The daily union., 1854-02-10

thai be will not lei me of. Why. he has entirely mis-
lasen this question. Il was question whether would
et nam OIL aaghierl for asserting that be would vote
against one amendment and for another upon distnc-
lion that involved sol OF difference That is the point
OF The matter.
Mo BUTLER Where is "Cfabb's Synonymes !"
That may settle the mater. lLaughterl
Mr. STUART | beg leave 10 say 10 the honorable
senator from North Carolina that hope be will not
speak oil me as coming 10 the aid Of my distinguished
Mr. BADGER 1 thought you did and ihoug ht he
needed il.
Mr., STUART, | am inclined to think that The coun-
Try Is oil opinion that he does not need assistance
from anybody, and especially not from me. Nor sir am
disposed TO undertake system OF tactics that shall
change he issue rose on my own aecouat not 10 aid
my colleague. The Issue ~ The one which stated
whether tbe legislation OF 1870 is superseded" 10 take
the senator's own words, rendered imperative on
count ol the legislation oil 1850, And now, s TO test
the sincerity OF lhe senator's satementl mean
the sincerity OF hls mind, moral asseflion but
legal assertione, us II that be so, strike The provision
out ol the bull and whether il will be decided by
adjudication OF the courts OF The country that the
eal legislation OF 1850 Tepeals annuls use the
senator's words, The legislation OF 1870 We will meet
him ihere-or will speak Tor myself. | will meet
him there, and with perfect conteniment
ask the senator lawyer, distinguished he is. il
client were 10 apply TO him asking the question: wheth
er since The legislation OF 1850, IN his opinion. he could
safely hold his slaves ia the Territory OF Nebraska IN
defiance OF the law OF $780, he would advise him that
he could The senator will understand me, not taking
anything into consideration other than the Legislation oil
1
compromise OF 1850, by their effect so modify
the law OF 1920 ha, hold my properly in slaves
within the Territory OF Nebraska? Would the senator
give that opnionl II so, mistaken, entirely mis-
taken, in saying that there is any difference between
using the language that The legislation OF 1850 super
sedes that OF 1890 and using the olhe language that
Inconsistent in principle with it. My idea is. that the
legislation OF 1870 applied 10 subject, that OF 1850
10 another subject, TO. vii, other Territories
MIR. BADGER Mr. President, the honorable senator
has himself enfely shifted the issue have expressed
opinion whether the egsalons OF the periods are
inconsistent with each other, whether the latter super
sedes The iormer not. have said nothing upon that
subject therefore. the which 10 put does not
afec my position al all My position is this: II the
egs aion OF one period applied 10 subject and the
legislation OF another period applied another subject,
then there be neither inconsistency supersesson
II thsy apply the SUBJECT then II there be incon-
slstency, there ia snpersesslon.
Mr.. STUART. No doubt OF IT,
Mr.. BADGER. Therefore | said that my honorable
friend from Mlchigan--ii he will allow me to call him
sowho is willing TO vote for prohibition declaring
them 10 be inconsistent and not for provision declaring
the superssde the other, made distinction with
out difference; but whether there any inconsistency,
or whether the supersedos the other not have
yet given opinion, and do not 10 give any,
because il is involved in The question upon which
have been speaking.
The motion 10 postpone the further consideration of
the bill unti tomorrow was agreed TO.