The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-23

the rights Of property Of those holding slaves and wihou
any proposition 20 compensate them for their properly
| Mi WALKER. | about coming to that very point
in regard TO the amendment which offered was s'a'nf
that the senator from South Carolina and his colleague pom
differed understood al the time, with all nay Ideas aoou.
the Mexican laws They conended that the annexation o'
the country the United States and The prevalence OF the
constitution over IT. abrogated those laws and that hey ha
the right under the constitution TO the Territories WIN
their slave properly believed the contrary but taxing
them at their word offered the amendment 70 which my
friend from Iowa has alluded He and voted for they
voted for IT, was willing TO take them at their word we
both understood the difference ofopnion at that time now
that what II is proposed to do by this bl Are hey WIZ
ling 10 do they did them They contend now that
the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional are 'hey
willing to leave that question, in 1880 they LETT the qnes
ton of the existence of the Mexican laws one
decsion Not at all They only require that the act OF
1929 shall be repealed whether constitutional or unconsl-
uona but that language shall be used which, contrary %
what is said by the from Connecticut, consider to
be express declaration the of Congress that thcy
will not give the bill any other effect than that wheh WIN
result from simple repeal and that result is claimed ny
to be the establishment of the former slave laws.
Thus they deyiating from the course which was
formerly pursued. am not doing Then was not
willing to rest the my opinion they were Wiling
to take me at my word II seems now to be conceded tha
| was right then.
Now while they, with great contend that
the Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional, and some OF
contend with equal srenuousness that constitutional
why they not willing to risk their Judgments on that
question: il NOT why not repeal expressly the missouri
Compromise, and leave the consequences indubtabe or
you intend express the consequences result let the OK
preston be clears let be said that this repeal not intended
to revive the French laws creative Of slavery That I'M
dersand to be the proposition which my friend from Mch
gan intends offer and think that will come nearer TO
the Compromise which made in 1859 than this does
Mr. cAss think due to my colleague that SHOULD
say that far respects myself and him. should explain
to the Senate the clear misconcepon IN regard to what
he said. understood him distinctly. In the warmth OF
expression perhaps he may have further than ne IN
tended bur, far he went coincide with him. and it
was within the legitimate range of discussion Ills state
men. was that the proposition voted by the senate WAS
that he reflection upon anybody voting for It,
proposition may be logically historically false, but that
may have kind of relation to the vote upon it.
or to the opinions persons maintaining it. This is fair
mode of argument and that the whole which my
colleague when he said that the proposition was og
caly false. fully with him in the statement but
with the remoest idea of throwing impuaton on any
else but combining myself to the legitimate course Of
argument am sure that's all he meant understood
Nj WELLER In regard to the subject alluded to by
the from Michigan, Mr. Glass; must be allowed to
that having occupied the chair temporarily during the
time that discussion going on, heard every word
which uttered by the senator from Michigan, Mr.
STUART did not hear single expression escape his lips
which, in my Judgment ought to give just cause OF offence
to single senator on this floor. That his
little dctatora little after the fashion Of lecture admit
II was that than what he uttered to which felt dis
posed object But that neither that senator nor
myself ought be held responsible for our respective man.
oenmes speak and utter things with such warmth
and produce the impression upon these
who are of unfortunate that are
speaking under the influence of passion and design provo
| king angry feelings.
|
Wisconsin He started out this evening with the deara
ton that he had heard nothing from the advocates OF this
BILL except what might be termed strictly dogmacal that
he had heard nothing but defamation bitter denuncaton,
high sounding phrases and dogmatsm from the advocates OF
the bill Now undertake to say that there never has been
discussion in the AmsIican Senate involving questions
directly interesting large portion of the American
conederacy which have been discussed with greater ability
with cooness with calmness, with regard
for the settled rules Of courtesy observed among SENATOR'S
than this very debate. have not, the little legislative
experience which have had heard debate upon qucs
lion which necessarily involved good deal of feeling con-
Quoted with the camness and poprey which have wit
messed during the progress of this BILL may be allowed,
also, say that have heard from friends of the bill on
the other side of the chamber of the most learned and
eloquent speeches. sure, which escaped from hui
man lips If the from Wisconsin could not COM
prehend them it his misfortune. | confident that
The great body Of the Senate did fully comprehend them
Sir may be under obligations sometimes to furnish argu-
ments but under obligations furnish capacity to
comprehend them The one might be easy the other GER
Now, sir think the senator went good deal gu, of his
way when he sad such my learned friend from
Michigan, MIR. Cas-, and the senator from Delaware,
Mr CLAYTos, distinguished he and ever has been,
in all the departments Of the government for his learning
and his abliiyand my distinguished friends from North
Carolina, IMr BApoEal Virginia, [Mr HusrKRl and
Others that they have produced single argument TO
sustain this bill II natural enough after having made
such declaration, that the from Wisconsin should
upon the defence Of his dstngu friends from
Ohio and Massachusetts, Messrs. CHASE and SuMSrR,
and that he mortified aicfiiy mortified that
strong language should have been used against those two
distinguished patriots who sit Immediately IN his rear
grossly Mistaken the strongest epithets, the harsh
es language have heard in this debate have from
this very quarter The advocates Of the bill have been
sinned agains, than SHINING. They, any, have
just right to complain.
Sir the senator from Ohio and the from Massacbu-
scs doubt not fully competent TO defend themselves
The first obligation, however, which naturally as
sumes when he desires to identify himself with eboonsm
s defend its chosen championsts recognised leaders
When he has ths, allow to say TO him that
think have attained the point where he and compel
led to take leave each other There stopping place
Sir whenever you yield inch the demands OF those
men who represented the floor Of the Senate by
the senators from Ohio and Massschusetts,he
whom the from Wisconsin has defendedfrom
that moment you have yielded their embraces, and
you uevocaby gone. On this road there no
halfway houses. You must go whithersocver they choose
TO lead.
Mr. President, the senator from Wisconsin said that it
unfortunate that there difference of opinion among
the friends Of this bill its construction Why, in
the of common sense should that awfuy disturb
him There difference the Of clause
in the bill; but willing leave that where all such
questions should be left the arbament Of the Supreme
Court Sir, did know Of two honest judges who
differed in opinion The construction TO be given
law How often is IL that, your discussions courts OF
Justice of legal aanmcns having other object in
than arrive truth differ widely the
ton to be given act OF legislation How ia tina, diff
be solved Under form Of government
finally pass upon all these questions where differences
arise the construction Of statutes But cir, whatever
differences mny exist among the friends of this BILL beg
the honorable senator from Wisconsin, Gods nnme
give himself trouble about IT, As does harass
do why il should disturb him. beg him, there