Washington telegraph., 1856-05-28

ment, restricting the elective franchise 4
citizens of the United States. preferre,
the blllin that state, as explained. But
substitute was offered in the House leay
ing out the Clayton amendment, and
voted for that substitute, believing that i
those who thought with me should make ;
point upon that particular amendment, har
mony among the friends of the bill nigh
| be so tar disturbed as to endanger the bill
L was for the bill earnestly as whole; ane
the positions taken in my argument at the
time have steadily maintained, before my
constituents. here. since returned to thi.
Hall, at Philadelphia. everywhere, where
have discussed the question.
But TO make the most of that specification
in the platform, it is but an expression a:
to a by- gone issue, while the seventh sec
tion Of the platform lays down vital prin.
cip:e Of action for the present and the fu
ture covering the whole ground, and re-as-
setting the leading principle embodied both
In the old 18th section and in the Nebraska
act
Mr- Jones, of Tennessee With my
colleagues permission, desire to ask one
question. 1t is not my habit to interrupt
gentlemen, and should not do so now,
but from the fact that it is claimed in
some places, and particularly in our own
State, that that twelfth section recognizes
the same principle which is contained in
the Kansas-Nebraska act, and that it re-
cognises the right of the people of the
Territory of Kansas to prohibit or admit
slavery while In territorial condition,
ask my colleague if he so construes the
9TH section?
Mr.. Zollicofer. / stated my position
a few moments since on that precise point
L placed it on record when the Nebraska
bill was on its passage, and beg leave to
say to my colleague Mr.. Jones that 1
cannot now properly consume more time
in dwelling upon it.
My colleague Mr.. Smith objects to
the platform adopted by the American
party, because it has not the word 'Eslave-
~" in it, and he argues that thereby and
therefore, we IGNORE the question of sla-
very. Mr.. Chairman, it is little re-
markable that the very next gentleman
who followed my colleague In debate-the
Republican member from New York Mr.
Grasger made an argument that slavery
is ignored by the general and State gov
ernments because the ,cord slarery can
not be found in the Constitution of the
United States, and was not to be found
in the constitutions of the original thir-
teen States. My colleague then bases his
objection to that section of the platform
upon the precise line of argument which
Republicans and Abolitionists assume in
denying the legal existence of slavery
in denying that the constitutions of the
States and the constitution of the United
States have recognized the institution be-
cause tile scord 'skauery'' is not inserted
in them. Does he not see into what fatal
errors such assumptions lead !?
My colleague expressed regret that l
had remarked, in debate here, that 1 re-
garded men who lived In the South, and
believed in the constitutionality of the
Wilmot Proyiso, as being, though not in
tending it, more dangerous to the South
than Northern abolitionists. Here, again,
my colleague does not present correctly
the sentiment which l uttered. 1t Will
be remembered that on the 18th of JAN
uary last, distinguished gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Stephens] seeing me re-
ported in the Globe of that day, some
what as my colleague now reports me,
propounded questions which enabled me
promptly to state the idea which [ under
stood as expressing. 1 then stated (see
Appendix to Congressional Globe, PIP. 81,
5S, 59,) that what l meant to say was,
that the theory of the constitutionality of
the Wilmot proviso, particularly if held
by Southern men, was more dangerous,
and had done more damage, to the consti-
tutional rights of the Southern States,
than open efforts of Northern Abolition
lists. 1 explained that did not mean to
say that gentlemen who entertained that
belief were less patriotic than those who
believe as I do, that the Federal Govern
ment has no such constitutional power
1 did not say that they were more danger
GUS than Northern Abolitionists, but that
the theory or political doctrine was more
dangerous and had done more damage to
the South than the open efforts of Aboli-
tionists- On the contrary, l expressly
stated that there were many patriotic, ma
tional men who had fallen into that erro-
neous theory. My colleagues vindication
of their patriotism therefore and his remark
that he would rather vote for such a man
than to vote for an out-and-out Freesoiler,
would seem to give rise (however intend
ed to an erroneous inference as to what
my actual position was
Why do think that that theory of the
Constitution is more dangerous than the
open efforts of avowed abolitionists The
open efforts of avowed abolitionists art
impotent for harm, because the masses Of
the American people sternly reprobate il
as inimical to the Constitution and to the
stability of the government; but wher
Southern statesmen, whose patriotic pur
poses are not doubted, gravely declare tha
they believe the Wilmot Proviso is consti
tutional, the politicians and people of th'
North are not slow to adopt this theory
and then the only question left with then
i ia IL II exnedient to adopt the WllmO