353.]

32D CONG.....2D Sess.

he science of arms and the strategics of war. In eference to the remarks of the gentleman from regon, as to the ingratitude of the country and Congress, I concur with them fully. The Conress is in fault in not having appreciated General Vool, and many other distinguished officers who ave fought and bled for the country. But that is o argument against the passage of this resoluon. Do you believe that Ben McCullough, the istinguished captain so honorably alluded to by he gentleman from Oregon [Mr. LANE] on yesteray, if he were here, would oppose this resolution? No, sir-ce! [Laughter.] If the country be unrateful upon one occasion, is it any reason why t should be ungrateful upon another? That would De a strange sort of logic. The fact that the counry refuses to-day to do its duty is no reason that t should refuse to-morrow to do it. Congress has signally failed to do its duty in this matter. But let us begin. This is as good a time as any, and we are beginning, in my opinion, at a very proper point.

NATIONAL INGRATITUDE-REWARDS.

Mr. Chairman, national ingratitude will always be visited with proper retribution. If you refuse to reward your military men, you make them sullen, silent, and gloomy-panting for honors which you refuse to them-they may desert your flag and drive you to the necessity of throwing yourself upon newer men, more untried soldiers. The true policy of nations and of princes, is to reward merit at all times. The love and desire of reward is insatiate in man's heart. It is exhibited in the child whose little mouth is upturned to receive its mother's approving kiss; in the school-boy in his struggles for the medal; in the student who trims the midnight lamp, and coaxes up the last drop of the oil that can yield him light; and in the man when he is rejoicing over the success of his first achievement. In the days of chivalry, what was a knight without a rose-what was knighthood without a lady's smile? This word "reward," embodies in it a greater and loftier word-excelsior, which lifts a man above the common places of earth, and inspires him to the loftiest pursuits. Reward is the nurse of ambition, and what would life be worth without ambition?

Your mere politician may plod through life, and, if he be a reasonable man, only expect a seat in Congress as his reward. Unless he has extraordinary qualities, or uncommon luck, that is as high as he can reasonably expect to climb; but he faces no bullets, (except paper bullets,) he storms no fortresses, (except the groceries.) But blood and peril demand to be paid in pleasures and rewards. There, sir, is the difference between the deserts of a military man and a mere politician.

With the kind attention of the committee, I could now demonstrate, Mr. Chairman, that all the nations of the earth, from the beginning of time,, have been in the habit of rewarding their military But I must crowd the history of the past into this phrase, while I make particular allusion to the lately-deceased Duke of Wellington, who has occupied much of the attention of the people of the earth so recently.

men to the utmost extent.

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S PROMOTIONS. I desire to show you that with less military capacity, with fewer military achievements and fewer military difficulties, the Duke of Wellington has been rewarded a thousand times more than General Scott-living in the same age-but under a more enlightened and more liberal, and a more grateful Government than ours: I mean as to miliLary matters. I show that the secret is known to the Powers of England. They know the sources of their success in arms; and that secret is the reward they bestow upon their military heroes. The Duke of Wellington was promoted at a very early age, and he never made a military movement upon any occasion without receiving a promotion. He was sent as a colonel to the East Indies, and after a few skirmishes there, rising grade by grade, he was made a major general on the 2d of April, 1802. Here is a list of his commissions when he was a The first commission of colonel was young man. conferred on the 3d of May, 1796, that of major general on the 2d of April, 1802, that of lieutenant general on the 25th of April, 1808, that of general in Spain and Portugal 1811, and that of field mar

Again:

*

*

*

"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 * "Honors and rewards were enthusiasm." 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." "Their renowned commander was created, on the 3d of May of that year, Marquis of Douro and Duke of Wellington; and in June £400,000, making, with the previous grant of £100,000, half a million of money, was awarded him by the House of Commons. On the 28th of the same month, the Duke took his seat in the House of Peers, and

Ho. OF REPS.

