The weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1858-1860, 1859-12-24

M ~
deposed from the ChairmAuship Of The Co
i mittce on Territories on account Of bic We
i. on the Kansas bill, ninety~uine one hundrcdt
j, Of the DemoceAes in the Free States Wouli he
J, TO BE- expelled from she party for ihe ~
I. reason. i
= N. Iverson said he would take some Satu
i occasion TO reply to the Senator from Ohio.
= NJ. Gwin sad il was the duty Of Scnat,
Douglas 70 be here present as the organix ATTIC
v OF the Senate. He said the majority os u
i senate were responsible for itsordaDisaton an
4 should not place at the head ol the Terfii0ri
II Committee man holding opinions 10 dire<
i conflict with the majority on the subject 1
j Territorial power. sa~ a# asasf
4 Mr. Gwin said in regard 70 ninety shine Demo
Gratis in every hundred 10 Ill the Free State
1 agreeing with Ar. Douglas. Mr. Pugh coul,
: speak for Ohio, but not California TIE Doug
i las doctrine had been tried before the peopl
! and condemned BY large ma ajority in biz State
] The maintainancs Of that doctrine was danger.
. ons to the Dsmocratic party.
Nj. Hale hoped that inssmnch as the question
Of order he raised this morning had bseD3eIu
. cidated, the Chair would nov decide tha
!, point. N# s
Lame, Of Oregon, desired to say few wosdi
on the question which had been Up il NJ. Hals
. would withdraw. 8 aa8 8a a-aa ssA ~
Hale. | will withdraw anything the Senate,
from Oregon desires. ILaughteF.
Lane remarked il was NOT my purpose to
prescribe rules or lay down platform Of priu
c'ples for the Democratic party. lie had moth
ing TO do with the case Of Douglass and be had
no DOUBT there were many good Democrats In
the Northern States did not agree upon this
question Of territorial right with the majority
OF the party. He would not say thep were not
good democrats because they disagreed with
him, uor would he say that not holdidg the
views OF Mr.. Douglas, would have been reason
for him 70 oppose that gentleman IS Chairman
Of Committee on Territories He was sorry to
lind his own views on the territorial question
differed very naturally from Ne. Pugh. He held
that territory 10 the bommon property Of the
whole people, in which every State 10 The Union
has equal rights, and that while in q territorial
state the people could not BY unfriendly legis-
lasion or BY . system Of unequal taxation in
fringe the rights OF people Of any State Of the
Union. In the case Of Arizona, he would not
submit to IL, that the people Of the South should
| go there and BY unfriendly lcgislatio exclude
the people OF the north. The principle Of the
equality Of the States must be attained, and the
equal right in the territories was 30 clear in his
mind that he could not see how any man cculd
doubt it.
| Mr. Brown, Of Mss, protested against the a.
| sumption on which Mr. Hughes resolutions were
l.
establishing slavery; slavery went there under
the Constitution as dry goods or any other
property went, and then the Legislature, under
solemn duty made laws protecting il; these
laws did not abolish ID there.
Mr. L. remarked that he would submit 10 no
wrong, nor would he seek TO do any, but be
only desired to carry out the principles OF se>
curlty-to every section Of the country equal
rights.
MR L.l ~ - - -
the broad nationality and concurred most
heartily in many things be had said. II oc>
Cured to him the views Of the different Sena>
tors could be harmonized, and 10 order to do 50
ne would give his own position first. He held
that slavery was recognized as property under
the Constitution.
Mr. Pngh.-Accordng 10 the law OF the State.
Mr. Brown-Does it not GO farther; does not
the constitution itself recognize them as pro
perty IN the broadest possible sense; is there
any other property that you can pursue into
another state and RI capture.
Pugh-The constitution says persons held In
service or labor in state under the laws there-
oil. the Federal government mel kes nothing pro-
perty, but all the rights Of property are under
the laws of the States.
Mr. Brown-Saves were property before the
constitution existed, therefore, it did belong to
the Federal constitution to say what state sho d
recognize slaves as property. His next propo.
sition was, that owners OF slaves have the same
right to take them to Territory, that owners
OF any other property have; and their property
is entitled to the same protection by the law |
making power oi the government, with other
property when the government fails TO protect |
our propeTay ysliere and every where, il |
ought be abolished; il that be treason, make
the most OF it.
He asked nothing for his section that be
would not accord to the other, and closed BY
thanking the Republican Benches for the polite
attention they have given me. take my seat
Every seat on that side Of the Chamber was
vacant.
Adjourned.
HousE.-Mr. Gilmore, of N. c., caused to be
read newspaper article commenting on an ex. |
tract from the Boston Tract Journal ass0catng |
his name Extensively With Helpers book, and |
saying other things that the South should look |
about to see whether there we're not traitors on |
her own soil. lie said that so far as this article
applied to him it was an Infamous and malicious |
fabrication and fasehood, from beginning to |
end. II he had received Helpers book, as |
charged. It must have been through the mail
lie repeated that the whole Publication, 30 far |
as it was intended TO affect him, was . lie, from
beginning to end
Mr. Singleton, Of Miss, replying to Mr Hck-
man, emphaticaliy denied the latter's charge.
that the South had violated all compacts and |
compromises. Where and when had the South |
demanded anything more than she was entitled
to under the Constitution? Whenever aggres-
SONS had been made they were by the stronger
on the weaker section. and the South was obs |
iiged to take her present stand with . view to
preserve fraternal relations.
Mr. Hickman said he would reply bv asking 4 |
question.
Mr. Singleton remarked tba. that vas 1 YAM
kee way he didn't like.
Mr. h. said that if be understood the history
Of legislation in 1850 and 1854 there vas de
mand made from the South that the Missouri
Compromise should be repealed. inasmuch a. il
prevented slavery north Of $50 SOY, and was
unjust to the South, which went almost in q
body for its repeal and with the aid Of few
Northern Representatives accomplished it. In
return they gave the North what he fNr I'll
considered was q distinct pledge, namely, that
the question Of slavery from that day forward
should cease TO be agitated iu Congress and the
settlement of the whole question be left to the
people o. the Territories for their determination.
Alter further debate, in wi ich strong lan>
guage was used by Mr. Singleton, Of Mise, Of
the Intentions Of the South, be reminded the
Republicans that the chiyalrous son Of the South
-Jeh. Davis-had been leader in the war
with Mexico and ths; he might again lead al
army. He said the South might extend into
Government, take possession and administer the
estate.
A call Of the House was then made and the
ilth ballot was then taken. Whole number Of
votes 230. Necessary for choice ll6 Sher-
man liz; Bocock IS; Boteler VI; Scattering Il.
MIR Bocock then said thai he consented % the
use OF his name as . candidate for Speaker, In
the hope that Il would prove ral,yinR point
ior al oppysed TO what was termed an Aggroo>
sve party, This hope had gradually grown dim,
ana had become entirely rs,inguishcd. 10
theIe.ora formally withdrew his name
Mr. Moore Of Alabama nom'na ated Botelee.-
The House proceedcdto vote with the following
result: whole number Of votes 2su; necessary 70
| choice lie. Sherman liz, Bo.slcr 10, Boeock
| 10, Miles Taylor II; Phelps l5; remainder SCAT
lering among various gentlemen. Considerable
| confusion ensued; many members being dcsirous
Of adjourning, Others TO vote.
Again anotker vote was ordered; 18th ballot,
whole number of votes 226, necs ssary TO choice
III; Boteter 81, Barksdalr 20; Bocock IL,
Niles Taylor 4; Sherman 10; rest scattering.