Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-03-23
Interesting Debate.

Senate of the United States is before us, filling four or five pages of the Congressional Globe. Wi wish we had space to give the entire debate, which sprung up upon an amendment to the appropriation bill. Se- nators Brown, Douglas, Pugh, Davis, Green, Hunter and Mason were the princi- pal debators.
 MR. GREEN PRODUCES THE RECORD ON THE LITTLE GIANT
 Mir. GREEN. Mir. President, the princi pal object that seems to have been design ed by the Senator from New Hampshire, has been attained, and that was to stir up strife and contention and produce distrac tion, and to divide and alienate the demo- cratic party. 1 am sorry, extremely sorry, to see democrats permit themselves to be thus divided on a question presented, Q doubt, with the view of breaking down the only political party that can override the republican party. While I differ with the positions taken by some democratic Sena- tors, and while 1t will be my purpose to show that they are wrong under the consti- tuition and under the laws of the United States, 1 shall do 1t in spirit which in stead of driving them off from the party will I trust, have tendency to draw them back and unite us all together, for although we may differ little on some minor points, the great end and object of the party in it's institution, in its organization, and in its purpose, is to subserve the paramount inte- rests of these United States. Party Is es- sential not to advancement; party IS essen tial not for personal considerations; but party is to be sustained only and solely for the good of our country, and when 1t ceases to subserve that interest, shall cease to be party man.
 Sir, there are great leading points of diff ference between the different political par ties, and there are minor abstract conside rations that sometimes infuse themselves into our deliberations, stirring up our feel ings; and, if we permit them to take a deep hold on our affections, they may drive us asunder It behooves us, as statesmen, as patriots, and as friends of our country, to pause and reflect before we take fatal step While we differ upon minor points, and while we deliberate upon these abstract differences, let us treat each other as breth- ren, and not as political enemies.
 1 trust there is no dispute among demo- crats, between the north and the south, or the great and essential principles of Iiber ty. Governments have been established tt protect persons and property; and whenever government ceases to protect either per sons or property, it has ceased to perform the functions for which it was brought into existence.
 But the amendment proposed by the Se nator from New Hampshire, and the debate resulting from it, brings up another ques tion: what is property? The debate springing out of that has also led to tho inquiry whether the south demands of the code for territory? Sir, 1 beg leave tC answer all who are present within the sound of my voice, that the south have never made any such demand Nor is the Sena- tor from Ohio correct, when he insinuates the idea that Virginians, emigrating to Kansas, Nebraska, or Utah, claim the right to carry with them the local law of the State from which they emigrate. There is no respectable man that ever asserted any such idea All that they have asserted, all that they do assert, all that they will main tain Is, that they carry the federal consti- tuition; or, more correctly speaking, 1t be- ing there before they go, that they shal have their rights protected under the fede ral constitution, and to that extent there k no legitimate power to impugn those rights whether they be rights of persons or rights of property. There is not school-boy who has ever supposed that Virginian emigrating from the State of Virginia anC going into the Territory of Nebraska, would carry the Virginia law with him. Why he, then, should predicate long argument upon that point, for the purpose of show, ing what heterogeneous class would then be there congregated, Is to me most sur prising and astonishing. We do maintain that the federal constitution extends over all the territories; we do maintain that the federal constitution designs the protection of all property; we do maintain that under the federal constitution slaves are proper, ty; and we do maintain that the decision of the supreme court is that slaves are pro perty even in territory.
 Mr. DOOLITTLE. Will the Senator from Missouri allow me to put question to him on the point that he is now discuss ing, in order that we may understand his views?
 Mr. GREEN Certainly.
 Mr. DOOLII'TLE. Suppose we ac- quire Canada as a territory, where, by the law of Canada, slavery is abolished: would the constitution of the United States, ot it's own force, apply to Canada, and re-es- tablish the law of slavery in Canada, so that slaves could be carried and held there by virtue of the constitution, notwith- standing the law of Cnnada, which is against it? wish to understand the hon. orable Senator.
 Mr. GREEN. I will ask the Senator, before l answer his question, if slavery has ever been abolished in Canada?
 Mr. DOOLITTLE. Slavery has been abolished by the common law of Canada
 MT. GREEN. Abolished? Did 1t ever exist in Canada?
 Mir. DOOLlTTLE Never, in fact
 Mr. GREEN Then you cannot abolish a thing that never existed. Now will pro- ceed to answer the Senator.
 Mr. DOOLTTTLE. Will the Senator allow me to put another question?
 Mir. GREEN. Certainly. Put it in any shape you please.
 MT. DOOLITTLE. New Mexico was a part of Mexico when slavery was abolish ed by the federal constitution of the State of Mexico; and ask the Senator from Missouri whether the constitution of the United States, of its own force, would car. " the law of slavery into New Mexico, now one of our territories?~
 MT. GREEN 1 will answer the Sena- tor He has abandoned Canada; but I will not. l am ready to open the portals of the Union for the admission of Canada 1 will say that, although slavery never did exist, in fact, in Canada, yet, if Canada were annexed to the United States as a ter ritory, not admitted into the Union as a State-for then State sovereignty comes with 1t; but if annexed as territory-the sovereignty over it belongs to the Union, | and tho conc cfitutinn of tho ITnitad States