Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1856-10-21

, PuPCio VI plttoIisil d1OFS~
said may arrive for delivery, shall under
the instructions of the P. NJ General,
from time to time give notice OF the same,
so that they may be Withdrawn by the per-
son who deposited them originally to be
mailed; and if the same shall not be with
drawn IN one month thereafter, shall be
burnt or otherwise destroyed
DANIEL WEBsrER opposed the BILL
He commenced his argument against what
he centended was Its vagueness and OBJ
security, in not sufficiently defining what
were the publications, the circulation of
which it was intended to prohibit, and
/ continued:
"The bill provided that it should not be
lawful for any deputy postmaster in any
State, Territory, or District of the Uni
ted States knowingly to deliver L. any
person whatever, any pamphlet, newspa-
per, hand bill, or other printed paper or
pictorial representation touching the SUBJ
ject of Slavery, where, by the law of the
said State, District or Territory their cir
culation was prohibited. Under this pro-
vision, Mr.. w. contended that it was i'm
possible to say what publications might
not be prohibited from circulation. No
matter what was the publication, whether
tor or against slavery, if it touched the
subject IN any shape or form, it would fall
under the prohibition. Even the Consti-
tuition of the United States might be pro-
h.blted: and the persons who was clothed
with the power TO Judge in this delicate
matter, was one of the deputy post mas
ters, who, Notwithstanding the difficulties
with which he has encompassed In COM
ing to direct decision, must decide cor
rectly, under pain of being removed from
Office. Was this bill in accor-
dance with the general force and temper
OF the Constitution and its amendments?
1t was not IN accordance with that proyis-
ION of the instrument under which the
freedom of speech and of the press was
| secured.
Whatever laws the State Legislature
might pass on tie subject, Congress was
restrained from legislating in any manner
whatever In regard to the press. 1t wo'd
be admitted that if a newspaper came di-
rected to him, he had a property In it;
and how could any man, then, take that
property and burn it, without due form of
law! and he did not know how this news
paper could be pronounced an unlawful
publication, and having no property in it,
without legal trial.
Mr. w. argued against the right to ex-
anime into the nature of publications. sent
to the post office, and said that the righ,
of an individual in his papers was secure
to him in every free country in the world.
In England 1t was expressly provided that
the papers of the subject shall be free
from all unreasonable searches and seiz-
ures-language he said, TO be found in
our Constitution. This principle estab-
lIshed III England, SO essential to liberty,
had been followed out In France, where
the right of printing and publishing was
secured IN the fullest extent; the individ-
aai publishing being amenable to the laws
for what he published; and every man
printed and published what he pleased, at
his peril. Mr.. w. went on at some length
to show that the bill was contrary to that
provision of the Constitution which pro-
hi5lts Congress to pass any law abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press.
Henry CLAY said that he considered
this bill totally unnecessary and uncalled
tor by public sentiment; and in this he Diff
fered with the Senator from Pennsylva-
MIA, Mr. Buchanan,) for he believed
that the Presidents Message on that SUBJ
ject had met with general disapprobation
that it was unconstitutional, and if not so,
that 1t contained a principle of most
dangerous and alarming character. When
he saw that the exercise of the most ex-
traordinary and dangerous power had been
assumed by the head of the Post Office,
and that it had been sustained by the mes
sage, he turned his attention to the sub
ject, and enquired whether it was neces-
sary THAT the General Government should,
under any circumstances, exercise such
| power, and whether he possessed it; and,
after much reflection, he had come to the
conclusion that they could not pass any
law interfering with the subject in any
shape whatever. IF. said Mr..
c., you can pass this law to prohibit the
delivery through the Post Office, of pub
locations touching the subiec. of slavery,
might you not also pass laws to prohibit
any citizen of New York or Massachu-.I
sets from publishing and transmitting
through the mails anything touching that
subject! If you touch the subject of sla-
very at all, why not go at the root of the
! evil? Suppose one OF the southern States
were to pass law Of this kind, would you
not be called upon by all the arguments
noy used in favor of this bill, 10 carry
such law into effecte Mr. c. concluded
by saying that the bill was calculated to
destroy ali the landmarks of the Consti
tuition, establish precedent for danger
/ Gus Legislation, and TO lead to incalculable
mischief.
There was no necessity for so danger
GUS an assumption of authority, the State
laws being perfectly competent TO correct
the evil complained of. He must say,
that from The first to the last he was op-
posed to the measure
JAMES BucHANAN was one out of only
three northern men who voted for this in
! famous act. Among the yeas are BU-
! CHANAN, CALHOUN, WALKER,
4 KING of Alabama, &c. Among the
1 nays, stand recorded the names of BEN