The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1860-05-30
lead of Mr.. Ynnceyuny more than she did
in l84S.
SECOND DAY.


cd his thanks for the courtesy shown in al.
lowing him to postpone his remarks till to-.
day, In consequence Of sudden attack OF a
disease contracted some years ago, in speak
ing in the open air, defending these princi-
Piles. He should proceed to defend his &C.
ton in certain cases, and referred first to
what is known as the Chase amendment to
the Kansas bill. Mr.. Chase, Of Ohio, Of
fered an amendment to the bill under which
"The people Of the Territories, through
their appropriate representatives., mny, If
they see fit, prohibit the existence of Slavery
therein" This was precisely the same in
legal effect,as the amendment offered to the
Compromise m easures Of 1850 BY Mr.. Chase.
When this amendment was offered by Mr..
Chase, it stood in the position of an amend.
ment to an amendment. Mr.. Pratt, of Ma
ryland, appealed to Gov. Chase to receive
an additional amendment by putting in the
word "introduce," so that it would read,
"The people Of the Territory may prohibit
or introduce Slavery" This was objected
10 rs out Of order by Mr.. Seward, and was
not received. Part OF the remarks of Mr..
Pratt. of Maryland was read. This left
| the amendment of Mr.. Chase to be voted
upon, and it was rejected, because the words
offered by Gov. Pratt were not accepted;
and yet, in the face of these facts, this vote
has been cited against him (Mr. Douglus)
and he has been charged with being unwil-
ling to allow the bill to act either against or
for slavery in the Territories. The debates
show that the intention of the bill w0s to
allow the people to do as they chose. The
record shows that Mr.. Shields appealed to
Mr.. Chase to receive the amendment Of
Gov. Pratt, so as to make it fair test.
Mr.. Douglas resumed-Thus it will be
seen that Mr.. Chase's amendment was re.
jected, because it did not leave the people
free to act on the subje of slavery, either
to. introduce or prohibit, and these reasons
were assigned by Southern men, and if those
who cited this vote against him had read the
debates, they proved exactly the reverse Of
what they charge. 1t has also been cited
against the Trumbull amendment to what
was called the Toombs bill, as an evidence
that he was inconsistent. The amendment
was read I The amendment was to declare
that in the bill for the admission of Kansas
it was the intent and meaning OF Congress
to allow the people either to introduce or
exclude slavery, as they see fit and proper.
This amendment was rejected on two
grounds; one was that it was irrelevant as
appended to a state bill, and the other
ground was that it was on act Of usurpation
by Congress to attempt to a6iudicate the
meaning of that territorial bill, that it be-
longed to the Courts to decide as to the
meaning, and not to the Senate and House
of Representatives. No man intimated tina,
the amendment did not contain the true
meaning of the Kansas bill, but they said they
would not by act of Congress expound the
bill. Extracts of the debates we're read
and the vote by which it was rejected-I
TO "a. Thus it appears that those who vo.
ted for the Trumbul amendment declared il
was the true intent and meaning of the bill,
but they assigned as a reason that it was ir-
relevant and an usurpatioa of power. Mr..
Bayard said it was nothing more or less than
an attempt to give judicial exposition, by
Congress, to the Constitution, and that it
was a usurpation of judicial power; and yet
we have here resolutions now under debate
on which Congress is called to act, and ad-
Indicate this identical question. The objec,
of these resolutions is, to ask the Senate to
decide this very question, which Mr. Bayard
in 1856, denounced as beyond the cOnstitu
usurpation; and gentlemen stood here silent,
and heard Mr.. Bayard denounce that attempt
} who ore now called upon to decide that very
} question which, by the Kansas bill, wa, re.
, terred to the Courts, and banshed from
. Congress forever, and which they pledged
. themselves never to decide. He would holt
, them to their pledges to leave this question
: alone. The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Hun
teri declared that theintent and understand
7 ing of the Kansas bill was thft one pon
: was referred to the Courts, and that was The
: limitation of the Constitution on the author
3 ity of a Territorial Legislature. And thu
: Senator not only made that statement then
{ but again in February OF last year he quote,
that very speech as true exposition Of th
d meaning OF the bill, and reaiirmed it as hi
: sentiments.
h Now the Senate is called on, in violation
o of the meaning and pledges of the Kansa
d bill, to decide that very question. He sub
Q mitted whether this was carrying out tn
= true intent and meaning of that act. In tn
i debate on this Toombs' bill his coleagu
t (Mr. TrulnbulD put the question to hin
s whether or not the Territorial Legislator
8 had he power to exclude slavery -in tn
r Territories His opinions on that subiec
]. had been heard over and over again, and h
e did not choose TO answer the question, an
n referred him 10 the Judiciary to ascertai
j. whether the power existed. He believed tn
e power did exist others believed differently
Q and they agreed to refer it to the Judiciar
J. and abide by their decision and true to hi
+ agreement he referred his colleague to tn
e Courts to find out. The fact that he refer
j. red him to the Courts had been cited again;
n him as evidence that he did not think th
o power existed, but after the evidence addu,
'r ed yesterday and the debates Just read, n
n man has an excuse for not knowing h
If opinion. 1t was not his opinion that was
'r eovern, but the opinion Of the Court arisin
n under the territorial law. When the cas-
= shall arise, and the Supreme Court sha
r. pronounce judgment, it will be binding o
II him and on every citizen, and must be Cal
= ried out in good faith with all the power {
1t this Government. We are told that tn
10 Court has already decided. II 80, there
= an end of the controversy. Let the decisio
re 90 into effect, and that is the end, and ther
or Is no use in quarrelling. But will the resc
ID lutions OF the Senate give any additionl
le force to the authority Of the Supreme Cou
l. of the United States Does it need an ir
of dorsement of the Charleston Convention I
ID give it validity If the decision is made
ic Is the law of the land, and we are all bouu
= to abide it. II the decision is not mad
= what right have you to pass resolutions whic
10 are TO PREJUDICE the question with view
ss influence the decision of the Court =!
h there is dispute as to the true meaning
', the Court, who can settle it but the Cou
l. itself When it arises in any other cas-,
ID can you determine by resolutions here VIII,
i'd the decision Of the Court is, or what 1t ougf