The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-12-18
SENATE.

Thursday, December IL, 1856.
Mr. Bell, of New Hampshire, appeared in
his seat this morning.
On motion, it was ordered, that when the
Senate adjourn, it be TO Monday next.
On motion by Mr. Houston,
ResolUed, That the Committee on Finance
be instructed to inquire into the expediency of
suspending the duties upon sugar and molasses
for the period of two years.
The Senate proceeded to the consideration
of the resolution relating to the printing of an
extra number of the Presidents message, with
the accompanying documents.
| Mr.. Cass, who was entitled to the floor, rose
and addressed the Senate at length
| Mr.. Hale obtained the floor when
Mr. Rusk felt it his duty to state that the
printers to Congress were delayed in their bust
ness, from the want Of the passage of the order
to print, and he wonld ask that, by general
| consent, the question be taken on that order,
and thus allow the debate to proceed
This was agreed to, and the order to print
| $4,000 copies of the message and accompany
ing documents was made.
| Mr.. Hale then addressed the Senate at con-
siderable length in reply to Mr.. Cass and others
who had preceded on the same side, replying
with much wit and good humor to interrogato-
ries put to him by Messrs. Pugh, Bigler, and
| others.
| Mr.. Jones, of Tennessee, obtained the floor,
when the Senate, at a late hour, adjourned.
HOUSE
The House resumed the consideration of the
Presidents annual message.
Mr.. II. Marshall, of Kentucky, remarked
that he understood the position of the Repub-
licaH and Abolition parties, but did not under
stand that occupied by the Democratic party.
He did not believe that there was upon the
Democratic side of the House a single gentle.
man who could rise in his place, and in the
face of the country, announce an opinion upon
the subject Of the right of the people of Terri
tory to govern themselves, that would command
the acquiescence of that party North and South.
Yesterday, the gentleman from South Carolina
Mr.. Keitt made most eloquent speech
against it yet the gentleman from Michigan
and the gentleman from South Carolina were
both National Democrats
Mr.. Keitt. The gentleman says ! am a Ma
tional Democrat. 1t is word / discard.
Mr.. Marshall. 1t only shows that some of
the brightest lights of the Democratic party
are sectional.
Mr.. Keitt. That is the inference of the gen.
tleman from Kentucky. ] say that | am a
supporter Of the Constitution and if that in
strument happens to be confined to one section
by the action and principles of another section,
it is not my business.
Mr.. Marshall. I stand corrected by nv
friend from South Carolina, and will give him
the benefit of his own declaration, that he is a
constitutional Democrat. But if he is a con-
stitutional Democrat in the opinions he pro.
fesses l should like to know whether the gen
tleman considers the distinguished Senator to
whom have alluded-the father of the popular
sovereignty doctrine-as an unconstitutional
Democrat? Laughter.
Mr.. keitt understood that neither the Con-
gross of the United States nor a Territorial
Legislature had the right to prohibit Slavery
in a Territory.
Mr.. Marshall replied, that the answer was
just such one as had been given for the past
four years. If the Democratic party went be-
fore the people of the North with the declara
ton in their mouths that they were better Free.
Soilers than the Republicans themselves. and
before the people of the South with the asser-
ton that they were opposed to the doctrine of
popular sovereignty, he only desired that this
fact should be made manifest to the country.
MIR. Smith, of Tennessee, desired the gentle
man to point to an instance where any portion
OF the Democratic party had claimed to be
better Free-Soilers than the Republicans.
Mr.. Grow, OF Pennsylvania, with the consent
of the gentleman from Kentucky, read several
extracts from the MontrOSe Democrat, to the
effect, If there are any miserable doughfaces
IN the American Congress, Mr.. Grow is one of
themi" that Mr.. Grow voted to plant SIa-
very In free territory the Democracy repudi-
ate him for the act" &c
Mr. Marshall then read from speeches of
Senators Trumbull and Fessenden, to prove
that In the North the Democracy claimed to be
as much opposed to Slavery extension as the
Republican party.
Mr.. Marshall said that the issue in the late
election was the doctrine of the Kansas.Ne-
Draska bill. lie desired to know of Southern
Democrats if Senator Mason announced the
philosophy upon which they had triumphed,
when he declared that the principle of the Ne.
braska act was, " that the people of Territory,
when they organize themselves, or are organ
lzed under law into legislative body, have the
right to determine for themselves whether the
institution of Slavery should exist among them
or not, while Territory"
Mr.. Quitman, of Mississippi, dissented from
MIR. Mason, not believing that the people of a
Territory possessed sovereignty of any kind.
until that sovereignty was delegated by the
States through Congress, under the power del.
egated to Congress to admit new States into
the Union.
Mr.. McMullin, Of Virginia, was understood to
say that the speech of Mr.. Mason, as reported,
VOC hOC SOAISCt. ne WOuIQ tell the gentleman
from Kentucky, that every member from the
State of Virginia repudiated the doctrine of
squatter sovereignty, as promulgated in that
speech.
Mr. Marshall replied, that he happened TO
be present when the speech was delivered, and
that 1T was spoken substantially as written, and
with precision that left no doubt upon his
mind that the gentleman who spoke it under.
stood and was expressing his own sentiments.
Mr.. McMullin informed the gentleman from
Kentucky that he had called upon the Senator
from Virginia since he had made the speech in
question, and that that gentleman denied and
repudiated the doctrine of squatter sovereignty.
Mr.. Orr said he was one of those who did
not believe in the doctrine of squatter sover-
eighty, and be did not believe that the Kansas
Nebraska bill tolerated that doctrine within the
limits of those Territories The reasoning by
which he arrived at this result was, that there
was no authority in the Constitution of the Uni
ted States which authorized Congress to pass
the Wilmot proviso, or to put any other restric-
ton upon the Territories and, Congress not
having this power, he did not see how it could
invest the creature with greater power than was
possessed by itself.
Mr. Letcher, of Virginia, in reply to Messrs.
Sherman and Giddings of Ohio, denied that the
Democratic party was responsible for the Sla-
very agitation.
The House adjourned