The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1848-08-23
slave property was an inequality. The Nor.

slave property was an inequality. The NOT
tbern States had no such representation.
He would not consent TO increase this lne-
quality, notwithstanding the gentemans des!g-
nations. The gentleman had never heard him
saw nore-had never heard him express any
wish to break down the constitution, or deprive
the South of their Just repres escnatIon. lie oe'
fed any Southern man to say that ever, IN Tue
whole course of his political life, he had mani
tested any disposition to trench upon the rights
of the South. He appealed to the candor OF Inc
honorable member from Virginia to answer.
And now, in regard to this Missouri comProm.
ise line he wishedto avoid all allusion in this bill
to lines of demarcaton-lheyw were unnecessa
ry-ou, of place, and should he avoided tie
re,ea,ed. by no act of his should the area OF
slavery be extended, or the slave representation
he extended in the other House OF Congress-
| He would do no act which had tendency 10
produce such results.
| MIR. Mason had no intention in the world 10
provoke the honorable Senator from Massachu'
se,ts to words of heat. They were unsuIed'
he had supposed, to his temperament or MS age
Nor had he intended TO detract one l"ta from nus
reputation. Any thing that he could say "ould
not add or take from it one whit. Nhat he hau
said was the Just Interpretation OF his language,
e,r which he alone was responsible, II 1t had
been misunderstood. What, he would ask, had
the honorable Senator, or his constituents. to 90
with the slaves at the South. What right had
he or thew to interfere. ~.
r N. Webster. because it affects us-poln''
cdtg. mason.-You have no right 10 express
an opinion in reference TO Southern slavery,
much less to legislate upon it. We regard this
description Of property as trust, and not as pro-.
pery-upon which the North the non.slave-
holding States, had no right to right to legislate.
lie knew The weight of the honorable Senator's
words, and were he disposed to ascribe impro.
per motives 10 him. he would say that he inten
ded, designedly, to disparage what he had said.
He had no ambition to be brought IN contest
with that honorable Senator-no one was more
willing to admit his abilities-but if he persist
ed in what he understood TO be his intention, he
must say to that honorable Senator that he was
doing what
Mr.. Webster said that the Senator was en-.
tirely mistaken in supposing that he desired TO
interfere with southern slavery-souhern insti-
tutons. The gentleman was an eminent law.
yer, and found himself in the predcament
surprising they stand on one leg; find they really
stand on the other. So it had been in regard
to his present remarks, or his present under
standing of his (Mr. W's) remarks. He re.
pea,ed what he said in regard TO slave rePresen.
tation.
Mr.. Berrien also made some remarks in re.
gard to illusions made by Mr.. Webster to him.
self and to the power of the constitution to &C.
qure territory.
Mr.. Benton called the Senator from Georgia
to order. He was engaged in personal dis.
QUESTION with the Senator from Massachusetts,
more suitable for debating society, and entire
y out Of place in the Sena'e-it was wasting
the precious time of the Senate.
Messrs. Berrien and Johnson, of Nd, re.
quesed that the point of order might be redu
ccd to writing-and it was so reduced accord
ngly, and read from the Chair, vz:-
,r "sJ,iai Sisaa'AfJ w,,6 rnc Senator from Mas.
sachusctts for the sake of victory and not to
promote the despatch of hosiness."
The presiding officer (Mr. Breese) submitted
the question to the Senate, and Mr. Berren
was declared TO he in order, Mr.. Bcnton's $50
itary and alone," being The only vote in support
OF the point raised, and Mr.. Berrien concluded.
Mr.. Webster said: A sing word, and he
would relieve the Senate forever from the dis
cussion. And he explained some misrepresenta-
tions of Mr.. Berricn in regard to his (Mr. W's)
remarks this afternoon. He said that the pow
pr Of acquisition was resulting power, from
the circumstances of the case, and not to be
found in the constitution.
Mr.. Walker replied TO some OF the remarks
of Mes>rs. Douglass and Mason, and discussed
briefly the general question of slavery in the
territories taking the view of the free States on
this subject. and in opposition to compromise.
in reference to the newly aquired territories on
the line nf SO 30.
Mr.. Wescott made few remarks in oppo.
sition to the Missouri compromise. He should
not vote for it, and would trust to an overruling
Providence fer the result-to the good sense of
the North, when the effects Of this excitement
shall have died away. There would be no Sc.
curity that this compromise would now he oh.
served any more faithfully than that of 1920.
Mr.. Bright followed, in explanation OF his
understanding Of the action Of the committee,
of which he is member. 1t was that the
amendment was nothing more nor less than the
Missouri compromise. 1t was proposition
which he had offered six weeks ago, which he
hal withdrawn to give place to the compromise
bill, which had been rejected by the House,
and he was willing to take the present amend.
men, again, if it would give peace tc the coun
,ry-stop the agitation by those whose political
existence depended upon agitation though he
preferred the bill as it came from the House.
Mr.. Butler also made some explanations in
regard to the action of the committee. With
the exception of 18th section, 4 the Wlmot Pro.
viso.) there had been no objection by the com
nirtee to the bill, as originally reported by the
Senate committee.
MIR. Dickinson would have been better salts.