The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-05-25

amendment as superfuous, nugat0ry: worse
than that, as giving grounds for misrepresenta
ton. 1t leaves the subject precisely where it
is left in the Kansas Nebraska bill"
,"Mr. Bayard said have no objection to
the amendment proposed by the honorable
Senator from Illinois. Mr.. Trumbull, which to
me would be perfectly sufficient, independent
of any other and that is, It is nothing more or
less than an attempt to give judicial expedition
by the Congress Of the United States to the Con.
stitution /; and hold that they haze no right to
usurp Judicial po,oer." ..
Mr.. Douglas-I will ask the reading of
the vote on the reasons assigned in debate
for giving the vote.
Mr.. Pugh read as follows:
sThe question being taken by yeas and nays
on the amendment, resulted-yeas IL, nays 81,
rs follows:
YEAs-Messrs. Allen, Bell, of New Hamp.
shire, Collamer. Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Eos.
ter, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, and Wade. IL.
"NAYs- Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin,
Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown. Cass,
Clay, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitz-
patrick, Geyer, Hunter, lverson, Johnson,
Reid. Sebastian, Slide, Stuart, Thompson, of
Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, Wright,
and Yulee-34.
Mr.. Douglas-Thus it appears from the
record that all who voted for the Trumbull
amendment declared by their votes that it
was the true intent and meaning of the act
not 20 legislate slavery into Territory or
out of it, but to leave the people thereof to
do as they pleased subject to the Constitu-
ton. 1t appears from the debates, however,
that all who voted against it assigned as
reason for the negative vote either that it
was irrelevant, or that it was usurpation
of judicial power but no one of them init.
mated or pretended it was not true expla
nation OF the bill. Mr.. Bayard said in his
remarks that
at is nothing more or less than an attempt to
give judicial exposition, by the Congress of
the United States, to the Constitution; and l
hold that they have no right to usurp judicial
power"
Now what act was it that was to be q
usurpation of judicial power? 1t was the
proposition of Congress to declare that, un-
der the n ebraska bill, and the Constitution
of the United States the people of terri
tory had the power to introduce or exclude
slavery. Mr.. Bayard said that was an act
of usurpation, an act beyond the constitu-
tional authority of the Senate; and yet we
have resolutions now under debate, by which
the Senate is called upon to adjudicate that
Identical question. The resolutions on your
table provide that neither Congress nor a
territorial legislature have right to ex.
clude slavery from territory. That is the
substance Of them. The object of these
resolutions is to ask the Senate to decide
this very judicial question, which Mr.. Bay
ard, in 1856, denounced as beyond your
constitutional authority to do. He de-
nounced it as an act of attempted usurpa>
ton, and every one of you stood here silent
and heard Mr.. Bayard give that denuncia-
tion to the proposition to expound the mean>
ing of the Constitution on this question by
an act of the Senate. You are now called
upon to perform that very act of usurpation
and decide that very judicial question which,
by the Kansas Nebraska act, was to be re-
ferred to the courts and banished from Con-
gress forever and which you pledged your.
selves by that act never to decide in Con-
gress. There is the record. 1 hold you to
your pledges that you will leave this ques.
ton to the courts, where the Constitution
leaves it, where you agreed to leave it, and
Danish it from the Halls of Congress, as you
agreed to Danish it. forever.
The Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Hun
teri it will be remembered, in the extract
that read yesterday declared that the un-
Outstanding of the Nebraska bill was that
one point was referred to courts, and that
was the extent of the limitations of the con-
stitution on the authority of territorial
legislature. That was the point, the only
point that was agreed to be left to the
courts. The Senator from Virginia not
on1v, do hot cnoooh IN 1914 ho NJ
braska bill when it was pending, but last
year, when debate arose between the Sen
ator from Mississippi (Mr. Brown,) and
myself on the 23d February, the Senator
from Virginia arose and made an explanation
and quoted that very extract as true ex>
position of the meaning of the bill, and re-
affirmed it as his existing sentiments. Now
the Senate is called upon, in violation of the
meaning and pledges of the Nebraska act,
as defined by the Senator from Virginia to
decide that very question by resolutions of
the Senate, which was to be referred to the
courts and banished from Congress forever.
/ submit whether this is carrying out the
true intent and meaning of the act. sub
NIT whether this is banishing the subject
from the Halls of Congress whether it is
referring it to the people Immediately inter-
ested in it, subject to the limitations of the
constitution, and leaving the court to ascer-
tain the extent of those limitations.
In the debate growing out of this Toombs
bill, my colleague put the question to me
after it had been answered over and over
again in previous speeches, whether o. not
Territorial Legislature had the power to
exclude slavery. He had heard my opinion
on that question over and over again.
did not choose to answer a question that
had been SO often responded to, but referred
him to the judiciary to ascertain whether
the power existed. believed the power
existed; others believed otherwise; we agreed
to abide by their decision; and I, true to
my agreement, referred my colleague to the
courts TO find out whether the power existed
or not. The fact that referred him to the
courts has been cited as evidence that l did
not think Individually that the power ex.
listed in Territorial Legislature After
the evidences produced yesterday, and the
debate just read upon the Trumbull amend.
ment, no man who was on actor in those
scenes has an excuse to be at loss as to
what my opinion was. But it was not my
opinion that was to govern; it was the
opinion of the court on the question arising
under territorial law after the Territory
should have passed law upon the subject.