred upon me, and a zealous and earnest co- operation."

Pending the vote on the 39th ballot and before it was announced, Robert Mallory, of Kentucky, an American, appealed to the Democrats to vote for William N. H. Smith, of North Carolina, also an American, which would elect him. The Democrats thereupon changed their votes to Mr. Smith, making many speeches in explanation of their action.

Perceiving that this would elect Mr. Smith I arose and for the first time cast my ballot for speaker, voting for Mr. Corwin.

Three other Members who had voted for Mr. Smith changed their votes, which defeated the election on that ballot.

After this vote I conferred with Davis and George Briggs, of New York, Americans, and Adrain. I had the positive a.s.surance of these three gentlemen that if I would withdraw they would vote for William Pennington, of New Jersey, and thus secure a Republican organization of the House. I referred this proposition to my Republican a.s.sociates, and a majority of them were opposed to any change.

Francis E. Spinner, of New York, said he would never change his vote from me, and Thaddeus Stevens said he never would do so until the crack of doom. When afterwards reminded of this Mr. Stevens said he thought he "heard it cracking."

I felt the responsibility, but on the 30th of January, 1860, I determined to withdraw. In doing so I made the following remarks, as printed in the "Congressional Globe:"

"Mr. clerk--[Loud cries of 'Down,' 'Down,' 'Order,' 'Order,' 'Let us have the question,' etc.] Eight weeks ago, I was honored by the votes of a large plurality of my fellow Members for the high office of speaker of this House. Since that time they have adhered to their choice with a fidelity that has won my devotion and respect; and, as I believe, the approbation of their const.i.tuents. They have stood undismayed amidst threats of disunion and disorganization; conscious of the rect.i.tude of their purposes; warm in their attachment to the const.i.tution and Union, and obedient to the rules of order and the laws. They have been silent, firm, manly. On the other hand, they have seen their ancient adversary and their only natural adversary, reviving anew the fires of sectional discord, and broken into fragments. They have seen some of them shielding themselves behind a written combination to prevent the majority of the House from prescribing rules for its organization. They have heard others openly p.r.o.nounce threats of disunion; proclaim that if a Republican be duly elected President of the United States, they would tear down this fair fabric of our rights and liberties, and break up the union of these states. And now we have seen our ancient adversary, broken, dispersed and disorganized, unite in supporting a gentleman who was elected to Congress as an American, in open, avowed opposition to the Democratic organization.

"I should regret exceedingly, and believe it would be a national calamity, to have anyone who is a supporter, directly or indirectly, of this administration, or who owes it any allegiance, favor or affection, occupying a position of importance or prominence in this House. I would regard it as a public calamity to have the power of this House placed, directly or indirectly, under the control of this administration. It would be, it seems to me, a fatal policy to trust the power of this House to the control of gentlemen who have proclaimed that under any circ.u.mstances, or in any event, they would dissolve the union of these states. For this reason we would be wanting in our duty to our G.o.d and our country, if we did not avert such a result of this contest. I regard it as the highest duty of patriotism to submerge personal feelings, to sacrifice all personal preferences and all private interests, to the good of our common country. I said here a few days ago, and I always stood in the position, that when I became convinced that any of my political friends or a.s.sociates could receive further support outside of the Republican organization, I would retire from the field and yield to him the honor of the position that the partiality of friends has a.s.signed to me. I believe that time has now arrived. I believe that a greater concentration can now be made on another gentleman, who, from the beginning, has acted with me.

"Therefore, I respectfully withdraw my name as a candidate. And in doing so, allow me to return my heartfelt thanks for the generous and hearty support of all my political friends, and especially to those gentlemen with whom I have not the tie of a party name, but the higher one of a common purpose and sympathy. And if I can ask of them one more favor, it would be that in an unbroken column, with an unfaltering front and unwavering line, each of them will cast his vote in favor of any one of our number who can command the highest vote, or who can be elected speaker of this House."

A ballot was immediately taken, but, much to my chagrin, the gentlemen named did not change their votes, and Mr. Pennington still lacked three votes of an election. I again appealed to Davis and Briggs, and finally, on the 1st of February, Mr. Pennington received their votes. The result was announced; Pennington, 117 votes; McClernand, 85; Gilmer, 16; 15 scattering; giving Pennington a majority of one, and thus, after a long and violent contest, a Republican was elected speaker of the House of Representatives.

I was entirely satisfied with the result. I had received every Republican vote and the votes of a large number of anti-Nebraska Democrats and Americans. No cloud rested upon me, no allegation of misconduct or unfitness was made against me. I would have been easily and quickly elevated but for the abnormal excitement created by Brown's invasion and the bitterness of political antagonism existing at that time. Many Members who felt it their duty to oppose my election, subsequently expressed their regret that I was not elected. I had voted for Mr. Pennington during the contest, had a high respect for him as a gentleman of character and influence, long a chancellor of his state, and a good Republican.

