Daily national Democrat., 1859-04-03
SPEECH OF SENATOR PUGH.


this morning. the Senator from Mississippi
mir Brown was engaged in some very i'm
passionate demands on certain Senators from
the northern States; and when | desired To
know the nature of this mand, 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 this floor, whether they would a.
gree to the passage of an act of Congress to
protect slaves in the Territories taken there
by the consent of their masters against the
local legislation | answer the Senator un--
hesitatingly. never; while | live, never.
consider it monstrous demand, violation
of the plighted faith between the Democracy
of the South and the Democracy of the North,
again and again and again, in their legisla-
ton and in their platform and if that be the
price, as Senators say it is, the price will not
be paid-certainly not. SO far as am con-
cerned. Now, sir, perfectly agree with the
Senator fro= Virginia in his construction of
the Kansas-N ebraska act. 1t was intended
that, so far as the right of STAKEHOLDER in
the Territories was concerned, he should
seek his remedy through the judicial depart
ment: and the Senator from Mississippi, who
made this demand this morning, proclaimed
y
OtJulv, and have his words before me-
Hereis his language:
q learn now, for the first time, that the people
Ofa Territory have not the competence to regu-
late their own domestic and police matters in their
own way, but that it belongs to Congress- that
it is only in the higher branches that they have
the right TO regulate their own affairs in their
own way Am to understand by this that the
people Of Territory have the right, fthey choose
to exclude or abolish slavery; and that if be
leve as a southern man, such an abolition to be
unconstitutional, l must go to the courts for the
maintenance of my rights and yet if other mea-
sures of less Importance mere matters of police
regulation, are adopted, they may come to Con-
gress and beseech legislation to put it all right
Ifthe major proposition includes the minor, as
suppose it does, and the people of the Territory
have the right to egisate on these great ques.
tons for themselves, independent of the action Of
Congress, | apprehend they have an equal right
to legislate for themselves on the smaller Ques-
tions | should like my esteemed friend from
Connecticut TO tell me where the line is TO what
particular question it is applicable
"Under the general phraseology of the Kansas
bill, he admits the people Of the Territory have
the exclusive right to legisate. | suppose, when
we passed the bill, that we intended by it to give
them right to legislate on all subjects touching
their domestic policy; and that il anybody was
dissatisfied he should go to the courts, and not
come to Congress for his remedy. This has been
my understanding, aud have endeavored to live
up 10 it, My friend from Michigan and myself
differ very widely as to what are the powers of
Territorial Legislature-he believing that they
can exercise sovereign rights, and believing no
such thing he cOntendng that they have Il ght
to exclude slavery, and not admitting the prop.
ositOn but both ofus concurring in the opinion
that it is a question 10 be decided by the courts
and not by Congress- five are agreed on that,
let US agree on this other proposition If had
"A -
knew the place 10 which was pouted u seek my
remedy If others are aggreved. let them gn To
the same place. Appendix To Congressional Globe
Thirty-Fourth Congress, first session, page SOL.
There can he no question as TO what was
the meaning of the law at that time. What
ever construction Senators may find it advis-
able tO put on the language of the present
President If the United States, in his letter
Of acceptance, it is certain that, on thr 2
day Of July, 1886, after he had been nonina
ted, and after the Cincinnati platform had
been made the Senator from Mississippi aI
least, understood that Till in the language he
has here expressed Who was his friend from
Connecticut, with whom he was engaged IN
that discussion? The present Secretary of
the Nay. Is there any doubt a. to the opin,
ions of the present Secretary of State ut that
time? Surely not. Thus, We have two pro
minent members of the Cabinet who crrtain-
ly, at that time, and SO far as we have any
dispensation. to this time, believe in the very
doctrine which the Senator now pronouncrs
heretical. Have they changed their opiniony
No, sir. have to say this If there he citi
zen ofany southern state. who thinks he has
right to take his slaves into u Territory and
hold them in defiance Of the territorial au-
thorlues let him assert his right in n judicial
court If the court gives him the right.
submit to it. If the court denies his right,
he must submit to it. There must be mutu-
ahty you must not come here to Congress,
asking from us that we shall take the local
and domestic affairs of the Territory into our
hands when we have laid our authority
aside, if we ever had any.
But the Senator from Virginia says it is all
decided How decided The Supreme Court
mas decided it. 1t seems to be given out, and
III Tact have seen it published in a newspa-
per here that it was perfectly right and
proper for General Cass and Gov Toucey
and 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 Pennsylvania Mr.
Biglerl preached the same doctrine on this
moor; such errors were pardonable then but
we come to March, 1857, and the Supreme
court Of the United States took it up and
ueeided it, and forthwith we are told that
,ne supreme Court of the United States has
oecome the appointed expounder of Demo-
Ir"uc principles. Since when Since they
declared the Bank of the United States to be
constitutional, which you repudiate in your
platform Since the Judges of that Court
neid the old sedtion laws Of John Adams TO
oe constitutional, which you repudate in
your platform? Who constituted the iudges
OF the Supreme Court the makers or exbou6d.
ers of Democratic principles? Certainly not
Thomas Jefferson. who pronounced them the
sappers and miners Of the Constitution cor
tainly not Andrew jackson, who toId tbor,
ne would interpret his own oath, as weil os
his own principles according to his views Of
the Constitution. No court shall make mo
platform. When we get to going by courts
it seems to me we have departed from the
whole spirit and principle 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
thsEe Was no act of Territorial Legislature
oe'ore them in any shape or form, No such
9uesuon was argued, no such question was
ueeided; nor is there the slightest alluson
made to 1t in the opinion of any of the iudg-
" 80 far as recollect, but in that of the Chief
justice, and then it is made simply by way
VI making an ilustration-what the lawyers
eah argaendo This is the first time ever
ueatd' In case where nine Judges pronounce
.ie~ opinions SeriGtim, that because one of
o"eln In Illustration eolateraly makes a ref
SS'1enee' 1' that becomes the decision of the court.
sr. link 1t will take lawyers generally bv