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 Eleven thouto reward an American chieftain. sand 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 From Queenstown to history of the country. the City of Mexico his military achievements have been of the most brilliant, striking character, with It has been refew and unimportant reverses. corded 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 General Scott estabform a fair offset to Lodi. lished 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 Muratnever at the head of a division, but at the head of a charge. These madcaps are only fit to lead columns upon the plans and judgment of cooler heads. General Scott is entitled to the glory, great as it is, derived from our conquest in the recent

32D CONG.....2D SESS.

war with Mexico, and no effort of historians or legislators can deprive him of it.

Sir, in addition to the merits of General Scott as a military man, he is entitled to the gratitude of his country for his literature. He has enriched the annals of our military department by books of tactics, industriously, skillfully, and scientifically arranged. Grateful France gives Napoleon infinite credit for every little scrap he wrote, whether upon the art of war or anything else. But, as I said before, it is not my business to eulogize General Scott.

OUGHT THIS BE MADE A POLITICAL QUESTION? Disguise it as you may, the objection to this resolution is political. Gentlemen deceive themselves, no doubt honestly, when they think otherwise. It is said by General Scott's detractors that he cannot make political speeches, and that Well, I am not dispuhe is not a great civilian ting that. Themistocles could not "play the fiddle, but he could make a small town a great city.' General Scott cannot make political speeches, but he can win great battles-that is better.

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!

Well, now, Mr. Chairman, in this aspect of the case, I ask the Democracy what they expect to make by opposing this resolution? What great political effect is this opposition to achieve?

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 lan

THE DEMOCRACY.OF THE SENATE VOTING FOR THE RESOLUTION.

I here [unrolling a list of the senatorial vote] show you a gallant roll of the standard Democrats in the country, who voted for this bill in the Senate. I begin with Atchison, the President of the Senate; then Butler, of South Carolina; there is General Cass, a long distinguished chief; then I come to Clemens, of Alabama, the mover and father of this resolution-a young statesman, a gallant colonel in the Army in Mexico; a man whose genius has made him a peer among Senators, and whose genuine Democracy has never been disputed except by the slaves of faction. come then to De Saussure, of South Carolina; is it possible that the South Carolina delegation in this House will vote against this resolution? I come then to the two Dodges, old and young in Democracy-a noble father and a noble son! I come then to Gwin, of California, and then to Hunter, of Virginia. I do not speak of Mr. Hunter as a Senator merely; I speak of him as a prospective Secretary of State-a leader not only of the Democracy, but a leader in the grand councils of the incoming Executive. Is any man ashamed now, upon the question of Democracy, to sit side by side with these men? Then, sir, there is Mason, of Virginia. What will the Virginia delegation do here? Are they a unit in opposition to this resolution? Do they stoop to make it a party question? Then there is General Rusk-a hero worthy of the soil he represents, and a Democrat. He voted for it, too. Then there is General Shields, not only a Democrat, not only a Senator, but a soldier with a bullet through his body, received at Cerro Gordo-the hero of the heights-living through extraordinary mercy, preserved by a miracle, to be permitted to utter the praises of his noble commander in the grandest council of the world. How nobly he does it, with the characteristic magnanimity of an Irish gentleman! What else do you want to make it a Democratic measure? Ah, but there is another side to this picture, which I will present to southern Democrats.

I beg them to view the other side of this picture. There were thirty-four Senators in favor of this resolution, and twelve against it. Who were the twelve? JOHN P. HALE was one of them. I speak of him, not as a Senator merely, but as a competitor of General Scott in the late contest. He voted against this resolution. I come next to the name of Mr. CHASE, of Ohio. He, too, voted against it. I am talking now to southern Democrats. CHARLES SUMNER, also voted against it. Now, the question is, are you willing to sit down with CASS and BUTLER, and SHIELDS and ATCHISON and CLEMENS, or will you squeeze yourselves down between HALE and CHASE? Let Southern

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.

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.

Well, there is something in that. "The brevet of glory" is a beautiful and poetical phrase, for which I 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.

HO. OF REF

Despairing of an immortality which he had re achieved, in the bitterness of his last momen he dictated his own epitaph:

"Here lies one whose name was writ in water! Sir, if you have any rewards to give, let the be given in time.