When the canva.s.s was over, I felt a sense of relief. During its continuance, I had remained, with rare exceptions, silent, though strongly tempted, by political criticism, to engage in the debate.

I had, during the struggle, full opportunity to estimate the capacity and qualifications of different Members for committee positions, and had the committees substantially framed, when Pennington was elected. I handed the list to him, for which he thanked me kindly, saying that he had but little knowledge of the personal qualifications of the Members. With some modifications, made necessary by my defeat and his election as speaker, he adopted the list as his own.

He designated me as chairman of the committee of ways and means, of which I had not previously been a member.

The organization of the House was not completed until the 9th day of February, 1860. The officers designated by the Republicans were generally elected. Congress seemed to appreciate the necessity of prompt and vigorous action on the business of the session. Still, whatever question was pending, political topics were the object of debate, but were rarely acted upon, as the condition of the House prevented anything like political action. Nearly all the measures adopted were of a non-political character. The chief work of the session was devoted to appropriations, and the preparation and enactment of a tariff bill. At that time, the great body of legislation was referred to the committee of ways and means, which then had charge of all appropriations and of all tax laws, and whose chairman was recognized as the leader of the House, practically controlling the order of its business.

By the 13th of March, I was able to say, in behalf of the committee, that all the annual appropriation bills were ready for the consideration of the House, and promised that if the House would sustain the committee, all these bills could be pa.s.sed before the meeting of the Charleston convention. Notwithstanding the partisan bitterness which was exhibited against me while I was a candidate for speaker, I had no cause to complain of a want of support by the House, in the measures reported from that committee. Since then the work of that committee has been distributed among a number of committees.

The first political contest was caused by a message of President Buchanan, protesting against action under a resolution by the House of Representatives, pa.s.sed on the 5th of March, providing for a committee of five members, to be appointed by the speaker, for the purpose of investigating "whether the President of the United States, or any other officer of the government, has, by money, patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence the action of Congress for or against the pa.s.sage of any law pertaining to the rights of any state or territory." The committee appointed came to be commonly known as the Covode committee.

This message was regarded as a plain interference with the unquestionable power of the House to investigate the conduct of any officer of the government, a process absolutely necessary to enable the House to exercise the power of impeachment. Upon the reception of the message I immediately replied to it, and a general debate arose upon a motion to refer it to the committee on the judiciary. That motion was adopted and the committee reported a resolution in the following words, which was finally adopted after debate, by a vote of 88 yeas and 40 nays:

"_Resolved_, That the House dissents from the doctrines of the special message of the President of the United States of March 28, 1860;

"That the extent of power contemplated in the adoption of the resolutions of inquiry of March 5, 1860, is necessary to the proper discharge of the const.i.tutional duties devolved upon Congress;

"That judicial determinations, the opinions of former Presidents and uniform usage, sanction its exercise; and

"That to abandon it would leave the executive department of the government without supervision or responsibility, and would be likely to lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the President, dangerous to the rights of a free people."

This resolution was regarded as a severe reproach to the President, who was not content to let the matter rest there, but on the 25th of June sent to the House of Representatives, a message restating the position in his former message. He denounced the proceedings of that committee as a violation of the letter and spirit of the const.i.tution. But for the lateness of the session the message would have been the subject of severe animadversion. Late as it was Benjamin Stanton, of Ohio, entered his protest and moved that the message be referred to a select committee of five, with power to report at the next session. This, after a brief debate, was adopted.

During the entire session, while the current business was progressing rapidly, the political questions involved in the pending presidential canva.s.s, the topics of Kansas and slavery, were frequently obtruded into the debate. On the 23rd of April, William T. Avery, a Democratic Member from Tennessee charged that "an overwhelming majority of the Republican party in this House, headed by Mr. Sherman--in fact, every member of that party present when the vote was taken, excepting some fourteen or fifteen--indorsed the doctrine of the abolition of slavery everywhere."

In the course of a reply to this charge I said:

"I think there is not a Member on this side of the House who is not now willing to make the declaration broadly, openly, that he is opposed to any interference whatever with the relations of master and slave in the slave states. We do believe that Congress has the power to prohibit slavery in the territories; and whenever the occasion offers, whenever the proper time arrives, whenever the question arises, we are in favor of exercising that power, if necessary, to prevent the extension of slavery into free territory.

