Nebraska advertiser., 1860-02-09

Senate. at that time, understood the
Kansas Nebraska bill as ! then did, and
now do"
Mr.. Davis then replied BY throwing up
to Mr.. Douglas his removal from the
Craftsmanship of the COMMITTEE on Ter
ritOries. and giving as d reason for his
removal that he had changed; to which
Mr.. Douglas replied:
81 have never complained of my reno
val from the embarrassing of the Com
mittee on Territories, and ] never inten-
ded to allude to that subject in this body;
but ! do assert that the record prove that
the Senate knew for eleven years that ]
held the identical opinions which | ex-
pressed in my Freeport speech, and
which are now alleged as the cause of
my removal; and during those eleven
years, with a knowledge Of those opini-
Ons, which are repeated over and over
again in this body, within the hearing of
every member Of the Senate, / was, by
the unanimous vote of the body, made
chairman of that committee. At the end
Of eleven years / was removed, and the
cause assigned for my removal is that
hold the identical opinions that l had ex-
pressed for the eleven years when | was
unanimously made chairman of the com
mittee.
''If this be the true state of the facts,
what does it prove? That those who
removed me changed at the end of the
eleven years, and / was not sound be-
cause l did not change as suddenly as
they. My only offence consists in fdeli-
ty to the principles that / had avowed for
eleven years. l challenge the world to
show that l change a hairs breadth on
this question during those eleven years
If, at the end Of that time, my opinions
were incompatible with those of the ma
jority, it shows that the majority had
changed their policy, but ! had not chan
ged my opinions"
Mr.. Green then came to Davis relief,
and pitched into MI. Douglas by charg-
ing him with admitting the question to be
a judicial one, and that he (Mr. D. had
said he would abide any decision the Su-
preme Court might make; and that as
hat Court had already in the bred Scott
case decided adversely to Mr.. Douglas
position as TO the power of the Terrific
rial Legislature, that he (Mr. d. was
acting in bad faith by still contending for
the rights of the people of a Territory
In answer 10 which Mr.. Douglas said:
"In 1856 1 did say it was a judicial
question, and / said it over and over
again before 1856. l have said it since
1856. l declared in my Illinois speeches
that ii was a judicial question. l have
declared the same thing in every publ
cation | have made during the last year.
l assert now that it is a judicial question.
The point is that for many years it was
want of s~oundness in principle that l
held one side of that judicial question,
while others held the opposite. and l as
sert that the Senate did know that | held
one side of the judicial question. But
more, / have always said that / would
abide by the decision of the Supreme
Court, not only as a matter of policy, but
considerations of duty. l take the
law as expounded by the Court. / re-
ceive the bred Scott decision as an auth
oritative exposition. but | deny that the
point now under discussion has been deci-
ded in the bred Scott case. There is.no
one fact in that case upon which it could
have arisen. The lawyers engaged on
each side never dreamed that il did arise
in the case. 1t is offensive and injurious
TO the reputation of the court, to say hat
they decided a great question, which had
been the subject of agitation to the ex-
tent of c%onvulsing the whole country,
when it did not arise in the case, and
when it was not argued by counsel. Sir,
it would prove the court unworthy to de-
eide great questions in a civilized country,
if they would take cognizance of a case
when there was no fact on the record up
on which it could arise when the counsel
on either side never dreamed that il was
in issue, when there was no argument on
and foreclose the right of self-govern-
ment to thousands and hundreds of thou
sands of people without a hearing.
"But n word more. / assert, and the
debates will prove it, shat the understan-
ding of the Kansas-N Nebraska bill was,
hat this was a judicial question, to be de-
cided when it should arise on a Terrific
rial enactment. All the speeches of all
Of US show that it was in that way and at
hat time that this judicial question was
expected to arise and be decided. The
understanding was that, when a Terrific
rial Legislature passed an act on this
of which any man complained, he
should be able to bring the matter before
he Supreme Court; and to facilitate that
court in getting jurisdiction, we amended
he bill by putting in a peculiar clause,
providing that a case affecting the title of
property in slaves might be taken up to
he Supreme Court without reference to
he amount involved. Nobody ever
lreamed that the court was going, in a
decision on any case that did not affect
hat question, to decide this point, with
,ut argument and without notice, and pre-
dude the rights Of the people without al
owing them to be heard. Whenever a
Territorial Legislature shall pass an act
INVESTING or attempting to divest, or i'm