Mr. President, there were other objections to this bill; one by the honorable Senator from Indiana.  He denounced it as “a compromise.”  I have gone over its features and I have failed to discover, nor has the fact yet been stated in my hearing, wherein anything is compromised.  What power of the Senate is relinquished?  What power of the House is relinquished?  What power that both should possess is withheld?  I do not know where the compromise can be, what principle is surrendered.  This bill intends to compromise nothing in the way of principle, to compromise no right, but to provide an honest adjudication for the rights of all.  Where is it unjust?  Whose rights are endangered by it?  Who can foretell the judgment of this commission upon any question of law or fact?  Sir, there is no compromise in any sense of the word, but there is a blending of feeling, a blending of opinions in favor of right and justice.

But, sir, if it were a compromise, what is there in compromise that is discreditable either to men or to nations?  This very charter of government under which we live was created in a spirit of compromise and mutual concession.  Without that spirit it never would have been made, and without a continuance of that spirit it will not be prolonged.  Sir, when the Committee on Style and Revision of the Federal convention of 1787 had prepared a digest of their plan, they reported a letter to accompany the plan to Congress, from which I take these words as being most applicable to the bill under consideration:—­

And thus the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.

The language of that letter may well be applied to the present measure; and had the words been recalled to my memory before the report was framed I cannot doubt that they would have been adopted as part of it to be sent here to the Senate as descriptive of the spirit and of the object with which the committee had acted.

But, sir, the honorable Senator also stated, as a matter deterring us from our proper action on this bill, that the shadow of intimidation had entered the halls of Congress, and that members of this committee had joined in this report and presented this bill under actual fear of personal violence.  Such a statement seems to me almost incredible.  I may not read other men’s hearts and know what they have felt, nor can I measure the apprehension of personal danger felt by the honorable Senator.  It seems to me incredible.  Fear, if I had it, had been the fear of doing wrong in this great juncture of public affairs, not the fear of the consequences of doing right.  Had there been this intimidation tenfold repeated to which the Senator has alluded, and of which I have no knowledge, I should have scorned myself had I hesitated one moment in my onward march of duty on this subject.