Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1855-03-02
ConarfssionaI.
THIRTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
SECOND SESSION.
senate-Thursday, March 1, 1858.

Senate-Thursday, March 4, 1855.
The resolution heretofore offered by Mr.. CAss,
in relation 10 securing freedom of religious wor-
ship for American citizens residing or travelling in
foreign countries, de-, was agreed 10.
Nine private bills were passed.
The House bill for the modification Of the emf
grant passenger laws was passed, with amend
ments.
The Senate, al twelve o'clock proceeded TO the
consideration Of the civil and diplomatic appro-
pralion bill.
Mr.. CLAYTON moved TO strike out the tariff
sections He thought it was mol only unusual,
but improper to legislate on such an important
subject in connection with the appropriation that
must be made TO sustain the government. II was
coercive legislation which he condemned. II re-
quired the Senate 10 submit 10 the House, or lose
the appropriations. This result was held in terro-
,em bur he said he should do his duty.
! Mr.. HUNTER referred 10 the circumstances
under which the provisions in relation 10 the tariff
were inserted by the House, TO show that there
was no choice but between general modification
and special one in reference 10 railroad iron and
raw WOOL For his own part, he was in favor of
general modification of the tariff On the ques-
ton Of precedent, he admitted that he should be
opposed, as an original proposition, TO inserting
the House provision but il was in the bill, and he
would not strike il out. He was opposed 10 the
practice Of lacking; but there were some cases
in which il was Justifable. and he thought this
one
| Mr.. BADGER moved an amendment, to remit
the duly on fallrOaO iron ald down between July
l, 1853 and 1856, and 10 admit dye-stufs and un-
manufactured wool free Of duty. He announced
his determination TO move and vote for amend
ments which he thought necessary TO act other
wise, would be 10 abandon the legislative power
of the Senate 10 which he never could consent.
| Mr.. CLAYTON commended that the measure
was too important 10 be passed without consider
alton, and there not sufficient lime TO consider
| il during this session.
Mr.. BRODHEAD contended that these tariff
| wara III n
condemned this mode OF legislation and the object
which prompted it.
Il Mr. COOPER said this was not the time for the
passage of such measure. Instead of carrying
blessings to the county, which the Senator from
Virginia foresaw in its future workings, he anti
cipated poverty and desolation in many cottages.
Such departure from the ordinary mode OF legls-
ation, too, if sanctioned, would lead 10 the add.
ton Of the French spoation bill, Miss Dixs bill,
and others which had failed TO stand alone, and
legislation would become irregular, confused, and
hazardous.
Mr.. BADGER explained the reasons why he
submitted his amendment, and stated that when
the proper time came he should call for division
Of Mr.. CLAYToN's motion, so as 10 take a vote on
substituting his amendment for the tariff sections
of the bill
Il Mr.. PEARCE examined the condition Of the
revenue system, TO show the effect Of the propos-
ed measures, and on its E:erits was opposed to 1t,
though he considered that the revenue should be
decreased.
MT HUNIEh thought Inc magnitude OF the
subject had been exaggerated, and examined the
effect of the proposed tariff, 10 show that il
would yield sufficient revenue for an economical
administration OF the Government, and would be
highly beneficial TO the people at large.
After further debate, and without disposing of
the question before it, the Senate took recess
until evening.
House of Representatives.
During the evening session of Wednesday,
Messrs. YATES, GOODRICH, and CAMPBELL, respec-
lively, delivered their views against the further
extension of slavery; when
Mr. BANKS rose ard 1--WE copy from the Globe
replied 10 remarks heretofore made by Mr.. KEITT
with reference 10 Massachusetts politics; and
mentioned several facts 10 show that the present
character of that State is not be Judged by its
character during the late As the Hartford
Convention, ii had been declared on the floor OF
Congress that their purpose was not 10 dissolve
the Union. One of the objects was TO vindlcate
the right OF the State TO pronounce an opinion on
tho Federal Government; in other words, II was
a question Of Stale rights. With what propriety
could South Carolina reproach Massachusetts
when she herself claimed disunon as right?
Mr.. KEITT replied, when South Carolina pro-
posed disunion, she did il with open doors; she
never did il in the midst OF conflict with foreign
toe, and never will
Mr.. BANKS said that the fact that South Caro-
lima proposed disunon with open doors did not
change the character of the act. In further reply
TO remarks OF Mr. KEITT, he read an extract from
letter apostolic of Pope Gregory XVI, dated
1889, TO show the Pope prohibited and inter-
dcted the commerce in slaves under any pretext
color and discussed the question OF sovereignty
T and suffrage. He replied 10 Mr.. CHANDLER, real.
frming that neither the Pope of Rome, nor any
council authorized 10 speak for that church, has
10 control the aity of that church in temporal
affairs and referred 10 numerous Roman Catholic
authorities 10 support his positions.
Mr.. KEfTT, replying TO Mr.. BANKS, said, that
opinions of the Catholics in the United States, and
this is shown by the fact that the Catholic popula
ton Of this country are against Abolitionsm.
These things the gentleman from Massachusetts
has shown.
Mr. BANKS replied that his remark was directed
TO one historical point proclaimed by the Roman
church, but never denied,
Mr.. KEITT. Shall prescribe the Catholic
church because Of its religious tenets? II is not
for me 10 fling stones at others. Can do il be-
cause it has been traitorous TO the Constitution
The gentleman from Massachusetts says, the
members Of the Catholic church have repudiated
dctation in the particular o! slavery.
lie then alluded TO the fact that lille witchcraft
| prevailed In Massachusetts, the Catholics of Ma
| ryand threw out the flag of religious federation,
the only spot where IL, foated during that time Of
peril and persecution.
| Mr. SELLERS Gnterrupting) said his friend
| should bear in mind that the charter granted 10
| Lord Baltimore was from Protestant King It
was limited charter, and during the existence OF
the provincial government, there was always a
| Protestant majority. The question Of religious
federation never brought as a religious test,
except on one memorable occasion. The Catho-
lies dared not violate the charter granted by
Protestant King.
Mr. KEITT replied he had stated the fact as he
had read il in history, and as recorded by Ban
Croft who resides in Boston. II was a charter
granted by Protestant King for religious toera.
lion, and was now TO be violated by Professionals
against Catholics who were true 10 the charter,
and founded cities and ruled the Commonwealth.
The Catholics were true TO is the Protesiants
false to il.
Mr. SELLERS said the very instant the Roman
Catholics got the ascendency, they tried, by all
possible means, 10 make Maryland Catholic
State.
Mr.. J. G. ALLEN asked whether Protestant
Kings did not give charters 10 New England States
without religious toleraton7
Mr., KEITT. That is true but have stated