He said a requisition had been made, some years ago, on the governor of the State by the executive of Virginia, for the surrender of persons convicted of stealing a slave within the jurisdiction of the latter State; that the governor had refused to surrender them, and that this refusal had been sustained by both branches of the legislature; and on this statement he charged New York with a want of "common honesty." Sir, these are harsh epithets-epithets which should not have been applied to us without a full knowledge of the facts. The Senator labors under a great misapprehension. The responsibility, which he charged on the State, rests upon the governor alone. The facts are these:

In 1841 a requisition was made by the executive of Virginia on the governor of New York, for three persons, charged with stealing a slave in the former State. The governor refused to surrender them, for the reason assigned in the following resolution, which was adopted by both branches of the legislature of New York early in 1842:

"Whereas the governor of the State has refused to deliver up, on the demand of the executive authority of Virginia, Peter Johnson, Edward Smith, and Isaac Gansey, alleged fugitives from justice, charged with the crime of theft, viz: stealing a slave within the jurisdiction and against the laws of Virginia: and whereas the governor has assigned, as the reason for such refusal, that the stealing of a slave within the jurisdiction of and against the laws of Virginia, is not a felony or other crime within the meaning of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States:

"Resolved, That, in the opinion of this legislature, stealing a slave within the jurisdiction and against the laws of Virginia, is a crime within the meaning of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States.

"Resolved, That the governor be requested to transmit the foregoing preamble and resolution to the executive department of Virginia."

These resolutions, as I have said, passed both branches of the legislature. I am unable to state the vote; but I was then a member of the assembly, and I remember that it passed that body by a very decided majority.

Thus it seems that the legislature of New York, in both its branches, representing the people of the State in a double capacity, - for the Senate was at that time the High Court for the Correction of Errors, the highest judicial tribunal in the State, disclaimed and condemned the act of the governor, and left the responsibility to rest on him alone. Beyond this it could not go. The act to be performed was executive, and the legislature had no control over him to compel the performance.

But the Senator did not stop here. His speech was replete with reproachful allusions to New York, too indefinite to be met with a distinct reply; and he concluded by saying that he expected nothing good from her. Sir, there have been periods, in the history of the country, when she was neither inactive nor inefficient in her efforts for the public good. In 1837, when the whole banking system throughout the Union exploded, — when the President of the Bank of the United States was putting forth manifestoes and employing the whole strength of that institution to continue the suspension of specie payments, — and when, I believe I may say, most other portions of the Union were disposed to yield, New York stood almost alone in opposing it. She compelled her own banks to resume the discharge of their obligations under the penalty of a forfeiture of their charters; she became the centre of all that was sound in commerce and finance; and through the influence and the power of her example the country was saved from years of dishonor and pecuniary embarrassment.

In 1814, when the whole Southern coast was at the mercy of the public enemy, and portions of it ravaged and laid waste, when the administration here was too weak to defend the capital, and when the very edifice in which we sit was given to the flames by British vandalism, New York stood again almost alone and unassisted, and carried on the contest upon her own frontier chiefly with her own means. She raised money and men, and contributed to sustain the honor

of our arms in a series of the most desperate engagements ever fought on this continent.

Of her institutions, social and political, I need say nothing, the monuments she has reared to science, and to the arts, her great artificial channels of intercourse, and above all, her system of common-school education, embracing every child that is born or is brought within her limits. These are well known to all who hear me; and they say for her more than any words of mine can speak.

Less than a year ago two noble-spirited bands stood, side by side, on one of the bloodiest battle-fields of Mexico. They were led on by chivalrous men, animated by the single resolution of upholding their country's honor and their own. They were the New York and the Palmetto regiments. The blows they gave fell upon the ranks of the enemy with equal force; those they received were sustained with equal firmness. More than a third of these gallant combatants fell together. The grass, which has grown up rich and rank upon that battle-field, can tell where their blood was poured out in common streams. The noble leader of the Palmetto regiment was among the slain,1-borne from the field of carnage, perhaps, by the united hands of those whom he led, and those who, though coming from a distant part of the Union, fought by his side with the same devotion as his own followers. Sir, there should be something in these sacred memories to disarm reproach—at least of its injustice. Let me commend them to the calm reflection of the Senator from South Carolina, who has so deep an interest in the glory and the grief of that battle-field. He is neither ungenerous nor unjust. Let me ask him to think of these things, and say whether some good may not come from New York.

But I pass to a charge more immediately connected with the subject under discussion the application of the principles of the ordinance of 1787 to the territories of the United

1 Colonel Butler here alluded to was the brother of the Senator to whom Mr. Dix was replying.

States. This charge concerns the whole North; and I am ready to meet it.

In 1846 and 1847, most of the non-slaveholding States, on high considerations of moral and political principle, declared, that no new territory ought to be acquired without a fundamental provision excluding slavery. These declarations had an express and an exclusive reference to acquisitions from Mexico, where slavery had long been abolished, both by executive and constitutional acts. They amounted practically to declarations against the extension of slavery to free territory, and no more. New York did not take the lead in these declarations. The first legislative resolutions received here came from the State of Vermont, and were presented to this body on the 28th January, 1847. The New York resolutions were presented on the 6th February ensuing; those of Pennsylvania on the 8th; of Rhode Island, on the 10th; of Ohio, on the 16th; of New Hampshire and New Jersey, on the 19th; of Michigan, on the 1st of March; and of Massachusetts, on the 3d, the last day of the session. Connecticut passed resolutions on the 24th of June; but Congress had then adjourned, and they were presented at the commencement of the subsequent session. Delaware, a slaveholding State, followed, and requested her Senators to vote for the exclusion of slavery from territory thereafter to be acquired. Here are eleven States which have passed resolutions on this question. It was a spontaneous movement on the part of the non-slaveholding States, neither led on by New York nor set on foot by her, but arising out of indications in Congress of an intention to acquire territory from Mexico, and leave it open to the introduction of slaves; and every one knows they will be carried wherever they are permitted.

On looking at the dates of these several resolutions, I find New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania preceded New York, in the order in which I name them, in acting on this subject in their respective legislatures.

Three of the small New-England States, which the Senator from Virginia, who spoke first on this question,1 would have us believe New York was seeking to seduce, and in the end to swallow up, were actually the pioneers in this movement. Pennsylvania was next in the field. New York did but follow and sustain them in their declarations against the extension of slavery to territory in which it does not exist.

Such is the history of this movement, commencing as far back as July, 1846, almost coeval with the war with Mexico, and originating in a charge of intending to conquer territory for the purpose of planting slavery upon it. And these public declarations may perhaps be properly regarded in a twofold light, so far as motive, on the part of the legislatures, is concerned: first, to exonerate themselves from the imputation; and, second, to array their influence against such a design, if it should be entertained in any quarter.

Let me now take a somewhat larger view of this whole subject of Northern aggression. It was said, I think, by a Southern member of the Federal convention, though it may have been in Congress after the adoption of the Constitution, that no slaveholding State would thereafter be admitted into the Union; that there were eight States interested in abolishing slavery, and five interested in maintaining it, and that they would act accordingly in voting for the admission of new States. This prophecy had no foundation in truth. The members of Congress from the North have voted as freely and readily for the admission of slaveholding as for non-slaveholding States into the Union. If we look around us upon this floor, we shall find all prognostics founded upon the supposed prejudices or the unkind feeling of the North utterly falsified. Sir, there are ten Senators here representing slaveholding States formed from territory acquired since the Constitution was adopted. How many are there representing free States formed from new territory? Not a single one! But for a domestic difficulty

1 Mr. Mason.