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

WeGannot attempt to print rer1atim the re-
| ort of the Debate on the Presidents Mes
s. &c. going on in both Houses. The whole sub
jet Of Slavery is re-opened, just as if it had
ne er been discussed before. The President
RESI- me it in his message; the Republicans, be-
ing IRA ;gned, reply; and forthwith, the Presi-
dents supporters rush to the rescue; and so
the Question wakes no more to sleep.
We continue to make up our reports from
several sources, from time to time presenting
parts of the Debate in full. The speeches of
Messrs. Trumbull and Mason, in this weeks
Era, will be read with interest
December 10Th, IN tie Senate, Mr.. Collamer
delivered an able speech, of which the H.telli-
gencer presents an excellent synopsis.
Mr.. c. commenced by deprecating the latitu-
dinarian range of Senatorial debate, essaying,
as it so often does, rather to manufacture +"
public opinion, than to be It's exponent and rep
resentative. Since, however, this style of DO
itical discussion had been ratified by long
usage, he supposed it would seem nothing bet
ter than afiectation to avoid all participation in
1t. The consideration Of the Presidents mes
sage could hardly be said to rise to the dignity
OF a question, but that message certainly did
present subject of present and vital import
ance. He would not undertake particularly to
criticise the propriety of that message, whether
considered in point of style or the occasion of
its promulgation. With single reference to its
author, it might perhaps be Justly regarded as
mere ebullition Of disappointed ambition :;
but as an official State paper, proceeding from
the Chief Magistrate Of the nation, it might be
deemed worthy of examination and refntation.
The charges made by the President, and to
which Mr.. Collamer took special exception,
were, firstly, that portion of the American
people had constituted themselves into politi-
cal organization for the purpose of interfering
with Slavery in the States secondly, that this
party had sought "to usurp the control Of the
Government :" and, thirdly, that portion of
the States, by propaganda colonization, had
provoked retaliatory measures on the part OF
the South, in defence of their domestic institu-
TONS Each and all of these charges Mr.. G..
repealed, as being destitute of foundation in
fact.
Much has been said by the President and his
| friends, continued the Senator, respecting the
issues which have been decided by the late
election. For his part, he could not clearly
discern that anything had been decided in favor
of the Democracy, except the election of then
| candidates; for if those who voted for Mr.
Fremont and Mr.. Fillmore may be presumed
alike hostile (if not equally on some points, t.
| the principles of the Democratic party, then i
could be made to appear that the principles o
that party have been repudiated by majority
I of the country.
Mr.. Collamer next proceeded to vindicat,
the principles Of the Republican party, which
he maintained were not only as old as the for
nation of the Constitution, but coeval With th,
very settlement of the New World by the Pill
grim Fathers, who had sought to found a com
monwealth without either a hierarchy or al
ohgarchy. These principles gave birth t.
American Independence, and were, in the Rev
dictionary era, espoused equally by the Puritan
of New England, the Dutch colonists of New
York, the followers of Penn and of Lord Balti
more, the Cavaliers Of Virginia, the Presbyte
rians of Mecklenburgh, and the Huguenots O
South Carolina.
These principles presided over the formation
OF our present Constitution, the trainers of whicI
| were opposed to the extension of Slavery a
was proved by the Congressional enactmen
under the Constitution of the Ordinance o
1887, prohibiting Slavery in the Northwestern
Territory coded by Virginia. What was don
by the fathers with reference to that cession, j
was equally competent for Congress to do witt
reference to the Louisiana purchase, since th
right OF sovereignty of the United States wa
equally ample and explicit with respect to each
Mr.. c. quoted from the grants in each case, t
prove the truth of this assertion. If, then,
was constitutional to prohibit Slavery unde
the Virginia grant, why not equally SO unde