New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-18
YYXVITH CONGRESS.
FIRST SESSION.
SENATE. ..wAsHIseTos, May IL 1850

No Quorum was present.
The h for the relief Of Anson Dart ~ss taken up
and p0.ggS%pssSn ~ ib SSO'R II
l.; rasayd 10 the historical allusion con fa;ned in the
.ncer6 Of Mr. Davis the 7th Of May, and proceeded
70 ,how tina, at the time referred to Ri ode Island was
The only SPOT on the civilized globe where religious
federation wac practced. He (Mr. Anthonyl quoted
from the instructions 10 the colonh agents from the
old charter and from the early Law ~ of the colony TO
yndcate the claim of Roger WI hisms "a the first
.erer Of religious freedom, and Rhode Island the
place where it was first practica Ey indicated.
TIE resolutions of Mr.. DAY IS Deu,, Mss were
taken up.
Mr.. DAVIS resumed bf 81 eech. lie said that the
Democratic party of the I'M or pnloss they stood on
principle. ought TO be def9 Aed and destroyed Inc
senator from Illinois bar sssiled every prominent
Democrat in the countr' g. not even eXempung the
President of the United ,tates whose position should
have sealed his lips. lie Davis denied that the Preei-
dent letter sustained principle of nonntervention
as interpreted by bin ,Douglas). The Senator had
referred 10 reception he had with al the hands OF
an nfuriated mob at Chicago for the measures he had
urged but he tDayis believed that the outrage was
produced by the SEN aiOrs support Of the Fugitive Slave
lava proposition PLAN, that II should nave oeeh
carried out without the Intervention OF Congress
Mr. Davis thea made some illusions to the removal
of Mr.. Douglas IRON the Committee on Territories,
&c which could not be heard in the galleries. lie
then referred to the declarations Of MIR. Douglas that
thd delegates " the Southern States were seceaers
and boilers, nd said that they had Withdrawn from
the Charles Convention only because that Conven-
ton had ts.ed TO announce the true principles OF the
Democratic PARTY. He Davis could not understand
how men, when they disagreed radically on principle,
could continue to act together Ii was not an hohor-
abeer upright course. The better way was TO pro,
claim their differences and separate. lie denied
that the speech of Mr.. Yancey at Charleston
justified the charge Of dlsunon intentions. He then
read from the declarations put forth at Charleston 10
show them that there were no dsrupuonists or DIS
unionisis in the Alabama delegation, and that the
charge had been most improperly made. Mr.. DAVIS
then quoted from letter of Alexander III. Stephens 10
cha fhat ba ot DOuQllS
stated, his theory that "Sqnatter Sovereignty was
contained in the Nebraska bin and Cincinnati platform
Mr.. Douglas had cited only much of the letter AS SUIT
ed bis purpose, and lad suppressed that which fully as
serted the doctrine of protection 10 slave property
Territories. Even if this right had not been asserted IT
did follow that ought 10 be- CONSTITUTIONAL ghLH
were eternal and could not be waived by any assemb-
lage of men. The Senate could not meet 10 make q
IT, sdent except in certain contingency but as TINS
subject had referred to he would speak to IT. The
majority resolutions at Charleston asserted the rght Of
Slavery TO protection in the Territories. twastrue that
these resolutions were rejected by the Convention, but
not by majority of the States, nor even by majority
the delegates assembled there. If each delegate haC
been allowed as he should have been, 10 cast hi
individual vote, the minority report could never
have got q majority of the votes. This last had
been a, eomplished by an ing, NOUS arrangement
by suppresslng IN some cases the vote OF a Nil
nOrity of delegation, and III others by allowing
them TO vote. BY such means these II was
sought to bind the Democracy Of the Union TO the
principles of the Senator from Illinois. lie Davis
only attached to party organization 80 long as
useful to secure the ascendaney of correct prnc
pies, and a moment longer. Ii wrong to as.
sumo that the Federal Government had duty per-
form in protecting the rights OF persons and property
IN the Territories. He referred 70 the action of Con-
gress in 1899 and at other periods TO show that such
protection was freely afforded. Even under the elder
Albums this protection afforded. Mr. Davis then
argued TO show that the South, in supporting Mr. Cass,
had not sustained the doctrine of the Nicholson letter,
particularly not az Mr. Douglas construed it. He HIM
sell had supported Mr.. Cass under protest and the
South had repudlated expressly the construction
had mt Letter
a Mr. DOUGLAS "a. l.. Dem, lll.) explained tina
be hsd not quoted the vote of South Carolina and Mis-
sssippi 70 show that they sustained the views Of Mr.
Cas-, but that they did not then make them test.
Mr.. DAVIS said that in the Of the of the
South for Mr.. Richardson they voted for him in spite
of his doctrines and because they preferred him Mr.
Banks. Illinois bad voted for him Davis in Conven-
ton for the Vice-PTesidency but he assumed
that by so doing Illinois adopted all of his opinions.
In 1856, Illinois voted for Mr. Qutman for the
Fice-Presdency who held more extreme doc
uines than himself In the late contest in the
House for Speakership, the Southern Democrats
voted for Dir. Smith of North Carolina, but
that did not commit them TO acknowledgment. Mr.
Davis then proceeded TO show that the resolutions of
the Democratic Convention of 1913 did not sustain the
present theory of "Squatter Sovereignty, as urged
by Mr.. Douglas. He further showed that it the
uniform practice of Democratic conventions, in
serng principles avowed by former convention, 10
add thereto declaration IN regard TO questions that
had I'D the meantime arisen. In this connection he
viewed at length the action ofthe Conventions OF S4S
49,, and leJb, and denied that il intended by any
protect property the land in the territories
elsewhere He explained that the platform of 1856
only recognized the right of the people of the Terrific
Fes 10 act the question OF Slavery when they
70 form q State Government, and not before. If il
was decided by the Kansas Nebraska bill that the peo
pie Of the Territories had al the power Of sovereign
State, what there 20 be decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States Absolutely nothing
How could they understand the Senator'S proposition
70 refer the matterFtO the decision Of the Supreme
Court, while be coDtended that it entirely under
the control Of the people of the Territories The main
question IN the Senators argument what was
intervention, and be held it 10 be The Squat
ter Sovereignty
MIR. DOUGLAS explained that he had always de-
bounced that Squatter Sovereignty" which SET up
unauthorized Governments, as in the of Dakota,
Nevada, SC.
MIR. DAFIS-These were cases only where Squat
ter Sovereignty cOuldbe properly used. Ii then
matter OF necessity, because the General Government
neglected TO act. When the Government did act then
the territorial sovereignty ceased.
A discussion on legal points here ensued between
Air. DAVIS and Air. Douglas.
Mr. DAVIS asked if the Senator elected Presi-
dent, whether he would sign a bill passed by Congress
10 protect property in the Territories
Mr. DOUGLAS said thai II would be time enough
TO that question when be got in the place re-
ferIedElo
Mr.. DAVIS said that he would not press the gentle
man 10 questions tibet he did not like TO
Mr. ID. then asked if Territorial Legislature passed
a law 10 embarrass the action Of the Fugitive Slave |
aw would the Senator from Illinois vote to repeal
that legislation
Dir. DOUGLAS said that the Supreme Court had |
decided that matter. Neither State "a Territory
could interfere with the rendition Of slaves No legis
lation therefore necessary.
MIR. DAVIS said that the Senator bad voted for the
N /