The Nevada Democrat., 1859-05-04
SPEECH OFF SENATOR PUeH.
IN THE U. s. SENATE, FEB. 23, IN REPLY TO sENA
TOR BROWN AND OTHERS.

IN THE U. s. SENATE, FEB. 23, IN REPLY TO sENA-
TOR BROWN AND OTHERS.
Mn. PUGH-Mr. President, am leth 10 go
into this discussion, aud think IL was all I'M
necessary but when l entered the Chamber
this morning. the Senator from Mississippi mr.
Brown was engaged in some very impassionate
demand on certain Senators from the Northern
States; and when desired to know the nature
of this demand, not having been present In the
early part of his speech, was referred to other
Senators who heard it; but understood the
Senator to demand from the Representatives of
the Northern States on the floor, whether they
would agree to the passage Of an act Of Con-
gress TO protect slaves in the Territories, taken
there by consent of their masters, against the
local legislationf answer the Senator un-
hcsitatingly, never; while live, never. | con-
slider 1t a monstrous demand. a violation of the
plighted faith between the Democracy of the
South aud the Democracy of the North, again
and again aud again, in their legislation and
in their platform; and if that be the price. as
Senators say it is the price will not be paid
certainly net, so far as am concerned. Now,
sir, | perfectly agree with the Senator from
Virginia in his construction of the Kansas
Nebraska Act 1t was intended that so far as
the right of slave holder in the Territories
was concerned, he should seek bis remedy
through the judicial department; and the Sena-
tor from Mississippi, who made this demand
tais morning, proclaimed that himself in the
year 1856, on the I'd day of July, and have
his words before me. Here is bis languages:
81 learn for the first time, that the people Of Ter
rtory have not the competence to regulate their
domestic and police matters in their way but that II
belongs to Congess that II is only In the higher branches
that they have the right TO regulate their affairs in
their way Am to understand from this that the
people of Territory have the right IL they choose to
clude abolish slavery and that believe Southern
man. such an abolition to he unconstitutional must go
TO the courts for the manenance Of my rights aud yet
IL other matters Of less Importance, matters Of
police regulations adopted they may TO Congress
and beseech legislation to put II all right
III the majo proposition includes the minor as sup
II does and the people Of the Territory have the
right to legsate these great questions for themselves
independent Of the action Of Congress- apprchend they
have equal right TO egsate for themselves the
smaller questions should like my esteemed friend from
Connecticut tell where the line Is to what partir
ular question 1t is applicable.
"Under the general phraseoogy Of the Kansas bill he
admits the people Of Territory have the exclusive right
TO egslae. suppose when we passed the bill that
intended by II 10 give them right legislae all sub
jects touching their domestic pocy and that il any body
dissatisfied lie should go to the courts and not TO
Congress for his remedy This has been my understand
ing and have endeavored to live up to IT, My friend
from Michigan and myself differ very widely 70 what
the powers Of Territorial Legisaturehe believing
that they can exercise sovereign rights and believing
such thing he contending that they have right TO
clude slavery and not admitting the propositions; but
both Of concurrng in the opinion that II Is question
TO be decided by the courts and not bv Congress.
agreed that let agree this other proposition.
II had been the party agreyed by the law of Kansas
knew the place which pointed TO seek my remedy
If others agreved let them go TO the place"
There can be no question as TO what was the
meaning of the law at that time. Whatever
construction Senators may find it advisable to
put on the language of the present President
of the United States, In bis letter of acceptance,
it is certain that on the I'd of July, 1856. after
he had been nominated, and after the Cincin-
natl Platform had been made, the Senator from
Mississippi at least, understood that bill in the
language he has here expressed. Who was his
friend from Connecticut with whom be was
engaged In that discussion? The present Sec
retary of the Navy. is there any doubt as to
the opinions Of the present Secretary Of State
at that time? Surely not. Thus we have two
prominent members Of the Cabinet who GER
tainly at that time, and SO far as we have any
dispensatiOn, to this time, believe in the very
doctrine which he now proDounces hereicaL
Have they changed their OpiniOny No sir. |
have TO say this: If there be a citizen of any
Southern State who thinks he has right TO
take his slaves into "A Territory and hold them
in defiance of Territorial authorities, let him
assert bis right in judicial court IL the
court gives him the right | submit to II. lf
the court denies his right he must submit to
it. There must be mutually; you must not
we shall take the local and domestic affairs of
the Territory into our hands. when we have
laid our authority aside, II we ever had any.
But the Senator from Virginia says il is all
decided. How decidedf The Supreme Court
has decided it. 1t seems to be given out and
in fact have seen ii published 10 a newspaper
here, that ii was perfectly right and proper for
General Cass aud Governor Toucey aud others,
to have erred from the straight path during the
whole of the year of our Lord, 1856, even down
TO December. 1856, when the Senator from Pa.
(Mr. Bigler) preached the same doctrine on this
floors such errors we're pardonable then; but We
come to March, 1857, and the Supreme Court of
the United States took il up and decided 1t, and
forthwith we are told that the Supreme Court
OF the United States has become the appointed
expOunder of Democratic principles. Since
when? Since they declared the Bank Of the
United States to be constitutional, which you
repudate Ia your PLATFORM Since the Judges
Of the Court held the old sedition laws Of John
Adams to be constitutional, which you repu-
diate in your platform? Who constituted the
Judges of the Supreme Court the makers aud
expounders Of Democratic principles? Certain
ly not Thomas Jefferson, who pronounced them
the sappers and miners of the Constitution
certainly not Andrew Jackson, who told them
that be would interpret his own oath, rs well
as his own principles according to bis views Of
the Constitution. No cour. shall make me a
platform. When we get to going by courts il
seems to me we have departed from the whole
spirit and principles Of the Democratic party.
But sir, the fact is that the Court decided no
such thing; there was no such question before
them. In the whole Dred Scott case there was
no act of a Territorial Legislature before them
in any shape or form. No such question was
argued, no such question was decided; nor is
the slightest allusion made to il in the opinion
Of any of the Judges, 80 far as recollect, but
in that of the Chief Justice, and then it is made
simply by way Of illustration the law
yers call drglendO. This was the first time
ever heard in a case where nine Judges pro-
nonnce their opinions seriafiDs, that because one
Of them in illustration collaterally makes re-
ference that becomes the decision of the Court.
think it will take lawyers generally by sur
prise. The Court did decide, apd properly,
that Congress has no power TO exclude slavery
from the Territories; and why? Because IT Is
not conferred by the Constitution. That is
properly decided. 1t was an act OF Congress
they had before tbem-the act of 1920, to pro
IL