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

the case have put about the surplus revenue.
Now, sir, the gentleman remarked that my al
fusion to the gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr.
Fuller was unkind. / disclaimed yesterday
| disclaimed most emphaticaly yesterday-aRd
do again to-day, any Intention of abiding to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania in an uukind
spirit. did it because I thought the occasion
required it; thought it due TO the progress of
our cause here. felt extremely gratifed at the
announcement of the gentleman's opinions and
so | said then. | say now that my intention was
not to cat down the gentleman from Pennsylva-
MIA at ALL but it was to strengthen him and to
strengthen his friends and our cause at the North
1t was to give our friends every assurance and
induce them TO stand firm; for We have evidence
now that if they do so, the great principles es-
tablished in 1850, and carried out in the Kansas
Nebraska bill. will ultimately prevail in this
country, Notwithstanding the clamor at the first
elections against it.
Mr.. ZOllieoher l am happy to hear that I
Inexperienced the purpose of the gentleman;
but when he, by implication, stated that TIE
gentleman from Pennsylvania had seen new
light -
Mr.. Stephens. did not say he had seen new
light.
Mr.. Z3Ilicoher. Well, that light had dawued
upon him.
Mr.. Stephens. did not say that
Mr. Zolicofter The impression upon my mind
was that the gentleman did imply this in what
he said
Mr.. Stephens No sir What | said was
Mr.. Zollicoher. Well, Mr.. Clerk, may l be al
lowed to ask the gentleman. in order that | may
be able to understand his postiOn-for l have
some difficulty in understanding him-whether
he believes the Missouri compromise to have
been constitutional or unconstitutional?
Mr. Stephens. / believe that it was coastitu-
tional.
Mr.. ZollicoIer. Well, that is what under
stood his position to amount to at first
Mr.. Stephens. | believe it was founded upon
the principle of fair division Of the territory as
1t was then understood, and as such it violated
no constitutional provision. | ask the gentle
man from Tennessee now again. whether he
would not have voted for it if he had been here.
Mr. ZollicOfer. Mr.. Clerk, | can only repeat
what attempted to say ia reply to the same
question few minutes ago. Had been a mem
Der OF the House at that time. my opinion is that
l would have done what it has been my un, form
habit to dO-that | would have invest gated eve
ry question upon which was called to vote up.
on its constitutional principles aud my opinion
Is, that upon an investigation such as | have to
this question in 1850 and in 1854, | should have
come to the conclusion that there was nothing in
the Constitution Authorizing the Federal Gov
eminent to exercise the power OF prohibiting
. the new States to be formed out of the territory
OF the Union from adopting such permanent in
situations as they chose to adopt when they came
III as States. / should. therefore have held tn It
the Missouri compromise was in derogation Of
the Constitution that is that there was nothing
III the Constitution authorizing such an act and
that lnaSinuch as the power is claimed upon that
clause OF the Constitution which authorizes Con-
gress to make call neediul rules and regulations
for the territory and other property of the Union
and inasmuch as a regulation permanently pro-
hibiting the States to be formed out Of that ter
rift hon,
on themselves sOverei gnty, was not Il ''neCdful
rule that Congress had no such pOlcer. That
is my present opinion.
Mr.. Stephens. The gentleman, then. was OPP
posed TO it, and would not have voted for it,
understand him to say that he would not have
voted for the Missouri compromise.
Mr. Zolicohcr. For the third time | will en-
deayOr to make myself definitely understood.
Mr.. Stephens | have asked the question
whether the gentleman would have voted for the
extension of the Missouri compromise. The gen
tleman has been several times upon the floor, and
has not answered that question.
Mr.. Zollicofer. My opinion is, that, had been
a member OF that Congress, | would have inves-
tigated the question, and that having invest2a-
ted it. | would have come to the conclusion that
the Missouri compromise was not authorized by
the Constitution and would. of course, have
U0ted against IL, and sustained the principle in
cOrPOrdted IN the compromise bills Of 1850. That
is what mean to say and have, in substance
several times repeated.
Mr. Stephens Then | understand the gentleman
to say that, in 1913 he would have voted against
the whole South, upon the principle that all the
southern members OF the Senate and OF this body
more dangerous 10 the South than Abolitiousts
themselves After investigating aud cropping about
and looking in the dark for a light, be would have
come to the conclusion that Congress had no such
power, and would have voted tor the principles
established in 1850. SIR, the principles established
in 1850 were the principles Of the South from the
beginning B t wheI we were looking TO an ex~
tension OF the Missouri line, we had no hope OF
getting the principles of 1850 This Missouri line
of division was sustained by the South only as an
alternative all the time. The South took it in the
beginning reluctantly. But the gentleman attributes
to me- and those who thus sustained it, the doctrine
that Congress has the general original power to ex-
clude slavery from the Territories. Now, | have
said and repeat, bold no such doctrine On the
contrary, / have said to this House and TO the
country everywhere, that Congress were TO exercise
such power, | should be FOR resisting it, While
was willing TO divide fairly in lc4S and while that
the only compromise | wa for, and while |
stood upon the same principle IN 1850, proclaimed
to the country that If We did not yet a far DIVISION
il the North took the whole territory, / was for
resistance. Now, | want to know were the gentle
man in going to stand in such contingency? lie
thinks, as DO, that such an exercise OF power
would be unconstitutional Suppose majority Of
this House should restore the n 5 olr restriction
and suppose It should pass the Senate, and receive
the Executive approval, what are going to doy
Mr.. Zocoifer. The explanation which the gen
tleman has ampli6ed to day is the same which he
made yesterday, and | atm very willing that he
should extend the explanation.
! Mr. Stephens. The foor l. niue, snd | cannot
yieli il TO the gentleman, unless he undertakes 10
answer nv question.
Mr. Zocofer. | certainly will
Mr.. stephens. Suppose | say that the restora
ton of the Missouri restriction is established what
is The gentlem giig to doy Sup o-e Con
gress does exercise the power TO x luie slavery
from the Territories which the gentl man thinks
I is a violation Of the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES is he going
/ to DO? What measure will he recommend 10 the
people Of the SOUTH What theory OF government
is he going TO act upoBY
Mr. ZollicoiTer. hold that my friend from Geor
gia has lot the right 10 make up supposed cases,
and put a cateehsm 10 me upol any wind, image
nary Hypothesis.
Mr. stephens. The gentleman himself first com
menced the system Of eateehisiug on supposed ca.
He offered the resolution declaring that the
opinions OF candidates should be knoSa, AID fol-
loved it up By long string OF Questions.
Mr. Zalieofer Win the gentleman permit me
TO ask hin question:
Nj. Stephens Yes, sir. hundred OF them; and
| want ytu answer mine.
Mr. Zoldc,sder IL shat clause Of the Conssiiu.
ton do Won inl che power authorizing Congress to
make fair division OF this Terrilor3r-g
Z II. a -