We are frank and open upon this subject. But we never did propose, and do not now propose, to interfere with slavery in the slave states. I hope the gentleman will put these observations in his speech, so that the gentleman's const.i.tuents may see that we 'black Republicans' are not so very desirous of interfering with their interests or rights, but only desirous of preserving our own."

Mr. Ashmore inquired: "Are you not in favor of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia?"

I replied:

"I have stated to my const.i.tuents, over and over again, that I am opposed to interference with slavery in the District of Columbia.

That is my individual position. The Republican party never took a position on the subject. Some are for it, and some against it.

I have declared to my const.i.tuents, over and over again, that I did not think it proper to agitate the question of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; because I believe that this is the very paradise of the free negro. I believe that practically, though not legally, he is better off in the District than in any portion of the United States. There are but few slaves here, and the number is decreasing daily. As an inst.i.tution, slavery scarcely exists here, and I am willing to leave it to the effect of time."

On the 12th of March, 1860, Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, by instruction of the committee of ways and means, reported a bill "to provide for the payment of outstanding treasury notes, to authorize a loan, to regulate and fix duties on imports, and for other purposes." This became the law commonly known as the Morrill tariff act, which, from the time of its introduction to this day, had been the subject of debate, amendment, criticism and praise.

It was referred to the committee of the whole on the state of the Union, and its consideration occupied a large proportion of the remainder of the session. Nearly one hundred Members entered into the debate and some of them made several speeches upon the subject.

Being at the time much occupied with the appropriation bills, I did not give much attention to the debate, but had taken part in the preparation of the bill in the committee of ways and means, and concurred, with rare exceptions, in the principles and details of the measure.

Mr. Morrill was eminently fitted to prepare a tariff bill. He had been engaged in trade and commerce, was a man of sound judgment, perfectly impartial and honest. Representing a small agricultural state, he was not biased by sectional feeling or the interests of his const.i.tuents. He regarded the tariff as not only a method of taxation, but as a mode of protection to existing industries in the United States with a view to encourage and increase domestic production. He was moderate in his opinions, kind and fair in expressing them, and willing to listen with patience to any proposition of amendment. He still lives at the venerable age of eighty-five, and has been, during all the long period since the report of the bill named after him, to this time, in public life, and still retains the confidence and affection of his const.i.tuents and colleagues.

I did not partic.i.p.ate in the debate until the time came when, in the judgment of the committee of ways and means, it was necessary to dispose of the bill, either by its pa.s.sage or defeat. On the 7th of May, 1860, the bill being before the House, I moved that all debate on it should cease at one o'clock the next day. Some opposition was evinced, but the motion was adopted. I then made my first speech upon the subject of the tariff. The introductory paragraphs state the then condition of the treasury as follows:

"The revenue act of March 3, 1857, which it is now proposed to repeal, has proved to be a crude, ill-advised, and ill-digested measure. It was never acted upon in detail in either branch of Congress, but was the result of a committee of conference in the last days of the session, and was finally pa.s.sed by a combination of hostile interests and sentiments. It was adopted at a time of inflated prices, when the treasury was overflowing with revenue.

When that condition of affairs ceased, it failed to furnish ordinary revenue, and by its incidental effects operated injuriously to nearly every branch of industry.

"It went into operation on the 1st of July, 1857. At that time there was in the treasury of the United States a balance of $17,710,114. The amount of the public debt then remaining unpaid, none of which was then due, was a little over $29,000,000. So that there was in the treasury of the United States, when the tariff act of 1857 went into operation, nearly enough to have paid two- thirds of the public debt. Within one year from that time, the public debt was increased to $44,910,777.

"On the 1st of July, 1859, the public debt had increased to $58,754,699. On the 1st of May, 1860, as nearly as I can ascertain, the public debt had risen to $65,681,099. The balance in the treasury on the first of July next, as estimated by me, will be $1,919,349.

"Under the operation of the tariff of 1857, the deficit in the revenue is over $52,000,000. It may be stated thus:

Balance in the treasury, July 1, 1857 . . . . . . . . . $17,710,114 Balance in the treasury, July 1, 1860, estimated . . . 1,919,349 $15,790,765 Amount of public debt May 1, 1860 . . . $65,681,199 Amount of public debt July 1, 1857 . . 29,060,386 36,620,813 $52,411,578"

It was manifest from these statements that there was an imperative necessity for the pa.s.sage of some measure to increase the revenues.

We could hardly hope that, in the excited state of the public mind and the known position of the Senate, the bill could pa.s.s at that session. The government had been conducted for three years by borrowing money in time of peace. The appropriations had been reduced during that session by the committee of ways and means below the estimate of the treasury, as stated by me to the House.

I then said: