Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1858-03-11
LIN Senate March =,

Mr.. Foster (Conn.) said he would never
give his assent to the admission OF another
slave state north of 360 So. lie considered
himself bound by the ordinance OF 1857, and
would never recognize its repeal. Referring
to the seventh article of the Lecompton Con
sti.ution, asserting the right ct property 10
slaves, be said that the principle enunciatad
was a reproach TO the age. Ii would have
been outrage Jus TO have Incorporated such Il
principle even 10 Constitution made for a
Southern State. lie alluded to the clause in
the Bill Of Rights declaring that no free negro
shall live in the territory, and thought 1t a
strange clause to exist 10 Repub lican Con-
stitutiJu.
MIR. Green (Mo.) reminded him that the
same provision exists in the Topeka Constitu
ton.
Mr.. Foster was not advised that the Topeka
Constitution had been received by the Senate;
be didu't believe it contained such clause.
There is 20 question, he continued. that by
the Lecompton Constitution free negroes must
be killed.
Mr.. Green asked if the Senator contended
that free negroes entering the tree States,
having provisions fOrbiding them, as Illinois,
for instance, must be killed?
Mr.. Foster-the Lecompson Constitution
says as much 1t says that no freeman can
be exiled, aud that no free negro can live
there.
Mr.. Green-The Senator's argument is
absurd.
Mr. Trumbull explained, that the law of
Illinois provided for a free negro. 1t was
not in the Constitution. The law dlsposeS OF
him
Mr.. Green--IIow?
Mr.. TrumbuIl-Ilires him out.
Mr.. Green-kansas will do the same.
Mr.. Foster proceeded, reading the clause
providing for change in the Constitution,
and contebding that the direct meaning is
that the people may alter everything but the
slavery clause. Slavery is to be perpetual
Establish that constitution, and slavery can
never be abolished, except by the consent OF
every stakeholder 10 the State.
Mr.. Mason asked if the Senator understood
that Congress has the power to look into
State Conventions, with the view OF determln-
ing the relations of persons held 10 scrvitude.
He (Mason) asked for the information OF his
people as to the Senator's view.
Mr.. Foster explained, that if the Territory
has within itself principles at war with the
principles of liberty, Congress bad the right
to reject it.
Mr. Mason said the reply threw food OF
. light on the principles actuating the Repuo-
lican party If he understood the Senator,
Congress had the power to decide whether a
government was republican In form, and
that if it estab lished slavery, 1t was not re-
publican.
Mr.. Foster did not think his language was
susceptible Of such an inference. lie re-
peated that where q territory applied for ad-
mission with Constitution at war with the
plainest principles of liberty he could not
call it re, ublican, aud would not admit 1t.
Mr. Nasou-Not Republican,.
Mr.. Fuster-Not republican, because not
recognizing the principles OF freedom. lie
was not prepared to 90 to the extreme extent
that State may be excluded on the ground
alone that it recognized slavery. lie con-
cluded by saying that he Bopldn't vote tor
! the bill.