The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-03-10

lore the Senate. be tGwinJ would not have
voted for il, and believed those around him
would not. When the Senator proposed to
speak for the Democracy Of the Free States,
be bad no right TO speak for California,
which thought otherwise.
Mr.. BRoDxMcK contrAdicted Mr.. OWNS
statement Of the views Of California. He
considered the views Of bis State were those
expressed by Mr.. Douglas.
Mr.. GwiN replied that he was sent here to
do bis duty In representing the Democracy
OF California and be knew they indorse the
action Of the Administration, and do not
at all indorse the Interpretation given by the
Senator from Illinois.
Mr.. DouGLAs TO Mr.. Gwin)-I do say
the records show very general concurrence
in the views then expressed.
Mr.. lvERsoS raised the question Of order
that Mr.. Douglas had spoken many times.
lie and Mr.. Davis had occupied the floor
four or five hours.
The point Of order was sustained.
Mr. HUNTER said it was with reluctance
that he occupied the time at the late period
Of the evening, but the turn the debate had
taken rendered an explanation necessary, in
justice TO himself. He differed with the
Senator from Illinois, both in the history of
the Kansas Nebraska act and in what was
intended by it. When the proposition was
made to pass that, he maintained, as be has
always done siuce he has had place on that
floor that the South had right to protec-
ton for their slave property in the Terrific
ries.
Mr.. HUNTER read from his speech Of that
date, showing the views he then expressed
The case stood thus Southern men on the
one side maintained they had q right, under
the Constitution, to protection to their
slave property, Northern men thought the
contrary, and there was no chance of agree
ment between them, as the act was carefully
framed, neither affirming or disaffirming the
power OF the Territory to abolish Slavery,
but reserving the question Of right, and
agreeing TO refer to the Judiciary any point
arising out Of it. 1t was in itself compro-
mise, In which neither party conceded their
opinions Of their rights. They were but
placed in allegiance until case affecting
them might arise. No Southern man with
whom he acted ever considered he was con.
ferring on the Territorial Legislature the
absolute right to deal with this subject
They agreed to this settlement as conse-
quence, acting together upon points wherein
they agreed, and expressing no opinion upon
points where the differences were irreconcil.
able. BY this they secured the repeal Of
the Missouri Compromise, upon which the
Democrats were agreed BY combining the act
to the general purpose to be accomplished.
Justice to himself and the distinguished
Senator from South Carolina, now no more,
with whom he had acted and consulted on
the matter, required the explanation. Mr..
Hunter then drew the attention OF the Ses-
ale 10 the time consumed 10 the debate, and
urged vote upon the amendment.
Mr.. STUART, after some general remarks
on the subject under discussion, asked why
should the Democratic party 10 rscked and
torn by the thought Of the contingencies
which may not happen? II the Democratic
party in body, if its able aud efficient
members throughout the country stand
faithfully together, their flag will remain in
the ascendant, and the party will rise out Of
all the difficulties which now beset il.
Mr.. BIoLER was opposed to Congress ex.
tending slavery 10 the Territories, and
against Congressional Intervention with
slavery, and would stand by the Baltimore
and Cincinnati platforms Of the Democratic
party. He believed that the best interests
OF the country were in the hope Of the De-
mocrscy.
Mr.. CLISGxAN--" The Senate is now in
debating society. and might as well discuss
the question Of was Caesar or Hannibal the
greatest warrior. They had better go to
business"
Mr.. FeSendeu said the Senators on the
other side Of the hosse bad consumed seven
mortal hours in their own family qusrrels.
The Senate had better adjourn, and he so
moved
Mr.. HALE had listened TO the tale Of the
slaughter OF tue innocents in the States from
the members on the other side with pleasure.
lie reviewed the decision 10 the bred Scot,
case. and said that the only thing in it was
could bred Scott maintain an action in
court In the rest of the decision the
court went ont OF its way for political
purpose. He denounced il a. contrary to
the enlightened judicial opinion OF the eoun-
try. He charged this debate upon the
"a harmonious Democracy The Republ
cans had said scarcely anything 10 it. He
denied that the Constitution recognized
property in slaves, and argued the question
at great length.
Dir. DooLlrrIE thought that if Rip Van
Wrinkle had slept ten years, aud was called
upon 10 point ont the Democratic party on
this floor, Judging IRON its actions, be would
find il difficult He defended the Repub
lcan party, and said there WAS not plat
form 10 the party bat wba, had BEEN nicer
pora,ed from the true principles OF JET.
ferSon.
Mr.. CthRE followed on the Republican
side, and was followed by Mr.. SxrTu iOre
goB) on the other.
Mr. TRusBrtL replied to the points made
by several senators, and contendei tha, the
constitution did not create slavery sny
where. lie deaie,l that slaves are property,
except when made 80 by the local law. He