Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

. yoAgsaa ft S ISTHTU08 THE PUBLIC GOOD BEFORE PRIVATE ADVANTAGE. ifuffi. esoiGii, smii mobnikg, jci s, m If MSS: VHi.I-M.rn GEORGIA AND OHIO! OF ,LEXANl)ER H. STEPHENS, of Gtwtfgia, IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO, •red in tk* Soute of Repreienlalivee, January 15, 1865. being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on Railroad bill— HENS, of Oebt*£ia, mid: .mins: I do not propose to discuss the Pacific Railroad bill. 8ome 6, sir, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Mace,] gave notice of his inten- Itroduce in this Haase a bill to prohibit slavery in Kansas and Nebras iocomp&nied that notice with a Speech, to which 1 replied. To the remarks mltted by me, the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Campbell,] made That speech of thd gentleman from Ohio has been, according to the no lle gave, considerably amplified ind elaborated, ns it appears in the Globe, at amplified and elaborated speech, * * * for the purpose ng to the gentleman’s statistics, I now desire to occupy some of the time nmittee. I do not object to the gentleman’s amplification. Not at all, , sir, 1 hnve something to say in reply to these statistics, which were not by the gentleman on the floor. I have, sir, a great deal to say in reply sad 1 therefore avail myself of this opportunity—the earliest that I Imve reply to them. I have more to nay in reply to' them, much more than I l in "one hour, the limited time that I have. * » * » * intleman from Ohio, in the tenor of his argument, makes me use language did not utter on this floor—or, at least, he seems to put words into my uit I did not use. Now, when an argument is not stated fairly, it argues want of comprehension, or a consciousness of the wunt of capacity or abili- wer it on the part of one who thus fails fairly to present it. Either al- does not bespeak much for the formidable qualities of an opponent. I . Chairman, too high a regard for the intelligence of the gentleman, to ; he did not understand my argument. I believe that his object was ratli- the argument to his capacity to reply to if, ns ho supposed, istance, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says, in his speech, “ we are told South gets nothing, that the South asks nothing.” Now, sir, In my reply to eman from Indiana, [Mr. Mace,] I spoke of the great fact, well known, living, ed fact,” that the industrial pursuits of the South do not, in the main, look rotection or fostering care of the Government, and that the general Indus 'suits of the North do. I did not say that the South gets nothing, or that h asks nothing. I said that the South asks but fow favors ; and I repeat it, ir am I to be answered by being told that General .lackson and Mr. Cloy :m men—were In favor of fostering, as fiu- ns they could by proper legis- le interests of the North. That dots not disprove the fact which I uttered, South does not generally look to the Government for protection, and that h does. Sir, it rather proves the opposite, and confirms my statement. I stated that the industrial pursuits of the North look to the Government ction, is that statement disproved by the fact that southern men, or even lave voted to favor those interests, as fnr ns was consistent with public 9o far from disproving, It tends rather to establish it. What I stated on t was in reply to the gentleman from Indiana, whose tone of argument ; the South carried measures promotrva of their interest by bluster, r, to come down to the argument as the gentleman states it! If he can- f not wish to meet mo on the ground that the South n»ks but few fhvors, it, and thst the North dot* look ipore to the Government for its foster- protect its various interests than the South docs, very well, I will meet ils own ground. If he cannot answer my pOsitiou, hut must size my ar- io as to make it stand as he hAS it, that “ the South asks nothing, and gets I will come down even to his ground, so fiir as hit answer is concerned, •ntleman says, in the first place, putting the language in my mouth, “The ks nothing, gets nothing;” and he then replies “ Certainly not,” and refrrs acquisition of Louisiana. And then, putting the words in my month, says: “The South asks notHfog." South ash nothing T In 1803, we paid fifteen millions to get Louisiana. South asks nothing !' In 1810, wo paid five millions to get Florida. South asks nothing V In 1845, her policy brought Texas into the Union, remise that she might carve horacll Up into five States. South ath nothing f Her Texas annexation brought war tvith Mexico, territory was demanded as ‘the fruits of that war. he does great injustice to the North when he says that the acquisition of la was for the exclusive benefit of the South. CAMPBELL. It