Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-05-19

compromise, They had themanliness. IN carrying
outthis principle Of n-inferventon forward
and repeal that line. Whyf Il was in'order that
al the territory might be the same foot
ing; and bold that ster that sacrifice npon their
part thar willingness to carry out this Compromise.
begun in 1850 Endorsed in 1852 by the Democratic
and also by the Opposition convention. we of the
South are under the highest obligation to stand to
it Now sir. make no reflection on any bonora-
BILE Senator Who differs from me on this Question:
do them all The justice to say that, if they looked
upoh.it o. lido, o compromise, lam very sure
they would not seek to disturb it. Taking the view
Of it do believing that the two parties settled down
upon nonntervention, feel it TO be my duty tn adj
here toin the absence ofany great pressing necessi.
ty which would justify its abandonedmeptr
Mr.. President, what are the points Of difference
between the two parties? The Senator from Missis-
sippi if read his resolution Alright, does not pro-
pose to favor Intervention by Congress to protect
slavery in the Territories at this time; but he de-
clares If it should turn out hereafter that the exist
ing laws not sufficient to protect under the Con-
stituon, he is then for legislation. What do those
who oppose his resolution say? The Senator from
Ohio (Mr. Pugh) and the Senator from Illinois Cr.
Dougas) that IT, hereafter, the courts shall make
decisions which cannot be carried out without egis
laton, they will lcgslste to carry them out. The
Senator from Mississippi says that the bred Scott
decision has settled the question: and he wants a de.
claratiOn that mean to egislate in future. These
gentlemen admitting. they must, that the judges
have, in the bred Scott case expressed their opin.
ion that Territorial Legislature cannot legisate nd
yersely TO slavery, say. however that point in fact
was not presented in the CASE but that such was
the set lei opinion Of the court when proper case
. is directly presented it will so decide; and they
stand ready to carry out that decision of the court
when il shall be made
Then, do we not all come together on the same
point? The Senator from Mississippi says that if
the court makes decisions which cannot he enforced
without legislation, he is for legislation. These gen.
temen say that when the court does make decisions.
they will submit 10 them and carry them out. II
seems, therefore, that they travelling in lines that
will converge and come together at a certain point
Then, why dispute now in advance? -----l--7=-
This may be readily illustrated. Suppose have
a controversy with neighbor about the title to 4
piece Of land. Neither of us is in hurry to have
possession We are willing TO await the decision of
the court. lie cOGes TO Inc, however, and SAYS:
-" find that the court, IN expressing an opinion IN
another case which admit is not like OURS and
does not present the same facts has declared
theless. that in a like yours and mine my title
would be good. and therefore wish you to give me
a deed acknowledging my title to be good, though
do not want possession now, and am willing TO wait
for IT until the case is decided" reply to him, II
admit that the court may have expressed such an
opinion, but the point between did not arise in
that case, was not argued by my counsel or any
other COUNSEL all say to you is IL that he the
case they will decide in your favor and shall
then surrender tn You but am not willing to
sumo beforehand that the court will so deciIe" It
seems TO then, Mr.. President that in the present
condition Of the there is necessity for illfeel
ing on either side, for declarations in advance
My second point was, that New Mexico had al
ready established slave code and given us more
territory than should have gotten under the Mis-
souri, line. il carried out. come now the third
point and that is what has grown out of the decs-
ion Of the court in the bred Scott case. When this
subject under debate in 1850 We of the South
objected to non-intervention the ground that it
would leave the Mexican law in force; and inasmuch
as the Supreme Court had maintained the opinion
in a case from Florida and perhaps in some other
decisions, that where territory acquired the To-
cal law might remain in force we were disnclined
to take nonnervention without repeal of the
Mexican law. During that interesting controversy,
We held caucus Of southern members, consisting
Of Senators and Representatives and on that occa-
sion the Senator from Georgia, who usually sits be-
hind me, (Mr Toombs,) introduced proposition in
to our caucus that would support the compromise
measures If they would repeal the Mexican laws and
substitute the British colonial laws which prevailed
in our colonies prior to the Revolution. That was
adopted, and that gentleman moved it in the House
Of Representatives amendment but it was
defeated. am free to say that if at that time we
had been satisfied that the court would hold that
under the Constitution slave property could exist
and be protected in the Territories without refer
ence to local laws. / am very sure should all
have voted for the compromise Of 1850.
frnc nTp NIT