The true Democrat., 1857-02-17


 stand up in the face of the Senate and on any proof insist that senator has spoken falsely It is not my duty to do so. I will have no question of that sort with the senator from Massachusetts or any one else; but if he desires to know upon what authority made the state ment, am prepared here, or upon private call, to produce the evidence.
 Mir. Brown alluded to the question of sla- very in the territories, making in support of the democratic doctrine the following lucid and convincing argument:
 "l feel, Mir. President, that ought to say word In reference to our position as regards the territories. There seems to me to have been a most perseVerlng attempt commenced, and per- uhaciously Kept up, throughout all the northern otates to msrepresent the position of the south- erh otates ana people on this point What have we asked? What do we ask now? Simply to be treated as equals-to be allowed our equal rights and our equal position in the territories. The soil, all must admit, is the common pro- perty of all the people or of all the States- We have asked that Congress shall so treat it. and make no insulting discrimination between the people of Mississippi and the people of Massachusetts, between the people of New York and the people of Virginia, but all alike shall be allowed to go to the territories, and take with them all that is recognized as pro. perty by the laws of the State from which they go. We have insisted and do yet insist, that whoever makes laws for the territories is as much bound to give protection to us and our property, as to give protection to the north ern man and hs property. No right exists to dlscrlnlihate agalnst us and we ask no dis crlmination Tn our favor. l appeal to the plain common sense of every man, if in this there mas been anything unreasonable In the name of all that IS just, has not the citizen of Vir- ginla the same right to go to Kansas or any other territory, and take with him that which IS recognized as property by the laws of Vir Sihia as New Yorker has to go and take with hlm that which is recognized as property bv the laws of New York? Have citizens of Massachusetts let me ask, any higher privileges in the territory than citizens of Mississlppi?- And Ii so where did they obtain them? By what authority do they undertake to claim for themselves exclusive privileges in the territo. res! II gentlemen are prepared to meet us on this ground of equality, the whole matter m controversy, as regards the territories is set tied at once. If any Mississippian shall at- tempt to set up authority through Congress, the territories, the people, the States, to ex- cLude cltlzens of Massachusetts, Maine. New lorK, New Hampshire, or of any other State, rom the common territory, he will find him. sell opposed by the whole mass of southern r people. We have always said, and say to. day, that the citizens of the New England States, the citizens of all the free States have the same right to go to the territories and take with them that which is recognized as pro- perty by the laws of their States, as we claim for ourselves, to go and take that which is re-. cognized as property by the laws from which We go. Then as to the protection of property alter It gets there--whoever makes laws for the protection of the property of citizens of Maine, New York, New Hampshire or Massa- chusetts, Is in my judgment--and I stand to that clalm-equally bound to make laws for the protection of the property of MissisSippians, Vrglnlans and Tennesseeans If vou ask no protection for your prop rty, through Congress slonal legislation or through territorial legis latlon, we shall ask none for ours. If yon ask protection for your property, we say we are equally entitled to protection for ours We say that neither Congress nor the territorial egisla- | lure shall, with our consent, make any insult ing discrimination between the people and pro- perty of one section of the Union, and the people and property of any other section-be- tween the property of citizen of New Hamp- Shire or massachusetts,, and the property of a citizen of Maryland or Mississippi. Can we maintain ourselves on the soundness of this position? And if not, why?
 Do gentlemen claim that we are under the ban of the constitution? Do gentlemen pre- tend that the constitution which gives us our authority to be here, which authorizes me to address this august body to-day, which brings us into ths council house, discriminates aoainst the property of the fifteen southern southern States of this Union? Do they pretent that there Is anything ill that constitution which denles to our property equal protectection in the territories with the property of the other sixteen States of the Union? I undertake to say that IS the only article of property which ls clearly and distinctly recognized by the con- Stltutlon. Take any thing else, merchandise. llve-stock, anything you please, and you can | md nothing Tn the constitution which specially and speclhcally looks 10 its recognition as pro- pertv. The constitution does recognize per. sous heIl t" service (s'aves) as property and it recognizes nothing else iy name. Every other klnd oi property Is left to the protection of lo- cal or State legislation Not a word k found in the constitution about merchandise. live stock, or money as property. Persons bound to service (S'avesJ alone are mentioned Then with what pretence of justice is 1t said. that this property Is under the ban of the constitu- ton, or that 1t is not equally entitled to pro- lection with any other kind of property?
 
 l was somewhat surprised, Mir President. the other day, to hear the senator from Illinois
 NIT. Trumbull, in catechising the senator from Pennsylvania, Mir Bi5ler,l who was then ad dressing the Senate, raise the question as to how far we on the democratic side of the house con- cured ln opinoin upon the mooted point of squatter sovereignty. suppose the object of the senator m introducing that point was tn make mischief-to stir up strife between sena- tors on this side of the chamber. If that was hls pnrpos let me say 10 him that he fell. AS he will continue to fall, very far short of his mark. That there may be shades of difference ln our opinions is very likely: that I do not on every point, concur with my distinguished and venerable friend from Michigan is probable. but that there Is any difference between us which can by possibility prevent our acting in harmony Ter the accomplishment of certain great purno. ses which the national democracy have in view utterly deny, l should prefer to have nv 'fieho aSee With me, as he may prefer to have me agree With him; but our difference is not such, as shall presently show, that we may. not, without sacrifice on either side art toae,bar on practical issues.
 but SIT, how comes it that the senator from iiNnols, how comes it that other senators on ms side have all of sudden found sometbina so monstrons in this doctrine of squatter soyer, eignty! When had we the first evidence ex. hloi'eu to us of the power of squatter sovereign. y on tnls continent? Excuse me, sir but u"uei'ake to say, that the first exhibition of if was ih tne State which you have the bopor So'eiy at thlS moment to represent on tho aoou of the Senate Mir. Wellerin th. chair WI the people of California assembled in coron tlon, and undertook to frame State couo,. uosen- ton for themselves, they were all sonat.ora. they were ID the country without author;tv of law; there was no law authorizing them to ha U, there When they assembled in Convention o,, the high mission of making State copstitntion u,' they assembled there to perform an act of sover 1 eigntY: when they made tha oo,,.4;. VI