The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1859-03-23

United States, md that the sovereignty over
the territories WAS vested in Congress and
that it became the duty of that body 70 pass
a slave code whenever tho territories refused
to protect slavsholdsrs 10 tho enjoyment Of
their property. Il,
Mr.. Green was ready TO open the portals
Of the Union for Canada, and II 1t should
come in as territory, every citit;zen OF the
United States would have the right to take
slaves there and hold them. In the case
| Of New Mexico he held that the Mexican do
cres abolishiDg slavery was illegal. He in
| tended to deceive no one - to his views
/ The Supreme Court had decided that slaves
are property, and tho question was whether
Kansas could abolish slavery. Ii it could,
it would be the duty Of Congress to inter-
vene for the protection Of persons and pro-
perty. He asked tho Senator from Illinois
If territory could prohibit the introduction
of any other property? The Senator had
said that it could be done by unfriendly leg.
| islation. Unfriendly to what9 Unfriendly
to him or his property? No person could
take his property from him. Since Magma
Charta private rights had been more sacred
than any other.
would see the necessity of asking the inter-
yention Of Congress in the territories for the
protection Of slave property, and he was sor-
nv the Senator from Illinois had declared he
would refuse that Intervention, while he was
the loudest advocate Of intervention in Utah
to put down poiygamy.
MIR. Douglas denied having advocated in
tervention in Utah for that purpose. He had
advocated ia his Sprinfeld speech, the repeal
of the organic act, because the people were
alien enemies.
Mr.. Green insisted that be had in that
speech, also advocated the Intervention OF
| Congress to protect persons and property
and punish crime. He would not give
straw for the acquieseencc Of any man in
the decisions OF the Supreme Court; they
should have his maintenance and support,
and Congress- ought to sec to it that they are
carried out in the territories. The evils COM
planned Of in the cases of Utah arose from
nom action, but in the case Of Ksnsas there
was positive action. News has boon re-
ceived to-day that the Kansas Legislature
has passed an act Abolishing slavery. He
held that Congress had the right at any time
to repeal the organic not, and it was their
duty to do 90 the moment they saw Z per-
sistent effort to violate the rights OF citisens
eigmiy Of the Territory U0s stiu Vssted IN
Congress, which Uos responsible for all acts
Of the Territorial Legislature.
i Gwin, Of California, representing free
State, went with the slAveholders to the
fullest extent in opposition to the position Of
Douglas, and Broderick and Pngh were
really the only Senators that fully ooncurred
in Douglass position, though Stuart, Bigler
and Smith lodged the question and begged
for harmony.
4 Mr.. Gwin said ii be had understo cd the
Kansa Nebraska bill az IL was now inter-
preted By the Senator from Illinois, he never
would have voted for il. He called upon
others who voted for 1t to state il they had
90 understood it. II was evident that some-
!, body was cheated. The Senator from Ill-
nois had no right to speak for the Democracy
Of the free States.
Mr.. Broderick desired to say that he fully
agreed to every thing that had been said by
the Senators from Illinois (Douglas) and
from Ohio, (Pugh), and hoped every North
ern Senator, at least, would Be compelled to
define his position. He was surprised At the
Interpretation of the Nebraska bill given by
his colleague, for the Democratic party in
California had interpreted It in accordance
with the views Of the Senator from Illinois,
discrimination in favor OF freedom rather
than slavery.
Mr. Gwin denied that such had been the
Interpretation in California. No such in.
, depreciation had ever been put upon IL any.
where previous to the recent canvass in Iii.
nois. He understood that the policy of the
Administration Vas fully endorsed by the
Democracy Of California.
; Hunter, Of Va, left it to his colleague to
express the sentiments Of the Old Dominion
bnt nevertheless could not refrain from Thu
! expression Of his condemnation of the posi-.
ton Of Douglas.
Q Mr.. Hunter was reluctant to enter upos
. this debate, but he differed from the Senator
8 from Illinois both AZ to the history OF th,
9 Kansas Nebraska bill and it's Interpretation
. The Northern Democracy was willing to re-
peal the Missouri Comp omise, and bill wa
. framed holding the right OF the territories t,
regulate their institutions in abeysnce. Tn
Southern men did agree, for the sake Of hav
Q ing the Missouri Compromise repealed, Il
o leave tho whole question Of the right o
. the people to frame their institutions ID abey
Q ance, to be decided by the COURTS. The bill
: did not mean to say that Congress absolutel
Q gave up its jurisdiction on that subject.
Clay, Of Ala, declared his opinion yer
: succinctly and without equivocation.
: Mr.. Clay said tho Constitution gave ii
!. right to take slaves into Territories, and th
4 Territorial inhibition was therefore inopera
4 tive and void, because Territory was not
1 sovereignty. Tho Territory had no pows
. except what was derived from the Constitu
{ ton and the act Of Congress. Hence be ha
!. held that this Lecompton Constitution wa
! only petition.
rs Thus in oil the varied arguments and view
u az 10 the meaning of the Cincinnati PlA