Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1859-03-04

MIR Douglas Springfield speech, 10 snow that
he has therein proposed Congressional interven-
ton in Utah. He could not see the consistency
OF the Senator's course then and now.
Mr.. Douglas denied that he had proposed Con-
gressional Intervention to regulate the internal
affairs of Utah. The intervention he proposed
was alone on the ground of rebellion-not on
account of their domestic affairs, but as aliens
and rebels. En ETT4
Mr. Green, in speaking Of how territorial leg.
islation could destroy the rights Of slave prop
erty, said he had before him copy of the bill
passed by the Kansas Legislature to abolish
slavery.
Mr.. Douglas remarked that several speeches
had been made very pontedly at him making
him out no better than an aboltionist for leay-
ing the Territories to carry out their affairs
1t does well to attack one man for his opinion
but when was the most aggravated act ever com
mltted there. He did not say it was committed
in manumrttng your slaves and confscating
your property. The gentleman who spoke thus,
says, " IL is not vet time" There is no better
time than the present to introduce bill 10 repeal
that act of the Kansas Legislature. Senators say
he, Dauglas, may go out. No. He stands on
the platform, and it is for those who jump of to
go out. (Laughter)
Mr.. Douglas would take it for granted that
Mr.. Greea meant thaS he had received anthem
peal the act.
Mr.. Green said that IL he could protect prop
erty in no other way be would bring in BILL
and expect 10 receive the vote of MIR. Douglas
on the principles Of his Springfield speech
MIR. Mason of Virginia, had fondly hoped that
the Nehraska-Kansas bill by which the Senate
made concession would have settled the slave
~ question He was Mistaken he would not
say deceived. The South, he said, had reluc-
family acquiesced 10 the movement with the
Democrats of the North TO settle the question.
/ He went at some length into discussion OF the
| decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
/ bred Scott. He did not agree with Senator
/ Douglas views as to the power OF the people
4 Of Territory, and did not believe that the Ne
braska-kansas bill gives them independent pow
| er.
1 Mr. Davis took an animated part in the de-
bate against Mr. Douglas, who in the Kansas
! Nebraska act had made grea, error, and drawn
i the Seaate into great error
Mr.. Douglas resumed, saying it won't do 10
read him out Of the Democratic party because
they have fallen from the faith. There is no
middle ground. II is either intervention or non
intervention.
4 Mr. Gwyu of California, said IL the Senator
from Illinois had given the same Interpretation
to the Kansas Nebraska bill when il was before
the Senate, he (Gwyn) would not have voted
for il, and believed those around him would not
When the Senator proposed 10 speak for the
Democracy of the free States be had no rightto
speak for California, which thought otherwise.
Nj. Broderick Of California, contradlcted Dir.
Gwyn's statement of the views of California.
He considered that the views of his State were
those expressed by Mr.. Douglas.
Mr.. Gwyn replied that he was sent here to
do his duty in representing the Democracy Of
California, aud he knew they en- iofse the action
of the Administration, and do not all endorse
the Interpretation given by the Senator from IL
: linos.
Mr. Douglas Ito Mr.. Gwyn) II do say the
records show very general concurrence in the
: views then expressed"
Mr.. Iverson of Georgia, raised the question
: of order, that Mr., Douglas had spoken many
S times. He and Mr. Davis had occupied the
floor four or five hours
The point order was sustained.
Mr. Hunter of Virginia, differed with the
r Senator from Illinois, both in the history of the
Kansas Nebraska act and in what was intended
by it.
: Mr. Clngman Of North Carolina-The SEN
| ate is now debating society, and might as well
discuss the question Of, Was Cesar or Hani-
nibal the greatest warrior :? =" They had better
:. 20 to business.
Mr.. Fessenden Of Maine said the Senators
= on the other side of the House had consumed
, seven mortal hours in their own family quarres
$ The Senate had better adjourn, and he so moved.
u Relccted-l5 against "a.
u Mr. Hale of New Hampshire, had listened 10
!, the tale of the slaughter OF the innocents in the
u States from the members on the other side, With
pleasure he reviewed the decision 10 the
! bred Scott case, and said the only thing in
} was; could Drcd Scott maintain an action 10
: court In the rest Of the decision, the court
r n IL
y denounced it as contrary to the enlightened ju-
dcial opinion Of the country. He charged tbs
J debate upon the harmonious Democracy. The
: Republicans had said scarcely anything in It.
Y He denied that the constitution recognized
e property in slaves, and argued the question at
. great length.
y Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin, thought that
!, Rip Van Wrinkle had slept ten years and was
u called upon to point out the Democratic party
on this floor Judging from its actions, he would
l. find il difficult He defended the Republican
d party and said there was not a platform in The
party but what had been incorporated from The
r, true principles Of Jefferson.
Mr. Clarke Of New Hampshire, followed o.
le the Republican side and was followed by NJ
= Smith of Oregon on the other.
he MIR. Trumbull of Illinois, replied to the pont
n made by several Senators, and contended u
Re the constitution did not create slavery any
ID where. He denied that slaves are property, e.
N cept when made so by the local law. lie sho~ea
N that the difficulty in which the country nowH
e, arises from the made in 1854, and that 'le
as Democratic party now has no trait OF the Jsc'
OF son Democracy. In his opinion, the PoTa
Id over the Territories is vested in Congress, to
&c delegated or not, IN its discretion
ne Mr.. Crittenden of Kentucky, said he was D
n Democrat and no Republican, and both paEte
us knew it, so he would ask what good have all ns
re Struggles done with which this country has tesa
afflicted. After twenty years contention "'t
II. has either party gained His earnest wish W.
81 that gentlemen would come together in nor
NJ national spirit. The nation and the ConstN
ton were in danger of being superseded by 7.
ed party platforms. He wanted TO see the peoP
IS regain their rights-to see the Constitutioa
lst gain lis supremacy. He wanted to see no CO
ventions-no party platforms. He would Ioa
tn against the amendment, as he did not visa
Oh send the bill to the House with this sting 70