The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1856-04-16

-.
tinctly understood and unanimously agreed
after o brief discussion that all further dis
cussion of the subject should be postponed
for one week, and then to be resumed on
the bill now under consideration, when,
according to the courtesies of the Senate,
as well as the rules parliamentary proceed
ings, would be entitled to open the de-
bate as the author of the report and bill,
and the Senator from Vermont, (Mr. COL
LAMER,) as the author of the minority re-
port would be entitled to reply; after
which, the subject would be open for free
discussion by any Senator who might de-
sire to participate in it. Under these cir
cumstances, l had no right to expect that
my colleague would take advantage of my
absence, in violation of the established
usages and courtesies of the Senate, to
open the discussion, and to make an as
sault on me personally as well as upon the
report of which l was the author
He commenced his remarks thus:
Mr.. President, cannot consent, en-
tertaining h. views which, / hold, that
this report shall 60 before the country
without expressing my dissent. l AIN
aware, sir, that it is here accompanied by
a minority report VIII 'c'l, in my judgment,
presents this Kansas question in master
ly manner. 1t utterly refutes the MAORI
ty report upon the great question at issue;
hpt h., yipor Ee en nropor,d ,v;thou< 80 ,p
portunity to examine the majority report,
it was impossible that it could meet and
expose all its unfounded assumptions.
wish the Senate to bear in mind that
this is the irst discussion which las taken
place in the Senate between my colleague
and myself, and that in the first paragraph
of his first speech he could not refrain
from personal assault on myself What
ever controversy, therefore. has grown out
of it, or may result from it, is of his own
seeking, unprovoked by me. He under.
takes to tell the Senate, as reason why
he is not willing the majority report should
go out to the country in connection with
the minority report, that the latter "hav.
ing been prepared without an opportunity
to examine the majority report, it was i'm.
possible that it could meet and expose all
its unfoundcd assumptions. How does
my colleague know that the Senator from
Vermont prepared the minority report
without being allowed an opportunity tc
examine the majority report? What au-
thority has he for the insinuatiou tha,
there was unfairnc is practiced by the ma.
jority to the minority of the committee!
Where is the authority for making the
charge, or rather the innuendo, of unfair.
ness? Every member of the committee
knows that the majority report was read
to the whole on the Monday before its pre-
sentation to the Senate, or rather, that
about two thirds of the report, con.
tanning every part of it which has been
the subject of criticism by my colleague,
was read on Monday. The Senator from
Vermont who wrote the minority report
was present, heard every word, and took
notes at the time Of the points of dissent
The residue Of the report was prepared Oh
Monday night, and was read on Tuesday
to the committee. The minority repor,
was never shown to member Of the com.
mittee, or produced in committee, until the
Wednesday afterward Hence, the Sen.
ator from Vermont had two entire day.
to prepare his dissent to all that part O.
the majority report which has been assail
cd by my colleague, and one day in re-
gard to the rest of it.
1t is proper here to remark that offer
cd to postpone the time of making the re.
port ono day longer, if the Senator frei1
Vermont desired further time; but, 81
Wednesday morning, he declined availine
himself of the postponement upon thu
ground that he was then ready to make
his report, and accordingly proceeded Is
read it to the committee Then, on what
authority is this innuendo of unfairnes:
made by my colleague? A similar charge
of unfairncss was made in the newspapers
over anonymous signatures, nearly two
weeks before the reports were prepared, in
order to prejudice the public mind. and
break the force ofthe facts and conclusions
of the repor, when it should be made
| exposed the fraud then in open Senate
in the presence of my colleague and Of the
author of the minority report. repeat
the question. In the face of these facts
on what authority does my COLLEAGUES, III
the first paragraph of his first speech in
the Senate. in referring to me, insert an
innuendo containing charge so unbound.
ed and so offensive, and which is, Known
to be unjust and untrue by every u,embcl
of the committee?
But my colleague says the minority re-
port is "masterly." Be it so.. He say.
that it utterly refutes the majority peport
upon the great question at issue. Tht
Senator from New York (Mr. SEWARD,
indorsed the minority report in similar
terms; and the Senator from Massachu.
setts (Mr. SUMNER) returned his thanks
to its author in like manner. The whole
of that side of the Chamber, including
all the members of that party called anti.
Nebraska men, or Black Republicans, in
dorse the opinion of my colleague tha,