The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1858-03-17
CONGRESSIONAL.
WAsH,NeroN. March


in favor of Kansas. She had all the re-
quisites for admission she had Con
stitution which no one excep5 the Sena-
tor from Connecticut denies to be repub-
lican in form. That instrument is the
del berate choice of the people, in pur-
suauce of the law, with all the forms
necessary to insure the free expression
of the will of the people. Congress
could only ask, is that Constitution re-
publican ? In this respect he consider
ed it as unoxceptionablc as that of any
State in the Union. Mr.. p. then pro-
ceedcd to explain away the alleged
election frauds and informalities, deny
ing the statements of Walker and Stan
tor, and others, that a majority of the
voters bad been DISTINGUISHED, and that
the Missourians had invaded the polls
of Kansas.
Mr.. Benjamin, of Louisiana, com
menced by saying, that as a member o:
the Judiciary Committee he felt that it
was his duty to defend the Judges of
the land from the aspersions thrown
upon them with a recklessness aud un-
t~ruthfulness that will yet bring shame
upon accusers. He hen proceeded to
a defence of the Supreme Courts decis.
ion in the bred Scott case; controvert-
ing at length the assertions of the SEN
ators from Maine and Vermont, that
the Constitution of the United States
does not recognize property in slaves
He said that he had never heard that
assertion before the Senator from Maine
uttered it. He then introduced seversl
forcible illustrations, referring to the
patent copyright and other law, and al
so cited the case of Pfigg VS.. The
State of Delaware, reading Judge Nc
Leans opinion in that case declaring
that the rights of the South in Slaves
as property are granted in the Constitu-
tion. He dwelt at great length or the
bred Scott case, commenting severely
on the Judges who published the minor
ity report. He now approached, he
said, with extreme pain another point
He bad been accustomed to reverence
the Judges of the land as men who in
their eminence and spotless purity of
character stood high above the breath
of suspicion.
A long line of Judges had eliminated
in a Marshall, and the illustrious man
who has succeeded him. 1t is enough
to say that he is worthy to be the sue
SCISSOR of that great man. He then paid
a glowing ieulog;sm to Judge fancy;
and yet this man, be continued, so pure,
so noble, so loved, has been compared
by the Senator from Ne. to the Infamous
Jeffries, and charged by the Senator
from New York with having acted in
corrupt collision with the Chief Magis
trate of the United States. 1t was diff
fcult to sit and listen to such insinua-
tons without the blood boiling within
US. He read from various documents
to show that the bred Scott case was in
the Missouri Court before Mr. Buchanan
went 10 England before the Kansas
Nebraska act was passed hence it was
impossible, as Mr.. Seward had insinua-
ted, that the Chief Justice and the Pres
ident could have gambled at cards with
bred Scott playing dummy. Is the
Senate of the United States to be insul-
ted with language like this? Shame on
the Senator who makes charges like
these, without the shadow of support
He concluded with a few remarks touch
ing the Kansas question, ridiculing the
Topeka Constitution, and denouncing
its authors as a miserable rabble of in
surgents, who, having insisted on Tope-
ka or nothing, would get nothing But
Kansas he assured them would not be
kept bleeding through another Presiden-
tial campaign.
HoUsE-Mr. Harris, of III, rose to
a question of privilege, saying that he
and six other members of the House
Kansas Committee felt it due 10 them
selves to present facts showing the fail
ure of the Committee to execute the or
of the House.
Mr.. Letcher asked if this was a priv
question.
The Speaker thought it was not.
Mr.. Harris appealed from the deci
sion of the Speaker.
Mr. Stephens moved to lay the APP
peal on the table.
The House refused to do SO by 81
lI2.
Mr.. Humphrey Marshall, of Tenn,
moved that the question be postponed
until tomorrow.
Mr.. Stephens had no objections, pro-
the majority report be made.
Mr.. Harris had no objection to en-
oody that report in the journal and min
ties of the Committee which he intend
ID to present. He found that the re-
,ort was published in the Union to. day,
Ind he thought it should not be spread
before the country CONTRARY to the rules
# the House; but he was not willing
hat the report should be made as the
'eport of the Committee, as he, with six
,ther members of the Committee, de-
that the Committee has not dis
its duties under the terms of
he resolution appointing them.
'oiut, when Mr.. Marsball's motion was
greed to.