Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-01-31

Mr. Zocoffer. / suppose l do not misuns
dcrstand the gentleman from Georgia. now IN
dersiand him to express the opinion that the Fed
eral Government has constitutional power to
restrict slavery in any of the Territories of the
Uniei Sites; yet, in a spirit OF compromise, he
willing, in this instance, that the Constitution
should be violated in the measure proposing to
restrict slavery IN half the territory, and that the
Federal Government should thus do what the Con-
stitution itself prohibited.
Mr.. Stephens. No, sir, bold no such doctrine
The gentleman can assign me no such position. ]
voted to extend the line as an alternative; but |
did not hold, nor do I now hold, that violated
the Constitution in thus voting. And / want to
know of the gentleman from Tennessee if lac would
not have voted for the extension Of that line if
he had been here? When the whole South united
in agreeing to extend the line alternative, by
way Of compromise, in lS4S, ! want TO know Of
the gentleman from Tennessee-and call the at
tention Of the House to bis answer-whether he
would not, If he had been here, have voted with
the South for that extension? Would the gentle
man, or would he not?
Mr. Z1llcoffer Mr.. Clerk, it will be remember
ed that when this little sparring between the gen
tieman from Georgia and myself commenced
Mr. Stephens | do not Weld to the gentleman,
exeept to answer my question.
Ne Zollcofer. | will give the gentleman d.
rect answer.
Mr Stephens. Very WE'LL 90 on
Mr.. Z0llicOffer. ! say it win be remembered that
this little sparring between the gentleman from
Georgia and myself grew out of the fact, that when
the gentleman from Pennsy lvania, Mr. Fuller, for
whom have been voting as a candidate for Speak
er, defined his position the other day-when he an
nounced himself as occupying the high national POI
siton which he did, the gentleman from Georsia
rose and complimented him upon having revised his
opinions and corrected his position before The House
aud country. | confess, sir, that could not help
supposing that those compliments ironically
rendered, and | stated, in reply, chat it would be
well to remember that other gentlemen had correc
ted their positions besides the gentleman from Penn
sylvania.
And now, SIR, in reply to the nterrogatory of the
gentleman from Georgia, have say that from the
DAY of that crisis in 1850, when / saw what | saw
in the Nashville Southern Convention as it was
called-when | saw that body demanding the ex
tension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pa
cific-when | saw that body advocating the exer
else by the Federal Government of the power to
prohibit and permit the extension of slavery upon
the respective sides OF a certain geographical line
through the Territories belonging to the Govern
ment power that felt was not delegated by the
Constitution-when | saw that position taken by
the extreme men of the South sir, | planted my.
tories, when they come to form State governments
for themselves, had the sole right to determine tor
themselves whether they would have slavery not
MIR. Stephens. The gentleman has not answered
my question. | ask again. whether in l84S, when
the proposition was sent down from the Senate pro
posing to extend the Missouri line to the Pacific
coast would the gentleman from Tennessee have
voted for il?
Mr.. Zollicoffer. Well, Mr. Clerk, l will answer
the gentleman in this way
Mr.. Stephens. | cannot give the gentleman my
time except for direct answer to nv question. l
want to know whether, when Congress was prov
ding governments for the Territories acquired from
Mexico, he would, if he had been here, have voted
for the extension of the Missouri line through those
Territories or not?
Mr. ZOllicoffer. The time has been, Mr. Clerk
when the great body of men at the South, for the
sake OF choosing what they considered the smaller
Of two evils, had fallen in with this Missouri COM
promise line; but, sir, my own opinion is tha; had
ut that time occupied seat upon this floor,
should have felt it to be my duty to investigate the
subject with care aud to vote deliberately upon that
investigation; and that should have voted to slts-
tam the principles recognized an tie compromise
measures of 1850.
Mr. Stephens. Ny question is, would the gen
tleman have voted for the Missouri compromise line
ct the time have stated?
Mr. ZolicOlier. My answer is that would have
voted IN accordance with the principles o! the com
promise acts of 1885, to ieaUe tie people of The Ter
ritorieS TO determine tie question Of SlaUery for than
SelDes, when they came TO form a State government
Mr. Stephens The gentleman said he would give
me direct answer. He has not. Now | wish to
put to the gentleman from Tennessee another ques
ton, that is, whether when those Southern men be
has spoken Of before they got the principles Of
.I,,,,s l.. 81 L. 4
less instead OF the greater evil as he has said
when every man from Tennessee, every man from
Georgia, every man from South Carolina-in
word, every man, Wing and Democl at south of
Mason and Dixons line, voted for that measure
were they &cung upon theory more dangerous TO
The South than Abolitionsm itself!
Mr.. ZolicOter The principles Of 1850 and of
the Kansas Nebraska bill were then urged aud are
as old as the Constitution. | repeat what stated
at the very outset, and do not mean 10 be under
stood saying that those gentlemen we're less pat
rOtc in their motives than those who understood
as the gentleman from Georgia now understands,
the principle OF non-intervention in the Nebraska
and Kansas BILL or that their theory was more dan
ge than Abolitiouism ITSELF but say, neverthe.
less, that the theory whoever may entertain IT, that
the power exists in the Federal Government to de-,
termlne iorever,iOr the States to be formed out of
the Territories OF the U. s., the fundamental con
stituuona principles OF those States-to determine
whether slavery shall exit there or not-is theo
~ more dangerous to the South than the overt
movements OF Abolitioni=m ITSELF
Mr.. Stephens. | am here TO defend that theory
so far any action under il is concerned say IL
wise theory, looking the peace Of the couu-
try under the circumstances. say il vas lust
theory far it was founded on tie principle OF
fair division OF the Territory but il was not nor is
il now any tavorite theory OF mine. preferred an
Otner-the principle established in 1850 sill,
there was nothing SO aggressive in t as that the
country might not have en- satisfied with il if il
had been aOded by. acted on il only as an alter.
native. Nor do l hold that the whole South in al.
herring to il were more dangerous to themselves
than AOoiitionism itself Nor, Sir, do hold that
division OF territory stated violates the Cousti.
tuition OF the United States This say, while also
also maintain that the Constitution gives to Congress
no original substantive power to prohibit slavery
in the Territories OF this country. The gentleman
eannol hnd, In any remarks that | have ever made,
that have ever advocated the existence of any such
poWes. | never have entertained any such opinion
/ have always warred against il from the beginning
always maintained that this theory OF the crea
ton OF territorial governments was outside the con.
temptation OF the Constitution. IL rests upon a pow
resulting from the acquisition OF territory which
the Constitution never contemplated Bat when
acquired, the duty devolves upon Congress either
To govern IL OF to provide government for IL. Aud
in governing or providing governments, Congress
has no power, either express or implied, direct or
Incidental 10 pass any Law which would deprive any
portion OF the people Of the several States OF their
right TO just and ialr participation ia the public
domain. Bat iaw or regulation, looking 70 = dis
position OF the public domain common property,