The daily union., 1856-01-27

Mr.. READE, win the gentleman from Georgia allow
me TO ask him single question, SO that may be sure
understand him correcty2
| Mr. STEPHENS Certainly
| Mr.. READE want TO ascertaia whether understood
the gentleman from Georgia In the extract just read by
the gentleman from Tennessee have spoken of the prn
ciple OF nonnterventon a mockeryH want TO under
stand that extract correctly Did the gentleman from
Georgia speak OF the principle OF non-intervention as
Mr.. zoLLICoFFER That is what l understand his
language 10 amount TO- ,#.s ht@& Hn
Mr.. STEPHENS. One at a time and one thing alta time
Mr. Clerk. What wish the House right here to under
stand clearly is this Non-nteryenton" the word
used at that time by term altogether different In
its meaning and import and practical effect from the
word IL has recently been used this floor and
elsewhere. AT the time of the acquisition OF Mexican ter
ritory there were local lawsas understood thempro-
hbitng slavery held IL to be the duty of Congress then
to annul those laws and to open up all the territory the
free and unrestricted colonization of the people Of all the
States OF the Union There then already 'inerven-
ton" against Non-ntervenon that territory at
that time would have been exclusion particularly in
nexon with the dea that the people there should be
permitted to change the existing status as showed in that
speech from which the gentleman has read extract
some other or at least thought showed This my
opinion upon question, however, which southern
Carolina mr. RnApn and the House to understand the i'm
port with which the term non-inervcntonp was used by
me in that speech II was that "nonntcrventon" which,
in Judgment would have absolutely excluded portion
of the people OF the Union from just and fair particp
ton in the OF common territory and wished all to be
equal participators therein @.-'.t #..6 6rs .#.
read was speaking of settlement Of this conrovered
question on the principle of DIVISION the people of the
North could not in justice be permitted TO take the whole
terriory-every foot Of it, North, South East and West
which they claiming and seemed determined to have
My theory was, and the whole southern theory was,
understood IT. original question: TO leave the whole
territory free to colonization by all alike and without
stricoh anywhere. But sir when forced to the
WALL when were outvoted by large majority from the
North when we bad hopes OF getting that theory OF
realized then we willing said consequence tis
sectional disagreement as an arnaio to have the territory
divided with the same guarantee against the previous n
ervenion agans us side Of the line TO the people
OF the South there fe other side the people
of the North
The House will indulge me also in another idea In the
speech to which the getlean from Tennessee has alluded
he quotes me having expressed astonshmet to the
power of Congress TO do what | thought ought to be
done-tat is, to Institute governments for ~he Terrific
res and 10 effect what desired. Now this subject 10
both aspects oft there division of sentiment well
North South. held that Congress had power gov
ern or to provide government and to pass such laws
were necessary 10 give security TO stare property which
some holding the doctrine of "non-nterventon" thsn
used and understood denied amazed at some gen
uemen who held that by virtue Of the constitution alone
we could hold slaves n the Territories aud yet denied the
power 10 protect them hold the sentiments
held that Is the duty Of Congress protect slave prop
erty as well other property in the territory Of
the United States lust might protect any other kind
Of property That what held to be the power and duty
OF Congress did not hold that it had the unqualified
power TO prohibit Now ask the gentleman again. does
he know any in the southern country who advocates
or defends the unlimited constitutional power Of
Congress TO prohibit slavery in the Terrtories7
Mr.. IOLLICOEFER | would ask the gentleman from
Georgia whether in 1913 he did not this floor take the
position with reference TO the territory acquired Mex
co that there were but two codrses to there
were but two alternatives with him. ] ask him II he did
notstate that unless the federal extended the
Missouri Compromise line the Pacific ocean so that sa-
should exist forever side of the line and should
not exist on the other, his only alternative return
the territory 10 Mexico2 ask him II he did demand
that Congress should not merely protect slavery in the
rtory one side Of geographical line should pro-
a oil max i'm tp mt that
and demand Il as the only alternative TO the returning the
territory TO Mexico?
Mr.. STEPHENS Only, Mr.. Clerk, by way Of compro-
mise.
Mr. ZoLLICOFFER Ali
Mr.. STEPHENS 1t was only a compromise that
would agree demanded the extension Of the Missouri
as well as excluding north This the only pan Of
division, itself an alternative that would agree to- Twas
then In favor Of running that line through 10 the Pacific
not as original proposition, but alterna,iteio
settle the question upon some principles of justice the
South and North differed upon slavery aud the North
far from letting the South have the free OF all
seemed bent upon not letting her have any But the North
would not agree then 10 that; they would not d-
vide An overwhelming majority in this House were or-
posed TO it. On the 18th day Of January ls4T large
overwhelming majority in this House repudated the adop
ton Of that line by way Of settlements line prnc
Pile rather which the South forced to adopt Ia 1920
not as theory of her own but as her only alternative
Now, Mr. Clerk voted in ls4s all the from the
South upon this floor voted 10 extend that line TO the Pa
cihc coast IL was measure OF our choice,
Mr.. ZOLLIC0FfER suppose do not misunderstood
the gentleman from Georgia now understand him 10
express the opinion that the federal government has
constitutional power to restrict slavery in of the Ter
ritores Of the United States yet In spirit OF compro
mise 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 govern
ment should thus do what the constitution itself prohb
tied
Mr., STEPHENS. No, sir, hold no such doctrine The
gentleman assign such position. voted 10
tend the line alternative; bat did not hold do
hold, that violated the constitution In thus voting
And want 10 know Of the gentleman from Tennessee u
he would not have voted for the extension Of that line II
he had been here When the whole South united in
agreeing 10 extend the line alternative by way Of
COMPROMISE, In lsIs, want 10 know OF the gentleman
from Tennessce-and call the attention OF the House 10
his answerwhether he would not II be bad been here,
have voted with he South for that oxtenson Would the
gentleman, o would he not2
Mr.. IOLLlC0FFER Mr. Clerk, II will be remembered
that when this little sparrng between the gentleman from
Georgia and myself commenced--
Mr.. STEPHENS | do not yield to the gentleman, ex-
cept 10 answer my question.
Mr.. ZOLLlC0FFER | viii give The gentleman a direct
answer
Mr.. STEPHENS Very well. Go on n.
Mr.. IULLICOfFER I say Il will he remembered that
this little sparrng between the gentleman from Georga
aud myself grew out Of the fact that when the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr. FULLER,l for whom have been
voting candidate Speaker defined his position the
other daywben he announced himself occupying the
high national position which be did the gentleman IRON
Georgia rose and compmented him upon having revised
his opinions and corrected his position before the House
aud country. confess, sir that could moi help sup
posing that those compliments ironically rendered
and stated In reply, that IL would be well 70 remember
other gentlemen had corrected their positions besides
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
And sir in reply TO the intcrogatory Of the gen
temsn from Georgia have to say, that from the day Of