Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1859-03-10
Congressional.
Wednesday,Fc6

Mr.. llale's amendment, repeating the restrictive
clause in the Kansas act.
Mr.. Seward Of NJ ", said that Congress had
decided that Kansas might come in under the
Lecempton Constitution without reference to
population, but not otherwise unless she had
02,400 inhabitants Here w.asa discrimination
against freedom and in favor Of slavery Ore
gon, because she was a Democratic State, was
admitted without reference to population, and
Kansas, because Of different politics, was exclude
cd. He was glad Of this occasion % renew his
vote. He was glad also that 50 many gentle
men on the other side will give Kansas y hear
ang. 1t indicates that the time u coming when
any State applying for admission will be heard
on It's merits, apart from I'LL other consldera-
Eons; that if Texas should divide, or If free
States be formed in Mexico, they will come In
as free States.
MIR. Brown of Mississippi, made Il strong
Southern speech. lie held to the doctrine OF
State rights, denied the squatter sovereignty of
Territories, and threatened secession with BAN
ners flying if the South was deprived Of her
rights. His address was directed to the North
ern Democrats. He placed his views frankly on
record, and desired neither to cheat nor be
cheated.
Mr. Douglas Of Illinois, felt it ncumbentson
II
He admired the frankness, eandor and directness
with which Mr.. Brown had approached the
question. He, (Douglas) too, would put his
opinion on record in such a manner as will ac-
Quit him, also of desire to cheat or be cheated.
lie agreed at the outset with Mr.. B., and with
the decision Of the Supreme Court, that slaves
are property, and t6qt their owners have the
same right IL carry them into the Territories as
any other property. Having the right Of tran
sit into the Territories, the question arises how
faxHfs The power Of the Territorial Legislature
to slave property? and the reply is, to
he extent and no further than to any other
ption of property. Mr.. Brown has said
lave property needs more protection than
|ther description. If SO. it is the misfor-
ke Of the owners OF that kind Of property.
- Here Mr. Douglas-in reply to question by
Mr.. Clay, who also made the remark that, &C
cording to Mr. Douglas Interpretation. squat
ter sovereignty is superior to the Constitution
SAID that the limit of territorial legislation is
y the organic act and the Constitution.
In reply to Mr.. Clay 5 question, Can Il slave
holder take his property into the Territory?
he would reply, yes, and hold it as other prop
crty. 70 the question, Will Congress pass d
law to protect other kinds of property in the
: Territories? he would answer, no; for the doc.
trine that Congress had right to legislate on
property and persons without representation, il
the doctrine of the Parliament of George the
Third, that brought on the Revolutionary war
We said that it was violation Of the rights O.
power to assume the legslate for Englishmer
without their consent; now was he douglas
to be called on to force this same odious doctrine
on the people OF the Territories without the
consent? He answered, no. Let them govern
themselves. If they make good laws, lie
them enjoy the blessngs--if bad, let them suf
fer until they are repealed.
Referring to the great battle fought ant
gained in 1856, he would like to know how
many votes Mr.. Buchanan would have got il
Pennsylvania or Ohio, if he mad then under
stand the doctrine of popular sovereignty as h
claims to now?
Mr.. Bigler of Pennsylvania, asked how man,
votes Mr.. Buchanan would have received ii
1856, had the Senator from Illinois, and thos
who acted with him, told the people that tn
Kansas act was not intended to extend to tn
Territories the sacred right of self government
but simply to give the people the right to petl
ton foT redress of grievance right not denie
to any citizen, white or black?
Mr.. Douglas said there are no colored citizens
and he trusted in God there never would be. II
did not recognize the black brothers.
Mr. Davis of Mississippi, replied to MIR. Doug
las deliberately, denying that he douglas
rightly interpreted the obligations of the Dem
ocratic party.
Mr.. Green of Missouri, was sorry that thi
subject of contention had been brought forward
1t was to try and bring discord into the Demo
cratic party, the only party to override the RI
publican party. He hoped and believed tina
! there was no difference between the North an
South. government is formed to protect pei
son and property, and when it ceases to
either, 1T ceases to perform it's one great funt
ton. Mr. Hale's amendment brought up tn
question. What is property? lie, (Green
, maintained that under the Constitution and b
y the decision of the Supreme Court, slaves al
property and here he argued the subject
many aspects, concluded by calling on the Den
ocratic party to stand united, and not permit
combination to make use Of mere fgment
disorganize them.
In the course of his remarks he quoted fro
Mr.. Douglass Springfield speech, to show th'
he has therein proposed Congressional intervel
ton in Utah He could not sec The consistent
of the Senator course then and now.
Mr.. Douglas denied that he had propose
Congressional intervention to regulate the int
nal affairs Of Utah. The intervention he pr
posed was alone on the ground Of rebellion
not on account of their domestic affairs, but
aliens and rebels
Mr.. Green, in speaking Of how the territori
legislation could destroy the rights of sla
property, said he had before him copy Of t
bill passed by the Kansas Legislature to aboli
slavery.
Mr.. Douglas remarked that several speech
~ ok Il, Z,
him out no better thanan aboliti0nist leavia
the Territory to carry out their own affairs.
does well to attack one man for his opinion b
when was the most aggravated act ever comm
ted there lie did not say it was committed
1nanumitting your slaves and confscating 70
property. The gentleman who spoke thus, 50,
than the present to introduce bill to rept
that act Of the Kansas Legislature Senate
say he. Douglas, may 60 out No. He stan
on the platform. and it is for those who Jun
off to go cut. (Laughter)
MIR. Mason Of Vlrgna. had ionily hop
e that the Nebraska Kansas bill BY which
Senate mailea concession would have settl
the slavery question. He was mistaken
would not say deceived She South, he ga
had reluctantly acquesced in the movcms
with the Democrats Of the North to settle
question. He went ut some length intB a d
cussion of the decision Of the Supreme Court
the case of bred Scott. lie didnot agree wi
Senator Douglass yiews az to the power Of I
people Of Territory, and did not believe Il
She Nebraska-Kansas bill gives them independt
power. The Senator from Virginia tirn Ga
his ideas as to the rights 81 tho people If
Territories and the people of the States 4
right of property il recognized in The form
but the inhabitants of territory are uakno'
t. the Constitution. Congress cannot direst
self of its power ever the property of the Ter
tories, but it can grant them nothing. Sou
of the Patio nae River to the confines Of Mex
there is not one dissent voice. The Sonth wo'