PROTEST AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ON RECEIVING A PROTEST FROM A NUMBER OF SOUTHERN SENATors, augusT 14, 1850.

MR. PRESIDENT, I would respectfully ask of the Chair whether the question upon receiving this protest is understood to include the proposition to enter it on the journal? In other words, is there to be more than one question upon this subject? Will the question be first on receiving the paper, and then on entering it upon the journal?

THE PRESIDENT. The question now is on the reception of the

paper.

MR. WINTHROP. I think it important that the distinction, which I have stated, should be taken by the Senate and by the Chair. If the question is merely whether this paper shall be received by the Senate, and shall be placed with other papers which are respectfully presented, on the files of the Senate, without being entered upon the journals, I should have no objection to such a course.

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair, on reflection, would state to the Senator, that the reception of the paper would carry it on the journal.

MR. WINTHROP. I presumed that such would be the decision of the Chair. There is, then, but one question to be decided; and that is, shall the paper be received, and entered upon the journals of the Senate?

Sir, I have always been in favor of the largest courtesy, and of the most liberal construction of rules, in regard to petitions, memorials, and other papers, which might be presented to Con

gress. My honorable friend, the Senator from Illinois, (Gen. Shields,) has compared this question to a question upon receiving a petition. I am inclined to think that the Senator from Vir ginia, who presented the paper, would be the last who would desire to place it on that ground. I am inclined to think that his views with regard to the reception of petitions are much more circumscribed than my own. While I should go for the largest liberty of presenting petitions, properly so called, from any part of the people of the United States, upon any subject upon which they may see fit to address us, he would be disposed to limit that reception by certain rules, to which I need not allude. It seems to me, however, that there is no analogy whatever between the question of receiving petitions, or memorials, or remonstrances from the people, and that of receiving a protest from honorable members of this body-who are privileged to speak here, and to vote here, in their own persons-with a view to entering that protest upon the journal.

Sir, the Constitution has already secured to the honorable member from Virginia, and to those who are associated with him in this proceeding, the privilege of entering upon the journal the only protest really worth making. That constitutional protest does not consist, indeed, of a lengthened argument or a heated appeal on any question which may be submitted to us. But it consists in that which is more potent than any argument or any appeal the emphatic word "no." That protest remains on the journal. The Constitution has secured them the right of placing it there, and there it stands. Their explanations are for themselves, and for the States which they represent.

I remember, Sir, at this moment, but one parliamentary body in the world, which acknowledges an inherent right in its members to enter their protests upon the journals. That body is the British House of Lords. It is the privilege of every peer, as I understand it, to enter upon the journals his protest against any measure which may have been passed contrary to his own individual views or wishes. But what has been the practice in our

*The privilege of "inserting in the record an opinion contrary to the resolution of the majority" is secured to the members of the Executive Council of Massachusetts, by a special provision of the Constitution, and other State Constitutions may contain similar provisions.

own country? You, yourself, Mr. President, have read to us an authority upon this subject. It seems that in the earliest days of our history, when there may have been something more of a disposition than I hope prevails among us now, to copy the precedents of the British Government, a rule was introduced into this body for the purpose of securing to the Senators of the several States this privilege which belongs to the peers of the British Parliament. That proposition was negatived. I know not by what majority, for you did not read the record; I know not by whose votes; but the rule was rejected. It was thus declared in the early days of our history that this body should not be assimilated to the British House of Lords in this respect, however it may be in any other; and that individual Senators should not be allowed the privilege of spreading upon the journals the reasons which may have influenced their votes.

I am sure, that my honorable friend from Virginia would be the last, and that the State which he represents would be the last, in these later days of the Republic, to endeavor to bring about a greater analogy between that body and this, and to attempt to secure for us privileges which have heretofore been confined to an aristocratic peerage. I say this in the utmost sincerity, and with the most perfect respect for the honorable Senator from Virginia. Indeed, nothing goes more against my own heart, than to refuse any privilege which may be asked by a minority, upon this or upon any other question.

But, Sir, I cannot forget that the day has been when I myself have desired to place my name-not indeed upon the journals of this body, for I have come here too recently to have had any desires on the subject, but upon the records of another body, in opposition to more than one measure which has been brought up for my vote. Where is the protest against the annexation of Texas? If the precedent which it is now proposed to establish, had been in existence at that time, can there be a doubt that Northern Senators, if not Southern Senators for there were Senators from the South, as well as Senators from the North, who considered that measure unconstitutional, and I have now in my eye an honorable Senator from Georgia (Mr. Berrien) who coöperated with us at the time on constitutional grounds— can

there be a doubt, I say, that there would have been both Northern and Southern Senators, and Northern and Southern Representatives, who would have desired to avail themselves of an opportunity to place upon the record their protest against the annexation of Texas, at the time it was accomplished?

I am unwilling to admit, Mr. President, that this is the first time in our history that an act has been consummated which renders such a protest justifiable or proper. I am unwilling to admit, that there has been no measure passed in the whole history of this Government, in opposition to which members of either branch were entitled, upon principles of courtesy, if courtesy only is to prevail here, to enter their names and their reasons upon the record.

was inserted,

That bill was

Why, Sir, I remember the bill for the declaration of the Mexican war, or, I should rather say, for the recognition of the Mexican war, in which that memorable preamble "whereas war exists by the act of Mexico," &c. passed with little or no debate; but, at the very moment of its passage in the other branch of Congress, I drew up a protest against that preamble. It is still extant, not indeed in " very choice Italian," but in such chirography as I was able at the moment to command. It was signed by more than myself. It was signed by an honorable friend from Connecticut, (Mr. Truman Smith,) now a member of this body, and by an honorable member from Ohio, (Mr. Vinton.) But we found that neither precedent nor principle, as we thought, would sanction us in any attempt to place that protest upon the record, and we therefore forbore the attempt.

Now, Sir, for myself, I do not desire to add fuel to the flame, which seems almost ready to consume the country. I desire to do nothing, and to say nothing, to add to the irritation which exists on the other side of this chamber, and in certain quarters of the Union. I am willing even to acknowledge, and I do acknowledge, that there are considerations and circumstances connected with the admission of California, which are calculated to excite and irritate gentlemen from the Southern States. I would spare their feelings. But at the same time I would adhere, now and always, to those wholesome precedents, and I

may add, to those established principles, which have heretofore governed us in these legislative bodies. I say those established principles, Sir, for I can hardly help regarding this as a question of principle. The Constitution calls upon us to do what? To keep a journal of our proceedings, in order that the people may be able to see what measures have passed, and who are responsible for those measures. Is this paper any part of our proceedings? The Constitution does not secure to a member the privilege of entering his reasons on the record, nor does it, in express terms, prohibit him from doing so. But is there not something of an implication to be derived from this express injunction of the Constitution, that we should keep a journal of our proceedings? For, of what use will it be to keep such a journal, if the record of our proceedings is to be cumbered and complicated and smothered up by such a succession of protests as will inevitably succeed each other upon this, and upon other questions, if such a precedent shall now be established? Where will the practice stop? Sir, if the question were merely to receive this paper, and treat it respectfully, as we treat petitions and memorials, it would gratify me to unite in assenting to such a course. But with the greatest possible respect for the Senators who have signed it, I cannot vote for its reception, if the question of recep tion involves also the question of entering it upon the journal.