Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-12-28
LATEST NEWS BY TELEGRAPH.
rmRnsWTH: coNeREss-..sEcOnp SESSION.
WAsHINeroN. December 81.


WASHINGTON, December 81.
SENATE-A number of petitions were
presented. Mr.. Rice presented a resolution,
and asked for its reference to the select Com
mittee of Thirteen. Itwas so referred with
out reading.
Mr. Green called for the order of the day
Territorial business. A bill was reported
from the Committee on Territories, to pro-
vide for the Territorial Government of Ari-
zona, and taken up. Mr.. Green explained
the bill.
Mr.. Brown moved to add q section that the
act ofthe Legislature of New Mexico for the
projection OF slave-property, be in force in
this Territory.
Mr.. Trumbull moved to amend that the
law which was in force in the said Territory
at the time Of the annexation, remain in
force until it becomes a State.
Mr.. Doolittle said we had lived together
for eighty years in peace. Peace was based
on two ideas; first that the Federal Gov
ernment and citizens of non-slaveholding
Mates should make no aggression on
slavery in the States, and the other, that
neither the Federal Government nor the
citizens of the slaveholding States should
make any aggressions, nor undertake to
overthrow freedom in the States. If these
conditions were broken, there can not be
peace. He said the Constitution was the
supreme law of the land, of every State,
and if the Constitution contains any lam
guage which would abolish slavery in
Territory, it would abolish it in State. He
then referred to the Dred-Scott decision,
and claimed that there was nothing in that
decision to lead any one to infer that the
Constitution establishes slavery in any Ter
ritory; nothing that justifies men in saying
that the Constitution enters the Territory
acquired from Mexico, and abolishes Mexi-
lor apd l.,
the right to take and hold slaves in this
Territory.
He argued that if we should annex Can
ada, the Constitution had no power of its
own force to repeal the law there in regard
TO slavery, which had been in force 100
years. He said the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Nicholson) had said there was great
alarm at the South from the free States, and
saiG he apprehended the time would come
when the free States would attempt to amend
the Constitution so as to extinguish slavery.
Why did not tie Senator from Tennessee, if
he wished to allay the alarm, quote in his
speech part of the Republican platform,
which declares an essential principle to be
the maintenance of State rights, in order to
maintain the balance of power, and de-
nounces the invasion of any State on no
matter what pretext2 Why did not the Sem
ator quote from the speeches of the President.
elect, when he had declared, over and over
again, that he did not intend or wish to in
terfere with slavery in the States?
Mr.. Doolittle then read from Mr.. Lincoln's
speeches, where he had declared he had no
purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere
with slavery in the States.
He believed he had no lawful right to do
so, nor had he any inclination to do so.
Mr.. Nicholson said he had stated that the
Republican party had expressed determine
| tion to regard the rights of Southern men
in the States, but he laid down a general
principle outside of the State which, if car
ried out, would destroy their rights in the
| States.
Mr. DoolittIe said he understood the gen.
tleman TO say that he apprehended the Re.
publican party would so increase in power
that at last it would amend the Constitution
SO as to destroy the rights of the South and
emancipate the slaves.
| Mr.. Nicholson said the policy and princi-
! pies of the Republican party, if carried out,
would extinguish slavery, and he had ex-
| pressed the apprehension that if the power
ofthe free States increased, and they intended
| to carry out their purpose, it would lead to
| the ultimate extinction of slavery.
Mr.. Doolittle said the Republican party,
] as he understood. it, stood to protect and
maintain the rights of States TO all powers,
not expressly delegated or necessary to
carry into effect the powers delegated. It
was fundamental with them to maintain
the sovereignty of the several States, and
the right to control all domestic institutions.
he would undertake to say that no Repub-
lican expressed the desire or wish that the
| General Government has power to interfere
with slavery in the States. He knew there
was book published by an individual
named Spooner that took the ground that
| the Constitution itself abolished slavery, but
1t found no supporters of any weight. 1t
was precisely like that other fanatical idea
that the Constitution, of its own force, es-
tablishes slavery anywhere ON the earth.
| MIR. Clingman said he had seen it pub
lished that the Senator from New York (Mr.
Seward) had recommended the book. Did
the Senator from Wisconsin mean that this
was a forgery, or did he mean the Senator
| from New York had no weight.
Mr. DoOlittle said the Senator from Mis-
sissippi (Brown) recommended it. He be-
| lieved that the author was a man of sound
sense, but what he (Doolittle) said was that
the idea that the Constitution establishes or
abolishes slavery had no shadow of founda-
ton. The Constitution was formed by men
| who knew the meaning of the words they
employed. They recognized the right of
slaveholding States to persons held to serV-
ice, and made it the duty of free States to
| deliver up such persons, but left each State
sovereign over its own laws. The law of the
| sihFe OIntSS makes the Slaves property. Inc
law of the free States does not make them
| property. The Constitution does neither,
| With the idea that the Constitution estab-
fishes slavery, we can not have peace ON the
slavery question, and we may as well know
1t first as last. The people of the United
| States will never consent that the Constitu-
tion be SO altered as to become by its own
force a slavery-extending Constitution, but
they do not put a construction upon it which
VIII make it abolish slavery in any State or
Territory.
We simply ask, that the Constitution stand
as our fathers made it, neither offering or
denying, then we can have peace.
He read again from Mr.. Lineoln's speeches
to show that he had no desire TO infringe on
the rights of the States. He said he desired
| to speak few moments, on what was al
legged to be the causes of the existing agita-
tion-@one was introduced by the Senator
| from Kentucky, which he very much re-
| GREETED TO see brought up. It was only
recently that he had heard.of it in connection
! with this controversy. 1t is thought some
/ of the non-slaveholding States refuse to sur
render criminals. He said that it had gener-
| ally been admitted, as a rule, that if a crime
committed was a crime within the law of
the State to which the criminal fed, then he
should be surrendered not otherwise.
He cited a case of Virginia refusing to
deliver some negroes at an early day in the
history of the country, and the case of the
] Governor of Kentucky. He said, Law aside
/ the excitement on the negro question, and
| he did not think ten men on the floor would
! advocate the doctrine that State onuld hv