Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-10-06
THE SECOND DISCUSSION.

Mr. Bolts and Judge Caskie continued their
discussion, Friday evening, the former leading off
in speech of about an hour and half, and the
latter replying at equal length
Mr. Bolts defended his positions on all the
points commented upon by Judge Caskie on We'd
nesday evening last, but devoted himself mainly to
the question of secession, and argued it with great
power. Judge Caskies speech was certainly a
very ingenious electoneering effort, but It was
singularly wanting in directness end devoid of
argument. For the life of us, we could not
ascertain his real position the subject of Sc
cesson. He again asserted the right of State
secede, if the constitution be violated, but he
failed to announce distinctly his opinion on the
question, whether the other States, denying the
infraction, have the right to coerce the seeding
State Once he approached the point, and stun
bled just in sight of it. He had formerly told Mr.
Bolts that if Vermont should nullify the fugitive
law, he would enforce it by means of the federal
troops. Mr.. Bolts had then put the case, that
Vermont should sscede rather than submit to the
law, and Judge Caskie said he would let her 90.
But Mr.. Bolts, pressing him still farther, in this
last debate, asked what would become of our fu-
gitive slaves? And the Judge answered, he would
mike war upon Vermont to compel her to deliver
them up! Why then, inquired Mr.. Bolts, do you
not make war upon Canada? Because we have
no treaty with England guaranteeing the delivery
of Augilive slaves, replied the Judge. And to this
Mr. iBots retored that, according to Judge Caskies
doctrine, Vermont by seeding would put an end o
the Constitution, and there would then be no
more treaty with her than with Great Britain
We thought the Judge was fairly cornered, but
his friends who were evidently determined 10
give him the benefit of the loudest noise, cheered
him as Justify as if he had achieved logical trl-
umph. If war can be made upon Vermont after
secession, for not delivering up fugitive slaves
surely it can be waged also for her failure to per-
form am other obligation of the compact. She
would be equally bound to pay her proportion Of
the expenses of the Federal Government and of
the public debt, and to contribute her quota Of
men and money to the army and navy in case of
foreign war or domestic Instruction. Judge
Caskies declaration as to Vermont seems to us to
carry with it an admission of the right of the Co
States, through the Federal Government, to coerce
Stale seeding for cause which they disputes
Still, he did not assert this principle, and the
gen raj tenor of his arguments has been opposed
to it, The public is yet uniformed whether he
acknowledges the right of coercion, and thus far
is bound to consider him as denying that right;
and it is upon this point that the whole question
OF secession depends. One who claims the right
OF State to secede, but at the same time acknow-
edges the correative right OF the co-Staes to
coerce, if they consider the secession causeess.
would be deemed in South Carolina no better than
a submissionist The Richmond Enquirer,
though defender of the Compromise, rejects this
doctrine, and adopts the South Carolina principle
that psaceable secession is a constitutional right.
OF the same opinion are all the leading men of
the sef-styIed Southern Rights party in the COT
ton States, and, it is perfectly we'll known, the
practical end they have in view is to stand by
South Carolina, if she determine to secede, This
purpose has been avowed by many of them, and
with particular plainness, by Judge Bragg OF Mo-
bile, and Ex-Governor Mcdonald of Georgia. 1t
is of the utmost Importance, therefore, that Judge
Caske's position Oh this question of the right of
coercion should be clearly understood 1t involves
the question whether he will sustain Soulh Caro-
lima if she do secede, or sustain the Union
Mr. Bolts read largely from Dir. Madison's lo-
ter to Mr. Everett, written in 1880 to explain the
resolutions of '98, and to show that they contain
no sanction for the doctrine of notification. But
Judge Caskie passed by entirely this uaimp each
able exposition of the authority upon which he
himself had chiefly relied.
In the conclusion of his speech, he attempted
TO rebuff the objection made to him for approving
the votes of Mr.. Seldom on ths Compromise mea-
sures, by saying that those votes were precisely
such as we're given by Judge Berrien, distin-
gaished Southern Wing and, referring particu-