But you stickle at the pay. Oh! yes-the w Well, I do not believe the resolution, in its pris shape, would carry pay with it. The pay, f must be provided hereafter; but that is a L matter. Many of you, gentlemen, who pos this resolution upon the ground that it carries er pay with it, voted last session to give five mis of dollars to a mere steamboat monopoly, to a few New York SNOB PRINCES, and yet now, quarrel over the prospective pay which this g will probably carry with it. Sir, if it carrie pay, it is right. Give him the money-give the pay-give him the rank-let your econoar: better directed.

I see, Mr. Chairman, from the impatient. of your hammer, that my hour is about expi How much time have I?

The CHAIRMAN. Only two minutes. Mr. SMITH. Then I omit many things, r Ohio, (Mr. CARTTER.] He talked yesterday s must pay my respects to the gentleman the "heraldry of nobility," and titles, and legislation, and moved an amendment, to inser word "lord," so as to make it read "Lord La tenant General Winfield Scott." Well, now. merely want to suggest as an amendment to the the better to suit the taste of that gentlemen. insert after the words "lord lieutenant genera the words "Louis Kossuth alias Alexander Smith [Great laughter, and cries of "Bravo!" Baw. The gentleman [Mr. CARTTER] was a here Kossuth contest in this House. Was that mak legislation or not? A member of Congress 20. native of this country, advocating the rewar. İ of a mere runaway governor with honors the of and unprecedented before in this Hall, ind: the Congress of the nation to stand up unters in the gorgeous presence of that arrogant forag to get a peep at his sword, and a far off-visit the train of monkeys that made up his fore suite. The same gentleman, on this occas speaks against a resolution conferring on one his own countrymen a mere military bade honor, which is dearer to a soldier's heart an anything except a victory! Sir, I think the getman from Ohio is a proper man to talk about 2 "heraldry of nobility,” and “mock legislation."

ACQUISITION OF CUBA-CANADA.

SPEECH OF HON. HIRAM BELL
OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January, 10, 1853,

In the Committee of the Whole on the state of
Union, on the annexation of Cuba, Canada, ás
Mr. BELL said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I presume I shall not trespas upon the time of this committee beyond the us time allotted upon such occasions. I rise o mainly for the purpose of entering my protest se fore this House, and before the public, in relation u some positions which have been assumed as t mitted by honorable members of this House. Ani I should not consider that necessary, were it n for the fact, that upon former occasions, the popular acquiescence in opinions in relation to, a constructions of former acts of Congress hart been considered as an assent to those declarations We have been told by honorable members of t 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 limi 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 honorabe 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

82D CONG.....2D SESS.

e legislative branch of this Government, that e are in favor of taking possession of territory which we admit we have no right, and to the quisition of which we have not the shadow of a retext? I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if that is a ortion of the present Democratic creed? Are we a state of war with Spain? No, sir. On the ontrary, we are at peace, and professing the most micable relations toward that Government. How, en, are we to have an opportunity of accomlishing what it is said upon this floor the people f this country are in favor of? Are we to hatch p some pretext for a disturbance with that couny? Why, it would seem to look like it. And, ir, what effect would such a state of things have pon our national character, but to dishonor it in he opinion of all christendom? I stand here, as ne of the Representatives of this House, of this iation, and especially of the State from whence I ome, to protest against all such doctrines. I tell you, sir, and in doing so, I would wish to send tabroad throughout the length and breadth of his and other lands,-that these are not the sentinents of the people of this country. They never ave been the sentiments of our people, and I trust hey never will.

We hear it said in high places that we are to acquire all this territory-that we are to aggranlize ourselves by the acquisition of that which loes not now belong to us, and of which there is no possible evidence that we have any right to

Acquisition of Cuba-Canada-Mr. Bell.

the doctrines of Washington and Jefferson, and Madison and Monroe, Adams and Jackson, I trust they will be willing to abandon also all claim to the name they have so proudly heretofore sought to be known by, whether it be Whig or of the old line Democrat.

