Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-01-25


sour eompFcmise line, that gentleman Mr. Richard
sonl in 1850 took the position that the Constitu'
ton of the United States did not operate TO carry
into the Territories of the United States south OF
that line protection for the institution of slavery
And not only tnat--as if that had not been sufi-
cient--but that, if it were necessary, he would
vote to apply the Wimot proviso there?
Mr.. STEPHENS. Win the gentleman allow me to
say a wordy
Mr.. RIcHARDsos. have only to say that the
gentleman from Tennessee misunderstood what
did say.
Mr. STEPHENS. Mr.. Clerk, if the gentleman
from Tennessee will allow mel am sure he does
not desire to misrepresent the gentleman from Iii il
nOis. The record viii show that the gentleman
from Illinois uniformly voted againstthe application
of the Wilmot proviso to the territories acquired
from Mexico south of SO 80; and thus, by his
vote, repudiated the position which he is reported
TO have assumed in debate in the excitement of the
moments which position, however, was merely that
rather than have the bill for the organization of
those Territories lost be would consent to have the
Wimot proviso Incorporated in it. He voted
against putting it in.
Mr. ZoLLIcoFFER The gentleman from Georgia
is wrong.
Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman from Illinois
voted against the exercise of any such power,
whatever he might have said its constitution
atty.
Mr.. ZoLLICoFFER / refer the gentleman to
page 424, Of the Appendix to the Congressional
Globe, for the session of lS49-'50, in which he
will find the gentleman there reported as saying in
substance that, if bills for the organization of these
Territories-silent on the subject of slavery land,
OF course, leaving the Mexican laws to operate its
prohibition were defeated then he was for bills
organizing those Territories with the Wimot pro-
vso in them. do not pretend to quote the Ian
guage of the gentleman, but that the substance
of what be said
And now, in reference to what the gentleman
from Georgia says in regard to the resolution of
the caucus of the Democratic party of the House
at the commencement of the present session-that
1t was based not upon measure, but upon prin-
ciple, and that principle the principle Of non-nter
ventou in the Terrtories-I desire TO ask the gen
tleman from Georgia when it was that he became
the advocate of non.interventon? Does he not
know that his record but few years ago, places
him in direct opposition to the principle of non
Intervention? VIII he not conced that he was the
advocate, and not only the advocate, of the pow
er III Congress to introduce or prohibit slavery in
the Territories, but that he cOntended upon the
floor of this House that the only means of harmo-
ny between the North and South was the exercise
OF this power by Congress? Does he not know
that he in favor of Federal Intervention with
with the people Of the Territories for the settles
ment of this question? l ask him to inform the
House when he-the opponent Of the principle
OF non Observation-Disclosures the advocate of that
great principle?
Mr. STEPHENS. Does the gentleman wish an an.
swer?
Mr. Z0LLICoFFER. / do.
Mr. STEPHENS IL was when the North would
not exercise this power fairly. Ny opinions always
were that the matter should be left to the people of
the Territory. As an original question, never
doubted the power of this government to institute
governments over the territories Of the country.
was for its exercise if all on the subject of slave
~, fairly andjustly, and to give the people OF the
South at least some participation in it; and it was
not until the North, with almost united front-the
gentleman from Illinois Mr.. Richardson and few
associates were the only ones who stood up against
this Northern tide-it when the North disa
vowed the principle of fair division, which, with
the South, was alternative at least that l. with
the South, fell back upon their original position,
that Congress should not interfere with the question
at all. That is my position from the beginning and
throughout, and up to the present time.
Mr.. ZoLLICoFFER. have been disposed to throw
no stones at any gentleman and particularly as to
gentleman Mr.. Richardson whose general polt-
ical course have regarded to be soundand nation
al; but when | see such temper as is occasionally
exhibited toward gentlemen who are as sound and
as true TO the constitutional principles of the Gov
this floor, then say to you that there are records
behind certain gentlemen which shall be presented
to the American people. l can bring them out, and
will do so when those war to-the- knife symptoms,
OF which have seen indications here, shall be
pushed on this floor. That is all have TO say now
| vote against the resolution.
Mr.. RICHARDSON. Mr.. Clerk, the gentleman from
Tennessee seems to misunderstood the remarks
which made on last Saturday; and desire to say
to the gentleman only this in 1850, when sub
mitted the remarks to which he REFERS and while |
discussed the position assumed by various gentle
men on this hoor then stated that il was the duty
OF Congress TO pass laws in reference to this ques-
ton, and to let the people decide, when they came
to frame their constitution, what their domestic in
situations should be. l endeavored to bring them
to the point by showing what their positions respect
lively were.
Mr. ZoLLICoFFER. repeat, am grati6ed that
the gentleman from Illinois did take back on Satur-
day last the position which he occupied in his speech
in 1850. need not repeat the sentiments of per-
sonal respect and general admiration of his positions
on that national question which expressed on Fri
day but, at the same time / must do myself the
justice, if the House will permit me, to say that the
interrogatories which propounded to the gentle.
man from Illinois were predicated on his record at
thepage which have cited to the House-questions
as 10 the territorial governments for the territory
acquired from Mexico the greater portion Of which,
leaving out California, lay south of the Missouri
compromise line.
The gentleman from Illinois maintained that the
local laws of New Mexico at the time prohibited
slavery. He maintained that the Constitution oil
the United States could not carry to, or protect
slavery in the Territories and he urged that the
Wmot Provso was therefore unnecessary; that the
local law aboShng slavery ought to be satisfactory
to the ansi-slavery men. lie said that If the bill,
silent the subject of slavery the local law being
Of course left to operate its prohibition in the terri
tory south OF $50 80, were defeated, that he would
vote for the Wmot Proviso. What would be the
effect Of that vote? / am gratifed that he has Ia.
ken that position back; but il III becomes gentlemen
who wish TO be considered the conservers OF the
constitutional rights of the South 10 make attacks
on the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.. Fuller
Mr.. STEPHENS. The gentleman, trust, does moi
suppose that intended to make any attack on the
gentleman from Pennsylvania If he does | beg
to tell him he is mistaken | was really and truth
fully graIfed to see him take the position which hi
did
Mr. ZoLLIcoFTKR. Ny opinion is, that the advo
Gates of the constitutional power Of Congress tC
establish prohibit slavery IN the territory Of III,
United StAtes-though they may live 10 the South
though they may profess to be the advocates Of the
constitutional rights of the South-are doing to the
South more damage, and are more dangerous thar
the Aboitonisfs OF the North. Nv purpose ha.
been TO draw out the candidates for the speakershF
into an expression OF their sentiments and ihei
records IN this House; and ! think that have &C
cOmplished it,
ROBES DE CHAMBRE.
UsT received few handsome Dressing Gowns. Ao,
% small lot OF palmer styles. J. H. McGiLL.