Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1859-02-24
CONGRESSJON1I.
Irty- fifth Congressional Sc.


In THE SENATE, yesterday, Mr.. Davis, from
the Committee on Military Affairs. made re-
port on the Investigation concerning the pnr
chase of Lime Point, California, for site for
Qualifications, and exonerating the Secretary of
War frsm aii blame in the matter
Mr.. Frederick, from the SANE reinlmittee
made minority report on the same satject.
Mr.. hing gave notice that he would. intro
duce a bill to establish a mint at che assay
once in New York city.
MIR. Bell offered n resolution requesting the
President TO communicate copies Of a letter or
letters from Horatio J. Perry, Secretary ef Le-
cation mt Madrid, addressed in 1854 to Mr.
Marcy, Secretary of State, upon the subject of
an overture for a treaty made by the Spanish
Minister of Foreign Affairs; and also a sgpy of
a programme of treaty, If any, described, in
letter addressed % President Pierce. as ..con-
ceding immense benefits to our commerce and
securing the prompt and complete protection
OF the political and religious and social rights
of eur citizens in future in every portion of the
Spanish dOmirions in consideration for similar
benefits conceded to Spanish subjects and their
commerce by the United States.
The consideration Of tho Executive. Legisla-
tive and Judicial Appropriation bill being re-
sumed, the debate on Mr.. Hale's amendment
repeating the Kansas restriction was continued.
Mr.. Stuart regretted the intrOd nc ton of this
subject. Ho would. however. vote for the re-
peal. He had intended to object to the appro-
priation for taking the census of Kansas be-
cause, in the present state of things no such
proceeding would eventuate in good.
Mr.. Seward was surprised at the opposition
to this amendment
Mr.. Brown opposed admitting new States
until they possessed population enough for one
Representative. The Supreme Court declared
in the bred Scott decision that slaves are prop
erty, that Shareholders have the right to take
them to the Territories, and it is the duty of
Government to protect them there. The Con-
stitution could not of itself protect slave prop-
erty but it never gave to the South rights and
then denied them means to defend those rights
The decision of the Supreme Court was, viz
tually, that they had right to call upon some
body for the protection Of their slaves i'm the
Territories. Suppose the commercial marine
OF the North was not protected, would not
northern statesmen appeal to the Constitution
and its guarantees! Yet if the South came
here with a bill asking for protection for slave
North would take the opposite ground, and seek
to abolish slavery in the Territories The rem
edy Of the South against unfavOrable legislation
on the part Of Territory was by an appeal TO
Congress. He understood the Senator from H.
linois Mr.. Douglas) that when that appeal was
made he would not respond to it. AT the very
instant when Congress denied to the Soutb
III.
come to the conclusion that the Constitution is
failure and the Union despotism and be
ready to advise his people to retire from the
Union. He did not mean to threaten n DISCO
luton of the Union if extraordinary demands
were not acceded to; they asked only their con-
stitutional rights He utterly repudiated the
doctrine of squatter sovereignty, and denied
that there is any sovereignty in Territory.
Mr. Douglas said that, under the decision of
the Supreme Court slaves were property. ON an
equality with all other property and the owner
had right to take them with him to the Ter
rltories; but slave property was subject to the
local laws of Territories If there was any,
thing peculiar about 1t, requiring peculiar pro-
lection, 1T was the misfortune Of its owners.
and the absence Of legislation for its protec-
ton would as effectually exclude it from a
Territory as constitutional prohibition.
MIR. Clay said the constitution gave the right
TO take slaves into Territories, and the Terri
toriai inhibition was therefore imperative and
VOID, because Territory was not sovereignty.
Mr.. Davis said the Senator from Illinois
based his argument upon the idea that there
was people in the Territories There were
inhabitants, but not people in Territories
inhabitants waiting in the fulness of time TO
ne admitted to the privileges of. citizenship
The history OF the country showed that Con-
gress had not besltated to afford the protection
tn slave property which it was bound to afford
by the constitution. The Territorial Letisla.
ture had no power which WAS not delegated by
Congress. How. then, could it get the power
to inhibit slavery! Congress had not that
power.
Mr.. Mason understood the Kansas Nebraska
bill to remit the whole question to the judiciary.
and IN consenting to that the SOutls,knew they
were for time abandoning their rights. IL
was agreed, when Mr.. Calhoun was a leading
Southern statesman. that they woiId trust the
Judiciary with their rights. The kansas-Ne
braska bill contained the same PROVISION. and
to give 1t greater effect the law was remodeIIed
80 rs to give an appeal from the Territorial
judiciary to the Supreme Court, beth in reIa-
ton to questions of slave property and the lib
erty OF slaves. lie denied the power of Con-
gress to confer political power on the Territorial
governments.
Mr.. Pugh understood the Senator from Mis-
sissippi to demand from Northern Democrats
whether they would agree to protect slave
holders against the local Legislatures of the
Territories. He answered, never lie denied
that the Constitution gave the right to carry
slaves into the Territories
MIR. Green was sorry Democrats would per.
init themselves to be divided upon a question
presented solely for the purpose of breaking
down the Democratic party. Government was
instituted to protect persons and property. and
when 1t ceased to protect either it failed Of its
purpose. He assured Northern men that the
South had mover yet demanded the cnac tmcnt
by Congress of slave code All they main
tainod was that the Federal Constitution cx
tends over all the Territories, and that the
Supreme Court had decided that slaves ara
property. And hence they contend that the
Federal Government has the right to protect it
in the Territories
Mr.. Gwin said If he had understood the
kansas-Nebraska bill a. it is now Interpreted
BY the Senator from Illinois, he never would
have voted for it.
Mr.. Hunter differed from the Senator from
Illinois both as to the history of the Kansas
Nebraska bill and its Interpretation. The
Southern men did agree to leave the whole
question of the right of the people to frame
their institutions in allegiance, to be decided
by the courts. The bill did not mean 70 saw
that Congress absolutely gave up its iurisdic-
ton on that subject
Mr. Frederick agreed to everything that had
been said by the Senators from Illinois, (Mr.
Douglas and from Ohio, (Mr. Pugh)
Mr. Bigler was not i'm favor Of Congressional
interference in favor of slavery. but thou rht
there might be case where interference would
be necessary. He stood on the Democratic
platform, but would stand by the decision of
the Supreme Court
Several Others participated in the debate ere