Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1856-12-25


to get at facts, so as 10 let the country know
where the Democratic party stand. II they
are better Freesoilers than Republicans, it
should be manifested to the people.
Mr.. SMITH, (Dem.) Of Tenn, asked
when any Democrat claimed that the Dem
ocrats were better Freesoilers than Repub-
licans.
Mr.. CHOW, as proof, read an extract from
the Montrose Democrat claiming the advo-
cacy OF the Freesoil doctrines, and accusing
him (Grow) of being doughlace and vot-
ing 10 plant slavery in Kansas.
Mr.. MARSHAL, resuming, quoted from
speeches Of Senators Trnmbull and Fessen-
den to show that Northern Democrats in
the Presidential contest proclaimed freedom
10 Kansas.
Mr.. BuRRELL, (Dem.) Of Kentucky, in
quired whether those witnesses were not
both distinguished members OF the republi-
can partyP
Mr.. MARSHALL responded by asking
whether distinguished members of the Re-
publican party are not competent witnesses
to tell the truth.
Mr.. BURNETT replied affirmaively, but
said when they were brought as witnesses
against the only. party which stood by the
Constitution he doubted their credibility,
and did SO in this instance.
Mr.. MARSHALL wished TO know wheth-
err Democrats agreed with the declaration of
Senator Mason; that the people of the ter
ritories, when they organize themselves, or
are organized under law, are to determine
for themselves whether the institution of
slavery shall exist or not while a Territory.
Mr.. Quitmdn, Dem. Of Miss, said Tor
himself that he did not believe the people
of a Territory possess sovereignty Of any
kind until sovereignty was delegated TO
them as State under the power of the
Constitution TO admit new States-reviewed
the alleged inconsistencies respecting the
Interpretation of the Nebraska bill relative
tothe people framing their own laws.
Mr.. ORR, (Dem.), Of South Carolina,
asked Mr.. Marshall whether he had been
here he would have voted for the Kansas
Nebraska bill.
Mr.. MARSHALL replied that with South
ern construction he would have voted for it,
but with Northern construction against it.
Mr.. ORR did not consider the answer
satisfactory. He did not believe in squat
ter sovereignty, nor did he believe that doc.
trine contained in the Nebraska bill. He
saw no authority in the Constitution TO pass
the Wilmot proviso, and could not see how
Congress, not having that power, can create
the authority and invest the creature with
greater power than it possesses ITSELF
Other gentlemen, however, think the Ter
ritorial Legislature is invested with the au-
thority to prohibit or introduce slavery in
the Territory. The gentleman from Ten
wind out of Mr.. Marshall's sails and left
him high and dry on land. Although Mr..
Orr denied that squatter sovereignty exists
by virtue of the Nebraska bill, it was prac-
ticably Of little consequence whether it does
or not. II the people do not want slavery
they can decline TO pass laws for its protec-
ton, and that would be Just as effectual as
law passed to exclude it. Losers were
privileged TO be grumblers, and he congrat-
ulated the country that Kentucky had placed
herself in correct position by giving her
electoral vote to the candidates of the De-
mocracy. Let the gentleman (Marshall)
from that Commonwealth take this home
with him. There is a difference Of opinion
among Democrats as 10 squatter sovereign
ty, and let him make the most OF it.
Mr.. LErcHER, (Dem.) of Va, said tliGt
for many years Mr.. Gddings had introduced
the subject Of slavery in debate, giving his
views at large, and quoted from the speech
es of Mr.. Giddings to show that the latter
had advocated interference with slavery in
the States, making use of language calcula-
ted to excite instruction in common with
the party with which that gentlemen acted.
Mr.. SHERMAN, (Rep.) of Ohio, inquired
whether Mr.. Letcher approved of the mes
sage of Governor Adams, of South Carroll
ma, in favor of opening the slave trade.
| Mr.. LETCuER replied he did not; but
that had nothing to do with the question.
Mr.. SHERMAN remarked that Mr.. Letch-
er should make his illusions personal, and
not apply his language to the Republican
party. The gentleman might as well con-
denim the Democratic party for Gov. Ad-
ans recommendation as the Republicans for
anything done by one of its members.
Mr.. Books (Dem.) Of S. c., observed
that Mr.. Adams was opposed TO Carolina
being represented in the Democratic Nation
al Convention.
Mr.. SHERMAN understood that Mr.. Adj
ans was supporter of Mr.. Buchanan.
Mr.. LETcHER further commented on the
views OF Messrs. Seward, Giddings and
others Of the same party, TO prove their
sectionalism, and desire to interfere with
| the institutions of the South.
| Minnesota Ahnut IN Ask Admission as a