The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-03-04


was, In his opinion, of the more Importance. be
cause they had yet to legislate for Utah. His
Southern colleagues had agreed with him on
the interpretation and construction of the Kan.
sas. Nebraska bill, with but q single point of diff.
ference. He had held that scarcely ANYTHING
could be a6duced to support the Nebraska bill
but the promised repeal of the Missouri Com.
promise, which was denounced on the one hand
as unconstitutional, and defended on the other
as constitutional. The only proper course for
Congress, then, was either to repeal il or let il
alone, as the one or the other sentiment pre-
vailed but Congress would do neither. Had
Congress simply repealed its own act of 1920.
it would have fixed the condition of the Terri.
tories, and no harm would have resulted.
The grave and fatal error was that while
apparently believing the compromise to be un-
constitutional, Congress legislated upon the
opposite idea, declaring it's provisions inopera-
tive and void, but Only upon condition that
Slavery should not exist in the Territories By
force OF law, and that previous laws on the
subject should not be revived. Congress said,
in effect, the law of 1920, which transformed
Q siaveholding into Notwithstanding Terri
tory, was wrong, and shall not stand; but we
will not restore the Territory to the condition
it was in before that law. We will revoke our
interdict, but whether it shall be renewed or
not, whether Slavery shall be allowed or not,
shall depend upon the people who go into the
Territory. Run, then, men of the North, and
run, men of the South-let us see who will go
first and in greatest numbers. To the swift and
the strong shall be given the prize" That
there was mad rush was not to be wondered
at, nor that the men who Joined in the contest
should be zealots and bigots. 1t ought to have
been foreseen that they would meet not merely
as opponents, but as enemies and strangers.
MIR. Chaffee, of Massachusetts, addressed the
Committee in opposition to the Lecompton
Constitution, animadverting on the perversions
of history in the Presidents Kansas message,
and contending that the approval of the Lee
compton fraud would be an unjust violation of
the bond and agreement entered into in the pas
sage of the Nebraska bill. If the people of
Kansas were in rebellion, why did not the Presi
dent crush it out? He did not seem to realize
that he was charging a whole people with
crime. The contest of the Administration with
the people of Kansas was paraleled by the
struggle between George Nv and the Ameri-
can colonies, preceding the Revolution. In
this contest he planted himself on the side of
the free people. Government was engaged in
endeavoring to strike down the very foundation
stones of the temple of Liberty, to proptiate the
good will of few Slavery propagsndists. He
alluded to the facts that every sober Governor
sent to Kansas had been sustained By the peo-
pie, and destroyed by the President, as proof
that the people of Kansas were an orderly law.
abiding people, and in no sense rebels or
traitors. He denied that the bred Scott decis-
ion was against the constitutionslity of the
Missoari Compromise. That matter was not
before the court at all to be decided. The die
tum of certain members of the court was a
mere expression of opinion, not decision, and
onfst iad To- obi q he 20
any other legal gentlemen. He ridiculed the
threats of disunion, and trusted the patriotism
of Congress would suffice to protect the rights
of the people of Kansas.
Mr.. Davis, of Mississippi, read speech in
favor of the Lscompton Constitution, and re-
peating the threats of dissolution of the Union
in case of the rejection of Kansas.
Mr.. Fenton, OF New York, next obtained the
floor, and spoke on the other side of the ques
ton. he was in favor of peace, but was not
willing 70 parehsse peace at the expense of
principle. He had no fears of dissolution of
the Union, believing that not $4,000 men in
oil the South would follow the black flag of
disunion.
Mr.. Smith, of Tennessee, obtained the floor,
when the Committee rose.
At fifteen minutes before six o'clock, (only
twenty five members being present. the House
| adjourned.
Thursday, February Is, 1868. /
SENATE.
ResolutiOns.-Mr. Mason submitted resolu
tons calling upon the Secretary of the Navy
for information, which, if given, will present a
full history of all the leading events connected
with the navy. They were agreed to.
Minnesota Senator's. Mr.. Crittenden said
he desired to proceed to question of privilege.
LII
Shields, who claims a right to seat in the Sen.
ate, and he felt it his duty to press that claim :;
and after the letter was read he should move:
that the oath of Office be administered to Gen.
Shields, and that he be permitted to take his
seat
The Reporter gives u mere synopsis of the
letter. The purport of it was, that the enabling
act of the last session authorized the inhabit-.
ants of Minnesota to form Constitution and
State Government, and to come into the Union :;
that this authority was absolute; that under it
the people formed Constitution and State
Government, and have come into the Union in
the manner specified in the act. That, in ad.
dition to this, the act authorized them to deter.
mine for themselves whether they would be a.
State at thst time--viz: on the second Monday in
July, 1851; and if they should so determine,
that the Constitution should be submitted to
The Convention determined to become State
at that time, aud submitted the Constitution for
such approval and ratification. Therefore, by
the authority of Congress, Minnesota IL State,
upon an equal footing with all other States.
1t also cited as precedents the case of Ohio,
which came into the Union under d similar ena-
bling act, in 1902, and is now in the Union,
without any authority of law; also, the case of
Indiana, whose Representative was admitted
On the strength of similar enabling act, in
1910, without any other law. That according
to these precedents the Representatives from
Minnesota are entitled to admission without
further legislation
Mr.. johnson, of Arkansas, made question
of order, contending that the question was not
one of privilege.
Hunter, Crittenden, Pugh, and others
The Chair eaid that it would take the sense
of the Senate as to its being question of priv.
ilege.
Mr.. Crittenden argued at some length to
show that it was question of privilege, and
cited cases where Representatives. had been
admitted in advance of the State; when
Mr.. johnson, of Arkansas, moved to lay the
subject on the table.
The question having been taken, 1t was deei.
ded in the negative, by the following vote:
Nds-Messrs. Allen, Bggs, Bright, Brown,
Clay, Evans, Green, Hammond, Hunter, liver.
son, johnson of Arkansas, johnson of Tennes.
see, Jones, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Polk, Sc. I
bastion, Slidell, Thomson of N. yereeY, Toombs,
and Wright-22.
Rays-Messrs. Bell, Benjamin, Broderick, +
Clark, Collamer, Crittenden, Dixon, DoolittIe, |
Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, Eos. |
ter, Gwin, Hamlin, Harlan, Houston, King, I
fugh, seward, Simmons, Stuart, Sumner, Trum- |