The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-09-14

understand that this allegation is confined 10 certain
proceedings which have taken place n the State OF South
Carolina do not apprehend that any will ven
nre here in his place that there are any facts
authorizing such complaint In relation 70 me Stale OF
the records for the purpose OF obtaining information OF
any judicial proceedings has ever been prevented
testing hs @ q any o. as ssr
would be intrusive for me to enter into any vlndcaion
OF the act Of South Carolina, OF the conduct OF her
cannot fobear al moment like this 10 add that if the
feeling which is manifested upon this occasion, and
which has been frequently manifested OF late BY sena
tors this floor, is true indication OF the feelings o
the people Of the States from which these senators come
they calculated. Il trust they not SO ntended)bu
they are certainly and inevitably calculated to produce
and 10 fasen conviction the southern mind thai we
are unfit associates for each other do not attempt to
say whether the merit or demert which thus units US for
ncessant war is 10 be kept up de de in diem it is 10
be arayed against our institutions II we are within
this hall and elsewhere 70 be constantly denounced and
assaed by remarks calculated 10 wound and rrtse the
feelings OF slayeholders; if are TO be continually
met By charges which utterly false, and which dIs
appear at the touch, do not hesitate o repeat that you
are forcing upon the conviction, which shall not
lways be able to resist that we cannot much longer be
eorsderei fit associates for the people Of the slave
Alter debate, (withbeld for revision,)
| MIR. BERRIEN did not overlook the caption OF thai
memorial; but the senator from Massachusetts sought to
TO the names, OF known responsibility, affixed to it,
| The argument addressed to the Senate was that
these PERSONS referred 10 for that purpose must have
derived their information from Others and could there
fore, give no credit TO the statement
The honorable senator says, IN reply 10 my remark
to sae ssar which, Vii ~ ba e
unit associates Tor each other, that this is not war
upon southern institutions but upon the institutions
OF the North, upon the question whether northern
reemen may be imprisoned in southern ports. In one
sense, this not upon southern institutions not
question whether, by the operation OF these laws yon
shall diminish destroy the value OF southern property
No, sir, it is upon southern safety II not
upon our particular institutions but i is war upon our
personal safety The safety OF our wives and children
endangered by these northern emssares coming to those
people who are the subjects OF our particular institutions
and though trust with the senator from Massachusetts,.
that nothing may occur TO dissolve this Union, yet
do not hesitate to tell him that there is not, in my
belief southern State in the true OF that term,
which, diyested OF the right 10 pass those police laws
which they deem essential to their safety the security
OF their wives and children. TO their protection from ser
vile instruction by the allowance OF these emissaries
from, the North--ahese colored emissaries from the
North-to intermnge with that population, if con-
vinced that they deprived BY their constitutional ob
cations OF the right 10 pass these laws which are indis
pensabe TO their safety there is not southern State
which would not be brought conclusion from which
every feeling Of my heart revol,s.
Mr.. EWING. do not myself give any considerable
weight TO the letters which vouched by men that are
SAID to be respectable They amount to little more than
mere loose statement OF the opinions OF individuals very
often founded on no facts whatever very slight facts
should have given very little weight to the letter intro
duced by the honorable senator from bassachuses even
il had called forth no comment and no contradiction.
any eproach harsh animadversion for introducing
letter into the Senate especially he takes say that
he does not youch for the correctness OF the information
Why, sir the senator from Massachusetts had high
precedent for this IL is very few days, perhaps
lew weeks, in debate the honorable senator from
Georgia introduced letter from California, written by
respectable gentleman 10 another respectable gentleman
the names OF neither of whom tina, honorable senator
gave in which the writer stated that the past admnsa
on the agents OF the past administration had engaged
in seducng driving the people OF California 10 intro
duce certain provision in their constitution The
tor from Georgia did not vouch for that statement at ALL
He argued from IT, He reasoned from II as II he believed
be And when contradiced the statement he
still reasoned from it. His printed speech win show that
he reasoned from it, He published his speech upon H. as
if he believed il TO be And il a statement
now say and as then said, though not in quite as
distinct terms, which was, every word OF II, false
truth in ii-a mere fgment Yet never made any impu.
taton upon that honorable senator for reading here
Not at ALL Certainly he stands in precisely the situation
of the senator from Massachusetts, whom he animal.
upon hashy for bringing in this letter. the
OF the writer of which he gave.
Mr.. BERRlEN. The senator is personal. This re.
qures reply Ii rs the amest and impotent at
tempt at analogy that presented 10 the consd
eaton OF body OF intelligent men. introduced letter
was letter addressed by respectable citizen of Bal
timore formerly 10 member Of this Senate, who
would youch for his respeciabillty Now, sir is there
any analogy between these two cases did believe upon
the testimony which had received that that letter was
entitled to credit and argued from il entitled But
with respect to the statement which the senator from Ohio
been within the knowledge of the senator from Ohio, but
OF which the writer of that letter might have had
knowledge. Consequently, notwithstanding the contra
dcton Of the senator from Ohio that letter remains
evidence, with the credit of letter vouched for in the
manner have stated take the responsibility OF avow-
ing my belief in the truths stated in that letter did
at the time | do 50 now. did il upon the authority
to which | have referred, and which stated 10 the
Senate Whenever any senator shall present letter or
other paper, giving reference TO, the authority upon
which he relies for giving credence to it, then he will be
in the condition in which was when presented the
letter which the senator from Ohio audes not in that
OF The senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. EWING. One other word, Mr.. President, with
respect 10 that letter II my memory serves me, il stands
precise in the same situation with this memorial which
the honorable senator says is entitled to weight what,
ever. The writer il my memory serves me rightly, was
not in California at the time the constitution formed
may be incorrect in that but il is my impression. The
writer did not he knows nothing OF II at all The
known to the senator from Georgia, was distinguished
gentleman from his State; and he has denied the
most express terms letter published by himself, that
he said single word upon that subject with such
view and that denial was published before the senator
read that letter.
Mr BERRlEN That il was SO published, pre-.
sumo have not seen IT, take il upon the statement
OF the senator from Ohio The information have
stated in the debates of the convention OF California,
made OF course by member oil that body, OF conyersa.
tom
Mr. EWING, (in his seat, Not at all with respect to
that matter I
MIR BERRIEN, (eontnuingl OF conversation oil
that agent in which he said, For Gods sake leave US
no territory to legislate upon in Congress- lbe deoae
shows that this request made III order 10 feheve
Congress from the necessity OF legisang upon TIE SUP.