is true, that at the time I made a reply to the gentleman wtgia, I caught the idea which he presented, that the South asked nothing, l manner of expression, and those were the words which 1 used at the time were reported. STEPHENS. I nnot yield to the gentleman unless he be very brief. CAMPBELL. I call the attention of the gentleman to what he did say. •ay, as repotted ‘‘all that we ask of you is to keep yonr hands out of our That is all the South asks, and wo do not even get that.” TEPHENS. Yoi, air. The gentlemhn will find not only those words, my speech “as repotted, all going to establish the leading point in at of the argument, that the South asked but “ few favors” compared with tits of the North. That was my position, and not that we asked “ nothing” “ nothing.” Some of these favtrs I specified; but, In the main, I asserted, nt, in substance to assort, as every one well understood, that the greatest of the South was, that the General Government would keep its hands out pockets. And this Is true; and the gentleman did not attempt to reply to )t os I have tutted. I come now, then, to the gentleman’s reply to the po- aat the Smith “ asks ndthlng.” To this he says, “ that we paia 115,000,TOO lisinna.” To Bits I hay, it was hot (he South alone that secured the aequi- »f Louisiana. Nor wa* It alone for the benefit of the South. There were enty-three votes in this House against that acquisition. It was a national tion. Sustained by Uational men from all sections, there was hardly a show oaitiou to It front uuy quarter. I should suppose that Ohio would be the tte in this Union to raise her voice against that measure, or hold that It was vely for the benefit of the South. What would hove liocomo of her trade mmerce if Louisiana and the mouth of the Mississippi were still in the hands In or Francet If the fifteen millions of money, Which we paid, he the » of the gentleman’s objection, all that has been more than refunded by the square miles yet was no bonua to the South, even If the South' had carried the measure for n benefit. i, Was the acquisition of that territory made to extend the southern area of 'try ? Let us examine this View of the subject. If hat extent of territory 'prised within the limits of Louisiana? It extended not only far up the M>i river, to Iowa and Minnesota, but wfottvafd to the Rocky Mountains thout now mooting fhe question whether Oregon was not then acquired. ‘ the sake of this argument, that Oregon was riot then acquired. The of Louisiana stretched fjroiU the extreme sotith on the Gulf to the ea- °rth on parallel 49® of north latitude. All that Immense domain, includ- •** and Nebraska, was part of it. Was all this southern territory 1 The r the gentleman from Onlo ih alluding tb'thil subject deemed to be to inti- ntal! this acquisition wa» for the South. But how is the faett Let us By this acquisition,‘fohSlig all the fridijiu territory into aecoimt, the mfilbVSrSBSU Mm 1 I, held ovth than it didTttfffih Si x&an while me North tut by It 967,59#'' three times that of ztstm Again, in the acquisition of Florida, the gentleman from Ohio says that the Ben Mr harried that measure at a cost of 15,006(000. This it the tenor of hit tar- gMEttiM. Sir, this measure was not carried by the South, nor for the South exclu sively, There was not even a division in this House on the question. As to the extent of the acquisition, if we did not get Oregon when we acquired Louisiana, we certainly acquired it when we purchased Florida. It was by the treaty then made that we got Spain's relinquishment to Oregon. The North, by this meas ure, got 908,052 square miles of territory, including the Territories of Oregon and Washington, while the South got only the Stata of Florida, 50,268 square miles. If the South carried this question by her votes, I ask, were those who gave the votes sectional in their policy ? Hid not the South, if that he the gentleman’s ar gument, gain quite as much, nay, more, nay, double, nay, more than five times as much territory for the North ill that acquisition, as she obtained for herself! Again, in the acquisition of Texas, considering the Mexican war as part of that pro ceeding, as the gentleman does, the South only secured 287,504 square miles, while the North secured 632,157 square miles, including California, New Mexico, and Utah. The gentleman says, that the North is opposed to acquisitions; that she never looks outward, she looks inward ; and that while tho South is always looking to the extension of territory, the North is looking to the improvement of what we have. This, so far os looking to acquisition is concerned, 1 think, is not true of the North entirely. It may be true of some men there. But it is not true of all her statesmen. In the early history of this country, there