, 1859-12-16

@ooeL uuf principles are taken from him,
Tho very words Of cur platform which the gen.
vi. YrIsE. Ito create, not 10 destroy,
free gotsrnnentr
ar. .TxuHnuIt.-Yes, sir; and re will per
pe,uz,c iErc gvflrnment, BY continuing the
principles that he advocated. But, sir, what
beyond thatl How he's it come, from gentle
man upon thht sids Of the House; to tell us We
must not call ou:s:l1es KetubIicsns, when they
assume to call themselves Democrats7 CeEC-
csatst Aid Tie Ilustratioa ef your. principle.
ttarthoAd<.s ia this oonntry. ANY man can be
member OF the Democratic party who will adopt
your creed on The subject OF the spread Of stnT-
eEJ, hnd the upholding Of slaveho!ding institu.
lions In this countryI which concern directly
not one MAJ in sixty Of the population Of this
unlo: s1,r That is The party that has arrogatedto
proaches US for calling ourselves Republicans.
Denoeratsl 4 party faat 1egtslaees fo+ tie in
tr<ss q one out Of sity: forgetting the iHttrls.
efJour-tfkhs Of tie famities Of tAs South 10 pro-
snote tAat Of ons:d5h-jrte tchit4 asea-
Ine Senator wishes to know If slavery Was
abolished by the Constitution Of the United
not abolished BY the Constitution Of the United
otates. stated before; and will Try to repeat
Il again, that the Constitution Of The United
otates was 1dsed upon tbs id<1 Of freedom but
i did not abolish AlAvery where it existed BY
State OF local law. 1t did not interfere TO do
that. II allowed the States to manage that for
themselves; and provided that, when one held
slavery did not exist, he might be reclaimed;
and ! wish the Senator to understand from me
that acquiesce IN that clause OF the Constitu-
ton OF the United States. I recognize your
right to reclaim the person who runs away but
think it should be done in judicious aud
proper manner, without exciting bad feeling in
the country.
! Mr. CLAr.-Wll the Senator allow me mo-
ment, to aak him whether he recognizes the
right to reclaim fugitive slaves in the Terrific
ries!
, Ar. .TRuxnu11--Id do, under IN act Of Congress
applicable to Territories.
Mr.. CLAT.-Theu will ask him to reconcile
ths Tue spPa!!snt discrepancy between the platform
assumes; for in that platform, as he read il, It
is declared that neither Congress nor any indi-
yidual can gire any legal assistance to slaTery
within the Territories.
NJ. TRuxaULL--" Gire legal ca4stenee to slav-
ery in u Territory" is the language. We deny
that the right to reclaim q fugisiEe proves the
than it does in State. We hare expressly
provided by our Constitution In the State Of
Illinois, that slavery shall not exist there, and
yet will say to the Senator from Alabama that
if slave Of his escapes to the State Of Illinois,
we recognize the right Of tue owner to reclaim
him, and recognize the same right in Terri
tory.
1tseems to me plain platform. 1t has got
10 Northern and Southern face, like your Gin
cinnati creed. We do not preach popular sov-
ereiguty in the North, and scout it is humbug
in the South.
Ma- PuaH.-You do not preach it in the South
at all.
Ma. TecuBr11--So, sir; We do not preach It
ia the South al all; aud yet the men who do not
allow our principles to be proclaimed in the
South talk abont acctiouaIism. Il section0tsn,
80 pure and un1du4tratd that it toil not tolerafs
ts erpositioaef tie priacples Of its opponents at
az srAers il il IN Po.oer, talks to tie otAT party
about sfftiondlismf
I say that slavery vas not abolished in Ten
nessee and in Louisiana By the Constitution.
Why, sir, does not the Senator from Florida
know TINT we acquired Tennessee by 4 deed Of
cession that prohibited the extension to it Of
that portion Of the ordnance Of 1857, which
excluded starerys Slavery existed there, not
By virtue Of the Constitution creating it, but BY
virtue OF local law. aud that is the authority
which establishes s!aTerJ everywhere. Slavery
can exist nowhere except BY virtue Of local
law, and that is the reason Why the person who
owns q slave in State cannot hold him as
slave, under the law Of bis State, in a Territory
where slavery has never been established Tbs
Senator wants to know if Congress can coufs-
cate his property. Surely not. That question
cannot arise; he cannot bold the property there;
he does not Owl the man he Voluntarily goes
into jurisdiction where there il no law to es
tabtish slavery; aud when be goes there the
shack1es Of the slave fall of, not by virtue of
the Constitution Of the United States abolish
ing slavery everywhere, but By the universal
law Of mankind that this thing Of slavery is Sc
ndf hot 10 In nuefmi mad hrt tira
law.
