Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-03-03

"o W uiSoipuiC Tic witness upon whose testlmo-
ny they rested; and he would show that the Sc
nator himself was not in position to arraign
nm upon such CHI arges before the Senate or
elsewhere.
Did any one in the Senate, on the occasion
when he delivered his speech here witness this
scene described by the Senator! Did any one
near any one of these Senators applaud OF cheer
| nm! lie would ask the Senator from Mas
sachusetts to state whether he had either ap-
plauded or cheered him (Mr. r. on that oc-
casian!
Mr.. Sumner said that when the Senator
from South Carolina made his speech, he (NIr.
| - occupied his own seat. He listened to the
| Senator with attention. But, as Il lover of this
Union, he heard him speak of disunion, not
only without appreciation, either felt or express
ed but with strong feelings of dissent
Mr.. Rhett then asked the Senator from Ohio
| Mr. Chase) to state whether he had applauded
| or cheered on the occasion referred to!
Mr.. Chase said that he had listened to the
Senator from South Carolina with great atten
ton. He was not aware that he had ever
manifested outwardly disse mt or approval of any
thing said in debate. But, so far as the Senator
maintained the State-right doctrines of Jeffer-
son and Madison, and opposed consolidation
| ism, he approved Of his remarks but, SO far as
| he spoke against the Union, he dissented from
him entirely, and of course could not applaud or
approve such sentiments.
Mr.. Rhett said that every Senator knew the
| truth OF this matter. The Senators he had
| called upon had declared they had neither APP
| plauded, cheered or encouraged him in his
| speech; and yet the Senator from Alabama had
said they did, all three. He would leave it to
the country to judge how far the Senator was
entitled to credit in this charge, and how far he
was entitled to arraign him upon a want of
fidelity to principle and honor. There was also
the charge that there existed sympathy be-
| tween him and these Senators upon the subject
OF dlsunion. 1t was well known that he had
denounced the Union as it now exists with a
violated Constitution. 1t was equally well
| known that the Senators from New Y ork, (Mr.
Seward,) from Ohio, Mr.. Chase a nd the 9TH
ers alluded to, had all glorifed the Union, and
had denounced disunion; in this they were cor
daily united in sentiment with the Senator
| from Alabama, who also praised this Union in
the highest terms.
| He then proceeded to show that the Senator
| from Alabama was not the man to arraign any
| one upon the charge of inconsistency. 1t was
custom in the English courts for counsel to
state totheJury what was expected to be proved
lie would now state what he expected to prove
| he would arraign the Senator and prove his
charge by the Senator's own speeches. He
tnen read several pages containing summary
OF Mr.. Clemens speeches from December
| lo49, to the speech at this session upon the
Comp omise. During the reading, one of his
sheets was mislaid, OF could not be found, when
Mr.. Rhett said that he would publish it with
his remarks when printed.
| Mr.. Clemens asked that it be read now. He
desired to reply to it at once.
Mr.. Rhett said it was at his room at his ho-
tel; and, if the Senate would indulge him, he
would 90 after it.
Mr. Clemens desiring that it should be read,
MIR. Rhett left the Senate, and after some
time returned with the paper, which he read.
Alter reading the synopsis of the several
speeches, he then read copious extracts from
speeches of Mr.. Clemens, of the following
dates:
December 27, 1849, he introduced series of
resolutions In the Senate, calling upon the Pre-
sident of the United States to communicate to
the Senate whether any steps had been taken
| by the Government towards formation of
State government in California or not, and
whether any agent had been sent there by the
Government to induce the people to form such
government, &C., &c.
On the 10th OF January, 1850, on the motion
| to PRINT the resolutions of the Legislature of
Vermont, the Senator from Alabama made
speech, in which he spoke of two classes of trail
/ tors-one the northern fanatics, who, reckless
Consequences, to accomplish their ends, sought
the subversidn of the Constitution, &C., the
other, for whom he had less respect, was COM
posed of those tind doubling, hesitating men
at the South, who would not march up to the
line, and repel, upon the threshold, all encroach-
ments upon their rights-that is, (said Mr.. CO.
men who would not resist the admission of Cal
ifornia and fight. Where was the Senator
now!
On the 18th of February, 1850, on the pre-
sentation of a petition by the Senator from New
Hampshire to dissolve the Union, the Senator
made speech, in which he treated the charge
OF being disunionist with contempt and held
that the South, IN resisting the proposed meas
ures, was not to be blamed for putting the Union
in danger, but that those who persisted in the
aggression were alone responsible for the conse-
quences
On the Goth February the Senator denounced
the proposed admission of California, and said
that under the Compromise resolutions of Mr..
Clay the North got all, and the South lost all;
that he preferred the Wilmot proviso to be
openly adopted than its application in an indi-
rect way by smuggling California into the I'm
ion. He distinctly counselled disunion, allud-
ed to Washington's Farewell Address, and
claimed that if Washington were alive he would
be found on the side of the South justifying re-
sistance to such aggressions.
On the 8th Of May the Senator attacked the
report of the Select Committee of Thirteen,
and denounced as traitors all those who support
ed tit being nothing more than the plan con-
tanned in Mr.. Clay's resolutions.
On the 10th of May he aTaigned Mr.. Foote
and Mr.. Mangum, for supporting that Compro-
mise, as untaithful to the South; and denounced
Mr.. Foote'S "best we can get'' doctrine, as I'M
worthy of Senators. He (Mr. CO. would never
if he was to bear chains, inquire to the forma-
ton Of the links-if to be dashed, he would not
ask the color of the cowhide.
On the 18th August he protested against the
passage of the California bill; and in the course
OF his argument maintained the sovereignty of
the States; declared that his allegiance was due |
alone to the State of Alabama that if to obey |
her ordinances was treason, then he was trai-
tor, and gloried in the name; that treason was
not committed against any power by his obeying
the mandates of his State and that tLsra ,.-oro