Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1858-03-09
WASHINGTON, Monday, March s.
SEN ATE


to inquire into the propriety Of amending the
law Furnishing the crime of desertion by sol
diers of the U. S. army. Passed
Mr. Green, of Missouri, minated that he
should call for direct vote on the bill for the
admission Of Kanzas under the Lecompton
constitution, on Monday next.
Mr.. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, resumed his
speech on Kanzas affairs.
he referred to the extraordinary statement.
OF the Senator from South Carolina, charging
the North with its violation of plighted filth
and plundering the South by means of ma
tional banks and tariffs. 1t was not the North
that repudiated the compact Of 1887, or the
compromise of 1920, and as to national banks
and tariffs, he showed from the record that
the greatest statesman of the South Calhoun,
supported the very tariff lie CHammond) COM
planned of, and also voted for national bank
and supported internal improvements. Re-
ferring to Mr.. Hammonds estimate of the re-
sources of the North and South, he said that
the hay crop of the United States surpassed
in value the whole cotton crop of the South,
and to the taunt that Northern laborers were
slaves, he replied that his own father was a
laborer, and other gentlemen on that floor
stood In the same category, and asked if they
were to be branded as the sons of slaves. Mr..
Doolittle then passed to Kanzas affairs, show
Lecompton constitution. The President bases
the legality Of that constitution on the Kan
zas Nebraska act. Mr. Hammond takes a
different ground, contending that the sover-
eighty of Kanzas is vested in the sovereignty
of the States, to be exercised by Congress
alone. The Senator from Tennessee places it
in the people of Kanzas, independent of the
territorial legislature, and independent of the
enabling act, while the Senator from Georgia
asserts it to be in the territorial legislature.
He (Doolittle) contended that if the sover-
eighty resided in the people, the Topeka con-
stItution was legal instrument He then
examined the claims Of the two constitutions,
Topeka and Lecompton, contending that the
latter was invalid, because the Kauzas- Nebras-
| ka act conferred no power to call a convention,
while the former grew out Of revolutionary
appeal to the people themselves, and was per-
| fectly legal In answer tothe question, why
| did not the free State men of Kapzas, if in the
majority, vote for delegates to the convention?
| he showed by numerous familiar facts that in
| many cases they could not vote. IN conse-
| quence of several counties being disfranchis-
| ed and also that they had been solemnly as
sured that the Constitution would be submit
| ted to the approval of the people. That as
surance was given by Calhoun himself, as
well as by President Buchanan in his mes
sage, and through his chosen organs, Walker,
| and Stanton, He denied the correctness of
the Presidents assertion, that when the slave.
| ry clause was submitted, all was done that
was necessary-banks, the Know Nothing
clause requiring the Governor t. be a citizen
for twenty years, etc. lie further denied that
| the slavery clause was ever fairly submitted.
| Mr.. Dooittle then sketched the current of
| events since it was first proposed to repeal the
| Missouri Compromise, instancing the Atchi-
son meetings in Missouri. which passed reso-
buttons that Missouri would extend her nsti-
buttons over Kanzas at whatever cost of blood.
and. contending that these meetings, as well
as the Lecompton Constitution itself, were the
direct fruits of that repeal. The programme
of these meetings was carried out in full.
Missourians, with bowie knives and reyolyers,
| invaded Kanzas, usurped the Legislature,
| and in three short weeks enacted the whole
code of Missouri There stands the appalling
fact, and no mantle OF shame is wide enough
to cover it. One more act is wanting. Pass
| this act and history will drclare that in the
| same year when Russia emancpated her
slaves, republican America trampled on her
| principles of independence, and imposed a
constitution on her Territories establishing
slavery.
Here the Senate passed the House Deicien-
] cy Printing bill
Mr. Foster said he would never give his as,
sent to the admission of another slave State
| North of SO 30. He considered himself bound
| by the ordinance of 1887, and would never
recognize its repeal, referring to the seventh
article in the LecomptoA Constitution, assert
ing the right of property in slaves, he said
that the principle enunciated was a reproach
to the age. 1t would have been outrageous
to have incorporated such principle, even in
| do INV L
alluded to the clause in the bill Of rights, de-
claring that no free negro shall live in the ter
ritory, and thought it a strange clause to ex-
list in Republican constitution.
Mr.. Green of Missouri, reminded him that
the same provision exists in the Topeka Con-
stituton.
Mr.. Foster was not advised that the Topeka
Constitution had been received by the Senate.
He did not believe it contained such clause.
There is no question, he continued, that, by
the Lecompton Constitution, free negroes
must be killed.
MIR. Green asked if the Senator commended
that free negroes entering the free States hav-
ing provisions forbidding them-Illinois for
| eXample-must be killed.
Mr.. Foster-The Leeompton Constitution
says as much. 1t says that no freeman can
be exiled, and that no free negro can live
there.
| Mr.. Green-The senator's argument is alb
surd.
Mr.. Trumbull explained that the law of
Illinois provided for free negoes. 1t was not
in the laws. The laws dispose of it.
| Mr.. Green-Hows
Mr.. Trumbull- l. Hires him out.
| Mr.. Green-Kanzas will do the same.
Mr.. Foster resumed, eeatending that under
the Lecompton constitution slavery was to be
| perpetual. Establish it, and slavery can never
be abolished without the consent of every
Shareholder in the State.
! Mr.. Mason asked if he understood that Con-
gress has the power to look into State consti
| tons with the view of determining the rela-
lions of persons held in serytude.
| Mr. Foster explained that if the constitu-
ton had within itself principles at war with
the principles of liberty, Congress had the
| right to reject it.
Mr.. Mason said the reply threw food of
light on the principles actuatng the Repub-
lican party. If he understood the senator.
Congress had the power to decide whether
government was Republican in form, and that
If 1t established slavery it was not Republ-
can.
Mr. Foster did not think his language was
capable of such a construction, "a He repeated
that constitution, with principles at war
with liberty, would not be Republican
Mr.. Mason--Not Republican,
! Mr.. Foster-Not Republican. because not
recognizing the principles of liberty. Mr..
Foster concluded by denouncng the Bill as an
atrocious and high-handed usurpation to i'm
| pose on the people of Kanzas.
The Senate went into executive session. and
soon nfter adjourned