The local law in Tennessee authorizing slave-
IT was not q Law to which Congress gaFe exist
ence; it was law in existence before Congress
had any Jurisdiction over tho Territory. The
Constitution did not intervene by its terms to
exclude slavery, there being local Law in ex-
isteuce not made by Congress authorizing it..
that local law. 1t was there; men had q right
to their slaves as property in the Territory be-
fore it belonged to the United States at all.
Now he wants to know whether Congress can
coatscate that property. So-pot it it is prop
.erty; but if it was IN Territory where there
as be supposes, people Gop the Southern States
exclusively 60 iuto such Territory with their
siaFes they DO not hold them By virtue Of apy
law there; and it is no confscation Of property;
they have no property in Slaves there.
Nm. YCLEE.-Suppose they make law:
Mr. Tnu4nuLL. They cannot. That is Tie
rerg thing tie R<pa6tiean party say thy eanno:
no right to do it. The creed Of the Republican
party, as understand it, is that you cannot
extend slavery, under the Federal Government,
iuto the Territories Of the United States. There
may be sluvery in q country which does not be-
long to the United. States; the United States
may mcguire that country. and may not abolish
slavery, because the right to hold Slaves existed
when The country WAS acquired; but it does not
follow that if the country vas Tree when We &C.
quired it, men could afterwards hare property
in s'ases in it; aud that is the distinction.
The Senator wants to know whether it is a
part Of the Republican creed to keep out Of the
Union State toIeratiag slavery, which applies
such word in its Is there anything that looks
like it! Why not ask me ifit is 4 part Of the
Republican creed to keep out of the Union 4
State applying for admission into the Union the
constitution Of which provides that her people
shall elect her own Governor: We have never
said 50. What right hare you to assume any
such thing? 1t is no part Of our creed ns laid
down in our platform, TO refuse State admis-
sion into this Union because she may Of may
not hare slavery. Look into it: Bee if you can
find any such thing. Why, then, propound Il
question founded upon hypothesis which has
no foundation in the creed OF the party:
II the Senator wants my individual opinion,
he can have that. have no concealment. I
stated it here at the first session Of Congress I
served stated that it was not, with me, q
fundamental principle that State should not
come into this Union as slave State. I would
regret the application Of state Of that charac-
ter; but l have adopted it as no part Of my po-
litieh faith. that under no possible clrcun-
stances shall State be admitted into the Union
that tolerates slavery. The Republican party is
not to be charged with having assumed the
ground that State may not be admitted into
the Union that has slavery. Many such cases
hare occurred in tho history Of tue Government
The old Republican party, from which We learn
our principles, did not keep slave States out.
although they provided against the extension of
slavery, aud if We do that ne will nerer, trust,
be troubled with the application Of slare State
for admission.
The Senator sxys that the Supreme Court has
decided that slaves may be legally held in q
Territory. deny it. The Supreme Court has
decided no such thing. The Supreme Courthas
no power to lay down political doctrines in this
country. 1t MAY decide u case that comes be-
fore ii, and By the decisions o{the Court 10 that
case, l AN willing to abide The Court did de-
eide that DEed Scott had no right to bring suit
decided. That decision Is FINAL a. to him in
that particular case but, when the judges Of
the court travelled out Of the record and un-
de1took to lay down political principles for
this Government, they departed, in my judz-
ment, from the line Of their duty, and the e1-
precision Of their opinions is entitled to 10 more
ceedit with me, npon political questions, than
the expression Of the opinion Of the same num-
ber of gentlemen of the bench. Why, sir,
of the right to govern the Territories before
the present chief Justice presided Look back,
cir, Mr.. Mason in the chairI to the doctrine
promulgated by four own Marshall, the ablest