The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1858-04-03

\ sCVutCut W tuctu Tft,uJ WuiCu uOJ
really got. Il was not intended merely to
obviate an objection without really removing
that objection. He held that Congress had
no right to make any such proyiso as that
contemplated by Pugh's amendment. He
warned those who were induced to support
that amendment in hopes OF catching little
popular favor for the preparation OF the enor-
nous fraud of the Lecompton Constitution,
to beware of the precedent they were set
| ting.
Mr.. Douglas next inquired whether the
people of Kansas had been perfectly free to
frame their own Constitution. He begged
the Senate from the South to reflect what
would have been their feelings and their &C
ton if the case had been reversed. If three
fOurths of the people were shareholders, and,
by fraud and violence, Convention, CON-
posed three-fourths of Free Sellers, had got
together and framed an Anti-Slavery Con
stitution, and had sent it to Congress. and
had attempted to force it upon Kansas, what
would You have said? Would you have
thought it fair and honest to force such
Constitution upon Kansas?
Mr.. Hammond of South Carolina, rose
and said, as the Senator from Illinois had
look. at him he would like to reply. If the
slaveholding majority had had an opportuni-
ty to form Pro-Slavery Constitution ard
had neglected it, but had left the formation
OF the Constitution to the Free-Soilers, he
| would not have complained, but would have
voted to admit the State
That's good" cried Mr. Toombs, "tLat's a
good answer
Mr. Douglas promptly showed that it was
not good answer, because it assumed fact
vital to the question at issue, which fact he
utterly denied. The majority of the people
IN Kansas had not an opportunity to frame
a Constitution, or to vote upon it for ratif-
cation or rejection. When they were al
lowed to vote, they were defrauded cut of
their majority by forged and false returns
In the first place, 10 counties were disfran-
| chised
THAT amt true,' cried Mr.. Toombs. cit
is true" responded Mr.. Douglas lit has
been proved concl1s,vely"
Mr.. Hammond here again interpoSed, and
said that slaveholding majority would have
submitted even under those circumstance
"They would have submitted, did you
say p inquired Douglas in tone of astonish-
ment.
eyes," replied Hammond.
"Then all can say is" rejoined Douglas,
"that they are the most submissive of men,
The audience laughed at this, and the gal
leries applauded the manner in which it was
uttered. Mr.. Mason, of Virginia, arose in
great wrath, and SAID if the offence was re-
peated the galleries sh ud be cleared To
which Mr. Brown, Of Mississippi, indignant
| ly added, "The Senate is not theatre."
Mr.. Hammond presently again interposcd
with his insane notion about submission but
Mr.. Douglas told him with some Impotence
| that he was to i'll to waste strength and voice
in replying to questions that had Just been
answered twice already.
| Mr.. Douglas next launched forth into a
most searching and scathing exposition Of
John Calhoun and his returns, and especially
| his late letter 70 the editor of the Washing
t ton Star, declaring that he should issue the
| certificates to the Free State candidates
his part OF his speech was terrible speci-
men OF invective and sarcasm, and completely
carried the audience with it, SO that the
chamber resounded with laughter in spite of
the frown and menacing glances of Mr.. Ma
| son.
Dropping John Calhoun after shaking him
sufficiently, Mr.. Douglas resorted to the
purely slavery aspect of the question. IF it
were not Tor slavery. would there be any at
tempt to force this Constitution upon Kan
sas? Ii it were not for slavery, would there
be single objection to sending this Consti-
tuition to the people Of Kansas for fair vote?
! Turning his attention to the Washington
I'm on, he said that paper for some months
past had been every other day reading him
ont of the Democratic party, calling him IA
do
Of the Union was determined by personal ha-
tired. He had refused to vote for the con-
! iirmatiOn of the editor of the Union as Public
| Printer, hence his animosty.
AT the request of Mr.. Douglas Mr.. Stu
art OF Michigan, who sat next to him, read .
silly ana abusive article nom the Union of
| September last, containing, among other non
sense, an assertion that the abolition Of
slavery in New York, Pennsylvania and other
States, was unconstitutional. Upon these
and other INDUSTRIOUS propositions of the
Government organ Mr. Douglas commented
with great severity. The article, he said.
was printed in the Jni0n Gu the 18th of
September. On the 18th was the first article
giving in the adhesion Of the Union to the
Lecompton swindle. The same paper and
the same man that upheld the Lecompton
outrage might we'll maintain that the Eman-
cipatiOn Acts of New York, New jersey and
other States were void, and that those States
were pot perfectly free to iorm their own in
situations III their own way.
"Irecognize," said Mr. n,ouclas tha r;ob+
Gi the slaveholding States to regulate their
own institutions but do not admit can
not admit-that the right of property in
slaves ls higher than any State Constitution,
o" that the State can abolish it. But such is
the doctrine of the Washington Unioa-such
is the doctrine of the Lecompton Constitu-
ton. That doctrine, if accepted. is a fatal
blow to the principles Of our Governments
ielt it to be such when | first saw it, and
hence | refused to vote for the editor of the
Uaion."
MIR. Douglas then read from the Cincin
matt Platform various propositions upon sla-
Very, to each of which he gave assent, saying
that ne stood upon them last year, and stood
upon them still. They related chiefly, as did
his differences from them, to the proposition
that each State must decide for itself uron
the stdtus or condition of its negro popula-
ton, without interference from Cor grass
This right Of each State to regulate its own
institutions 10 dwelt upon with mnch ear.
nestness, as the cardinal principle of our gov
ernment The proposition that property in
| slaves was above all law. was a monstrous
proposition, against which lie protested. in
his own name and IL the name of his con-
stituents.
may remark, by the way, that this part
of Mr.. Douglas speech was evidently intten-
| ied to lay the ground work of future rad
cal position on the slavery question
Mr.. Douglas next spoke IN reference to his
relation to the Dem0cr tic party. Was the
! Lecompton measure party measure lie
did not lind it in the party platform. Oh
but, he was told. it was AN Administration
measure. All yes but that did not make it
party measure John Tyler introduced Ad-
ministration measures into Congress, bit
that did not make them party measures
Was the modification of Neutrality law a