Again, I would request of those persons who advocate this new policy, to look a little at the results and effects of that policy. Will Cuba be acquired and annexed, and form a part of this Government, without a war? No, sir; the correspondence between the Ministers of France, England, and the Government of the United States has already settled that. Suppose, then, that there were an attempt to acquire it by a war, that war would not be terminated in a month nor a year, when this Government shall be involved with Spain and two of the most powerful nations upon the European continent in such a war. And those Governments have already informed us, through their authorized agents, that they will never consent to the relinquishment or control and government of that island to or by any other nation than Spain. Suppose, however, that all could be accomplished which those visionary gentlemen imagine, would it be the true policy of this Government to acquire this island either by conquest or by peaceful negotiation?

Ho. OF REPS.

as described in his own language, of his opposition to the acquisition of Cuba, even if it could be acquired peaceably. His language is as follows:

"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 charac ter, 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

iny as a nation—our manifest destiny! Why, sir, I have heard of spiritual rappers, and I believe they affect to reveal destiny; but I would like to know if, at this day, we are to risk the future policy of this Government upon the pretended revelations of this class of impostors? If not, shall we sanction these schemes of unlimited annexation of territory, under the plea of "destiny," which have at least as sandy a foundation as those taught by the delusions of the class just referred to? I hope not, sir. But, Mr. Chairman, if we were to pursue and adopt this policy which is suggested as our interest and as our manifest destiny_ if we were to assume that we were to become the possessors of Cuba, would it not be well to cast about us before we settled down upon the fact that such is our manifest destiny as a nation, and ascertain how we are going to acquire it? Are we to acquire that island by conquest or by treaty, or other peaceful arrangements? The consideration of these questions requires us to look at the policy the Government must adopt to accomplish the proposed object by either means.

||

To answer this question I need only refer you, sir, to those who live nearest, to those who appear to 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 contemplates the subject, who looks at the latitude and location of that island, who knows the character of its inhabitants and their capacity, that would doubt for a moment, if it comes into this Union, that it would be a slaveholding territory, although it is urged here by many that we should acquire Cuba and seek to bring it under the control of this Government, because by that means we would have the power and the means of abolishing the slave trade.

The first is, is it the interest or the duty of this nation to pursue the course of policy recommended by and carried out in the administration of Washington, and the fathers of this country, That may answer as an excuse for some, with and continued from the organization of this Gov- which to satisfy a portion of their constituents. ernment down to the present time; or are we to But when I hear it urged by my honorable friend change that course of policy which has rendered from North Carolina (Mr. VENABLE] as an arguus so prosperous as a nation, and launch our boat ment to the South that they should go against the upon the wide and boundless ocean of annexation acquisition of Cuba, because, if that island should and conquest? We must adopt one or the other. be acquired by the United States, the slave trade Why, sir, what, in former times, was considered would be entirely abolished, and as a consequence, the republican, the democratic, the national doc- the means which they now have of keeping up their trines and interests of this country? Was a peace-proportion of slave labor would cease, and slavery ful administration of the Government repudiated? Were colonial possessions sought? Were entangling alliances with any nations recommended as the policy beneficial to the Republic? No, sir. The opposite policy was inculcated, and practically carried out by the framers of the Government; and in the pursuit of that policy, this nation has

proud to be known as an American citizen, wherever he may be found. In whatever quarter of the world he may be, those stars and stripes, with their ample folds, protect him, and secure to him his rights. I say the advocates of this new doctrine must adopt one of these two courses of policy. If they are in favor of abandoning the policy of Washington, and of changing the entire policy of the country, and seek by conquest the extension of our territorial limits, and as a consequence withholding the necessary protection and promotion of the interests of our people at home, who have the first claims upon our Government and its sympathies, and who are already under our control,-if they are prepared to say they are in favor of changing the policy, and abandoning

eventually be extinguished; and when I hear a directly opposite reason urged from honorabe gentlemen from other portions of the country, I may well hold a doubt of the soundness of those suppositions or arguments, that if Cuba should be admitted, it would either be a free State or secure the abolition of the slave trade.

Mr.

I 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 southern man, the editor of the Charleston Mercury,

It is now proposed by the advocates of that measure, that we shall take that class of population, 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 millions 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.

Meet this question fairly frankly, and say to