were men at the North, and one in particular, who hud no such oiraimscribed views as those attributed to the North generally. The man to whotn I allude stands first, in my opinion, of all the northern statesmen of his day. Indeed, he stands, in my judgment, amongst the men of his day—next to him who has bo equal in any age or country. That man lauled from New York, and for strength of judgment, for profound thought, for far-seeing statesmanship he has never been equaled by any of the illustrious men since brought upon the public arena by that honored State. That man, sir, was Alexander Hamilton ; and at the formation of our Constitution, after that pro- vision in the original draft, that new States to be formed out of territory then be longing to the United States might be admitted into the Union, was so modified as to Teava out the restriction, so that other States (not confining it to the then territory of the Union) might come in, Mr. Hamilton is said to have expressed the opinion, with approbation, that, in time, we should get Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mexico, and even ultimately squint towards South America. That was the mail, sir, who, in his day, was, every inch of him, a “ Sampson in the field, and a Solo mon in oouncil.” Nay, more; he waa one of those gifted geniuses who caught from the “ sunrise of life" that “ mystical lore” which enabled him to see those coming eventa which were casting their “ shadows before.” I take this occasion thus to speak of Mr. Hamilton, becuuse he is a most strik ing exception to the gentleman’s remark, mid, also, because in his day it suited the purposes of many of his cotemporaries to detract from his merits, his name, and his character ; men who barked at his heels, just as the wolves and the hyenas Ho upon the track of the noble king of the forest; men who never met him in open conflict but to be vanquished, and many of whom even quailed from his presence. But, sir, let us look, for u moment, to all our acquisitions. So far as I-ouiaiana is concerned, if the gentleman begrudges the money paid for it, even if it had not been reimbursed by the sale of lands, the State of Georgia, alone, has long since more than paid that dcht by her munificent grant. She ceded to the United States that large territory out of which the two flourishing State*—Alabamn and Missis sippi—have since been made ; out of which, ar.d front which, you have realized, by sale of lands, much more than the whole cost of Louisiana. 1 have now before me a table of the proceeds of the sale of the public lands In the States of Alabama and Mississippi. It amounts to 832,205,612 18; the consideration paid to Geor gia was 81,250,000; with the extinguishment of the Indian title within her own Fimits; all this amounted toabout 111,000,000; so that if it be the amount of mon ey that lays heavily upon his breast, it may be some consolation to the gentleman to know that from this grant by Georgia, a southern State, you have a clear gain of over 820,000,000. But, let us look at all our acquisitions. There are now, according to the census report, belonging to the United States 2,930,160 square miles of territory, includ ing States old and new, as well as Territories. There have been acquired, outside of the old thirteen States, 2,599,105 square miles. Of all these 2,599,105 square miles thus acquired, there lies north of the line of 36° 30’, 1,815,701 square miles, and there lies south of it but 753,404 square miles. Here, sir, take Louisiana, take Florida, take Texas, take all our acquisitions, the Georgia and other Stute grants or cessions, leaving out the Mesilla Valley, acquired at the last session of Congress, which is a small item, and you see this astounding fact, in answer to the remarks of the gentleman on this point, that 1,845,701 square miles of these acqui sitions lie north of 36° 30', and only 753,404 lie south of it! If nil north of 30 3 30’ is to be considered northern territory, then the North 1ms got by acquisition more than double what the South has! Will the gentleman, then, pretend to answer me, when 1 say, that the South asks bat few favors, by pointing to these acquisitions ? Were these especial, pe culiar, and groat favors to the South ? When I have shown that they were carried by patriots from all sections of the Union, and that more than double the square mile* acquired north of that line which is usually referred to as defining northern and southern limits!