CHAPTER X.

Temporary Retirement of Mr. Webster from Political Life-His Legal Arguments-The Girard Will Case-Suit against the City of BostonMr. Webster returns to the Senate-Annexation of Texas-Dispute respecting Oregon Territory-The Mexican War-Admission of California-The Compromise Measures of Mr. Clay-Mr. Webster's Able Speech on the Subject.

MR. WEBSTER spent the two succeeding years in absence from the national councils, and in the pursuit of his professional engagements at the bar. During this interval he was employed in the conduct of several important lawsuits, which attracted the attention of the whole community in consequence of the magnitude of the interests. involved in them. Several of these assumed the form of arguments before the United States Supreme Court at Washington. Among the number was the case of Vidal and others against the Executors of the Will of Stephen Girard, in which property to the value of millions was concerned. In this memorable case he was opposed by Horace Binney of Philadelphia, a jurist who, possessing none of the abilities of Mr. Webster as a statesman, was fully his equal, and probably his superior, in legal learning. The position assumed by Mr. Webster on this occasion was, that Girard College, the chief devisee under the will, was not a charity, because established on atheistical principles; and therefore not entitled to the protection of the laws. This position, doubtless the only one upon which an argument could possibly be based against the validity of the

will, was supported by all the immense resources of erudition and eloquence which his great mind possessed; but he was manifestly defending the wrong side of the question, and so the Supreme Court ultimately decided. Another case of importance in which he was concerned was that of the Providence Railroad against the City of Boston, which was purely an effort of technical learning and research, from the nature of the interests and the facts involved. In June, 1844, Mr. Webster delivered his memorable address on the completion of the Bunker Hill Monument. He had himself baptized the foundationstone of that colossal shaft several years before, with a torrent of classical eloquence; and now he breathed upon the finished crown of its aspiring head, the inspiration of his fervent and sublime benediction.

One of the most important questions which engaged the attention of Congress at this period was the proposed annexation of the Republic of Texas. Mr. Webster was opposed to this measure; and his opposition was based upon the ground that too great an extension of the territory of the Confederacy would be injurious to the interests and the perpetuity of the Government, and that the true welfare of the nation would be more effectually promoted by the development of its internal resources than by the enlargement of its superficial extent. He adduced other objections:

"In the next place, sir," said the Senator, in giving a direct statement of this reason for his opposition, "I have to say, that while I hold, with as much integrity, I trust, and faithfulness, as any citizen of this country, to all the original arrangements and compromises under which the Constitution under which we now live was adopted, I never could, and never can, persuade myself to be in favor of the admission of other States into the Union as slave

States, with the inequalities which were allowed and accorded by the Constitution to the slaveholding States then in existence. I do not think that the free States ever expected, or could expect, that they would be called on to admit more slave States having the unequal advantages arising to them from the mode of apportioning representation under the existing Constitution.

It

'Sir, I have never made an effort, and never propose to make an effort, I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangements, as originally made, by which the various States came into the Union. But I cannot avoid considering it quite a different question, when a proposition is made to admit new States, and that they be allowed to come in with the same advantages and inequalities which were agreed to in regard to the old. It may be said that, according to the provisions of the Constitution, new States are to be admitted upon the same footing as the old States. may be so; but it does not follow at all from that provision that every territory or portion of country may at pleasure establish slavery, and then say, we will become a portion of the Union, and will bring with us the principles which we have thus adopted, and must be received on the same footing as the old States. It will always be a question whether the other States have not a right (and I think they have the clearest right) to require that the State coming into the Union should come in upon an equality; and if the existence of slavery be an impediment to coming in on an equality, then the State proposing to come in should be required to remove that inequality by abolishing slavery, or take the alternative of being excluded.

"Now, I suppose that I should be very safe in saying that if a proposition were made to introduce, from the

North or the Northwest, territories into this Union, under circumstances which would give them an equivalent to that enjoyed by slave States,-advantage and inequality, that is to say, over the South, such as this admission gives to the South over the North,-I take it for granted that there is not a gentleman in this body from a slaveholding State that would listen for one moment to such a proposition. I therefore put my opposition, as well as on other grounds, on the political ground that it deranges the balance of the Constitution, and creates inequality and unjust advantage against the North, and in favor of the slaveholding country of the South. I repeat, that if a proposition were now made for annexation from the North, and that proposition contained such a preference, such a manifest inequality, as that now before us, no one could hope that any gentleman from the Southern States would hearken to it for a moment.

"It is not a subject that I mean to discuss at length. I am quite aware that there are in this chamber gentlemen representing free States, gentlemen from the North and East, who have manifested a disposition to add Texas to the Union as a slave State, with the common inequality belonging to slave States. This is a matter for their own discretion, and judgment, and responsibility. They are in no way responsible to me for the exercise of the duties assigned them here; but I must say that I cannot but think that the time will come when they will very much doubt both the propriety and justice of the present proceeding. I cannot but think the time will come when all will be convinced that there is no reason, political or moral, for increasing the number of the States, and increasing, at the same time, the obvious inequality which exists in the representation of the people in Congress by extending slavery and slave representation.

"On looking at the proposition further, I find that it imposes restraints upon the Legislature of the State as to the manner in which it shall proceed (in case of a desire to proceed at all) in order to the abolition of slavery. I have perused that part of the Constitution of Texas, and, if I understand it, the Legislature is restrained from abolishing slavery at any time, except on two conditions; one, the consent of every master, and the other, the payment of compensation. Now, I think that a Constitution thus formed ties up the hands of the legis lature effectually against any movement, under any state of circumstances, with a view to abolish slavery; because, if any thing is to be done, it must be done within the State by general law, and such a thing as the consent of every master cannot be obtained; though I do not say that there may not be an inherent power in the people of Texas to alter the Constitution, if they should be inclined to relieve themselves hereafter from the restraint under which they labor. But I speak of the Constitution now presented to us.

"Mr. President, I was not in Congress at the last session, and, of course, had no opportunity to take part in the debates upon this question; nor have I before been called upon to discharge a public trust in regard to it. I certainly did, as a private citizen, entertain a strong feeling that, if Texas were to be brought into the Union at all, she ought to be brought in by diplomatic arrangement, sanctioned by treaty. But it has been decided otherwise by both Houses of Congress; and, whatever my own opinions may be, I know that many who coincided with me feel themselves, nevertheless, bound by the decision of all branches of the Government. My own opinion and judgment have not been at all shaken by any thing I have heard. And now, not having been a member