Another argument employed by these apologists is, that the 'Proviso,' or a law prohibiting slavery in these Territories, is unnecessary; that it is an abstraction--a 'firebrand' employed by demagogues and factionists to kindle strife in the Democratic party; that the Territories are now free, and that they will so continue, unless an act of Congress is passed establishing slavery. It is impossible to avoid asking ourselves why, if these gentlemen are sincere--if they truly believe that slavery can not and will not go there, and they do not desire that it should--why they so strenuously oppose the passage of such a prohibition? If their views are correct, then such a law would be a mere harmless superfluity. But, sir, this 'firebrand of freedom' is a thing more exalted and noble than a mere abstraction. It is wielded by men of strong arms, adamantine will, and hearts animated by the divine impulses of patriotism and liberty. They have registered a vow in Heaven to employ every lawful and constitutional means to roll back the dark tide of slavery from the temple of Freedom, and vindicate the character of the Republic from the disgrace and reproach of establishing slavery in a free territory. We are no abstractionists. The Representatives in this Congress from the fifteen slaveholding States of the Union, without an exception, and without distinction of party, avow an intention to carry their slaves into these Territories, and there hold them in bondage. They assert, with passionate vehemence, that they have such a constitutional right. They have even told us, sir, that, regardless of the remonstrances of the people of the North--heedless of any prohibitory law of Congress upon the subject, they would invade the free soil of the Pacific, and take with them their slaves, and weapons of defence! Are these declarations abstractions? Do they make no appeal for immediate, energetic and prohibitory legislation?
[Illustration: W. Collins]
When driven from every other argument, gentlemen of the South threaten, that if the 'Proviso' or a law prohibiting slavery in free territory, is passed, they will dissolve the Union. At the North, the dissolution of the Union is not regarded as among possible events. Its value is never calculated. It has been cemented by too many common and glorious sacrifices and struggles; it is protected by too many pious invocations of its magnanimous founders, to be easily severed. The cause by which these fraternal bonds are sundered must be other than a refusal on the part of the free States to allow the Government to establish slavery in free territory. A submission to the will of the majority is a fundamental principle of our institutions. If the North are overborne in this contest, they must and will submit. If the demands of the South are denied by the decision of the majority, a like cheerful and ready acquiesence is expected. Until, however, the majority have decided, no legal and constitutional efforts to exclude slavery from these Territories will be abated by passionate threats against the peace and perpetuity of the Union. The Union would never have been formed had the present demand of the slave States been made and insisted upon. A proposition in the Constitutional Convention to make the Government a propagandist of slavery in free territory, would have been indignantly rejected.
Whilst we stand here, upon the floor of the American Congress, at the noon of the nineteenth century, gravely discussing whether or not we will extend and perpetuate slavery, the monarchical governments of Europe are striking off shackles and 'letting the oppressed go free.' Slavery has been abolished by the French colonies. Portugal, Spain, and Russia, are moving in the work of emancipation. Within a few years England has given liberty to eight hundred thousand slaves. She has expended, within the last forty years, one hundred millions of dollars in suppressing the slave trade. Is it reserved for the Government of 'free, happy America,' in the midst of examples like these, to be fastening corroding chains upon human beings? Sooner than be involved in such stupendous guilt, let our name and existence perish among the nations.
On the part of the North no 'compromises' can be made. But one answer--a stern, unyielding NO--will be given to all such proposals. We have made all the concessions that we can make, or ought to make. If a law under the name of a 'compromise' is passed, planting slavery upon a single square mile of free territory, it will have no rest. REPEAL! will be shouted from the mountain tops of the North, and reverberated in thunder tones through the valleys. The preservation of 'free soil for free men,' will alone be satisfactory. For this purpose, the passage of an act of Congress prohibiting slavery in free territory, will be unceasingly urged, until the great measure is consummated.
During this Congress, although the anti-slavery-extension men were in a minority in both branches, all compromise bills were defeated, and their defeat was due in a good degree to the industrious and vigilant efforts of Mr. Collins, and a few associates in the House.
Mr. Collins was tendered a renomination to the thirty-first Congress, but having determined to remove to the West, he declined, and Preston King was elected in his stead. He continued, with much success, the business of the late firm of E. & W. Collins, until December, 1853, when he removed to Cleveland and opened a law office. He was soon elected a director of the Merchants Bank of Cleveland, and of the Lake Shore Railway Company. Subsequently he became a director in the Bellefontaine Railway Company; the Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Indianapolis Railway Company; the Jamestown and Franklin Railway Company, of Pennsylvania; the East Cleveland Street Railroad Company; the Mercer Iron and Coal Company, of Pennsylvania, and the Merchants National Bank, of Cleveland, the active duties of which positions have absorbed very much of his attention and time. He has occasionally appeared in the courts here in litigated cases, but has mainly confined his professional work to his office. Mr. Collins had a high standing as a lawyer in New York, and has fully sustained his early reputation here. He is most remarkable for an admirably fair and clear way of stating and arguing to the court and jury, the questions both of law and fact. This contributed greatly to his success, not only as a forensic advocate, but as a political orator, and legislative debater.
The sympathies of Mr. Collins having always been on the side of freedom, he joined the Republican party on its organization, and has remained faithful to its principles. When the Rebellion broke out he threw himself heartily into the cause of the Union, and contributed freely with money and labor in every available way for the furtherance of the Union cause. He served on the local military and other committees, working faithfully and energetically, and contributing largely to the excellent record Cleveland and the county made during the war, by repeatedly and promptly filling the quota of troops required, and by liberal contributions in aid of the sick and wounded soldiers. Whenever an effort was needed, the voice of Mr. Collins was heard exhorting the people earnestly to energetic action and liberal contributions, and his exhortations were promptly and efficiently seconded by his own example. With him precept and practice went together.
Such men as Mr. Collins would do the people valuable service were they chosen to fill responsible places in the legislative councils and executive departments of the State and Nation. But in these days something more than--or it may too often be said--something different from abilities of the description possessed by Mr. Collins, seems to be required to secure the favor of the people, or rather of the political managers. He is of too ingenuous a nature to yield to the intrigues and servility, too often, now-a-days, demanded of political candidates by the managers.
On November 20th, 1816, Mr. Collins was married at Columbus, to Jane, second daughter of the late Alfred Kelly--the two families having been early neighbors and friends in New York. Two children of this marriage survive, Frederick and Walter, the former seventeen years of age at the present time, and the latter fourteen.