—am I, I say, to be thus answered in the tiice of these tacts? Sir, if the wild boy in the forest, with his bow and arrow, were vain enough to imagine that he oould bring down the moon by the prowess of his arms as a hunts man, and should as vainly make the attempt, he would not come further short of bis mark, than the gentleman from Ohio does by letting fly such a shaft as this, either at me or my argument. ********* In the remarks submitted by me, Mr. Chairman, on the occasion referred to, I made an exhibit of statistics, showing that Georgia, with less than half the popula tion, with nearly a third less laud in quantity, and less than a third in value, com pared with Ohio, not only equaled, but exceeded that State in her agricultural pro ductions, according to the census returns of 1850. This 1 did, not for the purpose of showing, a* the gentleman argues, that the labor of an African slave is littUr calculated to develop the natural resources of a country than the labor of au American freeman, but for the purpose of showing the utter futility of the argument against African slavery, founded upon the assumption that it is inconsistent with such development, even in a highly prosperous degree. It was from no unkind or ungenerous feeling toward Ohio, her people, or her interests, on my part, that 1 selected that State for the comparison. On the contrary, It was because I looked upon her as one of the most, if not the most, prosperous of all our northern States; and, also, because Georgia and Ohio nre both eminently agricultural States. The comparison of States engaged in similar pursuits is much better to illustrate the working of different systems, than that ofStates whose people follow different pur suits. So much, then, for my object. To the statistics exhibited in pursuance of that object, and that object only, the gentleman has made an elaborate reply. That reply it is my purpose now to review. What I said on the former oocaSkm, together with the calculations then present ed, I have before me, and ask attention to it. Here it is: “1 had occasion, some time since, for another purpose than the present, to look a little into tho statistics of Georgia, compared with those of other States. 1 se lected the State of Ohio, because it was one of the most prosperous of the North -t-<oA<n styled, and perhaps, justly too, the Giant of the West. According to the aansua returns in 1850, Ohio had of improved lands 9,851,493 acres—Georgia had only 6,378,479 acres; the cash value of the Georgia land, so improved and under culture, sa 695,758,445, while the oath value oUthtf Ohio hinds was returned at8858,- 758,603—Ohio had nearly one-third more land in a state of Improvement than Georgia had, and returned more than three times the cash value of the Georgia lands. Tho whble population of Ohio was 1,080,329 the whole population of Georgia, white and black, was 906,185. Tho population of Ohio, therefore, was more thin double that of Georgia. Here we see her free labor more than dou ble in number, working one’third biota fond, Worth by valuation, more than It might not be surprising to Vof Oeorgia, without resort- Jftw.MandtM foots? Ohio WW bus. «» sent*,. Buckwheat,...,,.,.. 6S2L060 “ 40 “ Indian cerh 59,078,695 “ 30 “ .. Rye 426,918 “ 50 “ .. Barley »U«I “ 86 ** .. Oats.. 18,4«, i M* “ « “ .. Peas and beans 60,168 “ 1160 “ .. Irish Potatoes...... 5,W,t69 « 40 “ .. Swfeet potatoes 187,991 " 60 “ .. Tobacco 10,454,449 lbs. 7 “ CJoverseed 109,197 bos. 84 0Q - .. Flax 441982 Iks. 10 “ .. Flaxseed 188,880 bus. 75 “ .. Maple sugar 4,588,209 lbs. 6 “ .. Molasses 107,308 gals. 35 “ .. Wine 48,207 “ 1100 “ .... Garden products returned In money, value Orchard 11 “ “ “ “ 98,995 T8J911 412,748 44,093 141,660 275992 69,067 48907 214,004 095,921 Aggregate, 838,187,095 “ This list includes nearly every agricultural product of the earth in that State except hay, which is omitted, because in Georgia, there is no return for fodder, which, in that State, answers the same purpose of bay in Ohio, as food for atook. The quantity of each product produced is given from the census tables. The values run out are such as are believed to be the usual average values of each article in that State, except the products of gardens and orchards, which are taken from the tables—no other values are put upon the products in the tables. The estimate above stated is believed to be a fair one. Now, let us take up the returns for Georgia and place upon them a like estimated average value. Here we have: Wheat 1,088,534 bushels at 81 00 61,088,534 Indian corn 80,060,099 “ Cotton—bales 499,091 400 lbs. 1 Rice 38,950,691 lbs 1 Peas and beans.... 