his hold on New England by his advocacy of the fugitive slave law as part of the compromise, left the Senate to become Secretary of State, under President Fillmore, on the death of General Taylor, July 9, 1850; an office which he was able to fill only for about one year, when he was prostrated by the infirmity which terminated in his death, October 24, 1852. Mr. Clay, enfeebled and declining, though still keeping his seat in the Senate, could hardly be said to have filled it for the year preceding his death, June 29, 1852. Meanwhile, all eyes had been turned to Houston as the "pillar and ground" of the barrier raised against the dashing waves of disunion.
The 32d Congress, during which Mr. Fillmore was President, brought into the Senate an element counter to the spirit of compromise, ever maintained amid anti-slavery sentiment, by men like Webster. While Lynn Boyd, of Kentucky, was made Speaker of the House, and King, of Alabama, was chosen President of the Senate, Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts, introduced a new antislavery antagonism into the debates of the Senate Chamber. Houston had, from the experience of the past, regarded the extreme Southern agitation, which threatened armed disunion, as a positive danger, to be met by earnest remonstrance; and the result, in less than ten years realized, showed his wisdom, and will perpetuate the record of his patriotism. On the other hand, Houston regarded the extreme Northern agitation, which only expressed theoretical dissent, as an utterance more harmless, when unopposed, than if it were either repressed or discussed. His course was shaped accordingly, in the new debates that arose in the new Congress. The first session of this Congress, prolonged from December 1, 1851, to August 31, 1852, offered few occasions which drew him out, except in quiet discussion of subordinate matters of legislative business.
Soon after the opening of the session, December 12th, a resolution extending hospitalities and a reception by the Senate to Kossuth, the exiled champion of Hungarian independence, was offered and passed. The grand form, the broad intellect, and the captivating eloquence of the Hungarian chief, made an unwonted appeal to the American people; always enthusiastic for leaders, either of popular liberty or of independent government. While the people at large did not discriminate between these two distinct ideas, the statesmen proper of the American Republic were ruled by them in their sympathy for the Hungarian exile. In the vote for the resolution, which prevailed, Houston, in the record of the Senate, is mentioned as abstaining from voting, having paired with Senator Rusk, who was absent. This simple record shows that one or the other of the two Senators from Texas had made the distinc-