1,142,011 bushels 1 Sweet potatoes 0,986,428 Irish potatoes 227,378 Oats 3,820,044 50 16,040,049 8 15,970912 4 1,558,027 ♦ 1 00 1,142,011 25 1,746,607 50 119,989 37J 1,432,516 Cane sugar 1,642 hhds. 1,000 lbs. 6 0BMBO Molasses 216,150 gallons at 25 54,087 Orchard, produtes of 92,766 Garden, products of 70,500 Aggregate 888,414,168 “ An amount, so far from falling under that of Ohio, as might have been expect ed, actually exceeds it above a quarter of a million, without extending the Georgia list to rye, barley, tobacco, and other articles which are produoed in that State. Away, then, with this prating cry about slavery’s paralyzing the energy of a peo ple, and opposing the development of the resources of a country." In commenting upon these exhibits, or tables, the gentleman files no objection to the items of products, except the article of hay, which, be says, ought not to be omitted in the Ohio list. lie complains, however, of tho prices or values, and the basis on which the estimates are founded. He objects to putting Georgia wheat at one dollar, and Ohio wheat at eighty cents. This is what he calls a “ sliding scale.” He insists that the products of both States should be placed on the same basis, and estimated on the same scale of prices. This is what he calls the basis of equality. On this point we are at issue, and, in determining this is sue, I am willing to abide by the principles kid down by the ablest writers on po- litical economy. The basis of my calculations, waa tbe usual or average rates or prices in each State, respectively, at that time. I did not make those calculations to answer the purpose of an hour speech here, or an electioneering campaign. But l baaed them upon principles that will stand the test Of time, and which can never be successfully assailed. If the committee will indulge me, I will give tho gentle- man the principles referred to. I read from Adam Smith: “There is in every society or neighborhood an ordinary or average rate of both wages and profit in every different employment of labor and stock. “There is likewise in every society or neigh boihood an ordinary or average rate of rent,” Ac. Ajain : “ These ordinary or average rates may be called tba natural rates of wages, profit, and rents, at the time and place in which they commonly prevail.” The same principles are laid down by all writers upon the same subject. The basis upon which the value of any prexlucts of industry are to be, or should be, estimated, in comparing one country or State with another, is not that of equality as the gentleman proposes, but the ordinary or average rates or values at the time and places respectively. I gave the ordinary avenge values of the Georgia pro ducts at the time, soon alter the oensus was taken, and the place—Georgia—where they were produced. 1 did the same by Ohio. Here, sir, I might leave the subject, so for as the principles ere concerned upon which the estimates were mode, and so for as tbs gentleman’s objection to the sli ding scale is concerned; but so far os the justice or correctness of the stale adopt ed for Ohio products is conoerned, I have this to any : That if there is any inaccu racy in it, or iqjustiee done to Ohio by its as a whole, no one is more chargeable with it than the gentleman himself. And this, 1 say, birny own vidleation. For it so happens that I have preserved the eeJeuktiens made by me in the construc tion of these tables more than two y earasgn, sml amongst the papers I find a memo- random, given to me, upon my request, by the gentleman from Ohio, which fur- nished me with the data upon which I framed the Ohio table. These tables, as I said before, were prepared soon after the census was taken for quite another pur pose than their exhibition in this place. And here is the paper with the list of products grown in Ohio, which 1 submitted to him with a request that ha would put down opposite each artiele its ordinary average value or price in Ohio at that time. This he did; and here is the paper: Akout the avenge at Cincinnati. Wheat per bushel .80 cents. Buckwheat.. .....40 Rye Barley Maple sugar, per pound 6 Molasses, per gallon 85 Irish potatoes, per bushel 40 Sweet potatoes, per bushel 50 Oats per bushel 25 Tobacco 7 Peas and beans 1 dollar Cloverseed «... 5 “ Flaxseed 75 cents. Indian com .'.8ft “ He pwt the price of wheat at 80 cents per bushel; buckwheat at 40 cents, ryn at 50 cents, and so on. The whole list is identical with the value In the table I made for Ohio products, with the exception of Indian corn, which he put at 65 cents, and clovnraeed at 05. I put Indian tom for Ohio at 36 cents, and doVer- seed at 84; because ether gentlemen from Ohio, whom I likewise consulted on tW eubjoct, gave it ae their opinion that 90 rents for corn, and 84 for clover- seed, were fair average rates for thdse articles. And moreover, his .average waa for Cincinnati. And I wished to get as near ns possible to the average for the State. in Georgia 1 did not take the Savannah or Angaria pHora of wttSt or corn, but whs* l thought a Mr average throughout the State. FtJrnss* and accuracy .60 *d .. 0 -.40 ** ..25 (4 .. 7 . «• ere my objects Now. sir, the ( oe rap hat pH psr-thrihd hr 96 white per hudMtfcrtft* twi> ftrojklOto,